See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234882433

Angles of friction and dilatancy of

sand

Article in Géotechnique · January 1996

Impact Factor: 1.87 · DOI: 10.1680/geot.1996.46.1.145

CITATIONS READS

80 470

2 authors, including:

Tom Schanz
Ruhr-Universität Bochum
253 PUBLICATIONS 1,337 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Tom Schanz

Retrieved on: 26 June 2016
Schanz, T. & Vermeer, P. A. (1996). GeÂotechnique 46, No. 1, 145±151

TECHNICAL NOTE

Angles of friction and dilatancy of sand

T. S C H A N Z  a n d P. A . V E R M E E R 

KEYWORDS: laboratory tests; plasticity; sands; shear LABORATORY TESTING

strength. Triaxial compression tests were performed on a
quartz sand (Flavigny, Desrues & Palayer, 1990).
This so-called Hostun sand has been used for
INTRODUCTION many years (Desrues, 1984; Desrues, Colliat-
The strength of sand is usually characterized by the Dangus & Foray, 1988) in model tests and for
peak friction angle öp and the critical state friction research on constitutive modelling. The material
angle öcv . It is generally realized that the peak parameters were emin = 0´648; emax = 1´041; rs =
friction angel depends not only on density but also 2´65 g/cm3 . Fig. 1 shows the grain size distribu-
on the stress path, including differences between tion.
plane strain and triaxial testing conditions. Indeed, All samples were compacted by pluviation in a
plane strain and triaxial strain angles can differ by steel cylinder lined with a rubber membrane
more than 58 for a dense sand. For a loose sand at (t0 = 0´3 mm). Under a back-pressure of ó0 =
the critical density it is often suggested that similar 50 kN/m2 , the samples ( H0 = D0 = 100 mm) were
differences occur (e.g. Stroud, 1971; Lade, 1984). placed in the triaxial cell, back-pressure was
However, some authors have presented data that removed, and the samples were consolidated under
suggest a unique critical state angle (e.g. Rowe, óc . To speed up saturation, the samples were
1962, 1971; Bolton, 1986). saturated ®rst with CO2 and then with water. The
This technical note presents data on a unique volume change was measured by pore-water
critical state angle. The implication is that the volume change, and the specimens were axially
failure criterion of a very loose sand is accurately strained at 1% per minute.
described by the Mohr±Coulomb condition, which Because the height±diameter ratio H0 /D0 of all
gives the known six-sided pyramid in principal the samples was unity, special means were
stress space. necessary for compensation of end restraint. The
The test data on dense as well as loose Hostun following anti-friction system was used. Both end
sand are also used to study the rate of dilation. plates (enlarged diameter 110 mm) were made
This topic was extensively treated by Bolton from polished glass with a centre hole for
(1986), and it is now generally accepted that the drainage. A silicon grease±rubber interface was
triaxial rate of dilation coincides with the rate of placed between the plates and the sample. Previous
dilation found in plane strain tests. Following tests have shown the shear parameters measured
Roscoe (1970), Bolton used an angle of dilatancy with this system to be equal to those measured
øp for plane strain, but its de®nition is not
extended to cover triaxial strain. However, an
attempt at this was made by Vaid & Sasitharan
(1991). A different de®nition is presented in this 100
technical note which was previously given by
Vermeer & de Borst (1984) but is derived
Percentage finer by weight

80
differently here. Empirical evidence shows that
the de®nition matches data from both plane strain 60
and triaxial strain.
40

20

Manuscript received 11 January 1995; revised manuscript

accepted 4 May 1995. 0
0.063 0.125 0.25 0.5 1
Discussion on this technical note closes 3 June 1996; for Diameter: mm
further details see p. ii.
 Stuttgart University. Fig. 1. Grain-size distribution of Hostun sand

145

Article number = 632

146 SCHANZ AND VERMEER

conventionally with only ®lter plates. The present −12

system ensures a near-uniform deformation of the

sample up to peak stress ratio. 5
The bedding error Ät c caused by the lubrica- −8
tion, which can lead to a 60% reduction in the
initial moduli of axial stiffness, was numerically

