Geotechnical Testing Journal, March 2003, Vol. 26, No.

1
Paper ID GTJ200310648_261
Available online at: www.astm.org

Robert C. Pedersen,1 Roy E. Olson,2 Alan F. Rauch3

Shear and Interface Strength of Clay at Very Low

Effective Stress

ABSTRACT: Thin-specimen direct shear (TSDS) tests were conducted to measure the shearing strength of kaolinite, and interface strengths between kaolinite and acrylic plastic and anodized aluminum, at normal effective stresses from 1 to 2400 Pa (0.02 to 50 lb/ft2). At the lowest effective
normal stresses, curved strength envelopes fitted through the data exhibited no cohesion and high secant friction angles. Accurate information on
the behavior of soil in this low-pressure range is needed to properly interpret the behavior of prototype foundations in laboratory-scale model tests.
KEYWORDS: shear strength, low stress, interface friction, direct shear, tilt-table

Knowledge of the shearing resistance between soil and concrete,

steel, geosynthetics, and wood is needed to evaluate the stability of
many types of geotechnical structures. Numerous studies have produced useful data on the shearing resistance of interfaces involving
sand on steel or concrete, and clay on polymer geosynthetics, but
much less information is available on the strength of interfaces between clays and rigid foundation materials. Further, most interface
shear tests have been conducted at stress levels that are convenient
for laboratory testing and appropriate for typical field conditions.
In contrast, there is a lack of experimental data on soil interface
strengths at low stress levels.
At the University of Texas at Austin, scale models of offshore
foundations are being tested in tanks of normally and overconsolidated kaolinite (El-Gharbawy and Olson 1999; Olson et al. 2001;
Rauch et al. 2001). The behavior of suction caissons is being studied using acrylic and aluminum models measuring up to 100 mm in
diameter by 1 m long, in a 1-g environment. Suction caissons are
large-diameter steel piles that are used in the deep marine environment to anchor floating structures. They are installed using a
combination of dead weight and internal suction. Early suction
caissons had relatively large diameters and shallow depths, but the
soft clays found in the Gulf of Mexico require deeper penetration
to develop the desired capacity. Knowledge of the shearing resistance at the caisson/clay interface is particularly important for design, especially for vertical loading.
Laboratory-scale model tests are being used to study the behavior of suction caisson foundations, with the findings used to support
the development of improved analytical and design methods. To
interpret these laboratory tests, the interface shearing behavior of
clay at low effective normal stresses must be characterized. Thinspecimen direct shear (TSDS) tests were undertaken to characterize the drained strength of kaolinite interfaces at low effective normal stresses.
Received July 17, 2001; accepted for publication April 5, 2002; published
Jan. 17, 2003.
1
Graduate research assistant, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712.
2
L. P. Gilvin Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of
Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712.
3
Assistant professor, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of
Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, 78712.

Previous Studies of Soil and Interface Shear Strength

Many engineers accept the presence of an effective stress cohesion intercept for a cohesive soil, but not for a cohesionless
soil. However, clean sands can exhibit cohesion intercepts if
straight lines are fitted to strength envelopes that are actually
curved. Test results dating back to at least Casagrande (1940) indicate that effective stress failure envelopes for sands are curved.
Curved failure envelopes for sands have been widely reported
(Vesic and Clough 1968; Lee and Seed 1967; Ponce and Bell
1971). De Beer (1970) demonstrated that large errors can result
from using failure envelopes measured in the usual range of effective stress to interpret small-scale laboratory tests in sand.
For clays, early shear tests of normally consolidated Boston Blue
clay indicated no cohesion intercept (Jurgenson 1934). Casagrande
and Hirschfeld (1960) assumed that the cohesion intercept for clay
was zero, but the friction angle decreased with increasing normal
stress. Jacobson (1953) found an origin cohesion for normally
consolidated natural clays. Bjerrum (1954) also found a cohesion
intercept, which he attributed to attractive forces between the clay
particles, while Kenney at al. (1967) and Tavenas et al. (1971)
demonstrated cohesion due to cementation. Bjerrum (1973) indicated that strengths could increase due to the effects of aging. However, the curvature of failure envelopes for normally consolidated
clays is apparent in the usual stress range (Olson 1974) as well as
at elevated stresses (Bishop et al. 1965; Brouillette et al. 1993).
Duncan et al. (1980) found that curved failure envelopes for
many soils could be conveniently modeled in the typical pressure
range using a friction angle that decreases linearly with the logarithm of effective normal stress. Following this suggestion with the
secant friction angle (
s), a non-linear envelope can be represented
(Fig. 1) with:

s 
s1  
s log (n)

(1)

where n is the effective normal stress, and
s1 and 
s are parameters used to fit the measured strength data. Like the internal
strength of soil, failure envelopes for soil sheared along various interfaces are likely curved and can be approximated in a similar
manner:
s  s1  s log (n)

Copyright 2003 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.

