Technical Note

Dilatancy and Friction Angles Based on

In Situ Soil Conditions
Ozer Cinicioglu 1 and Arshiya Abadkon 2

Abstract: Dilatancy influences almost all aspects of the behavior of granular material, ranging from shear strength to stress-strain behavior.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY on 12/23/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

However, there is no practical method for estimating the dilatancy angle based on in situ soil properties, although the variables that influence
dilatant behavior are well-known. This paper attempts to link the dilatancy angle to preshear mean effective stress and relative density for
cohesionless soils. Accordingly, it may be possible to estimate the dilatancy angle by using variables that can be measured or calculated
during the soil exploration phase of a design project. For this purpose, an experimental study is conducted on Silivri sand and the obtained
results are used to quantify the relationship between dilatancy angle and preshear soil properties. An equation for the dilatancy angle is
proposed that requires only two unit-independent soil constants, which can be obtained by conducting triaxial or plane strain tests. Moreover,
the proposed dilatancy equation can be combined with a linear relationship between friction angle and dilatancy angle to form a new equation
that can be used to estimate the peak friction angle. Thus, a new equation is developed that allows the calculation of the peak friction
angle from preshear soil properties. Finally, for verification purposes, the proposed equations for dilatancy and peak friction angles are
tested by using available data on other sands and the results are compared with the predictions of available dilatancy equations in literature.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001272. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction purposes of quantification, Bolton collected the available data from

the literature and defined an empirical equation that uses the mean
The dilatancy of coarse grained soils has attracted the attention of effective stress at peak shear strength (pf0 ) as the quantity express-
researchers because it influences the strength of granular materials ing confining pressure. The form of Bolton’s (1986) dilatancy
(Taylor 1948; Lee and Seed 1967; Bolton 1986), the geometry of equation is based on ϕp0 –stress relationships obtained from sands
shear planes at the time of failure (Salençon 1977; Chen and Liu tested under very high confining pressures (up to 60 MPa), as
1990), and the mathematical forms of the plastic potential functions given by Billiam (1972) and Vesic and Clough (1968). Owing to
(Yu 2006). Researchers have noted that dilatancy reduces with in- the presence of grain crushing in the data of Billiam (1972) and
creased confining pressure and decreased relative density (Vesic Vesic and Clough (1968), the form of Bolton’s (1986) equation
and Clough 1968; Billiam 1972; Bishop 1972). Rowe (1962, 1969) is semilogarithmic [Eq. (1)]
pioneered the introduction of dilatancy into constitutive modeling  
framework by proposing a stress-dilatancy theory for granular as- dεv
− ¼ 0.3½I D ðQ − ln pf0 Þ − R ð1Þ
semblies using the minimum energy ratio principle, providing an dε1 max
alternative explanation for the flow rule in soils. De Josselin
De Jong (1976) modified the theory of Rowe (1962, 1969) by con- where I D = relative density (I D ¼ DR =100); Q and R = empirical
sidering the same toothed separation planes and applying the laws line-fitting parameters that depend on the inherent soil character-
of friction. Since then, many researchers have investigated dilat- istics and the unit chosen for pf0 . Following the form of Eq. (1),
ancy and considered the influences of confining pressure and den- Chakraborty and Salgado (2010) showed that the line-fitting
sity on behavior (Sladen et al. 1985; Been and Jefferies 1985; Wan parameter, Q, is not constant and varies with preshear consolidation
and Guo 1999; Li and Dafalias 2000; Alshibli and Sture 2000; pressure. Eq. (1) yields the tangent of the peak dilatancy angle for
Li 2002; Collins and Muhunthan 2003; Yang and Li 2004; plane strain conditions. Therefore, for calculating the dilatancy
Desrues and Viggiani 2004; Cinicioglu et al. 2007; Guo and Su angle of axisymmetric samples by using Eq. (1), it is necessary
2007; Chakraborty and Salgado 2010; Cox and Budhu 2010). to use the relationship proposed by Schanz and Vermeer (1996),
However, Bolton (1986) was the first to attempt to quantify the which calculates the dilatancy angle using the (−dεv =dε1 ) mea-
influences of the relative density and confining pressure on peak surements from triaxial tests [Eq. (2)]
angles of shearing resistance (ϕp0 ) and dilation (ψp ). For the dεv =dε1
sin ψ ¼ − ð2Þ
2 − dεv =dε1
1
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Bogazici Univ.,
Bebek, Istanbul 34342, Turkey (corresponding author). E-mail: ozer where dεv and dε1 = volumetric and axial strain increments,
[email protected] respectively.
2
Former Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Bogazici Univ., Considering the influence of ψp on ϕp0 , Bishop (1972) hypoth-
Bebek, Istanbul 34342, Turkey. esized that there is a linear relationship between ϕp0 and ψp . Later,
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 5, 2014; approved on
Bolton (1986) simplified Rowe’s (1962, 1969) stress-dilatancy re-
November 24, 2014; published online on December 22, 2014. Discussion
period open until May 22, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted for lationship for plane-strain shearing through line-fitting [Eq. (3)]
individual papers. This technical note is part of the Journal of Geotech- and obtained the form proposed by Bishop (1972)
nical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/
06014019(7)/$25.00. ϕp0 ¼ ϕc0 þ rψp ð3Þ

