Shear strength of soils 423

Figure 7.45 Plot of q
versus p
diagram.

7.15 Hvorslev’s parameters

Considering cohesion to be the result of physicochemical bond forces (thus
the interparticle spacing and hence void ratio), Hvorslev (1937) expressed
the shear strength of a soil in the form

s = ce +

tan e (7.46)

where ce and e are “true cohesion” and “true angle of friction,” respec-
tively, which are dependent on void ratio.
The procedure for determination of the above parameters can be
explained with the aid of Figure 7.46, which shows the relation of the mois-
ture content (i.e., void ratio) with effective consolidation pressure. Points 2
and 3 represent normally consolidated stages of a soil, and point 1 represents
the overconsolidation stage. We now test the soil specimens represented by
points 1, 2, and 3 in an undrained condition. The effective-stress Mohr’s
circles at failure are given in Figure 7.46b.
The soil specimens at points 1 and 2 in Figure 7.46a have the same
moisture content and hence the same void ratio. If we draw a common
tangent to Mohr’s circles 1 and 2, the slope of the tangent will give e , and
the intercept on the shear stress axis will give ce .
Gibson (1953) found that e varies slightly with void ratio. The true
angle of internal friction decreases with the plasticity index of soil, as shown
in Figure 7.47. The variation of the effective cohesion ce with void ratio
may be given by the relation (Hvorslev, 1960).

ce = c0 exp −Be (7.47)

Figure 7.46 Determination of Ce and e .

Figure 7.47 Variation of true angle of friction with plasticity index (after Bjerrum
and Simons, 1960).
 Shear strength of soils 425

where

c0 = true cohesion at zero void ratio

e = void ratio at failure
B = slope of plot of ln ce versus void ratio at failure

Example 7.6

A clay soil specimen was subjected to confining pressures
3 =
3
in a

triaxial chamber. The moisture content versus
3
relation is shown in
Figure 7.48a.
A normally consolidated specimen of the same soil was subjected to
a consolidated undrained triaxial test. The results are as follows:
3 =
2 2
440 kN/m 
1 = 840 kN/m ; moisture content at failure, 27%; ud =
2
240 kN/m .
An overconsolidated specimen of the same soil was subjected to a consoli-
dated undrained test. The results are as follows: overconsolidation pressure,
2 2 2 2

c
= 550 kN/m 
3 = 100 kN/m 
1 = 434 kN/m  ud = −18 kN/m ;
initial and final moisture content, 27%.
Determine e  Ce for a moisture content of 27%; also determine .

solution For the normally consolidated specimen,

3
= 440 − 240 = 200 kN/m2

1
= 840 − 240 = 600 kN/m2




−1
1 −
3
−1 600 − 200
 = sin = sin = 30

1
+
3
600 + 200

The failure envelope is shown in Figure 7.48b.

For the overconsolidated specimen,

3
= 100 − −18 = 118 kN/m2

1
= 434 − −18 = 452 kN/m2

Mohr’s circle at failure is shown in Figure 7.48b; from this,

Ce = 110 kN/m2 e = 15

426 Shear strength of soils

Figure 7.48 Determination of Hvorslev’s parameters.

7.16 Relations between moisture content,

effective stress, and strength for clay soils

Relations between water content and strength

The strength of a soil at failure [i.e., 
1 −
3 failure or 
1
−
3
failure ] is
dependent on the moisture content at failure. Henkel (1960) pointed out
that there is a unique relation between the moisture content w at failure
and the strength of a clayey soil. This is shown in Figure 7.49 and 7.50 for
Weald clay.