(2)

GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

FIG. 1Model of curved strength envelope using the secant friction angle.

where s is the secant interface friction angle and s1 and s are
fitting parameters.
Potyondy (1961) measured interface friction angles in the
normal-stress range of 50150 kPa using direct shear tests. It is
likely that Potyondys tests with clayey soils involved partial
drainage, making it impossible to interpret the interface shearing
resistance in terms of effective stress. Direct shear tests on interfaces between sand and wood, concrete, or metal have also been reported by Acar et al. (1982), Bosscher and Ortiz (1987), Reddy
et al. (2000), and others.
Relying mostly on direct simple shear tests of sand on steel or
concrete, Uesugi and Kishida (1986a) investigated the relationships between interface shear resistance and particle size, particle
shape, surface roughness, and normal stress. They found that the
interface friction varied with surface roughness up to a critical
value; on even rougher surfaces, failure occurred in the soil and the
interface strength was determined by
. The interface friction angle was found to decrease slightly between normal stresses of 100
to 4000 kPa. They also related interface friction to particle roundness and a surface roughness index (Uesugi and Kishida 1986b;
Kishida and Uesugi 1987). For effective normal stresses in the
range of 100 to 500 kPa, Uesugi et al. (1988, 1990) found that little sliding occurs on the interface at shear stresses below failure. At
the peak shear stress, sand slipped along a smooth interface, while
shearing was concentrated in the sand on a rough interface.
Fewer interface shear tests have been conducted with cohesive
soils on concrete or steel. In drained direct shear tests, Clark and
Meyerhof (1972) and Littleton (1976) found contacts between steel
and clays to be entirely frictional (no cohesion). Tsubakihara and
Kishida (1993) used direct simple shear tests and found that, for
clay-steel interfaces, shearing deformations occur in the soil up to
the peak shear stress, followed by sliding along a smooth interface.
On a surface rougher than the critical value, deformation and failure occur completely in the soil.
Lehane and Jardine (1996) summarized the results of interface
shear tests performed with clays, silts, and sands on steel. They
showed that the interface friction angle decreased as the soil became coarser, consistent with the findings of Uesugi and Kishida
(1986b). Tsubakihara et al. (1993) observed three failure modes:
shearing within the soil placed against a rough surface, sliding of
the soil along a smooth interface, and, for clay-sand mixtures, partial sliding in localized areas of the interface contact area.
Direct shear tests of clays on geomembranes have been reported
by Koerner et al. (1986), Seed and Boulanger (1991), Fishman and
Pal (1994), and others. Direct shear tests have also been performed
on geosynthetic clay liners, some involving normal pressures less
than 10 kPa (Gilbert et al. 1996; Merrill and OBrien 1997; Fox et

