Strengthanddilatancyofsands Bolton 1986 Discussion 1987
Strengthanddilatancyofsands Bolton 1986 Discussion 1987
Strengthanddilatancyofsands Bolton 1986 Discussion 1987
net/publication/239229537
CITATIONS READS
2,690 13,758
1 author:
Malcolm D. Bolton
University of Cambridge
248 PUBLICATIONS 15,423 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Malcolm D. Bolton on 23 October 2018.
M. D. BOLTON*
Extensive data of the strength and dilatancy of 17 sands were more accentuated than the points in
in axisymmetric or plane strain at different densities and common. There has followed a growing agree-
confining pressures are collated. The critical state angle ment amongst those researching the strength of
of shearing resistance of soil which is shearing at con- soil
stant volume is principally a function of mineralogy and
can readily be determined experimentally within a (a) that secant, rather than tangent, 4’ values
margin of about l”, being roughly 33” for quartz and should be the basis for discussion
40” for feldspar. The extra angle of shearing of ‘dense’ (b) that dilatancy towards critical states is central
soil is correlated to its rate of dilation and thence to its to an understanding of soil behaviour
relative density and mean effective stress, combined in a
(c) that both effective stress and soil density affect
new relative dilatancy index. The data of #,,., - &, in
the rate of dilatancy of soils and thereby their
triaxial or plane strain are separately fitted within a
typical margin of about 2”. though the streneth of strength parameters.
certain sands is underpredicted ii the looO_?OOOO That this understanding has failed to permeate
kN/m’ range owing to the continued dilation of their
more widely into practice can partly be blamed
crush-resistant grains. The practical consequences of
these new correlations are assessed, with regard to both on the structure of the historic argument, which
laboratory and field testing procedures. revolved around the theoretical relationship
between strength and dilatancy. Since practition-
L’auteur analyse de nombreuses don&es concemant la ers would usually be in the position either of mea-
resistance et la dilatance de 17 sables sous deformation suring both or guessing both, this aspect of the
plane ou axisymctrique pour differentes densites et dispute must have seemed sterile.
pressions d’itreinte. L’angle de resistance au cis- The failure to bridge the gap between research
aillement dans Y&at critique d’un sol soumis au and practice has many serious consequences,
cisaillement A volume constant est principalement une however. Engineers often do not appreciate
fonction de la mineralogie et peut se determiner facile-
ment a 1” pres, comme ayant une valeur &environ 33” (4 that a secant 4’ value derived from a single
pour le quartz et 40” pour le feldspath. L’angle supple- triaxial test on a single specimen can offer a
mentaire de cisaillement dun sol dense depend a sa conservative parameter for design if the
vitesse de dilation done de sa densite relative et de la testing conditions are carefully chosen
contrainte effective moyenne, combinbes dans un nouvel
indice de dilatance relative. Les donnies de &., - &, (b) that the full range of soil strengths can be
en deformation plane ou triaxiale sent separees par une
expressed in terms of the variation of (secant)
marge de 2” approximativement, bien que la resistance 4 with density and stress
de certains sables soit sousestimee dans une fourchette (4 that the conventional tangent parameters (c’,
de 100&10000 kN/m* en raison de la poursuite de la 4’) can only describe the full range of soil
provoqute par l’bcrasement de leurs grains resistants. strengths if both are allowed to vary with
L’article evalue les consequences pratiques de ces nou- density and stress
velles correlations en ce qui concerne les mdthodes
(4 that ignorance of the foregoing can lead to
d’essai en laboratoire et in-situ. significant errors in predicting ultimate
bearing stresses, for example.
