Geomechanics and Geoengineering

An International Journal

ISSN: 1748-6025 (Print) 1748-6033 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tgeo20

Comparative study of shear strength

characteristics of dry cohesionless sands from
triaxial, plane-strain and direct shear tests

Adel Hanna & Tahar Ayadat

To cite this article: Adel Hanna & Tahar Ayadat (2019): Comparative study of shear strength
characteristics of dry cohesionless sands from triaxial, plane-strain and direct shear tests,
Geomechanics and Geoengineering, DOI: 10.1080/17486025.2019.1648882

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17486025.2019.1648882

Published online: 12 Aug 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 7

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tgeo20
GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/17486025.2019.1648882

Comparative study of shear strength characteristics of dry cohesionless sands

from triaxial, plane-strain and direct shear tests
Adel Hannaa and Tahar Ayadatb
a
BCEE Department, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada; bCivil Engineering Department, Prince Mohammad Bin Fahd University, Al
Khobar, KSA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Knowledge of strength properties and deformational behaviour of soils under different loading Received 16 January 2019
conditions is necessary in the analysis of most of the geotechnical engineering problems. This Accepted 22 July 2019
paper presents a comparative study of shear strength characteristics of sands as obtained from KEYWORDS
triaxial, plane-strain and direct shear test results. The experimental results on shear strength Shear strength; triaxial;
characteristics of dry sands obtained from triaxial, plane-strain and direct shear tests, were plane-strain; direct shear;
analyzed in order to investigate the effect of soil relative density or soil porosity on the angle prediction; comparison
of shearing resistance, dilatancy factor, particles interlocking, and volumetric strain and axial
strain at failure. Furthermore, the results were used to develop correlations connecting between
the angle of shearing resistance of triaxial condition test and the direct shear test, and between
the angle of shearing resistance of plane-strain and triaxial compression conditions. The correla-
tions developed take into account the interaction between soil relative density, dilatancy factor
and particles interlocking. Good agreement has been obtained between the predicted results
values using the proposed methods and the results of the present experimental investigation and
those available in the literature

Introduction Usually, the shear strength parameters of the sand are

determined in the laboratory by conducting triaxial,
Soil is known to resist all types of loading through the
plane-strain compression or direct shear box tests. The
friction and/or cohesion of its particles. Accordingly,
conventional triaxial compression test (σ1 > σ2 = σ3) is
the only mode of failure soils may display is shear
used to simulate the case of circular footings, cofferdams,
failure. Shear strength of soils is therefore of para-
etc., while the plane-strain compression (σ1 > σ2 > σ3) is
mount importance to geotechnical engineers, which is
employed to simulate the case of retaining walls, embank-
required to estimate the capacity of foundations, the
ments, earth dams, tunnels, strip foundations, where the
stability of slopes and earth retaining structures. In the
intermediate principal stresses acting along the axis of
design of these structures, the magnitude of shearing
zero deformation. The shear box test simulates the case
resistance of the sand depends on the density, moisture
where the failure plane takes place at a predetermined
content, porosity or void ratio, the degree of freedom
location. In classic soil mechanics laboratories, quite
for the soil particle to deform under the applied load,
often shear box apparatus provides a simple and fast
the boundary conditions, etc.
way to determine the shear strength parameters of the
Due to the complex nature of the soil material in
sand, followed by the triaxial system, which is the most
responding to different boundary conditions, it then
versatile using costly equipment besides being time-con-
appropriate to duplicate the field condition in the
suming. The plane-strain apparatus is rarely available in
laboratory testing, in order to obtain the appropriate
modest soil laboratory and is used mainly for research.
soil parameters for the design. In classic soil
In the literature, efforts were made to correlate the
mechanics laboratories, shear box, triaxial and
angle of shearing resistance of plane-strain and triaxial
plane-strain apparatuses used to simulate different
compression conditions (among others, Hansen 1961,
boundary (field) conditions, and accordingly, they
Cornforth 1964, Lee 1970, Lade and Lee 1976, Hanna
produce different values of the shear strength para-
and Massoud 1981, Peters et al. 1988, Hanna 2001,
meters. Designers may have to use the laboratory set-
Alshibli et al. 2003). Hanna (2001) conducted an
up to simulate the field condition of the project in
experimental investigation of the shear strength of
hand.

CONTACT Tahar Ayadat tayadat@pmu.edu.sa

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 A. HANNA AND T. AYADAT
dry sands out using triaxial and plane-strain apparatus.
The results were used to evaluate Rowe’s stress-dila-
tancy theory, the relationships between the shear
strength components due to friction and interlocking,
and the volume-change characteristics for cases of
plane-strain and axisymmetric boundary conditions.
Alshibli et al. (2003) conducted an experimental pro-
gram to investigate the effects of grain shape, loading
condition, and confining pressure on strength proper-
ties and localization phenomena in sands. The beha-
viour of the conventional triaxial compression
experiments was compared with the results of plane
strain experiments.
Likewise, some efforts were also made to correlate
these results with those of the direct shear test (among
others, Nash 1953, Rowe 1969, Hanna et al. 1987,
Maccarini 1993, Castellanos and Brandon 2013,
Hwang et al. 2016). Castellanos and Brandon (2013)
showed that direct shear tests provide much lower
friction angles in alluvial deposits than triaxial tests.
A comparison of direct shear and triaxial test results
conducted on undisturbed alluvial soil shows that the
friction angle determined from the direct shear appa-
ratus is normally about 2 to 5 degrees lower than that
determined using the triaxial apparatus. According to
them, this can be attributed to the anisotropic shear
strength characteristics of the alluvial soils. The differ-
ence in the results of the two test devices is much less
when remoulded test specimens are used. The
remoulding process destroys the anisotropic fabric,
and the shear strength parameters are not as dependent
on the orientation of the failure plane. As results of
comparing two different testing apparatus, estimated
values of shear strength parameters of unsaturated
soil were slightly larger in the direct shear tests due to
the constraint effect of shear box. Hwang et al. (2016)
compared the shear strength characteristics of an unsa-
turated soil using triaxial compression tests and direct
shear tests. Their results showed that the estimated
values of shear strength parameters of unsaturated
soil were slightly larger in the direct shear tests due to
the constraint effect of shear box.
However, limited works were reported dealing with
the comparison of shear strength characteristics of
granular soils deduced from these three laboratory
tests conjunctly (e.g. Cioara et al. 2014). Furthermore,
very limited comparative studies focused on dilatancy
factor, particles interlocking, and volumetric strain and
axial strain at failure. Moreover, no efforts were made
to correlate the angle of shearing resistance of plane-
strain and triaxial compression conditions or with
those of direct shear test by considering the soil relative
density, dilatancy factor and particles interlocking.
This paper presents a comparative study of shear
strength characteristics of sands as obtained from triaxial,
plane-strain and direct shear test results. Furthermore,
correlations between the angles of shearing resistance
obtained by these tests are also presented.
Experimental investigation
In order to perform a comparative study of shear
strength characteristics of dry sands from triaxial,
plane-strain and direct shear tests, the results of the
experimental investigation conducted by Hanna and
Massoud (1981) and Hanna (2001) were used herein.
The results are analyzed in a different perspective in
order to investigate the effect of soil relative density or
soil porosity on the angle of shearing resistance, dila-
tancy factor, particles interlocking, and volumetric
strain and axial strain at failure. Furthermore, the
results of this comparison will be used to develop
correlations connecting between the angle of shearing
resistance of triaxial condition test and the direct shear
test, and between the angle of shearing resistance of
plane-strain and triaxial compression conditions. The
correlations developed to take into account the inter-
action between soil relative density, dilatancy factor
and particles interlocking.
The tests of the experimental investigation were per-
formed on dry silica sand to determine the angle of
shearing resistance for the sand under different loading
and boundary conditions. Table 1 presents the physical
properties of the sand samples tested. Triaxial compres-
sion tests were carried out in the conventional triaxial test
apparatus on cylindrical specimens of 38 mm in diameter
and 76 mm in length. The plane-strain test samples had
nominal dimensions of 92, 38 and 75 mm in width,
length, and height, respectively. The direct shear tests
were performed on samples having dimensions of 60.5,
60.5 and 20.5 mm (width, length and thickness, respec-
tively). Test set-up, procedure and results for plane-
strain, triaxial and shear box are documented by Hanna
and Massoud (1981) and Hanna (2001).
Tables 2 and 3 summarize the experimental results
described above and Figures 1 and 2 present these
results in graphical forms for the angles of shearing
resistance for plane-strain (φps), triaxial (φT), and direct
shear (φds) tests versus the initial porosity (n) and the
relative density Rd respectively.
Where:
emax  e
Rd ¼ (1)
emax  emin
Where: emax, emin and e are the maximum, the mini-
mum and the initial void ratio of the sand.
 GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING 3

Table 1. Physical properties of the sand used in the present investigation (Hanna 2001).
Void ratio, e Particle size, Dx (mm)

Sand type Grading/Particle shape Specific gravity, Gs Max. Min. D10 D15 D50 D60 D85
S1 Uniform/Rounded 2.65 0.80 0.40 0.11 0.135 0.23 0.265 0.36
S2 Uniform/Angular 2.63 0.90 0.50 0.30 0.40 0.51 0.7 0.75
S3 Well graded/Angular 2.64 0.95 0.40 0.40 0.45 0.63 0.8 0.9

Table 2. Summary of direct shear box test results (Hanna and Massoud 1981).
Relative den- Normal Shear stress at fail- Stress ratio at fail- Change of thickness at fail- Angle of shearing resis-
Sand Porosity, sity, stress, ure, ure ure, tance,
type n (%) Rd (%) σn (kPa) τf (kPa) τf/σn Δy (mm) φ (°)
S1 44.4 00 172 116 0.674 0.0312 31.7
37.9 47.5 172 123 0.700 0.0366 36.0
35.9 60 172 128 0.726 0.0406 37.6
32.4 85 172 148 0.839 0.0610 39.8
28.5 100 172 162 0.942 0.0780 42.1
44.4 00 344 241 0.700 0.0221 31.0
37.9 47.5 344 258 0.751 0.0279 33.7
35.9 60 344 267 0.775 0.0366 35.4
32.4 85 344 295 0.857 0.0406 37.9
28.5 100 344 333 0.969 0.0452 40.1
S2 47.3 00 172 118 0.686 0.0548 32.8
41.5 47.5 172 123 0.700 0.0508 36.4
39.0 65 172 148 0.839 0.0610 39.7
35.0 90 172 158 0.900 0.0801 42.0
33.3 100 172 163 0.945 0.0879 43.4
47.3 00 344 254 0.740 0.0327 32.1
41.5 47.5 344 263 0.764 0.0406 35.2
39.0 65 344 280 0.795 0.0508 38.0
35.0 90 344 300 0.872 0.0610 40.3
33.3 100 344 325 0.944 0.0687 43.5
S3 48.7 00 172 120 0.700 0.0356 34.4
40.3 50 172 148 0.839 0.0406 40.0
32.8 84 172 168 0.976 0.0584 44.3
28.5 100 172 176 1.028 0.0667 46.0
48.7 00 344 255 0.740 0.0308 34.2
40.3 50 344 285 0.810 0.0356 40.0
32.8 84 344 352 1.023 0.0610 44.0
28.5 100 344 358 1.043 0.0689 45.8

