DIRECT SHEAR TESTS ON SAND by R.A. JEWELL, Report No. QUEL 1719188 Soil Mechanics Report No. 082/88 University of Oxford Department of Engineering Science Parks Road Oxford OX1 3PJ UK. Tel: (0865) 273000Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ...... PLANE STRAIN AND DIRECT SHEAR ANGLES OF FRICTION Smooth retaining wall ...... Coulomb wedge analy Active earth pressure DIRECT SHEAR TEST... Standard test arrangement Improved test arrangement .. Test results . Test correlations Correlation for direct shear tests Influence of the soil grading ... INTERPRETATION FOR THE DIRECT SHEAR TEST Conventional analysis .. Analysis for the plane strain angle of friction « Flow rule analysis Comparison of results for Leighton Buzzard sand INFLUENCE OF DEVIATIONS ON THE TEST INTERPRETATION Non-uniform deformation .. Non-coincidence of principal axes B Summary B STRENGTH ANISOTROPY .. 14 IMPLICATIONS FOR DIRECT SHEAR TESTING ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS REFERENCES ... NOTATIONDIRECT SHEAR TESTS ON SAND by R.A. Jewell University of Oxford INTRODUCTION ‘The Geotechnique symposium in print on the engineering application of direct and simple shear testing (March, 1987) has drawn attention to the practical significance of the unreinforced direct shear test for assessing the shearing resistance of fills. Indeed, the test is the standard method for the measurement of soil strength parameters for reinforced soil, Depariment of Transport (1978) and Ministere des Transports (1979) Detailed observations and measurements have been made on the direct shear test using radiography and photoelastic techniques during experimental research on reinforced soil. Some findings from the work on reinforced soil behaviour were reported to the symposium by Jewell and Wroth (1987). The discussion to the paper, however, showed the strong current interest in the findings for the unreinforced test (Geotechnique, March 1988). ‘This paper presents the findings of the research for unreinforced direct shear tests on ‘compact granular soils. The work has resulted in a new method of analysis for the direct shear test, and has led to the conclusion that a symmetrical test arrangement is superior to the conventional test arrangement. ‘The overall finding is that although the testis relatively crude, a symmetrical direct shear test provides a reasonable measure of the plane strain angle of friction and the angle of dilation for the soil, at the relative density and mean stress level tested. The new analysis for the test, which links the soil shearing resistance and the angle of dilation, provides an independent check on the consistency of the data. Taken together, these results enhance the practical significance of this relatively simple and widely used laboratory test.RA.tewell PLANE STRAIN AND DIRECT SHEAR ANGLES OF FRICTION Smooth retaining wall ‘Two angles of friction were discussed by Jewell and Wroth (1987) for the plane strain deformation of granular soil in which the principal axes of stress and incremental strain coincide. These are the plane strain angle of friction 0,,, which defines the Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope for the soil, and the direct shear angle of friction 0, which is the shearing resistance mobilised on a plane in the soil along which there is no linear incremental strain (a direction of zero extension). ‘The physical significance and the relationship between these two shearing resistances can be illustrated for dry frictional soil using the example of a smooth retaining wall of height #1 rotated outwards about the wall toe. The principal axes of stress in the soil are vertical and horizontal in this case. The horizontal principal stress required to maintain equilibrium in the soil is shown in Fig. 1a, and is determined by the Rankine active earth pressure coefficient 1-sing,, “Tang, qd) ‘The gross horizontal force P, required to maintain equilibrium is Koy? = @ The plane strain angie of friction 9,, is mobilised on planes in the soil making an angle (45+0,/2) to the horizontal, Fig. 1b. A Coulomb wedge analysis using the plane strain angle of friction for the soil would find the same most critical plane through the toe and the same gross horizontal force required to maintain equilibrium. The planes along which there is no linear incremental strain in the soil (zero extension. directions) are inclined at an angle (45+ yi2) to the horizontal for the smooth active retaining wall, Fig. 1c, where y is the angle of dilation in the soil. These planes are significant because a plane along which there is zero extension provides the simplest allowable discontinuity between soil deforming with a constant angle of dilation and non-deforming soil. Rupture surfaces in sand along zero extension directions have been observed in a range of model retaining wall experiments (Roscoe, 1970), and these results and the associated concepts for strain discontinuities are discussed in detail by Wroth (1972),Dire shear tests on sand Coulomb wedge analysis ‘The direct shear angle of friction o,, refers to the shearing resistance on the planes, along which there is zero extension in the soil, and this angle of friction would be mobilised on the planes of zero extension behind a smooth retaining wall in order to maintain equilibrium in the active state, Fig. 1c. A simple relationship can be derived from a Coulomb wedge analysis between the angle from the horizontal a of a plane wedge through the wall toe and the mobilised angle of friction 6, required to maintain equilibrium for the wedge supported by the horizontal Rankine active force P, (Fig. 2) Ptan(ot—-O4) = Wit o.) 3) Pe ana wy) The standard result is when o.