al. 1998). Tests of sand on polymer membranes show that the interface friction angle increases with higher normal stresses due to
particles becoming embedded in the membrane (Girard et al.
1990), an effect that changes with the hardness of the polymer
(ORourke et al. 1990).
Most of the interface shear tests described in the literature were
conducted using either direct shear or simple shear devices. Torsional shear devices are sometimes used to achieve larger shearing
deformations (Yoshimi and Kishida 1981; Stark and Poeppel
1994). Almost all of the interface tests cited here were conducted
at normal stresses exceeding about 15 kPa.
Direct Shear Tests with Tilt Tables and Thin Specimens
A simple means of conducting shear tests at very low stress levels involves the use of a tilt-table, where shear stresses are generated by inclining the specimen. Tilt-table devices have been used
to measure low-pressure friction along rock joints (Cawsey and
Farrar 1976; Hencher 1976; Bruce et al. 1989) and geosynthetic interfaces (Girard et al. 1990; Shan 1993; Lalarakotoson et al. 1999).
Tilt-table shear tests have the following disadvantages (Hencher
1976; Shan 1993; and Gilbert et al. 1995): displacements are not
controlled and the post-peak response cannot be measured, test
pressures are limited by toppling of the surcharge weights, and
nonuniform normal stresses develop on the interface as the device
is inclined. Advantages include the elimination of internal machine
friction, not forcing failure to occur along the interface, and the
ability to perform tests under low normal stresses.
Thin soil specimens can be used in tests to measure the strength
of soils. Terzaghi (1925) performed direct shear tests on specimens
as thin as 3 mm and found that
s for his yellow clay decreased
from 38 to 15 as the normal stress rose from 3 to 90 kPa. respectively. Over the same range of pressures, he measured s for clay
on glass of 33 to 12. Although Terzaghis samples were initially
consolidated, full drainage may not have occurred during shearing.
Jurgenson (1934) performed direct shear tests on remolded clay
specimens as thin as 2 mm and measured friction angles that were
independent of specimen thickness. Casagrande and Hirschfeld
(1960) reported obtaining the same failure envelope using standard
thick specimens and specimens as thin as 3 mm, in the stress range
of 10 to 30 kPa. Kenney et al. (1967) performed simple shear tests
on specimens as thin as 1 mm and found similar friction angles
from thin or thick specimens. Chandler and Hardie (1989) studied
residual friction angles using specimens as thin as 2 mm.
Although not suitable for testing undisturbed specimens, using
thin specimens in direct shear tests on remolded soil is an established technique with many advantages: thinner specimens reduce

PEDERSEN ET AL. ON SHEAR AND INTERFACE STRENGTH OF CLAY

the time needed to dissipate excess pore pressures and eliminate the
need for lateral confinement.
Thin-Specimen Direct Shear Tests on Kaolinite
In this study, submerged kaolinite specimens, 0.3 to 0.5 mm
thick, were sheared to failure in what will be called thin-specimen
direct shear (TSDS) tests. The tests were conducted using a tilting
table apparatus in a water bath (Fig. 2). Specimens were prepared
by pouring kaolinite slurry on top of a 13-mm-thick by 150-mmdiameter porous stone that had a temporary slurry retention band
around the sides. A top platen fabricated from acrylic, aluminum,
or porous stone was then placed on top. The slurry was allowed to
consolidate, with drainage through the lower stone, while the band
was allowed to slide down over the lower stone. Consolidation
pressures ranged from 1 to 2400 Pa (0.02 to 50 lb/ft2). The tests
were set up, then submerged in the water bath, and the retaining
band was removed to leave the specimen unconfined.
Shearing stresses were applied by elevating one end of the table
(Fig. 2) in increments of one degree, with the apparatus locked in
position for 1 min after each increment to allow for full dissipation
of excess pore water pressures (Pedersen 2001). The angle of inclination () was determined optically using a cathetometer. Shearing
displacements were not measured.
The average normal () and shear ( ) stresses were:
  (W / A) cos 

(3)

 (W / A) sin 

(4)

where A is the area of the shear plane, W is the submerged weight

of the top platen and surcharge weights, and  is the angle of rotation. The estimated accuracies of the test measurements are summarized in Table 1. Rotation of the assembly of soil, platens, and
weights converts the applied normal force to an inclined and ec-