It can be noted that the values of the angle of shearing
resistance obtained from the plane-strain tests for dense
sand were about 5% to 15% higher than the values
obtained from triaxial compression tests, and 5% to
10% higher than the corresponding value obtained from
direct shear tests. While for loose sand, the angles of
shearing resistance obtained from the plane-strain were
slightly higher than those of the direct shear and triaxial
compression tests by 2% to 3% and 1% to 2% respectively.
Furthermore, the angles of shearing resistance from
direct shear tests were about 2.5–10% higher than those
of triaxial tests for dense sand, whereas they were slightly
lower or equal for the case of loose sands.
It is of interest to note that the variation of the angles
φps, φT and φds with the relative densities are almost linear
(the coefficients R2 obtained for this correlation are situ-
ated between 0.948 and 0.998 with a mean value of 0.981);
and converge to a value of φps = φT = φds = φcv at the
loosest state (Rd = 0). This finding agreed well with the
results of Rowe (1969). The values of φcv deduced from
the present investigation for the plane-strain, triaxial test
results and direct shear tests were equal (φcv = 30°) (with
error < 1%).
Furthermore, the higher the normal stress the lower
the secant friction obtained by these tests. This can be
explained by the fact that at higher normal stresses the
dilatancy of the sand decreases. In the present investi-
gation, sands S1 and S2 exhibited lower angles of shear-
ing resistance than sand S3. This is mainly due to its
angular particles in shape, which provide higher inter-
locking component.
Figures 3 and 4 present the relationships between
the dilatancy rate at failure, and the interlocking versus
the porosity in plane-strain and triaxial compression
tests. The interlocking between the particles, for the
sand tested, was determined from the expression
given by Rowe (1962) as follows:


σ1 dv 1=2
tan α ¼ 1 (2)
σ3 dε1
4 A. HANNA AND T. AYADAT

Table 3. Summary of triaxial and plane-strain test results (Hanna 2001).

Volumetric change
Major stress at failure, Axial strain at failure, failure, Angle of shear resis-
σ1 (kPa) ε1 (%) ΔV/V tance, φ (°)

Porosity, Relative density, Minor stress,

Sand type n (%) Rd (%) σ3 (kPa) Triaxial Plane Triaxial Plane Triaxial Plane Triaxial Plane
S1 28.5 100 172 1111 1313 2.55 0.48 2.6 0.5 41 47
34.3 69 172 889 1091 3.4 0.6 2.1 0.45 38.5 42.5
36.5 56 172 811 1045 3.56 0.65 1.6 0.40 37 41
39.3 38 172 724 958 3.85 0.85 1.00 0.25 35 38
41.2 25 172 635 904 3.95 1.2 0.75 0.23 34 36.5
44.4 00 172 584 806 4 1.8 –0.05 –0.05 32.5 33
28.5 100 344 1516 2412 2.7 0.5 2.55 0.45 39 45
33.3 75 344 1378 2115 3.2 0.65 1.92 0.4 37 42
36.5 56 344 1302 1950 3.85 0.7 1.3 0.35 35 39
38.4 44 344 1288 1809 4 0.81 0.8 0.34 34 37
44.4 00 344 1123 1447 4.2 1.84 –0.08 –0.35 32 32.5
S2 33.3 100 172 1138 1357 2.5 0.45 2.75 0.47 42 47.5
35.9 85 172 1084 1278 2.55 0.55 1.5 0.42 40.5 46.5
39.5 62 172 889 1116 2.67 0.58 1.2 0.38 39 42.5
41.7 46 172 811 1044 2.8 0.85 1.0 0.25 37 40.5
43.7 31 172 695 965 2.95 1.25 0.45 0.20 35.5 39
47.3 00 172 609 829 3.0 2.5 –0.03 –0.06 33.5 34
33.3 100 344 1723 2412 2.55 0.5 2.5 0.45 42 46
35.9 85 344 1502 2170 3.5 0.6 1.3 0.35 38 41
39.5 62 344 1378 1998 3.95 0.61 1.15 0.34 37 40.5
43.7 31 344 1220 1791 4.8 0.9 0.2 0.25 34.5 36
47.3 00 344 1171 1660 5.5 2.6 –0.05 –0.67 33 33.5
S3 28.5 100 172 1171 1364 2.0 1.22 3.99 1.28 45.5 48
33.3 82 172 1138 1357 4.06 1.4 3.65 1.18 44 47.5
38.5 59 172 1002 1199 5.38 1.65 3.5 1.08 41 45
45.0 24 172 739 958 7.2 2.35 1.8 1.02 38 38.5
48.7 00 172 622 854 8.0 5.1 –0.08 –0.1 34.5 35
28.5 100 344 2053 2718 3.5 1.25 3.95 1.35 45.5 49.5
33.3 82 344 2033 2412 4.38 1.44 3.5 1.3 43.5 45.5
38.5 59 344 1660 2384 5.5 1.75 3.0 1.2 41 43
45.0 24 344 1278 1791 9.0 2.9 1.85 1.1 36 40
48.7 00 344 1220 1481 9.30 5.94 –0.3 –0.95 34 34.5

48

------- Plane strain 172 kPa

46 ……. Triaxial
344 kPa
____ Direct shear

44
A ngl e of s heari ng resi s tanc e, φ (o)

42

40

38

36

34

32

30
28.5 30.5 32.5 34.5 36.5 38.5 40.5 42.5 44.5 46.5
Porosity, n (%)

Figure 1. Angle of shearing resistance in plane strain, triaxial compression and direct shear tests versus porosity (Sand A).
 GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING 5

50

------ Plane strain

48 ……. Triaxial
172 kPa ____ Direct shear
46 344 kPa

44
A ngl e of s heari ng resi s tanc e,φ (o)

42

40

38

36

34

32

30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Relative density, R d (%)

Figure 2. Angle of shearing resistance in plane strain, triaxial compression and direct shear tests versus relative density (sand A).

