INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR

SOIL MECHANICS AND

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

This paper was downloaded from the Online Library of

the International Society for Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE). The library is
available here:

https://www.issmge.org/publications/online-library

This is an open-access database that archives thousands

of papers published under the Auspices of the ISSMGE and
maintained by the Innovation and Development
Committee of ISSMGE.
 8/19

Plane strain strength from triaxial test

La résistance en déformation plane dans l’essai triaxial

T .RAM AM URTH Y, Indian Institute ot Technology, New Delhi, India

V.K.TOKHI, Maulana Azad College of Technology, Bhopal, India

SYNOPSIS: Theoretical relationships have been developed between axisymmetric triaxial compression
strength and the plane strain strength. The latter could be estimated solely from the former test
results for loose, dense and for any desired relative density. These theoretical relations were
developed using stress invarients and tested against all the published data. An excellent agreement
has been observed. These predictions also matched very well with the earlier relationships
established by the authors using p - q plots.

1. INTRODUCTION theoretical relationships were established link­

A large number of earth dams, embankments, earth
retaining walls and foundations experience plain
strain condition. To evaluate strength or
stress-strain data for solving these cases, one
would require special equipment to test soils in
plane strain condition. In most laboratories
plane strain equipment does not exist and where-
ever it exists it may not be feasible for others
to use or carry out experiments to get design
parameters. The only approach appears to be to
establish relationships between axisymmetric and
plane strain parameters so that the analysis
could be carried out with a greater degree of
accuracy.
ing axisymmetric and plane strain strengths.
First attempt was made by Raipamurthy (1981),
Tokhi (1982) and Ramamurthy (1983) to obtain
plane strain strength and predict stress-strain
response solely from the test data of axisymmet­
ric triaxial compression data. In the earlier
works the authors have used the relationships
between deviator stress and mean stress, more
specifically p-q plots. In the present approach
stress invariants have been used to predict
plane strain strength soley from the results of
axisymmetrical triaxial test data. The use of
stress invarients has the advantage that the
relationships become independent of coordinate
directions.

Various investigators have attempted to test

soil in plane strain condition. The essential 2. THEORETICAL APPROACH
differences between the apparatuses used are
mainly the shape of the specimen and the method Both ' t u and C . can be expressed in terms of
oct oct r
of preventing deformation in the intermediate
of invariants.
principal stress direction. The specimens have
usually been prismatic or cube/cuboidal in shape.
The plane strain condition is maintained with a ( 1)
rigid system normally consisting of rigidly
connected solid plates at a distance (equal to
nd r oct = ( 1 7 3 ) ^ 2 + (ff2-o-3)2 + ((f3 -cf:L)2
the length of the specimen) or with a flexible
system which skillfully monitors the inter­ ( 2)
mediate principal stress such that no lateral
deformation takes place in that direction. In = y 2 - 3J2)/9 (3)
both the systems a little deformation in the
intermediate stress direction is inevitable due where and J2 are the first and second stress
to the reduction in the thickness of rubber
membrane enclosing the specimen. Some investi­ invariants.
gators (Wood 1958, Cornforth 1964, Henkel and
Wade 1966), Hambly and Roscoe 1969, Lee 1970 and '¡i ~ (0i + (r2 + cr3 ) (4)
Nagaraj and Somashekar 1979) have used block
shaped specimens along with rigid systems to (5)
impose plane strain condition. Ko and Scott and J2 = ^2 + *^3 + ^3 ^1
(1967), Ramamurthy (1970), Green (1971), Arthur
and Menzies (1972), Lade and Duncan (1973),Green ( j 3 = q a- (T-) (6)
and Reads (1975), Rawat and Ramamurthy (1978)
have used flexible systems to maintain plane Therefore
strain condition. It is interesting to note 2 (J^ - 3J2)
that these two systems, rigid and flexible, tpct \
(7 )
adopted to maintain plane strain condition did (TT J.,
oct 1
not influence the response of specimens signifi­
cantly, (Ramamurthy et al 1981). Till 1980 no Considering the relationship,

749
8/19

(^ o c t ) = J(0{-0'2)2 + (<^-<T’)2 +
oct (8)
(cr’ + q + op
in the case of axisymmetric triaxial compression
test (represented by subscript c), wherein

