D. M .

W o o d , 1 A n d r z e j D r e s c h e r , 2 a n d M u n i r a m Budhu 3

On the Determination of Stress State

in the Simple Shear Apparatus

REFERENCE: Wood, D. M., Drescher, A., and Budhu, M., "On the ni Vector of direction cosines of the out-
Determination of Stress State In the Simple Shear Apparatus," Geo- ward normal at coordinate xi on the sur-
technical Testing Journal, GTJODJ, Vol. 2, No. 4, Dec. 1979, pp. face (i = 1, 2, 3)
211-221.
Pi Vector of stress components (i = 1, 2, 3)
Pi, Qi, ei Normal forces, shear forces, and eccen-
ABSTRACT: The simple shear apparatus is one of the few commonly
available laboratory apparatus that permits the application of con- tricities, respectively, measured by
trolled rotations of the principal axes of stress and strain to soil sam- boundary load cells (i = 1 . . . 8)
ples. However, because of the boundary conditions in the apparatus the PL, PR; QL, QR; eL, eR Calculated normal forces, shear forces,
soil sample does not respond as a single element, and this should be and eccentricities, respectively, for left
reflected in the analysis of test results. In the Cambridge University
and right sides of central zone (Zone 2 in
simple shear apparatus, the sample is surrounded by an array of load
cells (contact stress transducers) that measure the complete distribu- Fig. 7a)
tion of boundary stresses throughout a test. For simple shear test R Stress ratio = 7yx/Oy
results to be presented in terms of useful stress parameters, a procedure Rcv Critical state (constant-volume sheafing)
for computing the stress state from the load cell measurements is re- value of R
quired. Such a procedure is described, making use of the concept of an
average stress tensor to determine a representative stress state in the S 1/2(al + a3)
central part of the sample, which is least influenced by the ends of the s Surface of volume V
apparatus. t t/2(al - a3)
Less complex and expensive apparatus exist that can only measure Ti, ~m Typical boundary forces (i = 1, 2, 3)
the average normal and shear stresses applied to the top and bottom
horizontal boundaries of the sample. Patterns of soil response have V Volume
been determined from tests on Leighton Buzzard sand in the more X i or x,y Coordinates (i : 1, 2, 3)
elaborately instrumented Cambridge apparatus, and a method is ot Measure of shear strain -----tan 0
described for using these patterns to deduce the complete stress state in 7 Shear strain
the less complex apparatus. 6ij Kronecker delta (i = I, 2, 3 ; j ---- i, 2, 3)
Direct strain
KEY WORLDS: soil tests, shear apparatus, laboratory equipment, Angle of rotation of ends of simple shear
o
shear stress, sands
apparatus
Angle between direction of major prin-
Nomenclature cipal strain increment and vertical
a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h Coordinates of points of action of forces a l , 0"2, 0"3 Major, intermediate, and minor prin-
on central zone (Zone 2; see Fig. 7b) cipal stresses, respectively
eo Initial void ratio ax, ay, az Normal stresses in x, y, and z directions
fxi' fyi Typical forces in x and y directions (i = Ti, o0" Stress tensor and average stress tensor,
1 . . . 8) respectively (i : 1, 2, 3 ; j ------1, 2, 3)
fxi*' fYi* Corrected typical forces in x and y direc- ryx, rxy Shear stress on horizontal (xz) and ver-
tions (i -- 1 . . . 8) tical (yz) planes, respectively
fx, Fy Out-of-balance forces in x and y direc- Angle of friction
tions q~cv Angle of friction mobilized at critical
k, k 1 Soil constants state (constant-volume shearing)
1,:o Coefficient of earth pressure at rest x Angle between direction of major prin-
e Width of strip over which forces Pi and cipal stress increment and vertical
Qi act ¢ Angle between direction of major prin-
AM Out-of-balance moment cipal stress and vertical

1University lecturer, Engineering Department, Cambridge University,

England.
2Research engineer, Institute of Fundamental Technological Research,
Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw.
3University lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Guyana, Georgetown, Guyana (formerly research student, Cambridge
University Engineering Department).
Introduction
From the early work of Kjellman [1] and Roscoe [2], the simple
shear apparatus has been developed at Cambridge University and
elsewhere to become a basic apparatus for experimental investiga-
tion of the stress-strain behavior of soils. The purpose of the simple

© 1980 by the American Society for Testing and Materials 0149-6115179/0012-0211500.40