Where
α = interlocking parameter,
dv = volumetric strain
σ1 and σ3 = major and minor principal stresses,
respectively.
It is of interest to note that the dilatancy in plane-
strain tests is relatively low as compared to triaxial
results, while interlocking in plane-strain tests is higher
than for triaxial compression tests under the same
condition. The difference tends to be less at the lower
densities.
Figures 5 and 6 present the volumetric strain and
the axial strain at failure versus the porosity, respec-
tively. It can be noted that the volumetric strain curves
tend to converge at the lowest densities, and as
expected the triaxial specimens had greater positive
volume change at failure than those of the correspond-
ing plane-strain and direct shear tests. This can be
explained by the fact that in case of triaxial tests the
particles have more freedom to move around each
other, and the sample is free to expand against the
confining stress, which increases of the volumetric
strain and decrease the interlocking. Furthermore, the
axial strain at failure for the sand samples tested in
triaxial compression tests is higher than that given by
the plane-strain compression tests. The difference is
increasing with the increase of the porosity. It is also
important to note that the higher density (i.e. the lower
porosity), the lesser axial strain required to achieve
failure for triaxial and plain strain testing. While, for
the lower porosity, the higher volumetric strain
required to achieve failure for three types of testing.
Worthwhile to note that the volumetric strain for
triaxial and plain strain testing was taken as the ratio
between the measured change in volume during shear
(positive for expansion) and the volume of the sample at
the beginning of shear. Whereas for the direct shear test,
since the volume change is an invariant, the normal
strain was used in its evaluation. In general, the normal
strains induce volume changes, whereas shear strains
induce a change of shape but no volume change.
Analytical models
As mentioned in the previous section, new analytical
expression was developed to predict the angle of shear-
ing resistance of triaxial condition test from the direct
shear test data. In addition, new correlation between
the angle of shearing resistance of plane-strain and
triaxial compression conditions was proposed.
The deduced angle of shearing resistance from the
triaxial testing was determined from Mohr-Column
criterion as follows (Bolton, 1986):
6 A. HANNA AND T. AYADAT

2.4
Sand S1
____ Plane-strain
Sand S2
2.2 ------ Triaxial Sand S3

Di l ati on Fac tor, (1-dv /dε1) at fai l ure

2

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1
28.5 32.5 36.5 40.5 44.5 48.5 52.5
Porosity, n (%)

Figure 3. Dilation factor at failure in plane-strain and triaxial compression tests versus porosity (cell pressure = 172 kPa).

80
Sand S1 (172 kPa)
78 Sand S1 (344 kPa)
Sand S2 (172 kPa)
Sand S2 (344 kPa)
76
Sand S3 (172 kPa)
Sand S3 (344 kPa)
74
Interl oc ki ng parameter,α (o)

72

70

68

66

64

62

60
28.5 32.5 36.5 40.5 44.5 48.5 52.5
Porosity, n (%)

Figure 4. Interlocking in plane-strain and triaxial compression tests versus porosity.

 GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING 7

4.5
DS = Direct Shear Sand S1 (DS)
T = Triaxial Sand S1(T)
4
PS = Plane Strain
Sand S1 (PS)
Sand S2 (DS)
3.5
SandS2 (T)
Sand S2 (PS)
3 Sand S3 (DS)
Vo lumetric strain , ΔV/V (%)

Sand S3 (T)
Sand S3 (PS)
2.5

1.5

0.5

0
28.5 33.5 38.5 43.5 48.5 53.5
-0.5
Porosity, n (%)

Figure 5. Volumetric strain at failure in plane -strain, triaxial compression and direct shear tests versus porosity (normal stress = 172
kPa).

10
Sand S1 (172 kPa)
9 Sand S1 (344 kPa)
Sand S2 (172 kPa)
Sand S2 (344 kPa)
Sand S3 (172 kPa)
8 Sand S3 (344 kPa)
____ Triaxial
7
------ Plane strain
A x i al S train,ε1 (%)

0
28.5 32.5 36.5 40.5 44.5 48.5 52.5
Porosity, n (%)

Figure 6. Axial strain in plane-strain and triaxial compression tests versus porosity.
8 A. HANNA AND T. AYADAT

