SKIN FRICTION OF PILES COATED WITH BITUMINOUS COATS

Makarand G. Khare 1 and Shailesh R. Gandhi 2

1

Ph.D Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Tech. Madras, Chennai, India-600036
Email: makarandkhare@yahoo.com
2

Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Tech. Madras, Chennai, India-600036
Email: srgandhi@iitm.ac.in

ABSTRACT: Piles are often coated with a slip layer such as bitumen to reduce the
dragload. The friction between granular soil and coated as well as uncoated pile
surfaces were studied using a modified direct shear test apparatus. The lower half of
the direct shear box was replaced with a concrete or steel mild steel block to represent
a pile surface. Two types of bituminous coat namely Shalikote and Bitumen of grade
30-40 were evaluated in this study. Shalikote and Bitumen coating reduced the
interface friction by more than 70% and 90% respectively. The shearing resistance of
pile material-coat-soil is found to be influenced by normal stress, type of coat, and
coat thickness. The effect of saturation and the rate of soil settlement on the interface
friction are also discussed. Pull out tests were carried out on coated and uncoated
model aluminum pile placed in a circular tank filled with granular soil. The results of
pull out tests are compared with interface friction tests.
INTRODUCTION
The settling soil imposes dragload on piles and may cause excessive settlement of
pile foundation. The large magnitude of dragload may necessitate higher pile cross
section and/or deeper pile penetration which increase the cost. The pile design must
ensure that the dragload is accommodated without causing any structural distress and
excessive settlement of pile. In the past, various methods have been adopted to
reduce the dragload depending upon the field condition. Coating the pile with
bitumen is the most economical method for reducing the negative skin friction
(Baligh et al., 1978).
The effectiveness of slip layer in reducing dragload depends on the characteristics of
the pile, the type of soil strata through which pile passes and the properties of coating
material itself. In case of fine grained soils, the shearing behavior depends on the
average rate of soil settlement. In case of coarse grained soils, soil particles may
penetrate into the coat during pile driving. The particle penetration may adversely

affect the efficiency of coat in reducing the skin friction. The ideal coating material
should have low viscosity to permit the slippage of soil surrounding the pile shaft and
at the same time it should have adequate strength to adhere the pile shaft during
storage and pile driving. The cost of coated pile can be much higher than that of
uncoated pile (Briaud and Tucker, 1997).
The granular soil penetrates into coat during pile driving and may result in scrapping
off the coat and higher skin friction. Therefore it is important to study the
effectiveness of coating material in reducing the interface friction between pile
material and granular soil. The selection of type of coat and thickness forms an
important aspect of pile design for dragload mitigation and overall economy of the
project. This paper discusses laboratory tests to compare the performance of two
types of bituminous coats in reducing the skin friction at soil-pile interface. The
results of soil-pile interface tests on coated and uncoated specimens are compared
with the pull out tests.
LABORATORY TESTS
Interface Friction Tests
Interface friction tests were conducted by modifying the conventional direct shear
apparatus as shown in Fig. 1. Pile material was represented by a mild steel block or a
concrete block of 85 85 28 mm. The properties of granular soil used in study are
listed in Table 1. The granular soil used is classified as poorly graded sand (SP) and
hereafter referred as sand.
Normal load

Top half of shear

apparatus

Grid plate
Sand at 70% relative density
Coat
28

Mild steel / concrete block

8585

Fig.1. Interface friction test between coated pile material and sand.
Table1. Properties of granular soil
D50
(mm)
0.58

