Shear Strength Reduction at Soil Structure Interface

GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design
(GSP 199) 2010 ASCE
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIB. on 06/28/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Shear Strength Reduction at Soil Structure Interface

B. Tiwari1, Ph.D., M.ASCE, B. Ajmera1, G. Kaya2
1
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, California State University,
Fullerton, 800 N State College Blvd. E-419, Fullerton, CA 92834
2
MTK, 16795 Von Karman Avenue Suite 205, Irvine, CA 92606
ABSTRACT
Shear strength of soil-structure interface is very important while designing
structures pertinent to geotechnical engineering that include but not limited to design
of shallow foundation, pile, retaining wall, and sheet pile. Although the interface
shear strength is very important, designers use empirical values while designing such
structures. There are numerous literatures available regarding the numerically
simulated values of interface shear strength. However, very few researches have been
done lately on the interface resistance of different types of soil and structure.
Different soil specimens were tested in a multiple-reversal direct shear device to
measure the shearing resistance of soil-concrete, soil-wood, and soil-steel interface.
The types of soil included in the research were SP, SW, SM, SP-SM, MH, ML, and
CL, based on the USCS system. The result shows that skin resistance of soil-structure
interface depends on the surface material of the structure and the type of soil. The
behavior of dry soil differs from that of saturated soil.
BACKGROUND
Shear strength between soil and structural material is important while
designing various geotechnical structures that include but not limited to deep
foundations pile and drilled shaft, shallow foundations spread footing and mat,
retaining wall, sheet pile etc. However, very few researches are available that
establish soil-structure shearing resistance. Majority of the designs are based on
empirical values i.e. ratio of skin friction or adhesion to the internal friction or
cohesion of foundation soil. Potyondy (1961) conducted a research to measure the
ratio of skin friction and adhesion with soil friction and cohesion, respectively. He
conducted direct shear test on the interface of concrete, steel, and wood with sand,
sandy silt, cohesive soil, rock flour (called it as silt), and clay. He conducted tests for
certain pre-set moisture contents as well as for dry specimen. He concluded that
frictional resistance of a soil depends on the proportion of sand in it. He also proposed
ratio of designed frictional resistance of construction materials with soil that ranged
from 0.4 for saturated loose sand to 1.0 for saturated dense sand. Coyle and Sulaiman
(1967) investigated the frictional resistance between sand and steel pile, where as
Kulhaway and Peterson (1979) measured the frictional resistance of sand and
concrete. Several other researchers that include but not limited to Evgin and
Fakharian (1996), Hryciw and Irsyam (1993), Uesigi and Kishida (1988) and Hu and
Pu (2004) conducted direct shear tests on the interface between steel or concrete and
sand to measure the interface frictional resistance. Other than direct shear device,
GeoFlorida 2010
1747