© ASCE 06014019-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

 where r = line-fitting parameter and ϕc0 = critical state friction in this study are conventional drained triaxial compression tests
angle. Later, Vaid and Sasitharan (1992) investigated the effects of consolidated under K o conditions (CK o DC).
stress path and loading direction and concluded that the peak fric- Air pluviation was used as the sample preparation method,
tion angle is uniquely related to ψp , regardless of relative density, followed by saturation using deaired water. The level of satura-
confining pressure, stress path, and mode of loading. tion was controlled by tracking the B-parameter. Consolidation
However, none of these studies attempted to correlate the peak under K o conditions was achieved by monitoring the radial strain,
angle of dilation (ψp ) with the in situ state of the soil. Following the the absolute value of which was kept under 0.005%. K o condi-
study of Taylor (1948), the general approach for dilatancy calcu- tions were also maintained while unloading of the specimens for
lations was to consider work dissipation in granular materials dur- achieving overconsolidation. Detailed information is provided by
ing shearing. Accordingly, this approach requires the consideration Abadkon (2012).
of the state of the soil at failure, which is of little importance for The material used in this study is local fluvial quartz sand ob-
practical purposes. Additionally, the requirement of knowing ϕp0 to tained from the Silivri district in Istanbul. To ensure the same grain
calculate pf0 introduces error into ψp estimations at depths where
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY on 12/23/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

size distribution in all tests, this sand was sieved and prepared with
ϕp0 is not measured, because the value of ϕp0 is dependent on the a standard grain size distribution. Accordingly, specimens can be
level of confining pressure. Therefore, to overcome the problem classified as poorly graded sand (SP) with a coefficient of uniform-
associated with the definition of dilatant behavior as a function ity (Cu ) of 2.16 and coefficient of curvature (Cc ) of 1.45. Maximum
of the failure state, this study attempts to define peak dilatancy an- and minimum void ratios of the specimens were determined to be
gle as a function of in situ soil conditions. Here, “in situ state” is 0.96 and 0.56, respectively. Specific gravity was measured to be
used as a broad term that contains the combined influences of the 2.67. Additionally, for each standard sieve gap, the particle shapes
stress state and volumetric state of the soil prior to any shearing. were defined according to the particle shape determination chart
Thus, it is appropriate to state that this study attempts to calculate given by Cho et al. (2006). As a result, sphericity values were found
the dilatant potential of the granular assembly in its in situ state, to vary between 0.72 and 0.8 and roundness values between 0.34
as opposed to calculating the work dissipated as a result of dilative and 0.38 (Abadkon 2012). Moreover, by analyzing the results of
behavior. Accordingly, in the in situ state, stress state is defined by the triaxial tests at large strains and by conducting residual direct
the preshear mean effective stress (pi0 ) and volumetric state is de- shear tests, the critical state friction angle (ϕc0 ) of Silivri sand was
fined by preshear relative density (I D ). Additionally, to consider found to be 33°.
the possible influence of principal stress ratio (σ10 =σ30 ) for at-rest
conditions, tests are repeated at different overconsolidation ratios
(OCR), because it is very well known that K o varies with OCR. Test Results and Analyses
As a result, unlike Eq. (1), in which the mean effective stress at
failure (pf0 ) is required, necessary parameters would be directly
Peak Dilatancy
measurable or calculable from the samples obtained during the soil
characterization stage of design, unless they are already known, as The primary parameter under investigation in this study is the peak
in the cases of artificial fills or physical modelling studies. This dilatancy angle. For calculating the dilatancy angle from the results
approach will increase the practicality of dilatancy estimations. of triaxial tests, Eq. (2) proposed by Schanz and Vermeer (1996)
To achieve this goal, it is necessary to observe and quantify was used. Because the primary goal of this research is to investigate
the effects of preshear mean effective stress (pi0 ), preshear relative the uncoupled effects of I D and pi0 on ψp , test results are grouped
density (I D ), and OCR on dilatancy. For this purpose, an extensive into several small I D ranges. A separate I D range is defined for
triaxial testing program was planned. The first part of this paper every 0.05 increment in I D . This way, it is possible to regard the
describes the details of the testing program, followed by informa- variable pi0 as the only possible source of influence on ψp for
tion on the testing material. Then, results of the tests are presented each I D range under consideration, other than the OCRs of the
and quantified. Finally, proposed dilatancy relationships are evalu- specimens. Then, for each I D range, the variation of ψp with pi0
ated by using data from the literature for different types of testing is investigated. For this purpose, variations in the tangents of peak
conditions. dilatancy (tan ψp ) with the preshear mean effective stress (pi0 ) are
plotted for each I D range (Fig. 1). In these plots, pi0 is normalized
with the standard atmospheric pressure at sea level (pa ) to prevent
Testing Program, Methodology, and Material unit dependence. The respective OCR of each data point is iden-
tified through the use of OCR-specific bullets in Fig. 1. Analysis
Triaxial testing allows the measurement of both friction and dilat- of the data for all I D ranges showed that for constant I D values,
ancy angles in a single test, as long as the tests are conducted on pi0 =pa − tan ψp relationships are linear. As is well known, different
clean sands. To observe the uncoupled effects of pi0 and I D on ϕp0 OCRs for the one-dimensionally anisotropic state correspond to
and ψp , several triaxial tests were conducted on reconstituted sand significantly different K o magnitudes, and thus significantly dif-
samples with different pi0 − I D combinations. This way, it was pos- ferent principal effective stress ratios (σ10 =σ30 ) in the at-rest state.
sible to single out the influence of a single variable on ϕp0 and ψp , Clearly, pi0 =pa − tan ψp relationships are not affected by OCRs
while the other variable was kept constant, rendering quantification of the specimens. In other words, mean effective stress influences
feasible. The relative density of the specimens in these tests ranged dilatant behavior, and this influence is independent of the relative
from 0.35 to 1, and the preshear mean effective stresses ranged magnitudes of principal effective stresses.
from 20 kPa to almost 1 MPa. Additionally, the OCR of the K o Because it has been shown that OCR does not affect ψp , var-
consolidated specimens was either 1, 2, 4, or 8 (which corresponds iations in ψp with pi0 for different I D ranges are defined by using
to different K o values) prior to the commencement of the shearing data from all tests, irrespective of the OCR value. For all I D values,
phase of triaxial tests, to account for the possible influence of initial tan ψp − pi0 =pa relationships that yield the greatest coefficient
principal stress ratio (σ10 =σ30 ) on the investigated parameters. All of determination (R2 ) are used (Fig. 1). As a result, the equation
specimens were consolidated under K o conditions because this is that defines the pi0 − ψp relationship for constant I D values is given
the most ubiquitous stress path in nature; all triaxial tests conducted in Eq. (4)

© ASCE 06014019-2 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

 0.4 0.4
0.45 ID<0.50 0.50 ID<0.55
0.3
tan ψ = -0.0432(p'i/pa) + 0.1925 0.3 tanψp=-0.062(p'i/pa)+0.2

tan ψp
R2=0.88

tan ψ
0.2 R² = 0.8615 0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
pi'/pa pi pa
0.4 0.4
0.75 ID<0.8
0.3 0.3 tanψp=-0.062(p'i/pa)+0.33
tan ψ = -0.057(p'i/pa) + 0.235
tan(ψp)

tan(ψp)
0.2 R2=0.908
0.2 R² = 0.843
0.1 0.1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY on 12/23/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0 0
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4
pi'/pa p'i/pa
0.4 0.4
0.80 ID<0.85 0.90 ID<0.95
0.3 tanψp = -0.0565(pi'/pa) + 0.296 0.3 tanψ =-0.051(p'i/pa)+0.313

tan(ψp)
tan(ψp)

R2=0.89
0.2 R² = 0.8716 0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
pi'/pa pi'/pa