' ^3,

Equation 8 becomes
/Toctv V 2 (q - c r p 2 J~i sin 0 ^
- ( 9)
3 - sin 0'
oct c (q + 2 op
Similarly for plane strain case (subscript p)
where in (T£ > CT^ > ^"31 assuming

( 10)

and substituting in Eq. 8 and representing in

terms of sin 0 , we have

1+3 sin 0 - 4/(1 - f )

■ U J
<£oct
t ’p
v -fl ( 1 + f 7 ^P (11)
For sand in loose state two expressions have
been found to be applicable; they are

f COS (1 2 )

1 -sin 0 '
and (13)
f 2 -sin 0 ^

Substituting Eqs. 12 and 13 in equation 11 and

rearranging________________________________
V^+(l+3sin^0' )^c o 7^0^T2-c o s ^0^)
X OCts _ -E----- ----------- E---(1 4 )
(< r ~ : )P _
oct v (2 + cos.¿a'I)
Figure 1 : V a ri at io n of ^ c ^/^"0ct
sin0 1
and (^ S 7 }P = ( 3 - L i n 0 ^ ) j 3 s in 2 ^ - 1 2 s ln 0 p +^ 5)

For the sand in dense condition ^ = 1/2 cos 0' 4 R^.R q , corresponding to point F (18)
and substituting in Eq. 11. ^
'J R^.Rp, corresponding to point G (19)
Xocts v/2 [( l+ 3 si n20p ) - c o s 0 p ( 2-cos0p)] ^ ^
where points E, F and G refer to plane strain
< ^ > p 2 i cos 0^ <1 6 >
condition.
The ratios R^, Rg, R^ and R^ depend upon 0C
Figure 1 shows a plot of equations 9, 14, 15 and
16. These equations are plotted for common where as ( TUC t /CT’ ,.) on the 0 U (equations 14,
UC L U
values of 0'. It is observed that the ratio 15 and 16). Therefore, 0p can be estimated from
(ijjct^^oct^ increases with increase in 0 for
the results of axisymmetric triaxial test data.
both the cases of axisymmetric triaxial and plane Equations 17 and 18 are applicable to loose
strain conditions. For a given 0 the magnitude sands where as equation 19 to dense sands.
of (roct/(W c is higher than ( W < W p - Since in the equations 14, 15 and 16, the ratios
A closer examination shows that the magnitude of octahdral stresses are the functions soley of
of CZToct../O'octt)p decreases with increase in T
u/ . 0 p, and are equated with the corresponding
values obtained as explained above from equa­
Refering 0 1,’ obtain (Z*oct. / ( Toct. ) p ratios
° to Fig. tions 17, 18 and 19. Therefore, the value of 0p
corresponding to points A, B , C and D for common in loose and dense state could be obtained .Loose
value of 0 0c from Eqs. 9, 14,15 and 16. state is assumed to be at a relative density of
Let these ratios be denoted as R 25% and dense state at about 90%.
A ’ RB ’ RC and RD*
It has been found from the results that the 2.1 Peak strength at any relative density
( r oct/0^)ct)p is Siven by
In order to obtain plane strain value of strength
rR..RR , corresponding to point E (17) ( 0 ) at any given relative density (ip), the

750
 8/19

following expression for linear interpolation C ornforth (1964 )

of the values between loose and dense state is Marachi e t al (1969 )
sugges ted, 58
Barden et al (1969)
3pl + 1.5 (0pd - 0pl)(lD - 0.25) (20) Rowe (1969 )
K = Gneen (1971 )
where in, the subscript 1 refers to loose state « 54
a> A l-H ussaini (1973)
and d for dense state and 1^ is expressed as a 0/
k.
cn Lade and Duncan (1973 )
fraction and not as percent. °/*
■g 50 Green and Reades (1975)
Rawat (1976 )
3. DISCUSSION Vagneron et al (1976)D y ‘

