View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

provided by Civil Engineering Journal (C.E.J)

Available online at www.CivileJournal.org

Civil Engineering Journal

Vol. 6, No. 3, March, 2020

Review Article

Tensile Testing of Soils: History, Equipment and Methodologies

Ausamah Al Houri a*, Ahed Habib a, Ahmed Elzokra b, Maan Habib c

a
Department of Civil Engineering, Eastern Mediterranean University, 99450 Famagusta, Cyprus.
b
Civil Engineering Department, University of Bologna, 40123 Bologna, Italy.
c
Associate Professor, Department of Surveying and Geomatics Engineering, Al-Balqa Applied University, 11134 Amman, Jordan.

Received 29 November 2019; Accepted 25 January 2020

Abstract
Tensile strength of soil is indeed one of the important parameters to many civil engineering applications. It is related to
wide range of cracks especially in places such as slops, embankment dams, retaining walls or landfills. Despite of the
fact that tensile strength is usually presumed to be zero or negligible, its effect on the erosion and cracks development in
soil is significant. Thus, to study the tensile strength and behavior of soil several techniques and devices were introduced.
These testing methods are classified into direct and indirect ways depending on the loading conditions. The direct
techniques including c-shaped mold and 8-shaped mold are in general complicated tests and require high accuracy as
they are based on applying a uniaxial tension load directly to the specimen. On the other hand, the indirect tensile tests
such as the Brazilian, flexure beam, double punch and hollow cylinder tests provide easy ways to assess the tensile
strength of soil under controlled conditions. Although there are many studies in this topic the current state of the art lack
of a detailed article that reviews these methodologies. Therefore, this paper is intended to summarize and compare
available tests for investigating the tensile behavior of soils.
Keywords: Tensile Strength of Soils; Direct/ Indirect Tensile Test; Brittle Materials; Brazilian Tensile Test; Double Punch Test.

1. Introduction
Soil tensile behavior plays a significant role in various engineering applications [1]. Furthermore, understanding the
formation and development of soil cracks is indeed a key factor affecting its performance in fields such as geological,
geotechnical and environmental engineering [2-4]. In general, tensile cracks of soil are related to its mechanical and
hydraulic properties [5]. These cracks occur when the induced tensile stress or strain exceed the soil capacity [6]. In
fact, soil is weak in tension [7], therefore, engineers often assume the tensile strength of soil to be zero because it is
relatively small in comparison to the its compressive strength [1, 8-11]. As a result, many strength improvement
methods have been discussed in the literature. These efforts encouraged scholars in this filed to introduce and develop
several testing techniques to study soil’s tensile behavior [8]. However, due to some factors such as the brittleness of
the material, finding the tensile strength of soil is considered to be very difficult and needs proper and careful setup in
order to reach the best stress state [12]. Regardless of that, available testing methodologies are defined into either
direct or indirect technique based on the way of applying the load and computing the tensile strength of soil. In the
direct tests, the sample is placed in a cube, cylinder or prism mold then a uniaxial tensile force is imposed to the two
ends of the sample [13]. On the other hand, the indirect tests involve the correlativity of different parameters and soil
characteristics to measure the tensile strength of soils in simple and easy way compared to the direct one since it

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.28991/cej-2020-03091494

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee C.E.J, Tehran, Iran. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms
and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

591
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 6, No. 3, March, 2020

prevents some problems such as sample misalignment, sample fixing or attaching and stress concentration [13].
Despite that fact that many studies were done to assess the tensile behavior of soil only limited information is
presented in soil mechanics’ textbooks [14]. Furthermore, the current state of the art lack of a detailed study that
discusses and compares these developed testing methodologies. Therefore, these points are rising the need for a
comprehensive review that highlight, discuss and compare available techniques to assess the tensile behavior of soil.

2. Previous Works
This section represents a short state of the art review highlighting some of the remarkable studies on testing tensile
behavior soils. In general, each table is arranged in succession with respect to the time line.

Table 1. Previous works on direct tensile testing apparatus

Author/s Test Apparatus Type of soil tested Remarks

In fact, the tensile strength and strain at failure are highly

affected by the nature of clay, moisture content, rate of tensile
strain and time between mixing and testing. Mixing sand with
Strain rate controlled pure clay improved the tensile strength up to 50% more than
Tschebotarioff et al.
uniaxial direct tension Wyoming Bentonite clay pure clay only. This increase of tensile strength for pure clay
1953 [15]
tests and sand mixture can be seen clearly with sufficient addition
of granular particles. Furthermore, montmorillonite exhibited
the highest values in terms of tensile strength and strain at
failure while the kaolinite showed the least values.

The tensile strength showed a primary dependency on the

water content. In this study, it was concluded that using a
Load-controlled water content ranged between 80 to 100% caused a reduction
Hasegawa and
unconfined direct Obaradai clay in maximum tensile strength of almost 0.2 of the total tensile
Ikeuti 1964 [16]
tension tests value while the maximum strain increased about 10 times and
the secant modulus of elasticity reduced about 0.066 of the
total value.

Despite the type of tensile strength test, the tensile strain at

failure increased proportionally as the water content increased
for above and below proctor optimum of the tested clay
Direct tension tests in
Ajaz and Parry 1975 Compacted Gault clay specimens. Moreover, the increase was larger in balderhead
both load-controlled and
[17] and Balderhead clay clay compared to gault clay. However, load-controlled direct
strain rate controlled
tensile test exhibited higher tensile strains and stresses at
failure in comparison to strain rate controlled direct tensile
tests.
At lower failure tensile strains, results from direct tensile
Two gripping jaws, rigid
strength test showed higher values in comparison to indirect
base, slide table, linear
values. Furthermore, for used compaction stress, the tensile
Leavell and Peters variable displacement Compacted Vicksburg
strength was dependent mainly on the water content in relation
1987 [18] transformer (LVDT), silty clay
to the optimum value in which the tensile strength
load cell, and a loading
progressively reduced with the increase in the water content
mechanism
reaching to the optimum value.