KEYWORDS: friction; sands; shear tests; soil proper-
ties; statistical analysis. The objectives of this Paper are as follows:
firstly, to clarify the concepts of friction and dilat-
ancy in relation to the selection of strength
INTRODUCTION parameters for design; secondly, to introduce a
Following the early work of D. W. Taylor, the new relative dilatancy index and to demonstrate
strength and dilatancy of soils received a great its use in the prediction of the behaviour of sands
deal of attention in the 1960s. Several schools of at failure in relation to the available published
thought developed, the differences between which data; thirdly to consider the implications of the
new correlations to the procedures of laboratory
Discussion on this Paper closes on 1 July 1986. For and field testing.
further details see inside back cover. Most of the concepts which are to be discussed
* Cambridge University Engineering Department. can be applied with equal force to clays as to
65
66 BOLTON
&j//y kc
I 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8
E, % E,: %
(a) (b)
Fig. 1. Stress-strain behaviour of dense sand in plane compression (a)
at low stress and (b) at high stress (Barden e? al., 1969)
sands. In particular, the explanation of ‘true cohe- will dilate fully to achieve a critical state, at which
sion’ as a by-product of dilatancy in over- shear deformation can continue in the absence of
consolidated clays is particularly fruitful (Rowe, a volume change.
Oates & Skermer, 1963). The present Paper is The point of peak strength, P, is usually associ-
restricted in data, however, to those granular ated with the maximum rate of dilation defined as
materials for which ‘relative density’ is a relevant ( - d&,/de Jmax where E, is the volumetric strain
and measurable parameter. Accordingly, the and ai is the major principal strain (both defined
undrained strength problem has been set aside, positive in compression). The Mohr circles of
and the discussion is focused on fully drained effective stress, and differential strain, pertaining
behaviour in terms of effective soil stresses. at peak P are shown in Fig. 2(a). The peak angles
of shearing resistance &,,, and dilation II/,,, are
ANGLES OF SHEARING AND DILATION defined therein and given by
Data of a typical drained, plane strain, com-
pression test (Barden, Ismail & Tong, 1969) on a
dense, rectangular sample with frictionless ends is
shown in Fig. l(a). Strains were inferred from
:. &,,,, = 44.8”
boundary displacements and volume changes,
and they therefore underestimate the strains in
the rupture zone which developed between points (dsi/W,,, + 1 (,)
P and C. The achievement and accurate determi- (Wd~,L,,,, - 1 -
i kN/m’ T kN/m2
t
KO
dyi2
Fig. 2. Mohr circles of stress and strain increments of dense sand at maximum
stress ratio in Fig. 1 (a) at low stress and (b) at high stress
L I
I, = emax
-e
- emin
emax
where em_ is defined as the voids ratio achieved f2
n
in quickly inverting a measuring cylinder contain-
‘s
ing the dry soil and emin is that achieved under 40-
optimal vibration of a compactive mass under
saturated conditions and without causing crush-
ing. It has generally been found (Cornforth, 1973)
that relative density offers a superior correlation
d Cl,,’
compared with voids ratio for the strength of
sands, presumably since it compensates for effects I
301
of particle grading and shape which influence emax 0 10 20
and e,,,i,. I":deg
If soil particles were perfectly strong and rigid, Fig. 6. Stress-dilatancy relations
70 BOLTON
is implied, in which p’ is the mean effective stress by the researchers. Figures for emax and emin were
at failure, pi,,, is the elevated stress just suffkient essential to the studv. Tavenas & La Rochelle
to eliminate dilation by crushing and A is a con- (1972) have shown ;hat variations in limiting
stant. However, the quantity of data for &,,,, is voids ratios due to variations in technique
rather greater than that for $,,,, and that for between the American Society for Testing and
triaxial tests greatly exceeded that for plane strain Materials’ methods and those of Kolbuszewski
tests, and therefore an approach must be used should not usually exceed 0.02. This would imply
which can embrace these additional data. an experimental error band for relative density
It should be recognized that the angle of dilat- determinations of the order ofi& 0.05.
ancy becomes a meaningless parameter in an The critical state angle of shearing was central
axisymmetric triaxial compression test, since the to a rational portrayal of the data. The ideal
geometrical relationship of Fig. 2 applies only to method of determination for 4&t is from extrapo-
plane stiain. Indeed a Mohr circle of strain lation of a series of values of &,,, recorded in
increments for the densest sand in triaxial com- compression tests on soil samples of various den-
pression would indicate that mean strains in any sities, in which the rate of dilation at failure was
vertical plane were contractile rather than dilat- observed, so that a value consistent with zero
ant, owing to the implied distribution of lateral dilation at failure could be determined. In each
strain amongst all the available directions. It is case quoted in Table 1, it was felt that sufficient
therefore necessary to revert to (-~E,/~EJ,,~~ as information was available to make a judgement
the useful measure of triaxial dilatancy rate. on &, which should not have been in error by
Table 1 assembles the characteristics of the more than 1”. The observed range for the sands
sands used in the correlation study, comprising a was from 32.0” to 37V, the higher values always
large proportion of the relevant data available in pertaining to sands which were said to contain a
the literature and emanating from well- significant proportion of feldspar, the lower
established laboratories. The data refer to values pertaining to quartz sands. This was con-
samples tested in compression with an initial sistent with previous findings (Koerner, 1970;
height-to-width ratio of 2, unless indicated other- Lee, 1966) that &, for felspathic sands was of the
wise. Some researchers failed to disclose the order of 40”.
precise conditions of the test platens, and it must An initial perusal of the test data showed that
be assumed that some of the variations in results equation (11) was insufficient as a measure of
may be accounted for by variations in end fric- dilatancy potential, since P&, appeared to reduce
tion. The wide range of grading classifications is with reducing relative density, and at an increas-
made evident by the d,, and d,, sizes which have ing rate at very small relative densities. A relative
been quoted; estimates have been made in certain dilatancy index of the form
cases where these particular values were not given I, = 1,(Q - In p’) - R (12)
STRENGTH AND DILATANCY OF SANDS 71
D
In p:,,, = Q - p (13)
D / A
la
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
!4,,,,. dw
(a)
Fig. 8. Angles of shearing resistance and dilataocy in
plane strain
16
It will be seen that the lines are not apparently of
optimal fit since particular weightings have been
attached to the data. Where a sequence of com-
pression tests has been carried out at various den-
sities, for example on soil A, it is usual for the
experimenter to adopt a constant value of the cell
pressure providing us’. This leads to’enhanced
values of the mean effective stress at higher rela-
tive densities, due to the attendant increase in
crl’/uj’. It is consistent with the later data of stress
dependence to suppose that data of &,,, - #brit I A ‘D
in the vicinity’ of I, = 1 could be relatively (b)
reduced by 2” on this account, with a correspond- Fig. 9. (a) Triaxial test data for Berlin sand (K) (De
ing shortfall in dilatancy rate. Beer, 1965) and (b) triaxial test data for Mol sand (J)
Furthermore, the empirical relations have been (Ladanyi, 1960)
selected taking into account the whole spread of
data depicted in Figs 7-11, the required linkages
between parameters suggested by stress-dilatancy Figure 9(a) traces the triaxial data of Berlin
theory and the desire to produce the most simple sand and Fig. 9(b) traces Ladanyi’s triaxial data
expressions in equations (14H17) which could (Ladanyi, 1960) for Mol sand, which formed part
offer a useful correlation with the data. Statistical of De Beer’s remarkable study (De Beer, 1965) of
optimization has therefore not been attempted. the separate effects of relative density and mean
Nevertheless, the maximum departure of the data effective stress. It will be found that the proposed
is 2”, and more than 80% of the data lies within empirical relations fit the totality of data at
1” of the correlation. The zone of greatest depar- various densities and stresses within a typical
ture is at low relative density, where there is evi- margin of f 1” and within a maximum margin of
dence of greater rates of dilation in plane strain &2”.
