CV321: FOUNDATION AND PAVEMENT DESIGN

EXPERIMENT 2: DIRECT SHEAR TEST

Performed: 12/09/2022

Name: Ricky Nadan

Student ID: S11184759
Due date: 17/09/2022
Course: CV321 Foundation and Pavement Design
INTRODUCTION
Direct shear test carried out to determine the shear strength properties of a soil. The test is done
by forcing the compacted soil to shear along the horizontal plane of weakness at a constant rate.
Shear strength is the force exerted by the soil to resist any form of failure such as soil erosion or
soil failure, deformation and cracking. Soils that have greater shear strength tend to have a higher
intermolecular strength causing the soil particles to have more cohesion and intermolecular
forces which prevent the soil particles to slide over each other. In 1846, a French engineer named
Alexandre Collin developed a direct shear testing apparatus which was initially the idea of
Charles-Augustin de Coulomb, who used to study the soil strength and lateral earth pressures on
structures in 1773. Mr Collin wanted to determine the slope stability of cohesive soil.[1]
Some of the advantages of direct shear test is that its easy and quick (under 5 mins). It can also
be used to test on various types of soils. Direct shear test is lucrative and it is also not very
expensive (cost effective). The results achieved from direct shear test is very reliable that
explains why universities and companies around the world mainly prefer direct shear test.
Calculating shear strength of soil is important as it helps geotechnical and civil engineers to
calculate bearing capacity of soils, soil stability of all kinds of soils, soil strength, analyse the
lateral earth pressures on retaining structures and also the pavement design projects standards
corresponding to shear strength of soils. It also helps calculate the serviceability period of the
building and the soil’s structure. Calculating the shear strength of soils helps individuals gauge
the maximum dead and live loads corresponding to the strength of the soil.[1]
There are few factors which affect the shear strength of soils, the higher the moisture content of
soils the lower will be the shear strength since the moisture usually causes the particles to be far
apart (cohesionless) causing the particles to have low intermolecular attraction and slide over
each other. The shape and size of the individual particles, this explains that smaller and more
angular particles can be compacted and easily arranged causing the soil to have minimum voids.
The higher the void ratio the lower will be the shear strength. Initial state of soils such as loose,
dense, over consolidated, normally consolidation, stiff also affect the shear strength parameters
of soil. Therefore, this experiment will determine and compare the shear strength parameters of
different soils.[2]

AIM
The aim of this experiment is to determine and compare the shear strength parameters of clay,
loam and sand.
APPARATUS
a. Direct Shear Test Device with proving rings and deformation dial gauges
b. Shearing Box with cutter, porous plates and loading piston
c. Seized Compactor
d. Load Weights (4, 8, 12 kg)
e. Water with measuring cylinder
f. Scale

PROCEDURE
Weighed approximately 120g of soil sample. the soil was conditioned, until it reached 20%
moisture content. The soil was kneaded thoroughly to ensure moisture is evenly distributed. The
soil was placed in the cutter where it was compacted into three layers. Assembled the shear box
with bottom non-porous and porous plate. the compacted soil sample was carefully placed on the
shear box and it was then pressed with the compactor until the soil sample reached the bottom of
the shear box. the shear box was loaded in the shear machine with the top porous plate and
loading piston. Placed the 4kg load on the loading hanger and closed the jack shrew assembly to
the top. Aligned the loading yoke to and the loading piston firmly. Zeroed the vertical
deformation gauge and started releasing the vertical load by unscrewing the jack shrew
assembly. Once the deformation stopped the values were recorded in the result sheet.
direct shear machine was started and the deformation speed was set to 1mm/minute and the
horizontal deformation gauge was aligned and the proving ring gauge was set to zero and the
Run button was pressed. the horizontal deformation gauge and the proving ring gauge was
observed and where it was recorded the in Table 1 of the results sheet at 15s interval. Observed
the reading until the proving ring deformation was stopped or was still decreasing. Once the
reading phase is completed, the normal load was released by screwing the jack shrew assembly
and removing the shear box. Cleaned the shear box and returned the direct shear machine to zero
datum. the procedure was repeated for different soil samples under different normal loading.
EXPERIMENT DIAGRAMS

