See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/314213516

Estimating the Peak Friction Angle of Sandy Soils In Situ with State-Based
Overburden Normalized SPT Blow Counts

Conference Paper · April 2017

DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.14343812

CITATION READS

1 4,616

2 authors:

Robert Jaeger Ian P. Maki

California Department of Water Resources Division of Safety of Dams
23 PUBLICATIONS 205 CITATIONS 9 PUBLICATIONS 26 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Robert Jaeger on 30 October 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Jaeger, R. A. and Maki, I. P. (2017). “Estimating the peak friction angle of sandy soils in situ with state-based overburden normalized SPT
blow counts.” In Proc. 37th Annual USSD Conference. Anaheim, CA.

ESTIMATING THE PEAK FRICTION ANGLE OF SANDY SOILS IN SITU

WITH STATE-BASED OVERBURDEN NORMALIZED SPT BLOW COUNTS
Robert A. Jaeger, Senior Engineer (PE, PhD)1
Ian P. Maki, Design Engineer (PE) 2

ABSTRACT

Relationships for estimating the peak friction angle of sandy soils from standard
penetration test (SPT) blow count often involve correcting the blow count to a reference
stress of one atmosphere with an overburden normalization (or correction) factor.
Existing relationships between SPT blow count and peak friction angle have typically
been derived from databases of calibration chamber tests, in situ tests, and accompanying
laboratory tests. Published in situ datasets of SPT blow count and peak friction angle are
not well-constrained due to limitations with respect to sand characteristics and stress
range. Development of relationships between SPT blow count and peak friction angle
based on these datasets thus often requires extrapolation. This paper presents a design
relationship between state-based overburden-normalized SPT blow count and peak
friction angle, which is a companion to a similar relationship developed for the cone
penetration test. A state-based overburden normalization approach is adopted because it
provides both a rational basis for interpreting the peak friction angle in sandy soils from
blow count, and a critical state-based method for extrapolating these relationships to
conditions outside the range currently covered by available peak friction angle data. The
design relationship between state-based overburden-normalized blow count and peak
friction angle is developed based on published results from in situ and laboratory tests on
undisturbed sandy soil samples, calibration chamber standard penetration tests, and a
semi-empirical relationship between SPT blow count and peak friction angle.

BACKGROUND

Relationships between standard penetration test (SPT) blow count (N) and sand
properties have been developed over the years based largely on empirical studies (e.g.,
Terzaghi and Peck 1948, Skempton 1986, Kulhawy and Mayne 1990, Hatanaka and
Uchida 1996, Mayne 2006). These studies have shown the SPT blow count in sand
primarily depends on the sand's strength (typically characterized in terms of peak friction
angle, peak), stiffness, and dilatancy, which in turn depend on density, stresses,
fundamental soil characteristics (i.e., mineralogy, grain size distribution, angularity), and
environmental factors (i.e., aging, cementation).

Been and Jefferies (1985) and Bolton (1986) both demonstrated a single parameter could
account for the combined influence of confining stress and void ratio on the strength and
dilatancy of sand, albeit different expressions were used in each publication. The single
parameter used by Been and Jefferies (1985) was the initial state parameter ( 0), which is

1
GEI Consultants, Rancho Cordova, California, CA 95670, rjaeger@geiconsultants.com.
2
Department of Water Resources Division of Safety of Dams, California, CA 95818,
Ian.Maki@water.ca.gov.

1
the difference between the initial void ratio (e0) and the void ratio on the critical state line
(ecs) at the same initial mean effective stress, p 0 (Figure 1). Initial conditions falling
below the critical state line (i.e., negative 0 values) are dense-of-critical and exhibit
generally dilative behaviors when sheared, whereas initial conditions falling above the
critical state line (i.e., positive 0 values) are loose-of-critical and exhibit contractive
behaviors when sheared. Boulanger (2003) later proposed an initial relative state
parameter index ( R0), defined as 0 divided by the difference between the maximum void
ratio (emax) and the minimum void ratio (emin). Thus R0, like 0, would also be expected
to correlate directly to the peak friction angle and dilatancy of sands.