211

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jun 15 16:36:42 EDT 2020
Downloaded/printed by
(PUC-RJ) Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro ((PUC-RJ) Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduc
212
shear apparatus is to apply rotations of the principal axes of stress
and strain to samples of soil kept under a condition of plane strain.
In the Cambridge apparatus these rotations are achieved by apply-
ing normal and shear loads or displacements to the top or bottom
faces of an initially cuboidal sample, which deforms into a paral-
lelepiped. Parallelepipedal deformation is ensured by allowing two
initially vertical sides of the box containing the sample to rotate,
following the horizontal displacement of the top or bottom face
(Fig. la).
An alternative simple shear apparatus, which, because of its
simplicity, has been more widely used, has been developed at the
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute [3]. In this apparatus a circular
cylindrical sample of soil is tested, the section of the sample being
maintained approximately constant during shear deformation by
containing the sample within a rubber membrane bound with wire
(Fig. lb).
Knowledge of the total vertical normal load and total horizontal
shearing load applied to the top and bottom faces of the sample is
not sufficient to determine the stress state in the sample, for two
reasons. First, this information can only fix one point on Mohr's
circle of stress; knowledge of the normal stress on the vertical plane
perpendicular to the direction of shear, and of the intermediate
principal stress on the vertical plane parallel to the direction of
shear, is needed to complete the description of the stress state.
Secondly, and more seriously, it was demonstrated by Roscoe [2]
that even for an ideal elastic material the boundary conditions im-
posed by the apparatus, that is, complementary shear stresses be-
ing largely absent from the ends of the sample, were such that the
stress state in the sample could not be expected to be uniform. For
that ideal material, however, conditions were shown to be rather
a~
b.C
./ / /
wire binding
lob[(.] (-r~l I~
FIG. 1--(a) Diagrams of Cambridge simple shear apparatus: the sample
is square in plan and enclosed within rigid boundaries containing load cells
(contact stress transducers). (b) Diagrams of GEONOR simple shear ap-
paratus: the sample is circular in plan and contained within a rubber mem-
brane with a spiral wire binding.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jun 15 16:36:42 EDT 2020
Downloaded/printed by
(PUC-RJ) Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro ((PUC-RJ) Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduc
GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL
uniform in the central third of the sample, away from the influence
of the ends. Pr6vost and H6eg [4] have shown that slip between the
elastic sample and the top and bottom boundaries makes the stress
distribution still less uniform.
The qualitative effect that can be expected to result from the
absence of complementary shear stresses on the ends of the sample
is shown in Fig. 2. The shear stresses over the top and bottom
boundaries will be nonuniform, with zero or small values at the
ends of the sample, as shown in the top of Fig. 2. The normal
stresses will also be distributed nonuniformly, as shown in the bot-
tom of Fig. 2, in order to preserve moment equilibrium of the sam-
ple.
In order to be able both to accommodate these nonuniformities
and to determine the stress state, load cells are placed around the
boundary of the sample in the rectangular Cambridge apparatus
(Fig. la). These load cells measure the normal and shear com-
ponents of applied load, and also the eccentricities of the normal
loads.
The aim of this paper is not to discuss the technical details of the
various simple shear apparatus, but to analyze a suggested pro-
cedure for determining the stress state in the central zone of the
sample, and to compare two possible methods of implementing
this procedure. Then, by making use of the results of simple shear
tests on sand that have been analyzed according to the proposed
procedure, a method is developed for computing the complete
stress state at any stage of a simple shear test on sand conducted in
an apparatus in which stresses are measured only on the horizontal
boundaries. It is hoped that these analyses may be of value to
future investigators drawing conclusions from their experimental
measurements.
[" o
"
. Q
" i]
FIG. 2--Top: nonuniform distribution of shear stress from absence of
complementary shear stresses on ends of sample. Bottom: nonuniform
distribution of normal stress to preserve moment equilibrium of the
sample.
WOOD ET AL ON SIMPLE SHEAR APPARATUS 213

Proposed Procedure for Calculating Stress State
Although there are technical differences among the various
models of simple shear apparatus, designated Mk 1 through Mk 7,
that have been constructed at Cambridge University, the basic
postulates that have been used to determine the stress state in the
soil sample have been approximately the same. These postulates
are retained in the proposed procedure, and are stated below:
1. In a sample, rectangular in plan, that is sheared in plane
strain, as in Fig. la, any stress inhomogeneities that occur are
likely to be most pronounced in regions adjacent to the rotating
end flaps and the sides of the sarfiple. The stress state in the central
zone of the sample (Zone 2 in Fig. 3) is supposed to be sufficiently
homogeneous to be identified with the stress state in an in-
finitesimal element of soil subjected to plane strain simple shear.
2. The stress state in the central zone of the sample may be
evaluated from the magnitudes of the stress vectors acting on the
sides of the central zone.
3. The stress vectors acting on the sides of the central zone may
be deduced from the magnitudes of the resultant forces acting on
those sides.
Q /II l/1/
Although these postulates--the first one in particular--are open
to doubt, we shall assume their validity. Of course, any postulate
concerning stress distribution in a sample of any material sub-
jected to boundary tractions and displacements can be questioned,
but some postulates are required in order to proceed. We will con-
sider now further assumptions required to obtain the stress state
from the second and third postulates.
We shall limit consideration to the stresses acting in the plane of
deformation (the x-y plane in Fig. 3), disregarding the components
of stress acting perpendicular to and parallel to that plane (the in-
termediate principal stress is discussed later). It is, of course, of in-
terest to study the behavior of the soil in terms of plane-strain
stress components; however, in circular simple shear apparatus of
the type shown in Fig. l b it is not possible to measure the forces on
the side walls. However, some information concerning these side
forces is necessary if comparisons are to be made between soil
behavior in the simple shear apparatus and in other non-plane-
strain apparatus.
The object of the proposed procedure is to determine the stress
components Ox, Oy, and Zyx or Ol, 03 and the angle ¢ of inclination
of the plane on which the principal stress al acts to the horizontal x
axis in Zone 2 (see Fig. 4, left portion).
The starting poin:t of our analysis is the set of boundary forces
acting on eight segments of the sample boundary (Fig. 3). By
means of the load cells the normal and tangential components Pi
and Qi, respectively, and the eccentricity e i of the force with
respect to the center of each segment are determined.
In general, the stress state in a body cannot be determined from
the forces acting on its boundary unless the constitutive relations of
the material comprising the body are known.
We may, however, define an average stress tensor ~(/:

~(/---- (l/V) ~ aijdV (1)

d v
X
where aij is the actual stress state at each material point of the body
FIG. 3--Pi, Qi, and ei measured by load cells around the sample in the and V is its volume. Equation 1 implies that we are introducing a
Cambridge simple shear apparatus, fictitious homogeneous stress state representative of the whole

....x~X ~ 6 0

strain increment

0.02 ~ 0.04
-O.04 -0.02 -20
Y~ ' ~ 0"I

x
stress

f -4(

stress increment -60

/ X ...... Xl

X x~

FIG. 4--Left: definition sketches for angles ~, ~, and X. Right: varia-

tions of angles ~, ~, and X with ctfor cyclic simple shear test on dense sand.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jun 15 16:36:42 EDT 2020
Downloaded/printed by
(PUC-RJ) Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro ((PUC-RJ) Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduc
214 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

body, and thus that the body may be identified with an infinites- equilibrium of all boundary forces and their moments must be
imal element. The concept of an average stress tensor is often used satisfied.
in mechanics, particularly when we are interested in the average Because there are errors in the measurements of Pi, Qi, and el,
behavior of a certain region consisting of several materials or of and because there may be friction forces at the vertical sides of the
grains and pores [5, 6]. sample, the set of measured boundary forces does not in general
Equation 1 may be transformed as follows: satisfy horizontal, vertical, or moment equilibrium. Cole [7] was
aware of this and proposed that the forces Fx and Fy required to
aij : ~ik Ctjk : Xi,k (rkj (2) give equilibrium in the horizontal and vertical directions, respec-
tively, should be calculated. Cole assumed that these were the
and thus result only of friction on the vertical side walls. He then suggested
t h a t F x andFy should be distributed over Zones 1, 2, and 3 in pro-
~ # = (l/V) I Xi'ktrkjdV (3) portion to the magnitude of the sum of the top and bottom normal
V forces Pi acting on the boundaries of each region.
where the comma indicates partial differentiation. However, making the assumption that the out-of-balance forces
If the stress state akj satisfies the equilibrium equations Fx and Fy are the result only of frictional forces on the side walls re-
quires that their directions should be opposite to those of shear and
akj.j-----O (4) vertical displacement of the sample (as shown in Fig. 6a, where
dilation of the material is assumed). Fig. 6b, taken from Stroud
then Eq 3 becomes [8], shows that this is not always correct. In some tests the direction
of F x or Fy or both will assist rather than resist the deformation of
~/: (l/V) ~ (Xiakj),kdV (5) the material. Further, the assumption that there are tangential
d forces Fx and Fy in the plane of shear, and thus tangential stresses
v
there, violates our first postulate, since for symmetrical plane-
Using Gauss's divergence theorem, Eq 5 becomes
strain shear the only admissible stress component acting on the z
face of an infinitesimal element is the normal stress az.
~(/=(I/V) I xiCrkjnkdS:(1/V)f pjxidS (6) It would be possible to apply Eq 7 to any equilibrated set of
S s boundary forces, including the balancing forces F x and Fy acting
Equation 6 shows that to evaluate the components of ~# it is suf- in the plane of shear. However, the point of action of these forces is
ficient to integrate the products pj xi over the boundary of the not known, and it is therefore necessary to correct the measured
region V. forces P / a n d Qi so that they satisfy equilibrium.
For a discrete distribution of boundary forces Tj over the surface The proposed procedure for determining the stress state in the
(see Fig. 5), Eq 6 becomes central zone of the sample is then as follows:

n
1. Correct Pi and Qi to satisfy the equilibrium equations. Cor-
~:(]/V) E (Tjmxi m) (7)
m:l rect e i to satisfy moment equilibrium.

Equation 1 is valid for any shape of the region V, and may thus
be directly applied to the determination of the stress state in the
soil sample sheared in the simple shear apparatus, or to any part of
that sample, for example, the central zone. It is apparent that Eq 7
takes into account the points of action of the boundary forces, and
Yl/"................
i-i
a.
thus makes use of the measured eccentricities.
An essential limitation in the application of the concept of the
average stress tensor ~O" to the simple shear apparatus is the re-
quirement that the equilibrium equations (Eq 4) and thus the I0~ N
b.
0
0 000 0 0 0 0 0
0 I I .I~
o o
@
@ c~
0 • •
• • • • •
0
00 • •
O O
-IC oR

//•
volu/me V
~"surface S
-2C
. Fy

L -3C
x2
FIG. 6--(a) Positive directions of out-of-balancefrictional forces F x and
FIG. 5--General distribution of jbrces T 1 and T2 around surface S of Fy expected for dilating sample. (b) Variation of measured forces F x and
volume V. Fy with shear strain a in test on dense sand (after Stroud [8]).