The lunar regolith simulant exhibited extraordinary behavior

due to the low cohesion content, noticeably small tensile
strength values and very large internal angle of friction values
Terrestrial-Based Lunar with the nonexistence of water which presents a dilatant
Perkins 1991 [19] Described in section 3.3
soil simulant behavior even for loose materials. In addition to that, full
attention must be paid to the tensile strength and cohesion
while developing a constitutive model for quite low stress
values where they influence the behavior significantly.

Mikulitsch and Undisturbed and The tensile strength is related to the capillarity and
Described in section 3.4
Gudehus 1995 [20] disturbed soil samples cementation at wide range of moisture contents.
The clays incorporated with fibers exhibited higher values in
terms of tensile strength and showed ductility behavior in
Modified version of Synthetic clays with comparison to control samples. In addition to that, screen
Ziegler 1998 [21] direct shear apparatus for discrete Polypropylene fibers of 0.3% resulted in tensile strength value of 31.5 kPa
direct tensile test fibers while 0.3% of fibrillated fibers yielded in tensile strength value
of 16.4 kPa. Thus, screen fibers appear to present better
performance as the dosage increases beyond 0.3%.

Both square box and semi-circular forms showed relatively

similar results in terms of tensile strength with higher values
Tang and Grahm Tensile mold and load Sand-bentonite mixture from square box form. Furthermore, the tensile strength
2000 [22] frame known as buffer showed nonlinear increment relationship with suction which
proves the reliability of this method to yield accurate and clear
tensile failure results for normal cylindrical samples.

592
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 6, No. 3, March, 2020

Plough-layer compacted soil exhibited higher direct tensile

strength value in comparison to the control sample. For
Adjustable steel bar, instance, plough-layer compacted soil showed a value of 3.2
Munkholm et al. pressure transducer, Plough-layer compacted kPa compared to 2 kPa for control sample. This result aligns
2002 [23] plastic cap, two-piece soil well with the aggregate tensile strength findings and with site
cylinder, rigid frame soil fragmentation findings. The soils cores showed similar
results in terms of tensile strengths to the expected values
measured using aggregate tensile strength findings.

The tensile strength of soils exhibited higher values depending

the relative destiny and fiber concrete but mainly on the water
content. Both granular soils with and without fines showed
higher with the increase of water content up to 4%. However,
Modified from the
granular soil with fines resulted in higher tensile strength
Kim and Hwang original version Quartz granular soil with
values compared to soils without fines. For example, for water
2003 [24] developed by Perkins different sizes
content of 1%, soils with fines yielded between 610 to 825 Pa
(1991)
depending on the compactibility of the soil whereas for soils
without fines, the tensile strength ranges from 580 to 730 Pa.
This can be observed for both types of soil up to the tested
water content of 4%.

The water content is the primary factor affecting the tensile

Modified version of strength so as the water content increases the tensile strength
Werribee clayey soil
Nahlawi et al. 2004 direct shear test rig reduces while the tensile strain at failure increases. For
with cement stabilized
[25] apparatus for direct example, when 21.5% water content used, the tensile strength
basaltic crushed rocks
tensile test was 122.8 kPa while for 58% and 122% water contents, the
tensile strength was 6.9 kPa and 2.16 kPa respectively.

Two porosity percentages were tested mainly 37% and 45%.

Digital angle prob, ball- For soil with fine sand and porosity of 37%, the tensile
bearing, adjustable plate, White fine and medium strength was 1500 Pa while for the same soil with 45%
Lu et al. 2005 [26]
mounting plate, sample silica mineral sands porosity, it was 1200 Pa. On the other hand, soil without sand
tubing and hinge. exhibited tensile strength varying between 800 and 900 Pa for
the mentioned porosity percentages.

Tamrakar et al. 2005 Mixture of clay, sand The inclusion of fibers and the increase of dry density have
C-shaped mold test
[27] and silt positive effect on the value of tensile strength of soils.

Modified version of The tensile strength of soils increased as the degree of

Rodríguez et al.
Mikulitstch and Gudehus Hematite saturation increased from 0.3 till the optimum value of 0.8 and
2007 [28]
1995 starts to reduce beyond that.

As the dry density and/or water content increase, the tensile

strength increases considerably. In addition to that, tensile
Two clamps, loading strength was recorded to vary between 19 and 90kPa for dry
Wang et al. 2007 Clay mixed with small 𝑔
pole, load and densities of 1.6 to 1.76 3 and water content of 16.3 to 19.3%.
[29] amount of gravel 𝑐𝑚
displacement sensors
However, the highest tensile strength was recorded at 18.4%
𝑔
water content and 1.76 3.
𝑐𝑚

The tensile strength of soils mainly depends on height and

density of samples. Furthermore, the tensile strength varied
The direct tension device linearly with the height of specimen where the tensile strength
Arslan et al. 2008 dropped from 780 to 600 Pa with the reduced from 16.7 to
that used was built by Granular soils
[30] 6cm. However, the tensile strength increased from 780 to 960
Kim in 2003
and reached 1380 Pa with the dry density varies from 1.6 to
𝑔
1.7 and finally 1.8 3 respectively.
𝑐𝑚

The tensile strength of soils incorporated fibers showed higher

values in comparison to the control ones. This can be attributed
to the length and content of fibers. In general, the tensile
Adopted this method strength increased 1.7 times when the fiber content changed
Divya et al. 2013 after Arslan et al. (2008) from 0.25% to 0.75% at the same fiber length. Moreover,
Powai silt with bentonite
[31] and Kim and Sture when the length of fiber increased from 30 to 90 mm at
(2008) constant fiber content of 0.25% and 0.5%, the tensile strength
increased by 1.15 and 1.29 times respectively, while for fiber
length of 90mm and content of 0.75%, the tensile strength
showed the maximum value with increment of 2.5 times.