=(45 +6,/2) and 6, =¢,, Which is the Rankine active case, from eqn. (3), tan(a—9,)_ tan(45~,/2)_ 1-sind,. tan(@) ——tan(45+0,/2) 1 +sind,, K, @ The plane through the toe along which there is zero extension makes an angle a= (45+ y2) to the horizontal and the angle of friction is ¢,=4,. For equilibrium, from eqns. (3) and (4), tan(-,)_ tan(45+yi2-,)_ 1-sing,, 6 tana) —stan(45+yi2) 1 +sing,, Equation (5) provides a relationship between the plane strain angle of friction and the direct shear angle of friction for the soil. The functions in eqn. (5) can be expanded and the equation simplified to give __ sing, cosy tanee= Tsing, siny © or sind, = eae a) cos+sinytano., ‘The above relationship between the plane strain and the direct shear angles of friction for soil is more usually deduced directly from Mohr’s circles of stress and incremental strain, as illustrated by Jewell and Wroth (1987).RAtewei Investigation of this relationship for typical sands (, =33°—37°) shows thar the tangent of the plane strain angle of friction is 20% to 25% greater than the tangent of the direct shear angle of friction. This difference is almost independent of the magnitude of the plane strain angle of friction, which in tur is directly linked throug! the flow rule with the angle of dilation in the soil and the critical state angle of friction, as iMustrated later. Active earth pressure The direct shear angle of friction 6,, applies on planes in the soil along which there is zero extension. Thus it would not be consistent to use it in a Coulomb wedge analysis which searched freely for a most critical mechanism. In the case of the smooth active retaining wall such an inconsistent analysis would find a critical wedge mechanism through the wall toe at an angle «.=(45+6,/2) to the horizontal which required a horizontal force for equilibrium greater than the Rankine active force P, For the same sand parameters considered above, the required horizontal force for equilibrium calculated inconsistently using the direct shear angle of friction is 25% to 40% greater than the Rankine active force. The higher the value of the mobilised ‘angle of friction in the soil the greater the error in the calculated required force. DIRECT SHEAR TEST ‘The rigid end boundaries in a direct shear test remain fixed and impose an overall restriction of no linear incremental strain in the soil along the central plane. Internal measurements using radiography by Assadi (1975), Jewell (1980), Scarpelli and Wood (1982), Dyer (1985) and Palmeira (1987) have shown that this restriction or boundary condition also applies locally in the soil along the central plane in the test. ‘The restriction is the same as in the Cambridge simple shear apparatus, Roscoe (1970). ‘Thus tests in both the direct and the simple shear apparatus should mobilise the direct shear angle of friction in the soil on the central piane. This has been confirmed directly in the Cambridge simple shear apparatus by Stroud (1971) who was able to measure independently both the stresses and the incremental strains in Leighton Buzzard sand during the test. Tatsuoka et al (1988) found the same for Toyoura sand in torsional simple shear tests in which they also measured the stresses and incremental strains independently. Tests on Leighton Buzzard sand in a direct shear apparatus gave a shearing resistance on the central plane (t,/6,,) almost identical to that measured in the simple shear apparatus by Stroud (1971) at the same density and mean stress level, confirming the possibility of a close similarity between the two tests, Jewell and Wroth (1987). Numerical experiments with the finite element method comparing the direct shear testDiret ster test on sand with simple shear deformation have led to the same conclusion, Potts et al (1987) and Airey (1987). The numerical results show that despite the non-uniformities in a direct shear test, the overall stress ratio measured on the central plane approximates closely, although typically it slightly exceeds that measured in simple shear. Standard test arrangement The test arrangement in a direct shear apparatus significantly influences the measured properties of the soil, Assadi (1975), Airey (1987) and Palmeira (1987). ‘The parameters and definitions for the direct shear test are shown in Fig. 3. Observation of the pattem of stresses in a direct shear test, achieved by using photoelasticity and an artificial crushed glass granular soil, has shown that the shear load is transmitted to the soil through the end walls of the test, Dyer (1985). ‘This has been confirmed by the pressure cell measurements in a large direct shear apparatus by Palmeira (1987). Little or no shear stress is transmitted to the soil from the upper and lower boundaries in the test. This is not surprising for the conventional test arrangement because the top platen rests freely on the soil sample unconnected to the top half of the apparatus to which the shear load is applied. These boundary conditions for the conventional test arrangement cause the top half of the apparatus and the top half of the soil sample to be subject to an equal and opposite couple when the shear load is applied, Fig. 4a. The couple acts on the top half of the apparatus, Fig. 4b, and on the top half of the soil sample, Fig. 4c, and both elements require an equal and opposite moment Meu to maintain equilibrium. ‘The applied couple causes rotation during the test to allow additional stresses to be mobilised between the top half of the apparatus and the soil sample to restore moment equilibrium. Counter-rotation of the top half of the apparatus (anti-clockwise in 4b) and the soil (clockwise in Fig. 4c) has been measured directly by Assadi (1975), Dyer (1985) and Airey (1987), When a pressure bag is placed beneath the rigid upper platen the soil has even greater freedom for non-uniform rotation, Palmeira (1987). Thus non-uniform stresses are likely to act on the central plane in the soil in the conventional direct shear test. Improved test arrangement Improved uniformity can be achieved by firmly securing the rigid top loading platen to the top half of the apparatus (after applying the vertical load) so that