Somashekar (1 9 77 ) /
? «
The prediction of plane strain strength from the +/ «
Ïk.
knowledge of 0c and Ip using the Eq. 20 has been Q. y
- 42
made and the results are compared with the
experimental results of various investigators
N CL W û
in Figs. 2 & 3. For these prediction Eq. 18 was
used for Fig. 2 and Eq. 19 for Fig. 3. Both the 38
Figs. suggest good agreement between the pre­
dicted values soley from the data of axisymmetri-
cal compression tests and the actual plane 34
strain test results. This observation suggests
that one could use either of the equations 17 or
18 for loose soils. Since the data of number of 30
58
soils presented is large, it can be concluded 30 34 38 42 46 50 54
that the method developed on the basis of octa­ jL (experimental ), degrees
hedral stress ratio is generally applicable to
coarse grained soils. Figure 3: Comparison of predicted,and experi-
A comparison of theoretical predictions of 0 ' . . 02 1-sin ®p
made by various investigators with the pre- " mental results with fo^ 0^ = 2-sin «'p
dictions of the present approach, is presented
in Table 1. prediction made by Finn and Mittal
(1963) for 0 ^ < 35° is near to 0pd given in to Rowe (1969) is very large and covers the
column, proposed while for 0^ > 45° their pre­ range of 0 ^ to 0p(j of column, proposed.
diction is near to 0p-^ given in column, propo­ However, Rowe's minimum values are too low
(being equal to 0^) and maximum values too high.
sed of the table. This trend is opposite to
what is generally observed often in soils, since Such high values have not been reported in the
higher 0 and 0' are associated with denser literature. Predictions of Parry (1971) are
lower than 0 ^ for 0^ < 40° but beyond 0^ = 40°
materials. Values of predicterd 0 by Hoshino
his values fall within and 0p(jof column, ipro­
(1967) are lower than even 0p^ given in column,
posed. Predictions of Matsuoka and Nakai
proposed. The range of predicted 0' according (1974) fall consistently nearly midway between
0pl and 0pd-
58
* The most notable feature of the predictions
C orn forth 11964) /
/ & presented herein is that for each value of 0^ a
Marachi e t al (1969 )
54 Barden et al ( 1969 ) range of 0^ values between 0p^ and 0 ^ is
Rowe (1969)
A suggested. A method is also proposed (Eq. 20)
S’
50 Green (1971 ) to select the appropriate value within the range,
A l-H u s s a in i 11973) based on the important parameter influencing the
+ ' shear behaviour of soils namely the relative
/
D ✓ density which could be directly obtained of
46 / indirectly assessed through the dilatancy factor
■a
a>
k.
* I at failure.
Q. u
- 42
4. CONCLUSIONS

38 Lade and Duncan (1973) For the case of coarse grained soils, theoreti­
Green and R e a d e s ( 1 9 7 5 ) cal relationships have been developed between
Raw at (1976) the peak strengths of axisymmetric triaxial
34 Vagneron et al 11976) compression and plane strain. These relations
were based on the use of stress invarients which
Somashekar ( 1 9 7 7 )
have the special advantage of making these rela­
30 I I I______L tionships independent of the coordinate direc­
3u 38 42 46 50 54 58
30 tions. All the published data has been used to
0 p (experimental ), degrees verify these relationships. An excellent
agreement between the predicted and actually
obtained strength from plane strain tests has
Figure 2: Comparison of predicted, and experi­ been found over the entire range of porosity.
mental results with (Oi'+Qslp 2 C0S

751
8/19

Table 1. Prediction of strength in plane strain by different investigators

Finn & Hoshino Rowe Parry Matsuoka Proposed

Mittal & Nakai
degrees 1967 1969 1971 1974
1963
0P1 0pd

30 34.8 32.6 30 - 45.6 31.8 34.1 32.7 34.0

35 40.0 37.7 35 - 49.6 37.4 39.5 37.9 40.0
40 44.9 42.7 40 - 53.5 43.3 44.9 43.0 45.8
45 49.75 47.7 45 - 57.35 49.4 50.2 48.0 51.4
50 54.45 52.2 50 - 61.15 55.2 55.5 53.1 56.9

REFERENCES Ramamurthy, T. 1981. Panelist Report. Session

Al-— Hyssaini, M.M. 1973. Influence of relative
density on the strength and deformation of
sand under plane strain condition. ASTM STP
523, pp. 332-347.
Arthur, J.R.F. and Menzies, B.K. 1972. Inherent
anisotropy in a sand. Geotechnique, 22:1:
115-128.
Barden, L. , Ismail, H. and Tong, P. 1969. Plane
strain deformation of granular material at
low and high pressures. Geotechnique,
19:4:441-452.
Cornforth, D.H., 1964. Some experiments on
influence of strain conditions on strength
of sand. Geotechnique, 14:2:143-167.
Green, G.E. 1971. Strength and deformation\of
sand measured in an independent stress control
cell. Proceedings, Roscoe Memorial Symposium,
Cambridge, 285-323. s behaviour of sand under generalized conditions
Green, G.E. and Reades, D.W. 1975. Boundary
conditions, anisotropy and samples shape
effects on stress-strain behaviour of sand
in triaxial compression and plane strain,
Geotechnique, 25:2:333-365.
Henkel, D.J. and.Wade, N.H. 1966. Plane strain
tests on a saturated remoulded clay. Journal
of Soil Mechanics and Found. Engg. Div., ASCE
92:SM 6:67-80.
Hambly, E.C. and Roscoe, K.H. 1969. Observation
and prediction of stresses and strains during
plane strain of 'wet' clays. Proceedings,
7th International Conference on Soil Mech.
and Foundation Engineering, 1:173-181.
Ko, H.Y. and Scott,R.F. 1967. A new soil
testing apparatus. Geotechnique, 17:1:40-57.
Lade, P.V. and Duncan, J.M. 1973. Cubical
triaxial tests on a cohesionless soil. Journal
of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division,
ASCE, 99:SM 10:793-812.
Lade, P.-V., and Duncan, J.M. 1975. Elasto-
plastic stress-strain theory for cohesionless
soil. Jnl. of Geotech. Engg. Div., Proc.
ASCE, 101:GT 10:1037-1053.
Lee, K.L. 1970. Comparison of plane-strain
and triaxial test on sand. Jnl. of Soil Mech.
and Found. Div., ASCE, 96:SM 3:901-923.
Marachi, N.D., Chan, C.K., Seed, H.B. and
Duncan, J.M. 1969. Strength and deformation
of rockfill materials. Report TE-69-5, Univ.
of California, USA.
Nagarajan, T.S. and Somasekhar, B.V. 1979.
Stress-deformation and strength of soils in
plane strain. Proceedings of 6th Asian Reg.
Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Engineering,
Singapore, 1:43-46.
Ramamurthy, T. 1970. A universal triaxial
apparatus. Jnl. Indian National Society of
SMFE, 9:3:305-322.
on Soil Testing. Proc. 10th Int. Conf. Soil
Mech. & Found. Engg., Stockholm, 4:661-665.
Ramamurthy, T. 1983. Response of sands in plane
strain. Proc. Recent Developments in
Laboratory and Field Tests and Analysis of
Geotechnical Problems, Bangkok, Vol. 1,
pp. 511-521.
Ramamurthy, T., Rawat, P.C. and Tokhi, V.K. 1981.
Plane strain behaviour of granular medium.
Indian Geotechnical Jnl. 11:4:301-326.
Ramamurthy, T. and Tokhi, V.K. 1981. Relation
of triaxial and plane strain strengths.
Proceedings of 10th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech.
and Found. Engg., Stockholm, 1:755-758.
Rawat, P.C. 1976. Shear behaviour of cohesion­
less materials under generalized conditions of
stress and strain. Ph.D. thesis, I.I.T. Delhi.
Rawat, P.C. and Ramamurthy, T. 1978. Shear
of stresses and strain. Indian Geotechnical
Journal. 8:4:235-269.
Rowe, P.W. 1969. The relation between the shear
strength of sands in triaxial compression,
plane strain and direct shear. Geotechnique,
19:1:75-86.
Somashekar, B.V. 1977. Studies on stress-
deformation and strength of soils under
general stress state. Ph.D. thesis, Indian
Institute of Science, Bangalore.
Tokhi, V.K. 1982. Relationship between strength
and stress-strain behaviour in triaxial
compression and plane strain. Ph.D. thesis,
I.I.T. Delhi.
Vagner-on, J . , Lade, P.V. and Lee, K.L. 1976.
Evaluation of three stress-strain models for
soils. Proc. Second Int. Conf. on Numerical
Methods in Geomechanics, Virginia, 3:1329-1351.
Wood, C.C. 1958. Shear strength and volume
change characteristics of compacted soil under
conditions of plane strain. Ph.D. thesis,
London University.

752