Engineering Journal of the University of Qatar, Vol. 19, 2006, pp.

INFLUENCE OF SHEARING RATE ON INTERFACIAL

FRICTION BETWEEN SAND AND STEEL

Abdullah I. Al-Mhaidib
Associate Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
King Saud University
P.O. Box 800, Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia
e-mail: muhaidib@ksu.edu.sa

ABSTRACT

Direct shear tests were conducted to investigate the influence of shearing rate on interface friction
angle between sand and steel. A total of forty-five shear tests were carried out using the conventional direct
shear test apparatus. The tests were performed under three values of normal stress on smooth and rough
steel surfaces. Samples were sheared at five different rates. In addition, uplift model pile tests were conducted
using the same materials and under the same loading rates used in the direct shear tests. Experimental results
showed that both the internal friction angle () of the sand and the interface friction angle () increase with
increasing the shearing rate. The relationship between angles and and the shearing rate can be
represented by a straight line on a semilogarithmic plot. The values of the interface friction angles were back-
calculated from the measured uplift capacity in the model pile tests and compared with the corresponding
interface friction angles obtained from direct shear tests.

Keywords: Direct shear, sand, internal friction angle, interface friction angle, model pile.

I. INTRODUCTION

Many soil-structure interaction problems including retaining walls, pile foundations and earth
reinforcements involve the estimation of interfacial friction between soils and such structures. It is essential to
determine the interface friction angle between soil and pile material in order to make a good estimation of the axial
capacity of the pile. A test pile is in general loaded to failure within a period of several hours to days. During the
structures life, the maximum load may be however applied to the piles years after installation. As well, the period
of a critical wave could be less than 10 seconds during a storm. Therefore, the pile capacity measured during load
tests would be different from the actual pile capacity. Because shear strength of the soil depends on the loading rate,
the pile capacity will most likely depend on the loading rate. So, it is important to study the effect of loading rate on
the interface friction angle between the soil and the pile material. The results of such studies can help in improving
solutions of problems where soils are subjected to varying loading rates such as those in earthquake engineering and
in offshore engineering where pile shaft resistance represents the major component in the total pile capacity [1].
Considerable studies have been done to investigate the interfacial friction between sand and various
construction materials. Several kinds of apparatus were used in the literature such as direct shear test apparatus [2-
7], simple shear apparatus [8, 9], ring torsion apparatus [10] and dual shear apparatus [11]. Miniature pile test
apparatus [12] and soil-pile-slip tests apparatus [13] have also been used for this purpose. Several factors affecting
the value of the interface friction angle were investigated. Among those factors are: (i) soil properties such as
mineralogical composition, density, grain shape, grain size and gradation; and (ii) the properties of the material
surface such as hardness and surface roughness.
While considerable work has been done on the behavior of cohesionless soils under different shearing rates
[14-18], comparatively few studies are available in the literature on the effects of shearing rate on the friction angle
between sand and steel. The results of the previous studies, in general, have shown that the effects of shearing rate
on the ultimate shearing strength of cohesionless soils in drained tests are not significant [17,18]. However, the
results in undrained tests indicate that the effects are significant [17].
To the writers knowledge, only the work by Lemos [19] deals with the effects of displacement rate on the
ultimate shear resistance between sand and steel. He sheared sand against a steel surface in a ring shear apparatus.
Different displacement rates ranging from 0.0038 to 133 mm/min were used. The results of the tests indicated that
Al-Mhaidib, A.I / Influence of Shearing Rate on Interfacial Friction between Sand and Steel
the ultimate shear resistance was approximately constant and the effect of the displacement rate was not significant
[19].
This paper presents the results of an experimental study to investigate the influence of shearing rate on
interface friction angle between sand and steel. A total of forty-five shear tests were carried out using the
conventional direct shear test apparatus to measure the value of sand-steel interface angle (). The tests were
performed under three values of normal stress on smooth and rough steel surfaces. Samples were sheared at five
different rates. Test results are presented and the influence of shearing rate on interface angle () is discussed. The
values of obtained from these tests were compared with those calculated from the measured uplift capacity of
model steel piles having the same surface roughness embedded in sand with the same density used in the direct shear
tests.

