Effect of Specimen Confinement Method on Simple Shear Test of Clay

  • Bhagaban AcharyaEmail author
  • David Airey
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Series in Geomechanics and Geoengineering book series (SSGG)


The simple shear test has been employed regularly during the last few decades in soil characterisation studies for earthquakes, liquefaction, offshore construction and other applications. A variety of simple shear devices are available and the main difference between them is the method of applying the horizontal confining stress. According to the ASTM (D6528-07) standard for direct simple shear testing of cohesive soils, circular specimens are generally confined by a wire reinforced membrane or stacked rings. In this paper a comparison of results from monotonic undrained simple shear tests with wire reinforced and flexible membranes is reported. A simple shear apparatus is utilized in which lateral confinement of the specimens can be achieved, either by flexible membrane and confining pressure applied to the specimen through compressed air to maintain K0 condition during compression, or by conventional wire reinforced membrane without confining pressure. It is shown that the membrane confinement method influences the measured undrained strength. For the normally consolidated specimens reported herein the shear strength using a flexible membrane is higher than for the wire reinforced membrane when the confining stress is adjusted to keep the vertical stress constant and is similar when the confining stress is kept constant throughout the shearing stage.


Friction Angle Pore Water Pressure Simple Shear Vertical Stress Triaxial Test 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Acharya B (2017) Simple shear tests of clays. Forthcoming PhD Thesis, University of SydneyGoogle Scholar
  2. Airey DW (1984) Clays in circular simple shear tests. PhD Thesis, University of CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Airey DW, Budhu M, Wood DM (1985) Some aspects of the behaviour of soils in simple shear. Devel Soil Mech Found Eng 2:185–213Google Scholar
  4. Airey DW, Wood DM (1987) An Evaluation of direct simple shear tests on clay. Geotechnique 37:25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baxter CDP, Bradshaw AS, Ochoa-Lavergne M, Hankour R (2010) DSS test results using wire-reinforced membranes and stacked rings. Geotech Spec Publ 199:600–607Google Scholar
  6. Budhu M (1984) Nonuniformities imposed by simple shear apparatus. Canad Geotech J 21:125–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chow SH (2013) Free falling penetrometer tests in clay. PhD Thesis, University of Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  8. D6528-07, A. Standard Test Method for Consolidated Undrained Direct Simple Shear Testing of Cohesive Soils, Astm Int’LGoogle Scholar
  9. Dyvik R, Berre T, Lacasse S, Raadim B (1987) Comparison of truely undrained and constant volume direct simple shear test. Geotechnique 37:3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Franke E, Kiekbusch M, Schuppener B (1979) A new direct simple shear device. Geotech Test J 2:190–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kwan WS, El Mohtar C (2014) Comparison between shear strength of dry sand measured in CSS device using wire-reinforced membranes and stacked rings. Geotechn Spec Publ, 1111–1119Google Scholar
  12. Rau GA (1999) Evaluation of strength degradation in seismic loading of Holocene Bay mud from Marin County, California. PhD Thesis, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  13. Reyno AJ, Airey DW, Taiebat HA (2005) Influence of height and boundary conditions in simple shear tests. In: Frontiers in offshore geotechnics, Proceedings of the 1st international symposium on frontiers in offshore geotechnics, pp. 1101–1107Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Civil Engineering, J05The University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations