1 Geotechnical Testing Journal, Dec 2004 Vol XX, No. X Paper ID: XXXX Available online at: www.astm.

org Published XXXX

JOURNAL PAPER
Gerald A. Miller1 and Tariq B. Hamid2

Direct Shear Apparatus for Unsaturated Soil Interface Testing

Abstract: A commercially available direct shear apparatus was modified for testing unsaturated soil and interfaces between unsaturated soil and stainless steel. Major modifications include the addition of apparatus for suction-controlled testing using the axis translation method, and construction of shear boxes for testing unsaturated soil and interfaces. The major features of the device are described and results of performance tests are presented in this paper. In addition, typical results of tests on unsaturated clayey silt and interfaces are presented for drained tests conducted under different matric suction and net normal stress conditions. The Extended MohrCoulomb Failure Envelope for the soil is compared to that obtained for the rough interface. The soil/interface test results demonstrate the successful implementation of the device. Keywords: Unsaturated soil; Interface; Roughness; Direct Shear Test; Suction. Introduction At the University of Oklahoma, a commercially available direct shear apparatus was modified to enable the testing of unsaturated soil and unsaturated soil interfaces. This paper presents a brief background on the subject, describes the modifications made to the standard test apparatus, presents data illustrating the performance characteristics of the device, and presents typical results of direct shear and interface direct shear tests on unsaturated clayey silt. Background Interface Testing Many researchers have studied interface friction between soil and other construction materials (e.g. Potyondi 1961, Tsubakihara and Kishida 1993, Tsubakihara , Kishida and Nishiyama 1993, Fakharian and Evgin 1996) using a variety of equipment including simple shear (Kishida and Uesagi 1987), direct shear (Potyondy1961), torsion (Yoshimi and Kishida 1981) or
1

Associate Professor, School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science, Univ. of Oklahoma, 202 W. Boyd, Room 334, Norman, Oklahoma 73019-0631 E-Mail: gamiller@ou.edu
2

Graduate Research Assistant, School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science, Univ. of Oklahoma, 202 W. Boyd, Room 334, Norman, Oklahoma 73019-0631 E-Mail:Tariq@ou.edu .

2 annular shear devices (Brumund and Leonards 1973). These devices were used to study various aspects of soil interface behavior. For example, Fakharian and Evgin (1996) have described three dimensional monotonic and cyclic testing of interfaces for examining the influence of relative density on interface behavior. Others have studied the influence of overconsolidation ratio (Subba Rao et al. 2000), and surface roughness (Tsubakihara, Kishida and Nishiyama 1993) on interface behavior. However, lacking in available literature is treatment of interfaces in unsaturated soil. Interfaces in Unsaturated Soil It is well recognized that soil suction affects the engineering behavior of unsaturated soil (e.g. Burland and Ridley 1996, Fredlund and Rahardjo 1993) and that unsaturated soils are common in nature, particularly in arid and semi-arid regions. Additionally, most compacted embankment soils are unsaturated with degrees of saturation considerably lower than 100 percent. Likewise, unsaturated interface conditions are common to many geotechnical engineering projects. For example, piles used to support bridge abutments are often installed through significant portions of unsaturated embankment soils. In many cases where piles are driven through natural soil profiles they are embedded partially in an unsaturated soil zone. The depth of the unsaturated soil zone will vary depending on the environmental conditions of the area. The interfacial shear resistance between soil and pile in this zone presumably depends on the matric suction and net normal stress, besides those other factors described above (e.g., relative density, surface roughness, overconsolidation ratio). However, the analysis of skin friction on piles generally assumes either dry or fully saturated conditions involving an undrained (total stress approach) or drained (effective stress approach) methodology. Generally, there has been very little study of piles or interfaces in unsaturated soil. Kim & ONeill (1998) reported the results of a field testing program to evaluate the effect of seasonal moisture changes in soil on the unit shear stresses imposed on the sides of a drilled shaft in expansive clay. They proposed an empirical correlation for the upward directed shearing stresses on the drilled shaft as a result of change in matric suction. While side shear produced by expansive clay has received some attention, it is important to examine side shear in nonexpansive unsaturated soils as well, particularly for friction piles with significant embedded length in the unsaturated profile. Some other examples of where unsaturated interface conditions are commonly encountered include retaining walls, reinforced earth, and shallow foundations, to mention a few. Similar to the piles, analysis of these problems typically involves the total stress or effective stress approach, whereas an unsaturated analysis may be more appropriate. The study of unsaturated interface behavior is important to improve understanding of structures in contact with unsaturated soil, and ultimately to improve the engineering of these systems. This was the motivation for the development and use of the unsaturated interface testing device described in this paper. The Direct Shear Box Test The direct shear box apparatus is simple to use and has a long history in soil mechanics. Shibaya, Mitachi and Tamate (1997) have given an optimum configuration of the shear box