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jun 15 16:36:42 EDT 2020
Downloaded/printed by
(PUC-RJ) Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro ((PUC-RJ) Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduc
WOOD ET AL ON SIMPLE SHEAR APPARATUS
2. Determine the forces acting between the central zone and
Zones 1 and 3 and determine also their eccentricities using moment
equilibrium for regions 1 and 3 (Fig. 7a).
3. Determine the sum in Eq 7.
Assuming that the forces acting on the central zone are equili-
brated, the explicit formulas for the stress components oy, a~
~ y = ~ x are:
Oy = ( l l a b f ) ( - - P 2 a + QL e . cos 0 -- PLe" sin 0
-- QR h . cos O + P R h - s i n 0 )
Ox = (1/abO(Q2d + Q L f " sin 0 + P L f " cos 0
QR g . Sin O -- PR g . Cos O -- Q s c )
- -
7yx ---- rxy = (1/abO(--P2 d + Q L f " cos 0 -- P L f " sin 0
-- Q R g ' C o s O + P g g ' s i n O + P s c )
where a, b, c, d, e, f, and g are distances as shown in Fig. 7b and
the directions of Pi and Qi are also as shown in Fig. 7b. It should
be noted that Eqs 7 and 8 give positive tensile stresses.
Equation t can only be expressed in the forms given in Eqs 6 or 7
if the external forces satisfy the equations of equilibrium. How-
ever, whereas force equilibrium must be satisfied, nonequilibrium
of moments can be accommodated. This would lead to an asym-
metric stress tensor, with 7yx ~ 7xy, but it is possible to make this
tensor symmetric by writing
(~
F# : (t/2V) t (xipJ + xJ pi)dS
Os
or
n Fy = ( - e l )
~0 = (1/2v) Z (T/"xi m + T / " x F )
m=l
This is equivalent to shifting the Mohr circle of stress along the r
axis (Fig. 8). In order to be able to apply Eq 10, it is still necessary
to assign definite points of action to the forces PL, QL, PR, and QR
(Fig. 7).
While this proposed procedure is based on a well-defined con-
cept of average stress tensor, it leaves open the question of how the
measured forces Pi and Qi and ei should be corrected in order to
satisfy the equations of equilibrium. In the next section we will
discuss some possible methods of making these corrections. Their
influence on the magnitudes of the components of ~0 will also be
considered.
~_I IP2 y[I -
o2 - _.9.J
°J
I - - b~l
a.
FIG. 7--(a) Normal and shear forces and eccentricities for the central
zone (Zone 2). (b) Coordinates of points of action of forces on the central
zone.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jun 15 16:36:42 EDT 2020
Downloaded/printed by
(PUC-RJ) Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro ((PUC-RJ) Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduc
215
27
1 \
t
FIG. 8--Shift of Mohr's circle of stress parallel to r axis to ensure Zyx =
Txy •
(8)
Correction of Measured Forces and Eccentricities
Two methods have been used for correcting the measured forces
and eccentricities. In Method 1 equilibrium of forces alone is
achieved and Eq 10 is used to obtain a symmetric stress tensor. In
Method 2 an attempt is made to satisfy also equilibrium of mo-
ments so that Eq 7 may be used.
Equilibrium of forces (Method 1)
The forces measured on the boundary of the sample shown in
Fig. 3 will not generally be in equilibrium. Adding the forces in the
x a n d y directions, we find that in order to satisfy equilibrium, out-
of-balance forces F x and Fy must be supplied where:
(9) Fx = (Q1) + (Q2) + (Q3) + (-Q4) + (-Qs) + ( - Q O
+ (P7 cos 0) -}- (Q7 sin 0) + ( - P 8 cos 0) + ( - Q 8 sin 0) (11)
+ ( - P 2 ) + ( - P 3 ) + (P4) + (es) + (P6)
(lo) + (Q7 cos0) + ( - P 7 sin 0) + ( - Q 8 cosO) + ( P a sin 0) (12)
If it is supposed that F x and Fy do not arise from friction at the
sides of the sample (which, it was shown above, could lead to
curious conclusions concerning the direction of these forces), but
rather from errors in the measured forces, then it is necessary to
distribute the errors among the measured forces in order that
equilibrium may be achieved.
The simplest method of distributing the errors is to assume that
the measured forces are all in error by the same proportion. A
typical member of the set of horizontal components of force, each
enclosed in parentheses in Eq 11, would b e f x i and the corrected
component f xi*:
IAiI
fxi* = fx i -- F x ~ (13)
flail
and similarly for the typical vertical component fYi' enclosed in
parentheses in Eq 12:
Ifyil
fy,* = A; - Fy ~ (14)
rtfwi[
Equilibrium of forces and moments (Method 2)
Although the distribution of errors of force is fairly uncontrover-
sial, there are rather more options for methods of distributing er-
rors of moments. The moment of a force obviously depends on its
216 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING J O U R N A L