II. SAND PROPERTIES

The soil used in this investigation is white sand obtained from a local supplier. The geotechnical properties
of the sand were found according to the ASTM standard procedures, which include grain size distribution, specific
gravity, and maximum and minimum dry densities. The grain size distribution of the sand is shown in Fig. 1. Basic
physical properties of the tested sand are shown in Table 1. The sand is classified as poorly graded (SP) sand
according to the unified soil classification system.

Figure 1: Grain Size Distribution of the Tested Sand

III. STEEL PROPERTIES

Two square plates of steel were fabricated so that they fit into the mold of the conventional direct shear test
apparatus. The size of each plate was 100 mm x 100 mm x 20 mm thick. Two extreme surface roughnesses were
used, a smooth interface, R
a
= 1.06 m, and a rough interface, R
a
= 33.4 m. The average roughness R
a
is defined
as the arithmetic mean deviation of the roughness profile. Initially, the two plates were fabricated with smooth
surfaces at the top. The top surface of the rough plate was coated with glue and was put in the white sand, then
allowed to dry for several days before use.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10
Grain Diameter (mm)
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

F
i
n
e
r

(
%
)
Engineering Journal of the University of Qatar, Vol. 19, 2006, pp.

IV. DIRECT SHEAR TESTS

The conventional direct shear test apparatus with dimensions of 100 mm x 100 mm was used in this study.
The data generated from this size of apparatus are considered reliable according to the finding of ORourke et al. [5]
that the size of test plate (from 60 mm to 305 mm square) has no influence on the values of the interface friction
angle between sand and solid surfaces. In the standard tests, soil is placed equally in both halves of the shear box.
For the interface tests, the steel plate was placed in the lower half of the direct shear box and the upper half of the
shear box was filled with sand at the desired density. In all tests, the unit weight of the sand was 16.50 kN/m
3
with a
relative density of nearly 64% (Table 1).
Tests were conducted with a deformation-controlled direct shear machine connected to a variable speed
motor in series with a gear reduction box, which made it possible to maintain the rate of shearing at a desirable
constant level. Test speed can be controlled by choosing the appropriate gear wheel from the gear box. Samples
were sheared at five different speeds: 0.9 mm/min., 0.4 mm/min., 0.08 mm/min., 0.048 mm/min., and 0.0048
mm/min. For each rate, tests were conducted under three normal stress values: 50 kPa, 100 kPa and 150 kPa. During
the shear test, shear stress and shear displacement were measured.

Table 1: Physical Properties for the Tested Sand
Property Value
Grain size analysis:


Effective size, D
10

Coefficient of uniformity, C
u

Coefficient of curvature, C
c

Classification (unified)

0.26 mm
2.08
0.92
SP
Specific gravity, G
s
2.68
Dry unit weight:

Maximum,
d(max)

Minimum,
d(min)

Test,
d(test)

17.85 kN/m
3
14.55 kN/m
3
16.50 kN/m
3
Void ratio:
Maximum, e
max
Minimum, e
min

Test, e
test


0.74
0.49
0.58
Relative density, D
r
64%


V. RESULTS OF DIRECT SHEAR TESTS

1. Internal Friction Angle of Sand ()
Fifteen shear tests were performed on the sand under three normal stresses and five different shearing rates.
Because of space limitations, only typical test results are presented. Shear stress versus shear displacement curves
for sand under normal stress of 150 kPa at different rates are shown in Fig. 2. All other tests sheared under other
normal stresses showed similar behavior. Failure envelops for these tests are shown in Fig. 3, from which the values
of the internal friction angle () were obtained. It can be seen from Fig. 2 that the maximum shear stress of the sand
increases as the shearing rate increases. A possible explanation of this behavior is that at higher shearing rates, less
time is allowed for fracturing and rearranging of sand grains to occur, and this causes the sand specimen to be less
compressive and its strength would possibly increase with increasing shearing rate [17,20].
Al-Mhaidib, A.I / Influence of Shearing Rate on Interfacial Friction between Sand and Steel