the upper half of the apparatus moves as unit during shear, Fig. 4d. ‘This makes the test symmetrical about the central plane, and allows a non-uniform distribution of vertical stress to be generated across the top of the sample to balance the applied couple, Figs 4e and 4f, Because of the symmetry of the test, the resulting distribution of theRaden vertical stress on the central plane should be more uniform. Experimental measure- ‘ments confirm that a fixed top platen eliminates rotation in a direct shear test, Jewell (1980). Test resulss ‘The tesi data show that a higher shearing resistance (t,/0,,)eq is measured in a direct shear test when the freedom for the sample to rotate and deform non-uniformly is increased, Palmeira (1987) carried out comparative tests on dense Leighton Buzzard sand with a fixed top platen (the symmetrical arrangement recommended above), free rigid top platen (the conventional arrangement) and a free rigid top platen loading a pressure bag, Fig. 5. Internal measurements showed that in each case there was zero extension along the central plane in the soil. ‘The data indicate that as well as increasing the measured peak shearing resistance in the test, greater non-uniformity also reduces the peak rate of volume change measured at the sample boundaries (dy/ds)m.,, Fig. 5. The shear displacement required to mobilise the peak shearing resistance also increases in the less uniform tests. Test correlations Stroud (1971) showed that Taylor’s (1948) energy correction equation satisfactorily correlated his simple shear test results on Leighton Buzzard sand. This was not surprising perhaps because Taylor’s energy correction equation for the simple shear apparatus reduces t0 Th. di =. m ®) Oy A where m is constant and equal to the stress ratio at the critical state. With the horizontal a direction of zero extension in the simple shear test, and assuming coincidence of the principal axes, eqn. (8) can be expressed as some sing, 0) or tang,,-tany= sing, (0) Equation (10) is a flow rule for the soil expressed in terms of the shearing resistance and the incremental strain on a plane along which there is zero extension, Stroud (1971) showed that eqn. (10) is very similar to Rowe’s (1962) stress dilatancy flow tule, which successfully correlates the data for sand, see Bishop (1972) for examplebiret sear test on sand Another flow rule is the simple equation proposed by Belton (1986) 5. - 08) be ay which is expressed in terms of the plane strain angle of friction and the angle of dilation in the soil, Taylor’s and Bolton’s flow rules bound Rowe’s stress dilatancy equation, as shown in Fig. 6, drawn for sand with a critical state angle of friction = 35° and a range of angles of dilation 20° > y 20°. Correlation for direct shear tests ‘The flow rule for granular soil provides an effective basis for assessing the results of a direct shear test. The measured shearing resistance t,,/6,, can be plotted against the measured rate of dilation dy/ds. If there is a uniform zone of deforming sand in the test then Swany (12) ‘The expected relationship for the sand would lie close to a 1:1 line which would intersect the abscissa at ¢,/,,=sing.,. The form of the plot should be independent of the relative density of the soil and the stress level. ‘The data for Leighton Buzzard sand tested in the three different versions of the direct shear apparatus by Palmeira (1987) are plotted in this way in Fig. 7a. A similar comparison between the different tests is given in Fig. 7b, comprising symmetrical direct shear tests by Jewell (1980), conventional (non-symmetrical) tests by Airey (1987) and simple shear tests by Stroud (1971), all on dense Leighton Buzzard sand. ‘There are two main observations on the data: (1) Even when a symmetrical test arrangement is used (fixed top platen) the measured shearing resistance in the direct shear apparatus is still higher than in the simple shear apparatus. The discrepancy can be as much as 10% for Leighton Buzzard sand, although it is very much less close to peak in the tests by Jewell (1980), Fig. 7b. The discrepancy probably stems from the overall measurement made in the direct shear test compared with the local measurement on the central third of the soil sample (away from the test apparatus boundaries) in the simple shear test. A shearing resistance in a symmetrical direct shear test of the order 5% higher than in simple shear was anticipated in the numerical analysis of Potts et al (1987). (2) The discrepancy between the conventional direct shear test (free top platen) and the simple shear test is greater and increases with the rate of dilation in the soil, Fig. 7. ‘The additional error is likely to stem from the boundary measurements dy /de underestimating the actual rate of dilation in the soil on the central plane. BoundaryRA Jewell measurements have been observed to underestimate the local angle of dilation on the central plane by up to 6° in conventional direct shear tests, Assadi (1975), Scarpelli and Wood (1982) and Palmeira (1987). Influence of the soil grading Greater discrepancies between symmetrical direct shear tests and simple shear tests might be expected for more widely graded soil in which the development of a well defined, uniformly deforming zone in the centre of the sample is less likely. The boundary measurements would then be more likely to underestimate the local angle of dilation. Direct shear tests at Oxford University have been carried out on a Canadian glacial outwash sand containing a significant amount of feldspar and with grains between fine sand and medium gravel size. For this sand Djy=0.42mm, Djy= 1.7mm and the uniformity coefficient C, =4, Jarrett and McGown (1988). In the absence of simple shear data for the sand, the expected shear properties have been estimated from the critical state angle of friction, in the range ¢., = 38° to 40° and Taylor's equation (10). The critical state angle of friction was estimated from the soil mineralogy, from the slope angle of a loose heap of the soil, and from the direct shear test results. The test data are summarised in Fig. 8 and follow the same pattern found for Leighton Buzzard sand, Although the discrepancy between the two versions of the direct shear test is slightly greater for the coarser sand, it appears that the symmetrical direct shear test is not particularly sensitive to the grading of the granular soil. INTERPRETATION FOR THE DIRECT SHEAR TEST The review above has shown that a symmetrical direct shear test causes soil deformation which corresponds closely to siniple shear and the soil behaviour can be adequately measured at the test boundaries. Two shortcomings have also been noted: (1) even in a symmetrical direct shear test the measured shearing resistance may be slightly higher than would be measured in an equivalent simple shear test, and (2) the boundary measurements of soil deformation dy/d may underestimate the angle of dilation in the soil on the central plane. Equally significant is that there is no evidence that either the horizontal direction in the direct shear test is not one of zero incremental linear strain, or that the boundary measurements of displacement ever lead to an overestimate of the angle of dilation in the soil on the central planeDirex shea tests on sand Conventional analysis From the observation (1) above, it can be concluded that the conventional interprett- tion for a direct shear test (3) is likely to slightly overestimate the direct shear angle of friction 9, for the soil. The overestimate is probably of the order 5% for a syrnmetrical test. Analysis for the plane strain angle of friction The second reasonably standard interpretation for the direct shear testis to estimate the plane strain angle of friction o,, from eqn. (7), using the information about the direct shear angle of friction from eqn. (13) and the angle of dilation from eqn. (12). ‘The drawback to this analysis, however, is the sensitivity to the angle of dilation. If the angle of dilation in the soil is underestimated by the boundary measurements then the calculated plane strain angle of friction can be greatly overestimated, as illustrated later. Flow rule analysis A third analysis may be carried out in terms of the flow rule for the soil. The analysis can be applied to determine both the plane strain and the direct shear angles of friction Taylor's equation (10) and Bolton's equation (11) are the most convenient forms of the flow rule to determine the direct shear and the plane strain angles of friction respectively. As can be seen from the equations, only the critical state angle of friction and the measured angle of dilation are required for the analysis. There are two useful features to the flow rule analysis. (1) The analysis determines the soil shearing resistance without reference to the measured stresses in the test, thus providing an independent check on the conventional test interpretations and an independent method of assessing the test data. (2) The analysis is conservative in so far as an underestimate in the measured angle of dilation results in an underestimate in the calculated plane strain or direct shear angle of friction, As suggested by Bolton (1986), the critical state angle of friction for granular soil can be estimated with reasonable accuracy from the mineralogy, and from the slope angle of a loosely tipped heap of the dry soil (in a smooth rectangular tank) subject to excavation at the toe of the slope, These simpie independent estimates can be compared with the critical state angle of friction deduced from the direct shear test results themselves.RaAfewei Comparison of results for Leighton Buzzard sand A value for the critical state angle of friction for Leighton Buzzard sand must be selected for a flow rule analysis of the direct shear tests. Bolton (1986) has su: 33° for quartz sand, but Stroud’s (1971) simple shear test measurements on Leighton Buzzard sand indicate 9.,= 35°, These bounds to the critical state angle of friction have been used below. ‘The first comparison is between the direct shear test with a free top platen, Fig. 5 (Palmeira, 1987), and the direct shear test with a fixed top platen, Fig. 7b (lewell, 1980). The direct shear and the plane strain angles of friction are deduced using the conventional and the flow rule analyses to compare the consistency of the results. ‘The analysis has been carried out at the stages dy/de =0.1, 0.2,0.3,0.4 and at the peak shearing resistance. The second comparison is between the plane strain angle of friction measured in the the symmetrical direct shear test and the measurements in the simple shear apparatus, ‘by Stroud (1971). A range is given for the simple shear test results; the lower values are set by Stroud’s best fit to his data with Taylor's flow rule ¢,, = 35°, and the upper values are for the simple shear test with a constant mean stress = 40 .Wim? which ‘most closely corresponds with the stresses in the reported direct shear tests. ‘The results in Fig. 9a for the conventional direct shear test indicate a wide discrepancy between the results of the different analyses. In contrast, the different analyses give closely corresponding results for both the direct shear and the plane strain angles of friction measured in the symmetrical direct shear test (fixed top platen), Fig. 9b. Inall cases the flow rule analysis gives lower values for the angles of friction than the conventional analysis, as was anticipated. The spread of the results for the symmetri- cal direct shear testis relatively small, particularly close to the peak shearing resistance, indicating that the plane strain and the direct shear angles of friction for the soil have been closely bounded by the test data. This is confirmed in Fig. 9c where the plane strain angle of friction for dense Leighton Buzzard sand measured in the simple shear apparatus is