You are on page 1of 13

Friction Angles for Sand, Gravel and Rockfill

by J. Michael Duncan























Notes of a lecture presented at the
Kenneth L. Lee Memorial Seminar
Long Beach, California
April 28, 2004
1
Friction Angles for Sand,
Gravel and Rockfill
What I learned from Ken Lee
as a role model
When you dig into something, dig deep.
Keep an open mind about what is useful
and practical.
Why this topic?
Kens interest my interest.
Data is available that has not been thoroughly
evaluated in previous studies.
Thanks to
Youngjin Park Virginia Tech
Binod Tiwari Virginia Tech
Chris Meehan Virginia Tech
Sathi Sathialingam WCC (MWDSC)
Yoshi Moriwaki WCC (MWDSC)
Harry Seed Berkeley RTF
Clarence Chan Berkeley RTF
Dean Marachi Berkeley RTF
Ed Becker Berkeley RTF
50 years of previous studies
Ken Lee and various co-authors Seed, Dunlop, Singh,
Farhoomand
Vallerga
Zeller and Wullimann
Marsal
Tom Leps
WCC for MWDSC on Diamond Valley Dam
Marachi et al.
Becker et al.
35 others, through Varadarajan et al. (2003)
Outline
Review of the basics
Compilations of data
Evaluation of effects
Improving estimates of
2
Components of shearing resistance (Lee and Seed, 1967)
0 5 10 15 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
a
l

s
t
r
e
s
s

r
a
t
i
o

-

1
/

3
-5
0
5
10
15
V
o
l
u
m
e
t
r
i
c
e

s
t
r
a
i
n

-

%
0 5 10 15 20
Axial strain - %

3
= 21,500 psf

3
= 21,500 psf
0 5 10 15 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
a
l

s
t
r
e
s
s

r
a
t
i
o

-

1
/

3
-5
0
5
10
15
V
o
l
u
m
e
t
r
i
c
e

s
t
r
a
i
n

-

%
0 5 10 15 20
Axial strain - %

3
= 26,000 psf

3
= 26,000 psf
D
r
= 100% D
r
= 38%

3
= 2,048 psf

3
= 2,048 psf

3
= 2,048 psf

3
= 2,048 psf
Greater expansion, higher (Lee and Seed, 1967)
Curved failure envelopes
(Marachi et al., 1969)
Secant values of
is defined by a
single test
Marachi et al. (1969)
Variation of
secant
with confining pressure
| |
=
|
\ .
3
0 10
a
log
p
Compilations of test results
3
Leps (1970) 109 tests
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Normal stress on slip surface (psi)
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

A
n
g
l
e

(
d
e
g
r
e
e
)
= 55 degrees - 7 degrees x Log
10
(
N
in psi)
WCC, working for MWD on the Diamond Valley Reservoir,
doubled the size Lepss compilation (from 109 tests to 226 tests)
Woodward-Clyde working on the Diamond Valley Reservoir
For the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 226 tests
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
65.0
70.0
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Normal stress on slip surface (psi)
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
g
l
e

(
d
e
g
r
e
e
)
= 57 degrees - 7 degrees x Log
10
(
N
in psi)
Lepss comments on his compilation
of -values for rockfill
Virtues:
1. Presents a good overall perspective of the
relation of friction angles to normal pressure.
2. Illustrates the dearth of information at normal
pressures below 10 psi.
Lepss comments (continued)
Shortcomings:
1. Only roughly indicates the effect of relative
density.
2. Only roughly indicates the effect of gradation.
3. Only vaguely suggests the effect of particle
strength.
4. Gives no clue as to the influence of particle
shape.
5. Offers no evaluation of influence of degree of
saturation of the rock particles.
These factors can be evaluated by
examining data now available
4
Effect of relative density
= 48
o
= 43
o
Oroville
amphibolite
= 41
o
= 38
o
Venato
sandstone
= 51
o
= 48
o
Pyramid Dam
argillite
D
r
= 85% D
r
= 50% Material
increases as D
r
increases
(Becker et al., 1972)
3
= 30 psi, D
max
= 0.5 in.
First conclusions:
Relative density is the most important single
factor governing friction angles of granular
materials.
It is essential to know relative densities in
order to isolate the effects of the other factors
on Lepss list.
Data is available for 125 tests on materials
with particle sizes up to 6 inches, where the
relative densities of the test specimens are
known:
69 tests on gravels with C
u
> 4
26 tests on sands with C
u
> 6
30 tests on sands with C
u
< 6
The Unified Soil Classification System is not a
good guide with respect to the influence of
gradation on friction angles.
The classification GP is usually said to indicate
uniformly graded or gap-graded material. This is
not correct.
A gravel that is neither uniform nor gap-graded
may classify as GP.
Effect of gradation
Grain size curves from Becker, Chan and Seed (1972)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Grain Size (mm)
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

b
y

w
e
i
g
h
t

(
%
)

