Friction Angle

Effective Stress Friction Angle,
Interpretation of
Effective Stress
Friction Angle from
In-Situ Tests
Paul W. Mayne, PhD, P.E.

CEE/Georgia Tech
Drained frictional response of soils (use

secant and c = 0)
Effective frictional envelope for dry sands
or saturated geomaterials (undrained,
drained, static, cyclic)
Drained penetration in uncemented clean
quartz sands (SPT, CPT, DMT, PMT)
Undrained penetration in all soil types by
piezocone (CPTu) NTH method
Friction Angle of Monterey Sand - Marachi et al. (1981)
Critical State Framework for of Sands
Dilatancy Effect on Friction Angle - Bolton, M. (1986, Geotechnique)
Triaxial:
(Bolton, March 1986, Geotechnique)
'peak = 'cs +
Baseline friction angle for sand mineralogy and

shape, cv = cs (= 330 quartzitic; 400 feldspathic)
Peak above this essentially dilatancy effect
where = dilatancy angle:
(PSC) = cv + 5 IRD
(TC) = cv + 3 IRD
where IRD = DR [Q ln(100 pf/atm) 1] = the

relative dilatancy index. Use pf ~ 2 vo
Note: Q = 10 for quartz & feldspar; = 8
limestone, 5.5 for chalk.
100
Relative Density
(DR) of Clean
Friction Angle of Sands from SPT - Schmertmann (1975)
Relative Density, DR (%)
90
Unaged Quartzitic
Sands from SPT
80
Reid-Bedford*
70
Platte River*
Standard Concrete*
60
Coarse (Gibbs & Holtz '57)
50
Fine (Gibbs & Holtz '57)

Field Sites (Skempton '86)
40
Terzaghi & Peck '48
30
*Marcuson & Bieganowsky '77
20
D R = 100
10
and CPT
( N 1 ) 60
60
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Normalized Resistance, (N1)60
OCR = 1
10
Relative Density, DR (%)
100
EPRI EL-6800 Soil

Properties Manual
(Kulhawy & Mayne, 1990)
90
80
NC sands
70
OC sands
60
50
26 Different Series
n = 677 data points
40
30
20
DR
10
= 100
qT 1
300 OCR 0.2
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Normalized Tip Stress, qT1
' of Sands from CPT from Russian Experience
Effective ' of Sands from SPT-N Value
(Trofimenkov, 1974)
(Hatanaka & Uchida, Soils & Foundations, 1996)
Triaxial Database from Frozen Sand Samples
Ladd, et al.
(ICSMFE,
Tokyo, 1977)
Friction Angle, ' (deg)
55
0.5
' = [15.4(N1)60]
50
+20
45
40
35
qc proportional
with sqrt vo'
Sand (SP and SP-SM)

Sand Fill (SP to SM)
30
SM (Piedmont)
25
H&T (1996)
20
20
30
40
Normalized (N1)60
50
CPT from Bearing Capacity Theory (Robertson & Campanella, 1983)
60
Friction Angle of Sands from CPT (Robertson & Campanella, 1983)

55
' (deg)
10
Friction Angle,
' = arctan[0.1 + 0.38 log (qt/vo')]
50
Chamber Tests Uncorrected

for Limited Boundary Effects
45
Frankston Sand
40
Ticino Sand
Edgar Sand
35
Hokksund Sand
Lone Star Sand
30
R&C (1983)
25
10
100
1000
Normalized Tip Stress, qt/vo'
Evaluate from CPT in clean quartz sands
Friction Angle of Sands

from CPT (Robertson &
Campanella, 1983)
Based Partially on CPT

Calibration Chamber Tests
Uncorrected for Boundary
Effects
Assume: (peak)
Trofimenkov (1974) from Russian experience
Chamber test data (Kulhawy & Mayne 1990)

(deg) = 17.6 + 11 log [ qc/(vo)0.5 ]
Assume: (peak)
qc directly
proportional
to vo'
qc/(vo)0.5
qc/vo
Bearing Capacity Theory Limit Plasticity
Cavity Expansion Theory
Robertson & Campanella (1983) method
(deg) = arctan [0.1 + 0.38 log(qc/vo) ]
Friction Angle of Sands from CPT

CPT Calibration Chamber Database Corrected for
Boundary Effects (Kulhawy & Mayne, 1990)
2
Effective Overburden, vo' kg/cm )
Cone Tip Stress, qt (kg/cm )

0
100
200
300
400
500
' (deg)
46
44
42
2
40
38
36
34
32
'
(deg) = 17.6 + 11 log[qt/(vo')
0.5
Ziggy
GT Test Site
West Campus
GT Test Site, West Campus
Atlanta, Georgia
Drilled Shaft Load Test Program
Sponsored by:
Association of Drilled Shaft Contractors (ADSC)