σ1/σ3

ε ν: %
eliminated using 3
−4
Ätc =t0 ˆ 0
3[1 ÿ exp ( ÿ 0
0037ó1 )] (1)
(Goldscheider, 1982) where t0 is the thickness of
the membrane and ó1 is the axial stress. Also, the 0
1
effect of the lateral membrane restraint was 0 5 10 15 20
ε 1: %
estimated by assuming it to be a right cylinder.
With the stiffness of the membrane Em (= 1400 kN/ Fig. 2. Stress±strain behaviour of dense Hostun sand
m2 ), the correction stress Äó3 c can be calculated
according to
Äóc3 ˆ ÿ2t0 Em å3 =D0 (2)
5
where ó3 is the radial stress and å3 is the radial
−8
strain. In contrast to the bedding error, this
membrane stiffness correction had little impact on
the test results.
σ1/σ 3

εν: %
3
−4

FRICTION ANGLES
Standard drained triaxial tests were carried out 1
on dense Hostun sand, with ã0 = 16´3 kN/m3 and
0
0 5 20
ID = 1´15, and on loose Hostun sand with 10 15
ε 1: %
ã0 = 13´9 kN/m3 and ID = 0´38. To check the
reproducibility of test results, four control tests Fig. 3. Stress±strain behaviour of loose Hostun sand
were performed at a ®xed cell pressure of
ó3 = 300 kN/m2 .
Figures 2 and 3 shows test results; stress±strain
curves are plotted with the stress ratio on the left −12
vertical axis and strain±strain curves are super-
posed by plotting the volumetric strain on the right 5
vertical axis. The test data show that the −8
reproducibility of triaxial tests is quite good.
A second step in checking the reproducibility
εν: %
σ1/σ3