The influence of dry density on the tensile strength can be seen

Tang et al. 2014 [5] 8-shaped mold Clayey soil
clearly at low water content compared to higher ones.

593
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 6, No. 3, March, 2020

Table 2. Previous works on indirect tensile testing apparatus

Author/s Testing Approach Type of soil tested Remarks

The hollow cylinder test is highly recommended for

deformation tests at stress states with one principal stress in
tension. However, this test requires full attention in order to
avoid any errors or inaccurate results by terminating any
potential development of air bubbles inside the liquid cell that
Suklje and
Hollow cylinder Undisturbed tertiary clay is responsible to provide pressures and measurement of
Drnovsek 1965 [33]
volume change on the inner and outer faces of the cell. Thus,
to avoid such possible errors, it is advised to apply the test for
large specimens, use accurate voltmeters, and standardize the
temperature and deformation effects and use organic liquid in
the cell.

Similar to other findings this study has shown that when the
Fang and Chen 1971 water content increases, the effect of higher dry density on
Double punch Silty clay
[10] tensile strength reduces noticeably compared to the case of low
water content.

Fang and Hirst 1973 The tensile strength proportionally increases with the plasticity
Double punch Soil
[34] index increasing at optimum water content.

Hollow cylinder test provides a better way for finding the

tensile parameters of soil compared to other conventional
Al-Hussaini and Double punch and
Clay methods used for brittle materials. In addition, hollow cylinder
Townsend 1974 [13] Hollow cylinder
method produced the highest observed tensile strengths in
comparison to the double punch tests.

For typical low to medium plasticity core soil, the tensile

Compacted Mica till and strength can be ignored for designing and analysing objectives.
Gopala Krishnayya
Brazilian mica till mixed with However, if the design needs to meet the condition of reducing
et al. 1974 [35]
bentonite the potential of cracking for earth dam the stress-strain
properties are required.

All tested cohesive soils with water content lower than the
optimum for compaction effort showed satisfying results for
Ramanathan and indirect tensile test. The tensile strength was reported as 86.3
Brazilian Cohesive soils
Raman 1974 [36] kPa at 24.5% of optimum water content while the least tensile
strength was 16 kPa at 16.3 and 25.6% of optimum water
content for sandy clay and Illite Sriperum respectively.

Flexural tensile strength provided higher values compared to

the direct tensile strength with ratio of flexural tensile strength
to direct tensile strength of 1.3 to 1.6 for gault clay at water
content ranging between 20 to 31% resulting in maximum
Ajaz and Parry 1975 Compacted Gault clay and flexural tensile strength of 100 kPa. On the other hand,
Flexure
[17] Balderhead boulder clay Balderhead clay exhibited ratio of flexural tensile strength to
direct tensile strength between 1.7 to 1.8 with water content
varying from 10 to 18% leading to a maximum flexural tensile
strength of 155 kPa. Generally, the flexural tensile strength
increment in Balderhead clay is higher than that in gault clay.

This test can help in obtaining realistic and accurate tensile

parameters for compacted soils including modulus of elasticity
Al-Hussainil 1981
Hollow cylinder Clay and Poisson's ratio via measuring the radial deformation
[37]
developed alongside the inner and outer surfaces of the
samples.

The results of the study have shown that the unconfined

penetration test results are in agreement to the split-tensile
Fang and Fernandez Unconfined
Clay ones. Furthermore, unconfined penetration test always causes
1981 [38] penetration
failure on the weakest plane, resulting in a measured true
tensile strength.

Similar to previous findings, the tensile strength is related to

the content and length of fibers used. Furthermore, the effect
Maher and Ho 1994 of incorporating fiber can be seen more clearly as water
Flexure Kaolinite-clay
[39] content decreases. In this study, the maximum tensile strength
was 430 kPa with 5% polypropylene fiber and while it was 400
kPa when 3% glass fiber was used.

The tensile strength increases as the cement content increased.

Fine grained rounded silica The highest tensile strength was almost 300 kPa with 8%
Das et.al. 1995 [40] Brazilian
sand cement content while the lowest value was almost 95 kPa for
4% cement content.

594
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 6, No. 3, March, 2020

The stress states of the extreme fiber in tension of used beam

specimens at the initiation of a crack showed that cracks are
initiated when the effective stress state either reaches the
Thusyanthan et al.
Flexure Kaolin clay tension cut off line for low mean effective stresses or it reaches
2007 [41]
the ‘apparent failure line’ for higher mean effective stresses
corresponding to Hvorslev’s normalization of the Mohr-
Coulomb failure envelope.
Viswanadham et al. The flexural tensile strength is affected by the type of soil, its
Flexure Kaolin-sand mixture
2009 [42] water content and the applied compaction energy.

As the cement content increased and porosity decreased, the

Consoli et al. 2011 Silty sand, clayey sand and
Brazilian tensile strength of all soil types increased even with different
[43] fine sand
water content at constant dry density.
The tensile strength showed higher values with the addition of
Polypropylene fiber with fibers and stabilizing material in which the tensile strength
Olgun 2013 [44] Brazilian
clayey soil increased 11 times from 25 to reach 285 kPa after 28 days of
curing.
In similar to other studies it was concluded that as the moisture
Liang et al. 2014 Unconfined
Q3 loess content increases for all dry density values, the tensile strength
[45] penetration
starts to decrease considerably.