(GSP 199) 2010 ASCE
Paikowsky et al. (1995) developed a dual interface apparatus whereas Yoshimi and
Kishida (1981) developed a ring shear device to measure interface frictional
resistance for a larger deformation. Although there are numerous literature that
evaluated the interface frictional resistance of soil and construction material,
Potyondy (1961) was the only literature that shows a significant amount of
experimental study on soil-structure interface. However, Potyondy (1961) was not
clear about several issues that mainly control the behavior of shearing between soilstructure interface. Those issues are:
Although majority of the tests were conducted on clay sand interface,
activity of the clay was unknown. Activity is the ratio between the
plasticity index and clay fraction.
Although tests were done on different types of soil, most of them fall
into a limited number of soil type based on the current Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS) classification.
Although tests were done on a controlled moisture situation, effect of
metric suction for partially saturated situation was unclear.
The tests were done with a very small sized shear box, which may
have a high machine effect.
Majority of the tests were done for two normal stresses only.
Because there was no drainage path provided at the interface, proper
drainage between the interface was not assured.
This research is conducted to have more systematic study on the interface shearing
resistance of various construction materials with different types of soils that are
classified with USCS system. Moreover, initial void ratio of the specimen was kept
constant so that we could compare the results systematically. The area of the shear
box was 3 times larger than the one used by Potyondy (1961) and several drainage
holes were made across the structural block to check the effect of drainage on
interface frictional resistance.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
For the evaluation of interface frictional resistance between soil and
structures, three types of building materials were prepared a) plain concrete, b)
plywood, and c) steel. Sizes of the all of those blocks were 100 mm in length, 100
mm in width and 6.25 mm in thickness. All of those blocks were made with sufficient
number of drainage holes to ensure proper drainage. Shown in 1 through 3 are the
pictures of those material blocks.
A fully automated direct shear device was used for the study. Size of both the
upper and lower shear boxes were 100 mm x 100 mm x 6.25 mm each. Vertical
displacement, horizontal displacement, and shear force are recorded automatically in
separate data acquisition channels through vertical Linear Variable Differential
Transformer (LVDT), horizontal LVDT and load cells, respectively. The loading arm
in the device is set in such a way that a 10:1 mechanical advantage can be achieved in
the normal stress. The lower box was totally blocked with the building materials
concrete, steel and wood. Different types of soils were prepared to measure the
shearing resistance of soil at the interface with building structures. To compare the
GeoFlorida 2010
1748

(GSP 199) 2010 ASCE
strength, shear strength of soil specimens were also measured by removing the
construction material block from the lower box. The soil specimens used for the study
were a) a poorly graded sand (SP) (Ottawa sand was used for this purpose), b) a
well graded sand (SW) obtained from concrete aggregate, c) a silty sand (SM) made
by mixing silt in the construction sand, d) a poorly graded sand with silt (SP-SM)
made by mixing silt in the construction materials, e) an elastic silt (MH), f) a silt
(ML), and g) a lean clay (CL). MH and CL materials were prepared by mixing
appropriate proportion of kaolin and bentonite with sand. Shown in Figure 4 are the
grain size distribution curves of SP, SW, and SM materials. Similar diagrams can be
made for other specimens too.
Figure 1. Photograph of wooden blocks used for the study.
Figure 2. Photograph of concrete blocks used for the study.
GeoFlorida 2010
1749

(GSP 199) 2010 ASCE
Figure 3. Photograph of steel blocks used for the study.
Figure 4. Grain size distribution of a poorly graded sand (SP), well graded sand
(SW) and silty sand (SM) material used in the study.
GeoFlorida 2010
1750

(GSP 199) 2010 ASCE
To address a fully saturated situation, direct shear tests were conducted for the fully
saturated specimens. In all tests, initial void ratios of the specimens were kept
constant to 0.7. All soil specimens were prepared to have the pre-calculated void
ratios and mixed thoroughly with sufficient amount of water to ensure a fully
saturated situation. SM, SC, SP-SM, and SW soil specimens were mixed with
distilled water equal to 120% of the liquid limit. Pre-saturated materials were poured
into the direct shear device (with empty lower block). Proper care was taken to
minimize particle segregation. The entire box was submerged under water for all
tests. Then, the shearing resistances of all specimens were measured at the shearing
rfate calculated through vertical settlement (or consolidation) data. The method
specified by ASTM for the drained direct shear test (ASTM D-3080-04) was strictly
followed. The computer software used for the test can capture the data and plot the
real time consolidation curve and stress strain curve. For each specimen, tests were
done at least for 4 different normal stresses and some of the tests were repeated for
conformity. The same procedure was repeated several times to measure the friction
resistance of soil at the interface of concrete, steel, and wood by blocking the lower
shear box with the respective materials. In most of the cases, shearing speed was
reduced due to the mechanism of nearly one side drainage. However, shearing rate
was still calculated based on the consolidation data.
TEST RESULTS
Shown in Figure 5 are typical stress strain curves obtained for different
normal stresses for a SP material interfaced with a wooden block. Tests were
terminated after constant shearing resistance was received. Similar diagram can also
be drawn for other materials. Applied effective normal stress range was from 50 to
200 kPa, although higher stresses could also be applied. A minimum of 4 tests were
done for each specimen and its corresponding interfaces with different materials.
Shown in Figure 6 through 9 are the shear envelops for soil, soil-concrete, soil-steel
and soil-wood interface for SP material, SW material, SM, and SP-SM materials,
respectively. Similar envelops can also be plotted for other materials. Shown in Table
1 are the friction angles and the skin friction angles of all types of materials used in
the study with concrete, wood, and steel blocks. The ratio between the skin frictional
resistance and the frictional resistance is also calculated in the corresponding column.
Likewise, % reduction in shearing resistance from the original soil-soil shearing
resistance is also calculated and presented in the corresponding columns.
The results obtained from the tests and plotted in Table 1 are based on the
average secant friction angle. Best fit line exhibited very small or no cohesion. That is
because the samples were reconstituted. Although similar tests were conducted and a
database was prepared for the interface between all types of materials covered in this
study and concrete, wood and steel blocks for dry condition as well as for different
void ratio for both dry and submerged conditions, the results could not be presented
here because several confirmative tests are ongoing. Tests are also going on to
measure the similar properties for soil with different activities ranging from 0.2
through 4.5.
Shown in Table 2 are the ranges of the ratio of skin frictional resistance with
frictional resistance of soil and concrete, wood, and steel. Likewise, range of the
GeoFlorida 2010
1751