Weighing balance Direct Shear Test Device

Loam specimen with a perfect cut

 RESULTS
Soil Type: Clay
Impact Area: (0.6 by 0.6) = 3.6×10-3 m2
Mass (Kg) Normal Force (N) Normal Stress (kN/m2)
4 392 108.9
8 784 217.78
12 1176 326.67

Table 1: Clay sample

Load 4 kg 8 kg 12 kg
s

Time (s) Horizonta Proving Shear Shear Horizonta Proving Shear Shear Horizonta Proving Shear Shear
l Dial Stress l Dial Stress l Dial Stress
Load Load Load
Dial Reading (kN/m2 Dial Reading kN/m2 Dial Readin kN/m2
Readings s (N) Readings s (N) Readings g (N)

15 120.0 1.0 4.0 1.1 104.0 2.0 8.1 2.2 56.0 2.0 8.1 2.2
30 218.0 7.0 28.2 7.8 141.0 6.0 24.2 6.7 73.0 16.0 64.6 17.9
45 254.0 19.0 76.7 21.3 158.0 19.0 76.7 21.3 109.0 25.0 100. 28.0
9
60 343.0 29.0 117. 32.5 215.0 32.0 129. 35.9 157.0 37.0 149. 41.5
 0 1 3
75 426.0 35.0 141. 39.2 287.0 40.0 161. 44.8 244.0 50.0 201. 56.0
2 4 8
90 538.0 41.0 165. 46.0 391.0 48.0 193. 53.8 342.0 62.0 250. 69.5
4 7 2
105 653.0 45.0 181. 50.4 506.0 56.0 226. 62.8 449.0 75.0 302. 84.1
6 0 6
120 770.0 49.0 197. 54.9 618.0 62.0 250. 69.5 658.0 89.0 359. 99.8
7 2 1
135 890.0 51.0 205. 57.2 740.0 67.0 270. 75.1 763.0 99.0 399. 111.
8 3 5 0
150 1007.0 54.0 217. 60.5 875.0 73.0 294. 81.8 872.0 112.0 451. 125.
9 6 9 5
165 1130.0 56.0 226. 62.8 978.0 78.0 314. 87.4 988.0 123.0 496. 137.
0 7 3 9
180 1250.0 58.0 234. 65.0 1096.0 84.0 338. 94.2 1107.0 132.0 532. 148.
0 9 6 0
195 1375.0 60.0 242. 67.3 1220.0 89.0 359. 99.8 1234.0 139.0 560. 155.
1 1 9 8
210 1496.0 62.0 250. 69.5 1350.0 94.0 379. 105. 1344.0 146.0 589. 163.
2 3 4 1 6
225 1525.0 63.0 254. 70.6 1462.0 98.0 395. 109. 1467.0 152.0 613. 170.
2 4 8 3 4
240 1740.0 65.0 262. 72.9 1583.0 103.0 415. 115. 1589.0 158.0 637. 177.
3 6 4 5 1
255 1866.0 66.0 266. 74.0 1707.0 107.0 431. 119. 1707.0 162.0 653. 181.
3 7 9 7 6
1900.0 67.0 270. 75.1 1837.0 110.0 443. 123. 1831.0 167.0 673. 187.
3 9 3 8 2
2110.0 68.0 274. 76.2 1952.0 114.0 460. 127. 1957.0 169.0 681. 189.
4 0 8 9 4
2032.0 121.0 488. 135. 2084.0 170.0 686. 190.
2 6 0 5
 2149.0 123.0 496. 137. 2207.0 172.0 694. 192.
3 9 0 8
2271.0 125.0 504. 140. 2339.0 173.0 698. 193.
4 1 1 9
2398.0 127.0 512. 142. 173.0 698. 193.
4 3 1 9

Table 2: (Sand)
Load 4 kg 8 kg 12 kg
s

Time (s) Horizontal Proving Shear Shear Horizontal Proving Shear Shear Horizonta Proving Shear Shear
Dial Stress Dial Stress l Dial Stress
Dial Load Dial Load Load
Readings Reading (kN/m2 Readings Reading kN/m2 Dial Readin kN/m2
s (N) s (N) Readings g (N)

15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 11.0 44.4 12.3 35.0 6.5 26.2 7.3