compared with the results from the symmetrical direct shear test. The peak angle of friction is the most commonly used measurement from a direct shear test. The peak angles of friction from the tests on Leighton Buzzard sand are summarised in Table 1. The peak angles of friction from the simple shear apparatus are taken directly from Stroud’s (1971) measured results at the same vertical stress. Stroud poured samples with a hopper to achieve a void ratio e = 0.53 +0.005 in the simple shear apparatus., while Jewell and Palmeira poured slightly denser samples 0.520.005. The peak angles of friction for the denser samples should be slightly higher.Diret shear tests on sand The peak angles of friction reported in Table 1 confirm the previous findings. (1) There is a wide discrepancy in the results from the conventional test, but relatively close agreement for the symmetrical test. (2) The conventional direct shear test data overestimate the peak plane strain and direct shear angles of friction if they are interpreted by the conventional analyses, but underestimate them if the data are interpreted by the flow rule analysis. (3) The measured peak angles of friction in the symmetrical direct shear test and in the simple shear test are close, and the different analyses provide a consistent set of results. Another observation on the results in Table 1 and the flow rule analysis is as follows. Dense granular soil at low stress level is a highly dilatant material and peak angles of dilation up to y=20° or more can develop. Bolton’s flow rule gives greater plane strain angles of friction for highly dilatant materials than either Rowe's or Taylor's flow rules, Fig. 6, Consequently, the flow rule analysis using Bolton's eqn. (11) could overestimate the plane strain angle of friction for highly dilatant soils. To be Weighed against this limitation is the mathematical simplicity of Bolton's flow rule, and the attractive possibility of linking the results from direct shear tests with Bolton's empirical correlations between the plane strain angle of friction, the rel: density and the mean stress level in the sand, Bolton (1986). However, a simple form for a more conservative flow rule analysis based on Rowe's flow rule can be derived using the elegant result (Rowe, 1969) tang,,= tand,,cosd,, (a4) ‘The direct shear angle of friction may be determined from Taylor's eqn. (10) which, when combined with eqn. (14), yields sing, +tany Wan = Osa. (15) Application of this more conservative flow rule analysis to the symmetrical direct shear test results in Table 1 gives a range for the peak plane strain angle of friction 493° -50.8°, which may be compared with the results from the analysis using Bolton’s flow rule 51.6° -53.6°, and with the measurement in the simple shear apparatus 50.9°. INFLUENCE OF DEVIATIONS ON THE TEST INTERPRETATION A significant source of inaccuracy for conventional direct shear tests is non-uniform deformation in the sample leading to an underestimate of the angle of dilation in the soil on the central plane from the boundary measurements. Non-coincidence between the principal axes of stress and incremental strain in the soil, which has been muchRa tewell discussed in the literauure, is another possible source of inaccuracy in the interpreta- tion for the test. The likely influence of these two factors on the peak plane strain angle of friction measured in direct shear tests is investigated theoretically below. Non-uniform deformation A free top platen or a pressure bag in a direct shear test can allow a larger zone of the soil sample to deform. Regions in the soil away from the most highly stressed central plane in the test would deform at a lower stress ratio and with a correspondingly lower angle of dilation. The boundary measurement dy/dx is a lumped measure of the shear deformation in the sample and in this case it would underestimate the angle of dilation on the central plane in the soil. This pattern of behaviour has been directly observed by Assadi (1975) for direct shear tests with a flexible top boundary. Four assumptions may be made to investigate theoretically the consequences of such a deviation in the measurements: assume (1) there is a zero extension direction along, the horizontal central plane in the test, (2) there is coincidence between the principal axes, (3) the plane strain angle of friction for the soil is determined by the flow rule (for simplicity assume Bolton's flow rule), and (4) the angle of dilation deduced from the measured boundary displacements underestimates by Ay the angle of dilation y on the central plane in the soil. ‘The plane strain angle of friction for the soil may be determined from the critical state angle of friction and the angle of dilation substituted into Bolton’s flow rule, assumption (3) above. The direct shear angle of friction is mobilised on the central plane and will be correctly measured in the test, assumptions (1) and (2). Both methods of analysis to determine the plane strain angle of friction will be in error because of the underestimated angle of dilation (yay). The standard analysis for the plane strain angle of friction will result in an overestimate, from eqn. (7) tands, Sin. SoeQy= Aw) + sin(y—Ay)tan ba (16) The flow rule analysis will underestimate the plane strain angle of friction, from eqn. aly On = 04+ 0.8(y-AY) a7) The theoretical results are illustrated in Fig. 10 showing the consequences of the angle of dilation being underestimated by up to 8°. A typical quartz sand with a critical state angle of friction ¢,,= 35° and for a range of angles of dilation y=0° to 20° has been assumed. The flow rule analysis gives a lower bound (or safe) estimate for theDiret shear tests on sand plane strain angle of friction for the soil, even when the boundary measurements underestimate the angle of dilation in the soil. The conventional analysis overesti- mates the plane strain angle of friction for the