3 apparatus for measuring the strength and dilatancy characteristics in direct shear. Their study shows that proper procedures enable the direct shear box test to provide strength and large-strain dilatancy characteristics that are similar to those measured in a simple shear test. Important aspects of the procedure include measuring the vertical load in the lower half of the box, and maintaining the size of the opening between the two halves of the shear box at a fixed value of approximately 10-20 times the mean particle diameter of the test specimen. The direct shear test has been criticized for the non-homogeneity of the stress-strain state within the direct shear box; however, numerical modeling using the finite element method has demonstrated close similarity between the direct shear and the simple shear test (Jewell 1989). Potts, Dounias and Vaughan (1987) performed a finite element analysis and concluded that the non-uniformities within the direct shear box sample have little affect on the stress-strain behavior, and with little error the test may be interpreted as if it were a simple shear test. The simplicity of the testing operation and interpretation of test results make the direct shear box a good choice to begin the study of the complicated behavior of unsaturated soil interfaces. The direct shear type of apparatus is a commonly used device for interface testing. As mentioned, the direct shear test has some inherent problems (principal stress rotation, stress nonuniformity, failure plane definition); however, it is fairly well suited for interface testing. Boulon (1989) and Boulon et al. (1995) describe the use of a direct shear apparatus for developing constitutive models for interfaces. As an elemental test for soil, the direct shear test is subject to problems associated with fabric, stress and strain non-uniformity; however, Boulon and colleagues suggest that for interface testing it is appropriate and practical. In the case of soil testing, the problems with direct shear testing are important from a continuum mechanics perspective; however, if the interface direct shear test is considered as a surface test, then homogeneity is required only along the idealized shear band. As pointed out by Boulon and colleagues, a significant amount of research established that the shear band in a direct shear interface test is geometrically homogenous. However, there are still some uncertainties associated with stress level in the shear band; for this reason, stresses determined using boundary forces from this test are considered average stresses for the interface. While uncertainties exist regarding the applicability of the interface direct shear test as an elemental test, Boulon (1989) has indicated that it is a pragmatic approach to model very complex behavior (i.e., large strains, large rotations, and large relative displacements) associated with interface shearing. From a practical perspective, the direct shear test has many advantages for examining interface behavior, including the ability to simulate different loading paths (Boulon 1989, Boulon et al. 1995). In particular, the device can be used to model loading and unloading conditions under constant normal stress and constant volume conditions, which represent extreme stress paths. A range of behaviors can be investigated by applying these test conditions to soils with different initial states ranging from very loose to very dense. In addition, pseudo-oedometric loading and unloading paths, initiated after shearing can be conducted (involve changes in normal stress with no displacement tangent to the interface). The loading paths possible with direct shear interface testing bracket those expected along a pile interface, i.e., lying somewhere between a constant normal stress and constant volume condition. Therefore, the behavior observed from these tests will provide fundamental insight into the shearing mechanisms along piles and other interfaces in unsaturated soils.

Interface Shear Strength in Unsaturated Soil The shear strength theory for unsaturated soil proposed by Fredlund et al. (1978) has been studied by various researchers (Gan, Fredlund, Rahardjo 1988, Oloo and Fredlund 1996, Escario 1986, Cui and Delage 1996). According to this theory the shear strength of unsaturated soil is a function of two stress state variables, namely, net normal stress and matric suction. For unsaturated soil the general expression of shear strength in terms of these two stress state variables is given by,
b = c'+( u a ) tan '+(u a u w ) tan

(1)

where: = shear stress on the failure plane at failure or shear strength,

c ' = effective cohesion intercept,

'= effective angle of internal friction with respect to the net normal stress ( u a ) ,
b = angle of internal friction with respect to matric suction (u a u w ) ,

= total stress normal to the failure plane at failure,

u a = pore air pressure on the failure plane at failure, and
u w = pore water pressure on the failure plane at failure.

It is generally accepted and experimentally verified that Eq. (1) is a reasonable constitutive expression for unsaturated soil shear strength. Following the same reasoning and theory behind Eq. (1), the shearing resistance for unsaturated interfaces at failure might be described using Eq. (2). The device described in this paper was used to investigate this hypothesis.
f s = c a + ( u a ) tan + (u a u w ) tan b

(2)

where: fs = shear stress on the interface failure plane at failure or interface shear strength,
ca = effective adhesion intercept,

= interface friction angle with respect to the net normal stress ( u a ) ,

b = interface friction angle with respect to matric suction (u a u w ) ,
= total stress normal to the interface failure plane at failure,
u a = pore air pressure on the interface failure plane at failure, and

u w = pore water pressure on the interface failure plane at failure.

