Geotech Geol Eng (2014) 32:411427
DOI 10.1007/s10706-013-9723-6
ORIGINAL PAPER
Influence of Relative Density on Static SoilStructure
Frictional Resistance of Dry and Saturated Sand
Binod Tiwari Ahmed Raad Al-Adhadh
Received: 26 July 2013 / Accepted: 18 December 2013 / Published online: 22 December 2013
 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
Abstract Soilstructure frictional resistance is
required while designing foundation systems and
retaining walls. Although much more attention has
been paid in recent years regarding soilstructure
interaction for dynamic loading, highly conservative
values of the static frictional resistance between soil
and structure are used in design. Not much emphasis
has been given lately to evaluate static frictional
resistance between soil and structure. In this study, a
well graded sand, as per USCS classification system,
was prepared in the laboratory at different relative
densities and moisture contents i.e. dry and saturated,
and frictional resistances of those soils were measured.
Those soil samples were also sheared against wood,
concrete, and steel blocks and corresponding soil
structure frictional resistances were measured. More-
over, similar experiments were performed for satu-
rated and loose poorly graded sand (SP), silty sand
(SM) and poorly graded sand with silt (SPSM). The
study result shows that the difference between
frictional resistance of soil and skin friction depends
on the type of soil, relative density and the moisture
content. Interestingly, shear envelopes for soilsoil
and soilstructure shearing resistance exhibited cur-
vature. The traditionally adopted soilstructure
B. Tiwari (&)  A. R. Al-Adhadh
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department,
California State University, Fullerton, 800 N State
College Blvd, E-419, Fullerton, CA 92831, USA
e-mail: btiwari@Fullerton.edu
frictional resistance values adopted by various geo-
technical manuals were found to be highly
conservative.
Keywords Interface friction  Wood 
Concrete  Steel  Sand  Relative density 
Saturation
1 Introduction
Shear strength of the interface between soil and
structural material is important while designing var-
ious geotechnical structures including deep founda-
tions such as pile and drilled shaft, shallow
foundations such as spread footing and mat, retaining
wall, sheet pile etc. However, not many research
articles are available regarding the recommended 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. In current geotechnical engineering
practice, the soilstructure friction or the skin friction
values recommended by the NAVFAC EM 7.02 (US
Department of Navy 1986) has been widely used.
Early work of Potyondy (1961) has been cited by
many articles in the literature as well as design
manuals in order to estimate the design skin frictional
resistance. Potyondy (1961) conducted a research to
measure the ratio of skin friction and adhesion with
soil friction and cohesion, respectively. He conducted
123
412
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. Potyondy (1961) conducted
tests for certain pre-set moisture contents as well as for
dry specimens and concluded that frictional resistance
of a soil depends on the proportion of sand in it. He
also proposed ratios for design frictional resistance of
construction materials with soil that ranged from 0.4
for saturated loose sand to 1.0 for saturated dense sand.
It is interesting to note that the values of skin frictional
resistance recommended by NAVFAC EM 7.02 are
much lower than the values reported by Potyondy
(1961). Moreover, NAVFAC recommendations are
too general in terms of type of soil to be considered.
Coyle and Sulaiman (1967) investigated the frictional
resistance between sand and steel pile, whereas
Kulhaway and Peterson (1979) measured the frictional
resistance between sand and concrete. Several other
researchers such as Evgin and Fakharian (1996),
Hryciw and Irsyam (1993), Uesigi et al. (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
the direct shear device, 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
reported the interface frictional resistance of soil and
construction material, Potyondy (1961) was the only
literature that shows a significant amount of experi-
mental study on soilstructure interface. As explained
earlier, Potyondy (1961) did comprehensive study to
measure the frictional resistance (or skin friction)
between soilsteel, soilwood, and soilconcrete for
dry and saturated sand. He measured the secant
frictional resistances (i.e. ratio between shear and
effective normal stress) for two different effective
normal stresses and observed that the secant frictional
resistance between soil and structure decreases with an
increase in effective normal stress. However, the
results presented by Potyondy (1961) seem to have
encountered several issues that mainly control the
shearing behavior between the soilstructure inter-
face. These issues include possibility of having degree
of saturation of soil less than 100 %, possibility of
error due to small size shear box as he used square
shear box with 50 mm internal dimension, possibility
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2014) 32:411427
of linear interpolation errors as the tests were done for
two effective normal stresses only, and the possibility
of having partially drained situation as the structural
materials did not have drainage holes. Later, Al-
Mhaidib (2006) evaluated the displacement rate effect
on skin friction of steelsand interface. He observed
that skin friction increases with an increase in
displacement rate. Likewise, Tiwari et al (2010)
measured the skin frictions for the interface of steel,
wood, and concrete with SW, SM, SPSM, MH, ML,
and CL materials prepared at the void ratio of 0.7 and
observed that concrete shows higher skin friction