soil. Non-coincidence of principal axes The detailed measurements on sand in simple shear show that during monotonic rotation of the principal axes, on initial loading in shear, the principal axis of stress often lags behind the principal axis of incremental strain, Stroud (1971), Symes (1983) and Tatsuoka et al (1988). The principal axis of stress catches up, and closely aligns with the principal axis of incremental strain once larger plastic strains develop in the soil without further significant rovation of the principal axes. In a direct shear test on dense sand this would occur after the initial rapid increase in shear loading at the beginning of the test. To investigate the influence of non-coincidence between the principal axes in the soil in a direct shear test, assumptions (1) and (3) above may be made again, but now the angle of dilation would be measured correctly in the test while the principal axis of stress lags 46 behind the principal axis of incremental strain, ‘The consequence is that the measured direct shear angle of friction for the soil will be in error. The erroneous value can be deduced from the geometry of the Mohr's circle for stress, described by eqn. (6), which gives sind,,cos(y ~ 248) ‘ana = Tino, sin(y—2A6) (18) ‘The measured value of the direct shear angle of friction is lower than the actual value when the principal axis of stress has not rotated as far as the principal axis of incremental strain in a direct shear test (positive 40). ‘Thus the standard analysis underestimates the plane strain angle of friction for the soil when the erroneous value of tang, from eqn. (18), and the correct angle of dilation are substituted into eqn. (7). The theoretical results are illustrated in Fig. 11 for deviations in the principal axes up to A8=8?, Because the flow rule analysis for the direct shear test depends only on the angle of dilation and the critical state angle of friction for the soil the analysis gives the correct plane strain angle of friction irrespective of any non-coincidence between the principal axes. Summary ‘This section has demonstrated that the flow rule analysis provides a robus: method of interpretation for the direct shear test which is unlikely to overestimate the planeRA.ewell strain angle of friction for the soil, even when inaccuracies and deviations occur in the test. At best the flow rule analysis will give the correct plane strain angle of friction for the soil, at worst a conservative value. In contrast, the conventional analysis for the plane strain angle of friction in a direct shear test may overestimate or underestimace the angle of friction depending on the test conditions. STRENGTH ANISOTROPY ‘The shearing behaviour of sand has so far been assumed to be isotropic; that is, the sand at a given density and mean stress level subject to any plane strain shear test has been assumed to have a unique peak angle of dilation, and peak plane strain and direct shear angles of friction, In practice granular soil can exhibit significant anisotropy established by the deposition of the soil. The soil properties then depend on the direction with respect to deposition, or the bedding planes, in which the soil is subsequently sheared, Arthur and Menzies (1972), Arthur et al (1977), Symes (1983), Tatsuoka et al (1986). The important point for a designer concerned with stability analysis is that the shearing resistance in a simple or direct shear test on a sample deposited vertically in the apparatus develops along the bedding planes in the soil, and this corresponds closely with the minimum plane strain shearing resistance in the soil, Tatsuoka et al (1986). Thus a sample deposited vertically through the top of the apparatus (in the conventional way) and tested horizontally in direct shear will yield a plane strain angle of friction close to the minimum value for the soil. This is a lower bound (or safe) value for the plane strain shearing resistance with respect to strength anisotropy. The difference between the maximum peak plane strain angle of friction which occurs ‘when the sample is sheared across the bedding planes, and the minimum peak plane strain angle of friction which occurs when the sample is sheared along the bedding planes, is likely to depend on the soil particle shape and grading, and the method of soil deposition, among other factors. For laboratory prepared samples on clean sand the tangent of the plane strain angle of friction can vary by as much as 25% due to the orientation of shearing with respect to the bedding planes, Symes (1983) and Tatsuoka (1987). IMPLICATIONS FOR DIRECT SHEAR TESTING ‘The direct shear test is a simple and widely used laboratory test for determining the plane strain shearing resistance of granular soil. This study has shown that aDire shea tests on sand symmetrical direct shear test gives results which closely correspond with a simple shear test, and therefore provides a measure of the plane strain angle of friction and the angle of dilation for granular soil, at the density and mean stress level tested. In contrast, the conventional (asymmetrical) direct shear test provides freedom for non-uniform deformation in the soil, and the boundary measurements in the test do not accurately reflect the behaviour in simple shear. The conventional direct shear test is difficult to interpret confidently. A simple method to achieve a symmetrical direct shear test is to modify the standard laboratory apparatus so that: (1) After applying the vertical load to the prepared soil sample with a rigid top platen, the top platen may be secured to the top half of the direct shear apparatus. When the spacers and connectors which held the two halves of the apparatus together during sample preparation are removed, the soil sample supports the applied vertical load, and the weight of the top platen and the top half of the apparatus. (2) The rigid upper half of the direct shear apparatus, which now