Fig. 1. Tanψp − ðpi0 =pa Þ relationships from four different I D ranges for Silivri sand: tests were conducted at different OCRs to show independency
from preshear principal stress ratio

 
pi0 equal to −0.06 and β ψ is defined as a linear function of I D , as
tan ψp ¼ αψ þ βψ ð4Þ shown in Eq. (5)
pa
β ψ ¼ mψ I D ¼ 0.35I D ð5Þ
where αψ and β ψ = unit-independent fitting parameters. Because
Eq. (4) is developed for conditions under which I D is constant, val- where mψ = unit-independent line fitting parameter that defines the
ues of the parameters αψ and β ψ are expected to change with I D . slope of the β ψ − I D relationship. Moreover, αψ is a soil-specific
Therefore, to obtain their variations with I D , values of αψ and β ψ constant as a consequence of the uncoupled influences of stress
for each I D range are plotted in Fig. 2. As shown in Fig. 2, the value state and density on dilatancy. As a result, the final form of the
of αψ is approximately constant, whereas β ψ increases linearly with dilatancy equation is obtained
I D . Consequently, for the tested material, the best fit value for αψ is  0
p
tan ψp ¼ αψ i þ mψ I D ð6Þ
pa
ID
0.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Eq. (6) shows that ψp is a linear function of pi0 and I D . This
relationship is simple and requires the input of just two soil-specific
0.2 unitless constants. The fact that αψ is constant with respect to I D
αψ 0.06 shows that the influences of preshear confinement and relative den-
0 sity on peak dilatancy are uncoupled. However, to demonstrate the
αψ

universality of Eq. (6), it is necessary to identify the same trend of

-0.2 behavior in different soils.

-0.4
Evaluation of the Proposed ψ p Equation
0.5
Verification of the general applicability of Eq. (6) can be achieved
0.4 by quantifying the ψp ¼ fðpi0 ; I D Þ function for another soil from
βψ ID the literature and comparing it with Eq. (6). For this purpose, an
0.3
extensive literature review was conducted, and it was found that
βψ

0.2 Vaid and Sasitharan (1992) conducted a broad triaxial testing pro-
gram on isotropically consolidated Erksak sand, which provides a
0.1
sufficient number of pi0 − I D − ψp combinations. In their study,
0 Vaid and Sasitharan (1992) investigated the effects of stress path
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
and loading direction on the strength and dilatancy of cohesionless
ID soils. The majority of the tests conducted by Vaid and Sasitharan
(1992) were conventional triaxial compression tests. Accordingly,
Fig. 2. αψ − I D and β ψ − I D relationships for Silivri sand
in this study, only the data from the conventional compression test

© ASCE 06014019-3 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

 Table 1. αψ and mψ Values for Different Sands from Literature
Sand D50 (mm) Cu emax emin ϕc0 αψ mψ r Test Data from
Silivri 0.37 2.16 0.96 0.56 33.0 −0.060 0.35 0.46 K o triaxial Present study
Erksak 0.34 1.80 0.78 0.53 32.0 −0.012 0.68 0.34 Isotropic triaxial Vaid and Sasitharan (1992)
Akpinar 0.27 1.23 0.87 0.52 33.8 −0.066 0.64 0.39 K o triaxial Present study
F-75 Ottawa 0.22 1.85 0.81 0.49 31.0 −0.016 0.31 1.18 Plane strain Alshibli and Sture (2000)
M-Sand 0.55 1.30 1.05 0.75 32.2 −0.028 0.30 1.77 Plane strain Alshibli and Sture (2000)
C-Sand 1.60 1.48 0.84 0.68 36.9 −0.170 0.59 1.39 Plane strain Alshibli and Sture (2000)
RF Hostun 0.35 1.70 1.04 0.65 33.6 −0.015 0.26 1.00 Plane strain Desrues and Viggiani (2004)
Sand A 0.22 2.40 0.80 0.40 31.5 −0.060 1.02 0.31 Plane strain Hanna (2001)
Sand A 0.22 2.40 0.80 0.40 32.0 −0.031 0.40 0.18 Triaxial Hanna (2001)
Sand B 0.65 2.33 0.90 0.50 33.2 −0.051 0.87 0.30 Plane strain Hanna (2001)
Sand B 0.65 2.33 0.90 0.50 33.6 −0.041 0.35 0.21 Triaxial Hanna (2001)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY on 12/23/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Sand C 0.65 2.00 0.95 0.40 32.8 −0.044 1.06 0.33 Plane strain Hanna (2001)
Sand C 0.65 2.00 0.95 0.40 33.9 −0.035 0.47 0.24 Triaxial Hanna (2001)
Brasted River 0.26 2.42 0.79 0.47 32.9 −0.041 0.98 0.33 Plane strain Cornforth (1973)
Brasted River 0.26 2.42 0.79 0.47 32.0 −0.005 0.35 0.56 Isotropic triaxial Cornforth (1973)
Glass Ballotini 0.25 1 0.72 0.54 24.3 −0.012 0.35 0.72 Isotropic triaxial Rowe (1962)