centric load (Hencher 1976; Shan 1993; Pedersen 2001). Flat

weights were used to minimize this problem. The maximum inclination of the test was limited by the tendency for the weights to tip.
A 150-mm-diameter porous stone was used as the top platen in
obtaining measurements of the kaolinites internal shear strength
(Jurgenson 1934; Chandler and Hardie 1989). Interface tests were
conducted with a top platen of smooth, unaltered acrylic or anodized aluminum, the two materials used to make the model suction caissons. The interface platens were larger in diameter (160
mm) than the test soil (150 mm) to provide for a constant contact
area as shearing displacements developed.
Failure involved the top platen and weights sliding down the inclined table. Whether failure occurred within the kaolinite or by
sliding along the interface was judged by observing the exposed
surface of the lower porous stone. For sliding along the interface,
the top platen should slide off cleanly and the exposed part of the
lower stone should remain covered with kaolinite. When failure occurs in the soil, some of the soil should adhere to the top platen and
some to the bottom platen, leaving some areas on each that have no
adhered soil.
All test specimens were overconsolidated to some degree at failure, because both apparatus submergence and rotation during testing reduced the normal stress on the sample (Pedersen 2001). The
normal stress decreases with increasing specimen inclination ()
and the overconsolidation ratio (OCR) becomes 1/cos. In these
tests, the maximum inclination achieved was almost 60, which resulted in an OCR of 2 from this effect. In addition, because the tests
were conducted by consolidating the soil under the applied weights
before submerging the apparatus, buoyancy reduced the effective
weight of the surcharge and the applied effective stress. For most
of the tests, the combined effects of submergence and rotation lead
to an OCR at failure between about 1.2 and 10.
Results from TSDS Tests on Kaolinite
The kaolinite clay tested was Hydrite R, purchased as a dry
powder from the Dry Branch Kaolin Co. It has a liquid limit in
the range of 5458 %, a plastic limit in the range of 3134 %, and
a specific gravity of the solids of 2.592.63 (El-Gharbawy 1998).
El-Gharbawy (1998) used conventional direct shear tests on 100mm-diameter by 13-mm-thick specimens of this soil and found
that
  28 and c  140 Pa in the pressure range of 2001600
Pa (Fig. 3).
The first series of TSDS tests with Hydrite R kaolinite used a
porous stone on top of the kaolinite (Table 2), except for two tests

FIG. 2Tilt-table apparatus used in thin-specimen direct shear (TSDS)

tests.

TABLE 1Estimated accuracy of TSDS test measurements.

Measurement

Accuracy

Contributing Factors

Inclination ()

0.1

Submerged surcharge
weight
Normal effective stress
(n)

2%

Accuracy/precision of
cathetometer

0.03 % in dry weight,

2 % in specific gravity

2 % in submerged weight of
surcharge,

2 % in specimen area
Average over tilt increment
of 0.81.0

Secant friction angle

(
s or s)

4%

0.6 at 30

FIG. 3Failure envelope from drained direct shear tests on kaolinite

(El-Gharbawy 1998).

GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

TABLE 2Summary of TSDS tests conducted on kaolinite.

Normal Stress, Pa

OCR at Failure

Top Platen

Number of Tests

Minimum

Maximum

Minimum

Maximum

Stone
Acrylic
Aluminum

15
15
11

1
10
40

2320
1980
1840

1.4
1.2
1.2

115.1
17
2.1

FIG. 4Drained strength of kaolinite measured in TSDS and direct shear tests.

that involved a layer of kaolinite with no stone on top. It was difficult to determine by observation whether failure occurred at the
stone/soil interface or in the soil in these tests, but it appears that
the difference was insignificant. The failure envelope (Figs. 4a and
4b) was curved and passed through the origin. The previous direct
shear tests (El Gharbawy 1998) gave a slightly steeper failure envelope than the TSDS tests, possibly because of friction in the direct shear apparatus.
The measured secant friction angles decreased from about 60 at
low normal stresses to about 23 at the highest normal stresses (Fig.
4c). The semi-logarithmic envelope (Eq 1) was fit to the data and
is shown as a solid line in all three plots of Fig. 4. A linear strength
envelope passing through the TSDS data would have given a cohesion intercept of about 50 Pa.
When an acrylic top platen was used, failure typically involved
a gradual displacement of the acrylic platen with shearing displacements up to about 6 mm. The leading portion of the acrylic
platen, which moved beyond the edge of the lower stone, usually
appeared to be clean and transparent, whereas the clay exposed by

the sliding top plate remained along the upper edge of the lower
porous stone, suggesting that failure occurred at the interface between the kaolinite and the acrylic plastic. After failure, rapid displacement occurred, and parts of the acrylic plate that had sheared
beyond the underlying kaolinite had small amounts of adhered
kaolinite, and patches of bare porous stone could be seen along the
trailing edge where the clay had apparently adhered to the acrylic.
The measured shearing resistances from the acrylic interface
tests (Fig. 5) are lower than the internal drained strength of the soil.
Large friction angles and no intercept were observed at low normal
stresses, and the failure envelope could be represented using a
semi-logarithmic relationship (Eq 2).
For the interface tests with kaolinite and anodized aluminum, the
self-weight of the aluminum platen limited the lowest effective
normal stress to about 40 Pa. The measured interface strength for
aluminum (Fig. 6) was lower than that of kaolinite. Hence, even
though about half of the tests visually seemed to involve failure
through the soil, the measured strengths suggest that failure occurred by sliding at the interface.