σ1  σ3 φcv = angle of shearing resistance at a constant-

sin ϕT ¼ (3)
σ1 þ σ3 volume shearing condition.
Where: This relationship was evaluated by Hanna et al.
σ1 and σ3 = the major and minor principal stresses, (1987) and it was found that Equation (9) is slightly
respectively; overestimating the predicted values of φds. They sug-
φT = the angle of shearing resistance of sand gested a modified equation to overcome this problem,
deduced from triaxial test results. 0:95
tan ϕps ¼ tan ϕds (10)
While for plane-strain condition, the angle of shear- cos ϕcv
ing (φps), can be computed from the principal failure
criterion developed by Bishop (1966) as follows: Furthermore, Hanna (2001) has proposed two simple
methods to predict the angle of shearing resistance for
2σ 2 biaxial strain conditions from the results of the con-
ðcos ϕps Þ2 ¼ (4)
σ1 þ σ3 ventional triaxial compression tests. These methods are
σ2 = intermediate principal stress (is related to σ1 by based on the following relationship:
the following expression of Wood (1958)): pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðKD  1Þ 12D  3D2
tan ϕps cos ϕcv ¼ (11)
σ 2 ¼ ko σ 1 (5) 4KD  KD2 þ 3D
Where ko is the coefficient of earth pressure at rest; i.e. K and D, are the parameters of the stress-dilatancy
having zero strain in the direction of the intermediate theory presented by Rowe (1962) and they are
principal stress. This coefficient could be estimated related by:
from the following equations: R ¼ DK (12)
● for normally consolidated sands (Simons 1958): Where:
R = the principal stress ratio (R ¼ σσ 13 );
ϕ
K is the material parameter [K ¼ tan2 ðπ4 þ 2f Þ], and
ko ¼ 1  sin ϕps (6)
D = the dilatancy factor (D ¼ 1  dε dv
1
)
● for overconsolidated sands (Schmidt 1966): dv and dε1 = the plastic components of the volu-
metric strain and axial strain, respectively, and φf is
Rowe’s frictional angle.
ko ¼ ð1  sin ϕps ÞðOCRÞb (7) Hansen (1961) suggested that ϕps ¼ 1:1ϕT for φT > 25°.
Lade and Lee (1976) suggested that a conservative estimate
where b is a non-dimensional exponent. Different values of φps may be obtained from the following equations:
have been suggested for this coefficient as b = 0.42 (Bellotti ϕps ¼ 1:5ϕT  17o ; for φT > 34° and ϕps ¼ ϕT ; for φT
et al. 1975), b = 0.5 (Mayerhof 1976) and b = sinφ (Mayne
≤ 34°.
and Kulhawy 1982).
In the following section and based on Rowe (1962),
And for direct shear tests the angle of shearing resis-
an analytical expression was developed to predict the
tance was determined using Budhu (2000), as follows:
angle of shearing resistance of triaxial condition test
τf from the direct shear test data.
tan ϕds ¼ (8)
σn By combining Equations (9) and (11), it can be
Where: written that
τf = shear stress acting on the plane of failure pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðKD  1Þ 12D  3D2
σn = normal stress applied on the plane of failure tan ϕds ¼ (13)
4KD  KD2 þ 3D
Rowe (1969) proposed the following relationship
between the shear strength of sand determined from Thus
plane-strain and direct shear tests as follows: pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3D: tan ϕds þ 12D  3D2
K ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (14)
tan ϕds ¼ tan ϕps : cos ϕcv (9) D 12D  3D2 þ D2 : tan ϕds  4D: tan ϕds
Where: Equation (1) can be expressed as
φds = angle of shearing resistance deduced from
R  1 KD  1
direct shear test results sin ϕT ¼ ¼ (15)
R þ 1 KD þ 1
φps = angle of shearing resistance deduced from
plane-strain test results Therefore,
 GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING 9

1 þ sin ϕT 1 þ sin ϕT
K¼ (16) RT ¼ (26)
Dð1  sin ϕT Þ 1  sin ϕT
Equating Equations (14) and (16), the following equa- By substituting Equations (12) and (26) in (11), it can
tion can be written be written,
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi h ipffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 þ sin ϕT 3D: tan ϕds þ 12D  3D2 1þsin ϕT
¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1sin ϕT  1 12D  3D2
Dð1  sin ϕT Þ D 12D  3D2 þ D2 : tan ϕds  4D: tan ϕds tan ϕps cos ϕcv ¼ h i h i (27)
ϕT ϕT
(17) 4 1þsin
1sin ϕ  D 1þsin
1sin ϕ þ 3D
T T

By rearranging the terms, we obtain Thus,

tan ϕds ðD þ 2Þ  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 sin ϕT
sin ϕT ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1sin ϕT 12D  3D2
tan ϕds ð2D  2Þ þ 12D  3D2 tan ϕps cos ϕcv ¼   (28)
4 sin ϕT 4D sin ϕT þ2Dþ4
Or: 1sin ϕT

A1 : tan ϕds Therefore,

sin ϕT ¼ (18) pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
B1 : tan ϕds þ C1 sin ϕT 12D  3D2
tan ϕps cos ϕcv ¼ (29)
Where ð2  2DÞ sin ϕT þ D þ 2
A1 ; B1 , and C1 are constants, which depend on the Equation (29) can be expressed by:
dilatancy factor (D).
Furthermore,: A2 sin ϕT
tan ϕps cos ϕcv ¼ (30)
B2 sin ϕT þ C2
A1 ¼ D þ 2 (19)
Where
B1 ¼ 2D  2 (20) pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
A2 ¼ 12D  3D2 (31)
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
C1 ¼ 12D  3D2 (21) B2 ¼ 2  2D (32)
Figure 7 presents the deduced values of the dilatancy
factor, D from the results of the triaxial tests and plane- C2 ¼ D þ 2 (33)
strain tests of the present investigation and those avail-
By substituting Equation (22) into Equations (31–33),
able in the literature versus the relative density of the
we obtain,
sand. It can be noted that D can be reasonably repre-
pffiffiffipffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
sented by the following equation: A2 ¼ 3 ð1 þ Rd Þð3  Rd Þ (34)
D ¼ Rd þ 1 (22)
B2 ¼ 2:Rd (35)
According to Figure 7 and Equation (22), the factor
D has two possible limits: D = 1.0 for sand at its loosest
C2 ¼ Rd þ 3 (36)
state (Rd = 0) and D = 2.0 for its densest state (Rd = 1.0).
Similar conclusion was made by Hanna (2001), Horne
(1965) and Rowe (1962, 1969).
Substituting Equation (22) into Equations (19), (20) Comparison between experimental and
and (21), Thus theoretical results
A1 ¼ Rd þ 3 (23) Test results of the direct shear tests obtained in the present
investigation and those available in the literature were used
B1 ¼ 2Rd (24) to predict the angle of shearing resistance for case of axi-
symmetric strain loading condition (φT) utilizing Equation
pffiffiffipffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (18). The obtained results are grouped in Table 4. It can be
C1 ¼ 3 ð1 þ Rd Þð3  Rd Þ (25)
noted that (Equation 18) is slightly overestimating the
In order to correlate the plane-strain angle of shear- values of φT by 5% to 20% with a mean value of 13%.
ing resistance φps from triaxial test data, the following This is mainly due to the fact that in the present analysis
is proposed: (Equations 13–25), tanφds was expressed by Equation (7).
Equation (15) can be written as: However, as mentioned previously, this equation (Equation
10 A. HANNA AND T. AYADAT