results were used because only these tests form a sufficiently large of Silivri sand. Appropriate values of αψ and mψ are obtained as
data group for the evaluation of Eq. (6). −0.012 and 0.687, respectively. Evidently, the dilatancy equations
The properties of Erksak sand are given in Table 1. The tests of Silivri and Erksak sand have the same form, with different con-
were conducted at three different I D values that correspond to stants. For both, the influences of confining pressure and relative
loose, medium dense, and dense states. At each relative density, density are uncoupled. The results clearly support the validity of
drained tests were performed over a range of hydrostatic confining Eq. (6) for cohesionless soils. Further research is required for link-
pressures between 100 and 2,400 kPa (Vaid and Sasitharan 1992). ing the constants αψ and mψ to soil properties such as gradation and
However, in the present study, to prevent excessive grain crushing grain shape, and for considering the possible influence of variations
from influencing the results, results of the tests with pi0 > 2 MPa in stress path.
are ignored. Although it is assumed that mechanisms such as grain
chipping and particle shaving attributable to particle-to-particle
interactions are ever-present during any type of soil deformation, Peak Friction Angle
global particle crushing is a mechanism that requires separate One of the most important aspects of dilatant behavior is its impact
attention. Otherwise, the material that is under investigation would on shear strength. As previously discussed, the ϕp0 − ψp relation-
be in a transitional state of constitutional change, which is not the ship has been studied by several researchers. The most consistent
focus of this study. outcome of all these research works is the form of the ϕp0 − ψp
Fig. 3 presents the examples of the tanðψp Þ − pi0 =pa relation- relationship shown in Eq. (3) (Bishop 1972; Bolton 1986; Vaid
ships and the associated αψ − I D and β ψ − I D relationships and Sasitharan 1992; Chakraborty and Salgado 2010). In all of
constructed by using the data given in Vaid and Sasitharan these studies, parameter r is defined as a constant. Accordingly, by
(1992). Clearly, the relationships have the same form as in the case plotting the data of Silivri sand in this study and that of Erksak sand

0.4 0.6
ID = 0.26 ID = 0.70
tanψp = -0.017(p'i/pa) + 0.49
0.3 tanψp = -0.0093(p'i/pa) + 0.19
R² = 0.9698
R² = 0.8286 0.4
tan(ψp)

tan(ψp)

0.2
0.2
0.1

0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 20
pi'/pa pi'/pa
0.4 0.6

0.2 βψ = 0.687I
0.4
αψ

0
βψ

αψ = -0.012 0.2
-0.2

-0.4 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
ID I

Fig. 3. Examples of tan ψ − ðpi0 =pa Þ relationships and the associated αψ − I D and β ψ − I D relationships constructed using the data presented by Vaid
and Sasitharan (1992)

© ASCE 06014019-4 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

 in the study of Vaid and Sasitharan (1992) for the ϕp0 − ψp relation- Discussion
ship, Fig. 4 is obtained. As clearly shown, the ψp − ϕp0 relationship
is basically linear, as defined by Eq. (3). Therefore, the r parameter To assess the competency of the proposed dilatancy equation
for Silivri sand with the grading used in this study is 0.46. Similarly, [Eq. (6)], a comparative study has been conducted. Using the
when the ψp − ϕp0 relationship is defined for Erksak sand, r is ob- experimental data of this study and that of Vaid and Sasitharan
tained as 0.34 (Vaid and Sasitharan 1992). (1992), ψp values are estimated by using both Eq. (6) and the well-
The other parameter defined in Eq. (3) is ϕc0 , which is calculated established dilatancy equation of Bolton (1986). Then, ψp values
as 33.8° for Silivri sand. As a result of the tests conducted in direct estimated using both equations are plotted against the measured ψp
shear and triaxial apparatuses, it has been observed that the residual values (Fig. 5). Clearly, the estimations of Eq. (6) are in the same
friction angle for Silivri sand varies at approximately 33°. Thus, ϕc0 range as those of Bolton’s (1986) equation [Eq. (1)]. In this context,
of Silivri sand is reported to be 33°. According to Bishop (1972), Eq. (2) has been used for triaxial testing conditions to relate
the extrapolation of the ψp − ϕp0 relationship to ψp ¼ 0 (as is done dεv =dε1 calculated by Eq. (1) to ψp :Q and R parameters that pro-
in Fig. 4) yields the ϕc0 of the sand. The difference between the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY on 12/23/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