than in triaxial strain, with correspondingly Figure 10 records triaxial data of increasing
higher angles of shearing. For simplicity, this par- effective stress at failure of sands with initial rela-
ticular phenomenon was conservatively ignored. tive densities either in the vicinity (kO.05) of 0.8
Figure 8 compares the first part of equation or of 0.5. The chosen axes are similar to those
(15), which has been shown in Fig. 6 to be almost used by Vesic & Clough (1968) in their classic
indistinguishable in operation from Rowe’s report of high pressure test results, except that
stressdilatancy theory, with the data from plane advantage has again been taken of the use of
strain tests. The closeness of fit is excellent, the ~L,x - 4brit as the dilatancy-related strength
widest departure being 2” in a &,,,, of 47” on parameter. It will be seen that the data of
dense Leighton Buzzard sand, G, which was the Kl,, - &, in Fig. 10 fall well along the appro-
only soil tested in the simple shear apparatus. A priate I, = constant lines produced using equa-
departure of less than 1” was more typical. tions (14) and (16), with a typical departure of less
STRENGTH AND DILATANCY OF SANDS 73
16- \
\
\
\
14% \
\
\ \
P’ kN/m’
Fig. 10. Triaxial test data for sands in Table 1 failing at various mean effec-
tive stresses
than 2”. The logarithmic axis carries p’ beyond indicate that significant errors may arise in the
lo4 kN/m* into the region where k2” scatter in prediction of pLri,due to the logarithmic scale.
&II,, was commonly observed around the best There is some evidence in the literature that
estimate for c#&, certain uniform, rounded sands are little affected
The best interpretation of I, values which are by confining pressures less than about 1000
calculated to be negative, owing either to extreme kN/m’, after which they begin to crush relatively
looseness or to high confining stress is that a con- swiftly. This is shown in Fig. 11(a) where the tri-
siderable contraction in volume (and consequent axial data of Lee & Seed (1967) for subangular
increase in I,) will take place before &, is mobi- Sacramento river sand follow the empirical rela-
lized at I, = 0 after large shear strains. Expres- tion (16) in contrast with Ottowa sand which was
sion (14) gives an indication of the value of p’ found not to crush significantly up to pressures of
(P&it 3 say) at which I, = 0 and dilation is sup- 4000 kN/m’ and whose data lie up to 5” above
pressed for any initial relative density: In pLri,= the empirical prediction in the medium-to-high
10 - l/I,. However, a perusal of Fig. 10 will stress range. Fig. 11(b) for Karlsruhe sand
0 OO
L onn 0
1000 oloooo" 100 200 400 800 1600
P’ kN/m’
p’ kN/m2
(a) (b)
Fig. 11. (a) Triaxial test data for two dense sands at elevated stresses (Lee & Seed, 1967) and (b) triaxial test data for
dense Karlsrube sand (P) at various stresses (Hettler, 1981)
BOLTON
p” kN/m2 0
Fig. 12. Plane strain data for sands in Table 1 failing at various
mean effective stresses
(Hettler, 1981) demonstrates a similar tendency in ticle diameter. This suggests that the sand was in
a uniform rounded sand noted for its particle a somewhat unstable state within its test
strength (Drescher & Vardoulakis, 1982). chamber, and may correspond to the remarks
Figure 12 introduces the rather sparse available made earlier about the sudden degradation of
information of plane strain tests conducted at some uniform sands which had displayed rela-
various stresses. Results in the middle band of tively little progressive crushing. Whether or not
stresses were broadly as expected, but the low the extra mid-range strength was due to this, or
stress test on sand G in the simple shear appar- to some other cause, it might be prudent to disre-
atus and one of the high stress tests on sand H in gard it for design purposes.
a plane compression apparatus deviated quite It should be recalled that the bulk of data so
markedly in opposite senses. Both tests must have far presented derive from compression tests with
been difficult to carry out satisfactorily, for con- H/D = 2 and some undetermined platen friction.
trasting reasons. Previous studies are ambiguous with regard to
For the low stress shear test, the effects of any the effect of reducing friction on samples with
stress and strain non-uniformities could have H/D = 2. Bishop & Green (1965), in an exhaus-
been strong. The sand was exceptionally brittle tive study of Ham sand, conclude that the effect is
and therefore subject to progressive rupture as 4’ negligible. Rowe & Barden (1964) found that,
could drop from at least 52” to 35”. Furthermore, across a full range of densities for Mersey sand,
the accurate measurement of stresses as small as f&n,, measured with lubricated platens on samples
15 kN/m’ presents severe difficulties. If the result with H/D = 1 were about 2.5” less than values
can be relied on, however, it might indicate an measured with conventional platens on samples
absolute limit to the rate of dilation of a dense with HID = 2. Tests conducted on both dense
sand irrespective of how small the stresses are. and loose Karlsruhe sand with lubricated platens
Until good low stress data are available for a on samples with H/D = l/3 indicated (Drescher
particular sand, it would be prudent to set a limit & Vardoulakis, 1982) that &,,,, was about 3” less
of 4 to the magnitude of the relative dilatancy than in the conventional test. Since the majority
index I,, irrespective of larger values calculated of engineers are used to working with test data
by equation (14). This would have the effect of derived in the conventional way these discrep-
limiting &,, - c&, to 20” in plane strain and 12” ancies are, perhaps, of interest principally to the
in triaxial strain, values which have been attained research worker.