30 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 24.0 96.8 26.9 42.0 17.0 68.6 19.1

45 110.0 8.0 32.3 9.0 90.0 35.0 141. 39.2 70.0 30.0 121. 33.6
2 1

60 140.0 15.0 60.5 16.8 172.0 47.0 189. 52.7 110.0 41.0 165. 46.0
6 4

75 200.0 22.0 88.8 24.7 290.0 56.0 226. 62.8 201.0 53.0 213. 59.4
0 9

90 290.0 29.0 117.0 32.5 405.0 60.0 242. 67.3 290.0 65.0 262. 72.9
1 3
 105 420.0 31.0 125.1 34.7 520.0 65.0 262. 72.9 396.0 75.0 302. 84.1
3 6

120 530.0 33.0 133.2 37.0 640.0 69.0 278. 77.3 505.0 83.0 334. 93.0
4 9

135 620.0 36.0 145.3 40.4 750.0 72.5 292. 81.3 610.0 89.0 359. 99.8
5 1

150 740.0 38.5 155.3 43.2 870.0 75.0 302. 84.1 720.0 93.5 377. 104.8
6 3

165 860.0 40.5 163.4 45.4 990.0 77.5 312. 86.9 850.0 97.0 391. 108.7
7 4

180 980.0 42.0 169.5 47.1 1100.0 79.5 320. 89.1 960.0 100.0 403. 112.1
8 5

195 1100.0 43.5 175.5 48.8 1220.0 81.0 326. 90.8 1090.0 102.5 413. 114.9
8 6

210 1220.0 44.5 179.6 49.9 1355.0 83.0 334. 93.0 1210.0 104.5 421. 117.1
9 7

225 1350.0 46.0 185.6 51.6 1480.0 84.5 341. 94.7 1340.0 106.5 429. 119.4
0 7

240 1470.0 46.5 187.6 52.1 1605.0 86.0 347. 96.4 1460.0 107.5 433. 120.5
0 8

255 1590.0 48.0 193.7 53.8 1730.0 87.0 351. 97.5 1580.0 108.5 437. 121.6
0 8

270 1710.0 48.5 195.7 54.4 1855.0 88.0 355. 98.6 1700.0 109.5 441. 122.7
1 8

285 1840.0 49.0 197.7 54.9 1980.0 88.5 357. 99.2 1830.0 110.0 443. 123.3
1 9

300 1970.0 49.5 199.7 55.5 2100.0 89.0 359. 99.8 1955.0 110.3 444. 123.6
1 9

Table 3: (Loam)
Loads 4 kg 8 kg 12 kg
Time (s) Horizonta Proving Shear Shear Horizonta Proving Shear Shear Horizonta Proving Shear Shear
l Dial Stress l Dial Stress l Dial Stress
Load Load Load
Dial Reading (kN/m2 Dial Readings kN/m2 Dial Reading kN/m2
Readings s (N) Readings (N) Readings (N)

15 19.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 17.0 68.6 19.1 41.0 14.0 56.5 15.7