vide the best-fit results are obtained as 9 and 1.1 for Silivri sand,
experimentally measured ϕc0 and that obtained by extrapolation us- and as 13 and 1 for Erksak sand. Moreover, experimental data
ing the data in Fig. 4 is practically sufficiently small to support the suggest that parameters Q and R do not take soil-specific constant
suggestion of Bishop (1972). The small difference can be attributed values. This phenomenon was also observed by Chakraborty and
to the fact that the data in Fig. 4 are obtained from K o -consolidated Salgado (2010). This is interpreted as evidence of the influence of
triaxial tests, for which the control of stress state is comparatively the preshearing confining pressure (pi0 ) on dilatant behavior.
more difficult than for conventional isotropic tests. Although Eqs. (6) and (1) are similarly accurate in estimating
Evidently, the ψp − ϕp0 relationship is much better defined in ψp , as evident from Fig. 5, Eq. (6) proposed in this paper is more
the case of Erksak sand (Vaid and Sasitharan 1992). This can be practical. This is primarily because Eq. (1) requires the input of
attributed to the differences in sample preparation. Silivri sand mean effective stress at the time of failure (pf0 ), as opposed to the
was K o -consolidated, whereas Erksak sand was consolidated iso- preshear mean effective stress (pi0 ) used in Eq. (6). Estimation of
tropically. Moreover, most of the specimens of Silivri sand were dilatancy as a function of mean effective stress at failure (pf0 ) re-
overconsolidated, which influences the K o value. Additionally, quires the knowledge of ϕp0 , and this requirement introduces some
isotropic consolidation improves the repeatability of the tests and error into calculations. First, it is well known that ϕp0 is influenced
allows a smoother transition to failure state. by confining pressure. However, when a site exploration study is
Eq. (3) can also be combined with Eq. (6) to directly calculate considered, the general practice requires sampling. Obtained sam-
ϕp0 from pi0 and I D . This is possible because ϕc0 is a soil constant, as ples are then tested for strength parameters. The measured ϕp0 value
are αψ and mψ . The resulting form of the equation is
   0 
p
ϕp0 ¼ ϕc0 þ r tan−1 αψ i þ mψ I D ð7Þ
pa

Clearly, Eq. (7) requires four experimentally measurable soil

constants for calculating ϕp0 from I D and pi0 : ϕc0 ; r; αψ , and mψ .

50

40
φ p (deg)

30
φ p = 0.46ψp + 33.8°
(a)
R² = 0.6946
20
(a) 0 10 20
ψp (deg)
50

40
φ p (deg)

30
φ p = 0.34ψp + 31.9°
R² = 0.9278
20
(b) 0 10 20
ψp (deg) (b)

Fig. 4. ψp − ϕp0 relationship for (a) Silivri sand; (b) Erksak sand (data Fig. 5. Comparison of measured and calculated ψp values: (a) data of
from Vaid and Sasitharan 1992) this study; (b) data of Vaid and Sasitharan (1992)

© ASCE 06014019-5 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY on 12/23/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Comparison of the measured and calculated ψp values for the Fig. 7. Comparison of ϕp0 values calculated by using Eq. (7) with the
sands listed in Table 1 measured ϕp0 values for the test data of sands listed in Table 1