but not exceeded in the test programmes recalled No attempt has been made here to extend the
here. discussion to tests in triaxial extension, or to tests
For the plane compression test on soil H at with arbitrary intermediate stress ratios. These
6000 kN/m2, the unexpectedly high rate of dilat- are habitually found to offer strengths that are
ancy at failure was matched by an even swifter intermediate to triaxial compression and plane
rate of softening to a critical state: the required strain values, the differences between which have
boundary displacement was about one half a par- been shown here to relate solely to dilatancy
STRENGTH AND DILATANCY OF SANDS
strain behaviour of soils, pp. 143-194 (ed. R. H. G. S.S.A. PhD thesis, Cambridge University.
Parrv). London: Foulis. Tavenas, F. 8~ La Rochelle, P. (1972). Accuracy of rela-
Rowe, 6.’ W. & Barden, L. (1964). Importance of free tive density measurements. &ot&hnique 22, No. 4,
ends in triaxial testing. J. Soil Me& Fdns Div. Am. 549-562.
Sot. Cio. Engrs 90, SMl, l-27. Vaid, Y. P., Byrne, P. M. & Hughes, M. 0. (1981).
Rowe, P. W., Oates, D. B. & Skermer, N. A. (1963). The Dilation angle and liquefaction potential. J. Geotech.
stress-dilatancy performance of two clays. In Labor- Engng Div. Am. Sot. Civ. Engrs 107, GT7, 1003-
atory shear testing of soils. ASTM Spec. Tech. Publ. 1008.
361, pp. 134143, American Society for Testing and Vesic, A. S. & Clough, G. W. (1968). Behaviour of
Materials, Philadelphia. granular materials under high stresses. J. Soil Mech.
Stroud, M. A. (1971). Sand at low stress levels in the Fdns Div. Am. Sot. Civ. Engrs 94, SM3,661-688.
5(
4: S-
$ Lower’?
xl
;; 4( I- bound
E
s
oj’: kN/m2 ‘\ us’: kN/m*
\ -sA
98 392
4.9 9.8 49 _ ‘\+e
cl -0 o- 90 ‘A 0 b 90
. 67 G, . 67
3: j- ’ B
0 D 45
6: deg
+ -t + 34 > 6: deg
V 623
0 Q w 23
.
A 11
A a’o
A -A PO J
3( I
6 07 0.8 0.7 0.8
e0 e0
(a) lb)
Fig. 2. Angle of shearing resistance @ma.versus initial voids ratio es measured at ur’ = O-OSkgf/cm’
(4-9 kN/m’) in plane strain for Toyoura saod: (a) IQ’ values of 49 kN/m’, 98 kN/m’ and
49-O kN/m*; (b) aj’ values of 98 kN/m’ and 392 kN/m’ (Tatsuoka, Sakamoto, Kawamura &
Fukusbima, 1986)
,”. e. \ 0
\ VU 8
Average for Lower A
1
6 = 90”
Lowe,‘\, &A
bound \+
v
+
\
\ T*
4
Us’: kN/m2 \
\ c-
4.9 9.8 49 0-P \
\
0 -cJ - 90 \+“+p”
67
. 1%
\
0 D 45 I \ 8
. 11
Ad A-0 J
(a) (b)
Fig. 3. Angle of dilatancy at peak stress condition $,., versus e, in plane strain for Toyoura sand:
(a) 03’ values of 4.9 kN/m’, 98 kN/m2 and 490 kN/m’; (b) uj’ values of 98 kN/m’ and
392 kN/m’ (Tatsuoka, Sakamoto, Kawamura & Fukushima, 1986)
220
DISCUSSION 221
Plane strain compression Height = 10.5, Well lubricated* 4.9, 9.8, 49, 98, 392 Corrected for
(Tatsuoka, Sakamoto width = 4, membrane forces
Kawamura & length (a; and others
Fukushima, 1986) direction) = 8 (method C-2-T)
Triaxial compression Height = 15, Well lubricated 2.0, 4.9, 9.8, 19.6, Corrected for
(Fukushima 8~ diameter = 7 49, 98, 196, 392t membrane forces
Tatsuoka, 1984) (solid cylinder) defined at
midheight of
sample
Triaxial compression Height = 7.8, Well lubricated 98 Corrected for
(Lam & Tatsuoka, width = 7.8 membrane forces
1986) (prismatic, square
cross-section)
5c
392
b 90
b ::
45 4 34
6: deg
+ 23
$ 11
7J
x ho
E
8
4c
35
15 20
hax: deg
Fig. 5. Relationship between Wm., and Jr,,, in plane strain for Toyoura sand
222 DISCUSSION
B P
p40’- TslO- e o- - 0.80
7---x----__-x_
I --X-
< -: --
--x.
