Schan2, T. & Venneer. P. A. (1996). Giotechtliqul! 46, No.
I, 145-151
TECHNICAL NOTE
Angles of friction and dilatancy of sand
T. SCHANZ' and P. A. VERMEER'
KEYWORDS: laboratory tests; plasticit)'; nnds; shear
strength.
INTRODUCTION
The strength of sand is usually characterized by the
peak friction angle p and the critical state friction
angle Cy. It is generally realized that the peak
friction angel depends not only on density but also
on the stress path, including differences between
plane strain and triaxial testing conditions. Indeed,
plane strain and triaxial strain angles can differ by
more than 5 for a dense sand. For a loose sand at
the critical density it is often suggesled that similar
differences occur (e.g. Stroud, 1971; Lade, 1984).
However, some authors have presented data that
suggest a unique critical state angle (e.g. Rowe,
1962, 1971; Bolton, 1986).
This technical note presents data on a unique
critical state angle. The implication is that the
failure criterion of a very loose sand is accurately
described by the Mohr--coulomb condition, which
gives the known six-sided pyramid in principal
stress space.
The test data on dense as well as loose Hostun
sand are also used to study the rale of dilation.
This topic was extensively treated by Bolton
(1986), and it is now generally accepted that the
triaxial rate of dilation coincides with the rate of
dilation found in plane strain tests. Following
Roscoe (t970), Bohon used an angle of dilatancy
l/Jp for plane strain, but its definition is not
extended to cover triaxial strain. However, an
attempt at this was made by Vaid & Sasitharan
(1991). A different definition is presented in this
technical note which was previously given by
Vermeer & de Borst (1984) but is derived
differently here. Empirical evidence shows that
the definition matches dala from both plane strain
and tria"<.ial srrain.
Manuscript received II January 1995; revised manuscript
accepted 4 May 1995.
Discussion on this technical note closes 3 June 1996; for
further details see p. ii.
* Stuttgart Universi[)'.
145
LABORATORY TESTING
Triaxial compression tests were performed on a
quartz sand (Flavigny, Desrues & Palayer, 1990).
This socalled Hostun sand has been used for
many years (Des rues, 1984; Desrues, Colliat-
Dangus & foray, 1988) in model tests and for
research on constitutive modelling. The material
parameters were emin = 0648; emu = 104 I; Ps =
265 g!cm]. Fig. 1 shows the grain size distribu-
tion.
All samples were compacted by pluviation in a
steel cylinder lined with a rubber membrane
(to = 03 mm). Under a back-pressure of Uo =
50 kN/m 2 , the samples (Ho = Do = 100 mm) were
placed in the triaxial cell, back-pressure was
removed, and the samples were consolidated under
ac To speed up saturation, the samples were
saturated first with C02 and then with water. The
volume change was measured by pore-water
volume change, and the specimens were axially
strained at I% per minute.
Because the hcight-<iiameter ratio Hal Do of all
the samples was unity, special means were
necessary for compensation of end restraint. The
following anti-friction system was used. Both end
plates (enlarged diameter 110 mm) were made
from polished glass with a centre hole for
drainage. A silicon grease-rubber interface was
placed between the plates and the sample. Previous
tests have shown the shear parameters measured
with this system to be equal to those measured
100
>' 80
~
~
~
80
~
~
D 40
E
"
Q.
20
0~063 0125 025 05
Diameter: mm
Fig. 1. Grain-size distribution of Hostun sand
146 SCHANZ AND VERMEER

conventionally with only filter plates. The present ,--------------,-12

system ensures a nC3r-unifonn dcfonnation of the
sample up to peak stress ratio. 5
The bedding error 6.r c caused by the lubrica-
-8
tion, which can lead to a 60% reduction in the
initial moduli of axial stiffness. was numerically
eliminated using
6t'fto = 03[1 - exp( - 00037oill (I)
(Goldscheider, 1982) where 10 is the thickness of
the membrnne and 0\ is the axial stress. Also, the
effect of the lateral membrane restraint was 1 O~#'''--5t----:';!;Oc-----''1~5...L..'-~2;!;O,JO
estimated by assuming it to be a right cylinder. (1:% I
With the stiffness of the membrane Em (= 1400 kNl Fig. 2. Stress-strain bchllviour of dense Hostun sand
m2 ), the correction stress I!:J.03 c can be calculated
according to
(2) =:
5,----------_--,
where 03 is the radial stress and E] is the radial
strain. In contrast to the bedding error, this -8
membrane stiffness correction had little impact on
the test results.

FRICTION ANGLES
Standard drained triaxial tests were carried out
on dense Hostun s:md, with Yo = 16-3 leN/m) and
10 = 1-15, and on loose Hostun sand with
Yo ~ 139 kN/m J and I D = O 38. To check the
reproducibility of test results, four control tests Fig. 3. Siress-strain behaviour of loose Hostun sand
were performed at a fixed cell pressure of
OJ ~ 300 kN/m'.
Figures 2 and 3 shows test results; stress-strain
curves are ploned with the stress ratio on the left ,---------------,-12
vertical axis and strain-strain curves are super-
posed by ploning the volumetric strain on the right 5
vertical a,,<is. The test data show that the -8
reproducibility of triaxial tests is quite good.
A second step in checking the reproducibility
and thus the reliability of test data is to compare ~3
o
data from different laboratories. A direct compar-
IGS
ison can be made between the present data (IGS) o IGM
and dara from the Grenoble Institute of Mechanics .6. Non-Iubricaled
(lMG) (Flavigny, Hadj-Sadok, Horodecki & Bala-
ll".~:'--'-----':---"";----:':-'O
chowski, 1991), as both laboratories have used the o 5 10 15 20
same sand and the same testing procedure, [1:%
including the lubrication of end plates. The Fig. 4. Mean stress-strain bch:n'iour found in three
comparison was made by using test data for the laboratories
dense sand and plotting average values for a series
of control tests, as shown in Fig. 4.
Even with comparable testing procedures, dif-
ferent laboratories appear to produce slightly friction angles of about 42 and 40 degrees
different curves. Some differences with classical respectively are found (the precise values are given
test data (aspect ratio of two and no lubrication) in Table I.
are expected, but the deviations between IGS Figure 4 shows that all volumetric strains
results and IMG results are surprising; as yet there compare well up to an axial strain of about 10%,
is no clear explanation. However, in terms of which is well beyond peak strength. Differences
friction angles the differences between IGS and occur beyond an axial strain of 10%, when a
IMG are smaller than Fig. 4 suggests, as peak critical state is approached in which the sample
 FRICTION ANGLES AND DILATANCY OF SAND 147

Table 1. Shear strength and dilatancy or Hostun sand VALIDATION OF THE STRESS-DILATAJ<CY THEORY
under triaxial compression Several theories have been developed for pre-

dcg~~es
-""-' I deg~~'es
"'.. I "," dewees
dicting the volume strain in triaxial testing as a
function of the axial strain. In particular, the
1 applicabiliIy of Rowe's (1962, 1971) stress dila-
10 "'" 1-15 tancy theory has been shown by Barden & Khayan
133 (1966) and Wood (1990). This is also done here,
IGS 419 34-8
but in addition Rowe's idea of superposition is
IMG 401 357 140 emphasized as this is applied when considering
angles of dilatancy. The stress dilatancy theory
Non-lubric:ued 418 l7-7 126
starts with the expression for plane states of strain
10 = 038
D=R/K (3)
IGS 34-4 34-4 I 00
where D = -e3/e" is the stress ratio 01103 and K is
a coefficient representing the internal friction which
may be expressed as
K = lan' (45 + r/2) (4)