will be correct for the depth from which the undisturbed sample such as grain size, shape, and mineralogy. To achieve this, further
was retrieved. On the other hand, pf0 calculations based on this research is needed. As parameters αψ and mψ are defined for in-
measured ϕp0 value will not be correct for depths other than the creasingly different granular soils, it will be possible to link these
depth to which the tested sample belongs. Accordingly, dilatancy parameters to granular characteristics.
angle estimations based on these improper pf0 values will also con- Owing to the importance of dilatancy on shear band formation,
tain errors. On the other hand, if parameters r; ϕc0 , and ϕp0 are all Eq. (6) allows the determination of the geometries of shear planes
known, Eq. (1) is not necessary for the calculation of ψp ; Eq. (3) is with greater accuracy because it allows the calculation of dilatancy
sufficient. This is why Eq. (6) is based on parameters that are with changing in situ stresses. One of the most direct applications
directly measurable and calculable. Both relative density (I D ) and of this property in geotechnical engineering will be in small-scale
mean effective stress (pi0 ) at the preshearing in situ state can be physical model design. As is very well known, small-scale models
calculated directly from the information collected during the site of geotechnical structures suffer from the dissimilitude of stresses
characterization study or during the construction of artificial geo- between model and prototype structures. Particularly in case of
technical structures. As a result, it is possible to estimate ψp and granular soils, this incompatibility results in physical models with
ϕp0 for all applicable depths. Furthermore, the form of Eq. (6) is different dilatant behaviors than the prototypes. However, dilatancy
mechanically comprehensible and the engineering functions of the is especially important for problems in which the geometry of shear
parameters used (αψ and mψ ) are clear; αψ corresponds to the de- planes control the failure loads, such as retaining wall models or
crease in dilatancy angle per unit increase in normalized confine- footing models. Accordingly, by using Eq. (6) during model prepa-
ment; mψ corresponds to the increase in dilatancy angle per unit ration, I D can be varied quantitatively to compensate for the dif-
increase in relative density. ferences in pi0 between the model and the prototype; this way,
However, the most important feature of the proposed dilatancy dilatancy similitude can be achieved to a certain extent in small-
equation is that it requires two unit-independent constants, namely scale modeling.
αψ and mψ . Thus, these two constants can be solved for using two In the present study, it has been stated that the friction angle of
independent equations because this study has proven that the influ- cohesionless soils is a result of the combined influences of the in
ences of density and confining pressure on dilatant behavior are situ state confining pressure and relative density. Therefore, it is
linear and uncoupled. Therefore, only two triaxial tests or two plane possible to directly calculate ϕp0 from I D and pi0 , as given in Eq. (7).
strain tests are sufficient to calculate αψ and mψ . Relying on this Accordingly, to verify the accuracy of this equation, the data of the
feature of Eq. (6), data from soils for which strength test results sands listed in Table 1 are used to estimate ϕp0 values. Calculated ϕp0
are reported in the literature have been found and their αψ and mψ values are compared with the measured values, as shown in Fig. 7.
constants are calculated. Table 1 reports the values these dilatancy Clearly the qualities of the estimations made by Eq. (7) are high for
constants and also lists the properties of the associated soils. The ϕc all sands and all testing methods under consideration.
values reported in Table 1 are either obtained from the correspond-
ing references or calculated using the relationship proposed by Conclusions
Bishop (1972) [Eq. (3)]. Qualities of the estimations made by the
reported dilatancy constants are evaluated in Fig. 6 by comparing In this study, dilatancy angle and friction angle of clean cohesion-
the measured ψp values with estimations for all sands. Evidently, less soils are quantified as functions of preshearing relative density
Eq. (6) is suitable for different stress conditions, such as plane and mean effective stress. Thus, it was possible to calculate both the
strain or triaxial, and for different sample states, such as isotropic dilatancy angle and peak friction angle of cohesionless soils from
or consolidated K o . Qualities of the estimations in Fig. 6 are similar the data obtained during the soil characterization study, as long as
to the qualities of estimations for the Silivri and Erksak sands used the necessary soil-dependent constants are known; the proposed
in this study. dilatancy equation [Eq. (6)] requires the input of two soil constants
Owing to the clarity of the mechanical functions of the param- (αψ and mψ ), whereas the proposed friction angle equation [Eq. (7)]
eters αψ and mψ , it is believed that it is possible to link the param- requires four (αψ , mψ ; r, and ϕc0 ). These empirical constants can be
eters αψ and mψ to granular characteristics of cohesionless soils, obtained by conducting a few triaxial or plane strain tests, owing to

© ASCE 06014019-6 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

 the linear and uncoupled influences of preshear relative density and Chen, W. F., and Liu, X. L. (1990). Limit analysis in soil mechanics,
mean effective stress on dilatancy and friction angles. Moreover, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
it has been shown that the preshear principal effective stress ratio Cho, G. C., Dodds, J., and Santamarina, J. C. (2006). “Particle shape effects
has no influence on dilatant behavior. Accordingly, stress history on packing density, stiffness, and strength: Natural and crushed sands.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:
has no influence on dilatancy because dilation is purely plastic.
5(591), 591–602.
Obtained forms of the relationships are verified by analyzing the Cinicioglu, O., Znidarcic, D., and Ko, H.-Y. (2007). “New structure-
available data in the literature, and the competency of the proposed based model for estimating undrained shear strength.” J. Geotech.
equations is evaluated. Evidently, the proposed equations are easy Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:10(1290),
to use and necessary constants can be obtained by conducting sim- 1290–1301.
ple strength tests. The proposed equations provide a practical and Collins, I. F., and Muhunthan, B. (2003). “On the relationship between
accurate method for calculating dilatancy and friction angles from stress-dilatancy, anisotropy, and plastic dissipation for granular
in situ properties of granular soils. materials.” Geotechnique, 53(7), 611–618.
Finally, the proposed equations will allow the calculation of the Cornforth, D. H. (1973). “Prediction of drained strenth of sand from relative
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY on 12/23/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