As noted by Fredlund and colleagues (e.g. Fredlund and Rahardjo 1993), the friction angle in Eq. (1) is approximately the same as the effective stress friction angle for saturated soil, whereas b typically varies as a function of matric suction. At low suction, typically below the air entry value, b is approximately the same as , but then decreases at larger suction. The shear strength of unsaturated soils has been investigated by several researchers using triaxial (Bishop 1960, Satija 1978, Escario 1980, Ho and Fredlund 1982, Peterson 1988, Toll 1990, Mashhour et al. 1996) and direct shear test equipment (Escario 1986, Fredlund and Gan 1988) with devices capable of controlling/measuring the matric suction (i.e. pore air and pore water volume and/or pressure control). Escario (1986) and Fredlund and Gan (1988) have reported the results of direct shear testing on unsaturated soil. They used the axis translation technique to control the pore air and pore water pressure independently. In the present study the basic concepts of unsaturated soil testing in the direct shear apparatus are employed in a manner similar to that reported by Fredlund and Gan (1988). The Interface Direct Shear Apparatus for Unsaturated Soil General Description A commercially available direct shear device used to perform direct shear testing was obtained. It is an automated device that uses feedback from vertical and horizontal load cells and displacement transducers to provide real-time control of vertical and horizontal loading. Stepper motors are used to apply the vertical and horizontal loading. The basic device consists of a shear box to retain the sample, two loading mechanisms for horizontal and vertical motions, two load cells, two displacement transducers, and two microprocessors for control of vertical and horizontal motions and data acquisition, and a personal computer with Windows-NT compatible software to setup the test conditions and reduce the test results. In Fig. 1 a picture of the unmodified device is shown. The basic device was modified to test unsaturated soil and interfaces. In Fig. 2, a picture of the modified device is shown with ancillary attachments. Major modifications included: 1) relocation of the horizontal displacement transducer, 2) addition of an air pressure chamber and air pressure control system, 3) construction of shear boxes for testing unsaturated soil and interfaces, 4) addition of a stepper motor pump to control the pore water volume and pressure, 5) installation of plumbing for drainage lines, 5) addition of high air entry porous stones, 6) addition of a Diffused Air Volume Indicator (DAVI), and 7) internal load cells for measuring vertical load. In addition, some minor modifications were made that included adjusting the length of loading pistons and load frame elements to accommodate the new apparatus.

Relocation of Horizontal Displacement Transducer

6 In the existing direct shear device the horizontal displacement is measured by a Linear Variable Differential Transformer (LVDT) that is located in front of the shear box holder. However, to accommodate the air pressure chamber in the modified direct shear device the horizontal LVDT was relocated to the back of the horizontal stepper motor as shown in Fig. 2. In the modified device the horizontal displacement transducer is directly in contact with the drive shaft of the horizontal stepper motor. Air Pressure Chamber To use the axis translation technique an air pressure chamber was built to contain the shear box with sample. In the axis translation method, air pressure above atmospheric pressure (zero gage pressure) is applied within the chamber containing the sample while the water pressure is controlled through a High Air Entry Porous Disc (HAEPD) in contact with one of the sample surfaces. In this way the matric suction, which is the difference between pore air and pore water pressure, can be achieved without reducing the water pressure below atmospheric pressure (zero gage pressure). This avoids problems associated with cavitation at water pressures below atmospheric pressure (i.e. cavitation pressure is approximately -100 kPa at room temperature). The air pressure chamber (internal dimensions) is 177 mm long, 152 mm wide, and 140 mm high as depicted in Fig. 3. The sides and the top are aluminum with wall thickness of 13 mm. The top of the air pressure chamber has two air ports, one for applying the air pressure and a second for venting. The top has six holes to allow access to the screws in the shear box. Two screws are used to hold the shear box together and four screws are used to create the gap for shearing between the two halves of the box. When not in use, the holes in top of the box are closed with bolts having an o-ring seal. In order to pass the vertical and horizontal loading pistons through the air chamber, three holes fitted with low friction air tight bushings were made in the top and on two sides of the chamber as shown in Figs. 2 and 3. To enable sliding the lower half of the shear box (containing soil or counterface) with respect to the upper half, a shear box holder was designed as shown in Fig. 3. This holder is 108 mm in diameter and 19 mm deep. The holder slides on rollers provided in the base of the air pressure chamber. In addition, three recesses were made in the bottom of the holder for three miniature load cells used to measure vertical load internally. Shear Boxes Two shear boxes were constructed to fit into the shear box holder within the air pressure chamber. One shear box was constructed for testing soil and the other for interfaces as shown in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. The soil shear box was constructed of stainless steel and consists of two halves that are held together with two screws. Four additional screws are used to create the gap between the two halves of the box. The bottom half has a high air entry porous disk with two drainage connections, one for sending water and the other for flushing water and air to the Diffused Air Volume Indicator (DAVI). The box has a circular cross section and accommodates a soil sample that is 30 mm thick and 63 mm in diameter. The shear box is placed in the shear