Figure 2: Shear Stress vs. Horizontal Displacement for Sand Sheared under Normal Stress of 150 kPa


Figure 3: Failure Envelopes for Sand
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Normal Stress, kPa
S
h
e
a
r

S
t
r
e
s
s
,

k
P
a
0.9 mm/min.
0.4 mm/min.
0.08 mm/min.
0.048 mm/min.
0.0048 mm/min.
Shearing Rate
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Horizontal Displacement,mm
S
h
e
a
r

S
t
r
e
s
s
,
k
p
a
0.9 mm/min.
0.4 mm/min.
0.08 mm/min.
0.048 mm/min
0.0048 mm/min.
Shearing Rate
Engineering Journal of the University of Qatar, Vol. 19, 2006, pp.

The obtained internal friction angles are plotted versus shearing rate in a semilogarithmic format in Fig. 4.
The data show fairly consistent linear trend. The relationship between the internal friction angle and shearing rate
can be represented by the following equation:

= 1.50 Ln (SR) + 46.08

(1)

where
= internal friction angle of sand in degrees, and
SR = shearing rate in mm/min.
Figure 4: Effect of Shearing Rate on Internal Friction Angle of Sand

2. Interface Shear Tests
A total of thirty interface shear tests were conducted, fifteen tests using smooth steel surface and the other
fifteen tests using rough steel surface. Shear stress versus shear displacement curves obtained from tests on sand and
smooth steel surface sheared under normal stress of 100 kPa at different rates are shown in Fig. 5. Test results on
sand and rough steel surface sheared under normal stress of 50 kPa at different rates are shown in Fig. 6. All other
tests on both smooth and rough steel surfaces sheared under other normal stresses showed similar behavior as those
in Figs. 5 and 6.
It can be seen from Fig. 5 that the curves for smooth steel surface have no peak values whereas the curves
for rough steel surface (Fig. 6) show peak values from which the shear stress reduces with further horizontal
displacement.
From Fig. 5 and Fig. 6, the maximum shear stress increases as the shearing rate increases for both smooth
and rough steel surfaces. The values of maximum shear stress obtained from all tests are plotted against normal
stress in Fig.7, from which the interface friction angles (
s
and
r
) were obtained and presented in Table 2. The
obtained interface friction angles are plotted versus shearing rate in a semilogarithmic format in Fig. 8. Similar to
the results of the sand tests, the relationship between the interface friction angles and the shearing rate can be
approximated by a straight line on a semilogarithmic plot which is represented by the following equations:


=1.50 Ln(SR) +46.08
R
2
=0.931
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Shearing Rate ,mm/min

F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

A
n
g
l
e
,
d
e
g
r
e
e
Al-Mhaidib, A.I / Influence of Shearing Rate on Interfacial Friction between Sand and Steel
Figure 5: Shear Stress versus Horizontal Displacement for Sand and Smooth Steel Surface Sheared under
Normal Stress of 100 kPa

Figure 6: Shear Stress versus Horizontal Displacement for Sand and Rough Steel Surface Sheared under
Normal Stress of 50 kPa
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Horizontal displacement,mm
S
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
e
s
s
,
k
p
a
0.9 mm/min.
0.4 mm/min.
0.08 mm/min.
0.048 mm/min.
0.0048 mm/min.
Shearing Rate
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Horizontal Displacement,mm
S
h
e
a
r

S
t
r
e
s
s
,
k
P
a
0.9 mm/min.
0.4 mmlmin.
0.08 mm/min.
0.048 mm/min.
0.0048 mm/min.
Shearing Rate
Engineering Journal of the University of Qatar, Vol. 19, 2006, pp.

s
= 1.34 Ln (SR) + 23.0 (2)

r
= 1.44 Ln (SR) + 43.80

(3)

where

s
= interface friction angle between sand and smooth steel in degrees,

r
= interface friction angle between sand and rough steel in degrees,
SR = shearing rate in mm/min.

Equations (2) and (3) showed that the effect of shearing rate on both smooth and rough steel surfaces is almost the
same. The values of the slope of the straight lines are approximately the same and equal to about 1.40 (average
value) which is slightly lower that that obtained from sand tests (1.50).
Figure 7: Failure Envelopes for Sand and Smooth and Rough Steel Surfaces


Table 2: Values of Friction Angle for Sand and between Sand and Steel
Shearing Rate
mm/min.
Smooth
Surface

s

Rough
Surface

r

Internal Friction
Angle

s
/
r
/
0.0048 16 37 38.7 0.413 0.957
0.048 18.8 38.1 40.1 0.469 0.950
0.08 19.5 40 42.5 0.459 0.941
0.4 21.5 42.3 44.6 0.482 0.948
0.9 23.2 44.5 46.5 0.499 0.957
Average 0.464 0.951

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Normal Stress, kPa
S
h
e
a
r

S
t
r
e
s
s
,

k
P
a
0.9 mm/min.
0.4 mm/min.
0.08 mm/min.
0.048 mm/min.
0.0048 mm/min.
Shearing Rate
Rough
Surface
Smooth
Surface
Al-Mhaidib, A.I / Influence of Shearing Rate on Interfacial Friction between Sand and Steel
Figure 8: Effect of Shearing Rate on Interface Friction Angles between Sand and Steel

3. Ratio of Interface Friction Angle to the Angle of Internal Friction of Sand (/)
The values of the ratio of interface friction angle to the angle of internal friction of sand (/) for the
different surface roughness of steel are presented in Table 2 and plotted against shearing rate in Fig. 9. It can be seen
from this figure that the ratio (/) is independent of shearing rate and the average values for this ratio are 0.464 and
0.951 for smooth and rough surfaces, respectively. Subba Rao et al.[6] proposed a correlation between the ratio of
the peak interface friction angle (
p
) and the peak angle of internal friction of sand (
p
) and the relative roughness
(R) as follows:

p
/
p
= 1.0 - 0.8 exp (-15R
0.54
) (4)

The relative roughness, R, is defined as the ratio of the average roughness, R
a
, to the weighted average
particle size of the soil, D
av
, which is obtained from the area of the grain size distribution curve (D
av
= 0.60 mm from
Fig. 1). By substituting the two values of R into eq. (4), the values of
p
/
p
are calculated as 0.509 and 0.965 for
smooth and rough surfaces, respectively. These values are close to the average values found from the tests which are
0.464 and 0.951 (Table 2).

V. PILE MODEL TESTS

1. Test Setup
All model tests were conducted using the setup shown in Fig. 10, which consists of a soil tank, model pile
and loading machine. The model pile used in this study was a steel pile having a diameter of 25 mm and a length of
550 mm. It has the same surface roughness of the steel plates used in the direct shear tests. The vertical load was
applied to the model pile using a loading machine, which provides a constant rate of vertical displacement. A
proving ring and a deformation dial gauge were used for measuring load and pile displacement, respectively.
Smooth Surface
s =1.34 Ln(SR) +23.0
R
2
=0.992
Rough Surface
r =1.44 Ln(SR) +43.80
R
2
=0.911
0
10
20
30
40
50
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Shearing Rate ,mm/min
I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e

F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

A
n
g
l
e
,
d
e
g
r
e
e
Engineering Journal of the University of Qatar, Vol. 19, 2006, pp.