D10
(mm)
0.28

Cu

Cc

Gs

2.5

1.18

2.63

min
max
(kN/m3) (kN/m3)
18.2
15.5

Two types of coating materials were used in this study. The Shalikote is a
dispersion of selected grades of bitumen in water and is used as a protective coating
over steel to prevent rusting. The Shalikote is applied cold on a surface. It can
withstand temperature variations and vibrations. The bitumen coat used in present
study had a penetration value between 30 and 40 and softening point between 55C
and 60C.
The first set of tests was conducted to measure the peak and residual shear stress at
the interface of pile material and sand. The top half of the direct shear apparatus was
placed on a mild steel block and secured in the position using locking pins. Sand was
placed in the top half of the direct shear apparatus at 70 percent relative density by
pluvial deposition technique. The normal stress was then applied on the sand surface
and sample was sheared at 0.25 mm/min rate of shear. The interface friction between
sand and concrete block was measured using identical procedure.
The second set of tests was conducted to study the reduction in the interface friction
by coating the blocks of pile material with bitumen or Shalikote. The bitumen was
heated to 150C and poured in the 60 mm 60 mm mould placed on the top of block.
The coat was allowed to remain in the mould for 24 hours. The mould was then
removed and the top half of the direct shear box was placed on the block without
disturbing the coat. In case of Shalikote, the semi solid coat was thoroughly mixed
and applied cold at a uniform thickness inside the 60 mm 60 mm mould placed on
top of block. The Shalikote took more than 24 hours to cure. The end of curing is
indicated by the change in the color of coat from brown to black. The initial coating
thickness of 2 mm, 3 mm and 5 mm reduced to 1 mm, 1.36 mm and 2.16 mm after
curing.
Sand was then directly deposited at 70 percent relative density using the same
technique on the top of bitumen or Shalikote coated block. Manual compaction was
avoided to ensure the identical properties of coating material before applying the
normal stress. After placing sand, normal stress was applied. The top half of direct
shear apparatus was then lifted with the help of three lifting screws so that it remains
just above the top of coat as shown in Fig. 1. Soil was then sheared against the
coated block at an ambient temperature of 31C. In all 42 interface friction tests were
conducted as described in Table 2.
Table 2. Test program of interface friction tests.
Pile
Coat Type
Coat Thickness
Material
(mm)
Uncoated
Mild steel
Bitumen
2, 3, 5
Shalikote
1, 1.36, 2.16
Uncoated
Concrete
Bitumen
2, 3, 5
Shalikote
1, 1.36, 2.16

Normal
Stress (kPa)
25, 50, 75
25, 50, 75

Total Tests
3
33=9
33=9
3
33=9
33=9

The objective of above test program was to observe the effect of the pile material,
the type and thickness of coat and the normal stress on the interface friction. In
addition few tests were carried out to study the effect of the rate of settlement on
interface friction.
The tests discussed so far were conducted using dry sand and at an ambient
temperature of 31C. Dragload is most common in low lying areas where filling is
required to raise the ground level.
Soils in such areas are saturated.
The effect of presence of water on the interface friction of coated and uncoated
specimens was also studied.
Model Pile Pull Out Tests
Model pile pull out tests were performed to simulate the negative skin friction on
coated and uncoated piles. The tests were carried out since the interface friction tests
do not perfectly simulate the load transfer-displacement behavior of circular piles.
In pull-out tests, the side friction generated would act downward on the pile as in the
case of pile subjected to dragload. In addition, the relationship between the pull-out
test and skin friction has been confirmed through field tests conducted by Keenan and
Bozuzuk (1985) and Indraratna et al. (1992). Pull out tests have also been used by
Chow and Wong (2004) to study reduction in the dragload using polyethylene sheets.
The experimental set up used for the pull out test is shown in Fig. 2.

Loading
Frame
Mechanical
Jack

Lifting
Frame

Dial Gauge

Load Cell
Model Pile

Sand

500 mm

830 mm

Fig.2. Model pile pull-out test set up.