variations in peak friction angle and dilatancy angle with depth. density measurements.” Evaluation of relative density and its role in
geotechnical projects involving cohesionless soils, Special Technical
Additionally, in the preparation of small-scale physical soil models
Publication 523, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, 281–303.
that will be tested under 1g conditions, uncoupled influences of Cox, M., and Budhu, M. (2010). “Grain shape quantifications and their
relative density and mean effective stress provide researchers with relationship to dilatancy.” Advances in analysis, modeling and design,
the flexibility to adjust either of the variables to control the dilat- GeoFlorida, ASCE, Reston, VA, 540–549.
ancy angle of the model soil. As a result, when the differences De Josselin De Jong, G. (1976). “Rowe’s stress-dilatancy relation based on
in stress distribution result in different dilatant behaviors between friction.” Geotechnique, 26(3), 527–534.
the model and the prototype, the relative density of the model can Desrues, J., and Viggiani, G. (2004). “Strain localization in sand: an
be adjusted to achieve the similitude of dilatant behavior. This is overview of the experimental results obtained in Grenoble using stereo-
particularly important for tests in which dilatancy influences the photogrammetry.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., 28(4),
expected behavior, such as retaining wall or shallow foundation 279–321.
Guo, P., and Su, X. (2007). “Shear strength, interparticle locking, and
models. Furthermore, once implemented in constitutive models, the
dilatancy of granular materials.” Can. Geotech. J., 44(5), 579–591.
proposed dilatancy function will improve the accuracy of plastic Hanna, A. (2001). “Determination of plane-strain shear strength of sand
shear strain calculations in cohesionless soils because the dilatancy from the results of triaxial tests.” Can. Geotech. J., 38(6), 1231–1240.
angle influences the form of the plastic potentials. Lee, K. L., and Seed, H. B. (1967). “Drained strength characteristics of
sands.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 93(6), 117–141.
Li, X.-S. (2002). “A sand model with state-dependent dilatancy.”
Acknowledgments Geotechnique, 52(3), 173–186.
Li, X.-S., and Dafalias, Y. F. (2000). “Dilatancy for cohesionless soils.”
The authors would like to thank the Scientific and Technological Geotechnique, 50(4), 449–460.
Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) for supporting this re- Rowe, P. W. (1962). “The stress-dilatancy relation for static equilibrium
search work with project number 110M595. of an assembly of particles in contact.” Proc. R. Soc. London, Math.
Phys. Sci., 269(1339), 500–527.
Rowe, P. W. (1969). “The relation between the shear strength of sands
References in triaxial compression, plane strain, and direct shear.” Geotechnique,
19(1), 75–86.
Abadkon, A. (2012). “Strength and dilatancy of anisotropic cohesionless Salençon, J. (1977). Applications of the theory of plasticity in soil mechan-
soils.” Ph.D. thesis, Bogazici Univ., Istanbul, Turkey. ics, Wiley, New York.
Alshibli, K. A., and Sture, S. (2000). “Shear band formation in plane strain Schanz, T., and Vermeer, P. A. (1996). “Angle of friction and dilatancy of
experiments of sand.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE) sand.” Geotechnique, 46(1), 145–151.
1090-0241(2000)126:6(495), 495–503. Sladen, J. A., D’Hollander, R. D. D., and Krahn, J. (1985). “The liquefac-
Been, K., and Jefferies, M. G. (1985). “A state parameter for sands.” tion of sands, a collapse surface approach.” Can. Geotech. J., 22(4),
Geotechnique, 35(2), 99–112. 564–578.
Billiam, J. (1972). “Some aspects of the behaviour of granular materials at Taylor, D. W. (1948). Fundamentals of soil mechanics, Wiley, New York.
high pressures.” Stress-strain behaviour of soils, R. H. G. Parry, ed., Vaid, Y. P., and Sasitharan, S. (1992). “The strength and dilatancy of sand.”
Foulis, London, 69–80. Can. Geotech. J., 29(3), 522–526.
Bishop, A. W. (1972). “Shear strength parameters for undisturbed and Vesic, A. S., and Clough, G. W. (1968). “Behaviour of granular materials
remoulded soils specimens.” Stress-strain behaviour of soils, R. H. G. under high stresses.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 94(3), 661–688.
Parry, ed., Foulis, London, 3–58. Wan, R. G., and Guo, P. J. (1999). “A pressure and density dependent
Bolton, M. D. (1986). “Strength and dilatancy of sands.” Geotechnique, dilatancy model for granular materials.” Soils Found., 39(6), 1–11.
36(1), 65–78. Yang, J., and Li, X. S. (2004). “State-dependent strength of sands from the
Chakraborty, T., and Salgado, R. (2010). “Dilatancy and shear strength perspective of unified modeling.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 130(2),
of sand at low confining pressures.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 186–198.
10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000237, 527–532. Yu, H. S. (2006). Plasticity and geotechnics, Springer, New York.

© ASCE 06014019-7 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.