Schanz, T. & Vermeer, P. A. (1996). GeÂotechnique 46, No.
1, 145±151
TECHNICAL NOTE
Angles of friction and dilatancy of sand
T. S C H A N Z  a n d P. A . V E R M E E R 
KEYWORDS: laboratory tests; plasticity; sands; shear
strength.
INTRODUCTION
The strength of sand is usually characterized by the
peak friction angle öp and the critical state friction
angle öcv . 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 58 for a dense sand. For a loose sand at
the critical density it is often suggested 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 rate 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 (1970), Bolton used an angle of dilatancy
øp for plane strain, but its de®nition is not
extended to cover triaxial strain. However, an
attempt at this was made by Vaid & Sasitharan
(1991). A different de®nition 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 de®nition matches data from both plane strain
and triaxial strain.
Manuscript received 11 January 1995; revised manuscript
accepted 4 May 1995.
Discussion on this technical note closes 3 June 1996; for
further details see p. ii.
 Stuttgart University.
145
Article number = 632
LABORATORY TESTING
Triaxial compression tests were performed on a
quartz sand (Flavigny, Desrues & Palayer, 1990).
This so-called Hostun sand has been used for
many years (Desrues, 1984; Desrues, Colliat-
Dangus & Foray, 1988) in model tests and for
research on constitutive modelling. The material
parameters were emin = 0´648; emax = 1´041; rs =
2´65 g/cm3 . Fig. 1 shows the grain size distribu-
tion.
All samples were compacted by pluviation in a
steel cylinder lined with a rubber membrane
(t0 = 0´3 mm). Under a back-pressure of ó0 =
50 kN/m2 , the samples ( H0 = D0 = 100 mm) were
placed in the triaxial cell, back-pressure was
removed, and the samples were consolidated under
óc . To speed up saturation, the samples were
saturated ®rst with CO2 and then with water. The
volume change was measured by pore-water
volume change, and the specimens were axially
strained at 1% per minute.
Because the height±diameter ratio H0 /D0 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
Percentage finer by weight
80
60
40
20
0
0.063 0.125 0.25 0.5 1
Diameter: mm
Fig. 1. Grain-size distribution of Hostun sand
146 SCHANZ AND VERMEER

conventionally with only ®lter plates. The present −12

system ensures a near-uniform deformation of the

sample up to peak stress ratio. 5
The bedding error Ät c caused by the lubrica- −8
tion, which can lead to a 60% reduction in the
initial moduli of axial stiffness, was numerically

σ1/σ3

ε ν: %
eliminated using 3
−4
Ätc =t0 ˆ 0
3[1 ÿ exp ( ÿ 0
0037ó1 )] (1)
(Goldscheider, 1982) where t0 is the thickness of
the membrane and ó1 is the axial stress. Also, the 0
1
effect of the lateral membrane restraint was 0 5 10 15 20
ε 1: %
estimated by assuming it to be a right cylinder.
With the stiffness of the membrane Em (= 1400 kN/ Fig. 2. Stress±strain behaviour of dense Hostun sand
m2 ), the correction stress Äó3 c can be calculated
according to
Äóc3 ˆ ÿ2t0 Em å3 =D0 (2)
5
where ó3 is the radial stress and å3 is the radial
−8
strain. In contrast to the bedding error, this
membrane stiffness correction had little impact on
the test results.
σ1/σ 3