and thus the reliability of test data is to compare 3

data from different laboratories. A direct compar- −4
IGS
ison can be made between the present data (IGS) IGM
and data from the Grenoble Institute of Mechanics Non-lubricated
(IMG) (Flavigny, Hadj-Sadok, Horodecki & Bala- 1 0
chowski, 1991), as both laboratories have used the 0 5 10 15 20
same sand and the same testing procedure, ε 1: %
including the lubrication of end plates. The Fig. 4. Mean stress±strain behaviour found in three
comparison was made by using test data for the laboratories
dense sand and plotting average values for a series
of control tests, as shown in Fig. 4.
Even with comparable testing procedures, dif-
ferent laboratories appear to produce slightly friction angles of about 428 and 408 degrees
different curves. Some differences with classical respectively are found (the precise values are given
test data (aspect ratio of two and no lubrication) in Table 1.
are expected, but the deviations between IGS Figure 4 shows that all volumetric strains
results and IMG results are surprising; as yet there compare well up to an axial strain of about 10%,
is no clear explanation. However, in terms of which is well beyond peak strength. Differences
friction angles the differences between IGS and occur beyond an axial strain of 10%, when a
IMG are smaller than Fig. 4 suggests, as peak critical state is approached in which the sample
 FRICTION ANGLES AND DILATANCY OF SAND 147
Table 1. Shear strength and dilatancy of Hostun sand VALIDATION OF THE STRESS±DILATANCY THEORY
under triaxial compression Several theories have been developed for pre-
ötrp : ötrcv : øtrp : dicting the volume strain in triaxial testing as a
degrees degrees degrees function of the axial strain. In particular, the
applicability of Rowe's (1962, 1971) stress dila-
ID = 1´15 tancy theory has been shown by Barden & Khayatt
IGS 41´9 34´8 13´3 (1966) and Wood (1990). This is also done here,
but in addition Rowe's idea of superposition is
IMG 40´1 35´7 14´0 emphasized as this is applied when considering
Non-lubricated 41´8 37´7 12´6 angles of dilatancy. The stress dilatancy theory
starts with the expression for plane states of strain
ID = 0´38
D ˆ R=K (3)
IGS 34´4 34´4 0´0
where D = 2_å3 /_å1 , is the stress ratio ó1 /ó3 and K is
a coef®cient representing the internal friction which
may be expressed as
K ˆ tan2 (45 ‡ öf =2) (4)
deforms with further change of volume. At the end For loose sands öf is equal to the friction angle
of the test, at an axial strain of 17%, this critical öcv at critical state, but values tend to be lower for
state is not yet fully reached but softening and dense sands. Rowe derived these relationships by
dilation are clearly damping out. At 17% vertical considering the rate of energy dissipation. On
strain the IGS and IMG data yield friction angles changing from plane state of strain to triaxial
of 34´88 and 35´78 respectively. It is possible that a testing conditions, he computed the rate of energy
critical state angle of almost 34´48 would have by adding the effects of two mechanisms. How-
been reached on further straining. This angle is ever, his resulting equation can also be obtained
obtained from the loose sand data in Fig. 3, and is without considering energy dissipation, as is now
assumed here to be the critical state angle of shown. Similarly to Rowe, sliding on planes
friction. governed by the stress ratio ó1 /ó2 (mechanism A)
Having obtained a peak friction angle of 40±428 and sliding on other planes governed by ó1 /ó3
for the dense sand and a maximum friction angle (mechanism B) are considered.
of 34´48 for the loose sand, it is interesting to Figure 5 shows the A mechanism with sliding
compare these triaxial angles to friction angles on a ó1 ±ó2 plane and the B mechanism with
measured in plane strain tests by Hammad (1991). sliding on a ó1 ±ó3 plane. Each sliding mechanism
The latter data are listed in Table 2 for various constitutes a planar deformation, and it is thus
values of the con®ning stress. tempting to apply equation (3) to each separate
Taking data for a cell pressure of 300 kN/m2 , as mechanism. This yields
was also done in triaxial testing, a peak friction ÿ_å2 =_å1A ˆ DA ˆ RA =K (5a)
angle of 45±478 is found for the dense sand and a
maximum friction angle of 32´5±34´58 for the loose ÿ_å3 =_å1B ˆ DB ˆ RB =K (5b)
sand. A signi®cant difference is thus found for the
dense sand, as other studies, whereas there is very where RA = RB = R and å_ 2 = å_ 3 for triaxial testing
little difference for the loose sand at the critical conditions. The basic idea that follows from these
state. (This ®nding is con®rmed below by data for considerations is that there are two contributions to
other sands.) Hence it seems that a unique critical the axial strain, i.e.
state angle öcv exists independently of strain
conditions. å_ 1 ˆ å_ 1A ‡ å_ 1B ˆ ÿ2_å3 K=R (6)

Table 2. Angles of friction and dilatancy of Hostun sand in the biaxial test (Hammad, 1991)
ó3 : kN/m2 öps
p : degrees øps
p : degrees öps
p : degrees øps
p : degrees

ID = 0´95 ID = 0´37
100 46´7±47´5 14´5±14´7 35´5 0´0
200 46´4±47´0 14´1±14´2 32´5±34´5 0´0
400 45´1±45´3 11´4±12´1 33´0±33´3 21´3
148 SCHANZ AND VERMEER
6
1 1

4 Kcv (φcv = 34.4°)

σ1/σ3
Kµ (φµ = 29°)
2 3
2

Fig. 5. Deviation of triaxial dilatancy from biaxial 0

0 0.5 1. . 1.5 2
state D = −2ε3/ε1

or in short Fig. 7. Stress±dilatancy plot for loose Hostun sand

D ˆ R=K (7a)

D ˆ ÿ2_å3 =_å1 (7b) lines, as the strain ratio D is computed from very
small increments of strain. When a ratio is
Hence the difference between the plane strain computed, small errors tend to have large con-
(equation (3)) and equation (7a) concerns a factor sequences. Note that the zig-zagging would vanish
of two in the de®nition of D, as noted by Rowe if D were computed from strain increments twice
(1962). In the present derivation, the idea of as large. In Figs 6 and 7 lines are plotted for Kì ,
superposition is shown in Fig. 5, i.e. two localized where öf is taken to be the interparticle angle of
sliding motions in shear bands. In reality much friction, and also for Kcv , where the critical state
more diffuse pre-peak deformation patterns occur, angle of friction is used. Accordingly to Rowe
but this does not change the idea of superposing an (1971), the former should be used for dense sands
A-type mechanism and a B-type mechanism, which and the latter is more appropriate for loose sands.
leads to the above results. However, the differences between the resulting
The value of the angle öf in the expression for lines is small and an average value would be
K has not yet been de®ned. Triaxial test data are adequate for most practical purposes.
now considered for this purpose. The data for
dense and loose Hostun sand are plotted in Figs 6
and 7 respectively. Using equation (7) in the form
R = KD, R is plotted on the vertical axis and D is ANGLE OF DILATANCY
plotted on the horizontal axis. The angle of dilatancy is ®rst examined in plane
Nearly straight lines that pass through the strain situations and its de®nition is then extended
origin, as suggested by the expression R = KD, to include triaxial compression. For plane strain
are found. In fact the plot zig-zags around such conditions, the de®nition is given in several
textbooks and by Bolton (1986)
å_ 1 ‡ å_ 3
6 sin øps ˆ ÿ (8)
å_ 1 ÿ å_ 3
The ®rst minus sign should be omitted when
contractive strains are considered positive. When
4
Kcv (φcv = 34.4°) considering the peak dilatancy angle rates rather
than mobilized pre-peak angles of dilatancy, one
σ1/σ3