7 box holder over the miniature load cells. As mentioned, the shear box holder, which is rigidly fitted to the lower half of the shear box, slides over the rollers while the upper half of the box is fixed to the horizontal load cell shaft. Another shear box was constructed for testing unsaturated interfaces. This box utilizes the top half of the soil shear box, but the lower half consists of a stainless steel counterface as shown in Fig. 5. Two counterfaces were constructed, one rough and one smooth. For interface testing, the HAEPD is embedded in the top cap, which has two drainage connections similar to the soil shear box arrangement. The two halves of the interface box are assembled and separated in the same manner as the soil shear box. The thickness of the soil specimen in the interface shear box is approximately 25 mm. Pore Pressure Control and Volume Change Measurement System Pore water pressure is controlled using a computer controlled stepper motor pump capable of maintaining pressure with 1 kPa and detecting volume changes within 1 mm 3. A redundant pressure transducer was place on the outflow side of the pore water drainage system to verify water pressures. Drainage lines consist of 3-mm diameter high pressure Polyvinylidene Flouride (PVDF) tubing with a wall thickness of 0.8 mm. The plumbing arrangement is depicted in Fig. 6. As shown, the HAEPD is connected via drainage lines to the control pump and DAVI. During testing water is intermittently flushed through the pore water pressure system to removed air that may diffuse across the HAEPD. The air is collected in the DAVI and the volume of air can be determined. In this way, water volume changes measured with the water pump are corrected for the presence of trapped air. For the testing performed so far, very little trapped air has been measured, which indicates for a typical testing period negligible air is diffusing into the pore water control/measurement system. The function of the DAVI is explained in detail by Fredlund and Rahardjo (1993). Air pressure in the air chamber, supplied by the compressed air lines in the building housing the laboratory, is controlled using a regulator and Bourdon Tube pressure gage with a resolution of 0.7 kPa. The air can access the soil sample through openings in the shear box including the gap between the two halves of the box and the annulus surrounding the top cap. In the case of soil tests, a low air entry porous stone is placed on top of the sample to provide additional surface to transmit air pressure to the specimen. A hydrophobic membrane is placed between this stone and the soil to prevent water from migrating from the soil into the stone. In early tests without the membrane the amount of water entering the stone from the soil sample was significant and affected the water volume measurements and time to achieve moisture equilibrium in the system.

Testing Procedures

8 Sample Preparation Initial testing was performed using a locally available soil in central Oklahoma known as Minco Silt. The Minco Silt has a liquid limit of 28 %, plasticity index of 8 % and contains 73 % fines. The maximum dry unit weight is 17.7 kN/m 3 and optimum water content is 12.8 %. The specific gravity of soil solids is 2.68. The specimens were compacted to an initial dry unit weight of 15.7 kN/m3 at a moisture content of 20 + 1%, giving a degree of saturation of approximately 83%. Soil was mixed to the desired water content and stored in a humid chamber for 24 hours. After 24 hours the soil was compacted in the shear box to the required dry unit weight. The moist soil was tamped in two layers using a stainless steel rod to achieve the desired sample height. All samples used for soil and interface testing were prepared to nominally identical initial dry unit weight and moisture content prior to testing. This is important to avoid differences in the compacted sample fabric that can result from different compaction moisture contents. Application of Net Normal Stress and Matric Suction The HAEPD was saturated by connecting the entry port to the pore water pressure/volume controller. During saturation the water pressure behind the disc was maintained at 4 kPa. Low water pressure was used to avoid cracking the HAEPD and also to minimize the risk of popping the disk out of the platen. Saturation was considered complete when water flooded the top surface of the disk. During the saturation process the flushing port remained closed. Adequate saturation of the HAEPD took approximately 48 hours. The HAEPD used has an air-entry value of approximately 300 kPa (3 Bar). For soil direct shear tests the specimen was prepared on the HAEPD after surface water was removed. For the interface tests the HAEPD was placed on top of the soil as part of the top cap assembly following sample preparation. Prior to using axis translation, the specimen was compressed under a vertical load. This was necessary to generate the lateral stress necessary to maintain the position of the upper half of the shear box once it was raised. When the compression under the initial vertical load was completed, the two screws holding the two halves of the shear box together were removed from the air pressure chamber using a magnetic pick-up tool. After removing the screws the top half of the shear box was raised by turning the four raising screws, which were then reversed to eliminate contact between the screws and the box. In this way there was no contact between the upper half and lower half of the shear box. A gap of approximately 0.6 mm was used, which is in the range of 10 to 20 times the median diameter of Minco Silt (D 50=0.04 mm). The existence of the gap was verified at the end of each test using a small mirror with a long handle. After initial compression and separation of the box the six holes in the air chamber lid were sealed. The target net normal stress was achieved by applying the additional vertical load and air pressure in stages. Once the net normal stress was achieved, target suction (i.e., difference between the target pore water pressure and pore air pressure) was applied to the specimen by increasing the air pressure and water pressure as shown in Fig. 7. In Fig. 7 the test variables are plotted as a function of time from the beginning to the end of testing for a rough interface including null testing sequences. Null tests are described in greater detail in a subsequent section.