εν: %
3
−4

FRICTION ANGLES
Standard drained triaxial tests were carried out 1
on dense Hostun sand, with ã0 = 16´3 kN/m3 and
0
0 5 20
ID = 1´15, and on loose Hostun sand with 10 15
ε 1: %
ã0 = 13´9 kN/m3 and ID = 0´38. To check the
reproducibility of test results, four control tests Fig. 3. Stress±strain behaviour of loose Hostun sand
were performed at a ®xed cell pressure of
ó3 = 300 kN/m2 .
Figures 2 and 3 shows test results; stress±strain
curves are plotted with the stress ratio on the left −12
vertical axis and strain±strain curves are super-
posed by plotting the volumetric strain on the right 5
vertical axis. The test data show that the −8
reproducibility of triaxial tests is quite good.
A second step in checking the reproducibility
εν: %
σ1/σ3

and thus the reliability of test data is to compare 3

data from different laboratories. A direct compar- −4
IGS
ison can be made between the present data (IGS) IGM
and data from the Grenoble Institute of Mechanics Non-lubricated
(IMG) (Flavigny, Hadj-Sadok, Horodecki & Bala- 1 0
chowski, 1991), as both laboratories have used the 0 5 10 15 20
same sand and the same testing procedure, ε 1: %
including the lubrication of end plates. The Fig. 4. Mean stress±strain behaviour 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 428 and 408 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 1.
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 of Hostun sand VALIDATION OF THE STRESS±DILATANCY THEORY
under triaxial compression Several theories have been developed for pre-
ötrp : ötrcv : øtrp : dicting the volume strain in triaxial testing as a
degrees degrees degrees function of the axial strain. In particular, the
applicability of Rowe's (1962, 1971) stress dila-
ID = 1´15 tancy theory has been shown by Barden & Khayatt
IGS 41´9 34´8 13´3 (1966) and Wood (1990). This is also done here,
but in addition Rowe's idea of superposition is
IMG 40´1 35´7 14´0 emphasized as this is applied when considering
Non-lubricated 41´8 37´7 12´6 angles of dilatancy. The stress dilatancy theory
starts with the expression for plane states of strain
ID = 0´38
D ˆ R=K (3)
IGS 34´4 34´4 0´0
where D = 2_å3 /_å1 , is the stress ratio ó1 /ó3 and K is
a coef®cient representing the internal friction which
may be expressed as
K ˆ tan2 (45 ‡ öf =2) (4)
deforms with further change of volume. At the end For loose sands öf is equal to the friction angle
of the test, at an axial strain of 17%, this critical öcv at critical state, but values tend to be lower for
state is not yet fully reached but softening and dense sands. Rowe derived these relationships by
dilation are clearly damping out. At 17% vertical considering the rate of energy dissipation. On
strain the IGS and IMG data yield friction angles changing from plane state of strain to triaxial
of 34´88 and 35´78 respectively. It is possible that a testing conditions, he computed the rate of energy
critical state angle of almost 34´48 would have by adding the effects of two mechanisms. How-
been reached on further straining. This angle is ever, his resulting equation can also be obtained
obtained from the loose sand data in Fig. 3, and is without considering energy dissipation, as is now
assumed here to be the critical state angle of shown. Similarly to Rowe, sliding on planes
friction. governed by the stress ratio ó1 /ó2 (mechanism A)
Having obtained a peak friction angle of 40±428 and sliding on other planes governed by ó1 /ó3
for the dense sand and a maximum friction angle (mechanism B) are considered.
of 34´48 for the loose sand, it is interesting to Figure 5 shows the A mechanism with sliding
compare these triaxial angles to friction angles on a ó1 ±ó2 plane and the B mechanism with
measured in plane strain tests by Hammad (1991). sliding on a ó1 ±ó3 plane. Each sliding mechanism
The latter data are listed in Table 2 for various constitutes a planar deformation, and it is thus
values of the con®ning stress. tempting to apply equation (3) to each separate
Taking data for a cell pressure of 300 kN/m2 , as mechanism. This yields
was also done in triaxial testing, a peak friction ÿ_å2 =_å1A ˆ DA ˆ RA =K (5a)
angle of 45±478 is found for the dense sand and a
maximum friction angle of 32´5±34´58 for the loose ÿ_å3 =_å1B ˆ DB ˆ RB =K (5b)
sand. A signi®cant difference is thus found for the
dense sand, as other studies, whereas there is very where RA = RB = R and å_ 2 = å_ 3 for triaxial testing
little difference for the loose sand at the critical conditions. The basic idea that follows from these
state. (This ®nding is con®rmed below by data for considerations is that there are two contributions to
other sands.) Hence it seems that a unique critical the axial strain, i.e.
state angle öcv exists independently of strain
conditions. å_ 1 ˆ å_ 1A ‡ å_ 1B ˆ ÿ2_å3 K=R (6)