Figure 1. Example Bilinear Critical State Line of Sand and Definition of Initial State
Parameter

Boulanger (2003) derived an expression for the R0 parameter by applying the state
parameter approach from Been and Jefferies (1985) to a critical state line defined from
the Bolton (1986) stress-strength-dilatancy framework. The expression derived by
Boulanger (2003) is

𝜉𝑅0 𝐷𝑅0 (1)

1 2 0 0
𝑄−ln 100
3

where Q and R are empirical factors found to be about 10 and 1, respectively, for quartz
and feldspar sands (Bolton 1986), v0 is the initial effective vertical overburden, K0 is the
ratio of the horizontal to the vertical effective stresses, Pa is the atmospheric pressure
(taken as 100 kPa), and DR0 is the initial relative density.

This paper presents a relationship between peak and a state parameter-based (or state-
based) overburden normalized and energy corrected SPT blow count. First, background
on a framework for state-normalization of SPT blow count is presented. Second, two
commonly used semi-empirical relationships between peak, stress, and density are then
reviewed. Third, these relationships are then used to develop a state-based relationship
between SPT blow count, stress, and peak based on (1) a database of experimental in situ
SPT data with laboratory testing on undisturbed sand samples (Hatanaka and Uchida

2
1996, Mayne 2006) and (2) calibration chamber SPT for three clean sands (Bieganousky
and Marcuson 1976, 1977).

FRAMEWORK

Relationships between SPT Blow Count, Soil Density, and Stress

The variation of SPT blow count (N) with v0 can be isolated from the variation of N
with density by projecting (or normalizing) N to a standard reference stress while all
other factors are held constant. In this paper, SPT blow counts are also corrected to an
energy-ratio of 60% and are henceforth referred to as N60. The current study adopts the
normalizations developed by Boulanger (2003), Boulanger and Idriss (2004), and Idriss
and Boulanger (2008) to either R0 or DR0. The stress normalization approach in terms of
R0 can be expressed as:

𝑁1𝜉 𝑁 0 𝐶𝑁𝜉 (2)

0
𝑚
𝐶𝑁𝜉 ′ (3)
0

where (N1 )60 is the N60 that a soil at a given R0 would have at a reference stress of
v0 = Pa, CN is the mapping function that accounts for the effects of stress on N60 for the
same soil at the same R0, and m is a fitting exponent. The choice of reference stress is
conceptually arbitrary, but v0 = Pa is typically in the stress range of practical interest and
is commonly adopted for interpretation of in situ test results.

The adopted state-based stress normalization (Boulanger 2003) uses stress normalizations
in terms of DR0 or e0 as an intermediate step. In terms of DR0 or e0, the stress
normalization of N60 can be expressed as:

𝑁1 0 𝑁 0 𝐶𝑁𝑒 (4)
𝑚
𝐶𝑁𝑒 ′ (5)
0

where (N1e)60 is the N60 that a soil at a given DR0 or e0 would have at a reference stress of
v0 = Pa, CNe is the mapping function that accounts for the effects of stress on (N1e)60 for
the same soil at the same DR0 or e0, and me is a fitting exponent. In much of the literature
on foundation and liquefaction engineering (i.e. Liao and Whitman 1986, Youd et al.
2001, Idriss and Boulanger 2008), (N1e)60 is commonly written as (N1)60 and CNe is
commonly written as CN; the addition of the subscript e is intended to identify the
underlying assumption of stress normalization at a respective e0 (or equivalently DR0).

Boulanger (2003) developed the following regression for the fitting exponent me based
on numerical analyses of cone penetration testing by Salgado et al. (1997):

𝑚𝑒 0.784 0.521𝐷𝑅0 (6)

3
Boulanger (2003), and later Idriss and Boulanger (2008), adopted the following
regression between DR0 and (N1e)60:

𝑁1 0
𝐷𝑅0 (7)
𝐶

where Cd is a fitting parameter taken as 46 by Idriss and Boulanger (2008), but has been
shown to vary between about 38 and 91 for clean sands (Boulanger 2003).

Boulanger and Idriss (2004) developed an expression for the mapping function CN based
on the Bolton (1986) stress-strength-dilatancy relationship. The Boulanger and Idriss
(2004) CN factor can be written as:

𝐶𝑁𝜉 𝐶𝜉 𝐶𝑁𝑒 (8)

where,

𝐷 0 −∆𝐷 , 2
𝐶𝜉 (9)
𝐷 0
1 1
∆𝐷𝑅, 1 2 ′ 0 1 2 (10)
𝑄− 100 𝑄− 100
3 3

where K0 is the ratio of horizontal to vertical initial effective stresses. As described by

Boulanger (2003), the parameter ΔDR,cs defines the difference in relative density on the
critical state line from the in situ stress to the reference stress (one atmosphere).