deforms with further change of volume. At the end
of the test, at an axial strain of 17%, this critical
state is not yet fully reached but softening and
dilation are clearly damping out. At 17% vertical
strain the IGS and Th-1G data yield friction angles
of 34.80 and 35.7 0 respectively. It is possible that a
0
critical state angle of almost 34-4 would have
been reached on further straining. This angle is
obtained from the loose sand data in Fig. 3, and is
assumed here to be the critical state angle of
friction.
0
Having obtained a peak friction angle of 40-42
for the dense sand and a maximum friction angle
of 34-40 for the loose sand, it is interesting to
compare these triaxial angles to friction angles
measured in plane strain tests by Hammad (1991).
The laner data are listed in Table 2 for various
values of the confining stress.
Taking data for a cell pressure of 300 kN/m 2 as
was also done in tria"{ial testing, a peak friction
angle of 45-47 is found for the dense sand and a
maximum friction angle of 32,5-34,5 for the loose
sand. A significant difference is thus found for the
dense sand, as other studies, whereas there is very
linle difference for the loose sand at the critical
state. (This finding is confirmed below by data for
other sands.) Hence it seems that a unique critical
state angle cv exists independently of strain
conditions.
For loose sands r is equal to the friction angle
cv at critical state, but values tend to be lower for
dense sands. Rowe derived these relationships by
considering the ratc of energy dissipation. On
changing from plane state of strain to triaxial
testing conditions, he computcd the ratc of energy
by adding the effects of two mechanisms. How~
ever, his resulting equation can also be obtained
without considering energy dissipation, as is now
shown. Similarly to Rowe, sliding on planes
governed by the stress ratio 0\102 (mechanism A)
and sliding on other planes governed by olloJ
(mechanism B) are considered.
Figure 5 shows the A mechanism with sliding
on a 0\--02 plane and the B mechanism with
sliding on a 01--<73 plane. Each sliding mechanism
constitutes a planar deformation, and it is thus
tempting [0 apply equation (3) to each separate
mechanism. This yields
-E,fEIA = DA = RA/K (Sa)
-E3/EI. = D. = R./K (5b)
where RA = RB = Rand e2 "'" J for triaxial testing
conditions. The basic idea that follows from these
considerations is that there are two contributions to
the axial strain, i.e.
(6)

Table 2. Aooles of friction and dilatanc\' of Hostun sand in the biaxial test (Ji:lmmad , 1991)

2 ",,,. <pps, degrees IjIPs.
3: kN/m P . degrces "'~s: degrees P P degrees

10 095 /0 '" 0'37

100 467-475 14'5-147 35'5 00

200 464-470 141-142 32,5-345 00

400 4;1-453 114-121 330-333 -1,3
148 SCHANZ AND VERMEER
---------- 6

/
/
/
/

4 Kev (ev = 34'4) ,," ",,"

2 3
2
//<1"='9.)
/ /
/ /
/ /
~/
Fig. 5. Deviation of triaxial dilatancy from biaxial
oL _ _L-_ _L-..!-_L-_-----1
state o 0'5 1 15 2
D =-2E:/t,
or in short Fig. 7. Stress-dilatancy plot for loose Hostun sand

D=R/K (7a)

D = -21: 3 /1:,
Hence the difference between the plane strain
(equation (3)) and equation (7a) concerns a factor
of two in the definition of D, as noted by Rowe
(1962). In the present derivation, the idea of
superposition is shown in Fig. 5, i.e. two localized
sliding motions in shear bands. In reality much
more diffuse pre-peak deformation patterns occur,
but this does not change the idea of superposing an
A~type mechanism and a B-type mechanism, which
leads to the above results.
The value of the angle ,pr in the expression for
K has not yet been defined. Triaxial test data are
now considered for this purpose. The data for
dense and loose Hostun sand are planed in Figs 6
and 7 respectively. Using equation (7) in the form
R = KD, R is plotted on the vertical axis and D is
plotted on the horizontal axis.
Nearly straight lines that pass through the
origin, as suggested by the expression R = KD,
are found. In fact the plot zig-zags around such
(7b) lines, as the strain ratio D is computed from very
small increments of strain. \Vhen a ratio is
computed, small errors tend to have large con-
sequences. Note that the zig-zagging would vanish
if D were computed from strain increments twice
as large. In Figs 6 and 7 lines are plotted for K/..
where f is taken to be the interparticle angle of
friction, and also for K ev , where the critical state
angle of friction is used. Accordingly to Rowe
(1971), the former should be used for dense sands
and the laner is more appropriate for loose sands.
However, the differences between the resulting
lines is small and an average value would be
adequate for most practical purposes.
ANGLE OF DILATANCY
The angle of dilatancy is first examined in plane
strain situations and its definition is then extended
to include triaxial compression. For plane strain
conditions, the definition is given in several
textbooks and by Bolton (1986)