The inclusion of carbons fibers at Nano-level achieved the

needed soil characteristics since the diameter and high aspect
Clayey sand mixed with
Taha et al. 2018 [46] Brazilian ratio of nanocarbons allow the distribution of the fiber on
bentonite
smaller scale compared to higher levels and connects the inter-
particles voids.

3. Direct Test
The direct method of testing the tensile capacity of soil can be performed by applying uniaxial tension force on the
longitudinal axis of the soil sample through both ends of the specimen, and then it becomes possible to use this force to
measure the specimen's tensile strength [5, 47, 48]. Nevertheless, it can be difficult to control this type of test because
of the complexity, but some improvements can be introduced on the techniques and approaches that are used in the
preparation and control of the sample during the experiment.

3.1. C-shaped Mold Test

This test is deemed to be one of the most commonly used amongst other direct tensile strength tests of soil and it
consists of a horizontal application of uniaxial force on the soil specimen. Tamrakar et al. [27] introduced the C-shaped
mold as an easy and accurate tool to measure the tensile strength of various soil types [49]. This devicehas a horizontal
base, two boxes of the same size in a C-shaped from the outside and half-circled from the inside, motor shaft, load cell
and rollers. During testing, one of the boxes is pinned to the horizontal base while the other is left to move freely in
order to reduce the friction on the surface between the moving box and the platform using rollers. Thereafter, the load
is observed through a load cell that is placed between the motor shaft and the moving box [50]. Finally, the tensile
strength is obtained by dividing the tensile load over the area of the tensile crack perpendicular to horizontal pulling
[51].

3.2. 8-shaped Mold Test

The 8-shaped mold test is similar to the C-shaped mold, which requires the application of uniaxial tensile force in a
vertical direction on the soil specimen [52]. The device utilized for testing was developed by Tang et al. [5] to be used
in measuring the tensile capacity of soil. The equipment is made of various parts including a crossbeam, scale, weight,
loading disk, control panel, data logger, computer and a mold that is divided into two parts, as the upper one is
suspended to the crossbeam while the lower one is placed on the scale. Thereafter, the tension force is imposed
through the weight by moving the scale downwards with the loading disk slowly in a uniform speed where higher load
is applied by increasing the displacement of the disk until the failure occurs [1].

3.3. Perkins (1991)

Perkins [19] devised a machine for investigating the tensile strength of soil directly [51]. This device was invented
to measure the tensile strength of granular soils [9]. The device apparatus consists of motor, load cell, base plate and
two parts. The first part is installed on the guide rail with the help of roller bearing blocks positioned at the lower of the
first box whereas the second box placed on two rigid blocks to stratify it on the same level as of the first box while the
motor and the load cell are placed on the base plate [51].

595
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 6, No. 3, March, 2020

3.4. Mikulitsch and Gudehus (1995)

Mikulitsch and Gudehus [20] designed a device that is similar to Perkins’s [19] one for determining the direct
tensile strength of soil with one difference that the sample must be placed in-between two inclined walls. This change
is bound to improve the tension strength over the center plane via reducing the friction between the box and sample by
fastening the first box and attaching the other to a system of bearing ball. In addition, a hanging bucket filled with
water is used to apply an increased tension force on the specimen [51].

3.5. Tang & Graham (2000)

Tang and Graham [22] devised a machine for identifying the tensile strength of soil directly, which consists of a
dial gauge, motor mounted on a mechanical load frame. The tensile or compressive force can be applied at constant
rate of displacement. The welded two parts at the mold middle are connected to the platen and crosshead of the load
frame [22].

3.6. Lu et al. (2005)

The main parts of Lu et al. [26] apparatus that was developed to measure directly the tensile strength of
cohesionless soil. In general, it includes two segments of sample tubing, mounting plate, digital probe and a table. The
first piece of the tube is fixed to the table while the other one is freely moving on the roller bearing. The table is
inclined progressively to increase the gravitational force along the longitudinal axis of the specimen to apply a tension
force. Finally, the slope angle is recorded by the digital probe when the sample breaks into two halves. The obtained
angle and the specimen weight are used to calculate the sample tensile strength [26].

3.7. Kim and Hwang (2003)

In fact, Kim and Hwang [24] apparatus to observe directly tensile strength relies on the proposed one by Perkins
[19]. It involves rigid blocks, rollers, loading-bucket and box divided into two parts. The first segment is placed on the
roller bearing system to move freely, while the other one is mounted on two rigid and stiff blocks. Both parts are
connected together and located at the same level using four pegs installed in the box to reduce the friction with sample.
This procedure allows obtaining the maximum tensile strength through the plane of surface and the designed pegs
angles, bigger than the material angle of dilatancy by 20°, preventing any possible soil movement. Thereafter, the
plane of failure with uniform distribution of stress and the loading-bucket are used as the imposed tensile force in the
system [53].

4. Indirect Test
Indirect test is based on achieving empirical correlations of different soil parameters to compute the soil tensile
strength [1, 5, 6, 47]. It involves the application of point or linear non-tensile force for producing tensile stress that is
assumed to be uniform on the plane of failure. Therefore, indirect test is more convenient for elastic and brittle
materials [54]. Due to the difficulties and wide limitations of direct tests, the indirect method was introduced as an
alternative technique to measure the tensile strength of soils [48].