(GSP 199) 2010 ASCE
reduction in shear strength from the soil-soil friction angle (in %) is also presented in
Table 2.
Figure 5. Typical stress-strain diagram obtained for the interface between SP

material and a wooden block.
Figure 6. Shear envelope obtained for the interface between SP material and
different blocks of construction materials.
GeoFlorida 2010
1752

(GSP 199) 2010 ASCE
Figure 7. Shear envelope obtained for the interface between SW material and
Figure 8. Shear envelope obtained for the interface between SM material and
GeoFlorida 2010
1753

(GSP 199) 2010 ASCE
Figure 9. Shear envelope obtained for the interface between SP- SM material
and different blocks of construction materials.
ANALYSIS OF TEST DATA
The test results presented in the figures and tables explained above clearly
show a consistent trend that skin frictional resistance between sand and concrete is
always higher than that in wood and steel. Steel surface exhibited lowest skin
resistance. That can be attributed to a very smooth surface of steel compared to wood
and concrete. The trend of reduction in skin friction was consistent in all soil
specimens. .
The data presented here shows a significantly high skin frictional resistance
than that shown by Potyondy (1961). The major difference is due to the possibility of
having unequal degree of saturation at the soil side and the soil-structure interaction
side in the tests that Potyondy (1961) conducted as there was no proper drainage and
the tests were conducted in a partially saturated condition. Because of the limitation
of drainage and affinity of concrete, steel, and wood blocks to water, water might
have been migrated towards the interface, especially in the specimens which are
partially saturated. Without fully saturating the specimen, this effect cannot be
eliminated. Therefore, maintaining same initial void ratio in all tests is more
appropriate than starting all tests with the same moisture content. Although the data
presented by Potyondy (1961) showed a significant variation in the ratio of skin
friction with soil friction for the same material tested with different soil (Table 1), the
result obtained in this study does not show that high variation. Moreover, the
recommendations presented by Potyondy (1961) show overly conservative values. In
several cases, he presented that the skin friction is higher than the soil-soil frictional
resistance, which is not possible in the type of shearing performed by Potyondy
(1961) or this research. However, this research clearly showed that skin frictional
resistance is always smaller than the soil-soil frictional resistance.
GeoFlorida 2010
1754