I I
3OL Ol 5 10 50 100 500
us’: kNjm2
Fig. 6. Reletionsbips between I$&, &,.. and log u3’ at 6 = !W’in PlmJe SWin
compression for Toyoura saod
densities and for the entire range of angles S (i.e. The reason for this definition is as follows. It can
(X90’). A weak dependence of &_ and I(lmaXon easily be shown that a comparison of d&,/de, for
stress level at a stress range of c3’ 6 50 kN/m’ triaxial compression and plane strain is equiva-
for air-pluviated Toyoura sand has also been lent to a comparison of $,,,., when $,,, is given
obtained in both triaxial compression tests by equation (1) for triaxial compression and
(Fukushima & Tatsuoka, 1984) (also Fig. 7) and $,., = arcsin [--(d&i + de,)/(de, - de3)lmnX for
torsional shear tests (Tatsuoka, Sonoda, Hara, plane strain. It is well known that the stress-
Fukushima & Pradhan, 1986). The dilatancy dilatancy relations proposed by Rowe (1969)
angle *,,X shown in Figs 7(b) and 7(c) will be dis-
cussed later. The data for dense Leighton
Buzzard sand at low stress levels shown in fig. 12 (24
of the Paper also show the tendency that the rate
of change in both &,, and I+G,,,.~with In p’ for triaxial compression and
becomes very small at very low stress levels.
Therefore, as suggested in the Paper, it may be
quite misleading without a basis of very reliable
experimental results to assume that both &,,
and Ijl,,, change in proportion to -In p‘in low for plane strain fit most experimental data,
stress ranges. whereas the value of K for plane strain is known
Finally, the data shown in fig. 7 of the Paper to be slightly larger than that for triaxial com-
indicate that for the same density &,,, is larger in pression. Thus it can easily be shown that a com-
plane strain than in triaxial compression, whereas parison of dilatancy characteristics between
for the same density (ds,/dQ,,aX is similar in both triaxial compression and plane strain in terms of
testing methods. However, the data for air- K is equivalent to a comparison in terms of the
pluviated Toyoura sand, which were obtained at ratio K&,., . It can be seen in Fig. 8(b) that
the Institute of Industrial Science, the University * mBxis larger in plane strain than in triaxial com-
of Tokyo, show that the relationships for ~$6,~ pression at 6 = 90”. This point can also be seen
and (d&,/de 1h,,,, between plane strain and triaxial by comparing Figs 3(a) and 3(b) with Fig. 7(b).
compression are not as simple as suggested in the However, the difference decreases to a minimum
Paper owing to the anisotropic mechanical at 6 x 30” as 6 decreases as is the case for &,,.,
properties of the sand. It can be seen in Fig. 8(a) Therefore it is an oversimplification to assume
that &,,a, is similar for plane strain and triaxial that for the same density the value (ds,/dsl)maX is
compression at an angle 6 of about 30” where similar for plane strain and triaxial compression.