1 +) (8)
6 .
sm
ps
= --.--.-
EI - E)

The first minus sign should be omitted when

contractive strains are considered positive. When
4 , considering the peak dilatancy angle rates rather
Kev (ev =34'4) "
/
/
/
than mobilized pre-peak angles of dilatancy, one
" ,,"J(
"" ')1
(Q =29)
II
should obviously use rates of strain as measured at
/ and beyond peak stress ratios. Analogously to the
/
2 / extension of the stress-dilatancy theory, the concept
/
/ / of a dilatancy angle can be extended to include
/ /
// / triaxial test conditions. Again the axial strain is
<- considered to consist of an A mechanism in

o,L----,d-_ _+ __-.-'15,-__--!2 combination with Ez and a B mechanism that
o 0'5 1
D= -'id~
relates to the other principal strain E]

Fig. 6. Stress-diIatancy plot for dense Hostun sand (9)

(me:m values)
 FRJCTION ANGLES AND DILATANCY OF SAND
_ D _ I - sin rp
DA - B - - . (10)
I + SIn rp
This yields for t/J the expression
tv/E.I (II)
sin", =
2 - iv/E.I
Hence, a definition has been derived for the
dilatancy angle that can be used to measure this
angle in triaxial compression testing. A more
formal deriyation based on concepts of the theory
of plasticity is given by Vermeer & de Borst (1984).
Applying equation (II) to the triaxial test data in
Figs 2 and 3, a (peak) dilatancy angle of 14 is
found for the dense Hostun sand and a vanishingly
small value of about zero is obtained for the loose
sand. These values correspond extremely well to
values measured in plane strain tests: Hammad
(1991) rep0rls virtually identical values to those
given in Table 2.
The plane strain definition (equation (3 for the
dilatancy angle is formally equal to the triaxial
definition (equation (11)). This is due to the
fact that E2 vanishes for plane strain, giving
Ell = El + E3, and so equation (3) reduces to equa-
tion (11). Hence the latter equation is valid for
both test conditions. This supports the finding that
Ihe same dilatancy angle is measured in plane
strain and triaxial tests. Bolton (1986) presents
numerous data to show Ihal bOlh tests yield the
same peak ratio of ElllE l .
ROWE'S THEORY AND THE ANGLE OF DILATANCY
The relationship between the dilalancy angle
and the friction angle is also given by Bolton
(1986). On combining the strcss-dilalancy equa-
tions (3) and (4) with the definition of the
dilatancy angle in equation (11), it is found that
.
rp =
sin tP ps - sintPr (12)
Sill
I - sin tP ps sintPr
The superscripts ps have been added to denote
plane strain angles of friction, as this formula was
derived using the plane strain equations (3) and (4),
and plane strain angles of friction tend to be larger
than friction angles measured in triaxial teSIS. I a
superscript is used to denote the dilatancy angle, as
this angle is considered to be independent of testing
conditions. According to Rowe cP~s coincides with
the critical state angle cPCII. If the data in Table 2 are
used to compute cP~5 from equation (12), the dense
sand yields tP~s = 36 and the loose sand yields
tP~s = 345. As the difference is relatively small,
there exists .. more or less uniquely defined angle
f Ps which corresponds well with the critical state
angle.
149
Instead of combining the plane strain equations
(3) and (4) of the stress-<!ilalaDcy lheory wilh the
definition of the dilatancy angle in equation (II),
one might use Rowe's equation (equation (7 for
tria."{ial tests with equation (11) to obtain
. sin tP tr - sin tP7
Slllrp= (13)
I - sin u sin tP r
This equation is the same as equation (12) except
for the superscripts, which mean that these angles
have to be measured in triaxial tests instead of
plane strain tests. In triaxial tests one' tends to find
smaller peak friction angles than in plane strain
tests, and Rowe reports a similar tendency for cPr.
Indeed, for dense Hostun sand it is found that
tPr = 29, which is significantly different from the
345 found earlier for ~s.
[t is concluded that Rowe's stress dilatancy
theory exhibits an appealing relationship bet\vcen
the friction angle and the dilatancy angle for
planar deformation, in that 4>~s = CII. However,
this theory needs to be supplemented for triaxial
conditions of stress and strain in order to obtain a
relationship bet\veen the friction angle and the
dilatancy angle. For this reason, relationships given
by Bolton (1986) are now considered.
BOLTON'S FINDINGS FOR PEAK ANGLES
Bolton (1986) assumes a unique critical state
angle tPcv for both triaxial strain and plane strain.
This is confirmed by test data for Hostun sand.
Bohon gives a large database which leads to the
correlations for plane strain
</>~' - </>~ '" 51. (14)
and
tP; - tP~v ::::: 3/R ( 15)
for triaxial srrain~ where /R is a relative dilatancy
index
10 = 10{Q -InUrn) - R (16)
which relates density and the applied stress level. It
was found that Q = 10 and R = 1 give the best fit
for different sands. Combining equations (14) and
(15) gives
</>; '" 3</>:' + 2</>,") (17)
Equation (17) is not mentioned directly by Bolton,
but is a direct consequence of his findings. Fig. 8
provides data from additional sources.
There is a good deal of evidence for the validity
of equation (17). It therefore appears that differ-
ences bet\veen friction angles disappear as looser
150 SCHANZ AND VERMEER
50
o Cornforth (1964) ,, tions. The extended theory is validated by the fael
A leussink e/af. (1966)
<> Hostun sand (dense) , ,, that data from plane strain and triaxial strain
conditions yield the same angle of dilatancy at
o Hoslun sand (loose) ,, least near and beyond peak.
" Equation (17) In contrast to the angle of dilatancy, friction
angles differ considerably when tria...ial strain and
plane strains are compared. This difference basi-
cally depends on the critical state friction angle, as
by Bolton (1986) and other researchers. As yet it
is not fully clear whelher or not plane strain
conditions yield slightly higher critical state angles
than triaxial strain conditions. Considering data
from Hostun sand, no such difference is observed.
, There is linear relationship between angles of
,,
o .. ma.'(lmum friction for both conditions (equation
,
30 "---_ _.,.. -,':- ___:'
(17.
~ ~ 40 ~
tis p: degrees
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Fig. 8. Maximum strength under pl:me strain and The authors are indebted to Dr 1. Desrues and
triaxial strain Dr E. Flavigny of the Instirut de Mecanique de
Grenoble for discussion on the triaxial testing
tcchnique, and for their biaxial testing data on
states are considered. This has implications for the Hosrun sand.
form of the limiting envelope for slates of stress in
principal stress space. For dense sJrnples the plane
NOTATION
strain friction is well above the Mohr-Coulomb
D diameter
prediction, but looser samples give envelopes e void ratio
according to Mohr-Coulomb. There arc a lot of Em membrane thickness
true triaxial data to confirm the former, but few H height
true triaxial tests have been performed on loose 10 dilatancy index
sand. Therefore it is often suggested that friction I R rel:ltive dil:ltancy index
angles are strain-dependent for both loose and K internal friction coefficient
dense sands. Considering results from Bolton and R stress ratio (ol/oJ)