Examples of the relationships between N60, v0, and either R0 or DR0 using the form in
Equations 2-10 as proposed by Boulanger (2003) and Boulanger and Idriss (2004) are
shown in Figures 2a and 2b. The relationships in Figure 2a show N60 versus v0 for a
sand at seven different values of R0 (-0.6, -0.5, -0.4, -0.3, -0.2, -0.1, and 0.0) with
Cd = 46, Q = 10, R = 1, and K0 = 0.5. These N60 versus v0 graphs are nearly linear in a
log-log scale and illustrate how the stress exponent m (i.e., the slope of the lines)
decreases with increasing density (i.e., more negative R0). The corresponding
dependence of CN on R0 is shown in Figure 3 for DR0 of 35%, 55%, and 75% at v0 of 1
atmosphere.

The relationships in Figure 2b show N60 versus v0 for the same properties used in
Figure 2a, but for six different DR0 values: 10%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, and 100%. The
slopes of these N60 versus v0 graphs, in a log-log scale, correspond to the stress
exponent me. Similar to the trends for constant R0, the stress exponent me decreases with
increasing DR0 (i.e., steeper lines in Figure 2b). The corresponding dependence of CNe on
DR0 is shown in Figure 3 for DR0 of 35%, 55%, and 75%.

4
Figure 2. Relationship between N60, Initial Vertical Effective Stress ( v0), and (a) Initial
Relative State Parameter ( R0), and (b) Initial Relative Density (DR0)

Figure 3. CNe and CN versus Initial Vertical Effective Stress ( v0)

Relationships between Peak Friction Angle, Density, and Stress in Sands

Several frameworks have been proposed for estimating the drained shear strength of
coarse grained soils (e.g., Been and Jefferies 1985, Bolton 1986, Collins et al. 1992).
Generally these relationships compute the peak friction angle ( peak) as a function of the
critical state friction angle ( cs), e0 (or DR0), p 0, and material-specific parameters. As
previously discussed, p 0 and e0 can also be described in a single term, or R0. In terms
of cs and , Collins et al. (1992) suggested the following fit to the data presented by
Been and Jefferies (1985):

𝜙𝑝𝑒 𝜙 𝐴 𝑒 −𝜉0 1 𝜙 (11)

5
where A is a soil type parameter in the range of 0.6 to 0.95 (in radians). Figure 4a
illustrates the relationship between peak friction angle and v0 as a function of for
K0 = 0.5, A = 0.8, and cs = 32 degrees, which is representative of the sands evaluated by
Collins et al. (1992).

Similar to Been and Jefferies (1985) and Collins et al. (1992), Bolton (1986) identified
the peak friction angle of sands is dependent on both void ratio and stress. The
relationship presented by Bolton (1986) for triaxial compression is given in terms of
critical state friction angle, mean effective stress at failure, and DR0:

𝜙𝑝𝑒 𝜙 3 𝐷𝑅0 𝑄 ln 𝑝 𝑅 𝜙 (12)

where Q and R are empirical factors found to be about 10 and 1, respectively, for quartz
and feldspar sands (Bolton 1986), and p f is the mean effective stress at failure in kPa
(herein assumed to be twice the initial vertical effective stress, per Kulhawy and Mayne
1990). Bolton (1987) later recommended limiting the use of Equation 12 to p f greater
than 150 kPa when laboratory shear strength data at lower p f values for a material of
interest is unavailable. Based on the recommendation by Bolton (1987), Equation 12 can
be rewritten as:

𝜙𝑝𝑒 𝜙 3 𝐷𝑅0 𝑄 ln max 𝑝 , 150 kPa 𝑅 𝜙 (13)

Figure 4b illustrates the Bolton (1986, 1987) relationship (Equation 13) between peak,
v0, and DR0 for Q = 10, R = 1, and cs = 32 degrees. Note that for a constant DR0 (or
equivalently a constant (N1e)60), peak is generally not constant and decreases with
increasing stress. Conversely for a constant R0 (or equivalently a constant (N1 )60), peak
is constant and does not change as stress changes.