&,,,, becomes the minimum in plane strain. Furthermore, it can be seen by comparing Fig. 5
In Figs 7(b), 7(c) and 8(b) the dilatancy angle with Fig. 7(c) that to compare the value of K in
+,,, for triaxial compression is defined as equation (2) for triaxial compression and plane
strain the anisotropy in strength and deformation
characteristics should be taken into account.
- (de,,2 _ d )
-53 1 max
(1) In summary, the empirical relations for #,,,,
DISCUSSION
223
45-
15-
40-
lo-
F
D
$
x D
E us’: kN/m2 L
8
y”
I 0 2.6-5 8
35 A 6 O-7 1
t V 10-12 5-
0 20-22
0 51
99
: i97 = 393 kN/m”’
I*
I
3o06 0.7 0.8 0.9 0’
0.6 0.7 O-8
e0 0.9
ia e0
(b)
45-
40-
P
.o
I
s’ 0 X35.8
A 6G7.1
35- V 1 O-20
0 20-22
x 393
30
5 15 $0
Fig. 7. (a) t#mu; (b) JI,. ; (cl the dhmbip hmea Ok_ ad +_ at 6 = 90” in triaxial cempressioa (Fmkdma &
Tatsuoka, 198A)
224 DISCUSSION
us’ = 98 kN/mz
(4
0.4
e0 Qmax’@ = 90”, PS): deg ‘&,& = go”, PS): deg
0.70 46.5 17.0
0.2 0.80 41 .o 8.5
0.01 1 I I A
0 1o 20 30 40. 50 60 70 80 90
6: deg
(b)
and *,, proposed in the Paper can be put to Lam, W. K. & Tatsuoka, F. (1986). The strength surface
more general use by taking into account both of sand. Proc. Japan Symp. Soil Mech. Fdn Engng 1,
315-318.
(a) the anisotropy in &,., and ICI,,,,, Oda, M. (1981). Anisotropic strength of cohesionless
(b) the low stress level dependence of &,,,, and sands. J. Geotech. Engng Div. Am. Sot. Ciu. Engrs
$ max 107, GT9, 1219-1231.
Rowe, P. W. (1969). The relation between the shear
at very low stress levels at least for such clean
strength of sands in triaxial compression, plane
sands as Toyoura sand.
strain and direct shear. Gotechnique 19, No. 1,
75-86.
REFERENCES Tatsuoka, F., Molenkamp, F., Torii, T. & Hino, T.
Arthur, J. R. F. & Assadi, A. (1977). Ruptured sand (1984). Behavior of lubrication layers of platens in
sheared in plane strain. Proc. 9th Int. Con& Soil element tests. Soils Fdns 24, No. 1, 113-128.
Mech. Fdn Engng, Tokyo 1, 19-22. Tatsuoka, F., Sakamoto, M., Kawamura, T. & Fuku-
Fukushima, S. & Tatsuoka, F. (1984). Strength and shima, S. (1986). Strength and deformation charac-
deformation characteristics of saturated sand at teristics of sand in plane strain compression at
extremely low pressures. Soils Fdns 24, No. 4, 30-48. extremely low pressures. Soils Fdns 26, No. 1,65-84.
Goto, S. (1984). Strength and deformation characteristics Tatsuoka, F., Sonoda, S., Hara, K., Fukushima, S. &
of sand in small and large triaxial apparatuses. MEng Pradhan, T. B. S. (1986). Failure and deformation of
thesis, University of Tokyo (in Japanese). sand in torsional shear. Soils Fdns 26, No. 4.
