Triaxiol Trioxiol Cmpteson Plane stan ewtesion it 28 a 3/8 efige 1? G,- a Figure 4-11. Influence of Intermediate Principal Stress on Friction Angle Source: Data from Ladd, et al. (11), p. 431. of dcy, relative density, and stress level. Table 4-2 summarizes the relationships for friction angle as a function of test type. As can be seen from this table and Figure 4-6, use of the triaxial compres- sion friction angle ($¢¢) alone will almost always be a conservative assumption, EFFECTIVE STRESS FRICTION ANGLE OF COHESIONLESS SOILS CORRELATED WITH IN-SITU TESTS Ac che present tine, correlations of the effective stress friction angle have been made with the standard penetration test (SPT), cone penetration test (CRT), pres- sureneter test (PAT), and dilatometer test (DMT). The CPT correlations are perhaps the best-developed, folloved by the SPT, The PAT correlations are never and less developed, while the DAT correlations are of Limited use at chis eine. In all cases, {t Ls presuned that the correlations use the erloxlal compression friction angle (Gee) corresponding to the appropriate stress and/or relative density condi- tons, Gorrelations with SPT N Value Correlations of the effective stress friction angle with the SPT N value have been nade for many years. Early work on this subject attempted to relate N to dee aisTable 4-2 RELATIVE VALUES OF EFFECTIVE STRESS FRICTION ANGLES FOR COHESIONLESS SOTLS Test Type Friction Angle (degrees) ‘Wiexial compression (TC) 1.0 te ‘iaxial extension (TE) 1.12 bee Flane strain compression (PSC) 1.12 $m Flane strain extension (PSE) 1.12 (for Psc/tc) x 1.12 (for TE/Te) = 1.25 Fee Direct shear (DS) tan“l [tan }ps¢ cos dev) oc tant (tan (1.12 3) cos dey) Gizectly, as shown in Table 4-3, The Peck, et al. (12) approach appears to be nore connon, perhaps because it is more conservative. These values also are shown in Figure 4-12 As discussed in Section 2, the N value actually depends upon stress level. Figure 4-13 is representative of the correlations between N and 3: as a function of stress level. This correlation can be approximated as follows: Bee = tan T[N/(12.2 + 20.3 Byo/Pa)]°-34 my These results tend to be somevhat conservative and should not be used at very shal- low depths, less than 1 to 2 m (3.3 to 6.6 ft). Improved correlations with the other variables described in Section 2 have not been developed to date. Correlations with GPT qe Value Similarly, correlations of 3; with cone tip resistance, qc, have been developed. Early work attempted to correlate qe to Bt directly, as shovn in Table 4-4 As described in Section 2, q¢ is affected by the vertical stress, Therefore, J ye should be correlated to both q¢ and Oy, as shown in Figure 4-14. This correlation vTable 4-3 N VERSUS Fp RELATIONSHIPS pproxinate $y (degrees) N Value Relative (lows/ft or 305 mm) Density @ oy ows very loose < 28 <30 4 wm 10 Loose 28 te 30 © 30 to 35 10 to 30 medium 30 to 36 © 35 to 40 2 te 50 dense 36 to 41 40 to 45 >» very dense > ar > 45 a> Source: Peck, Nanson, and Thornburn (12), p. 310. b - Source: Moyorhof (13), p. 17 per] 33 20 23 = 40 si 2 60 [a a Friction Angle, Pte Figure 4-12. W versus J Source: Peck, Hanson, and Thornburn (12), p. 310. can be approximated as follows: $e = tant [0.1 + 0.38 log (4¢/evo)] (4-12) Adjustments to this figure and equation for soils of different ‘compressibility and stress history should be made as described in Section 2‘SPT N Volue, Blows/tt or 305mm ° 20 40. 60 Vertical Stress, Fy, /Pg a Figure 4-13. N versus Jp and Overburden Stress Source: Schmertmann (14), p. 63 Table 4-4 de VERSUS Fee Yormalized Cone Tip Relative Approximate Jp Resistance, qo/Pa Density (degrees) <~ very loose <30 D to 40 Loose 30 to 35 4 to 120 nediun 35 to 40 120 to 200 dense 40 0 4s > m0 very dense > 4s Source: “Meyerhof (3), p. 17. Villet and Mitehell (16) presented a more general approach to evaluating Jy: from CET data which includes qo, stress level, shape effects, and soil stress history. Thess results are shown in Figure 4-15 and are suitable for low compressibility sandsFigure 4-14, 9/8 Cone Factor, Nyq €yq Vertical Effective Stress, dyo/Da Cone Tip Resistonce, a,/, ° 200 400 Ge versus ¥ec and Vertical Stress for NC, Uncemented, Quartz Sands Source: Robertson and Canpanella (15), p. 726. 18 —— wy Cone to sond Kats Cone to sond fe Bie 0-5 ho 30° 35° 725° Friction Angle, Bye Friction Angle Figure 4-15. $e from OPT Data Source: Villet and Mitchell (16), p. 193 ae 1 OeUsing the standard cone diameter (8) of 35.7 mm, Marchetti (17) reworked the data in Figure 4-15 to result in the more simplified Figure 4-16. Consistent with the development in Section 2 which related relative density to the normalized cone tip resistance, a similar correlation has been developed from 20 data sets obtained in calibration chambers and is shown in Figure 4-17. Mineralogy, particle shape, con- pressibility, and percent fines largely account for the observed range of $e at any normalized qc value Correlations with PNT Results The results obtained from pressuremeter tests also can be correlated with the effective stress friction angle, using procedures developed by either Schmertmann (14) or Hughes, et al. (18). The Hughes, et al. approach is presented below. In a pressureneter test, the basic data obtained are the expansion stress (py) and the volume changes (AV) in the pressuremeter of known volume (V). The resulting data can be plotted as shown in Figure 4-18a, using the cavity strain (ec) which is defined as the change in menbrane radius divided by the initiel radius and is given by: eo = (1 = egy OS 2 (4-13) in which ey = AV/V = volumetric strain. These data then are re-plotted as in a HELL 02 5 ! A 102080" 100-200 500 1000 2000 Cone Tip Resistance, 4,/0,5 7 = Figure 4-16, Simplified do - Ko ~ Bee Relationships Source: Marchetti (17), p. 2668 4-18) Y