compared to wood, whereas the skin friction between
woodsoil interface was higher than that between the
steelsoil interface. Gireesha and Muthukkumaran
(2011) measured soilstructure skin friction between
soil and different structures for SW and SP materials
that were prepared at three different relative densities
in a 50 mm 9 50 mm size shear box and proposed the
relationship between relative density and skin friction.
However, they did not mention actual values of
relative densities except the relative density of 50 %.
Laskar (2011) did studies on the skin friction between
structures with different roughness coefficients and
sand at the relative density of 85 % and proposed
relationships between surface roughness and skin
friction of sand. Although studies have been done
frequently to evaluate the skin friction for major
construction materials (Bosscher and Ortiz 1987;
Boulon 1989; Hong and Hua 1995; Hsieh and Hsieh
2003; Lui et al. 2005; Liu et al. 2009; ORourke et al.
1990; Subba Rao et al. 1988; Uesugi and Kishida
1986; Wang and Richwien 2002), there is a lack in
systematic study to evaluate the effect of void ratio/
relative density, saturation, and effective stress on the
skin friction between soil and construction materials.
This study shows an innovative approach to eval-
uate the skin friction between various construction
materials and different types of sands for different
compaction conditions (relative density) and moisture
contents, in addition to different effective normal
stresses. It is to be noted that there are six different
classifications for sand as per the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS) i.e. SW, SP, SC, SM,
SPSC, and SPSM. To evaluate the effect in almost
all classes of sand, skin frictional resistances were
measured for SP, SM, and SPSM materials after a
comprehensive study was conducted on the SW
material. Evaluations pertinent to the effects of
Geotech Geol Eng (2014) 32:411427
Fig. 1 Grain size distribution curves of the SW, SP, SM, and
SMSM materials used in this study
saturation and relative density on skin frictional
resistance of SP, SM, and SPSM materials were not
performed due to time shortage. A significant
improvement was made in the experimental set-up
and preparation of soil and construction materials in
this study, compared to the methodologies previously
reported in the literature.
2 Materials and Soil Testing Method
2.1 Soil Material
To evaluate the effects of moisture and relative density
on skin frictional resistance of soil and structural
materials, an angular well-graded sand (SW) was used
for this study. SW material was preferred in this study
due to its preferred acceptability as foundation mate-
rial. The sand was obtained from a stack of fine
aggregate materials used for concrete. The grain size
distribution of the material used is presented in Fig. 1.
Specific gravity, effective size, mean size, uniformity
coefficient, coefficient of curvature, maximum void
ratio, and minimum void ratio of the SW material were
2.65, 0.16, 0.85, 7.5, 1.05, 0.85, and 0.48 mm,
respectively. This sand was compacted at different
relative densities to prepare samples at different
compaction states. To evaluate the skin frictional
resistance between soil and structural materials in SP,
SM, and SPSM materials, loose and saturated
samples were prepared for these sands. The SP
material was obtained from a stack of Ottawa Sand
(standard sand). Specific gravity, maximum void ratio,
413
and minimum void ratio of the sand were 2.66, 0.92,
and 0.51, respectively. Likewise, SM and SPSM
materials were prepared by mixing appropriate pro-
portion of kaolinite in SW material and SP materials,
respectively. The liquid limit and plasticity indices of
the kaolinite used in this study were 72 and 41 %,
respectively. Please note that moisture contents less
than the one corresponding to the degree of saturation
of 100 % (except dry samples) were not considered in
this study because shearing at partially saturated
conditions involve suction, which makes the analysis
relatively complex. Total number and types of tests
conducted for this study are presented in Table 1.
2.2 Structural Materials
For the evaluation of interface frictional resistance
between soil and structures, three types of building
materials were prepared(a) plain concrete, (b) steel,
and (c) wood. Steel used for this study was prepared in
the lab from a metal sheet. Five holes of 5 mm
diameter were made in the steel block, as presented in
Fig. 2a to facilitate drainage during consolidation and
shearing phases. Please note that these drainage holes
had had negligible effect on the shearing resistance of
the soilstructure interface. The concrete used in this
study was prepared in the lab using aggregates and
cements identical to that used in the concrete piles
(Fig. 2b). Five lubricated nails of appropriate size
were used during pouring of concrete to make smooth
holes of 5 mm diameter for drainage purpose, as
explained earlier. The wood used in this study was cut
from a wooden plank available in the Home Depot
(Fig. 2c). The drainage holes of 5 mm diameter were
made smoothly in the wooden block, in a similar
manner as in the steel. Shearing in wood was applied
parallel to the grain. The size of all structural materials
were 100 mm 9 100 mm 9 6.25 mm, which is
exactly same as the size of the opening of lower box
of the direct shear device used for this study. It is
desirable to prepare these materials at different
roughness. However, comparison of skin frictional
resistance for different roughness coefficients of the
structural materials is not the scope of this study.
2.3 Soil Testing Method
A fully automated direct shear device was used for this
study. Size of both the upper and lower shear boxes
123
414 Geotech Geol Eng (2014) 32:411427

Table 1 Total number and types of tests conducted for this study
Soil type Interface Relative Normal stresses (kPa) Dry Saturated
density (%)
50 100 200 300

SW Soil 95 X X X X X X
Concrete 95 X X X X X X
Steel 95 X X X X X X
Wood 95 X X X X X X
Soil 68 X X X X X X
Concrete 68 X X X X X X
Steel 68 X X X X X X
Wood 68 X X X X X X
Soil 40 X X X X X X
Concrete 40 X X X X X X
Steel 40 X X X X X X
Wood 40 X X X X X X
Soil 14 X X X X X X
Concrete 14 X X X X X X
Steel 14 X X X X X X
Wood 14 X X X X X X
SP Soil 10 X X X * X
Concrete 10 X X X * X
Steel 10 X X X * X
Wood 10 X X X * X
SM Soil 10 X X X * X
Concrete 10 X X X * X
Steel 10 X X X * X
Wood 10 X X X * X
SPSM Soil 10 X X X * X
Concrete 10 X X X * X
Steel 10 X X X * X
Wood 10 X X X * X
* 150 kPa was used instead of this stress

Fig. 2 Materials used for this study as structural materials: a Steel, b Concrete and c Wood blocks

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2014) 32:411427
was 100 mm 9 100 mm 9 6.25 mm each (Fig. 3a).
Please note that this shearing area is four times larger
than the area used by Potyondy (1961) and Gireesha
and Muthukkumaran (2011). Vertical displacement,
horizontal displacement, and shear force were
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. First, the lower box of
the direct shear device was completely blocked with
the building materials (Fig. 3b), i.e. concrete, steel and
wood. In order to prepare soil samples with 14 %
relative density, SW material of calculated dry weight
corresponding to 14 % relative density (that was
calculated based on specific gravity, target void ratio,
minimum void ratio, and maximum void ratio of the
soil) was obtained in a bowl. Then, the entire mass was
divided into three equal proportions. The 6.25 mm
total height of the upper shear box was divided equally
into three equal heights and marked inside the box by
ink. One-third portion of the soil was poured into the
shear box and compacted with a wooden tamper
uniformly until the compacted soil layer was leveled
with the first one-third height mark. Then, the second
and the third layers were also sequentially compacted
in a similar manner. In this way, the uniformity of soil
sample for required relative density was ascertained.
The soil samples corresponding to the relative densi-
ties of 40, 68, and 95 % were also prepared in a similar
manner by utilizing the corresponding dry weights of
the soil sample. These relative densities, correspond-
ing to the void ratios of 0.8, 0.7, 0.6, and 0.5, are the
characteristics of very loose to loose, medium dense,
medium dense to dense, and very dense sands,
respectively. The compaction process and the shear
boxes are presented in Fig. 3. To compare the skin
frictional resistance with the shear strength of soil,
shear strength of soil specimens were also measured
by removing the construction material block from the
lower box, filling the SW, SP, SM, and SPSM
materials (as appropriate) in both upper and lower
shear boxes, and compacting to the required relative
densities in three equal layers, as explained earlier. All
tests for the SW materials were conducted for two
extreme moisture conditions: (a) dry, and (b) fully
saturated. To maintain the fully saturated condition,
the sample was submerged in distilled water for more
415
than 6 h and was sheared under fully submerged
condition. Then, the soil samples were consolidated
until the primary consolidation was completed. The
shearing rate was, first, calculated based on required
time for the attainment of the primary consolidation,
as explained in the ASTM D 3080-04. However, the
samples were sheared at the shearing rate five times
slower than the calculated shearing rate to be in a
conservative side in order to accommodate the possi-
bility of slower drainage at the lower half of the box.
The method specified by ASTM for the drained direct
shear test (ASTM D-3080-04) was followed during
shear testing. The computer software used for the test
can capture the data and plot the real time consolida-
tion curves as well as the stress-displacement curves.
For each specimen, tests were done at least for four
different normal stresses (50, 100, 200, and 300 kPa)
for most of the samples. Two identical samples,
prepared as explained earlier, were tested for each
testing condition. For samples having inconsistent
results in those identical specimens, additional con-
firmative tests were performed. Average values of two
closest results obtained from two (or three) identical
samples and tests are reported in this paper. The same
procedure was repeated several times to measure the
frictional resistance of soil at the interface of concrete,
steel, and wood by blocking the lower shear box with
the respective materials. The experimental set up is
presented in Fig. 3d.
After completion of direct shear tests on SW
materials with the test set-up explained earlier, SP,
SM, and SPSM materials were tested. These mate-
rials were exactly same materials tested by Tiwari
et al. (2010). However, samples were prepared at an
initial relative density of 10 % (i.e. loose state) and
fully saturated condition. The soil testing procedure
was exactly same as the procedure explained above for
the SW materials.
3 Test Results and Analysis
3.1 Soil Test on SW Material
3.1.1 Stress-Displacement Results
Shown in Fig. 4ad are the shear stress-horizontal
displacement as well as vertical deformationhori-
zontal deformation curves for the dry and saturated
123
416
Fig. 3 Soil testing method used in this study; a Lower and upper box of the direct shear device used for this study; b Photograph of
lower shear box, filled with the structural material; c Compaction process; d Experimental set-up of the direct shear device
soil samples, respectively, initially compacted at the
relative density of 14 %. As expected, the shear stress-
horizontal displacement and volume change behavior
exhibited the behavior of loose sand or contractive
material. Failure condition was assumed after the
sample exhibited distinct peak or more or less constant
shear stress for more than 0.25 mm of displacement.
However, due to the capacity of the shear testing
device, tests had to be stopped at the horizontal
displacement of 7.1 mm. All samples except one
sample showed failure stress prior to 7.1 mm of
displacement. For that specimen, shear stress at
7.1 mm of horizontal displacement was assumed to
be the peak shear stress. Peak shear stresses were
observed at the shear displacement of 47 mm for
loose sand and 25 mm for dense sand. Dry and
saturated soil exhibited similar pattern in shear stress-
horizontal displacement relationship. However, dry
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2014) 32:411427
soil generally exhibited higher shear strength com-
pared to the saturated soil, except for low relative
density and low effective stress. Shown in Fig. 5 are
the shear stress-horizontal displacement curves for the
loose sand (with relative density of 14 %) sheared at
the effective normal stress of 300 kPa for dry and
saturated conditions. As expected, dry sample exhib-
ited higher shear stress compared to the saturated
sample. Figure 6 depicts the shear envelopes for dry
and saturated SW materials tested at the relative
density of 40 %. As expected, the dry sand had higher
shear strength compared to the saturated sand for all
effective normal stresses. However, the difference was
higher for higher values of normal stress. Please note
that, the shear envelopes did not exhibit straight line
type regression. Almost all sand samples exhibited
curvature in the failure envelopes. The details about
those curvatures will be discussed later.
Geotech Geol Eng (2014) 32:411427 417

Fig. 4 Shear stress-horizontal displacement curve for SW material initially compacted at the relative density of 14 %; a Dry sample;
and b Saturated sample

Fig. 5 Comparison for the shear stress-horizontal displacement

curves for dry and saturated SW materials compacted at the
relative density of 14 % and sheared at the effective normal Fig. 6 Effective shear envelopes for dry and saturated SW
stress of 300 kPa materials compacted at the relative density of 40 %