DISCUSSION 225
Yoshimi, Y., Hatanaka, M. & Oh-oka, H. (1978). Undis- that the further reduction of cj from 50 kN/m2 to
turbed sampling of saturated sand by freezing. Soils 3 kN/m* (p’ from about 100 kN/m2 to 6 kN/m’)
Fdns 18, No. 3,59-73. does nothing to compensate for a low initial
density. Indeed &,,, for p’= 3 kN/m2 is about
1.5” smaller than that for p’= 6 kN/m2, which is
Author’s reply paradoxical. A prudent conclusion would be, in
The Writer has introduced an extensive and the absence of further verification for a particular
valuable body of recent data for Toyoura sand. sand, that the Paper’s empirical correlation using
For comparison with the empirical relations I, in equation (14) should be limited to the range
introduced in the Paper, it is necessary to select a of p’> 150 kN/m’. Any smaller value of p’
value of 4Eli,. This can, perhaps, be achieved by should be substituted by 150 kN/m’. The original
extrapolating Figs 5 and 7(c) of &,,,, against $,,,., relative dilatancy index could then be rewritten
to find &,,., at ICI,,, = 0. A range of values can be
determined from about 35” with the bedding at
6 = 90” to 33” with 6 = 30” in plane strain and In=,,[5-ln(&)]-l
about 32” in triaxial strain. In each case a scatter
of &-1” is discernible, which is typical. for p’> 150 kN/m’ and
If Rowe’s stress dilatancy theory is fitted
approximately, with lines of slope 0.8 following I, = 51, - 1
the Paper’s fig. 6, it can then be seen that dcri, is
greater for p’< 150 kN/m2. For dense soils (In = 1) this
is an identical condition to the limit I, = 4 sug-
(a) in plane strain than in triaxial strain
gested in the Paper: however, it is a stronger con-
(b) at smaller confining pressure
dition in the case of looser soils.
(c) in looser packings
Perhaps the most striking aspect of the Writer’s
(d) when compressed perpendicularly to the
data is his demonstration of the effects of inherent
bedding.
anisotropy. Strength and dilatancy in plane strain
This accords with the view that strength is reduce from a maximum for normal bedding,
enhanced somewhat by local dilation even in a 6 = 90”, to a minimum when 6 = 30”. At this
sample which is shearing at overall constant inclination of bedding, the plane strain data
volume. Shear stresses will tend to be transmitted (6 = 30”) had fallen as low as triaxial data for
through the stronger particle assemblies which strength and dilatancy on normal samples
are locally dilating rather than the weaker (6 = 90”). This interesting observation should be
assemblies which are contracting. This explana- coupled with the deterioration in peak strength
tion also satisfies the observation of Norris (1977) parameters following the induction of anisotropy
that, for a sand of quartz grains at moderate due to principal stress reversal or rotation (Wong
stresses (p’ u” 100 kN/m’), 4crit increases with par- & Arthur, 1985). Further work on the strength
ticle angularity from 29” when rounded to 40” anisotropy of other sands, with particles of
when angular, the latter value reducing at higher varying sphericity and angularity, would be
stresses. advantageous.
The 3” variation in 4cri, due to inherent aniso- Clearly, the peak strength depends on the rate
tropy is rather larger than might hitherto have of dilatancy, which in turn depends on the
been supposed. This effect adds to the problem of geometry of particle movements in relation to the
selecting a value for dcri,, but this uncertainty principal stress direction. The particle trajectories
need not be overemphasized. A value of 34” is apparently depend on the mode of strain in three
consistent with Norris’s observation and fits all dimensions, the inherent anisotropy due to
the Writer’s data to + 2”. bedding and the anisotropy induced by strain
Following this selection, the Paper’s correla- history, even for samples at a given voids ratio
tions fit the equivalent data of triaxial and plane confined under a given mean effective stress. Nor
strain compression perpendicular to the bedding should the possible effects of progressive failure in
(b = 90°) approximately as well as the average the soil mass be forgotten when applying soil
sand in the original survey. However, the Writer data to the design of geotechnical works.
properly points out that his data at small confin- The Writer has provided a valuable indication
ing pressures lead to the deduction that there is of the detailed behaviour of a sand at low stress
no appreciable further effect on soil behaviour levels, taking anisotropy into account-facets
when the mean stress p‘ is reduced below about which were omitted from the Paper. Designers
150 kN/m2. The tendency to crush must be cannot rely uncritically on strengths in sands
almost completely eliminated at these stress that are in excess of those measurable in conven-
levels. It may be seen in Fig. 7(a), for example, tional triaxial tests on normally bedded samples.
226 DISCUSSION