The tests were conducted in a circular steel tank of 830 mm diameter and
500 mm height. The zone of influence of pile installation and loading depends on the
density of soil and is reported to be in the range of 3 to 8 pile diameter
(Meyerhof, 1959; Kishida, 1963; Robinsky and Morrison, 1964). In the present tests,
the dimension of the tank provides a minimum lateral clearance of 10 diameters and
satisfies the above criterion.
An aluminum pipe of 38 mm diameter was used as a model pile. The poorly graded
sand used in the interface friction tests was used in pull out tests. A homogeneous
deposit of sand with 70 percent relative density was obtained by the pluvial
deposition technique. The model pile was then driven into the soil up to a depth of
450 mm. A light weight hammer weighing 21.6 N and a 300 mm height of fall was
used to drive the pile. The pull out test was conducted one hour after driving the pile.
Bitumen used in interface friction tests was used in pull out tests on coated piles.
The bitumen was heated to 150C and applied on pile surface in uniform thickness of
2, 3 and 5 mm using a brush. The bitumen coat was allowed to cool before
commencing the pile driving.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The typical shear behavior of uncoated, shalikote coated and bitumen coated mild
steel block with sand is shown in Fig.3. Tests with Shalikote showed initial increase
in the interface friction followed by a substantial reduction as sample was sheared
beyond 2 mm. In case of bitumen, the friction increased to a maximum value and
then remained constant.
The results of the interface friction tests carried out to study the effect of pile
material, type and thickness of coat and normal stress are presented in Tables 3 and 4.
Table 5 compares results of interface friction and pull out tests in terms of peak and
residual shear stresses and relative movement required to mobilize these stresses.
The interface friction of uncoated specimens of the concrete block and sand was
higher than that with the mild steel block whereas after coating, the frictional
resistance is almost same irrespective of the surface. In case of the bitumen, the peak
and residual friction was of equal magnitude. Tests on coated specimens showed that
the full friction is mobilized at a relative movement of 1 to 2 mm. In the present
study the shear stresses at 6 mm relative deformation are compared for evaluating the
reduction in the interface friction.
The bitumen coated specimens showed 85% to 97% reduction in the shear stress
when compared to the uncoated specimen. The Shalikote showed reduction in the
interface friction by 20% to 70% to that of uncoated specimens. The analysis of the
test results show that the bitumen coat achieved maximum reduction in the interface
friction for all normal stresses and all thicknesses.

20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

20
Residual Shear Stress (kPa)

Shear Stress (kPa)

The available literature shows that the rate of shear has no effect on interface friction
(Heerema, 1979). However these studies are limited to the uncoated construction
materials and soils. The effect of the rate of shear on the interface friction for the
mild steel block coated with 2.16 mm Shalikote and sand is shown in Fig. 4. The
tests show that the interface friction is directly proportional to the rate of shear.

Uncoated
2.16 mm Shalikote
2mm Bitumen

16
12

of

4
0
0.01

2
4
6
8
Horizontal Movement (mm)

Fig.3. Typical shear behavior

uncoated and coated specimens.

0.1
1
Rate of Shear (mm/min)

10

Fig.4. Interface friction of sand and

Shalikote coated mild steel block.

Table 3. The residual shear stresses (kPa) for bitumen coated specimens
Normal Uncoated Bitumen Coated Mild Uncoated Bitumen Coated
Steel Block
Concrete Block
Concrete
Stress M.S. Block
Block
(kPa)
2mm 3mm 5mm
2mm 3mm 5mm
25
50
75

9.98
17.04
27.38

1.56
1.66
1.7

1.12
1.26
1.46

0.31
0.61
0.85

10.03
23.38
38.58

1.36
1.73
2.14

0.99
1.26
2.04

0.78
0.85
0.92

Table 4. The residual shear stresses (kPa) for Shalikote coated specimens
Shalikote Coated
Normal Uncoated Shalikote Coated Mild Uncoated
Concrete
Steel Block
Concrete Block
Stress M.S. Block
(kPa)
1mm 1.36mm 2.16mm Block 1mm 1.36mm 2.16mm
25
50
75

9.98
17.04
27.38

10.93 10.02
13.92
11
13.54 11.45

8.1
9.72
10.8

10.03
23.38
38.58

12.88 10.57
12.29 8.68
14.17 8.66

7.45
8.83
10.57

The sand particles penetrate into coat under normal stress and shear stress which
result in the visco-frictional behavior of coat. Therefore interface friction developed
on the coated pile can be expected to vary with the rate of soil settlement. The
interface friction at soil-pile interface is expected to be high immediately after
placement of fill because of the faster rate of settlement.