123
418
Fig. 7 Shear stress-horizontal displacement curves for the SW materials compacted at different relative densities and sheared at the
effective normal stress of 300 kPa; a Dry soil; and b Saturated soil
3.1.2 Effect of Relative Density on Shear Strength
of Sand
Presented in Fig. 7a, b are the shear stresshorizontal
displacement curves for the sand tested at different
initial relative densities (ranging from 14 through
95 %) at the effective normal stress of 300 kPa.
Similar trend was observed while the soils were tested
at other normal stresses as well. As could be observed
in Fig. 7, dense sand exhibited dilation and peak shear
stress was obtained earlier than the loose sand. For
loose sand, peak shear stresses were observed at the
shear displacement of 47 mm, whereas the dense
sand exhibited the peak shear stress at the shear
displacement of 25 mm. These behaviors were
similar irrespective of whether the sand was dry or
saturated. Although it would be beneficial to know the
value of the critical state void ratio of the soil, it was
not measured.
3.1.3 Effect of the Type of Interface Material on Shear
Strength of Soil
The main objective of this research was to evaluate the
soilstructure interface shearing resistance for SW
material at different relative densities and dry as well
as saturated conditions, as well as loose and saturated
SP, SM, and SPSM materials. Shear envelopes for
the interface between soil and concrete, wood, and
steel for the loose SW material i.e. relative density of
14 % are presented in Fig. 8. Figure 8a shows the
shear envelopes for dry soilstructure interfaces and
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2014) 32:411427
Fig. 8b shows the shear envelopes for saturated soil
structure interfaces. As can be observed in Fig. 8a, a
significant reduction was observed in the interface
shearing resistance compared to the shearing resis-
tance of soil. The highest reduction was observed for
soilsteel compared to soilconcrete and soilwood
interfaces. Soilconcrete interface exhibited lowest
reduction. This finding concurs with the findings
reported in the literature (Potyondy 1961; Gireesha
and Muthukkumaran 2011). This observation is true
both for dry and saturated sand. The detailed discus-
sion on the reduction in shear strength will be
discussed later.
3.1.4 Relationship Between Linear Regression
Friction Angle and Void Ratio
First, change in linear regression friction angle with
the change in relative density was observed. The
change in linear regression friction angle with the
relative density for dry and saturated soil samples are
presented in Fig. 9a, b, respectively. As can be
observed in Fig. 9, the values of linear regression
friction angle increased with an increase in relative
density in all cases. However, the effect was signif-
icant on the soilsoil friction and soilconcrete
friction. The effect was negligible for soilwood and
soilsteel interface, although soilwood interface
showed slightly higher friction angle compared to
soilsteel interface. The relationship explained above
is true for both dry and saturated sand.
Geotech Geol Eng (2014) 32:411427 419

Fig. 8 Shear envelopes for the soilsoil and soilstructure interfaces for the SW materials compacted at the relative density of 14 %;
a Dry soil; and b Saturated soil

Fig. 9 Variation in the linear regression friction angles with the relative densities for the SW materials; a Dry soil; and b Saturated soil

3.1.5 Effect of Effective Normal Stress on the Shear

Stress of Soil

The curvature of the shear envelope can be clearly

observed in Fig. 6. First, secant frictional coefficients
(shear stress/effective normal stress) were measured at
all effective normal stresses to evaluate the changes of
friction angles with normal stresses. Shown in Fig. 10
are the changes in effective friction ratios with
effective normal stress for both dry and saturated
sands prepared at the relative density of 40 %. Similar
charts were prepared for other samples as well.
However, they could not be presented here due to
space limitation. As can be observed from Fig. 10, Fig. 10 Variation in secant frictional coefficients for the SW
there were consistent drops in secant friction materials compacted at the relative density of 40 %

123
420 Geotech Geol Eng (2014) 32:411427

coefficients with normal stress. This shows that a
curvilinear failure envelope could be fitted to evaluate
the shear strength. A second order parabola (Eq. 1)
with zero cohesion was fitted into all 32 shear
envelopes, prepared for the SW material.
s cohesionless soil and normally consolidated soil,
a  r0 b 1 friction angles are generally expressed in terms of
r0
where, s represents shear stress in kPa, r0
represents effective normal stress in kPa, a repre-
sents coefficient that quantifies curvature (negative
values shows concave downwards), and b repre-
sents average slope (when there is no curvature) or
slope at the effective vertical stress close to zero (when
curvature is present). The values of a, b and
regression coefficient (R2) for all 32 cases of shear test
are presented in Table 2. The values of a, b, drop in
shear stresses for different materials and relative
densities as well as different moisture conditions will
be discussed below. The value of regression coeffi-
cient (R2) for dry and saturated soils ranged from
0.935 to 1 with an average of 0.994, and 0.994 to 1
with an average of 0.998, respectively. This shows that
the regression type has been appropriately chosen.
3.1.6 Relationship Between Secant Friction Angle
and Relative Density
In order to incorporate the effect of curvature in the
shearing resistance or friction angle of soil for
secant friction angle, i.e. tan-1(peak shear stress/
effective normal stress), for specified normal stresses.
In this study, curves described by Eq. (1) were fitted
into all 32 shear envelopes and the corresponding
values of a and b were calculated and presented in
Table 2. Corresponding values of shear stress at a
particular normal stress can be calculated using Eq. (1)
for the data presented in Table 2. The ranges of values
of secant friction angles for the effective normal stress
of 100 kPa, secant friction angles corresponding to
b values, and the ratio of soilstructure interface
friction and soilsoil friction angles for both dry and
saturated SW materials are presented in Table 3.
Table 3 also incorporates the range of the ratios of
secant friction angles for dry and saturated samples.
Using the a and b parameters presented in
Table 2, secant friction angles were calculated for

Table 2 Values of curvature parameters a and b and corresponding regression coefficients R2 for tested soil samples
Interface Relative Dry Saturated
density (%) 2
a b R a b R2

Soil 95 -0.0011 1.4042 0.999 -0.0018 1.5697 1.000

Concrete 95 -0.0010 0.8651 0.999 -0.0007 0.7956 0.997
Steel 95 -0.0012 0.7465 0.970 -0.0006 0.7255 1.000
Wood 95 -0.0004 0.6553 0.997 -0.0011 0.7981 0.995
Soil 68 -0.0001 1.2750 0.999 -0.0011 1.3859 1.000
Concrete 68 -0.0007 0.7570 0.994 -0.0008 0.7681 1.000
Steel 68 -0.0001 0.7056 1.000 -0.0003 0.7120 0.994
Wood 68 -0.0007 0.6828 0.980 -0.0002 0.6834 0.997
Soil 40 -0.0004 1.0969 1.000 -0.0017 1.3007 1.000
Concrete 40 -0.0006 0.6159 0.935 -0.0000 0.6504 0.989
Steel 40 -0.0001 0.5662 1.000 -0.0010 0.7490 1.000
Wood 40 -0.00000 0.5897 0.996 -0.0000 0.6452 0.999
Soil 14 -0.0004 0.9603 1.000 -0.0009 0.9716 0.990
Concrete 14 -0.0000 0.6977 0.999 -0.0000 0.5692 0.997
Steel 14 -0.0004 0.6305 0.997 -0.0000 0.5688 1.000
Wood 14 -0.0003 0.6881 0.999 -0.0003 0.6598 1.000

123
 Table 3 Secant friction angles corresponding to the effective normal stress of 100 kPa and when a = 0 for dry and saturated samples, ratios of secant friction angles for soil
and structural materials for effective normal stress of 100 kPa, reduction in secant friction angle at soilstructure interface, and ratio of secant friction angles for dry and saturated
specimens
Interface Relative Secant friction angle (deg.) for Secant friction angle (deg.) for Ratios of structure Reduction in structure Ratio of friction angle for dry
Geotech Geol Eng (2014) 32:411427

density (%) dry sample at sat. sample at soil friction angles soil friction angle (%) and saturated soil at
r0 = 100 kPa a = 0 r0 = 100 kPa a = 0 Dry Saturated Dry Saturated r0 = 100 kPa a = 0

Soil 95 52.31 54.54 54.26 57.50 0.964 0.895

Concrete 95 37.42 40.86 35.96 38.51 0.715 0.663 28.462 33.720 1.040 1.087
Steel 95 32.07 36.74 33.64 35.96 0.613 0.620 38.695 37.998 0.953 1.029
Wood 95 31.60 33.24 34.53 38.59 0.604 0.636 39.580 36.361 0.915 0.821
Soil 68 51.70 51.89 51.91 54.19 0.996 0.920
Concrete 68 34.49 37.13 34.53 37.53 0.667 0.665 33.284 33.480 0.999 0.986
Steel 68 34.82 35.21 34.29 35.45 0.674 0.661 32.639 33.938 1.015 0.991
Wood 68 31.50 34.33 33.56 34.35 0.609 0.646 39.066 35.352 0.939 0.999
Soil 40 46.58 47.65 48.51 52.45 0.960 0.843
Concrete 40 29.07 31.63 32.88 33.04 0.624 0.678 37.598 32.223 0.884 0.947
Steel 40 29.08 29.52 32.98 36.83 0.624 0.680 37.570 32.007 0.882 0.756
Wood 40 30.44 30.53 32.81 32.83 0.653 0.676 34.651 32.373 0.928 0.914
Soil 14 42.62 43.84 41.40 44.17 1.030 0.988
Concrete 14 34.86 34.90 29.63 29.65 0.818 0.716 18.202 28.436 1.177 1.226
Steel 14 30.56 32.23 30.02 29.63 0.717 0.725 28.298 27.489 1.018 1.108
Wood 14 33.35 34.53 32.20 33.42 0.782 0.778 21.759 22.215 1.036 1.043
421

123
422
Fig. 11 Variation in the secant friction angle at the effective normal stress of 100 kPa with the relative density for the SW materials
compacted at different relative densities and interfaced with different structural materials; a Dry soil; and b Saturated soil
the effective normal stress of 100 kPa, while present-
ing the values in Table 3. Secant friction angles were
calculated for all other effective normal stresses using
the parameters a and b. However, they are not
presented here due to space limitation. Secant friction
angles were also calculated when a = 0 and are
presented in Table 3. Generally, secant friction angles
are calculated for the effective normal stress of
100 kPa because normalization of shear stress with
atmospheric pressure is quite common in geotechnical
engineering practice. Atmospheric pressure is close to
100 kPa. Figure 11a, b shows the values of secant
friction angle for the effective normal stress of 100 kPa
for soilsoil and soilstructure interfaces for dry and
saturated sand, respectively, tested at different relative
densities. As observed in Fig. 11, there was a signif-
icant increase in secant friction angle with an increase
in relative density for both dry and saturated sands.
However, the effect was small in the soilstructure
interface. Dry samples did not exhibit a significant
effect of relative density in the soilstructure interface
friction for relative densities higher than 40 %.
Using the data presented in Table 2, % reduction in
secant friction angle at different effective normal stresses
were calculated and compared with the corresponding
values of relative densities. The reduction in secant
friction angle is calculated by using Eq. (2).
/soilsoil  /soilstructure
% reduction  100
/soilsoil
where, % reduction is % reduction in secant friction
angle at the effective normal stress of 100 kPa,
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2014) 32:411427
/soilsoil is the secant friction angle at the effective
normal stress of 100 kPa for soilsoil shearing,
/soilstructure is the secant friction angle at the effective
normal stress of 100 kPa for soilstructure interface.
Variation in the reduction in secant friction angle
(at the effective normal stress of 100 kPa) for soilsoil
and soilstructure interface for dry and saturated sand
(compared to soilsoil secant friction angle) with the
relative density of soil are presented in Fig. 12a, b,
respectively. Although the % drop in secant friction
angle increased with an increase in relative density for
all types of interfaces evaluated in this study with dry
sands, there was no general trend of increase in secant
friction angle with the increase in relative density. The
rate of reduction in secant friction angle with an
increase in relative density was not significant for
relative densities higher than 40 %. Steel generally
showed higher % of reduction compared to wood and
concrete for lower values of relative densities, whereas
the % reduction in the shearing resistance was similar
in wood and steel interfaces at higher relative densi-
ties. However, there were consistent relationships
between relative density and % reduction in secant
friction angle in case of saturated sand. These
relationships for soilconcrete, soilsteel and soil
wood interfaces are presented in Eqs. (3), (4) and (5),
respectively. Unlike the dry samples, the saturated
samples exhibited lower % of reduction in soilwood
2 interface although the % reduction increased at higher
relative densities. Eqs. (3), (4), and (5) can be utilized
to estimate the % drop in secant friction angle from the
sandsand friction in case of sandconcrete, sand
Geotech Geol Eng (2014) 32:411427
Fig. 12 Variation of the reduction in the secant friction angle at the effective normal stress of 100 kPa with the relative density for the
SW materials compacted at different relative densities and interfaced with different structural materials; a Dry soil; and b Saturated soil
steel, and sandwood interfaces, respectively for
different relative densities of the SW materials. Please
note that these correlations were developed with very
limited number of samples. Nevertheless, they are
very useful as no correlation is available so far.
% drop 2:8454 lnDr 21:238
% drop 4:9717 lnDr 14:122
% drop 7:5074 lnDr 3:3169
where, Dr is relative density in %.
The results presented in Table 2 show that the
values of a (i.e. curvatures) in all 16 shear envelopes
for dry sand and the structural interfaces with dry sand
ranged from -0.0001 to -0.0012. Specifically, the
ranges of the values of a for soilsoil, soilconcrete,
soilsteel, and soilwood, interfaces were -0.0001 to
-0.0011 (with an average of -0.0004), -0.0006 to
-0.001 (with an average of -0.0009), -0.0001 to
-0.0012 (with an average of -0.0004), and -0.0003
to -0.0007 (with an average of -0.0004), respec-
tively. Likewise, the results presented in Table 3 show
that the values a in all 16 shear envelopes for
saturated sand and the structural interfaces with dry
sand ranged from -0.0001 to -0.0018. Specifically,
the ranges of the values of a for soilsoil, soil
concrete, soilsteel, and soilwood, interfaces were
-0.0009 to -0.0018 (with an average of -0.001),
-0.0004 to -0.0007 (with an average of -0.0006),
-0.0001 to -0.0011 (with an average of -0.0004),
and -0.0002 to -0.0011 (with an average of
423
-0.0005), respectively. These values are consistent
both in saturated and dry sands and the corresponding
interfaces. This proves that the shear envelopes are
curved in all 32 cases of this study. Moreover, the data
presented in Table 3 shows that the secant friction
angle (for effective normal stress of 100 kPa) in dry
3
sand, sandconcrete interface, sandsteel interface,
4 and sandwood interface ranged from 42.652.3,
5 29.137.4, 29.132.1, to 30.433.3, respec-
tively. Likewise, the data presented in Table 3 shows
that the secant friction angle (for effective normal
stress of 100 kPa) in saturated sand, sandconcrete
interface, sandsteel interface, and sandwood inter-
face ranged from 41.454.3, 29.636.0, 30.0
33.62, to 32.234.5, respectively. This shows that
although the effect of relative density on soilsoil
friction is very high, it is not significantly high in soil
structure interface. While evaluating the drop in secant
friction angle for dry and saturated sand, Table 3 was
utilized. As presented in Table 3, the ratio of secant
friction angles for soilstructure interface and corre-
sponding dry sand ranged from 0.620.82, 0.610.72
to 0.600.78, respectively in soilconcrete, soilsteel,
and soilwood interfaces, respectively. Likewise, the
ratio of secant friction angles for soilstructure
interface and corresponding saturated sand ranged
from 0.660.72, 0.620.73 to 0.640.78, in soil
concrete, soilsteel, and soilwood interfaces, respec-
tively. As observed in the relationship presented in
Table 3, secant friction angle drops significantly for
soilstructure interface, especially for high relative
123
424 Geotech Geol Eng (2014) 32:411427

density. However, the rate of reduction in shearing

resistance for relative densities higher than 40 % was
much less than the values with the relative densities
lower than 40 %. It is to be noted here that bearing
capacity of soil is high and settlement is low for the
soil with higher relative density. This can be attributed
to the fact that the relative density of 40 % separates
sand from loose to dense state (generally 35 % relative
density is considered to be the limit of loose sand).
This shows that the drop in secant friction angle in
soilstructure interface is constant irrespective of the
relative density for the dense sand although it varies
with the relative density in the loose sand. Please note Fig. 13 Soilsoil and soilstructure shear envelopes for satu-
rated SP material, compacted at the relative density of 10 %
that the reduction in soilstructure friction angle is
also high for the soil with high relative density.
Therefore, caution should be applied while using soil
structure friction angle for foundation design. Another
parameter that can be observed in Table 3 is the ratios
between secant friction angles for dry soil and
saturated soil. The ratios were higher for soil with
low relative density. For example the ratio of secant
friction angle for dry and saturated soil, soilconcrete,
soilsteel, and soilwood interfaces ranged from
0.961.03 (denseloose), 0.881.18, 0.881.02 to
0.931.04, respectively. This shows that dense dry
sand has lower friction angle than the saturated sand,
whereas loose dry sand has higher secant friction angle
Fig. 14 Soilsoil and soilstructure shear envelopes for satu-
than the saturated sand. This is true for all interfaces rated SM material, compacted at the relative density of 10 %
with structures. Although we didnt consider this
factor in this study, we observed that the loose sand,
which was first prepared at the dry density corre-
sponding to the relative density of 14 % without water
exhibited settlement of particles (i.e. possible increase
in relative density) right after immersing it into water
and the application of sustained load. This might have
caused an increase in friction angle of saturated sand at
lower relative densities.

3.1.7 Interface Friction Angles of SP, SM, and SPSM

Materials
Presented in Figs. 13, 14, and 15 are the shear
envelopes for soilsoil as well as soilstructure
interfaces for saturated SP, SM, and SPSM materials
tested at the relative density of 10 %. These loose sand
samples were prepared in a similar manner, explained
earlier for the SW material. Although the values are
different, the trend in the reduction in shearing
resistance for soilstructure interface is similar to
Fig. 15 Soilsoil and soilstructure shear envelopes for satu-
rated SPSM material, compacted at the relative density of
10 %
SW material. In these soils also, the shear envelopes
exhibited curvatures. The values of a, b, secant
friction angle at the effective normal stress of 100 kPa,
and reduction in secant friction angle at the soil
structure interface (compared to the soilsoil inter-
face) for SP, SM and SPSM materials are presented

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2014) 32:411427 425

Table 4 Parabolic curve properties a and b, regression coefficient (R2), secant friction angles at effective normal stress of
100 kPa and at b parameter, ratios of structuresoil friction, and reduction in structuresoil friction for SP, SM, and SPSM
materials
Interface Type of a b R2 Secant friction angle (deg.) at Ratios of Reduction in
Material structuresoil structuresoil
r0 = 100 kPa b friction friction (%)

Soil SP -0.0001 0.6093 1.000 30.9 31.4

Concrete SP -0.0003 0.6163 1.000 29.1 31.6 0.94 6.0
Wood SP -0.0001 0.5136 0.994 26.7 27.2 0.86 13.6
Steel SP -0.0002 0.4899 0.992 24.2 26.1 0.78 21.7
Soil SM -0.0001 0.6587 0.995 32.9 33.4
Concrete SM -0.0001 0.5887 0.998 30.0 30.5 0.91 8.9
Wood SM -0.0002 0.5824 0.998 28.5 30.2 0.87 13.4
Steel SM -0.0000 0.5194 0.997 27.4 27.4 0.83 16.7
Soil SPSM -0.0001 0.5798 0.995 29.2 30.1
Concrete SPSM -0.0001 0.5602 0.997 28.4 29.3 0.97 2.9
Wood SPSM -0.0006 0.6049 0.998 25.9 31.2 0.88 11.5
Steel SPSM -0.0004 0.5373 0.996 24.6 28.2 0.84 16.0

in Table 4. As can be observed in Table 4, the trend in
the reduction in secant friction angle for soilstructure
interface exhibited similar trend as in the loose and
saturated SW material. The SPSM material exhibited
the lowest reduction i.e. 2.5, 11.5, and 16 % reduction
for soilconcrete, soilwood, and soilsteel interfaces,
respectively. Likewise, in general, SP materials
exhibited highest reduction in interface friction
(except soilconcrete interface), which is 6, 13.6,
and 21.7 % in soilconcrete, soilwood and soilsteel
interfaces, respectively. The reduction in the interface
frictional resistance in SP material was almost a
quarter in soilconcrete, one half in soilsteel, and
slightly less in soilwood interfaces in the SP material
compared to that in the SW material presented above.
This shows that SW material is more susceptible to
reduction soilstructure frictional resistance. Further
research is recommended to evaluate this effect.
4 Discussion
As explained earlier, almost all shear envelopes
exhibited curvature, irrespective of the type of soil,
moisture condition, or the type of soilstructure
interface. Therefore, it is recommended to character-
ize the soilstructure frictional resistance with the
parameters of parabolaa and b, where the
value of parameters a and b show the extent of
curvature and the extent of friction angle, respectively.
Potyondy (1961) realized this fact; however he did not
study the effect of effective normal stress in detail. As
the shape of the shear envelopes are curved, it is
essential to express the ratio of soilstructure friction
angle and soilsoil friction angle for different effective
normal stresses. Expressing those ratios for the
atmospheric pressure or 100 kPa would be beneficial
for general comparison. Friction ratio (d//, where, d is
soilstructure friction angle and / is soilsoil friction
angle), as explained in different literature and NAV-
FAC manual is misleading as it shows the average
friction angle for different effective normal stresses.
The ranges of d// values at the effective normal stress
of 100 kPa for reported relative densities are presented
in Table 5. Table 5 also includes the d// values
proposed by Potyondy (1961), NAVFAC and Giree-
sha and Muthukkumaran (2011) for similar (close
value) relative densities and geo-materials. As can be
observed in Table 5, the experimental values from this
study are much higher than the values presented in
NAVFAC and Potyondy (1961). Please note that the
values presented in the NAVFAC are presented in a
general manner and are conservatively low. This study
clearly shows that while estimating soilstructure
frictional resistances caution should be applied to get
the tabulated values for the appropriate ranges of
normal stresses. For example, lower normal stress
range is applied for the design of shallow foundation

123
426 Geotech Geol Eng (2014) 32:411427

Table 5 Comparison of the ratios of soilstructure and soilsoil friction angles obtained from this study and the data available in
literature
Type of soil Dr (%) Pertinent literature* Interface d//
Concrete Steel Wood