Figure 4. Variation of Peak Friction Angle ( peak) with Initial Vertical Effective Stress
( v0) based on the Relationships by (a) Collins et al. (1992) after Been and Jefferies
(1985), and (b) Bolton (1986, 1987)

6
 DATA SOURCES

The relationship between SPT blow count and peak friction angle is examined with data
from two sources: (1) databases of experimental in situ SPT data and laboratory tests on
undisturbed sand samples, and (2) calibration chamber SPT data. The experimental in situ
SPT data and laboratory tests on undisturbed sand samples were taken from databases
compiled by Hatanaka and Uchida (1996) and Mayne (2006). The calibration chamber
SPT data was taken from Bieganousky and Marcuson (1976, 1977).

In Situ Tests

The databases of experimental in situ SPT data and laboratory tests on undisturbed sand
samples compiled by Hatanaka and Uchida (1996) and Mayne (2006) were used for the
present study. The Hatanaka and Uchida (1996) database included 12 sands from six sites
in Japan, where eleven sands were natural deposits and one sand was from a fill
(Table 1). All samples were collected using an in situ frozen sampling technique, as
described in Hatanaka and Uchida (1996). The sands had v0 values between 0.4 and 1.4
atm, with an average of about 0.8 atm. Five of the 12 sands were clean sands (less than
about 5% fines), four sands had between about 5 and 12% fines, and three samples had
fines content of about 12% or higher.

Table 1. Characteristics of Undisturbed Sand Samples (adapted from Hatanaka and

Uchida 1996)
ID Sand Description Fines Content DR0 v0 (atm) N60
Clean Sands (5 of 12 Sands)
1 IK1 Fill 1.3-2.4% 34% 0.68 12 36.0°
2 IK2 Holocene 2.1-4.6% 57% 0.97 22 38.2°
3 KY2 Volcanic 1.8-2.9% 59% 0.68 7 31.0°
4 KY3 Volcanic 1.4-2.3% 59% 0.78 8 35.0°
5 NA Pleistocene 4.1-5.7% 81% 1.26 13 32.7°
Sand with 5% Fines (7 of 12 Sands)
6 KG Volcanic 3.6-9.6% 70% 0.49 14 40.4°
7 NG1 Pleistocene 4.3-9.4% 74% 0.39 23 43.4°
8 NG2 Pleistocene 7.0-10.4% 81% 0.68 20 37.8°
9 KY1 Volcanic 3.6-11.0% 72% 0.58 7 39.0°
10 NG5 Pleistocene 13.0-16.2% 79% 1.36 13 35.1°
11 KA1 Holocene 13.5-15.5% 81% 0.78 6 28.0°
Volcanic
12 KA2 Holocene 9.1-30.4% 78% 0.87 5 30.0°
Volcanic

Mayne s database included tests on 15 sands from China, Japan, Canada, Norway, and
Italy (Table 2). As shown in Table 2, 10 sands were natural deposits, 3 sands were
hydraulic fills, and 2 were tailings. Fourteen of the 15 sands were obtained with frozen
sampling techniques; the remaining sample was obtained with a Mazier tube. Fourteen of
the 15 in situ tests had v0 values between 0.42 atm and 1.8 atm, with the remaining test

7
at v0 = 5.16 atm for Mildred Lake sand (10% fines). The average v0 value was about
1.3 atm. Eleven of the 15 sands are clean sands (less than 5% fines) and the other four
sands have fines contents between 8 and 15%. The particle shapes varied from
subrounded and subangular to angular (Mayne 2006).

Table 2. Characteristics of Undisturbed Sand Samples (adapted from Mayne 2006)