PEDERSEN ET AL. ON SHEAR AND INTERFACE STRENGTH OF CLAY

FIG. 5Drained strength of kaolinite-acrylic interface measured in TSDS tests.

FIG. 6Drained strength of kaolinite-anodized aluminum interface measured in TSDS tests.

GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

FIG. 7Comparison of kaolinite strengths measured in TSDS tests.

Data from all of the TSDS tests are plotted together in Fig. 7, along
with the fitted curved strength envelopes. Even with the scatter in this
very low pressure test data, it is clear that the interface shear strengths
for both acrylic and anodized aluminum are lower than the drained
shear strength of kaolinite. Ratios of interface strength to kaolinite
strength ranged from 0.7 to 0.9 for acrylic and 0.6 to 0.8 for aluminum. The TSDS tests confirm observations previously made during pullout tests of suction caisson models in the laboratory (ElGharbawy 1998; El-Gharbawy and Olson 1999) that failure occurred
at the caisson interface under drained loading conditions.

response in model tests, research is needed to develop a test device

that would allow measurement of stresses and strains in very soft
soil specimens confined at low effective stresses.

Summary and Conclusions

Acar, Y. B., Durgunoglu, H. T., and Tumay, M. T., 1982, Interface Properties of Sand, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Vol. 108, No. GT4, pp. 648654.
Bishop, A. W., Webb, D. L., and Skinner, A. E., 1965, Triaxial
Tests on Soil at Elevated Cell Pressures, Proceedings, 6th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 170174.
Bjerrum, L., 1954, Theoretical and Experimental Investigations
on the Shear Strength of Soils, Ph.D. dissertation, Federal Institute of Technology at Zurich, reprinted as Pub. 5 of the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute.
Bjerrum, L., 1973, Problems of Soil Mechanics and Construction
on Soft Clays and Structurally Unstable Soils, Proceedings, 8th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Moscow, Vol. 3, pp. 111159.
Bosscher, P. J. and Ortiz, C., 1987, Frictional Properties Between
Sand and Various Construction Materials, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol.
113, No. 9, pp. 10351039.
Brouillette, R. P., Olson, R. E., and Lai, J. R., 1993, Stress-Strain
Characteristics of Eagle Ford Shale, Proceedings, International
Symposium on Hard Soils-Soft Rocks, Athens, Greece, Vol. 1,
pp. 397404.
Bruce, I. G., Cruden, D. M., and Eaton, T. M., 1989, Use of a Tilting Table to Determine the Basic Friction Angle of Hard Rock
Samples, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp.
474479.
Casagrande, A., 1940, First Progress Report to the Waterways Experiment Station, Harvard University.

Low-pressure direct shear tests were performed using thin specimens of saturated kaolinite on a tilt-table apparatus. These thinspecimen direct shear (TSDS) tests were conducted to characterize the drained internal strength of kaolinite, as well as the shearing
resistance of kaolinite on interfaces of smooth acrylic and anodized
aluminum, at normal effective stresses less than 2.4 kPa (50 lb/ft2).
Observations from these test results include:
The TSDS apparatus functioned well, although it was difficult
to ascertain from visual observations whether failure occurred
at the interface or in the clay.
The effective-stress failure envelope of kaolinite is curved for
pressures below 2.4 kPa. At the lowest test pressures, the measured secant friction angles for the soil and the interfaces, with
values approaching 60, were well in excess of the values that
would be expected based on tests at higher pressures.
The interface shearing resistance was generally less than the
drained shear strength of the kaolinite.
Whereas best-fit linear strength envelopes through the TSDS
data give a cohesion or adhesion intercept, the curved envelopes pass through the origin. There was little opportunity
for aging effects in these tests.
Analyses of laboratory-scale model tests should use soil properties determined in the appropriate stress range rather than properties extrapolated from tests at higher pressures. The difference between observed and extrapolated properties would be considerable
for the kaolinite tested. To allow constitutive modeling of the soil

Acknowledgments
This work was funded by the Offshore Technology Research
Center, which is supported by the U.S. Minerals Management Service and the OTRC Industry Consortium.
References