30 22.0 14.0 56.5 15.7 62.0 26.0 104. 29.1 70.0 26.0 104.9 29.1
9

45 144.0 21.0 84.7 23.5 130.0 34.0 137. 38.1 112.0 37.0 149.3 41.5
2

60 232.0 28.0 113.0 31.4 209.0 44.0 177. 49.3 184.0 55.0 221.9 61.6
5

75 328.0 33.0 133.2 37.0 311.0 54.0 217. 60.5 282.0 71.0 286.5 79.6
9

90 430.0 38.0 153.3 42.6 418.0 61.5 248. 68.9 388.0 84.0 338.9 94.2
2

105 548.0 42.0 169.5 47.1 532.0 69.0 278. 77.3 498.0 96.0 387.4 107.6
4

120 675.0 46.0 185.6 51.6 641.0 76.0 306. 85.2 605.0 105.0 423.7 117.7
7

135 790.0 49.0 197.7 54.9 753.0 83.0 334. 93.0 721.0 114.0 460.0 127.8
9

150 912.0 52.0 209.8 58.3 874.0 90.5 365. 101.4 838.0 122.0 492.3 136.7
2

165 1035.0 55.0 221.9 61.6 982.0 95.5 385. 107.0 961.0 129.0 520.5 144.6
3

180 1154.0 59.5 240.1 66.7 1098.0 101.0 407. 113.2 1068.0 129.0 520.5 144.6
5

195 1283.0 61.5 248.2 68.9 1230.0 106.0 427. 118.8

7

210 1401.0 63.0 254.2 70.6 1334.0 110.5 445. 123.9

9

225 1526.0 64.5 260.3 72.3 1460.0 114.5 462. 128.3

0

240 1470.0 66.0 266.3 74.0 1569.0 118.0 476. 132.3

1
 255 1650.0 67.0 270.3 75.1 1707.0 121.0 488. 135.6
2

270 1770.0 68.0 274.4 76.2 1824.0 124.0 500. 139.0

3

285 1903.0 68.5 276.4 76.8 1949.0 126.0 508. 141.2

4

300 2023.0 2064.0 129.0 520. 144.6

5

330 2170 130.5 526. 146.3

6

345 2308 132.5 534. 148.5

6

360

GRAPHS
Shear strength of clay:
Mass (Kg) Shear Stress (kN/m2) Normal Stress (kN/m2)
4 76.2 108.9
8 142.3 217.78
12 193.9 326.67
 Shear strength of clay
250

200
f(x) = 0.540477466917246 x + 19.7596823298724

150
Shear stress

100

50

0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Normal stress

Sand analysis
Mass (Kg) Shear Stress (kN/m2) Normal Stress (kN/m2)
4 55.5 108.9
8 99.8 217.78
12 123.6 326.67
 Shear Strength of Sand
140

120 f(x) = 0.312713808905804 x + 24.8628109837975

100
Shear stress

80

60

40

20

0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Normal stress

Loam analysis

Mass (Kg) Shear Stress (kN/m2) Normal Stress (kN/m2)

40 76.8 108.9
 80 148.5 217.78
120 144.6 326.67

Shear Strength of Loam

160
f(x) = 0.311332335804565 x + 55.4970061340291
140
120
100
Shear stress

80
60
40
20
0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Normal stress

Shear strength values at maximum loading

Test sample Shear strength (KN/m2)
Clay 196.32
Loam 156.98
Sand 126.98

Test sample Cohesion (KN/m2) Fiction angle

Clay 19.96 28.29
Loam 55.50 17.29
Sand 24.86 17.36

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
Normal stress
by the weight of 4kg, the setup equation is given as:
Normal Force=Load ( kg ) × 10 ×9.81
 ¿ ( 40 )( 10 ) ( 9.81 )
= 392 kN

Normal Force
Normal Stress =
Impact Area
392
¿ −3
3.6× 10
= 108.9 kN/m2

the maximum shear force and the relative maximum shear strength of the clay sample at 4kg
load:
Shear Force=Providing dial reading × 4.035
¿ ( 68.0 ) ( 4.035 )
¿ 274.4 kN
Max shear stress:
Shear Force
Shear Stress=
Impact Area
274.4
¿
3.6× 10−3
= 76.2 kN/m2

The cohesion of the clay sample:

y = 0.5405x + 19.76
Inputting x= 0 from the trendline equation,
y-int = 19.76  the Cohesion of clay is 19.76 kN/m2

Frictional angle :
Y1- 76.8, Y2= 144.6, X1= 108.9, X2= 326.67

y 2− y 1 67.8
m= =
x 2−x 1 217.7
 67.8
tanϑ =( m )= =17.29
217.7

The shear strength of the clay at 120kg loading :

'
τf =C +σ tan φ

¿ ( 19.76 ) + ( 326.67 ) tan ( 28.39 )

= 196.32 kN/m2

DISCUSSION
The experiment was successfully done however the results achieved does not resonate well with
the expectations. The shear strength and angle of friction for clay should have been lower than
loam theoretically thus it is definitely not correct due to some errors such as the experiment
stopped before the sample had reached its maximum shear strength and other errors discussed
below. Through observation of graphs (all three graphs seems correct theoretically) can be said
that for all three soils, the normal stress is directly proportional to the shear stress. That is, as the
load increased the shear stress also increased.[2]
The clay specimen had the highest shear strength of 196.32 KN/m2 because the particles of clay
are really small in size and are numerous enough to be properly arranged and compacted. The
particles also have a higher angle of friction which causes the particles to resist sliding over each
other. The arrangement of particles helps the particles to have a intermolecular force of attraction
which allows the particles to engage and have a sticky experience making the soil highly
cohesive which eventually causes the clay soil to have a higher shear strength and greater
bearing capacity. Clay has a higher compressibility and elasticity which can cause settlements
due to live load changes after constructions. Therefore, clay is pretty dangerous because it can
easily cause the components of the infrastructure to crack and deform.[3]