the additional data of Fig. 8, the present authors do to membrane thickness
!::J.r bedding error
not agree. EJ radial strain
Another finding by Bolton is that the rate of p density
dilation is srrain-independent. It is found for both 00 b:lck-pressure
triaxial strain and biaxial strain that a, axial stress
OJ radial stress
(18)
1'". critical state friction angle
This suppons the idea of a unique angle of 1'p peak friction angle
dilatancy, as this angle was related to the above V'p angle of dilatancy
rate of dilation. Combining equations (II) and (18)
gives
. 03[. [. REFERENCES
smllJ= (19) Barden, L. & Khayatt, A. 1. (1966). Incremental strain
2 + 03[. 67 + [. rate ratios and strength of sand in the tria;~ial test.
Georeclmiqlle 16. 338-357.
Bohon. M. O. (1986). The strength and dilatancy of
CONCLUSIONS sands. Georeclmiqlle 36, No. I, 65-78.
From the results prcsented, the following con- Cornforth, D. H. (1964). Some experiments on the
influence of strain conditions on the strength of
clusions can be drawn concerning the angles of
sand. Georedlfliquf! 16, 193.
friction and dilatancy of sand. Oesrues, J. (1984). La localisation de fa defom/Q(;on
By using concepts of superposition it is possible dUllS fes muter;Ollx grcwlIfu;res. OSc thesis, Institut de
to relate the angle of dilatancy to triaxial strain Mecanique de Grenoble.
conditions. This yields an extended definition for Oesrues, J.. ColliatOangus, J. L. & Foray, P. (1988).
the angle of dilatancy which applies to triaxial Triaxial testing of granular soil under elevated cell
testing conditions as well as plane strain condi- pressure. In Advanced tr;u..ial resting of soil ami
 FRICTION ANGLES AND DILATANCY OF SAND
rock, STP977, pp. 290-310. Philadelphia: American
Society for Testing and Materials.
Flavigny, E., Desrues, 1. & Palayer, B. (1990). le sable
d'Hostun RF. Rev. Fr. Geotech. No. 53. 67-70.
Flavigny, E., HadjSadok, M., Horodecki, G. & Bala-
chowski, L. (I991). Series repetives d'essais tria;'(iau;'(
dans dcll.,,{ laboratoires. Archwm Hydrotech. 38, 1-2.
Goldscheider, M. (1982). Results of the international
workshop on constitutive relations for soils, pp. 11-
54. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Hammad, W. I. (1991). Modelisation non lineaire et erude
experimentale des bandcs de cisaillement dans les
sable. DSc thesis, InstiNt de Mecanique de Grenoble.
Lade, P. V. (1984). Mechanics of engineering materials
(edited by C. S. Desai). Chichester: Wiley.
leussink. H., Wittke. W. & Weseloh. K. (1966).
Unterschiede im Scherverhahen rolliger Erdstoffe
und Kugelschiittungen im Dreiaxial und Biaxial
versuch. VeriiJJ. Illst. Bodenmech. Felsmech. TH
Frideric Karlsnlhe, 21.
151
Roscoe. K. H. (1970). The influence of strains in soil
mechanics. Geotechniqlle 20, No.2, 129-170.
Rowe. P. W. (1962). The stTess-diiatancy relation for
static equilibrium of an assembly of particles in
contact. Proc. R. Soc., A269. 50D-527.
Rowe, P. W. (1971). Theoretical meaning and observed
values of deforrnalion parameters for soil. Proceed
ings of Roscoe Memorial Symposium, pp. 143-194.
Henley-onThames: Foulis.
Stroud, M. A. (1971). The behaviour of sand at low stress
levels ill the simple-shear apparatus. Dissertation,
University of Cambridge.
Vaid, Y. P. & Sasitharan, S. (1991). The strength and
dilatancy of sand. Can. Geotech. J. 29. 522-526.
Venneer. P. A. & de Borst, R. (1984). Non-associaled
plasticity for soils, concrete and rock. Heron 29,
No.3.
Wood, D. M. (1990). Soil behaviour and critical stare
soil mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.