9 A separate specimen was prepared for each combination of a suction and net normal stress used during the test program. During the application of target stresses, the approximate stress paths shown in Fig. 8 were adopted to achieve net normal stresses of 105, 140, and 210 kPa and suctions of 20, 50 and 100 kPa. The stress paths are shown approximately as vertical lines because the time for equalization of the matric suction was much greater than the time required to achieve a given net normal stress. The actual suction in the specimen is unknown until equalization is complete. Note that each symbol in Fig. 8 represents the final state of stress in a single specimen. Equalization Prior to shearing, each sample was allowed to equalize at the required net normal stress and suction. Equalization of the specimen was considered complete when there was no appreciable change in the water content. During equalization the change in volume of water and change in specimen height were recorded. Water contents during the initial loading and equalization stage are plotted against time in Fig. 9 (a). Initially when the pore air and pore water pressures were applied to give the desired suction, the water flowed out at a relatively high rate and then gradually decreased. At the end of equalization a small amount of water moved in and out of the specimen as shown in Fig. 9 (a). During the equalization process the specimen response in terms of the vertical deformation was similar to the water movement as shown in Fig. 9 (b). The behavior of the specimen in response to the water movement during equalization demonstrates the excellent communication between the water pressure/volume control system and pore water. Furthermore, as expected, the decrease in water content was greatest for tests where the applied suction was highest as shown in Fig. 10. Shearing After equalization, the specimen was subjected to drained shearing under constant suction and constant net normal stress. During shearing of the specimen, the pore air and water pressure were kept constant and change in volume of water was recorded. Shearing for both soil and interface testing was achieved using a horizontal displacement rate of 0.005 mm/min. up to a displacement of approximately 10 mm. Shearing was accomplished during a period of approximately 36 hours. A slow rate was selected to avoid changes in pore pressures during shearing. During shearing, the horizontal load, horizontal displacement, and vertical displacement were measured and recorded at one minute intervals. All the specimens were sheared under constant normal stress and constant suction conditions. Calibration and Performance Testing Calibration All load cell and LVDTs were provided with manufacturers calibration data; however, calibrations were performed periodically in the OU Laboratory for verification. In addition, friction losses in the bushings were measured under different air pressures for corrections to vertical and horizontal loads. As mentioned previously, flexible Teflon tubing was used for drainage lines to provide ease of assembly as opposed to rigid lines. The tradeoff is that flexible

10 tubing exhibits a small amount of compressibility that must be measured so water volume measurements can be corrected accordingly. Compressibility was determined by placing a plug on the end of the drainage system and incrementally applying pressure via the water pump. Pressure increments corresponded to the range of pressures used during testing and were maintained for a period of time corresponding to a typical test with soil. Corresponding volume changes were measured with time during application of pressure. The tubing expanded quickly with change in water pressure followed by a small amount of creep behavior as shown in Fig. 11. The change in water volume due to expansion of the tubing was found to be practically negligible relative to changes in water volumes during testing; nevertheless, a correction was applied to the water volume measurements to account for expansion of the tubing. To further check the performance of the water volume measurement system, gravimetric moisture contents determined after each test by oven drying the sample were compared with moisture contents back-calculated from the volume change measurements and initial moisture contents. As shown in Fig. 10, the comparison is relatively good; with differences generally less than one percentage point on the water content scale. The differences are probably associated with uncertainty in the initial water content used in the back-calculation and errors associated with water loss during sample preparation and testing. Performance of Stress Control System To verify the performance of the suction and net normal stress control systems, various methods were employed. The following observations indicate that stresses were applied correctly. 1) As mentioned previously, the response of the soil specimen in terms of the vertical deformation was consistent with water volume changes during equalization under the target suction, as demonstrated in Fig. 9. 2) The water contents at the end of equalization decreased as the suction increased, consistent with the soil water characteristic behavior. 3) The moisture content achieved at the end of equalization was compared to similar tests performed in a suction-controlled oedometer. Gravimetric water contents obtained from each test were within one percentage point for the same suction. That the water content changes were similar suggests the suction was being controlled in similar fashion during each test. Furthermore, repeated direct shear and interface direct shear tests at the same suction resulted in similar moisture contents as shown in Fig. 10. 4) A comparison of internal load cell measurements and external load cell measurements showed that the load cells were giving similar results. 5) Null testing was performed whereby normal stress, pore water and pore air pressure were changed during equalization and shearing without changing the net normal stress or matric suction. If the presumption that net normal stress and matric suction control the soil behavior is correct, then changing the test variables ( , ua, uw) should not influence the soil response if the stress variables (-ua, ua-uw) are not changed. In Figs. 7, 9, and 12 the results of null testing during the equalization and shearing phases are presented. As shown, at the end of equalization the pore air and pore water pressures were increased by 21 kPa and there was virtually no response from the soil sample in terms of the vertical height or water volume