mirrors the lower half (providing symmetry), must be allowed to move vertically during the test without resistance. Free movement is important to ensure that additional unknown vertical forces are not introduced into the test, and to maintain the symmetrical loading. Any tendency for tipping during the test indicates that symmetry is not being achieved. ‘The shear load should be applied as close to the level of the central plane in the test as possible. Frequent readings are desirable during a test to allow the variation in the rate of dilation ay dx to be determined accurately. The test data can be assessed on a plot of T_/0,, Versus dy/de which should lie close to a 1:1 line. The early data in the test, during the main rotation in the principal axes, should be discarded from this plot. The standard analyses may be carried out to determine the peak direct shear angle of friction eqn. (13), the peak angle of dilation eqn. (12) and the peak plane strain angle of friction eqn. (7). The critical state angle of friction for the soil is required for the flow rule analysis. This can be determined independently from (1) the mineralogy of the soil (Bolton, 1986) and (2) the slope angle of a loose dry heap of the soil subject to excavation at the toe of the slope. The direct shear test data also give a measure of the critical state angle of friction, from the shearing resistance extrapolated to dy/dx =0, Because the shearing resistance in a direct shear test is marginally higher than in an equivalent simple shear test the interpretation sino, =(ty/0,)y is likely to slightly overestimate the critical state angle of friction, while the interpretation tan6, =(¢,/6,), should give a conservative value.Ractewell ‘The peak direct shear and plane strain angles of friction for the soil may now be determined from the flow rule analysis using the critical state angle of friction and the measured peak angle of dilation substituted into Taylor's eqn. (10) and Bolton’s eqn. (11) respectively. Close agreement between the conventional and the flow rule analyses gives confidence in the test data and the measured soil shearing resistance. The plane strain angle of friction measured in the direct shear test should correspond closely to the minimum value for the soil with respect to strength anisotropy. This is because the soil is sheared along the bedding planes after conventional sample preparation through the top of the apparatus. The direct shear test should therefore provide a lower bound measure of the plane strain shearing resistance of the soil. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ‘The direct shear testing described in the paper was carried out at the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford under the overall guidance of Professor C.P. Wroth and supported by the Science and Engineering Research Council. The research at Oxford by Drs M.R. Dyer and E.M. Palmeira was directed by Dr. G.W.E. Milligan. Each have contributed to the development of the ideas on direct shear testing and this is, gratefully acknowledged.Diret sear test on sand REFERENCES Airey, D.W. (1987). Some observations on the interpretation of shearbox test results, Technical report CUEDID - SOILSITR 196, University of Cambridge. Arthur, ILR.F. and Menzies, B.K. (1972). Inherent anisotropy in sand. Geotechnique 22,No. 1, 115-129. Arthur, J.R-F., Dunstan, T., Al-Ani., QA.J.L. and Assadi, A. (1977). Plastic defor- mation and failure in granular media, Geotechnique 27, No. 1, 53-74, Assadi, A. (1975). Rupture layers in granular materials. PhD Thesis, University of London. Bishop, A.W. (1972). Shear strength parameters for undisturbed and remoulded soil specimens. Proc. Roscoe Memorial Symposium, Cambridge, 3-58, Foulis. Bolton, M.D. (1986). The strength and dilatancy of sands. Geotechnique 36, No. 1, 65-78. Department of Transport (1978). Reinforced earth retaining walls and bridge abutments for embankments. Technical Memorandum (Bridges) BE/3/78, Her Majesty's Stationary Office, London. Dyer, MR. (1985). Observation of the stress distribution in crushed glass with applications to soil reinforcement. DPhil Thesis, University of Oxford. Jarrett, P.M. and McGown, A. (editors) (1988). Application of polymeric reinforce- ‘ment in soil retaining structures. Proc. NATO Advanced Research Workshop, Kingston, June 1987, Martinus Nijhoff. Jewell, R.A. (1980) Some effects of reinforcement on the mechanical behaviour of soils. PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge Jewell, R.A. and Wroth C.P. (1987). Direct shear tests on reinforced sand. Geotech- nique 37, No. 1, 53-68. Ministere des Transports (1979). Les ouvrages en terre armee, recommendations et regles de l'art. Service d'Etudes Techniques des Routes et Autoroutes, Paris. Palmeira, E.M. (1987). The study of soil-reinforcement interaction by means of large scale laboratory tests. DPhil Thesis, University of Oxford. 7R.A Jowell Roscoe, K.H. (1970), The influence of strains in soil mechanics. Geotechnique 20. No. 2, 129-170. Rowe, P.W. (1962). The stress dilatancy relation for the static equilibrium of an assembly of particles in contact. Proc. R. Soc. A 269, 500-527. Scarpelli, G. and Wood, D.M. (1982). Experimental observations of shear band patterns in direct shear tests. Proc. IUTAM Symposium, Balkema, 473-484. Stroud, M.A. (1971). The behaviour of sand at low stress levels in the simple shear apparatus. PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge. Symes, M.L.P.R. (983) Rotation of principal stresses in sand. PhD Thesis, Univer- sity of London. Tatsuoka, F., Sakamoto, ., Kawamura, T. and Fukushima, S. (1986). Strength and deformation characteristics of sand in plane strain compression at extremely low pressure. Soils and Foundations Vol 26, No. 1, 65-84. Tatsvoka, F. (1987). Discussion on the strength and dilatancy of sand. Geotechnique 37, No. 2., 219-225. Tatsuoka, F., Pradham, T.B.S. and Horii, N. (1988). Discussion