Table 5. Comparison of interface friction and pull out tests

Residual % Reduction Displacement Minimum
Pile
Coating type
Peak
material
shear shear stress in residual at peak shear displacement at
shear stress stress (mm) residual shear
(kPa)*
stress
stress (mm)
(kPa)*
Uncoated
17.04
17.04
1.4
1.4
2 mm
1.66
1.66
90
1.2
1.2
Bitumen 3 mm
1.26
1.26
92
1.4
1.4
Steel
5 mm
0.61
0.61
96
1.1
1.1
surface
1 mm
27.04
13.92
18
1.6
6.0
Shalikote 1.36 mm 22.59
11.0
35
1.2
5.6
2.16 mm 16.57
9.72
43
1.4
6.0
Uncoated
30.49
23.38
1.0
2.4
2 mm
1.73
1.73
92
0.8
0.8
Bitumen 3 mm
1.26
1.26
94
1.2
1.2
Concrete
5 mm
0.85
0.85
96
1.0
1.0
surface
1 mm
29.54
12.29
47
1.4
6.0
Shalikote 1.36 mm 26.22
8.68
62
1.0
6.0
2.16 mm 21.83
8.83
62
1.0
6.0
Uncoated
14.35
2.44
3.8
3.8
38 mm dia.
2 mm
1.58
0.27
89
0.4
0.4
Model pile
Bitumen 3 mm
1.58
0.27
89
0.4
0.4
(aluminum)
5 mm
0.26
0.045
98
0.4
0.4
*The peak and residual shear stresses correspond to the normal stress of 50 kPa in case of the interface friction tests.
In case of pull out tests, the average radial stress is estimated as 8.5 kPa and the values of residual shear stresses
reported are extrapolated for 50 kPa radial stress.

The results of the interface friction tests carried out to study the effect of saturation in
case of the coated mild steel block and sand are presented in Table 6. From Table 6 it
is observed that the saturation has no significant effect on the interface friction of the
uncoated mild steel block and sand under identical normal stress. The interface
friction of the Shalikote and bitumen coated specimens in saturated test condition was
42% and 380% more compared to the dry test condition. The substantial increase in
the interface friction can be attributed to the fact that the ambient temperature in case
of the tests carried out under saturation was 25C as against 31C in case of the
uncoated specimens. As the ambient test temperature reduced from 31C to 25C, the
viscosity of bituminous coats and the interface friction increased. The bitumen coat
appears to be more sensitive to temperature than Shalikote.
Table 6. Effect of saturation on coated and uncoated specimens
Type of specimen Residual shear stress (kPa)
Remarks
Under normal stress of 50 kPa
Dry
Saturated
Uncoated
17.04
16.95
No significant change
11.0
15.63
42 % increase in shear stress
Shalikote coated
Bitumen Coated
1.26
6.08
380 % increase in shear stress
The results of pull out tests on model uncoated and bitumen coated pile are shown in
Fig. 5. The pull out load was normalized to the average effective vertical stress to
calculate the shaft friction parameter as defined by Burland (1973) and the relative
movement is expressed as a percent of the pile diameter. The bitumen coating
reduced the shear stresses by 90 to 98% to that of uncoated pile. The shear stresses
mobilized on 2 mm and 3 mm bitumen coated pile are practically same. Sand was
carefully removed without disturbing the pile after the test. A thin layer of bitumen
coat was removed using a hot knife to check the extent of particle penetration into the
bitumen coat. The particle penetration was observed near the surface of the coat and
most of the coat was free from sand particles. The pile movement necessary to
mobilize the maximum shear stress was 10% and 1% of pile diameter for uncoated
and bitumen coated piles respectively. The failure in the bitumen coated piles takes
place within the coat itself. The shear strength of coat is very low therefore the pile
movement necessary to mobilize the full strength at the interface is less compared to
that of the uncoated pile.
The present investigation has a limitation of the scale effect. The non-dimensional
shaft friction parameter () will be lower for the large diameter piles installed in the
field (Turner and Kulhawy, 1994). The relative displacement required to develop the
maximum shaft friction is however independent of the pile diameter (Vesic, 1964)
and free from any scale effects. The aim of this study was to find the effectiveness of
bituminous coat in reducing the dragload. As the percentage reduction is
significantly high it is believed that even in the case of field piles the percentage
reduction can also be significant.