Kµ (φµ = 29°) should obviously use rates of strain as measured at

and beyond peak stress ratios. Analogously to the
2 extension of the stress±dilatancy theory, the concept
of a dilatancy angle can be extended to include
triaxial test conditions. Again the axial strain is
considered to consist of an A mechanism in
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
combination with å2 and a B mechanism that
. .
D = −2ε3/ε1 relates to the other principal strain å3
Fig. 6. Stress±dilatancy plot for dense Hostun sand å_ 2 å_ 3
å_ v ˆ å_ 1A ‡ å_ 1B ˆ ‡ (9)
(mean values) DA DB
 FRICTION ANGLES AND DILATANCY OF SAND 149
1 ÿ sin ø Instead of combining the plane strain equations
DA ˆ DB ˆ ÿ (10)
1 ‡ sin ø (3) and (4) of the stress±dilatancy theory with the
de®nition of the dilatancy angle in equation (11),
This yields for ø the expression one might use Rowe's equation (equation (7)) for
å_ v =_å1 triaxial tests with equation (11) to obtain
sin ø ˆ ÿ (11)
2 ÿ å_ v =_å1 sin ötr ÿ sin ötrf
sin ø ˆ (13)
Hence, a de®nition has been derived for the 1 ÿ sin ötr sin ötrf
dilatancy angle that can be used to measure this
angle in triaxial compression testing. A more This equation is the same as equation (12) except
formal derivation based on concepts of the theory for the superscripts, which mean that these angles
of plasticity is given by Vermeer & de Borst (1984). have to be measured in triaxial tests instead of
Applying equation (11) to the triaxial test data in plane strain tests. In triaxial tests one tends to ®nd
Figs 2 and 3, a (peak) dilatancy angle of 148 is smaller peak friction angles than in plane strain
found for the dense Hostun sand and a vanishingly tests, and Rowe reports a similar tendency for öf .
small value of about zero is obtained for the loose Indeed, for dense Hostun sand it is found that
sand. These values correspond extremely well to ötrf = 298, which is signi®cantly different from the
values measured in plane strain tests: Hammad 34´58 found earlier for öpsf .
(1991) reports virtually identical values to those It is concluded that Rowe's stress dilatancy
given in Table 2. theory exhibits an appealing relationship between
The plane strain de®nition (equation (3)) for the the friction angle and the dilatancy angle for
dilatancy angle is formally equal to the triaxial planar deformation, in that öps f = öcv . However,
de®nition (equation (11)). This is due to the this theory needs to be supplemented for triaxial
fact that å2 vanishes for plane strain, giving conditions of stress and strain in order to obtain a
åv = å1 + å3 , and so equation (3) reduces to equa- relationship between the friction angle and the
tion (11). Hence the latter equation is valid for dilatancy angle. For this reason, relationships given
both test conditions. This supports the ®nding that by Bolton (1986) are now considered.
the same dilatancy angle is measured in plane
strain and triaxial tests. Bolton (1986) presents
numerous data to show that both tests yield the BOLTON'S FINDINGS FOR PEAK ANGLES
same peak ratio of å_ v /_å1 . Bolton (1986) assumes a unique critical state
angle öcv for both triaxial strain and plane strain.
This is con®rmed by test data for Hostun sand.
Bolton gives a large database which leads to the
ROWE'S THEORY AND THE ANGLE OF DILATANCY correlations for plane strain
The relationship between the dilatancy angle öps ps
p ÿ öcv  5I R (14)
and the friction angle is also given by Bolton
(1986). On combining the stress±dilatancy equa-
tions (3) and (4) with the de®nition of the and
dilatancy angle in equation (11), it is found that
ötrp ÿ ötrcv  3I R (15)
sin öps ÿ sin öps
f
sin ø ˆ (12)
1 ÿ sin öps sin öps
f for triaxial strain, where IR is a relative dilatancy
index
The superscripts ps have been added to denote I R ˆ I D (Q ÿ ln óm ) ÿ R (16)
plane strain angles of friction, as this formula was
derived using the plane strain equations (3) and (4), which relates density and the applied stress level. It
and plane strain angles of friction tend to be larger was found that Q = 10 and R = 1 give the best ®t
than friction angles measured in triaxial tests. No for different sands. Combining equations (14) and
superscript is used to denote the dilatancy angle, as (15) gives
this angle is considered to be independent of testing
ötrp  15(3öps
p ‡ 2öcv ) (17)
conditions. According to Rowe öps f coincides with
the critical state angle öcv . If the data in Table 2 are
used to compute öps f from equation (12), the dense Equation (17) is not mentioned directly by Bolton,
sand yields öps f = 368 and the loose sand yields but is a direct consequence of his ®ndings. Fig. 8
öps
f = 34´58. As the difference is relatively small, provides data from additional sources.
there exists a more or less uniquely de®ned angle There is a good deal of evidence for the validity
öf ps which corresponds well with the critical state of equation (17). It therefore appears that differ-
angle. ences between friction angles disappear as looser
150 SCHANZ AND VERMEER
50
Cornforth (1964) tions. The extended theory is validated by the fact
Leussink et al. (1966) that data from plane strain and triaxial strain
Hostun sand (dense) conditions yield the same angle of dilatancy at
Hostun sand (loose) least near and beyond peak.
Equation (17) In contrast to the angle of dilatancy, friction
angles differ considerably when triaxial strain and
plane strains are compared. This difference basi-
cally depends on the critical state friction angle, as
φtrp: degrees