on direct shear tests on reinforced sand. Georechnique 38, No. 1. Taylor, D.W. (1948). Fundamentals of soil mechanics. Wiley, New York. Wroth, C.P. (1972). General theories of earth pressures and deformations. General Repor,, Proc. 5* European Conf. Soil Mechs. Fndn. Engng, Vol. 2, 33-52, Madrid.Direct enear ets on sand NOTATION Se ew oe angle of Coulomb wedge from the horizontal unit weight of soil deviation between the axes of principal stress and incremental strain normal stress on the central plane in a direct shear test shear stress on the central plane in a direct shear test incremental shear strain in a simple shear test incremental linear strain in a simple shear test angle of friction angle of friction on a plane at an angle o: to the horizontal critical state angle of friction direct shear angle of friction plane strain angle of friction angle of dilation deviation in the angle of dilation height of a retaining wall active earth pressure coefficient ‘y/o’, Rankine active forceTable I. Analysis for the peak shearing res measured in direct shear and simple shear tests. tance of Leighton Buzzard sand Free top platen Fixed top platen Palmeira (1987) __Jewell (1980) Simple shear test ‘Suoud (1971) Void ratio e 05220008 0.520.005 0.530.008 Vertical stress 0, (em) 30 294 30 nly 14 1.05 (AY/AE) aay 0.36 083, Vou = arctan (dy due 20.0° 233° 24° Direct shear angle of friction ,, Measured in simple shear 45.0° Conventional analysis (eqn. 13) 48.8" 464° Flow rule analysis (eqn.10)_42.3°-43.2° _44.3°-45.1° Plane strain angle of friction 6,, Measured in simple shear 50.9" Conventional analysis (eqn. 7) 593° 519° Flow rule analysis (eqn.11) _49.0°-51.0°__51.6°-53.6" Note: Range forthe critical tate angle of friction azsumed inthe flow rule analyis ¢, =~ 20THR 05 H ps 45 + Dps/2 Pas 45+W/2 (c) Drawn for dense sand 6,,=48", y= 16° Fig. 1. Active equilibrium state for a smooth vertical retaining wall rotating outward about the toe showing (a) the required horizontal stress, (b) the planes of maximum stress obliquity and (c) the planes along which there is no linear incremental strain, Fig. 2. Coulomb wedge analysis to determine the mobilised angle of friction 9, on a plane through the toe at an angle « in equilibrium with the Rankine active force P,y As x P Oye he Tye ze Fig. 3. Definitions for the direct shear test.-guejd jeuad ay uo UoLngmnsIp s: a10u v sapraoad (J 01 p) uareid dor poxyy & yum 1s91 jeataUNUEs w ‘auEyd jesTUAD Oy (© VORNALAISIP WoJtUN-UOU B UL SI[Nsax siyp (9 01 B) UAIE|d dor aay v YMTAA “29103 Jays 241 £q paride ajdnoo ay) Sumoys 1801 seays 1ooNIp v Ur $9910} aU JO MATA ONNEUEDYOS “p “At GQ) fa) (P) =e el uf ba; =~ 4 wn Uayid doy 9a1y - yUaWAbUDIID |DUOTUAAUODLeighton Buzzard Sand : = 052 2 gy! 42 z 7 8 g | § z i g 2 7 8 = oa 5 os 173 2 7 3 = FreeTopPiaten | | & + Pressure Bag g © Fixed Top Platen_| | 5 ° : i 3 2 4 6 SHEAR DISPLACEMENT : mm Fig. 5. Direct shear tests on dense Leighton Buzzard sand showing the influence of the top boundary condition, Palmeira (1987). Apparatus 250mm long, 152mm wide and 152mm deep.Fa = 3 [i ral FLOW RULES € go = Tanon 3 3 2 ROWE z BOLTON 02 6 1 3 2 16 ANGLE OF DILATION : dea 2 Fig. 6. Comparison of flow rules in terms of the principal stress ratio and the angle of dilation in the soil. Drawn for dense sand @., = 35°.1/8, 1, Lsghnn Buna Sane 082 oc 308ea ‘ace oy Parmer 987 oa ‘SHEARING RESISTANCE 02 a 1 1 _] @ é S10 2 Bos g bo.[ | Somamacenas cn 3 Sysesfarert rae HO | cies Sie] Bier, 2 Mane | canes 02 7X DSA twats Froe top platen Airey (1987) I cM averse eect oi = ° 02 os RATEOF DILATION dy/de, tan » Fig. 7. Plot of the soil shearing resistance vs versus dilation dyidx during a direct shear test. (a) Results showing the influence of the direct shear test boundary conditions (from Fig. 5), and (b) comparison of direct and simple shear test results. Apparatus length x width x depth (rt): DSA, Jewell and Palmeira 254x152x152, Airey 60x60x20; SSA, Stroud 100x100x20,* Free Top Platen Fixed Top Platen VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT smm 8 2 @ g 2 & & | { 2 4 6 a 40 BS 124 + TIO SHEARING RESISTANCE 4s + Free Top Platen "Fixed Top Platen Expected Behaviour op o a2 os RATEOF DILATION divide, tany (b) Fig. 8, Direct shear tests on a widely graded glacial outwash sand (D, indicating similar behaviour to Leighton Buzzard sand,? Angle sion Method amass Fan. Simb 3 Dieersear Conventional (13) a Diet sear Flow re iio) SSS 8 Plane in Conventional mo i Pamesmin Rowale 0) ca ete Sra 1971) ae Noe: j= 3-5" in the flow rie aaja @ 2NGLE OF FRICTIN 9 Nett OF FCTON ea © PATEOEOLATON syide, ny © REO OLATON aye, aay Fig. 9. Comparison of the conventional and flow rule analyses during direct shear tests on Leighton Buzzard sand. (a) Test with a free top platen, Paimeira (1987), (b) symmetrical test with a fixed top platen, Jewell (1980), and (c) comparison of the plane strain angle of friction measured in the symmetrical test with simple shear test results. (For clarity only the 0,, = 33° flow rule analysis shown in (c)).ANGLE OF DILATION :c09 10 20 a 3 = bs 4 Conventional Analysis 3 = - EC Croants re 3 Deviation i z i i! e | ii é i 20 ~ 0 = 0 ACTUAL PLANE STRAIN ANGLE OF FRICTION deg Fig. 10. Theoretical results showing the error introduced into the conventional and flow rule analyses for a direct shear test when the boundary measurements underestimate the angle of dilation in the soil on the central plane.ANGLE OF DILATION : cog 40 20 50 Z, Z, __ Flow Flule Le ° ii Li Conventional Analysis 20 4 Deviatior 2 ‘between principal MEASURED PLANE STRAIN ANGLE OF FRICTION deg 20 20 40 50 60 ACTUAL PLANE STRAIN ANGLE OF FRICTION : dog Fig. 11. Theoretical results showing the error introduced into the conventional and flow analyses for a direct shear test by non-coincidence of the principal axes of stress and incremental strain. (The principal axis of stress lags behind the principal axis of incremental strain).