Figure 9: Variation of (/) with Shearing Rate

The soil tank was made from steel with dimensions of 50 cm x 80 cm x 70 cm deep. These dimensions
were chosen so that the tank can be put inside the testing machine and there will be no interference between the
walls of the soil tank and the failure zone around the pile. The zone in which the soil will be affected by either
installation of the pile or loading varies with soil density and pile installation method, but it is reported in the range
of 3 to 8 pile diameters[21-23]. Turner and Kulhawy [24] found that the axial compression loads measured in model
tests in sand were much higher than expected. They attributed the overestimation of pile capacity to size and
boundary effects of the testing drum (drum diameter is about 8 shaft diameter). The smallest dimension of the test
tank (50 cm) used in the present study is about 20 pile diameter in the lateral direction and there is about 8 pile
diameter clearance in the vertical direction beneath the base of the model pile. Therefore, it is expected that there
will be a minor boundary effect in this study.
The sand deposit was prepared using a special raining device designed to obtain a uniform deposit with the
desired density. The device consists of steel frame, upper container with the dimensions of 50 cm x 50 cm x 50 cm
deep and a driving electrical motor. The unit weight of the sand deposit in the raining method depends primarily on
the drop height and the discharge rate of the sand [24]. The height of the free fall of the sand can be controlled by
adjusting the location of the raining device with respect to the sand tank. The discharge rate of the sand can be
controlled by changing the size of the opening of the upper raining container. Sand deposits were prepared while
the sand tank resting on the loading platen of the testing machine so that the sand deposit was not disturbed and
hence the desired unit weight of the sand is not altered. After filling the upper sand container of the raining device
with sand, and selecting the appropriate size of the opening and drop height, the sand was poured into the sand tank
by moving the upper sand container back and forth using the electrical motor at a specified speed. The average unit
weight for the deposit was obtained by dividing the weight of sand in the tank by the tank volume. The calculated
value of the unit weight was 16.50 kN/m
3
corresponding to a relative density of about 64% same as that used in the
direct shear tests.
The model pile was installed during sand deposit preparation. Sand raining was terminated temporarily
after the height of the sand in the tank was 200 mm, where the pile was held vertically in place at the center of the
testing tank where its tip was in contact with the underlying sand. Thereafter, the sand raining was resumed until the
specified height of the sand in the tank was reached, at which the raining was terminated and the sand surface was
leveled. This method of pile installation was selected to eliminate inconsistencies produced by driving or pushing
the pile into the sand and also to reduce the effect of boundary conditions of the soil tank. After leveling the sand
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Shearing Rate ,mm/min

Smooth Surface
Rough Surface
Al-Mhaidib, A.I / Influence of Shearing Rate on Interfacial Friction between Sand and Steel
surface with a straight edge, the head of the model pile was connected to the proving ring, which also was connected
to the rigid support at the top of the frame of the testing machine (Fig. 10). Thereafter, the pile was subjected to axial
uplift load pile at one of the five different rates same as those used in the direct shear tests. All model piles were
tested with embedded length of 500 mm.


Figure 10: Schematic Diagram of the Pile Model Test Setup

2. Results of Model Pile Tests
A total of ten model pile tests were conducted, five tests for piles with smooth surface and other five tests
for piles with rough surface. The load-displacement curves for the model pile tests are shown in Figs. 11 and 12 for
piles with smooth and rough surfaces, respectively. It can be seen from these figures that the load-displacement
curves have peak values from which the pile load reduces with further displacement and the maximum load (uplift
capacity) increases as the loading rate increases. The displacement needed to mobilize the ultimate uplift loads was
between 2 mm and 3 mm which is about 10% of pile diameter.
500 mm
Model pile
Soil tank
(500 mm x 800 mm)
7
0
0

m
m
Proving ring
Load gauge
Displacement
gauge
Sand
Control unit
for applying
loading rate
Loading
platten
Plate
Engineering Journal of the University of Qatar, Vol. 19, 2006, pp.

Figure 11: Load-Displacement Curves for Piles with Smooth Surfaces

3. Estimation of Interface Friction Angle from Model Pile Tests
The values of the interface friction angles (
s
and
r
) were back-calculated from the measured uplift
capacity in the model pile tests. The uplift capacity of a vertical straight-shafted pile in sand is calculated from the
well-known equation:
Q
u
= Q
p
+ Q
s
+ W
p
(5)

where
Q
u
= uplift capacity of the pile
Q
p
= end-bearing resistance
Q
s

= side resistance, and
W
p
= weight of the pile

The end-bearing resistance is often assumed to be zero for piles in uplift [25].
The side resistance is calculated from:

Q
s
= A
s
* f
s
= A
s
*

k

v

tan = (*D*L) *

0.5*k**L*tan (6)


where
A
s

= embedded surface area of the pile
f
s
= average shear stress

v

= average effective vertical stress
k = coefficient of lateral earth pressure
= unit weight of sand
D = diameter of pile
L = embedded length of pile, and
= interface friction angle
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Pile Movement,mm
L
o
a
d
,
k
N
0.9 mm/min.
0.4 mm/min.
0.08 mm/min.
0.048 mm/min.
Loading Rate
Al-Mhaidib, A.I / Influence of Shearing Rate on Interfacial Friction between Sand and Steel
Figure 12: Load-Displacement Curves for Piles with Rough Surfaces

There are two factors which have significant influence on the computed uplift capacity from eq. (6). These
are the coefficient of lateral earth pressure (k) and the interface friction angle (). The selection of an appropriate k
value is not straightforward due to wide range of recommended values in the literature [26]. Several factors affect
the value of k such as: the friction angle of the soil, the surface roughness and diameter of the pile, as well as the
method of pile installation [27].

From eqs. (5) and (6), the interface friction angle () can be calculated as follows:

=tan
-1
[(Q
u
-W
p
)/0.5*D*L
2
*k] (7)

Substituting the values of D = 0.025 m, L = 0.5 m, = 16.50 kN/m
3
, and assuming k = 0.8 as recommended
by the American Petroleum Institute (API) code [28] into eq. (7);
s
and
r
are computed and presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Comparison of Values of Interface Friction Angles from Model Pile Tests and Direct Shear Tests
Smooth Surface

s

Rough Surface

r
Shearing Rate
mm/min.
Model pile tests
Direct shear
tests
Model pile tests Direct shear tests
0.0048 18.6 16 56.7 37
0.048 22.4 18.8 59.7 38.1
0.08 24.0 19.5 60.3 40
0.4 26.3 21.5 62.3 42.3
0.9 28.5 23.2 63.9 44.5
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Pile Movement,mm
L
o
a
d
,
k
N
0.9 mm/min.
0.4 mm/min.
0.08 mm/min.
0.048 mm/min.
0.0048 mm/min.
Loading Rate
Engineering Journal of the University of Qatar, Vol. 19, 2006, pp.

The computed interface friction angles are plotted versus shearing rate in a semilogarithmic format in Fig.
13. Similar to the results of the direct shear tests, the relationship between the interface friction angles and the
shearing rate can be approximated by a straight line on a semilogarithmic plot which is represented by the following
equations:

s
= 1.85 Ln (SR) + 28.38 (8)

r
= 1.34 Ln (SR) + 63.78

(9)

Equations (8) and (9) shows that both the interface friction angles (
s
and
r
) increase as the shearing rate
increases. This behavior is similar to what is obtained from the direct shear tests. However, the values of the slope of
the straight lines are slightly different.
The values of the ratio of interface friction angle to the angle of internal friction of sand (/) for the
different surface roughness of steel are also plotted against shearing rate in Fig. 14. It can be seen from this figure
that the ratio (/) is independent of the shearing rate similar to the results of the direct shear tests.
It can be observed from Table 3 that the back-calculated values of
s
and
r
for both smooth and rough pile
surfaces are higher than the corresponding interface friction angles obtained from direct shear tests. This is in
agreement of the findings of Reddy et. al [7]. The high values of
s
and
r
is due to the increase in radial stress on
pile surface, at failure, because of the interface slip dilation. The radial stress along the pile surface can be higher
than the initial radial stress used in the computations, due to the phenomena of interface slip dilation [7].
Reddy et. al [7] stated that the interface slip dilation is predominant in small diameter piles and will reduce
with the increase in pile diameter. They suggested that the interface friction angles obtained from soil-pile-slip tests
(pile diameter ranges from 12.7 mm to 38.1 mm in their study) can approach those obtained from direct shear tests
for large pile diameters (about 1.7 m).





























Figure 13: Effect of Shearing Rate on Interface Friction Angles between Sand and Steel from Model Pile
Tests (k = 0.8)
Smooth Surface
s =1.85 Ln(SR) +28.38
R
2
=0.992
Rough Surface
r =1.34Ln(SR) +63.78
R
2
=0.995
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Shearing Rate ,mm/min
I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e

F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

A
n
g
l
e
,
d
e
g
r
e
e
Al-Mhaidib, A.I / Influence of Shearing Rate on Interfacial Friction between Sand and Steel



























Figure 14: Variation of (/) with Shearing Rate from Model Pile Tests (k = 0.8)

VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Direct shear tests were conducted to investigate the influence of shearing rate on interface friction angle
between sand and steel. The tests were performed under three values of normal stress on smooth and rough steel
surfaces. Samples were sheared at five different rates. In addition, uplift model pile tests were conducted using the
same materials and under the same loading rates. The values of the interface friction angles were back-calculated
from the measured uplift capacity in the model pile tests and compared with the corresponding interface friction
angles obtained from direct shear tests. From the test results the following conclusions are drawn:

The internal friction angle () of the sand increases with increasing the shearing rate.
The interface friction angle () between sand and steel with different surface roughness increases as the
shearing rate increases.
The relationship between the angles and , and the shearing rate can be represented by a straight line on a
semilogarithmic plot. The values of the slope of the linear relationships range from about 1.40 for and 1.50 for
from the direct shear tests. The average value of this slope is about 1.60 for the pile model tests.
The ratio of interface friction angle to the angle of internal friction of sand (/) for the different surface
roughness of steel is independent of the shearing rate from the results of both the direct shear tests and the pile
model tests.
The calculated interface friction angles from the measured uplift capacity in the model pile tests are higher than
the corresponding interface friction angles obtained from direct shear tests due to the interface slip dilation.

NOMENCLATURE

A
s

embedded surface area of pile
C
c

coefficient of curvature
C
u

coefficient of uniformity
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Shearing Rate ,mm/min

Smooth Surface
Rough Surface
Engineering Journal of the University of Qatar, Vol. 19, 2006, pp.

D diameter of pile
D
av
weighted average particle size of soil
D
r

relative density of sand
D
10

effective size (diameter of particles corresponding to 10% finer)
e
max
maximum void ratio
e
min
minimum void ratio
e
test
void ratio at test
f
s

average shear stress
k coefficient of lateral earth pressure
L embedded length of pile
Q
p
end-bearing resistance
Q
s

side resistance
Q
u
uplift capacity of pile
R relative roughness
R
a
average roughness
SR shearing rate
W
p
weight of pile
interface friction angle

p
peak interface friction angle between sand and steel

r
interface friction angle between sand and rough steel

s
interface friction angle between sand and smooth steel
angle of internal friction

