GeoPractices- 2015

Effect of Stress Dependent Angle of Shearing Resistance in the

Design of Geotechnical Structures

Presented by

B. Umashankar, Asst. Prof., IIT Hyderabad

Indian Institute of Technology

Hyderabad

Presentation Overview

Introduction
Sand Dilatancy
Problem Definition
Approach
Results
Conclusions

GeoPractices-2015

Introduction

Earth retention has gained major importance with rise in infrastructure

development

Geotechnical Problems - Slope stability analysis and design of high retaining
walls

Images Source: Retainingwallexpert.com and Feat

GeoPractices-2015

Codal Provisions

In the BS 8006- 1995 code of practice use is made of p (Peak friction angle) for walls,
abutments and steep slopes constructed with frictional fill, and cv (Critical state friction
angle) for fill to shallow slopes and embankments founded on weak foundations.

According to BS 8002-1984, in the working state, the design values of lateral earth pressure
are intended to give an overestimate of the earth pressure on the active or retained side and
an underestimate of the earth resistance on the passive side for small deformations of the
structure as a whole.

Earth pressures reduce as fully active conditions are mobilized at peak soil strength in the
retained soil, under deformations larger than can be tolerated for serviceability. As collapse
impends, the retained soil approaches a critical state, in which its strength reduces to that of
loose material and the earth pressures consequently tend to increase once more to active
values based on critical state strength.

In FHWA (2001), peak was used in calculating the F* (Pull out resistance factor).

GeoPractices-2015

Laboratory Testing to Determine

Direct shear tests done for the normal
stress in the range 50-200 kPa

GeoPractices-2015

Is a constant ?

p depends on






Relative density
Confining stress
Inter-particle friction angle
Loading path
Soil fabric, cementation, particle angularity,
gradation, etc.

GeoPractices-2015

Effect of Confining Stress on p

p = c+
p peak friction angle
c critical state friction angle
dilatancy angle

GeoPractices-2015

Sand Dilatancy

Dilatancy plays a crucial role in determining the

mechanical behavior of sand due to its discrete particulate
nature.

Newland and Alley (1957) followed by Rowe (1962)
derived stress dilatancy relationships.

Marsal (1967), Leps (1970), and Marachi et al. (1972)
found that granular materials exhibit a peak angle of
shearing resistance as a function of effective stress.

Bolton (1986) studied the concepts of friction and
dilatancy angles in relation to strength of the soil.

GeoPractices-2015

Influence of Sand Dilatancy

Houlsby (1991) studied the relationships between the friction angle, dilation angle,
density and pressure in a granular material.

Manzari and Nour (2000) analyzed the stability of slopes by considering the influence
of soil dilatancy using finite-element approach and observed that soil dilatancy may
have a significant effect on the stability of slopes.

Chakraborty and Salgado (2010) performed triaxial and plane-strain compression tests
on Toyoura sand to establish a correlation between peak friction angle, critical state
friction angle and dilatancy for confining pressures varying from 4 kPa to 196 kPa.

Umashankar and Madhav (2011) studied the influence of effective confining stress on
angle of shearing resistance in high retaining walls.

GeoPractices-2015

Leps Curve

10

Triaxial tests on gravels and

cobbles, at effective stresses in the
range 40 3500 kPa.

Upper limit for dense, well-graded
particles.

Lower limit for loose, poorlygraded particles.

GeoPractices-2015

Problem Definition

11

Considering the influence of mean confining stress on the mobilized angle of shearing
resistance along the slip plane
1. Determining the factor of safety for various embankment heights
2. Determining the earth pressures for a wall of height H with a level backfill
1
2

3
4

GeoPractices-2015

Fill Properties
Unit weight-
Relative density - DR
Critical state fricton angle - c

Soil Properties

12

17.4

GeoPractices-2015

Soil Properties

13

Grain size distribution curve

Morphological features of sand particles

using SEM.

GeoPractices-2015

Peak Friction Angle Vs. Normal Stress

Direct shear tests - at effective

stresses in the range 5 400 kPa.

Linear relationship with
logarithmic X-axis .

GeoPractices-2015

14

Dilation behavior of sand

Normal stress of 5 to 35 kPa

GeoPractices-2015

15

Normal stress of 100 to 400 kPa

Coulombs Theory

16

Active Earth Thrust

Passive Earth Thrust

Pmax

c
N: Normal thrust on the plane
S: Shearing force along slip plane
W: Weight of sliding wedge

N: Normal thrust on the plane

S: Shearing force along slip plane
W: Weight of sliding wedge

GeoPractices-2015

Pmin

Approach
1

17

2
3

Hi and Hi+1 = Horizontal interslice forces,

.
.

Hi

Hi
Pi

Vi and Vi+1 = Vertical interslice forces,

Vi

Vi

.
.
.

Pi

Si

Wi

Ni

Wi = Weight of the slice,

Wi

Hi+1

Hi+1

Vi+1

Vi+1

Si

Ni = Normal force at the base of the slice,

Ni

Si = Shear strength of the backfill,

c = Cohesion of the backfill,
bi = Base width of the slice along the slip plane,
i = Mobilized friction angle of the backfill material.

(a)

(c)

(b)

Horizontal slice method: (a) backfill behind the wall height divided into n horizontal slices, and
(b) forces on a slice for active case (c) forces on a slice for passive case
GeoPractices-2015

Approach

18

The Horizontal Slice Method proposed by Shahgoli et al. (2001) is modified

Passive Case

Active Case

= 0 Vi +1 Vi + Si sin + Ni cos = 0

Vi Vi +1 + Wi cbi sin
tan i sin + cos
n

Ni =
n

= 0 P = ( N i sin ) ( Si cos )
i =1

= 0 Vi +1 Vi S i sin + N i cos = 0

Si = cbi + N i tan i

Si = cbi + N i tan i
Ni =

i =1

Vi +1 Vi Wi cbi sin
tan i sin cos
n

= 0 P = ( N i sin ) + ( S i cos )
i =1

i =1

Approach

19

The stress state of the soil element along the slip plane for each slice is determined
assuming the horizontal and vertical planes to be the principal planes.

For an assumed value of i, normal stress acting on the slice was determined and
this computed normal stress will be compared with the normal stress obtained from
the developed relationship between the normal stress and peak friction angle.

If the normal stresses are not equal, i corresponding to computed normal stress
will be used in the further iterations until the computed normal stress and
theoretical normal stress are equal.

GeoPractices-2015

Results

20

P*=P/H2
P*=P/

P*=P/H2
P*=P/

P* increases as wall height increases

P* decreases as wall height increases

(a)
(b)
Variation of P* with slip plane for H=5m-40m, =17.4 kN/m3 (a) Active case and (b) Passive case
GeoPractices-2015

P* increases as wall height increases

21

P*=P/H2

P*=P/H2
P*=P/

Results

(a)

P* decreases as wall height increases

(b)

Variation of P* with slip plane for H=5m-40m, =17.4 kN/m3 (a) Active case and (b) Passive case
GeoPractices-2015

Results

22

Variation of critical slip surface c with the wall height

c decreases from 72.5o to 66o as the
wall height increases from 5 m to 40 m
Coulombs theory gives a value of
68o (= 45 + /2, = 46o)

c increases from 23o to 28o as the wall

height increases from 5 m to 40 m
Coulombs theory gives a value of 22o
(= 45 - /2, , = 46o)

GeoPractices-2015

Results

Depth (m)

Variation of mobilized friction angle along

critical slip plane with depth for
wall height H=20 m.

23

10

10

15

15

Active case

20
45

Passive case

20

50

55

60

65

70

75

36
o

Mobilized phi ( )

GeoPractices-2015

39

42

45

48

51

Results

24

Variation of mobilized friction angle along

critical slip plane with depth for
wall height H=40 m.

Mobilized Phi ()
GeoPractices-2015

Results

Depth (m)

25

Constant

10

10

Constant
15

15

20

20

25

30
0.00

Passive case

25

Active case

Variation of coefficient of lateral earth pressure with

depth for wall height H=30 mm

30
0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

10

Earth pressure coefficient

GeoPractices-2015

Results

26

Constant

Variation of coefficient of lateral earth pressure with

depth for wall height H=40 m
Constant

GeoPractices-2015

Results

27

Variation of normalized total lateral thrust with wall height

GeoPractices-2015

Comparison

28

Active case

Height
(m)

Passive case

Coulombs

Stress

Coulombs

Stress

Theory Value

Dependent

Theory

Dependent

(kN)

Value

Value

Value

(kN)

(kN)

(kN)

Change
(%)

Change
(%)

35.50

13.83

61.00

1334.36

1550.52

-16.20

10

142.02

77.29

45.57

5337.42

5225.88

2.10

20

568.06

408.67

28.06

21349.69

17794.66

16.65

30

1278.147

1063.39

16.80

48036.81

36591.03

23.83

40

2272.26

2082.63

8.34

85398.77

61125.87

28.42

GeoPractices-2015

29

Slope Stability Analysis

Properties of Slope

30

Embankment Soil Properties:

Granular fill

Unit weight of soil = 18 kN/m3

Slope = 1.5 H to 1 V

Top width = 10 m

Height = 5 m, 10 m and 15 m.

1
1.5

Granular Fill

Foundation Soil Properties:

Angle of Shearing resistance () = 44
Unit Weight = 18 kN/m3

GeoPractices-2015

Foundation Soil

Procedure

31

An embankment with required dimensions

was generated using Geostudio/Slope-W.
Morgenstern-Price analysis was adopted
for calculating the factor of safety.

The material properties were assigned to

the embankment.

The critical slip plane and corresponding

factor of safety were determined.

The coordinates of the critical slip plane

were determined
GeoPractices-2015

Procedure

32

The embankment was divided into number of layers.

Suitably assumed values were assigned to the layers of

the embankment.

Fully Specified slip plane option was selected while

defining the slip plane.

The coordinates of the critical slip plane were inputted

to generate the same critical slip plane.

The factor of safety corresponding to

assumed values was determined.

GeoPractices-2015

Procedure

33

Normal stress on each slice can be verified.

The corresponding to the normal stress acting
on the slip plane was determined using Leps
lower limit curve.
The assumed and calculated values were
compared and checked for convergence.
If the convergence was not achieved, new value
of equal to the calculated was assumed and
process was repeated.
The factor of safety was determined for the critical slip plane,
once convergence was achieved

GeoPractices-2015

Results

34

H=5m

Z=0.9 m
Z=2.4 m
Z=3.9 m
Z=5.0 m

Homogeneous case

= f(m) case

GeoPractices-2015

Results

35

H = 10 m

Z=1.4 m
Z=3.2 m

Z=6.8 m

Z=10.0 m

Homogeneous case

= f(m) case
GeoPractices-2015

Results

36

H = 15 m

Z=2.1 m
Z=5.2 m
Z=8.6 m

Z=12.8 m
Z=15.0 m

Homogeneous case

= f(m) case
GeoPractices-2015

Results

37

Height (m)

Factor of Safety
Uniform

Varying

% Difference

2.358

2.910

24

10

1.658

1.919

16

15

2.064

2.317

12

GeoPractices-2015

Conclusions

38

Peak friction angle of sand reduced 54% as the confining stress increases from 0 to 400kPa.

For an increment of wall height from 5m to 40m the inclination of critical slip plane with
horizontal is decreased from 72.5o to 66o for active case and increased form 23o to 28o for passive
case.

The active thrust estimated with the consideration of stress dependent angle of shearing resistance
was lower than that obtained from Coulombs theory by 61% to 8.34% as the wall height increases
from 5 m to 40 m.

The lateral passive thrust estimated with the consideration of stress dependent angle of shearing
resistance was lower than that obtained from Coulombs theory by -16.20% to 28.42% as the wall
height increases from 5 m to 40 m.

The factor of safety increases by considering variation in maximum angle of shearing resistance
() with the vertical effective stress.

The rate of increase in factor of safety decreases from 24% to 12% with the increase in height of
the embankment from 5m to 15m.
GeoPractices-2015

References

39

Marsal, R.J. (1967), Large-scale testing of rockfills materials, Journal of Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering Division of ASCE, 93, No. 2, 2744.

Leps, T.M. (1970), Review of shearing strength of rockfill, Journal of Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering Division of ASCE, 96, SM4:11591170.

Marachi, N. D., Chan, C. K. & Seed, H. B. (1972), Evaluation of properties of rockfill
Materials, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Division of ASCE, 98,
SM1:95114.

Bolton, M.D. (1986), The strength and dilatancy of sands, Geotechnique, Vol. 36, No. 1,
pp: 65-78.

Manzari, M.T. and Nour, M.A. (2000), Significance of soil dilatancy on slope stability
analysis, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 126, No.1, 7580.

GeoPractices-2015

40