#10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200 #4
U.S. Standard Sieve Number
1/4 3/8 1/2 3/4 1
U.S. Standard Sieve Opening (in)
"Pyramid gradation" -- 2-inch max particle size
C
u
= 7.2, C
c
= 1.3
USCS classification = GW
"Oroville gradation" -- 2-inch max particle size
C
u
= 35, C
c
= 4.2
USCS classification = GP
Oroville gradation
C
u
= 35
Pyramid gradation
C
u
= 7
Higher C
u
, higher
Effect of gradation (Becker et al. (1972)
5
Better than USCS classification (GW, GP):
(1) Describe as Gravel or Sand, based on
the percent passing the #4 sieve,
(2) With the value of C
u
For example:
Gravel with C
u
= 35, rather than GP for the Oroville
Dam material.
Particle strength
Categories suggested by Leps (1970)
Weak q
u
= 500 psi to 2,500 psi
Average q
u
= 2,500 psi to 10,000 psi
Strong q
u
= 10,000 psi to 30,000 psi
Materials tested by Marachi et al. (1969) and
Becker et al. (1972)
Particles
disintegrated
upon
saturation
Very weak q
u
< 500 psi
Colorado
sandstone
Easily broken
with a
hammer
Average q
u
= 5,000 psi
Venato
sandstone
Readily
broken with a
hammer
Strong
q
u
= 15,500
psi
Pyramid
argillite
Very difficult
to break with
a hammer
Strong
q
u
= 28,000
psi
Oroville
amphibolite
Strong particles
Average strength particles
Becker, Chan and Seed (1972)
Particle strength
Very weak particles
Ratio of particle size to specimen size
Holtz and Gibbs (1956) and Leslie (1963)
showed that particles larger than 1/5
th
to 1/10
th
of
the specimen diameter tend to interfere, resulting
in measured strengths that are too high.
These findings have led to the widely accepted
rule:
Specimen diameter should be 6 x D
max
Tests to measure strengths of rockfills
15 in. diameter 3 in.
Varadarajan et al. (2003)
Ranjit Sagar Dam & Purulia Dam
24 in. by 54 in.
rectangular
36 in. diameter
44 in. diameter
20 in. diameter
Specimen size
4 in.
Becker et al. (1972)
Oroville Dam & Pyramid Dam
plane strain
6 in.
Marachi et al. (1969)
Oroville Dam & Pyramid Dam
triaxial
7 in.
Marsal (1967, 1970)
El Infernillo Dam & Mica Dam
4 in.
Zeller and Wullimann (1957)
Gschenanalp Dam
D
max
Investigation
6
Scalping and modeling to remove particles that are
too large for test equipment
Modeled grain size curves for Pyramid Dam
material (Marachi et al., 1969)
Dr = 100% Dr = 71% Dr = 44%
Becker et al., (1972)
Effect of particle size (Becker et al., 1972)
D
r
= 85%,
3
= 30 psi, modeled gradations
= 48
o
= 46
o
= 48
o
Oroville
amphibolite
= 40
o
= 41
o
= 41
o
Venato
sandstone
= 49
o
= 48
o
= 50
o
Crushed
basalt
= 48
o
= 48
o
= 51
o
Pyramid Dam
argillite
D
max
= 6 in D
max
= 2 in D
max
= 0.47 in Material
decreased as D
max
increased (or stayed the same)
Dr = 100% Dr = 71% Dr = 44%
Becker et al., (1972)
7
Effect of particle size modeled gradations quarried rockfill
Varadarjan et al. (2003)
decreased as D
max
increased, for
3
> 4 atmospheres
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
1.00 10.00 100.00
(
3
/p
a
)
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