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Georgia Section
Association of Drilled Shaft Contractors

Federal Highway Administration
ASCE Atlanta Geotechnical Chapter
GT Load Test Site, West Campus
GT West Campus Test Site (Harris & Mayne, 1994)
SPT N-values (bpf)

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Piedmont Residuum:
20
Silty Fine Sand (SM)
30
40
50
60
PWR
70
GRANITIC GNEISS
80
SPT N-values (bpf)

0
10
20
30
SPT N-values (bpf)
40
50
20
30
40
50
0
Crew 1
10
20
Crew 1
10
Crew 2
Crew 2
Crew 3
Depth (feet)
Depth (feet)
10
30
40
50
20
Crew 3
30
40
50
60
60
GT West Campus Test Site (Harris & Mayne, 1994)

SPT Summary - Georgia Tech
qT (MPa)
SPT N-values (bpf)

0
10
20
30
40
50
20
30
Silty Sand (SM):

Piedmont Residuum
Depth (m)
Depth (feet)
10
fS (kPa)
6
8
10
12
Depth (m)
Depth (feet)
10
100
200
300
8
10
12
40
50
60
14
14
16
16
18
18
20
20
CPT Soil Behavioral Classification - GT West Campus
Robertson & Campanella (1983)

1000
Robertson et al. (1986)
0 to 3 m
1000
Silty
Sands
100
Sandy Silts
& Silts
Sands
Silty Sands
10
Clayey
Silts
Sandy Silts
& Silts
Clays
1
0
Clayey
Silts &
Silty Clays
Friction Ratio, FR = fs/qt (%)
100
3=clay
4=silty clay
5=clayey silt
10
6=sandy silt
3
7=silty sand
Zone 3 - Clay
Zone 1
Sensitive
Clay
8=sand to silty sand

Zone 2 - Organic
9=sand
1
0
Friction Ratio, FR = fs/qt (%)
10=gravelly sand

Olsen & Malone (1988)
3 = Clays
4=Silt Mixtures
SBT 5
5=Sand Mixtures
SBT 4
6=Sands
SBT 3
7=Gravelly Sand
SBT 2
Gravels &
Sands
0 to 3 m
n = 0.66
10
9=Stiff Clays
Friction Ratio, FR = fs/(qt-vo)
3 to 20 m
n = 0.83
n = 1.0
100
SCN = 4
Sands
SCN=3
Sand Mixtures
SCN=2
10
Silt Mixtures
Clays
8=Stiff Sand to
Clayey Sand
1
1
n = 0.6
Normalized qc1 = qt/(vo')
2=Organic
SBT 6
SCN=1
Peats
Clay/Peat
1
0.1
Friction Ratio, FR = (fs/qt)(vo)n-1
10
qt/N60 Interrelationship (K&M'90)
qc/N60 Interrelationship
ADSC Load Test at West GT Campus
Penetration Resistance
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
R = 3.3
Depth (meters)
Normalized Q = (qt-vo)/vo'
SBT 9
100
0.1
2=organic soil
soil
3 to 20 m
1 = Sensitive Clay
SBT 1
1000
SBT 8
10
1=sensitive clay
fine grained
8
0 to 3 m
1000
SBT 7
Very stiff
9

Robertson (1990) Method
3 to 20 m
Zone 11 -
to clayey sand
10
3 to 20 m
Cone Bearing, qt (bar)
Cone Bearing, qt (bar)
Sands
0 to 3 m
Zone 12 - sand
Zone
10
CPT qc (atm)
12
R*SPT-N
(blows/0.3m)
14
Effective Friction Angle, ' (deg)
600
25
500
30
400
40
45
50
10
' = 36.0o
300
c' = 0
200
100
Correlation by
Hatanaka &
Uchida, 1996
20
30
40
0
0
100
200
300
400
500 600
700
800
50
900 1000
Effective Stress, p' = (1'+3')/2 (kPa)
60
Effective Friction Angle,

25
30
35
' (deg)
40
45
Effective Friction Angle,

50
25
30
' (deg)
40
45
50
Tr iaxial
30
40
50
Depth (feet)
10
H & U'96
20
20
H & U'96
30
T riaxial
40
Schmertmann'75
50
60
60
Effective Stress Friction Angle, ' (deg)

20
30
40
Effective Stress Friction Angle, ' (deg)

50
20
30
CPT qt
(C&R'83)
CPT qt
(K&M'90)
Triaxial
Tests
CPT qt
(C&R'83)
Triaxial
Tests
6
8
10
40
50
Depth (meters)
Depth (meters)
35
10
Depth (feet)
35
Depth (feet)
Shear q = (1-3)/2 (kPa)
Triaxial Summary GT Campus
6
8
10
12
12
14
14
CIDC Triaxial Results on Frozen Sand Samples
GT West Campus Test Site
(Mimura, 2003)
0
1
Yodo River
Natori River
Tone River
Edo River
K&M90
2
3
Depth (meters)
45
40
qt
' (deg)= 17.6 + 11.0 log
'
vo atm
35
po
p1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
30
0
100
200
300
Normalized Tip Stress, qt1
14
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Pressure (kPa)
DMTs at GT West Campus Test Site
GT West Campus Test Site
Effective Friction Angle ' (deg)