2.4
Sand S1 (present w ork)
Sand S2 (present w ork)
2.2 Sand S3 (present w ork)
Hanna 2001
Cornforth 1961
Dil atanc y factor, D 2

1.8

1.6

D = Rd + 1
1.4

1.2

1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Relative density, Rd (%)

Figure 7. Variation of the dilatancy factor (D) with the relative density (Rd).

9) overestimates the results of tanφds. For this reason, and to Conclusions

overcome the problem, Equation (8), proposed by Hanna
et al. (1987), was used instead leading to slightly different
coefficients for Equation (18), as follows:
A1 ¼ 0:95ðRd þ 3Þ
B1 ¼ 1:9Rd
pffiffiffipffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
C1 ¼ 3 ð1 þ Rd Þð3  Rd Þ
The results obtained by applying Equation (18) with
the modified coefficients A1 , B1 and C1 (Equations 37–39)
are also grouped in Table 4 (last column). It can be noted
from the Table that the maximum deviation is around
9%. Therefore, Equation (18) with the modified coeffi-
cients (Equations 37–39) can be used with a reasonable
degree of confidence to predict triaxial angle of shearing
resistance (φT) from direct shear results.
Using the data of Table 3 and those reported in the
literature, the different values of sinφps (for normally con-
solidated sands) were estimated by the expression given in
Equation (30) and the results are grouped in Table 5. It can
be noted from this Table that good agreement between the
predicted and measured values of φps was achieved.
The foregoing study was undertaken in order to
compare between three testing methods such as,
triaxial, plane-strain and direct shear, commonly
used to determine the shear strength of soils. Also,
(37)
to develop simple methods to predict the angle of
shearing resistance for any type of these tests using
the results of the two others. The stress history of
(38)
sand was also considered in the analyses. Based on
the results of the present investigation the following
conclusions:
(39)
(1) The strength of the plane-strain specimens in
the case of medium-dense sand is higher than
the corresponding value in triaxial and direct
shear tests, and lower than the one obtained in
the case of dense sand samples.
(2) The deduced angle of shearing resistance of
plane-strain tests for the case of dense sand
was about 15%, 10% and 15% higher than the
corresponding values for the triaxial compres-
sion test for sand S1, S2 and S3, respectively.
At the same density, the angle of shearing
resistance was also about 5%, 2.5% and 10%
higher than the value obtained from the direct
shear tests for the same sand.
 GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING 11

Table 4. Comparison of the predicted and measured triaxial angles of shearing resistance reported in the literature (normally
consolidated sands).
Predicted
Measured (Equation 18) Predicted (modified Coefficients)

Type of soil σ3 (kPa) Rd (%) φds tanφds φT(1) sinφT φT sinφT φT

S1 172 00 31.7 0.617 32.5 0.617 38.1 0.584 35.8
47.5 36.0 0.726 36.0 0.623 38.6 0.597 36.7
60 37.6 0.770 37.1 0.641 39.8 0.615 38.0
85 39.8 0.833 40.0 0.653 40.8 0.630 39.1
100 42.1 0.903 41.0 0.656 43.2 0.661 41.4
344 00 31.0 0.600 32.0 0.599 36.8 0.569 34.7
47.5 33.7 0.666 34.3 0.580 35.5 0.556 33.8
60 35.4 0.710 35.2 0.601 37.0 0.576 35.2
85 37.9 0.778 38.0 0.626 38.8 0.603 37.1
100 40.1 0.842 39.0 0.653 40.8 0.630 39.1
S2 172 00 32.8 0.644 33.5 0.642 40.0 0.560 34.2
47.5 36.4 0.737 37.1 0.632 39.2 0.605 37.3
65 39.7 0.830 39.2 0.674 42.4 0.646 40.3
90 42.0 0.900 41.3 0.689 43.6 0.665 41.7
100 43.4 0.945 42.0 0.705 44.9 0.681 43.0
344 00 32.1 0.627 33.0 0.626 38.8 0.594 36.5
47.5 35.2 0.705 36.0 0.610 37.6 0.583 35.7
65 38.0 0.781 37.3 0.642 40.0 0.617 38.1
90 40.3 0.848 39.0 0.662 41.5 0.638 39.7
100 43.5 0.948 42.0 0.707 45.0 0.683 43.1
S3 172 00 34.4 0.684 34.5 0.683 43.1 0.583 35.7
50 40.0 0.839 40.0 0.698 44.3 0.670 42.1
84 44.3 0.975 44.1 0.734 47.3 0.709 45.2
100 46.0 1.035 45.5 0.747 48.4 0.722 46.3
344 00 34.2 0.679 34.0 0.678 42.7 0.644 40.1
50 40.0 0.839 40.0 0.698 44.3 0.874 42.1
84 44.0 0.965 43.6 0.730 46.9 0.703 44.7
100 45.8 1.028 45.5 0.744 48.1 0.719 46.0
Nash (1953) 29.0 0.554 32.0 0.610 37.6 0.563 34.3
34.3 0.682 34.4 0.627 38.9 0.580 35.5
38.0 0.781 36.2 0.648 40.4 0.603 37.1
43.2 0.939 39.0 0.688 43.5 0.653 40.8
(1) values deduced from typical experimental results of Figure 2 in terms of relative density.