SWdry 68 This study 0.74 0.6 0.65

Potyondy (1961) 0.86 0.5 0.86
SWsaturated 68 This Study 0.72 0.64 0.7
Potyondy (1961) 0.86 0.57 0.84
Gireesha and Muthukkumaran (2011) 0.79 0.77 0.75
NAVFAC (1986) 0.450.55 0.3 N/A
SWsaturated 95 This study 0.69 0.62 0.6
Gireesha and Muthukkumaran (2011) 0.79 0.78 0.76
SWsaturated 14 This Study 0.88 0.79 0.81
Gireesha and Muthukkumaran (2011) 0.76 0.75 0.72
SP 10 This Study 0.94 0.86 0.78
Gireesha and Muthukkumaran (2011) 0.78 0.77 0.76
NAVFAC (1986) 0.350.45 0.25 N/A
* The relative densities presented in the literature were not exactly same as the one used in this study, but were close enough to have
comparison

and retaining wall, where as higher normal stress range
is to be considered for the design of deep foundation
and sheet piles.
5 Conclusions
Direct shear tests were conducted on the interfaces
between dry and saturated SW materials and wood, steel
and concrete structures, at the relative densities of 14,
40, 68 and 95 %. Moreover, direct shear tests were
conducted at the interfaces of loose (relative density of
10 %) and saturated SP, SM, and SPSM materials with
concrete, steel and wood. Based on the results obtained
from this study and their pertinent analyses, the authors
came up with the following conclusions.
Shear envelopes for sandsand and sandstructure
interface were curved, showing dependency
between secant friction angle and effective normal
stress. Therefore, such relationships should be
derived/ estimated for an appropriate effective
normal stress corresponding to the field condition.
Friction angle of SW material increased by 23 %
when the state of compaction changed from loosest
to the densest condition. The soilconcrete inter-
face friction also increased by 7 % when the
compaction state changed from the loosest to the
densest condition. However, the effects of such
change in density were inconsistent for the skin
friction angle between soil and wood or steel.
Variations in the ratios of soilstructure and soil
soil friction with relative density were inconsistent
for dry SW material. The ratios ranged from
0.6240.818, 0.6130.711 to 0.6040.782 in soil
concrete, soilsteel and soilwood interfaces.
The ratios of soilstructure and soilsoil friction in
saturated SW material decreased with an increase
in relative density. Those ratios for soilconcrete,
soilsteel, and soilwood interfaces ranged
from 0.6630.716, 0.6200.725 to 0.6360.778,
respectively.
The ratios of soilstructure and soilsoil friction in
saturated SP, SM, and SPSM materials ranged
from 0.780.94, 0.830.91 to 0.840.97, respec-
tively. The lowest value was observed for soil
steel interface, whereas the highest value was
observed for soilconcrete interface.
The ratios of sandstructure and sandsand friction
recommended by NAVFAC are highly conserva-
tive and too generally presented.
Acknowledgments The authors appreciate the support of the
IRA funding at California State University, Fullerton to
purchase the research materials.

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2014) 32:411427
References
Al-Mhaidib AI (2006) Influence of shearing rate on interfacial
friction between sand and steel. Eng J Univ Qatar 19:116
Bosscher PJ, Ortiz C (1987) Frictional properties between sand
and various construction materials. J Geotech Eng Div
113(9):10351039
Boulon M (1989) Basic features of soil structure interface
behavior. Comput Geotech 7:115131
Coyle HM, Sulaiman I (1967) Skin friction for steel piles in
sand. J Soil Mech Found Div 97(12):16571673
Evgin E, Fakharian K (1996) Effect of stress paths on the
behavior of sandsteel interfaces. Can Geotech J
33(6):485493
Gireesha T, Muthukkumaran K (2011) Study on soil-structure
interface strength properties. Int J Earth Sci Eng 4(6):
8993
Hong Z, Hua XG (1995) A study of deformation in the interface
between soil and concrete. Comput Geotech 71:7592
Hryciw RD, Irsyam M (1993) Behavior of sand particles around
rigid inclusion during shear. Soils Found 33(3):113
Hsieh C, Hsieh MW (2003) Load plate rigidity and scale effects
on the frictional behavior of sand/geo-membrane inter-
faces. Geotext Geomembr 21(1):2547
Hu L, Pu J (2004) Testing and modeling of soil-structure
interface. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130(8):851860
Kulhaway FH, Peterson MS (1979) Behavior of sand and con-
crete interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 6th Pan American
conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering,
Brazil 2:225230
Laskar AH (2011) A study on deformation of the interface
between sand and steel plate under shearing. In: Proceeding
of Indian Geotechnical Conference, pp 895898
427
Liu N, Ho H, Huang W (2009) Large scale direct shear test of
soil/PET-yarn geo-grid interfaces. Geotext Geomembr
27:1930
Lui SH, Dean S, Matsuoka H (2005) On the interface friction in
direct shear test. Comput Geotech 32:317325
ORourke TD, Drushel SJ, Netravali AN (1990) Shear strength
characteristics of sand-polymer interfaces. J Geotech Eng
Div 116(3):451469
Paikowsky SG, Player CM, Connor PJ (1995) A dual interface
apparatus for testing unrestricted friction of soil along solid
surfaces. Geotech Test J 18(2):168193
Potyondy JG (1961) Skin friction between various soils and
construction materials. Geotechnique 11(4):339353
Subba Rao KS, Allam MM, Robinson RG (1988) Interfacial
friction between sand and solid surfaces. Geotech Eng
131:7582
Tiwari B, Ajmera B, Kaya G (2010) Shear strength reduction at soil
structure interaction. Geotech Special Publ 199:17471756
Uesigi M, Kishida H, Tsubakihara Y (1988) Behavior of sand
particles in sandsteel friction. Soils Found 28(1):107118
Uesugi M, Kishida H (1986) Influencial factors of friction
between steel and dry sands. Soil Found 26(2):3346
US Department of Navy (1986) NAVFAC Engineering Manual
EM 7.02
Wang Z, Richwien W (2002) A study of soil-reinforcement
interface friction. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 128(1):9294
Yoshimi Y, Kishida T (1981) A ring torsional apparatus for
evaluation of friction between soil and metal surface.
Geotech Test J 4(4):145152
123