Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ Of South Australia Lib on 09/27/12. For personal use only.

No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

Testing and Modeling of Soil-Structure Interface

Liming Hu1 and Jialiu Pu2

Abstract: An accurate modeling of soil-structure interfaces is very important in order to obtain realistic solutions of many soil-structure
interaction problems. To study the mechanical characteristics of soil-structure interface, a series of direct shear tests were performed. A
charged-coupled-device camera was used to observe the sand particle movements near the interface. It is shown that two different failure
modes exist during interface shearing. Elastic perfect-plastic failure mode occurs along the smooth interface, while strain localization
occurs in a rough interface accompanied with strong strain-softening and bulk dilatancy. To describe the behavior of the rough interface,
this paper proposes a damage constitutive model with ten parameters. The parameters are identified using data from laboratory interface
shear tests. The proposed model is capable of capturing most of the important characteristics of interface behavior, such as hardening,
softening, and dilative response. The interface behaviors under direct and simple shear tests have been well predicted by the model.
Furthermore, the present model has been implemented in a finite element procedure correctly and calculation results are satisfactory.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2004兲130:8共851兲
CE Database subject headings: Soil-structural interaction; Interfaces; Roughness; Strain softening; Dilatancy; Damage; Constitutive
relations; Finite element method.

Introduction Background

The interaction between structures and soils is a critical problem
in geotechnical engineering. The mechanical behavior between
soil and construction materials is of major concern in soil-
structure interaction problems including retaining structures, deep
foundations, cutoff walls, and earth reinforcement. Study of the
frictional characteristics of soil-structure interface is important in
terms of both theoretical analysis and practical engineering. A
limited review of previous work is provided below. Past efforts
have concentrated on measuring the skin friction coefficient and
many constitutive models have been developed in conjunction
with numerical procedures designed to solve such problems. The
material parameters involved in these models need to be deter-
mined from appropriate laboratory and field tests in order to de-
scribe the interface behavior in a realistic manner.
The objectives of this study are 共1兲 to study the mechanical
characteristics of interfaces with different relative roughness; 共2兲
to develop a constitutive model to describe the behavior of inter-
faces according to test results; 共3兲 to predict the interface behavior
for validation of the model; and 共4兲 to use the proposed model for
numerical simulation.
1
PhD, Associate Professor, Institute of Geotechnical Engineering,
Dept. of Hydraulic Engineering, Tsinghua Univ., Beijing 100084,
People’s Republic of China.
2
Professor, Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Dept. of Hydraulic
Engineering, Tsinghua Univ., Beijing 100084, People’s Republic of
China.
Note. Discussion open until January 1, 2005. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on December 20, 2000; approved on October 6, 2003.
This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 8, August 1, 2004. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-
0241/2004/8-851– 860/$18.00.
Direct shear tests have often been used to study the behavior of
soil-structure interfaces. Several factors such as structural mate-
rial, soil properties, and surface roughness have been investigated
to better understand their effects on the interface characteristics
共Potyondy 1961; Coyle and Sulaiman 1967; Kulhaway and Peter-
son 1979兲. Yoshimi and Kishida 共1981兲 utilized a ring torsion
apparatus for interface testing and observed sand deformation by
using x-ray photography. Uesugi and Kishida 共1986a,b兲 used a
simple shear test device to study the interface behavior between
several kinds of soils and steel plates of different roughness. Their
comprehensive work concluded that surface roughness had an
important influence on the friction coefficient at yielding. Uesugi
et al. 共1988兲 tracked the particle behavior near the interface using
close-up photographs and observed the formation of a shear zone
with a thickness of 5D 50 within the sand mass along the rough
interface. Yin et al. 共1995兲 conducted a large direct shear test to
observe the distribution of relative displacement along the inter-
face. Paikowsky et al. 共1995兲 developed a dual interface testing
apparatus that allowed measurement of friction distribution along
the interface. Using normalized roughness R n and roughness
angle ␣, the interface was categorized into three zones:
‘‘smooth,’’ ‘‘intermediate,’’ and ‘‘rough.’’ Evgin and Fakharian
共1996兲 set up an interface simple shear apparatus C3DSSI to per-
form two-way cyclic tangential-displacement-controlled experi-
ments with different normal stiffness. The test results showed that
stress path significantly influenced the shear stress-tangential dis-
placement and volume change behavior of the interface. Frost
et al. 共1999兲 studied the evolution of the structure of sand adja-
cent to the geomembrane, and found that it was directly influ-
enced by the surface roughness. A number of studies have shown
that surface topography is important in the behavior of soil-
structure interfaces 共Hryciw and Irsyam 1993; Nakamura et al.
1999; Dove and Harpring 1999; Dove and Jarrett 2002兲. This
current study attempts to investigate interfacial shear and friction
strength based on the micromechanism between soil particles and
a solid surface using theoretical and experimental approaches.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2004 / 851

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2004.130:851-860.

 Table 1. Sand Properties
Grain size distribution
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ Of South Australia Lib on 09/27/12. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
D 50 D 10 D 60
共mm兲 共mm兲 共mm兲 Cu Cc
1.0 0.59 1.20 2.1 0.87
The mechanical characteristics of interfaces between structural
and geological materials and accurate modeling are very impor-
tant if numerical methods are to be used in predicting soil-
structure interaction. In this context, numerical methods such as
finite element methods, special interface elements, and constitu-
tive models are often used to account for relative motion and
deformation modes. One of the commonly used interface ele-
ments in soil-structure interaction is based on the joint element
proposed by Goodman et al. 共1968兲. The element formation was
derived from the relationship of relative nodal displacements and
stresses of the interface element. For two-dimensional analysis,
the constitutive relation was expressed as
再 冎冋 册再 冎
d␴ k nn 0 dv
d␶ ⫽ 0 k ss du
where ␴ and ␶⫽normal and shear stresses; v and u⫽relative nor-
mal and shear displacements of the interface, respectively; and k ss
and k nn ⫽tangential and normal stiffness of the interface. For ap-
plication to soil-structure interaction problems, the thickness of
the element is often assumed to be zero. Zienkiewicz et al. 共1970兲
used a thin isoparametric finite element formulation for soil-
structure interfaces, which was treated essentially like a solid el-
ement. Ghaboussi et al. 共1973兲 proposed an interface formulation,
which was derived by considering relative motions between sur-
rounding solid elements as independent degrees of freedom. Ka-
tona 共1983兲 derived an interface model from the virtual work
principle modified by appropriate constraint conditions. Desai
et al. 共1984兲 used a thin layer element for interfaces and joints,
which can consider relative motions such as slippage, debonding,
rebonding, and separation as occurring in the thin zone. The thin
layer element can be ameliorated to prevent interpenetration be-
tween soil and structure. Various constitutive laws have been de-
veloped to describe interface behavior. The elastic perfect-plastic
model can be used for the soil-structure interface, in which k ss in
Eq. 共1兲 is set equal to zero when the shear stress exceeds the shear
strength. The nonlinear elastic model developed by Clough and
Duncan 共1971兲 has been used widely in the analysis of soil-
structure interface behavior. The hyperbolic relationship of shear
stress and relative displacement is obtained from the interface
direct shear test. The coefficient of tangential stiffness k ss can be
expressed as
冉 冊
R f s •␶
k ss ⫽K s ␥ ␻ 共 ␴ n / P a 兲 n s 1⫺
␴ n tan ␦ s ⫹c s
where ␥ w ⫽unit weight of water; and P a ⫽atmospheric pressure.
There are five parameters in this model. The model is incapable of
capturing restrained dilation that is the phenomenon consistently
observed in dense sand-structure interface. Several plastic models
were proposed to consider the coupling of normal and shear be-
havior 共Ghaboussi et al. 1973; Boulon and Nova 1990; Gens
et al. 1990兲. The disturbed state concept 共DSC兲 was proposed to
describe the coupling behavior of soil-structure interfaces and
rock joints and predict interface test results 共Desai and Ma 1992;
Navayogarajah et al. 1992; Pal and Wathugala 1999; Fakharian
and Evgin 2000兲. Although several constitutive models for soil-
852 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2004
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2004.130:851-860.
Density and void ratio Internal friction
␥ max ␥ min ␾
Gs 共kN/m3兲 共kN/m3兲 e max e min 共deg兲
2.65 16.02 13.08 1.026 0.654 34.4
structure interface have been reported, various interface behaviors
such as strain softening and dilative behavior are not adequately
simulated, or large numbers of the parameters increase the com-
plexity and minimize further application of the models. A simple
model with fewer parameters and strong simulation capability has
yet to be developed.
Interface Test
A series of sand-steel interface direct shear tests were performed
to obtain the stress-strain relationship. Yongdinghe sand, which is
a coarse silica sand with subangular particles, was used in the
tests. The physical properties of Yongdinghe sand are presented in
(1)
Table 1. Low-carbon steel plates with five different values of
surface roughness were used to make the interface. The surface
was grooved by lathe in the direction normal to that of tangential
load and the surface profile was measured by a stylus profilome-
ter. The quantification of surface roughness in terms relative in-
terface roughness R n , as reported by Uesugi and Kishida
共1986b兲, was defined by measuring R max 共vertical distance be-
tween the highest peak and the lowest trough兲 along a profile
length L equal to the mean grain size D 50 and then normalizing it
by D 50 , that is
R n ⫽R max共 L⫽D 50兲 /D 50 (3)
The roughness of steel plates is listed in Table 2.
A schematic layout of the experimental setup is presented in
Fig. 1. The interface between steel and sand was 60 mm in length
and 53 mm in width. The dimension of the steel plate was
110 mm⫻125 mm, and the area of interface can remain constant
during shearing due to the length of the plate. The sand was
air-pulviated using a sand rainer so as to yield uniform sand
specimens at 90% relative density. The sand sample was placed in
a transparent plexiglas shear box with inside graduated grids to
facilitate visual observation of sand particle displacement near the
interface. A SANYO VPC-Z400 digital charged-coupled-device
共CCD兲 camera with a resolution of 1600 共H兲 by 1200 共V兲 pixels
was introduced to record the microdisplacements of the sand par-
ticles. In each series of test, the normal stress was maintained at
50, 100, 200, and 400 kPa, respectively, and the steel plate moved
at a horizontal displacement rate of 0.6 mm/min. The test was
2
terminated at 10 mm of total horizontal displacement. The shear
(2)
stress, tangential displacement, and normal displacement were
Table 2. Properties of Structure Material
Surface roughness Relative roughness
Plate number R max (mm) Rn
1 0.01 0.01
2 0.05 0.05
3 0.10 0.10
4 0.20 0.20
5 0.50 0.50
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ Of South Australia Lib on 09/27/12. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Scheme of direct shear apparatus for interface test 共unit: mm兲
monitored during the process of shearing 共Hu and Pu 2001兲. Typi-
cal experimental curves of shear stress and normal displacement
versus relative tangential displacement for different relative
roughness R n are shown in Fig. 2. Ten high-resolution CCD pic-
tures of sand particles were taken during the shear process in each
test and two typical pictures are shown in Fig. 3. One is the initial
state at which no relative tangential displacement occurred, and
the other is the ultimate state at which relative tangential displace-
ment reached 10 mm. The steel plate is located just below the
sand mass in the pictures. Six sand particles are marked with
different colors in Fig. 3, from which the particle displacements
can be observed clearly. The tangential and normal displacements
of sand particles near the interface were acquired by processing of
the CCD images. The area of the captured image is 80 mm 共H兲 by
60 mm 共H兲, so the precision of measurement is 0.05 mm. Fig. 4
shows the sand particle displacements at the ultimate state of the
tests for different relative roughness R n values of 0.01, 0.05, 0.1,
0.2, and 0.5, while constant normal stress is 200 kPa.
Figs. 2 and 4 show that the relative roughness has a significant
influence on the peak strength and bulk dilatancy, as reported by
other authors 共e.g., Uesugi and Kishida 1986b; Paikowsky et al.
1995; etc.兲. Moreover, there exist two failure modes due to dif-
ferent relative roughness R n . When R n ⬍0.1, the failure mode of
the interface is elastic perfect-plastic and sand particles slip along
the interface during shearing; the peak and residual strengths in-
crease when R n becomes larger. When R n ⭓0.1, the behavior of
the interface demonstrates strain softening and bulk dilatancy; the
peak strength and bulk dilatancy increase with increase of R n ,
while the residual friction angle stays close to the internal friction
angle of sand. Fig. 4 shows that when R n ⭓0.1, bulk dilatancy is
concentrated in a narrow zone of sand mass near the rough inter-
face up to about five grains thick where the appreciable shear
strain also occurs, which is consistent with the findings by Uesugi
et al. 共1988兲.
The test results indicate that there exists a critical relative
roughness R cr (R cr⫽0.1 in the tests of this paper兲 of the soil-
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2004 / 853
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2004.130:851-860.
Fig. 2. Interface shear test curves of different R n (D r ⫽90%, ␴ n
⫽200 kPa)
structure interface. Using R n and R cr , interfaces can be catego-
rized into two types: smooth and rough. When R n is smaller than
R cr 共smooth interface兲, the mode of the interface shear failure is
elastic perfect plastic, and there is little dilatancy near the inter-
face. It can be easily described by the elastic perfect-plastic
model. If R n is larger than R cr 共rough interface兲, strain localiza-
tion occurs near the interface and a shear zone is formed. The
shear failure is accompanied with strain softening and strong di-
latancy. A damage model is developed accordingly to describe the
mechanical characteristics of the rough interface, as elaborated on
below.
Damage Model for Soil-Structure Interface
Damage mechanics was proposed by Kachanov 共1958兲 to study
creep behavior of metal material. An internal variable was intro-
duced which, in a simple but physically justified manner, provides
qualitative and quantitative deterministic, continuous measures of
the effect which randomly distributed microdefects exert on the
macroparameters of a structure and its macroresponse. Based on
this concept, Desai 共1987兲 proposed DSC for constitutive model-
ing of engineering materials, and used DSC to simulate the be-
havior of soil-structure interfaces and rock joints 共Desai and Ma
1992; Navayogarajah et al. 1992兲. The approach can predict
strain-softening and dilatancy behavior; however, the model for
interface had as many as 15 parameters.
The fundamental idea of DSC is that during deformation, a
material element can be considered to be a mixture of the material
in two reference states. On the basis of DSC, a damage model is
developed in this paper to simulate the stress-strain relationship of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ Of South Australia Lib on 09/27/12. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Displacements of sand particles near interface at ultimate