PEDERSEN ET AL. ON SHEAR AND INTERFACE STRENGTH OF CLAY

Casagrande, A., and Hirschfeld, R. C., 1960, Stress-Deformation

and Strength Characteristics of a Clay Compacted to a Constant
Dry Unit Weight, Proceedings, Research Conference on the
Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils, American Society of Civil Engineers, Boulder, Colorado, pp. 359417.
Cawsey, D. C., and Farrar, N. S., 1976, A Simple Sliding Apparatus for the Measurement of Rock Joint Friction, Gotechnique, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 382386.
Chandler, R. J., and Hardie, T. N., 1989, Thin-Sample Technique
of Residual Strength Measurement, Gotechnique, Vol. 39, No.
3, pp. 527531.
Clark, J. I., and Meyerhof, G. G., 1972, The Behavior of Piles
Driven in Clay: Part I, An Investigation of Soil Stress and Pore
Water Pressure as Related to Soil Properties, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 351373.
De Beer, E. E., 1970, Experimental Determination of the Shape
Factors and Bearing Capacity Factors of Sand, Gotechnique,
Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 387411.
Duncan, J. M., Byrne, P., Wong, K. S., and Mabry, P., 1980,
Strength, Stress-Strain and Bulk Modulus Parameters for Finite Element Analyses of Stresses and Movements in Soil
Masses, Report No. UCB/GT/80-01, University of California,
Berkeley.
El-Gharbawy, S. L., 1998, The Pullout Capacity of Suction Caisson Foundations for Tension Leg Platforms, Ph.D. dissertation,
The University of Texas at Austin.
El-Gharbawy, S. and Olson, R. E., 1999, Suction Caisson Foundations in the Gulf of Mexico, Analysis, Design, Construction,
and Testing of Deep Foundations, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Geotechnical Special Pub. 88, pp. 281295.
Fishman, K. L., and Pal, S., 1994, Further Study of Geomembrane/Cohesive Soil Interface Shear Behavior, Journal of Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 13, No. 9, pp. 571590.
Fox, P. J., Rowland, M. G., and Scheithe, J. R., 1998, Internal
Shear Strength of Three Geosynthetic Clay Liners, Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 124, No. 10, pp. 933944.
Gilbert, R. B., Liu, C. N., Wright, S. G., and Trautwein, S. J., 1995,
A Double Shear Test Method for Measuring Interface
Strength, Proceedings, Geosynthetics 95, Vol. 3, Nashville,
pp. 10171029.
Gilbert, R. B., Fernandez, F., and Horsfield, D. W., 1996, Shear
Strength of Reinforced Geosynthetic Clay Liner, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 122, No. 4, pp. 259266.
Girard, H., Fischer, S., and Alonso, E., 1990, Problems of Friction
Posed by the Use of Geomembranes on Dam SlopesExamples
and Measurements, Journal of Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
No. 9, pp. 129143.
Hencher, S. R., 1976, Discussion on: A Simple Sliding Apparatus
for the Measurement of Rock Joint Friction, Gotechnique,
Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 641644.
Jacobson, B., 1953, Origin Cohesion in Clays, Proceedings, 3rd
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 3537.
Jurgenson, L., 1934, Shearing Resistance of Soils, Journal of the
Boston Society of Civil Engrs., July, reprinted in Contributions
to Soil Mechanics, 19251940, Boston Society of Civil Engineers, 1940.
Kenney, T. C., Moum, J., and Berre, T., 1967, An Experimental
Study of Bonds in a Natural Clay, Proceedings Geotechnical
Conference, Oslo, Norway.

Kishida, H., and Uesugi, M., 1987, Tests of the Interface Between
Sand and Steel in the Simple Shear Apparatus, Gotechnique,
Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 4552.
Koerner, R. M., Martin, J. P., and Koerner, G. R., 1986, Shear
Strength Parameters Between Geomembranes and Cohesive
Soils, Journal of Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 4, No.
1, pp. 2130.
Lalarakotoson, S., Villard, P. and Gourc, J. P., 1999, Shear
Strength Characterization of Geosynthetic Interfaces on Inclined
Planes, Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp.
284291.
Lee, K., and Seed, H. B., 1967, Drained Strength Characteristics
of Sands, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 93, No. SM6, pp.
117141.
Lehane, B. M., and Jardine, R. J., 1996, Shaft Capacity of Driven
Piles in Sand: A New Design Approach, Proceedings, Conference on Behavior of Offshore Structures, pp. 2336.
Littleton, I., 1976, An Experimental Study of the Adhesion Between Clay and Steel, Journal of Terramechanics, Vol. 13, No.
3, pp. 141152.
Merrill, K. S., and OBrien, A. J., 1997, Strength and Conformance Testing of a GCL in a Solid Waste Landfill Lining System, Testing and Acceptance Criteria for Geosynthetic Clay
Liners, ASTM STP 1308, L. W. Weill, Ed., pp. 7188.
Olson, R. E., 1974, Shearing Strengths of Kaolinite, Illite, and
Montmorillonite, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 100, No. GT 11,
pp. 12151229.
Olson, R. E., Rauch, A. F., Gilbert, R. B., Tassoulas, J. L., Aubeny,
C. P., and Murff, J. D., 2001, Toward the Design of New Technologies for Deep-Water Anchorages, Proceedings, 11th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, ISOPE2001, Stavanger, Norway, June.
ORourke, T. D., Druschel, S. J., and Netravali, A. N., 1990, Shear
Strength Characteristics of Sand-Polymer Interfaces, Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 116, No. 3, pp. 451469.
Pedersen, R. C., 2001, Model Offshore Soil Deposit: Design,
Preparation, and Characterization, M.S. thesis, The University
of Texas at Austin, May.
Ponce, V. M., and Bell, J. M., 1971, Shear Strength of Sand at Extremely Low Pressures, Journal Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 97, No.
SM4, pp. 625638.
Potyondy, J. G., 1961, Skin Friction Between Various Soils and
Construction Materials, Gotechnique, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp.
339353.
Rauch, A. F., Olson, R. E., Mecham, E. C., and Pedersen, R. C.,
2001, A Laboratory Facility for Testing Model Suction Caissons, Proceedings, OTRC 2001 International Conference
Geotechnical, Geological and Geophysical Properties of Deepwater Sediments, Houston, April, pp. 198216.
Reddy, E. S., Chapman, D. N., and Sastry, V. V. R. N., 2000, Direct Shear Interface Test for Shaft Capacity of Piles in Sand,
Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp.
199205.
Seed, R. B., and Boulanger, R. W., 1991, Smooth HDPE-Clay
Liner Interface Shear Strengths: Compaction Effects, Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 117, No. 4, pp. 686693.
Shan, H.-Y., 1993, Stability of Final Covers Placed on Slopes

GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

Containing Geosynthetic Clay Liners, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, August.
Stark, T. D. and Poeppel, A. R., 1994, Landfill Liner Interface
Strengths from Torsion-Ring-Shear Tests, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol.
120, No. 3, pp. 597615.
Tavenas, F., Chagnon, J.-Y., and La Rochelle, P., 1971, The
Saint-Jean-Vianney Landslide, Observations and Eyewitnesses
Accounts, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp.
463478.
Terzaghi, K., 1925, Principles of Soil Mechanics: VIIFriction
in Sand and Clay, Engineering News-Record, Vol. 95, No. 26,
pp. 10261029.
Tsubakihara, Y., and Kishida, H., 1993, Frictional Behavior Between Normally Consolidated Clay and Steel by Two Direct
Shear Type Apparatuses, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 33, No.
2, pp. 113.
Tsubakihara, Y., Kishida, H., and Nishiyama, T., 1993, Friction
Between Cohesive Soils and Steel, Soils and Foundations, Vol.
33, No. 2, pp. 145156.

Uesugi, M., and Kishida, H., 1986a, Influential Factors of Friction

Between Steel and Dry Sands, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 26,
No. 2, pp. 3346.
Uesugi, M., and Kishida, H., 1986b, Frictional Resistance at Yield
Between Dry Sand and Mild Steel, Soils and Foundations, Vol.
26, No. 4, pp. 139149.
Uesugi, M., Kishida, H., and Tsubakihara, Y., 1988, Behavior of
Sand Particles in Sand-Steel Friction, Soils and Foundations,
Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 107118.
Uesugi, M., Kishida, H., and Uchikawa, Y., 1990, Friction Between Dry Sand and Concrete Under Monotonic and Repeated
Loading, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 115
128.
Vesic, A. S., and Clough, G. W., 1968, Behavior of Granular Materials Under High Stresses, Journal of Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol.
94, No. SM3, pp. 661688.
Yoshimi, Y. and Kishida, T., 1981, A Ring Torsion Apparatus for
Evaluating Friction Between Soil and Metal Surfaces, Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 145152.