20
25
30
35
40
45
Depth (m)
1
2
Marchetti, 1997
Marchetti, 1996
C& R 1991
Lab Triaxial
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Effective Stress Strength Parameters
Effective Stress Piezocone Penetration

Senneset, Sandven, and Janbu (TRR 1989)
Bearing Capacity Theories (sands)
Bq = 0.1
100
Resistance Number, Nm
Triaxial ' (deg.)
50
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
NM = (qt- vo)/ vo'
10
Bq = (u2-u0)/(qt- vo)
1
20
30
40
' (degrees)
50
Sands,
Silts,
and
Clays
Durgunoglu & Mitchell (1975); Vesic

(1977); Robertson & Campanella (1983);
Salgado et al. (1994); Jamiolkowski &
LoPresti (2000)
Direct
CSSM Dilatancy Approach using DR from
CPT in Sands (Bolton, 1986)
(psi-phi)
Effective Stress Method for all soil types

(Senneset, Janbu & Sandven, 1989)
NTH Effective Penetration Theory for Friction Angle

(Senneset, et. al, ISOPT-1988, TRR 1989)
Effective Stress Strength Parameters
1000
NM = (qt-vo)/vo'
Effective Stress Method for all soil types

(Senneset, Janbu & Sandven, 1989)
Sci-Fi
(Robertson & Campanella (1983)
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
10
Bq = (u2-u0)/(qt-vo)
1
20
Ref: Senneset, et al. (1982, ESOPT)
1 + N u Bq
'
40
qt vo
vo '+ a '
Intercept = attraction a = c cot
Intercept = attraction a = c cot

qt
Porewater Bearing Factor, Nu

N u = 6 tan '(1 + tan ' )
If a = 0 assumed: Nm = Q = (qt- vo)/vo
Porewater Parameter: Bq = u2/(qt-vo)

Use solution for = 0 (angle of plastification)
End Bearing Factor, Nq

N q = tan 2 (45 + 12 ' ) exp[( 2 ) tan ' ]
Q and Bq same as in Robertson (1990) soil

behavioral classification charts.
Drained Penetration: qt + a' = Nq (vo' + a')
Gloucester Test Site, Ontario
Canadian National Test Site, Gloucester, Ontario
(Konrad & Law, Canadian Geot. J., August 1987)

Piezocone Readings (kPa)
Gloucester CPTu, Ontario
400
600
800
1000
0
2
Depth (meters)
4
6
qt
ub
10
12
14
1200
800
Excess Porewater, u2-uo (kPa)
200
Net Cone Stress, qt-vo (kPa)
800
50
(degrees)
Cone Resistance Number (Nm) = measured

slope of (qt-vo) vs. vo
Cone Resistance Number (Nm)

=
30
NTH Effective Penetration Theory
NTH Effective Penetration Theory

Nq 1
0.1
100
Professor Mike
Jamiolkowski
Politechnico Torino
Nm =
Bq =
0
700
600
500
400
300
200
Nm = Q = 6.3
100
0
(Konrad and Law, 1986, Geotechnique)
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
Bq = 0.65
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Effective Overburden,
120
vo'
140
(kPa)
160
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Net Cone Stress, qt -vo (kPa)
16
18
20
Gloucester, Ontario
Approximation of NTH- for Bq > 0.1
Senneset & Janbu (1985)
Senneset, Sandven, & Janbu (1989, Transportation Research Record 1235)
Bq = 0.1
100
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
B q = (u2-u0)/(qt- vo)
Konrad
& Law
(1987):
35o for
silty clays
10
Effective Stress Penetration
For a = 0:
Nm = Q
=(qt-vo)/vo'
30
40
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Bq = (u2-u0)/(qt-vo)
10
1
25
30
'
35
40
45
(degrees)
' 29 .5 B q 0.121 [0 .256 + 0 .336 Bq + log( N m ) ]
50
' (degrees)
Bq
NM = (qt-vo)/vo'
20
34.50
1
20
100
where 20 < ' < 45 and 0 .1 < B q < 1 .0
Approx. NTH Method - Gloucester, Ontario
Gloucester Test Site, Ontario

Normalized Cone Resistance, Q
0
Secant ' (degrees)
20
Normalized Porewater, Bq
9
10
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
25
30
35
40
45
50
1.2
Depth (meters)
Depth (meters)
10
10
15
15
20
20
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Evaluating at Sandpoint, Idaho (NTH Method)
SCPTu Sounding, Sandpoint, Idaho