11 change. The small amount of measured water volume change exhibited was due to the response of the pore water controller to the pressure increase signal. Toward the end of the shearing phase, pore air and pore water pressure were increased and again no appreciable change in soil response is indicated in Fig. 12. The small change in water content noted in Fig. 12 c) toward the end of shearing when the test variables were changed was caused by the response of the controller to the command to increase water pressure; however, the vertical deformation and shear response were unaffected. 6) In Fig. 12, another test with similar values for the stress variables ( -ua, ua-uw) but different test variables (, ua, uw) is compared to the null test. The similar response of the two soil specimens demonstrates that the stress variables, and not the test variables, are controlling the soil behavior and that they are in fact similar between the two tests. The null test results, and the comparison to a similar test with different test variables, but similar stress variables, suggest that the stress variables are being properly controlled. This deduction is reinforced by observations presented subsequently in the results section where it is seen that changing the stress variables has a profound influence on the soil and interface behavior.

Typical Test Results and Discussion To demonstrate the successful implementation of the unsaturated interface direct shear device, typical results from testing with a rough interface are presented along with some results from tests on soil under similar initial stress conditions. The intent is not to fully discuss the soil and interface behavior observed, but to demonstrate the performance of the device in light of expected behavior. In Figs. 13 a) and 13 b) and 13 c), the results of shearing soil and soil on a rough counterface are shown for a net normal stress of 105 kPa and matric suction of 50 kPa. Typical shear stress-displacement curves are shown in Fig. 13 a), while the volume change behavior is demonstrated in Figs. 13 b) and 13 c). Typical failure envelopes for a range of suction and net normal stress are shown in Fig. 14. The results are consistent with expected trends in behavior in that the shear strength increases with increasing net normal stress and matric suction for both the soil and interface tests. Interestingly, the shear strength of the soil was greater than the rough interface for similar stress conditions as shown by the relative position of failure envelopes in Fig. 14. Based on the geometry of the rough counterface, it was expected that the rough interface and soil tests might produce similar failure envelopes given that a soil-to-soil shear plane was expected to develop next to the rough counterface. The differences in strength envelopes in Fig. 14 may be partly attributed to the differences in the response of the air-water menisci (contractile skin) along the failure surface in the soil and interface tests. Another possibility is that differences in soil fabric resulting from compacting soil against the counterface may also have influenced the results. However, it is likely that the nature of the interaction of the contractile skin and the counterface has a more significant influence on the interface shearing behavior. Evidence for this is shown in the comparison of stress-displacement and volume change behavior in Fig. 13. The observed behavior indicates that the soil in the direct shear and interface shear test was behaving similarly at small horizontal displacements, but then tended to diverge at larger displacements. That the behavior was similar initially suggests that the soil fabric and

12 stress state were initially similar and that the differences in the behavioral response at larger displacements are associated with interface phenomena. The failure envelope projections in Fig. 14 a) are quite linear with respect to increasing net normal stress at a given matric suction; however, as shown in 14 b) non-linear behavior is a apparent with increasing matric suction at a given net normal stress. As mentioned previously, this type of behavior was expected for the soil; the current results show that it can occur for rough interfaces as well. Conclusion A commercially available direct shear device was successfully modified to test unsaturated soil and interfaces in unsaturated soil. Modifications included the relocation of some instruments, addition of an air pressure chamber and control system, construction of new test cells equipped with high air entry porous discs and required plumbing, and addition of a computer controlled stepper motor pump for precise control of pore water pressure and volume measurement. Performance testing demonstrated proper function of the device. Typical results of direct shear and interface direct shear tests for clayey silt illustrate the successful implementation of the new test apparatus. Acknowledgement This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant Nos. 0079785 and 0301457. The authors are grateful to the NSF for the support. Special thanks to Michael F. Schmitz of the University of Oklahoma for his exceptional fabrication skills, dedication and good ideas. References Boulon, M., 1989, Basic Features of Soil Structure Interface Behavior, Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 7, pp. 115-131. Boulon, M., Garnica, P., and Vermeer, P.A., 1995, Soil-Structure Interaction: FEM Computations, Mechanics of Geomaterial Interfaces, Elsevier Science B.V., pp. 147-171. Brumund, W. F. and Leonards, G. A., 1973, Experimental Study of Static and Dynamic Friction Between Sand and Typical Construction Materials, Journal of Testing and Evaluation, JTEVA, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 162-165. Burland, J. B., and Ridley, A. K., 1996, The Importance of Suction in Soil Mechanics, Twelfth Southeast Asian Conference, 6-10 May 1996, Kuala Lumpur. Cui, Y. J., and Delage, P., 1996, Yielding and Plastic Behavior of Unsaturated Compacted Silt, Geotechnique, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 291-311. Escario, V., 1980, Suction Controlled Penetration and Shear Tests, Proceedings, 4th International Conference on Expansive Soils, Vol. 2, 781-797 Escario, I., and Saez, J., 1986, The Shear Strength of Partly Saturated Soils, Geotechnique, Vol. 36, pp. 453-456.