4.1. Brazilian Test

It is an easy and indirect testing method that can be used for measuring the tensile strength of brittle materials
including rocks and concrete [55]. The required presumptions of tensile strength calculation by Brazilian approach are:
(1) the material exhibits biaxial linear elasticity behavior, (2) shows homogeneity and isotropy in terms of its strength
and elastic properties [54]. Furthermore, the Brazilian test was modified from the ASTM D3967-08 by placing the
sample in a disc-shaped mold that is loaded diametrically on its circumference using the platens [54]. The test consists
of the application of compressive load on the horizontal cylindrical disk sample through two rigid and opposed platens.
The increasing compressive load generates a perpendicular tensile stress between the two platens over the surface until
the failure of the sample occurs [47]. The stress of soil is assumed to be constant along the diameter in accordance to
the elastic theory, and then the tensile strength can be determined using the following formula [47]:
2P (1)
σt 
πDL

Where t is maximum tensile stress; P is applied load at failure; D is diameter of the sample; L is thickness of the
sample.

4.2. Flexural (Bending) Beam Test

Similar to the Brazilian test, flexural beam is an indirect procedure to examine the tensile behavior of soil, concrete
and rocks [47]. It includes the application of compressive concentrated force at the center of the supported soil beam

596
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 6, No. 3, March, 2020

that is known as third-point bending test or by two equal loads placed at one third of the specimen beam also called as
fourth-point bending test until the specimen failure is occurred [48]. During the test, the soil beam gets deformed under
the action of load as a result of compressive and tensile stress at the top and bottom of the beam respectively [47].
Therefore, this test is more useful for brittle a material rather than the ductile one, since the distribution of stresses over
the plane of failure is uniform and the mid span of the beam experiences zero shear force and maximum bending
moment. In fact, this test does not determine the tensile strength directly but instead it measures the specimen’s
modulus of rupture, in which the beam bends in circular arc through the supports [47]. This issue is based on the
bending theory that assumes the material to be linear elastic with equal Young’s modulus in tension and compression
and ignores the self-weight of the beam [14, 42, 48]. In general, the flexure beam test apparatus developed by
Leonards and Narain [56] to determine the tensile strength of cohesive soil using a simple flexure test involving a clay-
beam to predict the cracking behavior of earth dams [9, 57]. The apparatus consists of loading system applied to the
middle of section with ball-bearing balls along with pulley to prevent any eccentricity to occur. On the other hand, the
one proposed by Ajaz and Parry [17] had a concentrated load system applied at equal distances from the middle of the
beam through two circular Perspex rods with constant bending moment between these two rods in addition to another
two Perspex rods as supports to the beam with dial gauges to detect the deflection of the beam at each load increment
until failure. The tensile strength of the specimen in this test can be determined using the following equation [48]:
My
σt  (2)
I
In which t is maximum tensile stress; M is bending moment; 𝑦̅ distance of the tensile surface of the beam from the
neutral axis; I is moment of inertia.

4.3. Double Punch Test

Double punch test is an indirect method developed by Fang and Chen [10] for measuring tensile strength of soils. It
consists of cylindrical shape sample placed vertically between a platen of loading with two circular discs centered on
the top and bottom of the soil surface [13]. Thereafter, the specimen is subjected to compressive force along its two
opposite faces [58]. Usually, this test gives lower tensile stress results compared to the Brazilian due to the fact that the
plane of failure in the Brazilian test is predetermined and the cracks are always formed vertically whether it is the
strongest or weakest plane whereas the failure in this test can occur on any one of the infinitely many radial planes
which means that the plane of failure is not predetermined and thus and so will fail in the weakest plane only [58].
In fact, the perfect plasticity theory for soils was developed by Chen and Drucker [59] with two essential
presumptions: (1) enough local soil deformability exists in both tension and compression in order to the limit analysis
theorems to be applicable and viable for perfect plastic material behavior, (2) assuming the surface of failure of the
adjusted Mohr-coulomb as a yield surface for soils [60, 47]. Therefore, using perfect plasticity theory and depending
on the maximum load, the tensile strength of the sample can be determined [47]. In addition, double punch test has a
huge advantage since it doesn’t require any heavy machines to be applied which means that California bearing ratio or
compaction soil tests can be linked to it while performing the test in laboratory or field easily [10]. The tensile strength
for double punch test can be determined as follows [60]:
P 1  sin  qu  bh 
  tan       2  cos    t (3)
a 2
sin  cos      2 a 
Where t is maximum tensile stress; 𝑃 is applied load; 𝑎 is radius of disk; φ is inclined cone angle to the surface; α is
angle of cone; qu is unconfined compressive strength; b is radius of specimen; h is height of specimen.
In the case of calculating the maximum pressure that is responsible for failure, the equation can be reduced to the
following equation and tensile strength can be computed as:
P (4)
t 
k b h  a2 

Where t is tensile strength; P is applied load; 𝑘 = tan(2𝛼 + 𝜑) this value depends on the angle of friction,
compressive-tensile strength ratio and sample-punch dimension ratio; b is radius of specimen; h is height of specimen.

4.4. Unconfined Penetration Test

Unconfined penetration test is an indirect test adjusted from double punch test by Fang and Fernandez [38] to
measure the tensile strength of soil [9]. Same as double punch test, this test requires the following assumptions to be
made: (1) enough local soil deformability exists in both tension and compression in order to the limit analysis theorems
to be applicable and viable for perfect plastic material behavior, (2) assuming the surface of failure of the adjusted
Mohr-coulomb as a yield surface for soils [38]. One major advantage of unconfined penetration test is can be

597
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 6, No. 3, March, 2020

connected with any normal compaction test to calculate the CBR for different samples sizes and shapes easily. The
plane of failure of this test is not predetermined and thus it will fail in the weakest plane only which results in
measurement of true tensile strength [45]. The test involves the application of a vertical load to the two disks after
placing them to the top and bottom of cylindrical sample until failure is met [38]. The same equations for calculating
the tensile strength of soil of double punch test are used for unconfined penetration test.

4.5. Hollow Cylinder (Ring) Test

Hollow cylinder test is an indirect technique used to define tensile parameters of brittle materials [61]. In 1973, Al-
Hussaini and Townsend [13] developed a tensile strength testing device for identifying the tensile characteristics of
soils [48]. The test involves studying the behavior of soil under the alteration of the three principal stresses in triaxial
conditions. This can be done by applying uniform and distributed pressures internally and externally to the soil sample
to find the radial compressive and tangential tensile stresses. To achieve that, internal hydrostatic pressure must be
introduced to the sample until tensile failure is met, then tangential tensile stress will be obtained [48]. When some
radial cracks emerge suddenly parallel to sample axis, failure of hollow cylinder test occurs [13]. The hollow cylinder
test consists of two ring-shaped platens where the specimen is placed, two thick membranes that surround the platens
on inner and outer faces, pressure chamber that is filled with fluid and capable of tolerating very high confining
pressure, base support that acts as basis for centralizing the device, two lateral deformation sensors for tracking and
determining the change in both the inner and outer diameter laterally through the testing, two molds in which one is
placed in the inner part and the other on the outer one of the compacted sample, and loading system to maintain a
controlled confining pressure around the whole sample [13].

5. Advantages and Disadvantages

This section will describe the advantages and disadvantages of the most common soil tensile testing techniques.

Table 3. Previous works on direct tensile testing apparatus

Type of Test Applicability Advantages Disadvantages

 Difficulty of applying a uniform stress

 Homogeneity of stresses and strains. distribution to the entire specimen.
 Can measure true stress-strain  The influence of stress concentration
Applicable for most of the relationship under tension. and eccentric loading cannot be
soil types as far as the load avoided.
Direct methods  No need to correct the results to find
is applied uniaxial on the
specimen the tensile strength.  Complete elimination of misalignment
is relatively impossible.
 Satisfies the condition of true
uniaxial tension.  Difficulty for clamping or holding the
end of the specimen.

 Requires a number of assumptions

such as the material behaves with
biaxial linear elasticity in two-
Applicable for rocks,  Most commonly used tensile strength dimensions and is homogeneous and
Brazilian Tensile
concrete and soil under the testing due to its simplicity and isotropic in terms of its strength and
Test
assumption of elastic theory. efficiency. elastic properties.
 Used for soils in brittle conditions
only.

 Requires assuming a linear elasticity

Flexural Applicable for soils under  Its simplicity in performing.
behavior in the soil.
(Bending) Beam the assumptions of elastic  Its loading conditions can simulate
Test bending theory.  Neglecting the effects of beam’s self-
typical site conditions more closely.
weight during the calculation.

 There is no stress concentration or

misalignment from grips.
 The necessity of assuming linear
 The simplicity of sample preparation. elasticity.
Applicable for soils under  Testing of specimens at various  The stress value in the field cannot be
the assumptions of theory of orientations.
Double Punch obtained exactly based on the loading
plasticity instead of
Test  Test doesn’t require any heavy and boundary.
elasticity.
machines to be applied and CBR or  More suitable for brittle materials such
compaction soil tests can be as rock, concrete and pavement
connected and linked with this test materials.
and perform the test in laboratory or
field easily.

598
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 6, No. 3, March, 2020

 No clamping is required to set up a

specimen so that misalignment
stresses are introduced in the test.
 The uniform tensile stress is acting
on the entire volume of cylindrical  The necessity of assuming linear
Hollow specimen. elasticity or rigid plasticity to calculate
Applicable for brittle the stress distribution.
cylindrical
material.  The magnitude of the radial
(Ring) Test compressive stress is considerably  The uniaxial direct tensile stress is not
smaller than the tangential tensile purely applied.
stress.
 The possibility of applying axial
stress in addition to the internal and
external pressure in many devices.

6. Conclusions
This paper has focused on reviewing available studies regarding the possible techniques and tests for measuring and
assessing the tensile strength of soils. On the bases of the above statement the following points are concluded:
 Studying the tensile strength of soils is very significant and impactful on evaluating and understanding the
development of tensile cracks.
 Direct tests can be used to give the best, accurate and precise results but it is harder to apply and needs suitable
arrangement.
 Indirect tests can be used as an alternative to the direct ones that are easier to be performed but less accuracy.
 The most common tensile test technique is the Brazilian method that can be used for most of the brittle
materials such as rocks, concrete and soils.
 Tensile strength of soil is progressively influenced by its water content.
 Using fibers in soil is an effective way to increase its tensile strength capacity.

7. Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.

8. References
[1] Li, J., et al. "Effect of discrete fibre reinforcement on soil tensile strength." Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering 6.2 (2014): 133-137. doi:10.1016/j.jrmge.2014.01.003.
[2] Morris, P. H., J. Graham and D. J. Williams. "Cracking in drying soils." Canadian Geotechnical Journal 29.2 (1992): 263-277.
doi:10.1139/t92-030.
[3] Miller, Carol J., Hong Mi and Nazli Yesiller. "Experimental analysis of desiccation crack propagation in clay liners." Journal of
the American Water Resources Association 34.3 (1998): 677-686. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.1998.tb00964.x.
[4] Tej, P. R. and D. N. Singh. "Estimation of tensile strength of soils from penetration resistance." International Journal of
Geomechanics 13.5 (2012): 496-501. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000234.
[5] Tang, C. S., Pei, X. J., Wang, D. Y., Shi, B., & Li, J. "Tensile Strength of Compacted Clayey Soil." Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 141.4 (2014). doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001267.
[6] Tang, C. S., Wang, D. Y., Cui, Y. J., Shi, B., & Li, J. "Tensile strength of fiber-reinforced soil." Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering 28.7 (2016). doi:10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001546.
[7] Beyranvand, A., S. H. Lajevardi, and M. M. H. Hazaveh. "Experiment of geosynthetic tensile strength in soil-geosynthetic
interaction by pull-out test." Ukrainian Journal of Ecology 8, no. 3 (2018): 174-180.
[8] Tran, K. Q., T. Satomi and H. Takahashi. "Tensile behaviors of natural fiber and cement reinforced soil subjected to direct
tensile test." Journal of Building Engineering 24 (2019). doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100748.
[9] Kim, T. H., et al. "Factors influencing crack-induced tensile strength of compacted soil." Journal of materials in civil
engineering 24.3 (2012): 315-320. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000380.
[10] Fang, H. Y. and W. F. "New method for determination of tensile strength of soils." Highway Research Board, (1971).
[11] Hao-da, L., et al. "Advances in experimental testing methods of soil tensile strength." Rock and Soil Mechanics 37 (2016):
175-186. doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2016.S2.021.