The loam specimen had the second highest shear strength of 156.98 KN/m2 because the particles
of loam are smaller in size (larger than clay), have higher strength and are angular enough with
lower moisture content which helps the particles to be arranged and compacted in a higher
density structure. The particles also have a higher angle of friction which causes the particles to
resist sliding over each other. The arrangement of particles helps the particles to have higher
intermolecular force of attraction which allows the particles to engage and have a higher
cohesion of 55.50 KN/m2 which eventually causes the soil to have a high density, greater higher
shear strength and greater bearing capacity. Therefore, loam maybe a suitable material for high
load infrastructures.[4]

The sand specimen had the least shear strength of only 126.98 KN/m2. This explains that sand is
not an appropriate material to be used alone for any high load bearing construction projects
because the particles have less cohesion and they do not have any interlocking force or
intermolecular force of attraction. The low angle of friction (17.36) proves that the soil particles
have less friction which allows them to easily slide over each other. the soil particles of sand are
cohesionless mainly due to the fact that it has a very low initial moisture content. This explains
that sand particles only stick to each other when wet due to negative pore pressure around the
particles thus if the sand particles are dry, the sand will not have any shear strength.[2]

Civil engineers and geotechnical engineers use direct shear test around the world, to determine
the shear strength which helps them calculate the bearing capacity of the soil structures for the
proposed project such as foundations, pavements and roads. It also helps engineers to estimate
the design parameters for retaining walls corresponding to the shear strength of the slopes.
Calculating shear strength is very essential in road and embarkments to calculate the maximum
bearing capacity of the soils. Direct shear test is also used to study the strength for the bedrocks
that support the extreme loads of bridges and also multi story buildings.[3]
CONCLUSION
In a nutshell, the experiment was a success and it was found that clay soil had the highest shear
strength compared to loam and sand. This is because soils with higher shear strength have a
strong intermolecular attraction between the particles which cause the particles to have higher
cohesion and more sliding friction. Through personal preference it can be said that loam soil is
best for any high load bearing construction activity compared to clay because clay has a higher
compressibility and elasticity. Direct shear test is very important and also very reliable which is
the reason why most universities and companies around the world use and comprehend the
results conceived by the direct shear test.

SOURCES OF ERROR
Some of the errors encountered during the commencement of the experiment could have been,
parallax errors while reading the measurements from the dial and measuring cylinders. (this must
have caused oversaturation or under saturation). Oversaturating the soil must have affected the
cohesiveness of the soil. Human errors such as the weighing balance was not set to zero, dials
were not properly set to zero and results recorded were not in the 15 seconds range. One of the
errors observed was when the soil was not properly compacted as it was seen that students were
ramping the steel square collars instead of the soil specimen, this caused the buildup of voids
which later caused the soil specimen to crack and deform way earlier then expected. In addition,
wrong timing also must have caused the results, either the machine was stopped to early or too
late missing out the maximum shear strength point.

REFERENCE

[1] M. M. Eslami, "Sciencedirect," 2020. [Online]. Available:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/soil-shear-strength. [Accessed
17TH 09 2022].

[2] G. Mishra, "Theconstructor.org," 2019. [Online]. Available:

https://theconstructor.org/geotechnical/shearing-strength-of-soils-tests/2518/. [Accessed 17TH 09
 2022].

[3] C. Thomson, "Geoengineer," 2009. [Online]. Available:

https://www.geoengineer.org/education/soil-mechanics/shear-strength-of-underground-materials.
[Accessed 17TH 09 2022].

[4] V. Glider, "Civilengineerinnotes," 2021. [Online]. Available: https://civilengineeringnotes.com/direct-

shear-test-for-shear-strength-of-soil/. [Accessed 17TH 09 2022].