13 Fakharian, K. and Evgin, E., 1996, An Automated Apparatus for Three-Dimensional Monotonic and Cyclic Testing of Interfaces, Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 22-31 Fredlund, D.G. and Rahardjo, H., 1993, Soil Mechanics for Unsaturated Soils, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, N.Y. Fredlund, D.G., Morgenstern, N.R., and Widger, R.A., 1978, The Shear Strength of Unsaturated Soils, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 313-321. Gan, J. K. M., Fredlund, D. G., and Rahardjo, 1988, Determination of Shear Strength Parameters of an Unsaturated Soil Using Direct Shear Test, Canadian Geotechnical journal, Vol.25, No. 8, pp. 500-510. Ho, D.Y.F., and Fredlund, D. G., 1982, Multi-stage Triaxial Tests for Unsaturated Soils, Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 5, pp. 18-25. Jewell, R. A., 1989, Direct Shear Test on Sand, Geotechnique, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 309-322. Kim, M. H., and ONeill. M. W., 1998, Side Shear Induced in Drilled Shaft by Suction,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 124, No. 8, pp. 771-780.

Kishida, H. and Uesugi, M., 1987, Tests of Interface Between Sand and Steel in the Simple Shear Apparatus, Geotechnique, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 45-52. Mashhour, M. M., Ibrahim, M. I., and El-Emam, M. M., 1996, Variation of Unsaturated Soil Shear Strength Parameters With Suction, Proceedings of The First International Conference on Unsaturated Soils, France, 6-8 September 1995, pp. 1487-1493. Oloo, S. Y., and Fredlund, D. G., 1996, A Method for Determination of b for Statically Compacted Soils, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 33, pp. 272-280. Peterson, R. F. W., 1988, Interpretation of Triaxial Compression Test Results on Partially Saturated Soils, Advanced Triaxial Testing of Soil and Rock. ASTM, Philadelphia, Special Technical Publication No. 977, pp. 512-538. Potts, D. M., Dounias, G. T. and Vaughan, P. R., 1987, Finite Element Analysis of the Direct Shear Box Test, Geotechnique, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 11-23. Potyondy, J. G., 1961, Skin Friction Between Various Soils and Construction Materials, Geotechnique, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 831-853. Satija, B. S. 1978, Shear behavior of partly saturated soils, Ph.D. thesis, Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, India. Shibuya, S., Mitachi, T., and Tamate, S., 1997, Interpretation of Direct Shear Box Testing of Sands as Quasi-Simple shear, Geotechnique, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 769-790. Subba Rao, K. S., Allam, M. M. and Robinson, R. G., 2000, Drained Shear Strength of FineGrained Soil-Solid Surface Interfaces, Proceedings Institution of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 143, pp. 75-81. Toll, D.G., 1990, A framework for Unsaturated Soil Behavior, Geotechnique, Vol. 40, No. 1, 3144. Tsubakihara, Y. and Kishida, 1993, Frictional Behavior Between Normally Consolidated Clay and Steel by Two Direct Shear Type Apparatus, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 113. Tsubakihara, Y., Kishida, H., and Nishiyama, T., 1993, Friction Between Cohesive Soils and Steel, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 145-156. Yoshimi, Y. and Kishida, T., 1981, Friction Between Sand and Metal Surface, Proceedings, 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, 831-834.

14

Fig.1- Unmodified Direct Shear Device (computer not shown, courtesy of GeoComp)

Air Supply Line Diffused Air Volume Indicator

Air Pressure Panel

Vertical LVDT

Vertical Load Cell

Air Chamber

Horizontal Load Cell Pore Water Pressure Redundant Pressure & Volume Controller Fig.2- Modified Direct ShearTransducer Device Readout Horizontal LVDT Direct Shear Device Base

15

Bolts Air Vent

Air Inlet

Loading Ram Top Steel Platen Holding Screw Drainage Line Teflon Seal and Bushing To Horizontal Motor and LVDT Counterface

Teflon Seal and Bushing High Air Entry Porous Disk

Air Pressure Chamber 167 mm Drainage Line Teflon Seal and Bushing

26 mm 63 mm 102 mm 13.4 mm To Horizontal Load Cell Shear Box Holder

SOIL

204 mm
Internal

Load Cell

Fig. 3 Cut Away Cross-Section View of the Air Chamber, Shear Box Holder, and Shear Box (smooth counterface shown)