state (D r ⫽90%,␴ n ⫽200 kPa)

关 De兴⫽ 冋 Ds
0 Dn
0
册 (5)

in which D s and D n ⫽shear and normal elastic modulus; d␶ i and

d␴⫽shear and normal stress increments; and d␧ se ,d␧ ev ⫽shear and
normal elastic strain increments, respectively.
Considering the shear zone thickness t, the interfacial shear
strain ␧ s can be expressed by the relative displacement ␻
␧ s ⫽␻/t (6)
The relationship between shear stress, ␶ , and interfacial shear
i

strain, ␧ s , is assumed to be hyperbolic, that is

␧s 1 1
⫽ ⫹ •␧ (7)
␶ i D s ␴•tan ␦ 0 s
where the superscript ‘‘i’’ means the intact state; D s ⫽shear elastic
modulus in elastic matrix of Eq. 共5兲; and ␦ 0 ⫽ultimate friction
angle.
The shear strain consists of an elastic and a plastic part, that is
Fig. 3. Typical photos of sand particles deformation near interface
␧ s ⫽␧ es ⫹␧ sp (8)
共steel plate is below the sand sample兲
where ␧ se
and ␧ sp ⫽elastic
and plastic shear strain of the interface,
respectively. The elastic shear strain can be expressed as

a rough soil-structure interface. The material of the thin layer ␧ es ⫽␶ i /D s (9)

zone is composed of materials of two different states: intact and Substitution of Eqs. 共8兲 and 共9兲 in Eq. 共7兲 leads to
critical. The shearing process is regarded as the evolution from 2
intact material to critical material due to microstructural changes. ␶ i /D s ⫹␧ sp 共 ␶ i ⫺␴•tan ␦ 0 兲 ⫽0 (10)
The stresses and strains of the interface can be considered as the
linear summation of the material behavior of the two different
states, as shown in Fig. 5. The two states of soil-structure inter-
face are described with different constitutive models.