p
peak angle of internal friction
unit weight

dmax
maximum dry unit weight

dmin
minimum dry unit weight

dtest
dry unit weight at test

v
average effective vertical stress

REFERENCES

1. Tabucanon, J.T., Airey, D.w. and Poulos, H.G., 1995. Pile Skin Friction in Sands from Constant Normal
Stiffness Tests. Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol.18, No.3, pp. 350-364.
2. Potyondy, J. G., 1961. Skin Friction between Various Soils and Construction Materials. Geotechnique, Vol. 11,
No. 4, pp. 339-353.
3. Acar, Y. B., Durgunoglu, H. T. and Tumay, M. T. , 1982. Interface Properties of Sand. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, , Vol. 108, No. 4, pp. 648-654.
4. Bosscher, P. J. and Ortiz, C., 1987. Frictional Properties between Sand and Various Construction Materials.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 9, pp. 1035-1039.
5. ORourke, T. D., Drushel, S. J. and Netravali, A. N. , 1990. Shear Strength Characteristics of Sand-polymer
Interfaces. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 116, No. 3, pp. 451-469.
6. Subba, Rao, K.S., Allam, M.M. and Robinson, R.G, 1988. Interfacial Friction between Sand and Solid
Surfaces. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 131, pp. 75-82.
7. Reddy, E.S., Chapman, D.N. and Sastry, V.V.R.N, 2000. Direct Shear Interface Test for Shaft Capacity of Piles
in Sand. Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 23, No.2, pp. 199-205.
8. Uesugi, M. and Kishida, H, 1986. Influential Factors of Friction between Steel and Dry Sands. Soils and
Foundation, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 33-46.
9. Kishida, H. and Uesugi, M, 1987. Tests of the Interface between Sand and Steel in a Simple Shear Apparatus.
Geotechnique, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 45-52.
10. Yoshimi, Y. and Kishida, T, 1981. A Ring Torsion Apparatus for Evaluating Friction between Soil and Metal
Surfaces. Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 4, No.4, pp. 145-152.
11. Paikowsky, S. G., Player, C. M. and Connors, P.J., 1995. A Dual Interface Apparatus for Testing Unrestricted
Friction of Soil along Solid Surfaces. Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 18, No.2, pp. 168-193.
12. Coyle, H. M. and Sulaiman, I.H., 1967. Skin Friction for Steel Piles in Sand. Journal of Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 93, No. SM6, pp. 261-278.
Al-Mhaidib, A.I / Influence of Shearing Rate on Interfacial Friction between Sand and Steel
13. Reddy, E.S., Chapman, D.N. and O Reilly,M.P., 1998. Design and Performance of Soil-Pile-Slip Test
Apparatus for Tension Piles. Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 21, No.2, pp. 132-139.
14. Casagrande, A. and Shannon, W.L., 1948. Strength of Soils under Dynamic Loads. Proceedings, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 74, No. 4, pp. 591-632.
15. Whitman, R.V. and Healy, K.A., 1962. Shear Strength of Sands during Rapid Loading. Journal of Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 88, No. SM2, pp. 99-132.
16. Lee, K.L., Seed, H.B., 1969. and Dunlop, P. Effect of Transient Loading on the Strength of Sand. Proceedings
of the 7th. International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico, Vol. 1, pp. 239-
247.
17. Yamamuro, J.A. and Lade, P.V., 1993. Effects of Strain Rate on Instability of Granular Soils. Geotechnical
Testing Journal, Vol.16, No.3, pp. 304-313.
18. Tika, T.E., Vaughan, P.R. and Lemos, L.J., 1996. Fast Shearing of Pre-existing Shear Zones in Soil.
Geotechnique, Vol. 46, pp. 197-233.
19. Lemos, L.J., 1996. The Effect of Rate on Residual Strength of Soil. PhD thesis, University of London.
20. Nash, K.L. and Dixon, R.K., 1961. The Measurement of Pore Pressure in Sand under Rapid Triaxial Tests.
Proceedings of Conference on the Pore Pressure and Suction in Soils, Butterworths, London, pp. 21-25.
21. Meyerhof, G.G., 1959. Compaction of Sands and Bearing Capacity of Cohesionless Soils. Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol. 85, No. SM6, pp. 1-29.
22. Kishida, H., 1963. Stress Distribution by Model Piles in Sand. Soils and Foundation, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 1-23.
23. Robinsky E.I. and Morrison C.F., 1964. Sand Displacement and Compaction around Model Friction Piles.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 81-93.
24. Turner, J.P.,and Kulhawy, F.H., 1987. Experimental Analysis of Drilled Foundations Subjected to Repeated
Axial Loads Under Drained Conditions. Report EL-5325, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto,
California.
25. Kulhawy, F.H., Trautmann, C.H., Beech, J.F., ORourke, T.D., McGuire, W., Wood, W.A., and Capano, C.,
1983. Transmission Line Structure Foundations for Uplift-Compression Loading. Report EL-2870, Electric
Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California.
26. Dayal, U. 1980. Discussion of Uplift Testing of Model Drilled Shafts in Sand. By Kulhawy F., Kozera D. and
Withiam J.,1979, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 106, No. GT 5, pp. 574-577.
27. Chaudhuari, K.P.R. and Symons, M.V., 1983. Uplift Resistance of Model Single Piles. Proceedings
Conferences on Geotechnical Practice in Offshore Engineering, ASCE, Austin, Texas, pp.335-355.
28. API (1984), API Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms,
American Petroleum Institute, APIRP2A, 115p