Sand Sampling Fines v0
ID (Location) Description Method Content DR0 (atm) N60
Clean Sands (11 of 15 Sands)
Kowloon Hydraulic Mazier
13 1% 46.5% 1.80 28 38.1°
(China) Fill Tube
Yodo Natural
14 Frozen 1.9% 60.2% 1.02 27 42.4°
(Japan) Alluvial
Yodo Natural
15 Frozen 0.3% 51.9% 1.23 39 38.4°
(Japan) Alluvial
Yodo Natural
16 Frozen 2.1% 37% 1.43 37 39.1°
(Japan) Alluvial
Natori Natural
17 Frozen 0.2% 77.2% 0.87 47 40.9°
(Japan) Alluvial
Tone Natural
18 Frozen 3.8% 69.1% 0.84 29 41.7°
(Japan) Alluvial
Edo Natural
19 Frozen 0.4% 44.3% 0.51 16 39.7°
(Japan) Alluvial
Massey Natural 36.6°
20 Frozen <5% 32.5% 1.2 11
(Canada) Alluvial [a]
Kidd Natural 37.1°
21 Frozen <5% 29.8% 1.6 16
(Canada) Alluvial [a]
Holmen Natural
22 Tube/frozen 2% 30.5% 1.1 1 33.2°
(Norway) Alluvial
Gioia
Natural
23 Tauro Frozen 0.7% 42% 0.42 19 41.5°
Coarse Sand
(Italy)
Sand with 5% Fines (4 of 15 Sands)
LL Dam 39.4°
24 Tailings Frozen 8% 40.3% 1.0 5
(Canada) [a]
Mildred
Hydraulic 39.0°
25 Lake Frozen 10% 43.6% 5.16 41
Fill [a]
(Canada)
Highmont
26 Dam Tailings Frozen 10% 37.4% 1.38 6 41.5°
(Canada)
J-pit Hydraulic 34.7°
27 Frozen 15% 42.7% 0.55 2
(Canada) Fill [a]
[a]Value reported by Mayne (2006) revised based on original reference.

8
Jaeger and Maki (2016) reevaluated the laboratory test data for several sands in the
Mayne (2006) database and revised peak friction angles for the Massey, Kidd, LL Dam,
Mildred Lake, and J-pit sands. As discussed by Jaeger and Maki (2016), the revised
values were selected based on review of the available laboratory data for the sands and
the reported friction angles in the original references (Wride and Robertson 1997a,b,c).
The peak friction angles for the Massey, Kidd, and Mildred Lake sands decreased by
0.1°, 0.2°, and 0.6°, respectively, relative to values listed in Mayne (2006). The peak
friction angles of the LL Dam and J-pit sands were increased by 0.3° and 2.0°,
respectively, relative to values listed in Mayne (2006). The revised peak friction angles
were adopted for the present study.

The combined datasets from Hatanaka and Uchida (1996) and Mayne (2006) includes 27
sands. All but one of the sands had v0 values between 0.4 and 2.0 atm; the remaining
sand had a v0 of about 5.2 atm. Thus, the combined dataset is relatively constrained for
initial vertical effective stresses between 0.5 to 2.0 atmospheres, but is not well-
constrained for initial vertical effective stresses greater than about two atmospheres.

Calibration Chamber Tests

Calibration chamber SPT data for Reid Bedford, Platte River, and Standard Concrete
sands was obtained from Bieganousky and Marcuson (1976, 1977). The calibration
chamber tests were performed under initial vertical effective stresses of 0.7, 2.7, and 5.4
atm by use of hydraulic rams applied at the top of the sample. Reid Bedford sand was
tested at overconsolidation ratios (OCRs) of 1 and 3, whereas the other sands were only
tested for OCR of 1. The calibration chamber had a diameter of 4 feet and a height of 6
feet. The walls of the chambers were stacked steel rings with rubber spacings contained
within the rings in order to reduce soil arching in the chamber.

It is likely that the calibration chamber SPT data is influenced by the artificial boundary
conditions imposed by the chamber. Calibration chamber corrections (CCCs) have been
proposed to convert calibration chamber test cone penetration test (CPT) tip resistance
values to free-field conditions (e.g. Houlsby and Yu 1990, Schnaid and Houlsby 1991,
Parkin and Lunne 1982, Been et al. 1986, Salgado et al. 1998), but similar corrections
have not been developed for the SPT. Based on the proposed CCCs for CPT data with a
rigid lateral boundary, rigid bottom boundary, and constant stress imposed on the top
boundary, the SPT blow counts measured by Bieganousky and Marcuson (1976, 1977)
are expected to be largely influenced by the boundaries. The influence of the chamber is
expected to increase as the relative state becomes smaller (i.e., p 0 decreases or DR0
increases). However, these effects could not be quantified.

Relevant soil properties of the evaluated calibration chamber sands are provided in
Table 3 below. The three sands are similar in that they are clean, uniformly graded sands
with median grain sizes ranging from 0.37 to 0.53 mm, coefficients of uniformity ranging
from 1.5 to 2.0, minimum void ratios of 0.49 to 0.60, and maximum void ratios of 0.79 to

9
0.91. Critical state parameters were available for Reid Bedford sand (Jefferies and Been
2006), but not the other two sands.