Reference State I: Intact Material

The intact material is simulated by an elastoplastic constitutive
model. The elastic part is expressed with stresses and elastic
strains

再 冎
d␶ i
d␴ ⫽ 关 D e
再 冎
兴
d␧ es
d␧ ev
(4)
Fig. 5. Scheme of damage model
where the elastic matrix is

854 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2004

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2004.130:851-860.

 关 D ep 兴 i ⫽ 冋 ep
D ss D ep
sn
册 (16)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ Of South Australia Lib on 09/27/12. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

D ep
ns Dn

The elements of the stiffness matrix are derived as follows:

ns ⫽0
D ep (17)

1⫺␶ i /␴•tan ␦ 0
ep
D ss ⫽ (18)
␧ sp /␴•tan ␦ 0 ⫹1/D s

␧ sp /␴
sn ⫽D n
D ep (19)
␧ sp /␴•tan ␦ 0 ⫹1/D s

Fig. 6. Yield surfaces in stress space of intact state Reference State II: Critical Material

The critical material is assumed when the interface is at the criti-

We can assume that the yield function F, expressed by shear
stress ␶ i and plastic shear strain ␧ sp , is
2 strain relationship can be described by a rigid-plastic constitutive
F⫽␶ i /D s ⫹␧ sp 共 ␶ i ⫺␴•tan ␦ 0 兲
The yield surfaces in stress spaces are shown in Fig. 6, and the
function of ultimate envelop 共i.e., function of failure surface兲 is
F u ⫽␶ i ⫺␴•tan ␦ 0 ⫽0
The normal and shear stress loading path on the interface
plane during testing is also plotted in Fig. 6. With the increase of
shear stress, yield surface changes and approaches the ultimate
envelope.
The nonassociated flow rule is adopted and the potential func-
tion Q is given by
cal state and no additional volume change occurs with additional
shear deformation 共for a given normal stress兲. The stress and
(11) model. The interface strength can be described by Mohr-Coulomb
failure criteria and the volume strain can be expressed by an
empirical formula from the test results
(12) ␶ c ⫽␴•tan ␦ r
(20)
␧ cv ⫽␧ 0v • 关 1⫺D r ⫺exp共 ⫺K•␴ 兲兴
where the superscript ‘‘c’’⫽critical state; ␦ r ⫽friction angle in
critical state; D r ⫽relative density of sand; K⫽empirical coeffi-
cient; and ␧ 0v ⫽maximum volumetric strain of soil

Q⫽␶ i (13) e max⫺e min

␧ 0v ⫽ (21)
According to the plastic theory, the plastic strain is orthogonal 1⫹e
to potential surface Q. The flow rule gives that
⳵Q Damage Function D
d␧ vp ⫽d␭ ⫽0 (14)
⳵␴
The damage increases as the shear deformation increases. At the
So there is no plastic volumetric strain in intact material. beginning of shearing, the damage function D is zero; when D
The elastoplastic stiffness matrix is approaches 1.0, the material is in critical state. The damage func-

关 D ep 兴 ⫽ 关 D e 兴 ⫺
再 冎再 冎
关 De兴
⳵Q
⳵␴
˜
⳵F
⳵␴
˜
T
关 De兴T
tion D is defined as a function of plastic shear strain ␧ sp

D⫽1⫺exp共 ⫺a•␰ b 兲 (22)

再 冎 再 冎
(15)
⳵F T
⳵Q ⳵F
关 De兴 ˜ ⫺ p where ␰⫽ 兰 (d␧ sp •d␧ sp ) 1/2 is the trajectory of plastic shear strain;
⳵␴
˜ ⳵␴ ⳵␧ s
a,b⫽empirical coefficients, which can be determined from the
The stiffness matrix can be expressed as test results.

Table 3. Parameters List of Damage Model for Interface

Model parameters Name Symbol Unit
Interface parameter Relative roughness Rn —
Soil parameters Relative density Dr —
Maximum volumetric strain ␧ 0v —
Intact state Ultimate friction angle ␦0 deg
Tangential elastic stiffness Ds kPa or MPa
Normal elastic stiffness Dn kPa or MPa
Critical state Critical friction angle ␦r deg
Volume dilatancy coefficient K —
Damage function Curve fitting coefficients a,b —

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2004 / 855

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2004.130:851-860.

 The elements of the matrix can be derived from the constitu-
tive models of intact and critical states, which are listed below
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ Of South Australia Lib on 09/27/12. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

D ss ⫽⫺
冉 D•h⫹ 共 1⫺D 兲 •D ep
sn /D n ⫺ 共 ␶ ⫺␶ 兲 •g•
c i
D ep
D s •D n
sn
冊 •␧ cv •g

1 D epsn
⫹D• f ⫺g•
Dn D s •D n

冉
⫻ 1⫺
D ep
Ds
s
冊 ⫹ 共 1⫺D 兲 •D ep
s ⫹ 共 ␶ ⫺␶ 兲 •g• 1⫺
c i
冉 D ep
Ds
s
冊
(27)
D ep
sn
D•h⫹ 共 1⫺D 兲 •D ep
sn /D n ⫺ 共 ␶ ⫺␶ 兲 •g•
c i
D s •D n
D sn ⫽ (28)
1 D ep
sn
⫹D• f ⫺g•
Dn D s •D n

D ns ⫽⫺
1
⫹D• f ⫺g•
␧ cv •g
D epsn
冉
• 1⫺
D ep
s
Ds
冊 (29)

Dn D s •D n

1
D nn ⫽ (30)
1 D epsn
⫹D• f ⫺g•
Dn D s •D n
Fig. 7. Relationship of shear stress and normal displacement versus
relative shear displacement (␴ n ⫽50, 100, 200, and 400 kPa; D r where
⫽90%; R n ⫽0.5) ␧s
␶ i⫽ (31)
1/D s ⫹␧ s /␴•tan ␦ 0
Stress-Strain Relationship g⫽ 共 1⫺D 兲 •a•b•␰ b⫺1 (32)
According to DSC, the shear zone is assumed to be a mixture of
f ⫽␧ 0v •exp共 ⫺K•␴ 兲 •K (33)
intact and critical state materials. Within the smeared zone, the
observed stresses and strains can be considered as follows: h⫽␶ i •tan ␦ r (34)
␧ v ⫽␧ ev ⫹␧ vp ⫽␧ ev ⫹D•␧ cv Considering the interface thickness t, the strain increments can
be expressed by the relative displacements
␧ s ⫽␧ es ⫹␧ sp ⫽␧ is ⫽␧ cs
␴⫽␴ i ⫽␴ c
(23)
再 冎 再 冎
d␧ s 1 du
d␧ v ⫽ t d v (35)

␶⫽␶ i ⫹D• 共 ␶ c ⫺␶ i 兲 Using the incremental form of stress-strain or stress-

The relationship of the stress increments and the strain incre- displacement relationship, the interface behavior for various
ments is stress paths can be predicted. The formulas above have been in-
corporated into finite element method 共FEM兲 program code to
d␧ v ⫽d␧ ev ⫹␧ cv •dD⫹D•d␧ cv perform numerical modeling of soil-structure interaction prob-
(24)
d␶⫽D•d␶ c ⫹ 共 1⫺D 兲 •d␶ i ⫹ 共 ␶ c ⫺␶ i 兲 •dD lems 共Hu et al. 2002; Hu and Pu 2002b兲.

The relationship can be derived in matrix form as

再 冎
Parameters of Damage Model and Method of
再 冎
d␶ d␧ s
d␴ ⫽ 关 D 兴 d␧ v
ep
(25)
Identification
There are 10 parameters in the proposed model, which are listed
The stiffness matrix 关 D ep 兴 of the damage model is in Table 3. They can be easily determined from the results of the

冋 册
interface shear test.
D ss D sn
关 D ep 兴 ⫽ (26) The parameters D r , ␧ 0v , and R n can be obtained from the
D ns D nn physical properties of the sand and the structural material. Critical

Table 4. Damage Model Parameters for Direct Shear 共DS兲 and Simple Shear 共SS兲 Test
Test Rn Dr tan ␦0 tan ␦r D s (MPa) D n (MPa) a b ␧ 0v K
DS 0.50 90% 1.39 0.60 4.00 4000 3.17 1.60 0.22 0.005
SS 0.04 84% 1.08 0.60 4.00 4000 3.00 1.00 0.19 0.094

856 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2004

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2004.130:851-860.

 Table 5. Sand and Interface Properties of Simple Shear Tests 共Evgin and Fakharian 1996兲
␾ R max
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ Of South Australia Lib on 09/27/12. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

Particle D 50 Sample height

Sand type shape 共mm兲 e min e max 共deg兲 H (mm) 共mm兲
Medium, silica Angular 0.6 0.651 1.024 45 20 0.025

friction coefficient tan ␦r can be obtained from the critical strength comparisons between test results and predictions are presented in
of the interface shear test, and tan ␦0 is about 30–50% larger than Fig. 8. Although the initial contraction cannot be predicted, the
the peak friction coefficient. Incorporating the interface thickness peak strength, residual strength, and dilative response are well
t⫽5D 50 , the testing data of shear stress and relative displace- estimated in all predictions.
ments can be transformed to the stress-strain curve. Then the The comparisons between model predictions and experimental
shear modulus D s can be derived from the initial slope of the data show the very good predictive capability of the proposed
shear stress-strain curve, and the normal modulus D n usually damage model.
adopts a large value 共e.g., 1,000D s ). K can be derived from the
relationship of ultimate dilatancy and normal stress.
The damage function D can be derived from the data of inter- Finite Element Method Analysis of Interface
face shear tests
The proposed damage model has been incorporated in the FEM
␶ i ⫺␶ program, and both two- and three-dimensional formulations have
D⫽ (36) been developed to simulate soil-structure interaction problems
␶ i ⫺␶ c
共Hu and Pu 2002a, 2003兲. This section describes two simple and
Then the relationship of ln关⫺ln(1⫺D)兴 versus ␰ gives values practical applications in soil-structure interaction.
of parameter a and b
ln关 ⫺ln共 1⫺D 兲兴 ⫽ln a⫹b ln ␰ (37) Example 1: One-Element Problem
Therefore, all the parameters can be determined from a series A single interface element was idealized as a plane strain problem
of interface shear tests with different normal stresses. The details and analyzed by FEM. The constant normal stress is 50, 100, 200,
of parameter identification can be found in Hu 共2000兲. and 400 kPa for each case. The mean diameter of the sand particle
is 1 mm, so the thickness of the interface is assumed to be 5D 50 ,
i.e., 5 mm. The parameters of the damage model are those of the
Verification of Damage Model direct shear test in this paper, which are listed in Table 4. The
relative tangential displacement is controlled to increase gradually
In this section, the experimental results of direct shear and simple from 0 to 25 mm.
shear tests are predicted with the proposed model. Fig. 9 shows the computed results for the shear stress and two
displacement components and the comparison with the theoretical
Direct Shear Test solution from the damage model. It is obvious that the two solu-
tions are very close and the developed FEM program incorporates
The results of a direct shear test in this paper are predicted by the the damage model correctly.
proposed model. Fig. 7 shows the model predictions and corre-
sponding experimental data of the R n ⫽0.5 test. The line with data
markers indicates test results and the line without data markers
indicates model prediction. The damage model parameters for the
direct shear 共DS兲 test are listed in Table 4.
The predictions seem to be in good agreement with the experi-
mental results. The calculation results of the shear stress–relative
displacement curve indicate that the peak strength, residual
strength, and corresponding displacements are predicted very
well. The dilative response of the interface is also well predicted
by the proposed model. However, the sand contraction at the
onset of shearing is not described well. The reason is that the
compressive mode is controlled by the constitutive relationship of
the intact state, while the proposed model assumes that the intact
state has no plastic volumetric strain.

Simple Shear Test

Evgin and Fraharian 共1996兲 carried out simple shear interface
tests under different normal stiffness. The sand and interface
properties are listed in Table 5. The test results under constant
normal stresses are predicted using the proposed damage model.
In the three tests described here, the normal stresses were kept
Fig. 8. Comparison of model prediction with observation 共Evgin and
constant as 100, 300, and 500 kPa, respectively. The model pa-
Fakharian 1996兲
rameters are determined from test data and listed in Table 4. The

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2004 / 857

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2004.130:851-860.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ Of South Australia Lib on 09/27/12. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Comparison of finite element method results with different

models

Fig. 9. Comparison of theoretical with finite element method 共FEM兲

solution for interface behavior
Example 2: Sliding Block
Fig. 10 shows a sliding block model with interface elements. The
concrete block is placed on the fixed concrete base, and the inter-
face is filled with coarse sand of 1 mm mean diameter. The grav-
ity force is assumed to be zero for convenience. The vertical
stress of 100 kPa is loaded on the block surface, and the tangen-
tial displacement of the block increases gradually until the shear
failure of the interface. The elastic perfect-plastic model, the non-
linear elastic model by Clough and Duncan 共1971兲, and the dam-
age model by the writers were used in the calculation, and the
comparisons of calculated results are shown in Fig. 11. The pa-
rameters for all three models are determined from the same ex-
perimental data. The parameters for the damage model are the
same as those of example 1, and the parameters for the elastic
perfect-plastic and nonlinear elastic model are listed in Table 6.
The elastic perfect-plastic and nonlinear elastic model can
only describe hardening behavior; softening behavior and dilative
response cannot be predicted at all. The damage model solution
shows significant strain softening and dilatancy during the inter-
face shear, which appear to be in agreement with the test results.
From the FEM calculation results, it is demonstrated that the
proposed damage model can accurately describe the interface be-
haviors of softening and dilatancy, which are not simulated by the
conventional elastic-plastic and nonlinear models. Further studies
are needed for more applications of the damage model to soil-
structure interaction problems.
Conclusions
The following conclusions are drawn from the present study:
1. The photography technique has been used to track the move-
ment of sand particles and provide insight into the deforma-
tion mechanism in recent years. In this paper, sand particle
behavior near the interface was recorded by means of a digi-
tal CCD camera and normal and tangential particle displace-
ments were obtained by image processing of high-resolution
digital pictures. Two different failure modes are observed
during the interface tests of different relative roughness.
There exists a critical relative roughness R cr of the soil-
structure interface; interfaces can be classified as smooth or
rough. The shear zone was observed to develop along the
rough interface during interface shearing, and the shear and
volume strains were both concentrated in the shear zone of
about five-grains thickness.
2. The damage model is developed to simulate the mechanical
features of the rough soil-structure interface, such as strong

Table 6. Parameters for Elastic Perfect-Plastic and Nonlinear Elastic

Interface Model
Elastic
perfect-plastic Nonlinear elastic
k ss ␦s cs ␦s
共N/m兲 共deg兲 共MPa兲 共deg兲 Rf Ks ns
Fig. 10. Sliding block model 共unit: mm兲 4.0⫻10 6
31.0 0.00 43.3 0.48 19,393 1.00

858 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2004

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2004.130:851-860.

 strain softening and appreciable bulk dilatancy. During the t ⫽ thickness of shear zone along interface;
interface shear, the interface behavior can be considered as u ⫽ relative shear displacement;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ Of South Australia Lib on 09/27/12. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

the combination of intact state and critical state behaviors v ⫽ relative normal displacement;
with the weight of the damage function. The model has ten ␥ max ,␥ min ⫽ maximum and minimum dry unit weight of
parameters that can be determined on the basis of interface soil;
shear tests. The predictions of the proposed damage model ␥ w ⫽ unit weight of water;
agree well with the direct and simple shear test results. The ␦ r ⫽ friction angle of critical state;
hardening, softening, and dilative response of the rough in- ␦ 0 ⫽ ultimate friction angle of intact state;
terface between sand and steel plate can be well described ␧ s ⫽ shear strain in interface;
and the peak and residual strengths are adequately predicted. ␧ v ⫽ volumetric strain in interface;
3. The interface element of a damage model was integrated into ␧ 0v ⫽ maximum volumetric strain;
the FEM program correctly, and satisfactory numerical solu- ␰ ⫽ trajectory of plastic shear strain;
tions were obtained for two simple examples. The proposed ␴ ⫽ normal stress;
model can be used for soil-structure interaction problems ␶ ⫽ shear stress;
through numerical simulation. ␾ ⫽ internal friction angle; and
␻ ⫽ relative shear displacement in interface.
Subscripts
Acknowledgments n ⫽ normal response;
s ⫽ shear response; and
The writers would like to thank Mr. Yin Kunting and Mr. Qiu v ⫽ volumetric response.
Tong for their assistance in the laboratory experiment and Mr. Li Superscripts
Haikun for help with the numerical analysis described in this c ⫽ critical state;
paper. Financial support from the National Science Foundation of e ⫽ elastic;
China 共Project Nos. 50099620 and 50379032兲 and the Kiso-jiban ep ⫽ elastoplastic;
Consultant Company are gratefully acknowledged. i ⫽ intact state; and
p ⫽ plastic.

Notation
References
The following symbols are used in this paper:
a,b ⫽ coefficients of damage function; Boulon, M., and Nova, R. 共1990兲. ‘‘Modelling of soil-structure interface
Cc ⫽ coefficient of curvature; behavior: A comparison between elastoplastic and rate type laws.’’
Cu ⫽ uniformity coefficient (D 60 /D 10); Comput. Geotech., 17共9兲, 21– 46.
c s ,␦ s ⫽ parameters of interface shear strength for Clough, G. W., and Duncan, J. M. 共1971兲. ‘‘Finite element analyses of
nonlinear elastic model; retaining wall behavior.’’ J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 97共12兲, 1657–
D ⫽ damage function; 1673.
Coyle, H. M., and Sulaiman, I. 共1967兲. ‘‘Skin friction for steel piles in
Dn ⫽ normal elastic modulus;
sand.’’ J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 93共6兲, 261–270.
Dr ⫽ relative density;
Desai, C. S. 共1987兲. ‘‘Future on unified hierarchical models based on
Ds ⫽ shear elastic modulus; alternative correction or damage approach.’’ Rep., Dept. of Civil En-
D ss , etc. ⫽ element of stiffness matrix for damage model; gineering and Engineering Mechanics, Univ. of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz.
ep
D ss , etc. ⫽ element of stiffness matrix for intact state; Desai, C. S., and Ma, Youzhi 共1992兲. ‘‘Modeling of joints and interfaces
D 10 ⫽ diameter of particles corresponding to 10% using the disturbed-state concept.’’ Int. J. Numer. Analyt. Meth. Geo-
finer; mech., 16, 623– 653.
D 50 ⫽ mean diameter of sand particle; Desai, C. S., Zaman, M. M., Lightner, J. G., and Siriwardane, H. J.
D 60 ⫽ diameter of particles corresponding to 60% 共1984兲. ‘‘Thin-layer element for interface and joints.’’ Int. J. Numer.
finer; Analyt. Meth. Geomech., 8, 19– 43.
Dove, J. E., and Harpring, J. C. 共1999兲. ‘‘Geometric and spatial param-
e ⫽ void ratio;
eters for analysis of geomembrane/soil interface behavior.’’ Proc.,
e max ,e min ⫽ maximum and minimum void ratio;
Geosynthetics ’99, Industrial Fabrics Association International,
F ⫽ yield function; Boston, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 575–588.
Fu ⫽ function of failure surface; Dove, J. E., and Jarrett, J. B. 共2002兲. ‘‘Behavior of dilative sand interface
Gs ⫽ specific gravity; in a geotribology framework.’’ J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 128共1兲,
K ⫽ volume dilatancy coefficient; 25–37.
Ks ⫽ coefficient of tangential stiffness; Evgin, E., and Fakharian, K. 共1996兲. ‘‘Effect of stress paths on the be-
k nn ⫽ normal stiffness of interface; havior of sand-steel interfaces.’’ Can. Geotech. J., 33共6兲, 485– 493.
k ss ⫽ tangential stiffness of interface; Fakharian, K., and Evgin, E. 共2000兲. ‘‘Elasto-plastic modeling of stress-
L ⫽ surface profile length; path-dependent behavior of interfaces.’’ Int. J. Numer. Analyt. Meth.
Pa ⫽ atmospheric pressure; Geomech., 24, 183–199.
Frost, J. D., Lee, S. W., and Cargill, P. E. 共1999兲. ‘‘The evolution of sand
Q ⫽ potential function;
structure adjacent to geomembranes.’’ Proc., Geosynthetics ’99,
R cr ⫽ critical relative roughness; Industrial Fabrics Association International, Boston, Balkema, Rotter-
R f ,n s ⫽ parameters for nonlinear elastic model; dam, The Netherlands, 559–573.
R max ⫽ vertical distance of between highest peak and Gens, A., Carol, I., and Alonso, E. E. 共1990兲. ‘‘A constitutive model for
lowest trough along surface profile length L; rock joints formulation and numerical implementation.’’ Comput.
Rn ⫽ relative interface roughness; Geotech., 9, 3–20.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2004 / 859

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2004.130:851-860.

 Ghaboussi, J., Wilson, E. L., and Isenberg, J. 共1973兲. ‘‘Finite element for
rock joints and interfaces.’’ J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 99共10兲, 849–
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ Of South Australia Lib on 09/27/12. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
862.
Goodman, R. E., Taylor, R. L., and Brekke, T. L. 共1968兲. ‘‘A model for
the mechanics of jointed rock.’’ J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 94共3兲,
637– 659.
Hryciw, R. D., and Irsyam, M. 共1993兲. ‘‘Behavior of sand particles
around rigid inclusion during shear.’’ Soils Found., 33共3兲, 1–13.
Hu, L., and Pu, J. 共2002a兲. ‘‘FEM analysis on phase-II cofferdam of
TGP.’’ Proc., 9th Int. Conf. on Computing in Civil and Building En-
gineering, Taiwan University Press, Taipei, Taiwan, 401– 406.
Hu, L., and Pu, J. 共2003兲. ‘‘Application of damage model for soil-
structure interface.’’ Comput. Geotech., 30共2兲, 165–183.
Hu, L.-M. 共2000兲. ‘‘Study on mechanical characteristics of soil-structure
interface and its application.’’ PhD Thesis, Dept. of Hydraulic Engi-
neering, Tsinghua Univ., Beijing.
Hu, L.-M., and Pu, J. L. 共2001兲. ‘‘Experimental study on mechanical
characteristics of soil-structure interface.’’ Chin. J. Geotech. Eng.,
23共4兲, 432– 436.
Hu, L.-M., and Pu, J. L. 共2002b兲. ‘‘Application of damage model for soil
interface in FEM analysis.’’ Chin. J. Civil Eng., 35共3兲, 79– 87.
Hu, L.-M., Pu, J. L., and Wang, G. 共2002兲. ‘‘Application of damage
interface model for 3-D FEM analysis.’’ Chin. J. Hydraul. Eng.,
47共3兲, 44 – 49.
Kachanov, L. M. 共1958兲. ‘‘On the time to failure under creep condition.’’
Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Otd. Tekh. Nauk, Metall. Topl., 8, 26 –31.
Katona, M. G. 共1983兲. ‘‘A simple contact-friction interface element with
applications to buried culverts.’’ Int. J. Numer. Analyt. Meth. Geo-
mech., 7, 871–384.
Kulhaway, F. H., and Peterson, M. S. 共1979兲. ‘‘Behavior of sand and
concrete interfaces.’’ Proc., 6th Pan American Conf. on Soil Mechan-
ics and Foundation Engineering, Brazil, No. 2, 225–230.
860 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2004
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2004.130:851-860.
Nakamura, T., Mitachi, T., and Ikeura, I. 共1999兲. ‘‘Direct shear testing
method as a means for estimating geogrid-sand interface shear-
displacement behavior.’’ Soils Found., 39共4兲, 1– 8.
Navayogarajah, N., Desai, C. S., and Kiousis, P. D. 共1992兲. ‘‘Hierarchical
single-surface model for static and cyclic behavior of interfaces.’’ J.
Eng. Mech., 118共5兲, 990–1011.
Paikowsky, S. G., Player, C. M., and Connors, P. J. 共1995兲. ‘‘A dual
interface apparatus for testing unrestricted friction of soil along solid
surfaces.’’ Geotech. Test. J., 18共2兲, 168 –193.
Pal, S., and Wathugala, G. W. 共1999兲. ‘‘Disturbed state model for sand-
geosynthetic interfaces and application to pull-out tests.’’ Int. J.
Numer. Analyt. Meth. Geomech., 23, 1873–1892.
Potyondy, J. G. 共1961兲. ‘‘Skin friction between various soils and con-
struction material.’’ Geotechnique, 11共4兲, 339–353.
Uesugi, M., and Kishida, H. 共1986a兲. ‘‘Influential factors of between steel
and dry sands.’’ Soils Found., 26共2兲, 33– 46.
Uesugi, M., and Kishida, H. 共1986b兲. ‘‘Frictional resistance at yield be-
tween dry sand and mild steel.’’ Soils Found., 26共4兲, 139–149.
Uesugi, M., Kishida, H., and Tsubakihara, Y. 共1988兲. ‘‘Behavior of sand
particles in sand-steel friction.’’ Soils Found., 28共1兲, 107–118.
Yin, Zong-Ze, Zhu, Hong, and Xu, Guo-Hua 共1995兲. ‘‘A study of defor-
mation in the interface between soil and concrete.’’ Comput. Geotech.,
17, 75–92.
Yoshimi, Y., and Kishida, T. 共1981兲. ‘‘A ring torsion apparatus for evalu-
ation friction between soil and metal surface.’’ Geotech. Test. J., 4共4兲,
145–152.
Zienkiewicz, O. C., Best, B., Dulllage, C., and Stagg, K. G. 共1970兲.
‘‘Analysis of nonlinear problems with particular reference to jointed
rock systems.’’ Proc., 2nd Int. Congress on Society of Rock Mechan-
ics, Vol. 3, International Society of Rock Mechanics, Belgrade, 501–
509.