A
n
g
l
e

(
d
e
g
r
e
e
)
Dmax
3.2 in
2.0 in
1.0 in
Alluvial rockfill - Gravel, Cu = 138
USCS classification = GW
Relative density = 87%
Effect of particle size modeled gradations - alluvial rockfill
Varadarjan et al. (2003)
increased as D
max
increased
Gschenanalp Dam material scalped gradations
(Zeller and Wullimann, 1957)
Effect of particle size (Zeller and Wullimann,
1957), scalped gradations
Effect of grain shape
At the same void ratio, material with angular
particles has higher than material with rounded
particles (Chen, 1948, and Vallerga, et al., 1957).
At the same compactive effort, material with
angular particles has very nearly the same as
material with rounded particles only one degree
higher (Vallerga, et al., 1957).
Effect of moisture condition
For most sands, moisture reduces .
Lee, Seed and Dunlop (1967) found that the
value of for a saturated specimen of Antioch
sand was 9.6 degrees less than for an oven-dry
sample.
For Ottawa sand, values of for saturated and
oven dry specimens were the same.
Conclusion always test in a moist condition
8
Effect of moisture
(Lee, Seed and Dunlop, 1967)
= 31
o
= 31
o
14 psi
Ottawa
(No. 20 to No. 30)
= 37
o
= 38
o
85 psi
Monterey
(No. 20 to No. 30)
= 41
o
= 44
o
14 psi
Sacramento
River
(No. 50 to No. 100)
= 31
o
= 40
o
85 psi
Antioch
(No. 50 to No. 100)
= 41
o
= 48
o
14 psi
Antioch
(Minus No. 4)
Saturated Oven dry
3
Sand
Review of Lepss comments
Leps noted that the compilation he had assembled:
1. Only roughly indicated the effect of relative
density.
2. Only roughly indicated the effect of gradation.
3. Only vaguely suggested the effect of particle
strength.
4. Gave no clue as to the influence of particle
shape.
5. Offered no evaluation of influence of degree of
saturation of the rock particles.
Based on information available now, we can say:
1. Relative density 125 tests are available to
evaluate the important effect of relative density.
These tests show, for example, that increasing
D
r
from 40% to 100% results in an increase in
of about 10 degrees at confining pressure of 15
psi (Sacramento River sand, Lee and Seed,
1967).
At a confining pressure of 180 psi, the increase
increasing D
r
from 40% to 100% results in an
increase in of about 5 degrees.
2. Gradation its effect has been isolated through
tests with the same particles, same D
r
, same
3
(tests on Oroville material at Pyramid gradation
compared to tests on the Oroville material at the
Oroville gradation).
These tests show that an increase in the
coefficient of uniformity (C
u
) from 7 to 35 results in
an increase in of 3 degrees at a confining
pressure of 30 psi, and 2 degrees at a confining
pressure of 650 psi.
C
u
is a good indicator of friction angle, but the
USCS classification GP is misleading, because
it applies to materials that are neither uniform nor
gap-graded.
3. Particle strength its effect has been isolated
through tests at the same relative density on
materials with strong, average, and very weak
particles.
The effect of particle strength is due to the fact
that materials with strong particles suffer less
breakage, and dilate more during shear.
3. (continued)
At
3
= 30 psi, and D
r
= 70%, the measured
friction angles for materials with strong particles
were 10 degrees higher than for materials with
very weak particles, and 5 degrees higher than
for material with average strength particles.
At high pressures, the effect of particle strength is
less (only about 3 degrees at
3
= 650 psi).
9
4. Particle shape tests by Vallerga et al. (1957)
showed that, at the same compactive effort,
material with angular particles had only one
degree higher than material with rounded
particles.
The same compactive effort likely resulted in
the same, or nearly the same, relative density
for the two materials .
5. Degree of saturation the tests by Lee, Seed
and Dunlop (1967) showed that moisture
reduces the friction angles for materials with
particles that contain micro-cracks.
Moisture has no effect on friction angles for
materials with completely sound particles that
contain no cracks, like Ottawa sand.
Improving estimates of :
1. Represent the variation of with confining pressure
using the same type of equation as used by Leps
(1970) and WCC.
2. Include the effect of relative density on

0
and
3. Separate data into these three groups
Gravel with C
u
> 4,
Sand with C
u
> 6, and
Sand with C
u
< 6
| |
=
|
\ .
N
0 10
a
log
p
Example Pyramid Dam material, D
max
= 0.5 in.
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
50.00
55.00
1.00 10.00 100.00

N
/p
a
(log scale)


(
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
)
Dr = 80%
Dr = 5%
7 50 5%
10 56 80%