Table 2. Angles of friction and dilatancy of Hostun sand in the biaxial test (Hammad, 1991)
ó3 : kN/m2 öps
p : degrees øps
p : degrees öps
p : degrees øps
p : degrees

ID = 0´95 ID = 0´37
100 46´7±47´5 14´5±14´7 35´5 0´0
200 46´4±47´0 14´1±14´2 32´5±34´5 0´0
400 45´1±45´3 11´4±12´1 33´0±33´3 21´3
148
1 1
2 3
Fig. 5. Deviation of triaxial dilatancy from biaxial
state
or in short
D ˆ R=K
D ˆ ÿ2_å3 =_å1
Hence the difference between the plane strain
(equation (3)) and equation (7a) concerns a factor
of two in the de®nition 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 öf in the expression for
K has not yet been de®ned. Triaxial test data are
now considered for this purpose. The data for
dense and loose Hostun sand are plotted 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
6 sin øps ˆ ÿ
4
Kcv (φcv = 34.4°)
σ1/σ3
Kµ (φµ = 29°)
2 extension of the stress±dilatancy theory, the concept
0
0 0.5 1 1.5
. .
D = −2ε3/ε1
Fig. 6. Stress±dilatancy plot for dense Hostun sand
(mean values)
SCHANZ AND VERMEER
6
4 Kcv (φcv = 34.4°)
σ1/σ3
Kµ (φµ = 29°)
2
0
0 0.5 1. . 1.5 2
D = −2ε3/ε1
Fig. 7. Stress±dilatancy plot for loose Hostun sand
(7a)
(7b) lines, as the strain ratio D is computed from very
small increments of strain. When 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 Kì ,
where öf is taken to be the interparticle angle of
friction, and also for Kcv , where the critical state
angle of friction is used. Accordingly to Rowe
(1971), the former should be used for dense sands
and the latter 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 ®rst examined in plane
strain situations and its de®nition is then extended
to include triaxial compression. For plane strain
conditions, the de®nition is given in several
textbooks and by Bolton (1986)
å_ 1 ‡ å_ 3
(8)
å_ 1 ÿ å_ 3
The ®rst minus sign should be omitted when
contractive strains are considered positive. When
considering the peak dilatancy angle rates rather
than mobilized pre-peak angles of dilatancy, one
should obviously use rates of strain as measured at
and beyond peak stress ratios. Analogously to the
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
2
combination with å2 and a B mechanism that
relates to the other principal strain å3
å_ 2 å_ 3
å_ v ˆ å_ 1A ‡ å_ 1B ˆ ‡ (9)
DA DB
 FRICTION ANGLES AND DILATANCY OF SAND
1 ÿ sin ø
DA ˆ DB ˆ ÿ (10)
1 ‡ sin ø
This yields for ø the expression
å_ v =_å1
sin ø ˆ ÿ (11)
2 ÿ å_ v =_å1
Hence, a de®nition has been derived for the
dilatancy angle that can be used to measure this
angle in triaxial compression testing. A more
formal derivation based on concepts of the theory
of plasticity is given by Vermeer & de Borst (1984).
Applying equation (11) to the triaxial test data in
Figs 2 and 3, a (peak) dilatancy angle of 148 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) reports virtually identical values to those
given in Table 2.
The plane strain de®nition (equation (3)) for the
dilatancy angle is formally equal to the triaxial
de®nition (equation (11)). This is due to the
fact that å2 vanishes for plane strain, giving
åv = å1 + å3 , and so equation (3) reduces to equa-
tion (11). Hence the latter equation is valid for
both test conditions. This supports the ®nding that
the same dilatancy angle is measured in plane
strain and triaxial tests. Bolton (1986) presents
numerous data to show that both tests yield the
same peak ratio of å_ v /_å1 .
ROWE'S THEORY AND THE ANGLE OF DILATANCY
The relationship between the dilatancy angle
and the friction angle is also given by Bolton
(1986). On combining the stress±dilatancy equa-
tions (3) and (4) with the de®nition of the