own magnitude as well as on its line of action. Either of these
parameters may be in error and produce an error in the resultant
moment.
Further, the moment of any particular force (though not the mo-
ment of the whole set of forces in force equilibrium) will depend on
the axis about which the moments are taken. Any method that is
considered for balancing the error in moments must not depend on
the choice of this axis. For example, to apply a correction to each
moment according to its magnitude (as was done with the forces in
Eqs 13 and 14 would not be permissible.
One approach could be to recognize that both measured forces
and measured eccentricities were in error and to change all the ec-
centricities by a fixed amount and all the forces by a fixed propor-
tion, having made a preliminary decision as to the way in which the
error should be assigned to magnitude and to line of action of the
force. Provided the forces were all altered by the same proportion,
these changes would not affect the force equilibrium.
A simpler approach is adopted here to demonstrate the effect of
establishing moment equilibrium: each measured eccentricity is
changed by the same amount, so that the measured normal forces
are all simply displaced clockwise (or counterclockwise) around the
boundary of the apparatus in order to give a resultant moment of
zero.
If the out-of-balance moment is AM (measured positive clock-
wise) then the correction to each eccentricity (also measured
clockwise, as in Fig. 3) is
Ae = - - (AM/EPi) (15)
where Pi are the compressive normal forces measured with the load
cells.
Comparison of Results
Figures 9-13 show the results of a single monotonic loading test
conducted by Budhu [9] at a constant average vertical stress of 98
kPa on dry dense 14/25 Leighton Buzzard sand with a constant
rate of strain. The average grain diameter of the sand was 1 mm;
the minimum void ratio, obtained by pouring, was 0.51 and the
maximum void ratio, also obtained by pouring, was 0.79. The test
results are displayed in five different forms, and results obtained
by Methods 1 and 2 as described above are compared. The results
are plotted against a parameter ~ which is a measure of shear
strain and is equal to the horizontal displacement of the top of the
sample relative to the bottom, divided by the height of the sample.
The variation of the calculated stresses ay, Zyx, and ax with shear
strain ct is shown in Figs. 9-11. Note that although the average ver-
tical stress was maintained constant at 98 kPa, the computed

1.5 -kgf/cm 2

~y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 • 00 00 O O @0 Ill • @ II • •
1,0c
0@

0.5 oM1
oM2

Co oS5 o11 o~5 ,~ o12 o125 oI~-

FIG. 9-- Variation of oy. with t~computed by Method 1 (force equilibrium) and Method 2
(force and moment equilibrium). 1 kgf / c m 2 = 98.06 kPa.

1.5 -kgflcm 2

10- O
• • • 0 0
• 0 0

II •

0.5 • tl
oM1
ql eM2

O, I I I I I ++~
0 005 Orl 0.15 o~ 0.2 0.25 0.3

FIG. 10-- Variation of ryx with shear strain a computed by Methods 1 and2. 1 kgf/cm 2 =
98.06 kPa.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jun 15 16:36:42 EDT 2020
Downloaded/printed by
(PUC-RJ) Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro ((PUC-RJ) Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduc
WOOD ET AL ON SIMPLE SHEAR APPARATUS 217

2.0 -kgf/crn 2

~x ii10 I I 0 @

1-5 O0 0000 O0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
• 0 0 0
0

1.0

0 oM1
0.5 oM2

I
CO 0!05 0!I O-15 c< O!2 O'.25 0'.3

FIG. l l - - V a r i a t i o n of o x with ct computed by Methods 1 and 2. 1 k g f / c m 2 = 98.06 kPa.

• • • O0 0 O0 0 O0 •

I •
0.8 0 0 0 O0 0000 O0 0 0 0 •
0
o ~i o o o
II
O.e 0 •
@
0 •

O.Z oM1
oM2
0.2

00 o'o o!1 0% o'2 o'2s o'3

FIG. 12--Variation of 7yx/~Yywith c~ computed by Methods I and 2.

//
//

10 kgf/cm 2

0.5

/
/ oM1
" \ 6 t =6s . M2

O
0 0!5 110 S 1.K5 kgffcm2

FIG. 13--Stress paths in t:s space computed by Methods I and 2. 1 k g f / c m 2 = 98. 06 kPa.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jun 15 16:36:42 EDT 2020
Downloaded/printed by
(PUC-RJ) Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro ((PUC-RJ) Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduc
218 GEOTECHNICALTESTINGJOURNAL

values of oy differ significantly from this value during the test. This
divergence arises because of the redistribution of normal stress
over the top and bottom boundaries of the sample. The variation of
the ratio ~'yx/Oy with ~ is shown in Fig. 12. Note that this ratio is Q
computed for the central part of the sample: investigations have
shown that in tests on sand this ratio is consistently higher (by
some 10 to 15% in monotonic loading tests) than the ratio of
average total shear and normal stresses on the horizontal bound-
~rosssectional
areaA// C~ = P I A
try x = Q / A
aries (see the section on analysis of stress state below and Fig. 20).
Finally, results are presented in Fig. 13 as a stress path using the
FIG. 14--Stress measurements in simple apparatus for which oy and ryx
parameters s and t. are the only components determined.