0
D
r
2. Use a simple equation for the variation of
0
and
with relative density.
( )
( )
( ) ( )
= +
= +
| |
( = + +
|

\ .
0 r
r
N
r r 10
a
A B D
C D D
A B D C D D log
p
3. Determine best-fit values of A, B, C, and D by
trial and error using the data available for tests
on gravels and sands where relative density is
known.
Use the standard deviation of the computed
value of as a measure of best fit.
10
Gravel with C
u
> 4:
A = 44 degrees
B = 10 degrees
C = 7 degrees
D = 2 degrees
Standard deviation
= 3.1 degrees
69 tests
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
Measured (degree)
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d


(
d
e
g
r
e
e
)
( ) ( )
| |
( = + +
|

\ .
N
r r 10
a
A B D C D D log
p
Sand with C
u
> 6:
A = 39 degrees
B = 10 degrees
C = 3 degrees
D = 2 degrees
Standard deviation
= 3.2 degrees
26 tests
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
Measured (degree)
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d


(
d
e
g
r
e
e
)
( ) ( )
| |
( = + +
|

\ .
N
r r 10
a
A B D C D D log
p
Sand with C
u
< 6:
A = 34 degrees
B = 10 degrees
C = 3 degrees
D = 2 degrees
Standard deviation
= 3.2 degrees
30 tests
( ) ( )
| |
( = + +
|

\ .
N
r r 10
a
A B D C D D log
p
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
Measured (degree)
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d


(
d
e
g
r
e
e
)
3.2
3.2
3.1
Standard
Deviation
2 3 10 34
Sand with
C
u
< 6
2 3 10 39
Sand with
C
u
> 6
2 7 10 44
Gravel with
C
u
> 4
D C B A Material type
( ) ( )
| |
( = + +
|

\ .
N
r r 10
a
A B D C D D log
p
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
30.0 32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0 42.5 45.0 47.5 50.0 52.5 55.0 57.5 60.0 62.5 65.0
(degrees)
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
Distribution of measured
values of in WCC data
(226 data points)
Measured values
Normal
distribution
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
30.0 32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0 42.5 45.0 47.5 50.0 52.5 55.0 57.5 60.0 62.5 65.0
(degrees)
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
Distribution of measured
values of in WCC data
(226 data points)
Lognormal
distribution
Measured
values
11
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
30.0 32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0 42.5 45.0 47.5 50.0 52.5 55.0 57.5 60.0 62.5 65.0
(degrees)
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
Distribution of measured
values of in WCC data
(226 data points)
Measured values
Normal
distribution
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
30.0 32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0 42.5 45.0 47.5 50.0 52.5 55.0 57.5 60.0 62.5 65.0
(degrees)
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
Distribution of measured
values of in WCC data
(226 data points)
Lognormal
distribution
Measured
values
Significance of standard deviation
Lognormal
distribution
Normal distribution
<0.1% 0.1% 3
2% 2% 2
16% 16% 1
Probability that the actual value could
be smaller than the best estimate value
Number of
standard
deviations below
best estimate
Example
Sand with C
u
> 6
A = 39, B = 10, C = 3, D = 2
Relative density = 75%

N
= 4,000 psf (p
a
= 2,116 psf)
= (39 + 10(0.75)) (3 + 2(0.75))(log(4,000/2,116)
= 46.5 4.5(0.28) = 45 degrees
Probability of less than 42 degrees is 16%
Probability of less than 39 degrees is 2%
Probability of less than 36 degrees is 0.1%
Summary
Information available from tests on sands gravels
and rockfills provides a basis for determining the
effects of several factors on friction angles through
all other things equal comparisons:
Pressure
Relative density
Gradation (C
u
)
Grain size (sand,
gravel, rockfill)
Particle strength
Particle shape
Moisture
Summary
Using the results of 125 tests for which relative
density is known, it is possible to make estimates
of that reflect the effects of pressure, relative
density, gradation, and grain size.
( ) ( )
| |
( = + +
|

\ .
N
r r 10
a
A B D C D D log
p
12
Summary
In addition to estimates of , the correlation
equations give the standard deviations for the
estimated values of .
The standard deviations are the same for all three
cases about 3 degrees.
Summary
The correlation equations make it possible to
account in a logical way for the effects of pressure,
relative density, grain size, and gradation on the
value of .
Knowledge of the standard deviation makes it
possible to determine the reliability of the
estimated value of .

You might also like