Effective Stress Friction Angle, φ’

Interpretation of ‰ Drained frictional response of soils (use

secant φ’ and c’ = 0)
Effective Stress ‰ Effective frictional envelope for dry sands
or saturated geomaterials (undrained,
Friction Angle from drained, static, cyclic)
In-Situ Tests ‰ Drained penetration in uncemented clean
quartz sands (SPT, CPT, DMT, PMT)
‰ Undrained penetration in all soil types by
Paul W. Mayne, PhD, P.E. piezocone (CPTu) – NTH method
CEE/Georgia Tech

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

Dilatancy Effect on Friction Angle - Bolton, M. (1986, Geotechnique) Critical State Framework for φ’ of Sands
(Bolton, March 1986, Geotechnique)
Triaxial: φ'peak = φ'cs + ψ
‰ Baseline friction angle for sand mineralogy and
shape, φcv’ = φcs’ (= 330 quartzitic; 400 feldspathic)
‰ Peak φ’ above this essentially dilatancy effect
where ψ = dilatancy angle:
‰ φ’ (PSC) = φcv’ + 5 IRD
‰ φ’ (TC) = φcv’ + 3 IRD
‰ where IRD = DR [Q – ln(100 pf’/σatm) – 1] = the
relative dilatancy index. Use pf’ ~ 2 σvo’
‰ Note: Q = 10 for quartz & feldspar; = 8
limestone, 5.5 for chalk.

1
 100
Friction Angle of Sands from SPT - Schmertmann (1975)
Relative Density
90

Relative Density, DR (%)

80 Reid-Bedford*
Platte River*

(DR) of Clean
70
Standard Concrete*
60
Coarse (Gibbs & Holtz '57)
50 Fine (Gibbs & Holtz '57)

Unaged Quartzitic 40

30
Field Sites (Skempton '86)
Terzaghi & Peck '48

Sands from SPT

*Marcuson & Bieganowsky '77
20

D R = 100 ( N 1 ) 60
10
60

and CPT
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Normalized Resistance, (N1)60

OCR = 1 10
100
90
Relative Density, DR (%)

80
70 NC sands

EPRI EL-6800 Soil 60 OC sands

Properties Manual 50
26 Different Series
(Kulhawy & Mayne, 1990) 40
30
n = 677 data points

20 qT 1
DR = 100
10 300 ⋅ OCR 0.2
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Normalized Tip Stress, qT1

Effective φ' of Sands from SPT-N Value φ' of Sands from CPT from Russian Experience (Trofimenkov, 1974)

(Hatanaka & Uchida, Soils & Foundations, 1996)

Triaxial Database from Frozen Sand Samples

55 Ladd, et al.
(ICSMFE,
Friction Angle, φ' (deg)

0.5
50 φ' = [15.4(N1)60] +20ο
Tokyo, 1977)
45

40

35 qc proportional
Sand (SP and SP-SM)
with sqrt σvo'
30 Sand Fill (SP to SM)
SM (Piedmont)
25 H&T (1996)

20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Normalized (N1)60

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

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

55

φ' = arctan[0.1 + 0.38 log (qt/σvo')]

50
φ' (deg)

Chamber Tests Uncorrected

45 for Limited Boundary Effects
Friction Angle,

40 Frankston Sand
Ticino Sand

35 Edgar Sand
Hokksund Sand

30 Lone Star Sand

R&C (1983)

25
10 100 1000
Normalized Tip Stress, qt/σvo'

2
 Evaluate φ’ from CPT in clean quartz sands
Friction Angle of Sands
from CPT (Robertson & ‰ Assume: φ’ (peak) ∝ qc/(σvo’)0.5
Campanella, 1983)
o Trofimenkov (1974) from Russian experience

Based Partially on CPT o Chamber test data (Kulhawy & Mayne 1990)
Calibration Chamber Tests
Uncorrected for Boundary o φ’ (deg) = 17.6 + 11 log [ qc/(σvo’)0.5 ]
Effects
‰ Assume: φ’ (peak) ∝ qc/σvo’
o Bearing Capacity Theory – Limit Plasticity
qc directly o Cavity Expansion Theory
proportional
o Robertson & Campanella (1983) method
to σvo'
o φ’ (deg) = arctan [0.1 + 0.38 log(qc/σvo’) ]

Friction Angle of Sands from CPT

CPT Calibration Chamber Database Corrected for
Boundary Effects (Kulhawy & Mayne, 1990)
2
Cone Tip Stress, qt (kg/cm )
0 100 200 300 400 500
Effective Overburden, σvo' kg/cm )
2

