CIVN4004: Direct Shear Box Test

Hamzah Mohamed (1374118); Valencia Mogale (1369407); Mpilo Sibiya (1364121).

Description of Problem
An assessment of the slope stability of the Merriespruit Tailings Dam which failed on 22 February 1994 is done using the shear box
test. The assessment focuses on several data sets, comprised of different combinations of sample density, saturation and normal stress,
which have been tested using the shear box test. The data obtained is used to assess the stability by finding the friction angle and the
coefficient of cohesion. Due to the failure of the dam, a factor of safety against sliding is then found in order to analyse the overall
stability of the dam and whether safety measures were needed to prevent failure.

Approach to the Problem

1. Testing: Different soil samples were tested using the shear box test. The soil samples are created using four different
conditions: dense-dry; dense-saturated; loose-dry and loose-saturated. These four soil conditions are each subjected to
normal stresses of 50kPa, 100kPa and 150kPa, resulting in 12 sets of data, however, due to circumstances this year, some
groups were split and did the same soil conditions. Therefore a total of 25 data sets is obtained. Each of the 25 sample sets
are set up using the appropriate shear box apparatus. Initial readings of the sample soil mass are taken and the vertical and
horizontal displacement gauges are set to zero. The normal stress (50kPa, 100kPa or 150kPa) is applied and readings for
the horizontal and vertical displacement gauges as well as the shear load gauge are taken.
2. Choice of friction angle: The friction angle was determined using the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion; 𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒 = 𝑐′ +
𝜎′ tan 𝜙 . The shear stresses were plotted against the horizontal displacements to determine the peak and residual shear
stresses. In dense soils, the shear strength increases until a peak shear strength is reached and decreases to a constant residual
shear strength, whereas in loose soils, the peak behavior is not resembled. As various shear box tests were conducted for
three applied stresses (50 kPa, 100 kPa and 150 kPa), the average shear stresses were plotted against these applied stresses as
seen in Figures 1 and 2. Out of the 25 test results, two were found to be invalid and thus not used in the analysis. The
gradients of the linear line of best fit between these points were used to obtain the friction angles in Table 1, where 𝜙′ =
tan−1(𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡). The lowest friction angle was selected as the critical case as it demonstrates the least frictional resistance.
3. Coefficient of cohesion: The cohesion coefficient can be determined using the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion
equation as 𝑐′ = 𝜎′ tan 𝜙′ ÷ 𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒. For this experiment, the soil was assumed to be cohesionless as it is granular
therefore coefficient of cohesion = 0.
4. Assumptions: Circular plane failure; dense saturated soil (dense soil reduces seepage rate); initial factor of safety = 2;
water table assumed using dam tailing.
5. Analysis method: The historical and current data provided in the lab brief is used to plot soil profiles. Failure planes are
drawn and the width of each slab is measured. Bishop’s method of slices is used, due to its reliability compared to finite and
infinite methods for slice, to determine the factor of safety of the soil. Four failure criteria are analysed, two assuming toe
failure (figure 2) and two assuming overturning (figure 3). Each criteria used a unit weight of 16kN/m3 (obtained from the
lab) and the friction angle of 360 due to dense saturated soil assumption. An initial factor of safety of 2 is used and an
iterative process using Microsoft excel is used to determine the factor of safety of each failure criteria. Using the Bishop’s
method, if the factor of safety is 1, it means the slope is at the verge of failure, if it is below 1 it means the slope is unstable
and needs reinforcement. If the factor of safety is above 1, the slope is stable, and reinforcement is not required. Table 2
shows the factor of safeties obtained for each failure criteria obtained using Bishop’s method.

Solution
Shear Peak Shear Stress Residual Shear Stress
Stress type
Sample Dense- Dense-Dry Loose- Loose-Dry Dense- Dense-Dry Loose- Loose-Dry
Saturated Saturated Saturated Saturated
Gradient 0.9995 0.7965 0.5678 0.7251 0.7296 0.7989 0.5543 0.7147
Friction 45 39 30 36 36 39 29 36
Angle (0)
Table 1: Summary of Friction angles obtained with corresponding gradients used.

Failure Criteria 1 2 3 4
Factor of Safety 0.911 0.799 1.083 1.215
Table 2: Summary of Factor of Safeties found from different failure criteria

Critical friction angle: 290 (Loose – Saturated Soil)

Coefficient of cohesion: 0
Factor of safety against sliding: 0.799

Evaluation
The factor of safeties were found to be 0.911 and 0.799 for toe failure and 1.083 and 1.215 for overturning failure. It can be seen that
two of these values are below the value of 1 and the other two are barely over 1, indicating that the driving moment is greater than the
resisting moment, therefore failure is to be expected (and eventually happened). Necessary measures, such as reinforcement, should
have been taken in order to prevent failure.
 Calculations:

Residual Shear Stresses vs Normal Stress Peak Shear Stresses vs Normal Stress
140
Residual/Peak Shear stress, τ (kPa)

100

80

60

40

20

0 40 60 80 100 120 140

Normal Stress, 𝜎' (kPa) 160

Figure 1: Graphs for Residual/Peak shear tress against Normal stress

Friction Angle: The friction angle was calculated by graphing the shear stress vs the normal stress. The equation of each line graph (4
in total for dense-saturate, dense-dry etc.) and the gradient of each line was used to calculate the friction angle using the equation 𝜙′ =
tan−1(𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡). An example calculation is shown: Dense-dry in Peak Shear vs Normal Shear: m = 0.7965. Therefore tan-1 (0.7965)
= 390.
Factor of Safety : Using figure 4, figures 2 and 3 are obtained. Using an excel spreadsheet and the equations
na = 1
𝘍
cos (𝛼 )+ tan(∅ 𝐹𝑆
)∗sin(𝛼)

and F.o.S = ( 1
)(∑ 𝑛𝑎(𝑊 − 𝑢𝑏)𝑡𝑎𝑛∅′), the factor of safeties were found. An example of one of the iterative tables is shown in
∑ 𝑊𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼
table 3.

Figure 4: Diagram for Bishop's method

Figure 2: Toe Failure Criteria to determine factor of safety Figure 3: Overturning Criteria to determine factor of
safety

Slice W α sinα Wsinα u cb ub cb+(W-ub)tanφ n FOS

1 2.409935 58 0.848048 2.043741 58.8 0.00021 1.2348 0.853995514 0.82923 0.70815
9
2 8.354441 44 0.694658 5.803482 117.6 0.0002 2.352 4.361228763 0.785494 3.42571
8 0.91071
3 11.24636 33 0.544639 6.125208 137.2 0.0002 2.744 6.177528365 0.785652 4.85338
8
4 10.28239 23 0.390731 4.017649 137.2 0.0002 2.744 5.477160274 0.811705 4.44583
7
5 6.426493 14 0.241922 1.554709 117.6 0.0002 2.352 2.960492581 0.859739 2.54525
2
6 3.486373 0 0 0 39.2 0.0003 0.98 1.821286252 1 1.82128
6
19.54479 17.7996
4

Table 3: Iteration 4 showing how the factor of safety was obtained using Bishop’s Method