Discussion
The differences between the results obtained by the two methods
of analysis, which are particularly marked in Figs. 11-13, indicate
the problems that exist in attempting to make definite statements
about the stress state in a sample during a simple shear test. The
more significant differences emerge at large deformation, after the
maximum stress ratio has been reached, and when nonuniformities
in the sample can be expected to become most pronounced. It is
clear that an element of subjectivity must enter into the selection of
a most appropriate method for analyzing test results: any number
of different approaches could be proposed for distributing errors
and effecting force or moment equilibrium or both. It appears
from the presentation of results in Figs. 9 to 13 that the insistence
on moment equilibrium has produced a more marked effect on the
results than the requirement of force equilibrium.
In studying soil behavior in steady tests, one naturally (though
perhaps unjustifiably) hopes to obtain steadily changing results.
The results obtained by Method 1 seem to fit more closely with ex-
pected patterns of response. We have consequently recommended
the general use of this method for computing the results of simple
shear tests, together with the acceptance of the criterion for mo-
ment equilibrium that is implied by Eq 10, since, obviously, some
criterion for moment equilibrium could be found that would per-
mit Eq 7 to produce the same symmetric stress tensor as that pro-
duced by Eq 10.
Analysis of Stress State in Less Complex Apparatus
The Cambridge simple shear apparatus with its elaborate array
of load cells measuring the stresses around the boundary of the soil
sample, used in conjunction with some appropriate computational
device, produces, as we have seen, a complete description of the
stress state in the central part of the sample. From tests in this ap-
paratus on samples of sand certain patterns have emerged that
permit the stress state to be determined in less complex simple
shear apparatus, in which the only measurements made are of Oy
and ryx (see Fig. 14).
Roscoe, Bassett, and Cole [10] investigated the relationships
between the orientations of the principal axes of stress increment,
strain increment, and stress as these rotate during simple shear
tests on sand. Coaxiality, or coincidence of principal axes of strain
increment and stress, is a basic postulate of the theory of plasticity;
its validity for soils is an appealing possibility that would provide
the necessary extra information to permit the complete plane-
strain stress state to be deduced in the less complex simple shear
apparatus.
Roscoe, Bassett and Cole [10] found that once what might be
considered to be plastic flow had developed, the principal axes of
strain increment and stress did indeed coincide. They also found
however that on initial loading and on unloading, significant
divergences were apparent. On unloading in particular, the prin-
cipal axes of strain increment and stress increment were coinci-
dent, at least initially, a pattern of behavior that might be as-
sociated with an elastic response. These observations have been
confirmed for simple shear tests on loose and dense Leighton Buz-
zard sand by Stroud [8] and Budhu and Wood [11]. A typical set of
results is shown in Fig. 4b.
The ratio R = ryx/Oy for the central part of the simple shear
apparatus is plotted against tan ¢ in Fig. 15. This figure includes
results from a number of tests with constant total vertical load on
14/25 Leighton Buzzard sand at different initial densities, at dif-
ferent stress levels, and with different stress or strain paths, in-
cluding some repeated loading paths. A straight line
R=k.tan¢ (16)
provides quite a good approximation to the results, with k equal to
0.669 for this sand. Equation 16 has also been proposed by Ochiai
[12] and Oda [13] but only for monotonic straining. Both Ochiai
and Oda assumed that at the critical state (where continued shear-
ing can occur without change of stresses or volume [14]), the prin-
cipal axes of strain increment and stress coincide, so that ~b = 45
deg (Fig. 16). Then
R c v = sin $cv = k (17)
lc ~/"
A/
.8 ~ k/
~y× /I"
•4 Q~ 3~
tanly
FIG. iS--Linear relationship between 7yx/O'y and tan ¢ supported by
data from a wide range of different types of simple shear tests on 14/25
Leighton Buzzard sand.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jun 15 16:36:42 EDT 2020
Downloaded/printed by
(PUC-RJ) Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro ((PUC-RJ) Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduc
WOOD El" AL ON SIMPLE SHEAR APPARATUS 219

part of the sample. These results are compared in Figs. 17-19 with
results computed by the procedure described above in the section
X
on calculating the stress state, which makes use of all the informa-
tion provided by the load cells.
The comparison is made in terms of the stresses oy, ryx, and Ox
(Fig. 17); the stress path in t:s space (Fig. 18); and the orientations
of the principal axes (Fig. 19). Differences in the stresses o x, Oy,

a. b.
2 -kgf/cm2
FIG. 16--Mohr's circles for (a) strain increment and (b) stress f o r the
critical state: constant volume shearing with ~ : ~ = ~r/4.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 O@ O • O • • • • • • • 0
0 0

Cole [7] found ¢Pcv = 35 deg for Leighton Buzzard sand, which
gives k = 0.575. This is dearly much lower than the experimental
value. 1 o
Certain relationships can be deduced from Eq 16 and considera- 0
tion of the geometry of Mohr's circle of stress. • full analysis
o simple analysis
al/ay = 1 + R2/k (18)

0 3 / % = 1 -- k (19)
0.'I c~ 012 013
t/oy = ( R 2 + k 2 ) / 2 k (20)

s/try = 1 + ( R 2 - - k 2 ) / 2 k (21) 2~flcm 2

Equation 19 suggests that a3 should be constant in a simple

shear test conducted with constant vertical stress, and thus that the %
stress path in t:s space should have a gradient of unity. It can be • • • • • • • • • •
seen from Fig. 13 that this is a reasonable approximation. In
~8o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
general, although a test may be performed with constant total ap- 0
plied vertical load, the vertical stress on the central part of the
sample is found to change as shearing proceeds; some deviation
• full analysis
from constant tr3 is to be expected.
At the start of a test R = 0 and Eqs 18 and 19 produce a re- o simple analysis
lationship