dilatancy angle in equation (11), it is found that
sin öps ÿ sin öps
f
sin ø ˆ (12)
1 ÿ sin öps sin öps
f for triaxial strain, where IR is a relative dilatancy
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 tests. No
superscript is used to denote the dilatancy angle, as
this angle is considered to be independent of testing
conditions. According to Rowe öps f coincides with
the critical state angle öcv . If the data in Table 2 are
used to compute öps f from equation (12), the dense
sand yields öps f = 368 and the loose sand yields
öps
f = 34´58. As the difference is relatively small,
there exists a more or less uniquely de®ned angle
öf ps which corresponds well with the critical state
angle.
149
Instead of combining the plane strain equations
(3) and (4) of the stress±dilatancy theory with the
de®nition of the dilatancy angle in equation (11),
one might use Rowe's equation (equation (7)) for
triaxial tests with equation (11) to obtain
sin ötr ÿ sin ötrf
sin ø ˆ (13)
1 ÿ sin ötr sin ötrf
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 ®nd
smaller peak friction angles than in plane strain
tests, and Rowe reports a similar tendency for öf .
Indeed, for dense Hostun sand it is found that
ötrf = 298, which is signi®cantly different from the
34´58 found earlier for öpsf .
It is concluded that Rowe's stress dilatancy
theory exhibits an appealing relationship between
the friction angle and the dilatancy angle for
planar deformation, in that öps f = öcv . However,
this theory needs to be supplemented for triaxial
conditions of stress and strain in order to obtain a
relationship between 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 öcv for both triaxial strain and plane strain.
This is con®rmed by test data for Hostun sand.
Bolton gives a large database which leads to the
correlations for plane strain
öps ps
p ÿ öcv  5I R (14)
and
ötrp ÿ ötrcv  3I R (15)
index
I R ˆ I D (Q ÿ ln óm ) ÿ R (16)
which relates density and the applied stress level. It
was found that Q = 10 and R = 1 give the best ®t
for different sands. Combining equations (14) and
(15) gives
ötrp  15(3öps
p ‡ 2öcv ) (17)
Equation (17) is not mentioned directly by Bolton,
but is a direct consequence of his ®ndings. 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 between friction angles disappear as looser
150
50
Cornforth (1964)
Leussink et al. (1966)
Hostun sand (dense)
Hostun sand (loose)
Equation (17)
φtrp: degrees
40
30
30 φcv 40
φpsp: degrees
Fig. 8. Maximum strength under plane strain and
triaxial strain
states are considered. This has implications for the
form of the limiting envelope for states of stress in
principal stress space. For dense samples the plane
strain friction is well above the Mohr±Coulomb
prediction, but looser samples give envelopes
according to Mohr±Coulomb. There are a lot of
true triaxial data to con®rm the former, but few
true triaxial tests have been performed on loose
sand. Therefore it is often suggested that friction
angles are strain-dependent for both loose and
dense sands. Considering results from Bolton and
the additional data of Fig. 8, the present authors do
not agree.
Another ®nding by Bolton is that the rate of
dilation is strain-independent. It is found for both
triaxial strain and biaxial strain that
ÿ_åv =_å1 ˆ 0
3I R
This supports the idea of a unique angle of
dilatancy, as this angle was related to the above
rate of dilation. Combining equations (11) and (18)
gives
0
3I R IR
sin ø ˆ ˆ (19)
2 ‡ 0
3I R 6
7 ‡ I R
CONCLUSIONS
From the results presented, the following con-
clusions can be drawn concerning the angles of
friction and dilatancy of sand.
By using concepts of superposition it is possible
to relate the angle of dilatancy to triaxial strain
conditions. This yields an extended de®nition for
the angle of dilatancy which applies to triaxial
testing conditions as well as plane strain condi-
SCHANZ AND VERMEER
tions. The extended theory is validated by the fact
that data from plane strain and triaxial strain
conditions yield the same angle of dilatancy at
least near and beyond peak.
In contrast to the angle of dilatancy, friction
angles differ considerably when triaxial 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 whether 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
maximum friction for both conditions (equation
(17)).
50
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are indebted to Dr J. Desrues and
Dr E. Flavigny of the Institut de MeÂcanique de
Grenoble for discussion on the triaxial testing
technique, and for their biaxial testing data on
Hostun sand.
NOTATION
D diameter
e void ratio
Em membrane thickness
H height
ID dilatancy index
IR relative dilatancy index
K internal friction coef®cient
R stress ratio (ó1 /ó3 )
t0 membrane thickness
Ät bedding error
å3 radial strain
r density
ó0 back-pressure
ó1 axial stress
ó3 radial stress
(18)
öcv critical state friction angle
öp peak friction angle
øp angle of dilatancy
REFERENCES
Barden, L. & Khayatt, A. J. (1966). Incremental strain
rate ratios and strength of sand in the triaxial test.
GeÂotechnique 16, 338±357.
Bolton, M. D. (1986). The strength and dilatancy of
sands. GeÂotechnique 36, No. 1, 65±78.
Cornforth, D. H. (1964). Some experiments on the
in¯uence of strain conditions on the strength of sand.
GeÂotechnique 16, 193.
Desrues, J. (1984). La localisation de la deÂformation
dans les mateÂriaux granulaires. DSc thesis, Institut de
MeÂcanique de Grenoble.
Desrues, J., Colliat-Dangus, J. L. & Foray, P. (1988).
Triaxial testing of granular soil under elevated cell
pressure. In Advanced triaxial testing of soil and
 FRICTION ANGLES AND DILATANCY OF SAND
rock, STP977, pp. 290±310. Philadelphia: American
Society for Testing and Materials.
Flavigny, E., Desrues, J. & Palayer, B. (1990). Le sable
d'Hostun RF. Rev. Fr. GeÂotech. No. 53, 67±70.
Flavigny, E., Hadj-Sadok, M., Horodecki, G. & Bala-
chowski, L. (1991). Series repetives d'essais triaxiaux
dans deux 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). ModeÂlisation non lineÂaire et eÂtude
expeÂrimentale des bandes de cisaillement dans les
sable. DSc thesis, Institut de MeÂcanique 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 Scherverhalten rolliger Erdstoffe
und KugelschuÈttungen im Dreiaxial- und Biaxial-
versuch. VeroÈff. Inst. Bodenmech. Felsmech. TH
Frideric Karlsruhe, 21.
151
Roscoe, K. H. (1970). The in¯uence of strains in soil
mechanics. GeÂotechnique 20, No. 2, 129±170.
Rowe, P. W. (1962). The stress±dilatancy relation for
static equilibrium of an assembly of particles in
contact. Proc. R. Soc., A269, 500±527.
Rowe, P. W. (1971). Theoretical meaning and observed
values of deformation parameters for soil. Proceed-
ings of Roscoe Memorial Symposium, pp. 143±194.
Henley-on-Thames: Foulis.
Stroud, M. A. (1971). The behaviour of sand at low
stress levels in the simple-shear apparatus. Disserta-
tion, University of Cambridge.
Vaid, Y. P. & Sasitharan, S. (1991). The strength and
dilatancy of sand. Can. Geotech. J. 29, 522±526.
Vermeer, P. A. & de Borst, R. (1984). Non-associated
plasticity for soils, concrete and rock. Heron 29,
No. 3.
Wood, D. M. (1990). Soil behaviour and critical state
soil mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.