2
50
100
Effective Stress Penetration (NTH Method)
Porewater, ub (MPa)
Sleeve Friction, fs (kPa)

10
150
10
10
10
20
20
20
30
30
30
40
40
40
50
50
50
60
60
60
70
70
70
80
80
80
3000
Net Cone Stress, qt-vo (kPa)
Tip Stress qt (MPa)

0
Depth (meters)
Depth (meters)
2000
1000
Nm = 3.43
0
0
100
200
300
400
Effective Overburden,
500
vo'
600
700
(kPa)
Evaluation of by CPTu (NTH Method)
Evaluation of at Sandpoint, Idaho (NTH Method)

Effective Stress Penetration (NTH Method)
Porewater Pressures
Bq = 0.80
1000
500
500
1000
1500
Net Cone Tip Resistance,
qt-vo
10
Bq = (u2-u0)/(qt- vo)
20
2000
(kPa)
30
40
50
' (degrees)
= 32.30
Interpretation of Effective Friction Angle
Interpretation of Effective Friction Angle
Max. (q/p') ratio criterion - IDAHO Triaxial Data
Maximum q Criterion - TRIAXIAL DATA SUMMARY - IDAHO
250
250
' = 32.3 deg
' = 33.7 deg
200
q = (1'-3')/2
q = ( 1'- 3')/2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
NM = (qt-vo)/ vo'
200
B q = 0.1
100
1500
u2
(kPa)
2000
c' = 0 kPa
150
100
c' = 0 kPa
150
100
50
50
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
p' = ( 1' + 3')/2
100
200
300
400
500
p' = (1' + 3')/2
CPTu Evaluations in Silty Clays, Sandpoint, Idaho

Normalized Q
0
Effective '
Normalized Bq
10
0.0
0.5
1.0
20
25
30
35
40
45
10
Depth (meters)
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
10

Friction Angle

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Friction Angle

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Effective Stress Friction Angle,

Paul W. Mayne, PhD, P.E.

Drained frictional response of soils (use

Friction Angle of Monterey Sand - Marachi et al. (1981)

Critical State Framework for of Sands

Dilatancy Effect on Friction Angle - Bolton, M. (1986, Geotechnique)

(Bolton, March 1986, Geotechnique)

Baseline friction angle for sand mineralogy and

where IRD = DR [Q ln(100 pf/atm) 1] = the

Friction Angle of Sands from SPT - Schmertmann (1975)

Relative Density, DR (%)

Coarse (Gibbs & Holtz '57)

Fine (Gibbs & Holtz '57)

Terzaghi & Peck '48

*Marcuson & Bieganowsky '77

Normalized Resistance, (N1)60

Relative Density, DR (%)

EPRI EL-6800 Soil

Normalized Tip Stress, qT1

' of Sands from CPT from Russian Experience

Effective ' of Sands from SPT-N Value

(Hatanaka & Uchida, Soils & Foundations, 1996)

Triaxial Database from Frozen Sand Samples

Friction Angle, ' (deg)

Sand (SP and SP-SM)

CPT from Bearing Capacity Theory (Robertson & Campanella, 1983)

Friction Angle of Sands from CPT (Robertson & Campanella, 1983)

' = arctan[0.1 + 0.38 log (qt/vo')]

Chamber Tests Uncorrected

Normalized Tip Stress, qt/vo'

Evaluate from CPT in clean quartz sands

Friction Angle of Sands

Based Partially on CPT

Trofimenkov (1974) from Russian experience

Chamber test data (Kulhawy & Mayne 1990)

Bearing Capacity Theory Limit Plasticity

Cavity Expansion Theory

Robertson & Campanella (1983) method

(deg) = arctan [0.1 + 0.38 log(qc/vo) ]

Friction Angle of Sands from CPT

Effective Overburden, vo' kg/cm )

Cone Tip Stress, qt (kg/cm )

(deg) = 17.6 + 11 log[qt/(vo')

GT Test Site, West Campus

Association of Drilled Shaft Contractors (ADSC)

Association of Drilled Shaft Contractors

GT Load Test Site, West Campus

GT West Campus Test Site (Harris & Mayne, 1994)

SPT N-values (bpf)

Silty Fine Sand (SM)

GT Load Test Site, West Campus

GT Load Test Site, West Campus

SPT N-values (bpf)

SPT N-values (bpf)

GT West Campus Test Site (Harris & Mayne, 1994)

SPT N-values (bpf)

Silty Sand (SM):

CPT Soil Behavioral Classification - GT West Campus

CPT Soil Behavioral Classification - GT West Campus

Robertson & Campanella (1983)

Robertson et al. (1986)

Friction Ratio, FR = fs/qt (%)

8=sand to silty sand

Friction Ratio, FR = fs/qt (%)