φ' (deg)
1 46
44
42
2
40
38

3 36
34
32
4

φ' o
(deg) = 17.6 + 11 log[qt/(σvo')
0.5
]
Ziggy

GT Test Site GT Test Site, West Campus

West Campus

Atlanta, Georgia

Drilled Shaft Load Test Program

Sponsored by:

‰ Association of Drilled Shaft Contractors (ADSC) ‰ Association of Drilled Shaft Contractors

‰ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) ‰ Federal Highway Administration
‰ American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Georgia Section
‰ ASCE Atlanta Geotechnical Chapter

3
 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
0

10
Piedmont Residuum:
20
Silty Fine Sand (SM)
Depth (feet)

30

40

50

60
PWR
70
GRANITIC GNEISS
80

GT Load Test Site, West Campus GT Load Test Site, West Campus

SPT N-values (bpf) SPT N-values (bpf)

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
0 0

Crew 1 Crew 1
10 10
Crew 2 Crew 2
Depth (feet)

20 Crew 3
Depth (feet)

20 Crew 3

30 30

40 40

50
50

60
60

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

SPT Summary - Georgia Tech
qT (MPa) fS (kPa)
SPT N-values (bpf) 0 2 4 6 8 0 100 200 300
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50
0 2 2

4 4
10
Silty Sand (SM): 6 6
Piedmont Residuum
Depth (feet)

20
8 8
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

30 10 10

12 12
40
14 14

50 16 16

18 18
60
20 20

4
 CPT Soil Behavioral Classification - GT West Campus CPT Soil Behavioral Classification - GT West Campus
Robertson & Campanella (1983)
1000 Robertson et al. (1986)
0 to 3 m 0 to 3 m
1000
Zone 12 - sand 3 to 20 m
Zone
to clayey sand Zone 11 -
Sands 10
3 to 20 m Very stiff 1=sensitive clay
Silty
Cone Bearing, qt (bar)

Sandy Silts 9 fine grained

Cone Bearing, qt (bar)

Sands 2=organic soil
100 & Silts 8 7 soil
100 6
5 3=clay
Sands
4=silty clay
4
5=clayey silt
Silty Sands
10
10 6=sandy silt
Clayey 3
Silts Sandy Silts Zone 3 - Clay 7=silty sand
Zone 1
& Silts
Clays Sensitive 8=sand to silty sand
Clay Zone 2 - Organic
9=sand
1 Clayey 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Silts & 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Silty Clays 10=gravelly sand
Friction Ratio, FR = fs/qt (%) Friction Ratio, FR = fs/qt (%)

CPT Soil Behavioral Classification - GT West Campus CPT Soil Behavioral Classification - GT West Campus

Robertson (1990) Method

0 to 3 m Olsen & Malone (1988)
1000
1000
SBT 8
SBT 7 3 to 20 m n = 0.6 0 to 3 m
Gravels &
Normalized Q = (qt-σvo)/σvo'

1 = Sensitive Clay n = 0.66

n

Sands
Normalized qc1 = qt/(σvo')

n = 0.83 3 to 20 m
SBT 9
2=Organic
100
100 n = 1.0
SBT 6 3 = Clays SCN = 4
Sands

4=Silt Mixtures
SBT 5 SCN=3
Sand Mixtures
5=Sand Mixtures
10
SBT 4 10
SCN=2
6=Sands
Silt Mixtures
SBT 1 SBT 3 7=Gravelly Sand Clays SCN=1

SBT 2 8=Stiff Sand to Peats

1 Clayey Sand Clay/Peat
0.1 1 10 9=Stiff Clays 1
Friction Ratio, FR = fs/(qt-σvo) 0.1 1 10
Friction Ratio, FR = (fs/qt)(σvo)n-1

qc/N60 Interrelationship qt/N60 Interrelationship (K&M'90)

ADSC Load Test at West GT Campus
Penetration Resistance
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0

4 R = 3.3
Depth (meters)

10
CPT qc (atm)

12
R*SPT-N
(blows/0.3m)
14

5
 Triaxial Summary – GT Campus SPT Summary - Georgia Tech

Effective Friction Angle, φ ' (deg)