o3/o2 = K o = 1 - k (22) % ' o11 ~ o!2 o!3

Equation 22 suggests independence of K0 from initial density, an
independence not borne out by experiment. Budhu and Wood [11] -kgf/cm 2
quote values of K0 for Leighton Buzzard sand of 0.425 (dense,
e0 = 0.53) and 0.435 (loose, e 0 : 0.76), whereas with k = 0.669,
Eq 22 gives K 0 : 0.331. (If k is taken from Eq 17 with dpcv :
35 deg, then K0 : 1 -- k : 0.425.)
It is of interest that while Eq 22 does indeed give the limit-
ing value of the ratio o 3 / 0 t for R -- 0, any value of K 0 can be
8 8
chosen without conflicting with Eq 16 for R = ~b = 0. On the one • Ii
hand the results at very lowR and ~bin Fig. 15 do not necessarily lie
precisely on the straight line. On the other hand, in predicting • full analysis
i
results a quick jump of stresses is required to satisfy Eq 16 as o simple analysis
soon as R becomes greater than zero though very small.
In practice, k can be determined for any particular sand by per-
forming a simple shear test and assuming that at the peak value of o -- o!~ o~........ 0[2 o%
R (for example) the principal axes of strain increment and stress
coincide. With a value of k thus determined the results of a simple
FIG. 17--Variation o f (top) a x, (center) Oy, and (bottom) Zyx with tx:
shear test on dense sand in the Cambridge simple shear apparatus comparison of results of "full analysis" obtained with Method 1 with
have been computed using the procedure just outlined, using as results o f "simple analysis" obtained by using Fig. 15 and Eq 16, 1
input only the average values of ryx and Oy measured on the central k g f / c m 2 = 98.06 kPa.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jun 15 16:36:42 EDT 2020
Downloaded/printed by
(PUC-RJ) Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro ((PUC-RJ) Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduc
220 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

1.0Ikgf/cm2 _j 1.C

r • fo,I ana,ysis • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • •
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
t o simple analysis / / ~ •
0
0
0 0

> F 0.5
0

05

• centnz
o average

011 c< 0!2 L_

0.3
00 -- 0'5- ; 110 kgf/cm2 t15
FIG. 20--Comparison of variation of 7yx/try with shear strain c~ com-
FIG. 18--Comparison of stress paths in t:s space computed using 'full puted for the center of the sample (ryx/try = [Q2 + Q5]/[P2 + P5]) and
analysis" and "'simple analysis. ""1 kgf/cm 2 = 98.06 kPa. averaged for the whole of the sample (ryx/t~y ---- [ Q I -t- Q 2 -~ Q 3 -k Q 4 q-
Q5 + Q6]/[PI + P2 + P3 + P4 + Ps + P6])" (Forces Pi and Qi are
shown in Fig. 3. )

150 °
~ v x
A • I full analysis Intermediate Principal Stress
O [] simple analysis In performing analyses of problems involving deformation in
0
plane strain, the influence of the intermediate principal stress a2,
the stress acting normal to the plane of deformation, is in general
ignored. However, if one intends to draw any links between results
I
100 of tests performed with simple shear apparatus and results of tests
performed with triaxial (axisymmetric) apparatus, knowledge of
E] Ill the complete stress state will be required.
Stroud [8] found in tests on Leighton Buzzard sand in the simple
0 Et • shear apparatus that the ratio a2/s rose from the initial consolida-
ID I~ IO DIIi I I • i I m
tion value of 2K0/(1 + K 0) to an approximately constant value
of 0.74.
5C . . . . . . . In general one might assume an expression of the form

a2 = kls (23)
D o
where kl is a material constant. Taking kl = 0.74 for Leighton
Buzzard sand leads to a value of 0.59 being predicted for K 0, com-
pared with experimental values of 0.425 and 0.435 for dense and
o o!n a o!2 0'3 loose sand, respectively.
Combining Eq 23 with Eqs 18 and 19 yields:
FIG. 19--Comparison of variations of angles ~, ~, and X with shear
strain c~ computed by "full analysis '" and "'simple analysis. " o2/try --- k 1 + ( k l / 2 k ) ( R 2 -- k 2) (24)

The complete three-dimensional principal stress state at any stage

and ryx determined by the two methods arise because the full pro-
cedure described earlier includes the lines of action of all the forces
acting on the sample core to determine ~0; the simplified pro-
cedure given in this section makes use only of the forces measured
on the horizontal faces of the sample core.
In most commercial simple shear apparatus the total vertical
and horizontal forces applied to the sample are measured, and it is
assumed that these are distributed uniformly over the horizontal
surface of the sample. Experimental work at Cambridge [9,11] has
shown, however, that use of these total forces underestimates the
stress ratio ryx/ay developed at the center of the sample by 10 to
15%. A typical comparison is shown in Fig. 20.
of the simple shear test is now defined in terms of R.
However, it is apparent from the results shown in Fig. 21 and
from other results for repeated loading tests [9] that while Eq 23
provides a useful starting point and is reasonably accurate once
some state of failure has been reached, it will not accurately reflect
conditions either at the start of a test or on unloading a sample.
The selection of a value for kl requires the performance of a
plane-strain test in which the stress perpendicular to the plane of
shear is measured. Such tests are not regularly performed. If K 0
has been measured, an estimate of kl can be obtained from the
relation
kl = (2Ko)/(1 + Ko) (25)

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jun 15 16:36:42 EDT 2020
Downloaded/printed by
(PUC-RJ) Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro ((PUC-RJ) Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduc
WOOD ET AL O N SIMPLE SHEAR APPARATUS 221

1-0 and to deduce information about the complete stress state in the
sample, making use only of the measured normal and shear
cr2ts stresses applied to the horizontal surface of the sample. This has
been demonstrated in the two preceding sections of the paper.
0.8 o• The patterns of response have been established for one par-
0 0 0 0 .... O 0 0 ~ 0 - -
Oon- ~oeo-do-O-@ ticular sand, 14/25 Leighton Buzzard sand. It may be expected
9c~O o 0
../
o"2 =0.74 s that the same patterns will be relevant for other sands, but it is cer-
0.~ tainly not suggested that simple shear tests on samples of clay will
necessarily be amenable to the same treatment. Further research is
a. in progress to establish what patterns of response may be ap-
plicable to clays.
o.% I