599
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 6, No. 3, March, 2020

[12] Stoxreiter, T., P. Gehwolf and R. Galler. "Alternative Approaches for the Determination of Unconfined Rock Deformation and
Strength Properties." Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering (2019): 1-23. doi:10.1007/s00603-019-01908-3.
[13] Al-Hussaini, M. M. and F. C. Townsend. "Investigation of tensile testing of compacted soils." 1974. doi:10.1016/0148-
9062(74)91141-3.
[14] Vaníček, I. "The importance of tensile strength in geotechnical engineering." Acta Geotechnica Slovenica 10.1 (2013): 5-17.
[15] Tschebatorioff, G. P., E. R. Ward and A. A. DePhillipe. "The tensile strength of disturbed and recompacted soils." Proc. 3rd
ICSMFE. 1953.
[16] Hasegawa, H. and M. Ikeuti. "On the tensile strength test of disturbed soils." Rheology and Soil Mechanics/Rhéologie et
Mécanique des Sols. Berlin, 1964. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-46047-0_34.
[17] Ajaz, A. and R. H. G. Parry. "Stress–strain behaviour of two compacted clays in tension and compression." Geotechnique 25.3
(1975): 495-512. doi:10.1680/geot.1975.25.3.495.
[18] Leavell, D. A. and J. F. Peters. Uniaxial Tensile Test for Soil. Mississippi: Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station
Vicksburg Ms Geotechnical Lab, 1987.
[19] Perkins, S. W. Modeling of regolith structure interaction in extraterrestrial constructed facilities. University of Colorado, 1991.
[20] Mikulitsch, W. A., & Gudehus, G. "Uniaxial tension, biaxial loading and wetting tests on loess." In Proceedings of The First
International Conference On Unsaturated Soils/UNSAT'95/Paris/France. 1995.
[21] Ziegler, S., et al. "Effect of short polymeric fibers on crack development in clays." Soils and Foundations 38.1 (1998): 247-
253. doi:10.3208/sandf.38.247.
[22] Tang, G. X. and J. Graham. "A method for testing tensile strength in unsaturated soils." Geotechnical Testing Journal 23.3
(2000): 377-382. doi:10.1520/GTJ11059J.
[23] Munkholm, L. J., P. Schjønning and B. D. Kay. "Tensile strength of soil cores in relation to aggregate strength, soil
fragmentation and pore characteristics." Soil and tillage research 64.1-2 (2002): 125-135. doi:10.1016/S0167-1987(01)00250-
1.
[24] Kim, T. H. and C. Hwang. "Modeling of tensile strength on moist granular earth material at low water content." Engineering
Geology 69.3-4 (2003): 233-244. doi:10.1016/S0013-7952(02)00284-3.
[25] Nahlawi, H., S. Chakrabarti and J. Kodikara. "A direct tensile strength testing method for unsaturated geomaterials."
Geotechnical Testing Journal 27.4 (2004): 356-361. doi:10.1520/GTJ11767.
[26] Lu, N., B. Wu and C. P Tan. "A tensile strength apparatus for cohesionless soils." Advanced experimental unsaturated soi l
mechanics. 2005. 105-110.
[27] Tamrakar, S. B., et al. "Development of a new soil tensile strength test apparatus." Site Characterization and Modeling. ASCE,
2005. 1-10. doi:10.1061/40785(164)26.
[28] Rodríguez, R., et al. "Experimental and numerical analysis of desiccation of a mining waste." Canadian Geotechnical Journal
44.6 (2007): 644-658. doi:10.1139/t07-016.
[29] Wang, J. J., et al. "Experimental study on fracture toughness and tensile strength of a clay." Engineering Geology 94.1-2
(2007): 65-75. doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2007.06.005.
[30] Arslan, H., S. Sture and S. Batiste. "Experimental simulation of tensile behavior of lunar soil simulant JSC-1." Materials
Science and Engineering: A, 478.1-2 (2008): 201-207. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2007.05.113.
[31] Divya, P. V., B. V. S. Viswanadham and J. P. Gourc. "Evaluation of tensile strength-strain characteristics of fiber-reinforced
soil through laboratory tests." Journal of Materials in civil Engineering 26.1 (2013): 14-23. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-
5533.0000772.
[32] Tang, C. S., et al. "Experiment evidence on the temperature dependence of desiccation cracking behavior of clayey soils."
Engineering Geology 114.3-4 (2010): 261-266. doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2010.05.003.
[33] Suklje, L. and J. Drnovsek. "Investigation of the tensile deformability of soils using hollow cylinders." In 6th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. 1965. 368-372.
[34] Fang, H. Y. and T. J. Hirst. "A method for determining the strength parameters of soils." Highway Research Record 463.1973
(1973): 45-50.
[35] Gopala Krishnayya, A. V., Z. Eisenstein and N. R. Morgenstern. "Behavior of compacted soil in tension." Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering (1974).
[36] Ramanathan, B. and V. Raman. "Split tensile strength of cohesive soils." Soils and Foundations 14.1 (1974): 71-76. doi:
10.3208/sandf1972.14.71.