(3) The deduced angle of shearing resistance from direct (7) Simple expressions (Equations 18 and 30)
shear test for the case of dense sands was about 2.5% were proposed to predict the angle of shearing
to 10% higher than the corresponding values for the resistance for any type of the three listed test-
triaxial test. It was slightly lower or equal for the case ing methods using the results of the two
of loose sand. others.
(4) In plane-strain tests, sand particles have less freedom (8) A good agreement has been obtained between
to move around, which results in an increase of the predicted results values using the proposed
particle interlocking. While, in triaxial tests, the par- methods and the results of the present experi-
ticles possess the freedom to move around each mental investigation and those available in the
other, and the sample is free to expand against the literature.
confining pressure, which results in an increase of
the volumetric strain and a decrease of interlocking.
For the better graded and angular particles, the NOTATION
interlocking effect is greater than with the rounded
Ai ; Bi ; Ci and Di are coefficients, which depend mainly on
and uniform particles. D and OCR
(5) The axial strain at failure in triaxial tests is D: the dilatancy factor
greater than the corresponding value in plane- Dx: the diameter of the sand particles for which (X)% of
strain tests at the same confining pressure and particles are finer
density. dε1: plastic component of the axial strain
dv: plastic component of the volumetric strain
(6) The volumetric strain at failure in triaxial com-
Gs:
pression tests is greater than the corresponding K: the material parameter;
value obtained from plane-strain and direct ko: coefficient of earth pressure at rest
shear tests. OCR: overconsolidated ratio
12 A. HANNA AND T. AYADAT

Table 5. Comparison of the predicted and measured plane-strain angles of shearing resistance reported in the literature (normally
consolidated sands).
Measured (Hanna 2001) Predicted (Equation 30)

Soil type σ3 (kPa) Rd φT (°) sinφT φps (°) tanφps tanφps φps (°)
S1 172 0 32.5 0.537 33.0 0.645 0.640 32.6
0.25 34.0 0.559 36.5 0.740 0.720 35.8
0.38 35.0 0.573 38.0 0.781 0.764 37.4
0.56 37.0 0.601 41.0 0.869 0.839 40.9
0.69 38.5 0.622 42.5 0.916 0.896 41.8
1.0 41.0 0.656 47.0 1.072 1.007 45.2
344 0 32.0 0.5299 32.5 0.637 0.631 32.2
0.44 34.0 0.559 37.0 0.753 0.751 36.9
0.56 35.0 0.573 39.0 0.809 0.791 38.3
0.75 37.0 0.601 42.0 0.900 0.865 40.8
1.0 39.0 0.629 45.0 1.000 0.947 43.4
S2 172 0 33.5 0.551 34.0 0.674 0.657 33.3
0.31 35.5 0.580 39.0 0.809 0.762 37.3
0.46 37.0 0.601 40.5 0.854 0.823 39.4
0.62 39.0 0.629 42.5 0.916 0.898 41.9
0.85 40.5 0.649 46.5 1.053 0.973 44.2
1.0 42.0 0.669 47.5 1.091 1.037 46.1
344 0 33.0 0.544 33.5 0.661 0.649 33.0
0.31 34.5 0.566 36.0 0.726 0.741 36.5
0.62 37.0 0.649 40.5 0.854 0.848 40.3
0.85 38.0 0.615 41.0 0.869 0.903 42.0
1.0 42.0 0.669 46.0 1.035 1.037 46.1
S3 172 0 34.5 0.566 35.0 0.700 0.675 34.0
0.24 38.0 0.615 38.5 0.795 0.798 38.6
0.59 41.0 0.656 45.0 1.000 0.941 43.3
0.82 44.0 0.694 47.5 1.091 1.065 46.8
1.0 45.5 0.713 48.0 1.111 1.143 48.8
344 0 34.0 0.5591 34.5 0.687 0.666 33.7
0.24 36.0 0.587 40.0 0.839 0.758 37.2
0.59 41.0 0.656 43.0 0.932 0.941 43.2
0.82 43.5 0.688 45.5 1.017 1.051 46.4
1.0 45.5 0.713 49.5 1.170 1.144 48.8
Glass ballotini 138 1.0 34.5 0.566 37.5 0.767 0.815 39.1
Rowe (1962) 0.8 33.0 0.544 36.0 0.726 0.763 37.3
0.6 30.5 0.507 32.5 0.637 0.686 34.4
0.4 27.6 0.463 28.4 0.541 0.602 31.0
0.2 26.6 0.447 27.0 0.510 0.560 29.2
0.0 24.0 0.406 24.0 0.445 0.484 25.8
Mersey river quartz 28 1.0 42.0 0.669 46.5 1.053 1.037 46.0
Rowe (1962) 0.8 40.6 0.719 43.5 0.949 0.968 44.0
0.6 38.0 0.615 40.0 0.839 0.870 41.0
0.4 36.9 0.600 38.0 0.781 0.809 38.9
0.2 34.5 0.566 35.0 0.700 0.720 35.7
0.0 32.0 0.530 32.0 0.625 0.631 32.3
Brasted sand 276 1.0 42.0 0.669 46.0 1.035 1.037 46.1
Cornforth (1964) 0.67 40.0 0.642 43.0 0.933 0.931 42.9
0.33 35.5 0.580 37.0 0.754 0.766 37.4
0.17 34.0 0.559 35.0 0.700 0.704 35.1
0.0 33.0 0.544 33.5 0.662 0.648 33.0

e: the initial void ratio of the sand. σ: Normal stress applied on the plane of failure
emax.: maximum void ratio of sand τ: shear stress on the plane of failure
emin.: minimum void ratio of the sand
R: the principal stress ratio
R d: the relative porosity of the sand
Acknowledgments
Rps: plane-strain principal stress ratio
RT: triaxial principal stress ratio The financial support from the Natural Science and
Si: sand ‘i’ Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and
β: the angle of dilatancy Concordia University are acknowledged.
Δy: Change of thickness at failure
φcv: the angle of shear resistance at constant volume
φps: angle of shearing resistance of plane-strain test,
φT: angle of shearing resistance of triaxial test, Disclosure statement
σ 1: major principal stress,
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
σ 3: minor principal stress

References
Alshibli, K.A., Batiste, S.N., and Sture, S., 2003. Strain loca-
lization in sand: plane strain versus triaxial compression.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 129 (6), 483–494. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0241(2003)129:6(483)
Bellotti, R., Formigoni, G., and Jamiolkowski, M., 1975.
Remarks on the effects of overconsolidation on ko.
Proceedings of the Istanbul conference on soil mechanics
and foundation engineering, Turkiye.
Bishop, A.W., 1966. The strength of soil as engineering
materials. Geotechnique, 16 (2), 91–130. Sixth Rankine
lecture. doi:10.1680/geot.1966.16.2.91.
Bolton, M.D., 1986. The strength and dilatancy of sand.
Geotechnique, 36 (1), 65–78. doi:10.1680/geot.1986.36.1.65
Budhu, M., 2000. Soil mechanics & foundations. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Castellanos, B. and Brandon, T.L., 2013. A comparison
between the shear strength measured with direct shear
and triaxial devices on undisturbed and remolded soils.
Proceedings of the 18th international conference on soil
mechanics and geotechnical engineering, Paris.
Cioara, S., Stanciu, A., and Lungu, I., 2014. Comparative
study on determining the Internal friction angle for sand.
Buletinul Institutului Politehnic Din IASI. CONSTRUCTII.
ARHITECTURA.
Cornforth, D.H., 1964. Some experiments on the influence of
strain conditions on the strength of sand. Geotechnique,
14, 143–166. doi:10.1680/geot.1964.14.2.143
Hanna, A.M., 2001. Determination of plane-strain shear
strength of sand from the results of triaxial tests. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 38 (6), 1231–1240. doi:10.1139/t01-064
Hanna, A.M. and Massoud, N., 1981. Interlocking of gran-
ular materials in two and three-dimensional shear failure.
Proceeding of the Eight Canadian Congress Of Applied
Mechanics [CANCAM81], Moncton, and N.B.
Hanna, A.M., Massoud, N., and Youssef, H., 1987. Prediction
of plane strain angle of shearing resistance from direct
shear test results. Proc. Prediction and Performance in
Geotechnical Engineering, Calgary, Canada, pp. 369–376
Hansen, J.B., 1961. A general formula for bearing capacity.
Danish Geotechnical Institute, Bulletin, 11, 38–46.
Horne, M.R., 1965. The behavior of an assembly of rotund,
rigid cohesionless particles. Proceedings of the Royal
Society, 286, 62–91.
GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING 13
Hwang, H.S., et al., 2016. Comparison of shear strength char-
acteristics of unsaturated soil from triaxial compression tests
with direct shear tests. Journal of Korean Geosynthetics Society,
15 (4), 63–69. doi:10.12814/jkgss.2016.15.4.063
Lade, P. and Lee, K.L., 1976. Engineering properties of soils.
Los Angeles: University of California, Report UCLA-ENG-
7652. doi:10.1084/jem.143.4.741
Lee, K.L., 1970. Comparison of plane strain and triaxial tests
on sand. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Division, ASCE, 96, 901–908.
Maccarini, M., 1993. A comparison of direct shear box tests
with triaxial compression tests for a residual soil.
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 11 (2), 69–80.
doi:10.1007/BF00423336
Mayerhof, G.G., 1976. Bearing capacity and settlement of pile
foundations. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division, ASCE, 102 (3), 195–228.
Mayne, P.W. and Kulhawy, F.H., 1982. ko-OCR relationship
in soils. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE, 108 (6), 851–872.
Nash, K.L., 1953. The shearing resistance of a fine, graded
sand. In Proceedings from the 3rd International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Balkema,
Rotterdam, 1, pp. 160–164.
Peters, J., Lade, P., and Bro, A., 1988. Shear band formation
in triaxial and plane strain tests. In: R. Donaghe,
R. Chaney, and M. Silver, eds.. Advanced triaxial testing
of soil and rock, ASTM, STP 977. ASTM, 604–627.
Rowe, P.W., 1962. The stress-dilatancy relation for static
equilibrium of an assembly of particles in contact. In
Proceeding of the Royal Society, Series A, 269, 500–527.
doi:10.1098/rspa.1962.0193
Rowe, P.W., 1969. The relation between the shear strength
of sands in triaxial compression and plane strain.
Geotechnique, 19 (1), 75–86. doi:10.1680/
geot.1969.19.1.75
Schmidt, B., 1966. Discussion of “Earth pressure at rest
related to stress history”, by Brooker E.W. and Ireland
H.O. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 3 (4), 148–161.
doi:10.1139/t66-028
Simons, N.E., 1958. Discussion on general theory of earth
pressure. In Proceedings by Brussels Conference on Earth
Pressure Problems, Brussels, Belgium 3, 50–53.
Wood, C.C., 1958. Shear strength and volume change char-
acteristics of compacted soil under condition of plane strain.
Ph.D. Thesis. University of London.