Interfacial friction between soils

and solid surfaces

Dr. R. G. Robinson
Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
IIT Madras
 Typical field situations

Shallow foundation

Tip resistance
Deep foundation
Typical field situations

Retaining walls
Typical field situations

Reinforced earth walls

Typical field situations

Geosynthetic reinforced earth slopes

Typical field situations

Geotextiles

www.geosyntheticssociety.org
 Definition of coefficient of friction and friction angle

P
P Normal Force
T Shear Force T
Soil
Coefficient of friction,
m=tand=T/P Solid material

where, d is the friction angle

P
Shear stress = T/A

T
Normal stress=P/A
Apparatus used for evaluating friction angle

Potyondy (1961) Rowe (1962) Silberman (1961)

Ingold (1984) Ingold (1984)

Apparatus used for evaluating friction angle

Jewell and Wroth (1987) Murthy et al. (1993)

Coyle and Sulaiman (1967)

Apparatus used for evaluating friction angle

Brumund and Leonards (1973) Ingold (1984)

Heerema (1979) Yoshimi and Kishida (1981)

Apparatus used for evaluating friction angle

Desai et al. (1985) Uesugi and Kishida (1986)

Paikowsky et al. (1995) Abderrahim and Tisot (1993)

Some Terminologies
 Three Phases in Soils
S : Solid Soil particle
W: Liquid Water
A: Air Air

Void ratio, e = Vv/Vs Water content, w = Mw/Ms

Relative Density (Dr)

Loosest Densest
emax = 0.92 emin = 0.35
(Lambe and Whitman, 1979)

emax e
Dr 100
emax emin
 Particle shapes-- Sand

Coarse- Rounded Subrounded

grained
soils

Subangular Angular

(Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)

 Maximum and minimum void ratio

ASTM D 4253; ASTM D 4254

Minimum void ratio

Maximum void ratio
 Direct shear test

f c n tan

f shear strength of soil

n Normal stress
c cohesion intercept
angle of internal friction
Typical direct shear test results

Dense sand
Loose sand

cv

Displacement n1 n2 n3

Displacement
n1
Angle of repose
n2

n3
Fcv ~ Angle of repose
Interface friction in sands
Factors influencing interfacial friction angle of Sand

Surface Roughness
Density of sand
Normal stress
Rate of deformation
Size of apparatus
Grain size and shape
Type of apparatus
Influence of sand density and surface Roughness

0.75

Steel Dr = 40%
d / cv

0.5 Steel Dr = 60%

Steel Dr = 90% Toyoura
Brass Dr=65% sand
Aluminium Dr=65%
0.25 Steel
Soma sand Wood
Concrete
0
1 10 100 1000
Surface roughness, Rmax, mm
 Influence of sand density
Results of triaxial and soil-steel friction tests (after Noorany, 1985)

d
Soil Type Soil Condition
Silica sand loose 35 21
dense 40 20
Calcareous loose 46 18
sand from dense 49 18
Guam loose, crushed 46 21
loose, ground 46 -
dense, crushed 48 22
Calcareous loose 44 20
sand from medium 45 20
Florida dense 47 23
medium, crushed 45 23
medium, ground 45 -
dense, crushed 49 23
 Influence of sand density

Acar et al. 1982 Levacher and Sieffert 1984

1.2
Steel
Wood
1 Concrete
Sand
tan( ord )

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100
Relative Density (% )
 Limiting values of d

I Maximum Values:

Potyondy (1961), Panchanathan and

Ramaswamy (1964), Uesugi and co-workers
reported the limiting maximum value of d is the
peak angle of internal friction p

Yoshimi and Kishida (1981) report that the

maximum limiting value is the critical state
friction angle cv
 Minimum Values of d Reported by Various Authors

Interface d Source

Sand-material
Sand-smooth surface
Sand-smooth material
Sand-normal glass
Sand-pyrex glass
Sand-stainless steel
Sand-steel
Sand-steel
Glass beads-steel
Material-Material
Diamond-diamond
Sapphire-sapphire
Metal-diamond
Steel-sapphire
m Lambe and Whitman (1969)
0.5 m Yoshimi and Kishida (1981)
7 - 10 Tatsuoka and Haibara (1985)
56 Tatsuoka and Haibara (1985)
7 Tatsuoka and Haibara (1985)
tan -1 (0.07/Ri) Uesugi and kishida (1986b)
0.5 m Tejchman and Wu (1995)
5 Paikowsky et al. (1995)
3 Bowden and tabor (1986)
11 Bowden and tabor (1986)
3 Bowden and tabor (1986)
7 Bowden and tabor (1986)

Notes: m Particle-to particle friction angle

Ri Modified roundness
 Influence of normal stress
Potyondy (1961); Acar (1982):
Both and decreases with normal stress
but the ratio (/) remains constant

Heerema (1979), Uesugi and Kishida (1986),

ORourke et al. (1990)
d is independent of normal stress

For soft materials:

d increases with normal stress due to
indentation of sand into the material
(Panchanathan and Ramaswamy, 1964;
Valsangkar and Holm (1997)
 Influence of Rate of deformation

Heerema (1979)
Rate of deformation from 0.7 to 600 mm/s
No influence
Lemos (1986)
Rate of deformation 0.0038 to 133 mm/min
No influence
 Influence of Size of apparatus

Brumund and Leonards (1973)

Rods with interface area of 225 cm2 and 400 cm2
No appreciable difference
Uesugi and kishida (1986)
Simple shear apparatus, 40 cm2 and 400 cm2
No influence
ORourke et al (1990)
Direct shear apparatus of size equal to 6cm x 6 cm, 10
cm x10 cm, 28 cm x28 cm and 30.5x30.5 cm
No significant influence
 Influence of grain size and shape

Friction angle (degrees)

Rowe (1962)

Rowe (1962), Uesugi and Kishida

(1986), Jardine and Lahane (1994):

d decreases with increase in grain size

Particle diameter (mm)

Angular particles give higher friction angle

(Uesugi and Kishida 1986; ORourke et al. 1990; Paikowski et al. 1995)
 Influence of type of apparatus

Kishida and Uesugi (1987)

Simple shear versus direct shear
No difference
Thandavamurthy (1990)
Direct shear versus model pile tests
Direct shear gives 20% higher
Abderrahim and Tisot (1993)
Direct shear- Ring torsion-Pressuremeter probe
Direct shear > Pressuremeter probe >Ring shear
 QUANTIFICATION OF
INTERFACE ROUGHNESS
d versus Roughness (Bosscher and Ortiz 1987)
 Normalized Roughness (Kishida and Uesugi 1987)

Rmax ( L D50 )
Rn
D50
Correlation with Normalized Roughness (Kishida &Uesugi 1987)
Definition of modified roundness (Uesugi and Kishida 1986)

Modified roundness of a particle

1 r2 r4 r1 r3
R
2 l1 l2
Correlation between m, Rn and R

(0.27)
(0.19)
(0.17)
 Summary of some published interface friction tests
Author(s) Type of testing apparatus Results of investigation

Potyondy (1961) Direct shear apparatus d increases with density and

with the sand on the top dlim=p
of test material
Broms (1963) Direct shear mode by A d value of 23o was obtained
sliding the material over irrespective of sand density
the sand
Yoshimi and Ring shear with the test Density has no influence and
Kishida (1981) material on top of sand dlim=cv

Acar et al. (1982) Similar to Potyondy d increases with density

Noorany (1985) Similar to Broms Influence of density is negligible

Uesugi et al. Simple shear with the d increases with density dlim=p
(1990) sand on top of the test
material
 Analysis of past studies

From the review the following three conclusions

can be drawn:
(1) d increases with surface roughness and
reaches a maximum limiting value
(2) For very rough surfaces, d tends to a limiting
maximum value which could be either the peak
angle of internal friction p or the critical state
friction angle cv.
(3) d can either increase or remain constant with
the increase in sand density.
 Summary of some published interface friction tests

Author(s) Type of testing apparatus Results of investigation

Potyondy Direct shear apparatus d increases with density

(1961) with the sand on the top and dlim=p
of test material
Broms (1963) Direct shear mode by A d value of 23o was
sliding the material over obtained irrespective of
the sand sand density
Yoshimi and Ring shear with the test Density has no influence
Kishida (1981) material on top of sand and dlim=cv

Acar et al. Similar to Potyondy d increases with density

(1982)

Noorany Similar to Broms Influence of density is

(1985) negligible

Uesugi et al. Simple shear with the d increases with density

(1990) sand on top of the test dlim=p
material
Schematic of Type A and Type B apparatus

Loading cap

SAND SAND
Material

Type A apparatus Type B apparatus

 Features of Type A and Type B apparatus

Sl.No. Features Type A Type B

I Apparatus configuration

1 Relative position of Soild material is on the top of The sand specimen is

solid material and sand sand. The sand specimen is on the top of solid
and sample prepared first and the solid material surface. The
preparation. surface is placed over the sand is prepared
prepared leveled surface. directly on the solid
surface.

Application of normal Normal stress is applied through Normal stress is

2 applied through the
stress to the interface. the material to the interface.
sand the interface.

Ring torsion apparatus, direct Direct shear apparatus

Apparatus type in
3 shear apparatus by sliding solid by sliding soil over solid
literature
material over sand. material, simple shear
apparatus, translational
test box etc.
 .. Features of Type A and Type B apparatus

Sl.No. Features Type A Type B

II Influence of type of apparatus on the results obtained

4 Influence of d increases with d increases with
roughness roughness roughness.
d increases with

5 Influence of Negligible. the increase of

density of sand. density.

Maximum limiting The maximum limiting The limiting

6
value of d value for very rough maximum value is

interface is critical state of the peak angle of

angle of internal friction of internal friction of
sand sand.
Experiments in Direct shear
apparatus
 Solid materials used

Material 1 Stainless steel

Material 2 Mild steel

Material 3 Mild steel

Material 4 Ferrocement

Material 5 Ferrocement
Surface profiles of the materials

Stainless steel

Mild steel

Mild steel

Concrete surface

Concrete surface
Grain size distribution curves of the sands used
 Properties of sands used

Sand Gs D50 Cu Dav (d)max (d)min

No. mm mm kN/m3 kN/m3
1 2.64 1.60 1.3 1.53 15.9 13.0
2 2.64 1.10 1.3 1.01 16.0 12.9
3 2.64 0.74 1.5 0.69 16.1 13.1
4 2.64 0.42 1.4 0.41 16.0 13.0
5 2.65 0.27 1.6 0.27 16.2 13.0
6 2.64 0.78 3.4 1.10 18.0 14.0
7 2.65 2.20 8.3 1.92 18.6 14.5

Note:
Gs Specific gravity of soil grains

(d)max Maximum dry density

(d)min Minimum dry density

Raining Technique--Calibration curves
Schematic of Type A apparatus
Type A apparatus
Schematic of Type B apparatus
Type B apparatus
 Typical shear stress-movement curves

Sand 6, n = 140 kPa

150 150
Sand/Material 5
Type A Type B
Sand/Material 4
Sand/Material 3
Sand/Material 2

Shear stress, kPa

Shear stress, kPa

100 Sand/Material 1 100

50 50

0 0
0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6
Shear movement, mm
Shear movement, mm
 80
Shear stress, kPa
Sand 4
60
Material 5
40

20
Type B (Plate below)
Type A (Plate above)
n = 70 kPa
0
0 1 2 3 4
Shear movement, mm
1.6

1.2
Volume change, %

0.8

0.4

0
0 1 2 3 4
-0.4

-0.8
Shear movement, mm
 Typical failure envelopes (Type B)

Peak Critical state

(dpB/) versus Relative density (Type B)

Thandavamurthy (1990)
Variation of (dpB/) with Dav (Type B)
 Proposed Roughness index

Relative Roughness (R)

Ra
R
Dav

Ra Average Roughness
Dav Average particle size
Variation of (dpB/) with R
Variation of dcvB with R
Comparison of dcvA with dcvB
Drained shear strength of fine-
grained soil-solid surface
interfaces
Clays are sheet like and
possess plasticity
characteristics
Grain size distribution curves of the soils used
 Properties of cohesive soils used

Soil
Property
Red Earth Kaolinite Illite

Atterberg Limits
Liquid limit (%) 33 55 131
Plastic Limit (%) 19 33 78
Plasticity index (%) 14 22 53
Grain Size
Sand (%) 44 0 0
Silt size (%) 47 80 36
Clay size (%) 9 20 64
Average particle size (mm) 88.4 12.0 8.5
Coefficient of consolidation, Cv (cm2/sec) 1.09 x 10 -3 1.37 x 10 -2 4.59 x 10 -4
Variation of shear stress with deformation rate of illite
Deformation rates calculated and adopted for tests under drained condition

Deformation rate (mm/min.)

Soil
Calculated Adopted

Red Earth 0.05 0.05

Kaolinite 0.63 0.25

Illite 0.02 0.05

 Shear stress OC NC

nc

pc
Normal stress

Failure envelope of a soil at constant preconsolidation pressure

FAILURE ENVELOPE WITH CONSTANT OCR
Red earth

OCR=1

n=100, 200 and 300 kPa

OCR=5

p=500 kPa n = 100 kPa

p=1000 kPa n = 200 kPa
p=1500 kPa n = 300 kPa
Illite
OCR=10

p= 500 kPa n = 50 kPa

p=1000 kPa n = 100 kPa
p=1500 kPa n = 150 kPa
 Typical shear stress-movement curves

0 2 4 6 8

Shear movement, mm Shear movement, mm

 Typical failure envelopes

Normal stress
Normal stress
 Variation of DB and (DB/F) with OCR

DB o
DB/F
Variation of (DB/F) with Ra
Variation of (DB/F) with R
Comparison of D values from Type A and Type B
 SUMMARY

Interfacial friction depends on mode of shear

for sands and the maximum value of friction
angle is controlled by the type of apparatus
used to evaluate the friction angle
For clays, mode of shear has no influence
 Research Issues

Modeling of interface behaviour : shear

stress-movement curves
Roughness
Hardness of solid material
Rigidity of materials
Mode of shear
Particle size and shape
Acknowledgements
1. Prof. K. S. SUBBA RAO
Department of Civil Engineering
IISc, Bangalore

2. Prof. M. M. Allam
Department of Civil Engineering
IISc, Bangalore

CSIR for funding

Thank you