600
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 6, No. 3, March, 2020

[37] Al-Hussaini, Mosaid. "Tensile properties of compacted soils." In Laboratory Shear Strength of Soil. ASTM International.
(1981). doi:10.1520/STP28753S.
[38] Fang, H. Y. and J. Fernandez. "Determination of tensile strength of soils by unconfined-penetration test." In Laboratory shear
strength of soil. ASTM International. (1981). doi:10.1520/STP28748S.
[39] Maher, M. H. and Y. C. Ho. "Mechanical properties of kaolinite/fiber soil composite." Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
120.8 (1994): 1381-1393. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1994)120:8(1381).
[40] Das, B. M., S. C. Yen and R. N. Dass. "Brazilian tensile strength test of lightly cemented sand." Canadian Geotechnical
Journal 32.1 (1995): 166-171. doi:10.1139/t95-013.
[41] Thusyanthan, N. I., et al. "Crack initiation in clay observed in beam bending." Geotechnique 57.7 (2007): 581-594.
doi:10.1680/geot.2007.57.7.581.
[42] Viswanadham, B. V. S., B. K. Jha and S. N. Pawar. "Experimental Study on Flexural Testing of Compacted Soil Beams."
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 22.5 (2009): 460-468. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000045.
[43] Consoli, N. C., et al. "Voids/cement ratio controlling tensile strength of cement-treated soils." Journal of geotechnical and
geoenvironmental engineering 137.11 (2011): 1126-1131. doi:1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000524.
[44] Olgun, M. "Effects of polypropylene fiber inclusion on the strength and volume change characteristics of cement-fly ash
stabilized clay soil." Geosynthetics International 20.4 (2013): 263-275. doi:10.1680/gein.13.00016.
[45] Liang, Q., et al. "Mechanical analysis using the unconfined penetration test on the tensile strength of Q3 loess around Lanzhou
City." Engineering geology 183 (2014): 324-329. doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.10.016.
[46] Taha, M. R., et al. "Compressive and tensile strength enhancement of soft soils using nanocarbons." Geomechanics and
Engineering 16.5 (2018): 559-567. doi:10.12989/gae.2018.16.5.559.
[47] Deshpande, S. S. Tensile Strength of Soil. Amravati: Government College of Engineering, 2016. doi:
10.13140/RG.2.1.1263.9123.
[48] Win, S. S. Tensile Strength Of Compacted Soils Subject To Wetting And Drying. Sydney: The University of New South
Wales Sydney, 2006.
[49] Tamrakar, S. B., T. Mitachi and Y. Toyosawa. "Factors affecting tensile strength measurement and modified tensile strength
measuring apparatus for soil." In Experimental Unsaturated Soil Mechanics. Berlin: Springer, 2007. 207-218. doi:10.1007/3-
540-69873-6_20.
[50] Tamrakar, S. B., Mitachi, T., & Toyosawa, Y.. "Measurement of soil tensile strength and factors affecting its measurements."
Soils and Foundations 47.5 (2007): 911-918. doi:10.3208/sandf.47.911.
[51] Goulding, B. Tensile Strength, Shear Strength, and Effective Stress or Unsaturated Sand. Columbia: University of Missouri,
2006. doi:10.32469/10355/4364.
[52] Li, Y., et al. "Tensile strength of fiber reinforced soil under freeze-thaw condition." Cold Regions Science and Technology 146
(2018): 53-59. doi:10.1016/j.coldregions.2017.11.010.
[53] Lakshmikantha, M. Ramasesha. "Experimental and theoretical analysis of cracking in drying soils." (2009).
[54] Stirling, R. A., et al. "Tensile behaviour of unsaturated compacted clay soils—A direct assessment method." Applied clay
science 112 (2015): 123-133. doi:10.1016/j.clay.2015.04.011.
[55] Li, D. and L. N. Y. Wong. "The brazilian disc test for rock mechanics applications: Review and new insights." Rock
Mechanics and Rock Engineering 46.2 (2013): 269-287. doi:10.1007/s00603-012-0257-7.
[56] Leonards, G. A., and Jagdish Narain. "Flexibility of clay and cracking of earth dams." Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division 89, no. 2 (1963): 47-98.
[57] Iravanian, A. and H. Bilsel. "Strength Characterization of Sand-Bentonite Mixtures and the Effect of Cement Additives."
Marine Georesources & Geotechnology 34.3 (2016): 210-218. doi:10.1080/1064119X.2014.991463.
[58] Chen, W. F. “Double-Punch Test for Tensile Strength of Concrete, Rock and Soils.” Developments in Geotechnical
Engineering (1975): 501–541. doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-41249-2.50017-2.
[59] Chen, W. F. and D. C. Drucker. "Bearing capacity of concrete blocks or rock." Journal of Engineering Mechanics (1969).
doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-41249-2.50016-0.
[60] Fang, H. Y. and W. F Chen. "Further study of double-punch test for tensile strength of soils." Proc1 3nd Southeast Asian
Conf1 on Soil Engineering (1972): 236-242.
[61] Buttlar, William G., G. G. Al-Khateeb, and D. Bozkurt. "Development of a hollow cylinder tensile tester to obtain mechanical
properties of bituminous paving mixtures." Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists 68 (1999): 369-403.

601