40 by Bolton (1986) and other researchers. As yet it

is not fully clear whether or not plane strain
conditions yield slightly higher critical state angles
than triaxial strain conditions. Considering data
from Hostun sand, no such difference is observed.
There is linear relationship between angles of
maximum friction for both conditions (equation
(17)).
30
30 φcv 40 50
φpsp: degrees
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Fig. 8. Maximum strength under plane strain and The authors are indebted to Dr J. Desrues and
triaxial strain Dr E. Flavigny of the Institut de MeÂcanique de
Grenoble for discussion on the triaxial testing
technique, and for their biaxial testing data on
states are considered. This has implications for the Hostun sand.
form of the limiting envelope for states of stress in
principal stress space. For dense samples the plane
NOTATION
strain friction is well above the Mohr±Coulomb D diameter
prediction, but looser samples give envelopes e void ratio
according to Mohr±Coulomb. There are a lot of Em membrane thickness
true triaxial data to con®rm the former, but few H height
true triaxial tests have been performed on loose ID dilatancy index
sand. Therefore it is often suggested that friction IR relative dilatancy index
angles are strain-dependent for both loose and K internal friction coef®cient
dense sands. Considering results from Bolton and R stress ratio (ó1 /ó3 )
the additional data of Fig. 8, the present authors do t0 membrane thickness
Ät bedding error
not agree. å3 radial strain
Another ®nding by Bolton is that the rate of r density
dilation is strain-independent. It is found for both ó0 back-pressure
triaxial strain and biaxial strain that ó1 axial stress
ó3 radial stress
ÿ_åv =_å1 ˆ 0
3I R (18)
öcv critical state friction angle
This supports the idea of a unique angle of öp peak friction angle
dilatancy, as this angle was related to the above øp angle of dilatancy
rate of dilation. Combining equations (11) and (18)
gives
0
3I R IR REFERENCES
sin ø ˆ ˆ (19) Barden, L. & Khayatt, A. J. (1966). Incremental strain
2 ‡ 0
3I R 6
7 ‡ I R
rate ratios and strength of sand in the triaxial test.
GeÂotechnique 16, 338±357.
Bolton, M. D. (1986). The strength and dilatancy of
CONCLUSIONS sands. GeÂotechnique 36, No. 1, 65±78.
From the results presented, the following con- Cornforth, D. H. (1964). Some experiments on the
clusions can be drawn concerning the angles of in¯uence of strain conditions on the strength of sand.
GeÂotechnique 16, 193.
friction and dilatancy of sand. Desrues, J. (1984). La localisation de la deÂformation
By using concepts of superposition it is possible dans les mateÂriaux granulaires. DSc thesis, Institut de
to relate the angle of dilatancy to triaxial strain MeÂcanique de Grenoble.
conditions. This yields an extended de®nition for Desrues, J., Colliat-Dangus, J. L. & Foray, P. (1988).
the angle of dilatancy which applies to triaxial Triaxial testing of granular soil under elevated cell
testing conditions as well as plane strain condi- pressure. In Advanced triaxial testing of soil and
 FRICTION ANGLES AND DILATANCY OF SAND 151
rock, STP977, pp. 290±310. Philadelphia: American Roscoe, K. H. (1970). The in¯uence of strains in soil
Society for Testing and Materials. mechanics. GeÂotechnique 20, No. 2, 129±170.
Flavigny, E., Desrues, J. & Palayer, B. (1990). Le sable Rowe, P. W. (1962). The stress±dilatancy relation for
d'Hostun RF. Rev. Fr. GeÂotech. No. 53, 67±70. static equilibrium of an assembly of particles in
Flavigny, E., Hadj-Sadok, M., Horodecki, G. & Bala- contact. Proc. R. Soc., A269, 500±527.
chowski, L. (1991). Series repetives d'essais triaxiaux Rowe, P. W. (1971). Theoretical meaning and observed
dans deux laboratoires. Archwm Hydrotech. 38, 1±2. values of deformation parameters for soil. Proceed-
Goldscheider, M. (1982). Results of the international ings of Roscoe Memorial Symposium, pp. 143±194.
workshop on constitutive relations for soils, pp. 11± Henley-on-Thames: Foulis.
54. Rotterdam: Balkema. Stroud, M. A. (1971). The behaviour of sand at low
Hammad, W. I. (1991). ModeÂlisation non lineÂaire et eÂtude stress levels in the simple-shear apparatus. Disserta-
expeÂrimentale des bandes de cisaillement dans les tion, University of Cambridge.
sable. DSc thesis, Institut de MeÂcanique de Grenoble. Vaid, Y. P. & Sasitharan, S. (1991). The strength and
Lade, P. V. (1984). Mechanics of engineering materials dilatancy of sand. Can. Geotech. J. 29, 522±526.
(edited by C. S. Desai). Chichester: Wiley. Vermeer, P. A. & de Borst, R. (1984). Non-associated
Leussink, H., Wittke, W. & Weseloh, K. (1966). plasticity for soils, concrete and rock. Heron 29,
Unterschiede im Scherverhalten rolliger Erdstoffe No. 3.
und KugelschuÈttungen im Dreiaxial- und Biaxial- Wood, D. M. (1990). Soil behaviour and critical state
versuch. VeroÈff. Inst. Bodenmech. Felsmech. TH soil mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Frideric Karlsruhe, 21. Press.