0.35
0.3
0.25

Uncoated Pile

0.2

2mm Bitumen Coated Pile

0.15

3mm Bitumen Coated Pile

0.1

5mm Bitumen Coated Pile

0.05
0
0

10
15
Pile Movement as percent of pile diameter

20

25

Fig.5. Results of pull out tests

CONCLUSIONS
The paper presents laboratory tests to study the effect of the pile material, normal
stress, the type and thickness of coat, rate of shear and saturation on the interface
friction. The following conclusions were deduced from this study.
1.Based on the interface tests, the bitumen and Shalikote coated specimen showed
85% to 97% and 20% to 70% reduction in the shear stress respectively.
2.The interface friction with Shalikote is directly proportional to the rate of shear.
This behavior may be attributed to the visco-frictional nature of coat when sand
particles penetrate into the coat.
3.The interface friction of Shalikote and bitumen coated specimens in the saturated
test condition was 42% and 380% more compared to the dry test condition under the
equal normal stress. The substantial increase in the friction of coated surface is due to
the increased viscosity of the coat with the reduction in the ambient temperature.
4.The interface friction of coated pile and soil is independent of pile. The magnitude
of interface friction at a given normal stress primarily depends on the type and the
thickness of coat, and the rate of shear.
5.The displacement required for the mobilization of the peak shear resistance is much
smaller (about 1 to 1.6 mm) in the case of the interface tests on coated as well as
uncoated pile surfaces.
6.In case of pull out tests on the model piles, the displacement required for the
mobilization of the peak shear resistance of an uncoated pile is much higher
(about 6 mm) compared to that of coated model pile (< 1mm). The displacement in
case of coated pile was always small as it depends on the peak deformation required
to mobilize the strength of coating material.
7.In the case of uncoated pile surface the frictional resistance is found to increase
with the normal stress (or radial stress) whereas for the coated surface the frictional
resistance is practically independent of the normal stress.

References
Baligh, M.M., Vivatrat V., and Figi, H. (1978). Downdrag on bitumen-coated
piles. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 104 (11), 1355-1370.
Briaud, J.L. and Tucker, L.M. (1997). Design and construction guidelines for
downdrag on uncoated and bitumen coated piles. NCH Rep. 393, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, D.C., pp. 198.
Burland, J.B. (1973). Shaft friction of piles in clay- a simple fundamental
approach. Ground Engineering, vol. 7, 30-42.
Chow, S.H. and Wong, K.S. (2004). Model Pile Pull-Out Tests Using Polyethylene
Sheets to Reduce Downdrag on Cast In Situ Piles. ASTM Geotechnical Testing
Journal, 27 (3), 1-9.
Heerema, E.P. (1979). Relationship between wall friction, displacement velocity,
and horizontal stress in clay and sand, for pile drivability analysis. Ground
Engineering, 12 (9), 55-60.
Indraratna, B., Balasubramaniam, A.S., Phamvan, P., and Wong, Y.K. (1992).
Development of negative skin friction on driven piles in soft Bangkok clay.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 29, 393-404.
Keenan, G. H. and Bozuzuk, M. (1985). Downdrag on a Three-Pile Group of Pipe
Piles. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, 2, 14071412.
Kishida, H. (1963). Stress distribution by model piles in sand. Soils and
Foundations, 4 (1), 123.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1959). Compaction of sands and bearing capacity of cohesionless
soils. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE, 85 (6), 129.
Robinsky, E. I., and Morrison, C. F. (1964). Sand displacement and compaction
around model friction piles. Can. Geotech. J., 1(2), 8193.
Turner, J.P. and Kulhawy, F.H. (1994). Physical Modeling of Drilled Shaft Side
Resistance in Sand. ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal, 17 (3), 282-290.
Vesic, A. S. (1964). Model Testing of Deep Foundations and Scaling Laws.
Proceedings of the North American Conference on Deep Foundations, Mexico City,
2, 525-533.