Table 3. Relevant Properties of Calibration Chamber Test Sands

Standard
Property Reid Bedford Platte River Concrete
Median grain size, D50a: mm 0.25 2.0 0.5
a
Maximum void ratio, emax 0.86 0.61 0.6
Minimum void ratio, emin a 0.54 0.35 0.38
Critical state friction angle, csb 32° N/A N/A
a
Coefficient of Uniformity 1.6 5.3 2.1
Angularitya Subangular Subrounded Subrounded
to to Well
Subrounded Rounded
a
Data from Bieganousky and Marcuson (1976, 1977)
b
Data from Jefferies and Been (2006)

RESULTS

Relationship between (N1ξ)60 and Initial State Parameter

The relationship between (N1 )60 and R0 is shown in Figure 5 for the in situ and
calibration chamber data. The (N1 )60 values were calculated using Equations 1-10. The
R0 values for the six Canadian sands in Table 1 were calculated as the initial state
parameters reported by Wride et al. (2000) divided by (emax - emin) and are shown as blue
points in Figure 5 below. For the remaining in situ data (red points) and all calibration
chamber data (green points), the R0 values were estimated using Equation 1 for a Q of
10, R of 1, and K0 of 0.5.

10
 Figure 5. Relationships between (N1 )60 and Initial Relative State Parameter ( R0) for In
Situ and Calibration Chamber Data

As shown in Figure 5, the (N1 )60 values generally increased as the R0 values decreased
(i.e., as the soils became more dense-of-critical), as expected. The calibration chamber
data plotted as a band approximately bounded by the two trendlines shown in the figure
above. The trendlines correspond to Cd values of 41 and 105 input into Equations 1 and 7
at a vertical effective stress of 1 atmosphere, where (N1 )60 is equal to (N1e)60. The lower-
bound Cd value of 41 is consistent with the recommendation by Meyerhof (1957) for
clean sands and is slightly below the Cd value of 46 recommended by Idriss and
Boulanger (2008). The upper bound Cd value of 105 is above the expected range of 38 to
91 for clean sands, as previously published in the literature (i.e., Cubrinovski and Ishihara
1999, Boulanger 2003).

The in situ data generally followed a trend similar to the calibration chamber data, but
with a number of points plotting either significantly above or below. The differences
between the in situ and calibration chamber results is likely due to a combination of
factors, including calibration chamber boundary effects and differences in the
mineralogy, gradation, and particle characteristics of the sands.

For R0 values greater than -0.35, the in situ data generally plotted above the calibration
chamber data, but with two exceptions: J-pit sand (point 27) and Holmen sand (point 22).
J-pit sand is a hydraulically filled tailings material with a relatively high fines content
(15% fines). The J-pit sand point is believed to plot lower than the others because of its
measured low shear stiffness (or high compressibility) relative to the other sands in the

11
Mayne (2006) dataset (shear stiffness was not available for the Hatanaka and Uchida data
points). Holmen sand is a very loose, clean sand that was sampled using thin-walled tube
samplers (Mayne 2006), which may have densified the material. This potential
densification of the material during sampling would have led to a lower calculated R0
than exists in situ, thus contributing to the apparent bias in Figure 5.

At R0 values less than -0.35, half (seven) of the in situ data points were consistent with
the calibration chamber data, but the other half of the in situ points had (N1 )60 values
about 5 to 20 less than the calibration chamber data at the same R0. Five of the seven
points below the calibration chamber data were from volcanic deposits, which suggests
differences in the mineralogy, gradation, and particle characteristics of the sands.
However, this could not be confirmed from the source publications. Additionally, all but
two of the volcanic sands (points 3 and 4) had fines contents as high as 10-30%, which
would be expected to reduce the (N1 )60 value compared to cleaner sands because sands
with fines typically have higher compressibilities than clean sands.