(GSP 199) 2010 ASCE
1755
Table 1. Secant frictional (or skin frictional) resistance of different types of soil
at the interface of concrete, wood and steel blocks
Soil
Type
SP
SW
SM
SP-SM
ML
MH
CL
Material
friction angle
( or ) degree
Soil
Concrete
Wood
Steel
Soil
Concrete
Wood
Steel
Soil
Concrete
Wood
Steel
Soil
Concrete
Wood
Steel
Soil
Concrete
Wood
Steel
Soil
Concrete
Wood
Steel
Soil
Concrete
Wood
Steel
31
29.1
27.1
24.4
33.3
32.6
32.3
28.5
33.1
30.1
28.6
27.6
29.3
27.2
26.9
25.4
27
25.2
23.7
22.4
30
27.7
26.2
24.3
8.2
7.7
7.3
6.6
This
Study
/
Potyondy
(1961)
% strength drop
0.94
0.87
0.79
0.89
0.85
0.65
6.13
12.58
21.29
0.98
0.97
0.86
2.10
3.00
14.41
0.91
0.86
0.83
1.00
1.06
0.58
9.06
13.60
16.62
0.93
0.92
0.87
7.17
8.19
13.31
0.93
0.88
0.83
1.00
0.87
0.68
6.67
12.22
17.04
0.92
0.87
0.81
7.67
12.67
19.00
0.94
0.89
0.80
0.82
0.61
0.56
6.10
10.98
19.51
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

More than a hundred direct shear tests were conducted in different types of
materials to measure the skin friction between those materials and construction
materials such as concrete blocks, wooden blocks and steel blocks. Tests were
GeoFlorida 2010

(GSP 199) 2010 ASCE
1756
conducted at a void ratio of 0.7 and at saturated conditions. The research results show
that there is up to 14% reduction in friction angle between the surface of steel and
different types of soils. We observed up to 17% reduction in friction angle when a
wooden block was sheared against different types of soil specimens. Likewise, we
noted up to 9% reduction in frictional resistance at the interface between a concrete
surface and various types of soils. In average, concrete block showed an average
reduction of 7% frictional resistance from soil-soil friction, where as steel and
wooden blocks exhibited the average reduction of 16% and 11%, respectively.
Table 2. Ranges of / and % reduction in from for different types of soils
Material
range of /
range of % strength
reduction
Concrete
Wood
Steel
0.91-0.98
0.83-0.92
0.86-0.97
2.1-9.1
7.6-17.1
3-13.6
REFERENCES
Coyle, H.M., and Sulaiman, I. (1967). "Skin friction for steel piles in sand." J.
Soil Mech. Found. Div., 97(12): 1657-1673.
Evgin, E., and Fakharian, K. (1996). "Effect of stress paths on the behavior of
sand-steel interfaces." Can. Geotech. J., 33(6): 485-493.
Hryciw, R.D., and Irsyam, M. (1993). "Behavior of sand particles around rigid
inclusion during shear." Soils and Foundations, 33(3): 1-13.
Hu, L., and Pu, J. (2004) . "Testing and modeling of soil-structure interface."
J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engrg, 130 (8): 851-860.
Kulhaway, F.H., and Peterson, M.S. (1979). "Behavior of sand and concrete
interfaces." Proc. 6th Pan American Conference on Soil mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Brazil, No. 2: 225-230.
Paikowsky, S.G., Player, C.M., and Connor, P.J. (1995). "A dual interface
apparatus for testing unrestricted friction of soil along solid surfaces."
Geotech. Testing J., 18(2): 168-193.
Potyondy, J.G. (1961). "Skin friction between various soils and construction
materials." Geotechnique, 11(4): 339-353.
Uesigi, M., Kishida, H, and Tsubakihara, Y. (1988). "Behavior of sand
particles in sand-steel friction." Soils and Foundation, 28(1): 107-118.
Yoshimi, Y., and Kishida, T. (1981). "A ring torsional apparatus for
evaluation
of friction between soil and metal surface."
Geotechnical Testing J., 4(4): 145-152.
GeoFlorida 2010

Shear Strength Reduction at Soil Structure Interface

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Shear Strength Reduction at Soil Structure Interface

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design

(GSP 199) 2010 ASCE