Holding Screw Top Steel Platen

5 micron Teflon Sheet Low Air Entry Porous Stone High Air Entry Porous Disk

Drainage Line

63 mm 30 mm Drainage Line

SOIL

Shear Box Holder

Internal Load Cell

Fig. 4 Cut Away Cross-Section View of the Soil Shear Box (raising screws not shown)

16

Top Steel Platen High Air Entry Porous Disk Holding Screw 7.0 mm

Drainage Line SOIL

26 mm 63 mm

Drainage Line

Rough Steel Plate Counterface Internal Load Cell Shear Box Holder
102 mm

Fig. 5 Cut Away Cross-Section View of the Interface Shear Box (rough counterface shown)

High Air Entry Porous Disk Air Chamber Pore Water Pressre & Volume Controller Pressure Transducer Soil

To Air Supply

3 - mm High Pressure Tubing Shut Off Valve Regulator Pressure Gage (0-30 psi) Swagelok Fitting

Counterface Diffused Air Volume Indicator (DAVI)

Fig. 6 Schematic of Plumbing Arrangement for the Unsaturated Interface Direct Shear Device (Not to Scale)

17

raise box, increase , ua, uw

first null test, increase ,ua, uw

start shearing, increase

second null test, increase ,ua, uw

200 ua

150

, ua, uw (kPa)

-ua
100

uw

50

ua-uw

0 20

15

, H/D, w (%)

10 H/D w

0 0 200 400 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Time (min.)

Fig. 7 Graphs Showing Test Variables Versus Time from Beginning to End of a Rough Interface Test Including Null Testing Sequences

18

100

ua-uw=20 kPa ua-uw=50 kPa ua-uw=100 kPa

ua-uw (kPa)

80 60 40 20 0 0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

-ua (kPa)

Fig. 8 Approximate Stress Paths Followed During Application of Target Stresses Prior to Shearing (each point represents the end of a stress path for different samples)

raise box, increase , ua, uw

first null test, increase ,ua, uw

a)
16.4

w (%)

16.0 15.6 15.2

equalization complete

b)
12.25

12.35 12.40 12.45

(%)
0

12.30

500

1000

1500

2000

Time (min.)

Fig. 9 - Typical a) Water Content and b) Vertical Strain During Equalization (from the test data shown in Figure 7)

19

18 Oven Dry Water Contents 17 16

Calculated Water Contents

w (%)

15 14 13 12 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

ua-uw (kPa)

Fig. 10 - Oven Dry Moisture Contents and Those Calculated Using Controller Readings, Initial Moisture Contents, and Corrections for Tubing Expansion for All Soil and Interface Tests

Change in Volume of Tubing (cc)

0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Water Pressure = 50 kPa Water Pressure=20 kPa

Fig. 11 - Volume Change of Tubing Versus Time After Application of Water Pressure
Time (min.)

20

Null Test Data for H/D=0-0.101: =195, ua=91, uw=41 (kPa) for H/D>0.101: =206, ua=102, uw=62 (kPa) Comparison Test Data for all H/D: =175, ua=71, uw=21 (kPa)

a)
120 100 (kPa) 80 60 40 20 0 -0.002 (mm/mm) 0.000 0.002 0.004

b)

c)

0.006 16.0 15.8

w (%)

15.6 15.4 15.2 15.0 14.8 14.6 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16

H/D (mm/mm)

Fig. 12 - Results from Shearing Phase of Two Different Tests on a Rough Interface with the Same Net Normal Stress and Matric Suction but Different Normal Stress, Pore Air and Pore Water Pressure: a) Shear Stress, b) Vertical Strain, c) Water Content

21

a)
140 120 100 (kPa) 80 60 40 20 0 -0.008 (mm/mm) -0.004 0.000 0.004
Soil Rough Interface

b)

c)

16.0 15.5 w (%) 15.0 14.5 14.0 13.5 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12

H/D (mm/mm)

Fig. 13 Comparison of Results from the Shearing Phase of a Soil Test and a Rough Interface Test with the Same Stress Variables (-ua=105, ua-uw=50): a) Shear Stress, b) Vertical Strain, c) Water Content

22

a)

200

'=35.1o, c=45 kPa, r2=0.9792 '=35.1o, ca=18 kPa, r2=1.0000

, fs (kPa)

150

100

50

c ca
0 0 50 100 150 200 250

Soil Rough Interface st 1 Order Regression

300 350 400

-ua (kPa)

b)

200

b=21.9o, a1=87 kPa, r2=0.8647 b=21.6o, a2=68 kPa, r2=0.9603

, fs (kPa)

150

100

50

a1 a2

Soil Rough Interface st 1 Order Regression

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

0 0

ua-uw (kPa)

Fig. 14 Typical Failure Envelope Projections from Direct Shear Tests on Soil and Rough Interface Direct Shear Tests: a) Net Normal Stress Versus Peak Shear Stress for ua-uw=50 kPa, b) Matric Suction Versus Peak Shear Stress for -ua=105 kPa