600
Shear q = (σ1-σ3)/2 (kPa)

25 30 35 40 45 50
500 0

400
10
φ' = 36.0o
300 Correlation by
c' = 0

Depth (feet)
20

200
Hatanaka &
30 Uchida, 1996
100
40
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 50

Effective Stress, p' = (σ1'+σ3')/2 (kPa) 60

SPT Summary - Georgia Tech SPT Summary - Georgia Tech

Effective Friction Angle, φ' (deg) Effective Friction Angle, φ' (deg)
25 30 35 40 45 50 25 30 35 40 45 50
0 0

10 10
Depth (feet)

Depth (feet)

20 H & U'96
20
Tr iaxial H & U'96
30 30
T riaxial
40
40
Schmertmann'75
50
50

60
60

ADSC Load Test at West GT Campus ADSC Load Test at West GT Campus

Effective Stress Friction Angle, φ ' (deg) Effective Stress Friction Angle, φ' (deg)
20 30 40 50 20 30 40 50
0 0

CPT qt
2 2 CPT qt
(C&R'83)
(K&M'90)
4
Triaxial CPT qt
4
Tests
Depth (meters)

Depth (meters)

(C&R'83)
6 6 Triaxial
Tests
8 8

10 10

12 12

14 14

6
 CIDC Triaxial Results on Frozen Sand Samples GT West Campus Test Site
(Mimura, 2003)
0
50
1
Yodo River
Natori River 2

Tone River 3
45
Triaxial φ' (deg.)

Edo River 4 po

Depth (meters)
K&M90 5 p1
6
40 7
8
9
 qt 
35 φ ' (deg)= 17.6 + 11.0 ⋅ log  10
 σ '⋅σ  11
 vo atm 
12
13
30
14
0 100 200 300
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Normalized Tip Stress, qt1 Pressure (kPa)

DMTs at GT West Campus Test Site

GT West Campus Test Site
Effective Friction Angle φ' (deg)
20 25 30 35 40 45
0
1
2 Marchetti, 1997
3 Marchetti, 1996
4 C& R 1991
5
Lab Triaxial
Depth (m)

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Effective Stress Piezocone Penetration Effective Stress Strength Parameters

Senneset, Sandven, and Janbu (TRR 1989)
• Bearing Capacity Theories (sands)
Bq = 0.1
100
0.2 – Durgunoglu & Mitchell (1975); Vesic
NM = ∆ (qt-σ vo)/∆σ vo' (1977); Robertson & Campanella (1983);
Resistance Number, Nm

0.4
0.6
0.8 Sands, Salgado et al. (1994); Jamiolkowski &
1.0
Silts,
LoPresti (2000) φ’ Direct
• CSSM Dilatancy Approach using DR from
and
10
CPT in Sands (Bolton, 1986)
Clays ψ-φ’ (psi-phi)
Bq = (u2-u0)/(qt-σ vo)
• Effective Stress Method for all soil types
1
20 30 40 50
(Senneset, Janbu & Sandven, 1989)
φ ' (degrees)

7
 NTH Effective Penetration Theory for Friction Angle
Effective Stress Strength Parameters (Senneset, et. al, ISOPT-1988, TRR 1989)

1000

• Effective Stress Method for all soil types NM = ∆(qt-σvo)/∆σvo' Bq =

Resistance Number, Nm
0
(Senneset, Janbu & Sandven, 1989)
(Robertson & Campanella (1983)
0.1
100
0.2
0.4
0.6

“Sci-Fi”
0.8
1.0
10

Professor Mike Bq = (u2-u0)/(qt-σvo)

Jamiolkowski 1
Politechnico Torino 20 30 40 50
φ' (degrees)

NTH Effective Penetration Theory NTH Effective Penetration Theory

Ref: Senneset, et al. (1982, ESOPT)
ƒ Cone Resistance Number (Nm)
Nq − 1
Nm =
1 + N u ⋅ Bq
ƒ Intercept = attraction a’ = c’ cotφ’
ƒ Porewater Bearing Factor, Nu
N u = 6 ⋅ tan φ '⋅(1 + tan φ ' )
ƒ Cone Resistance Number (Nm) = measured
qt − σ vo
= slope of (qt-σvo) vs. σvo’
σ vo '+ a '
ƒ Intercept = attraction a’ = c’ cotφ’
qt
ƒ If a’ = 0 assumed: Nm = Q = (qt- σvo)/σvo’
−β
ƒ Porewater Parameter: Bq = ∆u2/(qt-σvo)
+β

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

N q = tan 2 (45° + 12 φ ' ) exp[(π − 2β ) tan φ ' ] ƒ Q and Bq same as in Robertson (1990) soil
Drained Penetration: qt + a' = Nq (σvo' + a') behavioral classification charts.