0,05 011 It is hoped that the procedures proposed for analysis of results of
tests in the simpler simple shear apparatus will be of value to in-
vestigators using these apparatus. However, the problems that
1.0 have been illustrated in analyzing the measurements in the more
complex Cambridge apparatus must serve to underline the dif-
G2/s ficulties associated with this apparatus and the care and awareness
that are necessary in interpreting the results of all simple shear
0.8
tests.
i---~- O
0-2 =0.74S~ '

Acknowledgments
b.
The experimental work described in this paper was financed
0.% L
0.2 03 (3.4 ~ 01,.5 through a contract with the Building Research Establishment.
Muniram Budhu is grateful for a Commonwealth Scholarship
FIG. 21--Variation of ratio tr2/s with shear strain c~for (a) dense sand enabling him to carry out research at Cambridge University.
and (b) loose sand (data from Stroud [8]).

which should apply at the end of consolidation. The value of K 0
could itself be estimated from Jfiky's [15] expression
K 0 = 1 -- sin 4~
using some suitable value for ~b. However, as we have seen, this
would be unlikely to lead to very reliable estimates of a2.
Summary
It has been the object of this paper to study ways in which the
stress state in samples of soil in the simple shear apparatus may be
determined. There is clearly something of a quantum jump in
degree of complexity between the simpler commercially available
simple shear apparatus in which rather rudimentary measure-
ments of certain applied stresses can be made and the Cambridge
simple shear apparatus in which the array of contact stress trans-
ducers (load cells) surrounding the sample permits detailed knowl-
edge of the complete stress state in the sample.
Tests in this latter apparatus are valuable and essential in pro-
viding the information necessary to "calibrate" the former, simpler
apparatus. In order that useful results may be obtained, a rational
procedure for computing a representative stress state from the in-
formation provided by the load cells is required. Such a procedure,
which can of course be used when testing any material, has been
described, and the problems of producing credible results at large
strains, where nonuniformities in the sample may become signifi-
cant, have been noted.
Patterns of response that are obtained from this apparatus can
be used to interpret the results of tests in the simpler apparatus
References
[1] Kjellman, W., "Testing the Shear Strength of Clay in Sweden," Gdo-
technique, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1951, pp. 225-232.
[2] Roscoe, K. H., "An Apparatus for the Application of Simple Shear
(26) to Soil Samples," Proceedings of the Third International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, Zurich,
186-191.
[3] Bjerrum, L. and Landva, A., "Direct Simple Shear Tests on a
Norwegian Quick Clay," G~otechnique, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1966, pp.
1-20.
[4] Pr6vost, J-H. and HOeg, K., "Reanalysis of Simple Shear Soil
Testing," Canadian GeotechnicalJournaL Vol. 13, No. 4, 1976, pp.
418-429.
[5] Hill, R., Elastic Properties of Reinforced Solids: Some Theoretical
Principles," Journal of Mechanics and Phys&s of Solids, Vol. 11, No.
5, 1963, pp. 357-372.
[6] Drescher, A. and De Josselin de Jong, G., "Photoelastic Verification
of a Mechanical Model for the Flowof a Granular Material," Journal
of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 20, 1972, pp. 337-351.
[7] Cole, E. R. L., "The Behavior of Soils in the Simple Shear Ap-
paratus," Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge University,Cambridge, England,
1967.
[8] Stroud, M. A., "The Behavior of Sand at Low Stress Levels in the
Simple Shear Apparatus," Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge University,
Cambridge, England, 1971.
[9] Budhu, M., "Simple Shear Deformation of Sands," Ph.D. thesis,
Cambridge University, Cambridge, England, 1979.
[10] Roscoe, K. H., Bassett, R. H., and Cole, E. R. L., "Principal Axes
Observed During Simple Shear of a Sand," Proceedings of the
Geoteehnical Conference on Shear Strength Properties of Natural
Soils and Rocks, Vol. 1, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo,
1967, pp. 231-237.
[11] Budhu, M. and Wood, D. M., "A Study of the Simple Shear Test,
report to Building Research Station, Garston, England, April 1979.
[12] Ochiai, H., "The Behavior of Sands in Direct Shear Tests [in
Japanese]" Journal of Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foun-
dation Engineering, Vol. 15, No. 4, 1975, pp. 93-100.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jun 15 16:36:42 EDT 2020
Downloaded/printed by
(PUC-RJ) Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro ((PUC-RJ) Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduc
222 GEOTECHNtCAL TESTING JOURNAL

[13] Oda, M., "On the Relation r / o n = k tan ~b in the Simple Shear [15] Jfiky, J., "Pressure in Silos," Proceedings o f the Second International
Test," Soils and Foundations, Vol. 15, No. 4, 1975, pp. 35-4t. Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1,
[14] Roscoe, K. H., Schofield, A. N., and Wroth, C. P., "On the Yielding Rotterdam, pp. 103-107.
of Soils," G~otechnique, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1958, pp. 22-52.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Jun 15 16:36:42 EDT 2020
Downloaded/printed by
(PUC-RJ) Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro ((PUC-RJ) Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduc