Intro

Shear Strength is the property that enables a material to remain in equilibrium

when the surface is not level. Soils in liquid form have virtually no shear strength.
Share failure occurs at a point on a plane where the shear stress is equal to the shear
strength of the soil. The stability of any geotechnical structure is highly dependent on a
soils shear strength so lab experiments are carried out to obtain parameters for further
analysis and design. The Direct Shear Test is one such experiment.
Objective
TO familiarize the student with a procedure for rapidly determining the strength
parameters ( and c) of a soil
Theory
The direct shear test is imposed on a soil were two stresses act on the failure plane
(a normal stress due to a vertical load and a shearing stress due to the applied
horizontal load). These stresses are simply computed as :

= /A
=/A

- normal stress
- shear stress
- vertical load
- Horizontal load
A- Area of specimen box
These stresses should satisfy Coulombs equation :
= c + tan
- angle of friction
-shear stress
c- cohesive shear stress

APPARATUS
1. Direct shear machine
2. Shear box
3. Shear fins
4. Pore stones
5. Press
6. Sample box
7. Ball and plunger
8. Base plate
9. Pins

PROCEDURE
1. Three soil samples were molded to fill the sample box.
2. The first was pressed into the shear box and setup in the direct shear machine as
shown above.
3. A normal force was applied to the sample by sliding weights onto the ball and
plunger.
4. All gauges were set to zero before starting the machine.
5. For intervals on the horizontal deflection gauge, the corresponding shear gauge
reading was noted.
6. The machine was left going until the sample had failed.
7. The sample was weighed along with its assigned moisture tin before being placed
in the oven.
8. The same procedure was repeated with the last two samples, increasing the
normal force for each.
9. After the 24 hours the samples and their respective moisture tins were removed
from the oven and reweighed to obtain their dry weights and determine moisture
content.

10. The results were used to calculate and plot a graph of Shear Stress vs Normal
Stress to obtain the necessary parameters.

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
Particulars:
Average Depth = 4m
Sample Weight = 990.77g =

kg

Dimensions:
Diameter: 70mm = 0.01708m
Height: 103mm = 0.13363m
Area =

m2

Volume =

Bulk Unit Weight, d =

m3

d = 18.27 kN/m3

Normal Pressure n =

n = 73.079 kN/m2
Sample Box Dimensions:
Height, H = 0.02m
Width, B = 0.06046m
Length, L = 0.06046m
Area =

m2

Weight: 139.83g = 0.13983 kg

Normal Force =

FN = 0.121 kN. Converting to kilograms,

FN =

= 27.28 kg

The three normal forces used for each sample experiment are as follows:

Test #

Value
(kg)

Force

/2 FN

Value
(kN)

Corresponding
Stress, n (kN/m2)

13.64

0.134

36.66

FN

27.28

0.268

73.32

1.5 FN

40.93

0.397

108.82

2 FN

54.56

0.535

146.64

Table 1: Table showing Normal Force, FN, applied to each sample

Calculating Moisture Content:

Moisture Content (%) =
MC% for sample 1 =

= 19.9%
DIRECT SHEAR WEIGHTS

Tin
F4
D3
J1

Total weight (g)

167
167
170

Sample weight
136
136
139

Moisture tin weight =

Sample 1: Tin F4

Dry weight (g)

135
135
138

Sample weight
104
104
107

Moisture Content
24%
24%
23%

31 g

Sample 2: Tin D3
Sample 3: Tin J1
*The moisture contents are roughly the same as all samples for testing were obtained
from one bore hole sample.
Sample Calculations for Results:
*Calibration on Shear Load Reading Gauge = 0.003288589 kN/division
Taking the maximum shear load reading from sample 1,
Specimen Area =

= 0.00365m2

Horizontal Deflection = 300

Shear Load Reading = 47.1
Shear Load =
=
Shear Load, F = 0.15 kN
Max Shear Stress (Shear Strength), =

 42.44 kN/m2
The graphs plotted are:
1. Shear Stress vs Horizontal Displacement
2. Shear Strength vs Normal Stress; shear strength parameters obtained from this
one

DISCUSSION/SOURCES OF ERROR
The results obtained were for the most part in line with the theory given in the
introduction.
As it pertains to the composite plots of shear stress against horizontal deflection it
can be seen that the greater the normal force applied to a sample, the greater the shear
stress it resisted. This phenomenon could be likened to that of a block being dragged
along a surface. When a weight is put on top of the block it would be harder to slide as
the contact pressure increases thus increasing frictional forces (resistance to sliding).
There was one discrepancy observed however in these same composite plots. As
mentioned already, the higher the normal load, the greater shear stress the soil sample
should be able to resist. The plot for sample 2 stays true to theory for what seems to be
the elastic stage of testing (incline to the left of the graph with a seemingly constant
gradient). In this region you can see that its plotted points look to lie just about midway
between samples 1 and 3 (seeing as FN1 < FN2 < FN3). However, after the elastic region
is past and the plots start to level off sample 2s plot can be seen veering in the direction
of sample 1 to the point where the maximum shear load/stress for the two was virtually
the same. This discrepancy may have simply been caused by inconsistency in the

molding and preparation of the samples for testing or the fact that there were bits of
crystalline rocks embedded in the borehole sample.
Another possible reason for the increased resistance is the fact that this was a
drained shear test. The drainage of water meant that the excess pore water pressure
(mechanism behind buoyant force) was allowed to dissipate hence causing the total stress
to increase at a greater rate. As effective stress is the difference between the two variables
(effective stress, = total stress, total water pressure, u) this meant that the effective
pressure was also increasing at the contact/shear plane. This caused greater resistance to
shear forces hence the reason for the shear strengths getting higher with each increase in
normal stress.
.
Other possible sources of error may have been:
1. Lack of flexibility in weights prohibiting ability to apply exact normal forces
calculated.
2. Spaces being left in corners of sample box while trying to mold the sample. The
redistribution of soil in these areas accounted for the missing volume however this
may have brewed inconsistency in soil cohesion. i.e. corners of final sample were
more susceptible to breaking away.

CONCLUSION
For the soil samples, the normal shear stress and corresponding maximum shear stress
were:

Sample 1:

n = 16.86 kN/m2
max = 145.73 kN/m2

Sample 2:

n = 33.70 kN/m2
max = 147.65 kN/m2

Sample 3:

n = 50.56 kN/m2
max = 209.97 kN/m2
And the shear strength parameters determined were:
Apparent cohesion, c = 103.51 kN/m2
Internal angle of friction, = 62.33o

REFERENCE(S)
1. Budhu, Muni, 2000. Soil Mechanics and Foundations. John Wiley and Sons
Incorporated.