Gloucester Test Site, Ontario

Canadian National Test Site, Gloucester, Ontario
(Konrad & Law, Canadian Geot. J., August 1987)

Piezocone Readings (kPa) Gloucester CPTu, Ontario Gloucester CPTu, Ontario

800 800
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Excess Porewater, u2-uo (kPa)
Net Cone Stress, qt-σvo (kPa)

700 700 (Konrad and Law, 1986, Geotechnique)

0 600 600

2 500 500

4 400 400

300 300
qt
Depth (meters)

6
200 200
8 ub Nm = Q = 6.3
100 100
Bq = 0.65
10 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
12
Effective Overburden, σvo' (kPa) Net Cone Stress, qt -σvo (kPa)
14
16
18
20

8
 Gloucester, Ontario Approximation of NTH-φ’ for Bq > 0.1
Senneset & Janbu (1985) Senneset, Sandven, & Janbu (1989, Transportation Research Record 1235)

Effective Stress Penetration Bq = 0.1

100 Bq
100

Resistance Number, Nm
0.2 NM = ∆(qt-σvo)/∆σvo'
0.4 0.1
B q = (u2-u0)/(qt-σ vo) 0.6 Bq = (u2-u0)/(qt-σvo) 0.2
Resistance Number, Nm

0.4
0.8
0.6
1.0 Konrad For a’ = 0: 10 0.8
& Law 1.0
(1987):
10
35o for Nm = Q
silty clays
=(qt-σvo)/σvo' 1
20 25 30 35 40 45
φ’ = 34.50 φ' (degrees)

ϕ ' ≈ 29 .5 ⋅ B q 0.121 ⋅ [0 .256 + 0 .336 Bq + log( N m ) ]

1
20 30 40 50
φ' (degrees) where 20 ° < ϕ ' < 45 ° and 0 .1 < B q < 1 .0

Approx. NTH Method - Gloucester, Ontario

Gloucester Test Site, Ontario
Gloucester CPTu, Ontario
Gloucester CPTu, Ontario Gloucester CPTu, Ontario
Secant φ ' (degrees)
Normalized Cone Resistance, Q Normalized Porewater, Bq 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0
0 0
2

5
4
5
Depth (meters)

6
Depth (meters)

Depth (meters)

10 10
8

10

15 15 12

14

20 20 16

18

20

SCPTu Sounding, Sandpoint, Idaho Evaluating φ’ at Sandpoint, Idaho (NTH Method)

Tip Stress qt (MPa) Sleeve Friction, fs (kPa) Porewater, ub (MPa) Effective Stress Penetration (NTH Method)
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 50 100 150 0 1 2 3 3000
0 0 0
Net Cone Stress, qt-σvo (kPa)

10 10 10

20 20 20 2000
Depth (meters)

30 30 30

40 40 40

1000
50 50 50

60
Nm = 3.43
60 60

70 70
0
70
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

80 80 80
Effective Overburden, σvo' (kPa)

9
 Evaluation of φ’ at Sandpoint, Idaho (NTH Method) Evaluation of φ’ by CPTu (NTH Method)
Effective Stress Penetration (NTH Method) B q = 0.1
100
2000 0.2
NM = ∆(qt-σvo)/∆σ vo' 0.4

Resistance Number, Nm
0.6
(kPa)

1500 0.8
1.0
∆u2

Bq = 0.80
Porewater Pressures

1000 10

500

Bq = (u2-u0)/(qt-σ vo)

0 1
0 500 1000 1500 2000 20 30 40 50
Net Cone Tip Resistance, qt-σvo (kPa) φ' (degrees)
= 32.30

Interpretation of Effective Friction Angle Interpretation of Effective Friction Angle

Maximum q Criterion - TRIAXIAL DATA SUMMARY - IDAHO Max. (q/p') ratio criterion - IDAHO Triaxial Data
250
250

200 φ' = 32.3 deg 200 φ' = 33.7 deg

q = (σ1'-σ3')/2
q = (σ 1'-σ 3')/2

c' = 0 kPa c' = 0 kPa

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
p' = (σ 1' + σ 3')/2 p' = (σ1' + σ3')/2

CPTu Evaluations in Silty Clays, Sandpoint, Idaho

Normalized Q Normalized Bq Effective φ'
0 2 4 6 8 10 0.0 0.5 1.0 20 25 30 35 40 45
0

10

20
Depth (meters)

30

40

50

60

70

80

10