Relationship between (N1ξ)60 and Peak Friction Angle

The relationship between (N1 )60 and peak was plotted for the in situ data and the
calibration chamber data for Reid Bedford sand at OCRs of 1 and 3, as presented in
Bieganousky and Marcuson (1976). The peak values for the in situ sands were measured
from laboratory tests on undisturbed samples. The peak values for Reid Bedford sand
were estimated from the Bolton (1986, 1987) equation (Equation 13) based on the
relative density and confining stress of each test combined with the reported cs of 32°,
and typical Bolton (1986) Q and R values of 10 and 1, respectively. For comparison, two
semi-empirical lines representing the combination of the Idriss and Boulanger (2008)
approach for estimating N60 and the Bolton (1986) approach for estimating peak were
also added using Cd = 46, Q = 10, and R = 1 for cs of 28° and 35°.

For both the calibration chamber and in situ data, the peak values tended to increase as
(N1 )60 values increased, as expected. The calibration chamber data and most of the in
situ data plotted within the semi-empirical trendlines for the combined Idriss and
Boulanger (2008) and Bolton (1986) approach. The in situ sand data points generally
plotted within the upper portion of the calibration chamber data or above, with relatively
few exceptions. As previously discussed, differences between the in situ and calibration
chamber data can be attributed to differences in the mineralogy, gradation, particle
characteristics of the sands, and the lack of calibration chamber corrections of the
calibration chamber data.

12
 Figure 6. Relationship between Peak Friction Angle ( peak) and (N1 )60

Two of the in situ sands plotted significantly above the general trend of the calibration
chamber and in situ data: LL Dam (point 24) and Highmont Dam (point 26). These two
sands were hydraulically placed fills with angular particles and appreciable amounts of
mica, feldspar, and illite (Wride and Robertson 1997c). The angular particles would
likely lead to increased friction angles, whereas the elevated amounts of mica, feldspar,
and illite would lead to reduced (N1 )60 values as compared to the other less compressible
sands evaluated in this study (i.e., Mayne 2014).

A representative fit was developed based on the approximate median of the in situ data,
but with consideration of the calibration chamber data and a semi-empirical trend
combining the Idriss and Boulanger (2008) approach for estimating N60 with Cd = 46
with the Bolton (1986) approach for estimating peak with Q = 10, R = 1, and cs = 33°.
The selected fit is defined by the following regression:
0.10
𝜙′𝑝𝑒 29.0 𝑁1𝜉 (14)
0

CONCLUSIONS

A relationship between peak friction angle and state-based overburden-normalized SPT

blow count was developed based on in situ test results, calibration chamber standard
penetration test results, and a semi-empirical model of standard penetration test blow
count and peak friction angle. A state-based overburden normalization approach was

13
adopted because it provides both a rational basis for interpreting the peak friction angle in
sandy soils from N60, and a critical state-based method for extrapolating these
relationships to conditions outside the range currently covered by available peak friction
angle data. The results indicated state-based overburden-normalized SPT tip resistance is
strongly correlated to to the initial state parameter (or relative state parameter) and peak
friction angle, as expected based on critical state soil mechanics and published trends
from laboratory testing of sands.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful for the data made available by Hatanaka and Uchida (1996) and
Mayne (2006). The opinions expressed in this paper are solely those of the authors, and
do not necessarily represent the views of GEI Consultants, Inc. or the California
Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams.

REFERENCES

Been, K., and Jefferies, M. G. (1985). A state parameter for sands. Géotechnique,
35(2): 99 112.

Been, K., Crooks, J. H. A., Becker, D. E., and Jefferies, M. G. (1986). The cone
penetration test in sands: Part I, state parameter interpretation. Géotechnique, 36(2):
239-249.

Bieganousky, W. A., and Marcuson, W. F. (1976). Laboratory standard penetration tests

on Reid Bedford Model and Ottawa Sands. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station Soils and Pavement Laboratory Research Report 8-76-2.

Bieganousky, W. A., and Marcuson, W. F. (1977). Laboratory standard penetration tests

on Platte River Sand and Standard Concrete Sand. US Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station Soils and Pavement Laboratory Research Report 8-76-2.

Bolton, M. D. (1986). The strength and dilatancy of sands. Géotechnique, 36(1): 65-78.

Bolton, M. D. (1987). Discussion on The strength and dilatancy of sands.

Géotechnique, 37(2): 219-226.

Boulanger, R. W. (2003). High overburden stress effects in liquefaction analyses. J.

Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Eng., ASCE 129(12): 1071 082.

Boulanger, R. W. and Idriss, I. M. (2004). State normalization of penetration resistance

and the effect of overburden stress on liquefaction resistance. In Proc. 11th SDEE and
3rd ICEGE, Berkeley, CA.: 484-491.

14
Collins, I. F., Pender, M. J., and Yan, W. (1992). Cavity expansion in sands under
drained loading conditions. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech., 16: 3 23.

Cubrinovski, M., and Ishihara, K. (1999). Empirical correlation between SPT N-value
and relative density for sandy soils. Soils and Foundations, 39(5): 61-71.

Hatanaka, M. and Uchida, A. (1996). Empirical correlation between cone resistance and
internal friction angle of sandy soils , Soils and Foundations, Vol. 36(4): 1-10.

Houlsby, G. T. and Yu, H. S. (1990). Finite element analysis of the cone pressuremeter
test. In Pressuremeters, London: Thomas Telford, pp. 221-229.

Idriss, I. M. and Boulanger, R. W. (2008). Soil liquefaction during earthquakes.

Monograph MNO-12, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, 261 pp.

Jefferies, M. G. and Been, K. (2006). Soil Liquefaction A Critical State Approach ,

Taylor and Francis Group.

Jaeger, R. A. and Maki, I. P. (2016). Estimating the Peak Friction Angle of Sandy Soils
In Situ with State-Based Overburden Normalized CPT Tip Resistance. In Proc. 36th
Annual USSD Conference: Celebrating the Value of Dams and Levees - Yesterday, Today
and Tomorrow, pp. 865-882.

Kulhawy, F. H. and Mayne, P. W. (1990). Manual on estimating soil properties for

foundation design. Report EL-6800. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.

Liao, S. C. and Whitman, R. V. (1986). Overburden correction factors for SPT in sand.
J. Geotech. Engrg., 112(3): 373 377.

Mayne, P. W. (2006). The Second James K. Mitchell Lecture Undisturbed sand strength
from seismic cone tests. Geomechanics and Geoengineering: An International Journal,
1(4): 239-257.

Meyerhof, G. G. (1957). Discussion on research on determining the density of sands by

spoon penetration testing. In Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on SMFE, pp. 110.

Parkin, A. and Lunne, T. (1982). Boundary effects in the laboratory calibration of a cone
penetrometer in sand. Proc. 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing,
Amsterdam, Vol. 2: 761 768.

Salgado, R., Boulanger, R. W., and Mitchell, J. K. (1997). Lateral stress effects on CPT
liquefaction resistance correlations. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 123(8): 726 735.

Salgado, R., Mitchell, J. K., and Jamiolkowski, M. (1998). Calibration chamber size
effects on penetration resistance in sand. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 124(9): 878
888.

15
 Schnaid, F. and Houlsby, G. T. (1991). An assessment of chamber size effects in the
calibration of in-situ tests in sand. Géotechnique, 41(3): 437-445.

Skempton, A. W. (1986). Standard penetration test procedures and the effects in sands
of overburden pressure, relative density, particle size, ageing and overconsolidation.
Géotechnique, 36(3): 425-447.

Terzaghi, K. & Peck, R.B. 1948. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 1st Edition,
John Wiley and Sons, New York

Wride, C. E. and Robertson, P. K. (1997a). CANLEX: Phases I and III data review
report (Mildred Lake and J-Pit Sites).

Wride, C. E. and Robertson, P. K. (1997b). CANLEX: Phase II data review report

(Massey and Kidd Sites, Fraser River Delta).

Wride, C. E. and Robertson, P. K. (1997c). CANLEX: Phase IV data review report

(LL Dam and Highmont Dam Sites, Highland Valley Copper Mine).

Wride, C.E., Robertson, P.K., Biggar, K.W., Campanella, R.G., Hofmann, B.A., Hughes,
J.M.O., Kupper, A., Woeller, D.J. (2000). Interpretation of in situ test results from the
CANLEX sites. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 37: 505-529.

Youd, T. L., Idriss, I. M., Andrus, R. D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J. T., Dobry,
R., Finn, W. D. L., Harder, L. F., Hynes, M. E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J. P., Liao, S. S. C.,
Marcuson, W. F., Martin, G. R., Mitchell, J. K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M. S., Robertson,
P. K., Seed, R. B., and Stokoe, K. H. (2001). Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary
report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of
liquefaction resistance of soils. J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Eng., 127(10):
817 33.

16

View publication stats