CIVN4004: LABORATORY ASSIGNMENT 1: DIRECT SHEAR BOX TEST

M. GOMERA 1287277, T. MUTEMA 1251147, Z. KHUMALO 1250351, C MNGXEKEZA 1240984

DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM Figure 1: Peak Shear Stress vs Normal Stress
The aim of this experiment is to determine a suitable friction
angle and coefficient of cohesion to assess the stability of the
Merriespruit Tailings Dam. Direst shear test was used to
predict the aforementioned parameters of a granular Normal Stress vs Residual Shear Stress
materials. 120

APPROACH TO PROBLEM
100
Testing f(x) = 0.8 x − 23.25
R² = 0.98
The direct shear test involved applying a normal stress of 80 f(x) = 0.67 x − 15.17

Shear Stress (MPa)

f(x)
R² ==10.65 x − 16.93
50kPa, 100kPa and 150kPa on the soil samples. The four soil R² = 0.95
samples that were tested were dense dry, dense saturated, 60 f(x) = 0.45 x − 2.79
loose dry and loose saturated. R² = 0.98
Choice of Friction Angle 40
During the course of the experiment, data was obtained from
the proving ring and the normal force (50kPa, 100kPa and 20
150kPa) which were applied on the direct shear box machine.
The values from the proving ring were converted to shear
0
stresses values by multiplying by the loading rate and 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
dividing by the normal area of the specimen (soil sample).
Normal Stress (MPa)
The normal force was converted to normal stress values by Dense Dry Linear (Dense Dry)
dividing by the area of the specimen. A plot of shear stress Dense Sat Linear (Dense Sat)
vs. the horizontal displacement was drawn for each soil Loose Dry Linear (Loose Dry)
sample and the peak and residual shears where obtained. The Loose Sat Linear (Loose Sat)
shear that were obtained were plotted against the normal
applied stresses for dense (dry and saturated) and loose (dry Figure 2: Residual Shear Stress vs Normal Stress
and saturated) soils these are shown in figure 1 and 2. The
friction angle was then calculated based on the Mohr- Table 1 below shows the computed peak friction angles and
Coulomb failure equationτ =c +σ n tanϕ , It was assumed residual friction angles for all the soil samples.
that the c (coefficient of cohesion) was =0 this was because of
the cohesionless of the granular materials used in this case Table 1: Calculated results
sand. The final equation to be used is τ =σ n tanϕ thus the
Soil Peak, φ (°) Residual, φ (°)
friction angle was tan−1 (m)where m is the gradient of the Dense-Dry 36.7 33.1
line. Dense-Saturated 44.7 38.6
Loose-Dry 36.6 33.9
Loose-Saturated 26.2 24.1

Normal Stress vs Peak Shear Stress

Coefficient of Cohesion
140 The granular material used in the direct shear test is assumed
to be cohesionless. Hence, the coefficient of cohesion is equal
120 f(x) = 0.99 x − 24.23 to zero (c = 0).
R² = 0.99
100 The minimum friction angle which corresponds to --- sample
Shear Stress (MPa)

f(x)
f(x) == 0.74
0.75 xx −− 17.48
19.95 was used as the critical friction angle in the slope stability
80 R²
R² == 10.96 analysis. Thus the friction angle of 24.1 o and loose-saturated
f(x) = 0.49 x + 1.91 soil is used as the worst case scenario is being designed for.
60 R² = 0.96
ANALYSIS METHOD
40
Various methods can be used to analyse slope stability.
20 However, in this report the Bishop routine method was used
to analyse the Factor of Safety (FOS). The latter method was
0 used as it was assumed that the failure slip surface to be
40 60 80 100 120 140 160
circular. Moreover, the Bishop method have been proven
Normal Stress (MPa) reliable compared to other methods.
Dense Dry Linear (Dense Dry) The investigation was conducted over 3 different circular slip
Dense Sat Linear (Dense Sat) surface of dense soil (dense soil was assumed to prevent high
Loose Dry Linear (Loose Dry) amount of seepage).
Loose Sat Linear (Loose Sat)
EVALUATION
The slip surface in Figure 3 (as shown in the hand
calculations) were analysed in the appendix. The FOS was
calculated to be 0.85. The FoS varies depending on the area
of the slip surface, therefore a smaller slip surface area
experiences higher stresses at constant force (σ is inversely
proportion to A) meaning the slope is less stable as it resists
lower forces, hence a lower FoS. However, if the slip surface
area is larger, the stresses acting on the slip surface become
lower as the slope is more stable and is able to resist higher
stresses, thus the higher FOS in design, the worst case
scenario has to be accounted for to ensure that the slope is
stable when high stresses are experienced. Consequently, slip
surface of scenario 1, with a FOS of 0.85 is chosen in order to
allow for a conservative design. A FOS 0.85 is considered
adequate and is below the FOS value of 1.5 (1.3 is generally
acceptable while 1.5 is for slopes that are not regularly
monitored – recommended)
References
Herza, J., Ashley, M. and Thorp, J. (2017). Factor of Safety?
- Do we use it correctly?. In: Ancold 2017 Conference. pp.1-
2.
Geotechnical Factor of Safety and Risk. (2018). [Blog] Klohn
Crippen Berger. Available at:
https://www.klohn.com/blog/geotechnical-factor-of-safety-
and-risk/ [Accessed 23 Aug. 2020].
Salunkhe, D., Chvan, G., Bartakke, R. and Kothavale, P.
(2017). An Overview on Methods f or Slope Stability
Analysis. International Journal of Engineering Research &
Technology (IJERT), [online] 6(3)

Figure 3: Plot of Horizontal and Current survey data: Elevation vs Horizontal distance.