See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/292983142

Interface Behavior of Sands from Constant Normal Stiffness Direct Shear

Tests

Article  in  Geotechnical Testing Journal · September 2003

DOI: 10.1520/GTJ11308J

CITATIONS READS
63 1,147

4 authors, including:

Daniela Dominica Porcino Vito nicola Ghionna

Mediterranean University of Reggio Calabria Ingegneria Geotecnica - Corso Montevecchio 50 Torino (Italy)
46 PUBLICATIONS   443 CITATIONS    51 PUBLICATIONS   925 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

READ my last article online http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/Np7maXNAPsc66qpEMYDj/full View project

Dynamic properties of cemented-grouted sands View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vito nicola Ghionna on 12 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 26, No. 3
Paper ID GTJ9513_263
Available online at: www.astm.org

Daniela Porcino,1 Vincenzo Fioravante,2 Vito Nicola Ghionna,3 and Sergio Pedroni 4

Interface Behavior of Sands from Constant

Normal Stiffness Direct Shear Tests

ABSTRACT: This paper reports an experimental study concerning the frictional behavior of sand-solid structure interfaces. The study was
performed using a constant normal stiffness (CNS) direct shear box. Three natural silica sands and four aluminium plates with different roughnesses
were investigated. A comparison between constant normal load (CNL) and CNS tests is reported. The influence of the main factors controlling the
frictional behavior of the investigated materials such as constant normal stiffness, roughness of solid surface, particle size, and relative density, and
initial effective normal stress are analyzed and discussed.

KEYWORDS: friction, interface, sand-solid, constant normal stiffness, direct shear box

Introduction
The paper deals with an experimental study on the frictional
behavior of solid surfaces in contact with sand. The understanding
of the basic phenomena controlling the mobilization of friction at
soil-solid surface contact is an important task not only for tradi-
tional foundation structures such as piles, micropiles, anchors, etc.,
but also for more recent soil reinforcement techniques such as
reinforced earth, soil nailing, etc. An extensive series of researches
on this topic have already been performed by several authors both
in laboratory and in situ. Laboratory investigations were carried
out using different equipment, namely traditional direct shear box
(Al-Douri and Poulos 1991; Paikowsky et al. 1995; Potyondy
1961), simple shear apparatus (Uesugi and Kishida 1986a, 1986b),
ring torsion apparatus (Yoshimi and Kishida 1981a, 1981b), and
calibration chambers or bins (Wernick 1978a, 1978b). Field tests
concerned pull-out tests on metal strips and bars (Alimi et al. 1977;
Schlosser and Guilloux 1979, 1981), loading tests on model piles
both in compression and in tension (Boulon 1988a, 1988b; Boulon
and Foray 1986; Jardine et al. 1993; Jardine and Chow 1996;
Lehane and Jardine 1994).
Field tests on metal strips and bars performed in sand deposits
revealed friction values higher than those obtained from traditional
direct shear tests. The observed differences were more pronounced
with increasing relative density and with decreasing normal
stresses.
According to Boulon (1988a, 1989) and Wernick (1978a,
1978b), such results can be explained considering the existence of
a very thin zone at the contact between structure and sand, defined
as “interface,” where an intense localization of shear strains occurs.
A particular feature of the interface during the shearing displace-
ment is the tendency to dilate (or to contract), while the surround-
ing soil can be regarded as an elastic confinement medium (“con-
fined dilatancy”).
The confined dilatancy can be reproduced in laboratory by a
modified direct shear apparatus (Boulon 1988a, 1988b; Boulon
1989, 1991; Boulon and Foray 1986; Boulon et al. 1988; Hoteit
1990; Moutraji 1992; Ooi and Carter 1987; Tabucanon et al. 1995).
In this apparatus, a constant normal stiffness (CNS) condition is
obtained by back-regulating the applied normal stress (
n) during
the shearing phase in order to fulfil the following relationship:

n
K   (1)
u
where

n  increment (positive or negative) of the effective normal
stress (
n),
u  increment (positive or negative) of the vertical dispace-
ment (u) of the top of the sample, and
K  constant normal stiffness (positive).
CNS interface tests results have generally shown that a rough
surface tends to exhibit a dilatant behavior that is more pronounced
for low normal stresses. In this case the elastic reaction of the soil
beyond the interface causes an increase of the current normal
stresses (
n) and a subsequent increase of the ultimate shear resis-
tance (ULT) according to the general relationship:
ULT 
ntan  (2)
where

n  effective normal stress when   ULT,

Received April 10, 2000; accepted for publication September 23, 2002;
published August 13, 2003.   friction angle between soil and structure mobilized in
1
Research assistant, Department of Mechanics and Materials, University of correspondence with ULT.
Reggio Calabria, Via Graziella (Feo di Vito), 89060 Reggio Calabria, Italy.
2
Associate professor, Engineering Department, University of Ferrara, Via All the above-mentioned effects tend to increase with the increas-
Saragat 1-44100 Ferrara, Italy.
3
Professor, Department of Mechanics and Materials, University of Reggio ing of the constant normal stiffness.
Calabria, Via Graziella (Feo di Vito), 89060 Reggio Calabria, Italy. On the contrary, the smooth surfaces tend to exhibit more fre-
4
Engineer Enel Hydro, Via Ornato 90/14-20162 Niguarda, Milano, Italy. quently a contractive behavior. The final result is a decrease of both

Copyright © 2003 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. 1
2 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

the current normal and shear stresses that is more pronounced for load according to the following linear relationship with the mea-
high values of K. An effective way to demonstrate such effects is sured vertical displacements:
to introduce an apparent friction coefficient (ƒ *), defined as:

n Ku  0 (4)
ULT
f *   (3) where 
n 
n 
n0  increment of the current normal effec-

no
tive stress (
n) on the shear plane with reference to the initial value,
where (
n0), u  u  u0  increment of the vertical (normal) displace-
ment (u) of the top of the sample with reference to the initial value

n 0  initial value of the effective normal stress
n . u0, and K  constant normal stiffness.
Figure 2 shows a typical 
n versus u curve obtained in a CNS
ƒ* values can be higher or lower than  depending on whether
the interface behaves as dilative or contractive (Wernick 1978a,
1978b; Schlosser and Guilloux 1979, 1981).
The effects of the confined dilatancy are particularly relevant for
cylindrical inclusions. Their relevance tends to be more significant
as the diameter of the inclusions reduces.
The above considerations apply to static monotonic loadings.
Under cyclic loading conditions, all interfaces show a general ten-
dency to undergo a contractive behavior at the end of each cycle
irrespective of the roughness of the solid surface. This gives rise to
a cumulative shear stress degradation (Al-Douri and Poulos 1991;
Airey et al. 1992; Tabucanon et al. 1995) that have implications
from a practical point of view. The complete research program in-
cluded both static and cyclic tests (Ferrero 1996; Vita 1998). For
the sake of brevity in the present paper, only the results of the static
tests have been reported.

CNS Direct Shear Box

The research was conducted on a 100 by 100-mm direct shear
box modified to provide the condition of constant normal stiffness
(CNS) (Fig. 1). This is obtained by a servo-controlled electro- FIG. 2—Typical trend of K = 
n /u in a CNS test (imposed value of
pneumatic feedback system that continuously adjusts the vertical K  1000 kPa/mm).

FIG. 1—Schematic view of CNS direct shear apparatus.

 PORCINO ET AL. ON DIRECT SHEAR TESTS 3

test. As it can be seen, the trend is quite regular except in the very
early part of the curve, where u measured exhibits some scatter due
to the sensitivity of the measuring system.
Figure 3 shows a schematic view of the shear box adopted. A
careful study was conducted on possible uncertainties of the mea-
sured shear strength. The attention was particularly focused on fac-
tors having a more significant influence on the dilative/contractive
behavior of the interfaces in CNL tests (i.e., loss of grains, tilting of
m; Rt
10
m; Rt
30
m; Rt
40
m.
the upper half-box, etc.), and attempts were made to minimize their
effects for all tested sands.
Materials Tested
Three natural silica sands were used in this study, namely FF
sand, Toyoura sand, and Ticino sand (TS 10). Figure 4 illustrates
the grain-size distribution of the tested sands, while Table 1 and
Table 2 summarize their physical and mineralogical characteris-
tics. All sands were tested in dry conditions.
The interface tests were performed using four aluminium plates
worked at different surface roughnesses. According to Kishida and
Uesugi (1987), the roughness (Rt ) was evaluated measuring the rel-
ative height between the highest peak and the lowest trough along
the surface profile over a reference gage length L  0.25 mm that
is comparable to the mean diameter of the tested sands. It was ver-
ified that the assumed gage length could be considered adequate for
all tested sands (Porcino 1997). The roughness measurements were
made by a Mitutoyo Surftest 301 tester.
For each plate the measurements were repeated in nine different
points, and an average value of the measurements was retained.
The values of Rt obtained for all plates are reported in the follow-
ing: Rt
3
For each plate periodic roughness measurements were repeated
at different time intervals to verify if the roughness of the plates re-
mained constant during the experimental test program. A negligible
variation of the roughness surface was observed for all tested plates.
More information about other characteristics of the tested mate-
rials can be found in Fioravante et al. (1999).
Test Procedure
Sand samples were prepared using the method of dry tamping in
an unique layer. The height of the sand sample was, respectively, 12
mm in interface tests and 20 mm in sand-to-sand tests. For interface
tests, the aluminium plates consisted of a block having the same
thickness of the bottom half-box. The sand sample was placed upon
it and then tamped with the procedure mentioned above.

FIG. 3—Cross sections of the adopted shear box for interface tests.

TABLE 2—Physical properties of tested sands.

Ticino Sand Toyoura

Properties (TS10) Sand FF Sand

max [kN/m3] 16.67 16.10 14.78

min [kN/m3] 13.94 13.58 11.59
emin 0.58 0.62 0.73
emax 0.89 0.92 1.21
Gs 2.68 2.64 2.61
D10[mm] 0.35 0.19 0.05
D50[mm] 0.56 0.24 0.09
D60[mm] 0.62 0.26 0.10
C  D60 /D10 1.78 1.42 2.09
FIG. 4—Grain-size distribution curves for tested sands.

TABLE 1—Mineralogical properties of tested sands.

Ticino Sand (TS10) Toyoura Sand FF Sand

Quartz 70 % Quartz 83 % Quartz 98.2 %

Feldspar 26 % Feldspar 17 % Feldspar 1.3 %
Heavy minerals 4% Heavy minerals … Heavy minerals 0.5 %
4 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

TABLE 3—List of tests performed. However, for the tested rounded to sub-angular silica sands, crush-
ing doesn’t play a significant role. In any case, the amount of
Interface
n0[kPa] K[kPa/mm]
crushed grains in any test was very small, so that any attempt to
Ticino L/3, Ticino L/30 50, 150, 300 0, 100, 1000 quantify it through the modifications of the grain size distribution
Ticino D/3, Ticino D/30 curve (i.e., passing to Sieve 200 or other crushability indexes
Ticino L/10, Ticino L/40 150, 300 0, 1000 checked in Bellotti et al. (1991)) was not successful.
Ticino D/10, Ticino D/40
Toyoura L/3, Toyoura L/30 50, 150, 300 0, 100, 1000 CNL Tests Results
Toyoura D/3, Toyoura D/30
Toyoura L/10, Toyoura L/40 150, 300 0, 1000 Figure 5a reports typical shear stress () versus horizontal dis-
Toyoura D/10, Toyoura D/40
FF L/3, FF L/10, FF L/30, FF L/40 100, 150, 300 0, 100, 1000 placement (w) curves obtained in CNL tests for FF sand to alu-
FF D/3, FF D/10, FF D/30, FF D/40 minium interfaces characterized by different roughness of the solid
plate, namely Rt  3, 10, 30, and 40
m. All tests were performed
Sand-Sand Tests
n0[kPa] K[kPa/mm] at the same relative density of sand (Dr  85 %) and at the same
value of
n  100 kPa. As it can be argued, the maximum shear
Ticino-Ticino L 50, 150, 300 0 stress increases with increasing roughness as well as the corre-
Ticino-Ticino D
Ticino-Ticino L 150, 300 1000
sponding peak horizontal displacements. Furthermore, as the
Ticino-Ticino D roughness increases the curves show a more pronounced softening
Toyoura-Toyoura L 50, 150, 300 0, 100, 1000 behavior. In any case all curves remain well below the correspond-
Toyoura-Toyoura D ing sand-to-sand shear stress () versus (w) curve.
FF-FF L 100, 150, 300 0, 100, 1000 Figure 5b reports vertical (u) versus horizontal (w) displacement
FF-FF D
curves obtained in the same tests. It can be observed that in the very
early part of the tests all interfaces exhibit a small contractive
behavior. Subsequently, they tend to become increasingly dilatant,
with the only exception of the smoothest interface (Rt
3
m) that
The consolidation phase was performed in loading steps applied undergoes a very limited reduction in thickness. Furthermore, all
by the electro- pneumatic loading system. During the shearing vertical displacements observed in interface tests are lower than
phase the rate of the shear displacement (w) was kept equal to 0.31 those detected in sand-to-sand tests. This general feature is also
mm/min. in all the tests. A series of preliminary tests performed in confirmed by tests carried out on dense Toyoura and Ticino sands
the range from 0.01 to 0.59 mm/min allowed to verify that the in- in contact with aluminium plates having the same aforementioned
fluence of the shearing rate was of poor significance. roughnesses. The effect of the roughness on the mobilized shearing
Tests were carried out taking into account values of initial nor- strength can also be described taking into account the values of
mal stress
n0, ranging from 50 to 300 kPa, and values of normal Max
the peak friction coefficient f, defined as: f   = tan , being
stiffness, K, ranging from 0 to 1000 kPa/mm. Two density states
n
were considered for all sands, namely a dense state (relative den-   peak contact friction angle. Figure 6 reports the results ob-
sity Dr  80 to 85 %), and a loose state (Dr  30 to 35 %). A com- tained for dense Toyoura sand in interface CNL tests performed at
plete list of the tests performed is reported in Table 3. The interface
n  150 kPa. As it can be seen, f increases with increasing Rt and
tests are indicated by the following abbreviations: the first symbol there is a good agreement with the results obtained by Uesugi and
indicates the density state of the sand (D  Dense; L  Loose), Kishida (1986b) on Toyoura sand to steel plate interfaces in a sim-
while the second one indicates the value of the plate roughness (Rt ) ple shear apparatus. According to these authors, the behavior of an
expressed in microns. The same symbology has been used for the interface depends not only on the roughness of the solid surface but
analysis of tests results. also on the grain size of the soil in contact with it. For this reason a
more correct way to define the roughness of the interface is to refer
Analysis of Results to a normalized roughness parameter (Rn) defined as:
Rt
Influencing Parameters Rn   (5)
D50
The main parameters exerting an influence on the frictional be-
havior of the tested interfaces are: Figure 7 evidences that, taking into account the effect of the
grain size through Rn, the trend of f for the three sands can be
• constant normal stiffness (K) approximately described by an unique bi-linear curve valid for all
• roughness of solid surface (Rt ) sands. For a low value of Rn , the friction coefficient tends to
• mean diameter (D50) and roundness of sand grains increase with increasing normalized roughness Rn up to a threshold
• grain crushability value of Rn (Rn,y
60 103), after which f remains constant irre-
• relative density of sand (Dr) spective of Rn. A similar trend with the same value of Rn,y has been
• initial effective normal stress (
n0) obtained for loose sand interfaces. An alternative parameter that
has been used in the literature to study the mobilized contact shear
Some of these parameters (Rt , D50, grain roundness and crusha- resistance of the interfaces is the normalized friction coefficient
bility) reflect the physical properties of the contact materials, while tan 
( fn ) (also called “efficiency factor”), defined as: fn  , being
the others (Dr,
n0 , K ) are controlling parameters of the mechani- tan ds
cal characteristics of the tested sands. As far as crushability is con- ds  peak angle of shearing resistance of the sand obtained in
cerned, its influence is particularly notable in CNS tests because it direct shear tests. Figure 8 reports the trend of fn versus Rn for the
has a significant impact on the dilative behavior of the interfaces. same tests. As it can be seen in the considered tests, the maximum

FIG. 5—Influence of Rt on test results.
values of the mobilized friction are lower (approximately 80 %)
m. The results shown refer to tests performed
than those obtained in the corresponding sand-to-sand tests. This is
in agreement with the findings of several authors (i.e., Yoshimi and
Kishida 1981a, 1981b; Al-Douri and Poulos 1991). However, some
dependence of fn on the normal stress and relative density of the
sand has also been observed. For instance, at Dr  35 % the maxi-
mum value of fn approaches 1.
Figure 9 reports the peak friction strength envelope ( versus
n)
for FF sand to aluminium interfaces with several roughnesses, i.e.,
PORCINO ET AL. ON DIRECT SHEAR TESTS 5
Rt
3, 30, and 40
on dense sand samples. It can be seen that for smooth interfaces
(D/3) the experimental points are well fitted by a nearly linear re-
lationship. Conversely, as far as the rough interfaces (D/30, D/40)
are concerned, the experimental points are better fitted by a non-
linear strength envelope, so evidencing some dependence of the
friction angle on the normal stress.
Attempts to describe these non-linear envelopes with the analyt-
ical relationship proposed by Baligh (1976) for sands gave satis-
6 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

FIG. 6—Comparison between friction coefficients obtained in the present study with those obtained by Uesugi and Kishida (1986b) (note: present study:
Toyoura sand (Dr  85 %)/Aluminium,
n  50,150 kPa; Uesugi and Kishida (1986b): Toyoura sand (Dr  90 %)/Steel,
n  100 kPa).

FIG. 7—Friction coefficient (f) versus normalized plate roughness (Rn).

FIG. 8—Normalized friction coefficient (fn  f/tan ds) versus normalized plate roughness (Rn).
 PORCINO ET AL. ON DIRECT SHEAR TESTS 7

pronounced as the roughness of the solid surface and the sand

grains dimensions decrease (i.e., FF L/3 interface). Figure 11a
shows  versus w curves gathered from tests carried out on loose FF
sand to smooth (Rt  3
m) aluminium plate interface. All tests
were performed at the same value of
n0  150 kPa. The tests were
conducted using the same values of K reported in Fig. 10. As it can
be seen there is a clear evidence that the increase of K causes a
reduction of maximum and, to a less extent, also large displace-
ment shear stress values. At the same time the increase of the
normal stiffness causes a significant reduction of the current nor-

FIG. 9—Peak friction strength envelopes for FF dense sand to alu-

minium plates interfaces with different roughness.

factory results, as shown in Fig. 9. For the sake of comparison in

the same figure is also drawn the curved failure envelope deter-
mined from sand-to-sand tests. Consistently with the pattern shown
in Fig. 5a, this envelope lays somewhat above the rough interface
envelope.
As expected, if one considers the similar plots drawn for loose
FF sand to aluminium plate interfaces, the corresponding curva-
tures are less pronounced.
A similar behavior has also been observed for Toyoura sand and
Ticino sand interfaces.
CNS Test Results
Figure 10a shows typical  versus w curves obtained from tests
performed on dense Ticino sand to rough (Rt  30
m) aluminium
plate interface (Ticino D/30) at different values of normal stiff-
nesses K, respectively, K  0, 100, and 1000 kPa/mm and at the
same value of the initial normal stress
n0  150 kPa.
As it can be seen the increase of K causes a significant increase
of both maximum (peak) and residual (or more correctly “large
displacements”) values of the shear stresses () measured during
the tests. Large displacements conditions correspond to the maxi-
mum sliding elongation reached at the end of the test. Figure 10b
reports current normal stress
n versus w curves obtained in the
same tests. It can be observed that increasing the normal stiffness
results in an increase of the current normal stresses measured dur-
ing the shearing phase. This feature can be explained if one con-
siders that dense/rough interfaces exhibit a dilatant behavior in
CNL tests (Fig.10c). Such tendency to dilate is “elastically” re-
sisted by the surrounding soil so giving rise to an increase of the
current normal stress followed, in virtue of Eq 2, by a correspond-
ing increase of . At the same time the upwards vertical displace-
ments (u) of the sample are reduced, as shown in Fig.10c. These
effects become more evident as K increases (i.e., K higher than
100 kPa/mm).
Results substantially similar are observed for dense Toyoura
sand to rough (Rt  30
m) aluminum plate interface (Toyoura
D/30) and for dense FF sand to rough (Rt  30
m) aluminium
plate.
A quite different behavior is exhibited by interfaces showing a FIG. 10—Influence of normal stiffness (K ) on tests results for dense
contractive behavior in CNL tests. This behavior becomes more sand to rough aluminium interface (Ticino D/30).
8 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL
mal stresses, as shown in Fig. 11b. The above effects can be corre-
lated to the contractive behavior exhibited by loose/smooth inter-
faces in CNL tests (K  0 kPa/mm) in Fig. 11c. In this case, the
elastic constraint provided by the soil surrounding the interface
yields a decrease of the current normal stress followed, in virtue of
Eq 2 by a corresponding decrease of the shear stress. Similar con-
siderations apply to interfaces constituted by loose Toyoura sand to
smooth (Rt  3
m) aluminium plate (Toyoura L/3) and loose Ti-
cino sand to smooth aluminium plate (TS 10 L/3).
Most of the above features can be also illustrated looking at the
differences between the stress-paths (,
n) followed during CNS
and CNL tests.
FIG. 11—Influence of normal stiffness (K) on tests results for loose sand
to smooth aluminium interface (FF L/3).
FIG. 12—Stress paths followed during the shearing phase for Ticino
dense sand to rough aluminium interface (Ticino D/30).
Figure 12 refers to CNL and CNS tests carried out on TS 10 D/30
interface. Tests were performed at different values of
n0 (namely
50, 150, 300 kPa) and at different values of K (namely 0, 100, 1000
kPa/mm). As it can be seen the stress paths concerning CNS tests
show an initial trend toward the left that corresponds to an initial
contracting tendency of the interfaces. Afterward they turn right so
reflecting the dilatant phase of the samples. This phase is more pro-
nounced for tests performed at lower initial normal stresses where
it results in a significant increase of both normal and shear stresses.
After the attainment of the maximum obliquity   


n Max
, which
corresponds to the mobilization of the peak friction angle (Max ),
the stress path moves along points characterized by lower values of
 up to reaching the maximum shear stress (Max).
Afterwards it generally bends down showing a decrease of both
the shear stresses and the mobilized  values until a residual (or
more correctly “large displacement”) value of  is reached. This
softening has been observed also by other authors (Hoteit 1990;
Tabucanon et al. 1995). A possible explanation of such behavior
can be found in some limited crushing of sand grains (i.e., due to
grain surface asperities), whose effects are enhanced by CNS con-
dition and become more evident in the last phase of the test. How-
ever, one cannot exclude the existence of small effects linked to the
features of the apparatus (i.e., loss of sand grains from the two
halves of the shear box).
Figure 12 shows that maximum obliquity points determined in
all CNL and CNS tests performed on the considered interface are
fitted by an unique strength envelope independently of the value of
the stiffness K. This confirms that the observed differences in the
shearing resistances between CNL and CNS tests are only due to the
variation of the normal stresses in CNS tests and not to a modifica-
tion of the maximum friction angle.
The curved strength envelopes shown in Fig. 12 have been
drawn according to the relationship proposed by Baligh (1976) for
sands. As it can be seen, the curves fit quite well the experimental

FIG. 13—Residual friction strength envelopes for Ticino sand to rough aluminium interface (Ticino/30).
FIG. 14—Stress paths followed during the shearing phase for FF loose
sand to smooth aluminium interface (FF L/3).
data for both interfaces and sand-to-sand tests. If, in the same tests,
the attention is focused on the residual (or large displacement) fric-
tional resistance mobilized at the end of the test, the corresponding
strength envelopes are linear and, as expected, independent on the
relative density of the sand. This is shown in Fig. 13 that refers to
Ticino sand/30-
m interface. Tests were performed on both loose of mobilized shear strength. The behavior is very similar to that
and dense sand with different values of K (namely K  0, 100,
1000 kPa/mm). Similar considerations apply to Toyoura D/30 and
FF D/30 interfaces.
Figure 14 shows the stress-paths followed by FF L/3 interfaces
in CNS tests performed with different values of K (namely K  0,
PORCINO ET AL. ON DIRECT SHEAR TESTS 9
FIG. 15—Evidence of collapsing stress paths for very loose FF sand to
smooth aluminium interface.
100, 1000 kPa). As it can be seen, there is a more evident tendency
to move left up to reaching a maximum obliquity point after which
the stress-path becomes approximately linear. All maximum
obliquity points lay on a unique linear strength envelope that is the
same for both CNL and CNS tests irrespective of the value of K.
Such envelope is significantly lower than the failure lines of the
sand determined in sand-to-sand tests under similar test conditions.
The contractive behavior characterizing these types of interfaces
is particularly enhanced at very high values of K. In this case
(Fig. 15) the stress-path tends to bend down towards left quite
sharply reaching the frictional strength envelope at very low values
observed in undrained monotonic triaxial tests on loose samples
that exhibit static liquefaction.
Figure 16 shows the residual strength envelope determined for
TS 10 L/3 interface. In spite of some scatter of data, there is still a
clear evidence of a linear trend that corresponds to a residual fric-
10 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

FIG. 16—Residual friction strength envelopes for Ticino sand to smooth aluminium interface (Ticino/3).

TABLE 4—Residual strength parameters.

Interface Tests:
K  0, 100, 1000 kPa/mm,
Dr  85 %, 35 %

Interface r( )

Ticino/3 17.8
Ticino/30 32.2
Toyoura/3 17.6
Toyoura/30 32.9
FF/3 28.2
FF/30 34.1

Sand-Sand Tests: K  0 kPa/mm,

Dr  85 %, 35 %

Ticino-Ticino 35.8
Toyoura-Toyoura 35.1
FF-FF 34.5

tion angle () equal to 17.8°. Such value coincides with the corre-
sponding one determined for Ticino dense to smooth interface.
Similar considerations apply to the interfaces constituted by
Toyoura and FF sands. This validates the conclusion that the inter-
face residual friction angle doesn’t depend on the relative density
of sands but only on the mineralogical and physical characteristics
of the sand grains and on the roughness of the plate. A complete list
of r determined for all the considered interfaces is reported in
Table 4.
Figures 17a analyzes the combined effect of K and Rt on the mo-
bilized shear resistance of interfaces constituted by dense Toyoura
sand. The maximum frictional resistance (Max) has been expressed
in terms of “apparent” friction coefficient ( f *) previously defined
(Eq 3).
Such parameter is related to the “real” friction coefficent ( f 
tan ) by the expression:
FIG. 17—(a) Maximum apparent friction coefficient (f*) versus plate
Max
n, M roughness (Rt); (b) normalized current normal stress (
n ,M /
n 0) versus
f *     tan  (6)

n0
n0 plate roughness (Rt).
 PORCINO ET AL. ON DIRECT SHEAR TESTS 11

where

n, M  normal stress at maximum shear resistance.

In the above expression tan  represents the friction coefficient

obtained in a CNL test.

n, M
On the contrary reflects the effect of the constrained dila-

n0
tancy in CNS tests. Figure 17b evidences that for low values of K
(i.e., K  100 kPa/mm) such effect is negligible (
n,M/
n0  1 for
any Rt, and this makes the curves f * versus Rt of both CNL and CNS
(K  100 kPa/mm) to be approximately coincident. The increase
of f * with Rt in the aforementioned curves corresponds to that of
f in Fig. 5. At higher values of K (i.e., K  1000 kPa/mm), the
increase of f * is more pronounced compared with f for the further
contribution given by the increase of
n,M with respect to
n0
(Fig. 17b).
Similar considerations related to the dependence of the dilatancy
characteristics of the interfaces on the parameters
n0 and D50,
apply if one analyzes the trend of the curves reported in Fig. 18 and
Fig. 19.
As for the effect of the relative density of the sand, there is not a
good agreement among different authors. This holds true for both
CNL and CNS tests. For example, Hoteit (1990) reports a signifi-

FIG. 19—(a) Maximum apparent friction coefficient (f*) versus initial

normal stress (
n 0); (b) normalized current normal stress (
n ,M /
n 0) ver-
sus initial normal stress (
n 0).

cant influence of Dr on both smooth and rough interfaces. Con-

versely Yoshimi and Kishida (1981a and b) report results of CNL
tests carried out by a ring torsion apparatus that show a practically
negligible influence. The same conclusions can be drawn from the
tests performed by Al-Douri and Poulos (1991).
Results presented in this paper seem to confirm that Dr should be
considered relatively uninfluent.
A possible explanation concerning this aspect can be found in
the collapsible nature of the structure inside the shear band. The
collapse of the structure would cause a loose interface to behave
like a denser one. Since this feature is influenced by several factors
such as type of sand, method of sample preparation, etc., this can
justify the conflicting results gained by several authors.

Conclusions

Interface direct shear tests were carried out in a modified con-

FIG. 18—(a) Maximum apparent friction coefficient (f*) versus mean
grain size (D50); (b) normalized current normal stress (
n ,M /
n 0) versus
mean grain size (D50).
stant normal stiffness (CNS) direct shear box in order to investigate
the frictional behavior of sand-solid interfaces under more realistic
boundary conditions with respect to the traditional constant normal
load (CNL) direct shear tests.
Three natural silica sands reconstituted at two relative densities
and four aluminium plates characterized by different surface
roughness were investigated.
12 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL
The results obtained allow to draw the following conclusions:
1. In CNL tests, the interfaces show a tendency to dilate or con-
tract in normal direction. Such tendency is controlled not only
by the dilatant or contractive nature of the sand but also by the
roughness of the solid surface. For silica, relatively uncrush-
able sands, roughness (Rt) seems to be the factor that exertes
the most pronounced influence on the dilatant or contractive
behavior of the interfaces;
2. The effect of the normal stiffness (K ) on the mobilized shear
resistance of the interfaces in CNS tests is strictly related to
the dilatant or contractive behavior exhibited by the inter-
faces in CNL tests. In particular, rough interfaces, which are
predominantly dilatant in CNL tests, show an increase of the
current normal stress (
n) when sheared in CNS tests. Such an
increase is followed by a corresponding increase of the cur-
rent shear stress () according to the Eq 2. Conversely, for
smooth interfaces that are, in general, contractive in CNL
tests, the final result is a decrease of both normal and shear
stresses in CNS tests;
3. The increase or decrease of the mobilized shear resistance in
CNS tests compared to those determined in CNL tests are a
consequence of the evolution of the current normal stresses
and not an effect of a modification of the mobilized friction
angle that, conversely, remains unaltered.
4. Tests results allow to verify that Dr is a relatively uninfluent
parameter. However, there is no general agreement about this
point among several authors and more effort should be de-
voted to clarify it.
References
Airey, D. W., Al-Douri, R. H., and Poulos, H. G., 1992, “Estimat-
ing of Pile Friction Degradation from Shearbox Tests,”
Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 388–392.
Al-Douri, R. H., and Poulos, H. G., 1991, “Static and Cyclic Direct
Shear Tests on Carbonate Sands,” Geotechnical Testing Jour-
nal, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 138–157.
Alimi, I., Bacot, J., Lareal, P., Long, N. T., and Schlosser, F., 1977,
“Etude de l’Adhérence Sol-armature “in Situ” et en Labora-
toire,” Proceedings 9th ICSMFE, Tokyo, Vol. 1, pp. 1–4.
Baligh, M. M., 1976, ‘’Cavity Expansion in Sands with Curved En-
velopes,” JGED, American Society of Civil Engineers, GT11,
pp. 1131–1147.
Bellotti, R., Fretti, C., Ghionna, V. N., and Pedroni, S., 1991,
“Compressibility and Cushability of Sands at High Stresses,”
Proceedings, First International Symposium on Calibration
Chamber Testing, Potsdam, New York, pp. 79–90.
Boulon, M., 1988a, “Contribution a la Mecanique des Interface
Sols-Structures: Application au Frottement Lateral des Pieux,”
Memoire d’habilitation a Diriger des Recherches, Grenoble,
France.
Boulon, M., 1988b, “Numerical and Physical Modelling of Piles
Behavior under Monotonous and Cyclic Loading,” International
Symposium SOWAS ‘88, Delft, Netherlands, pp. 285–293.
Boulon, M., 1989, “Basic Features of Soil-Structure Interface
Behavior,” Computer and Geotechnics, Vol. 7, pp. 115–131.
Boulon, M., 1991, “Le Comportement d’Interface Sol-Structure:
Aspects Expèrimentaux et Numèriques,” Revue Francaise de
Gèotechnique, No. 54, pp. 27–37.
Boulon, M. and Foray, P., 1986, “Physical and Numerical Simula-
tion of Lateral Shaft Friction along Offshore Piles in Sand,” 3rd
International Conference on Numerical Methods in Offshore
Piling, Nantes, France, pp. 127–147.
Boulon, M., Hoteit, N., and Marchina, P., 1988, “A Complete Law
for Soil Structure Interfaces,” 6th International Conference on
Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, Innsbruck, Austria, pp.
311–316.
Ferrero, M., 1996, “Comportamento all’Interfaccia dei Terreni
attraverso Prove nell’Apparecchio di Taglio Diretto a Rigidezza
Normale Imposta,” Tesi di Laurea, Politecnico di Torino.
Fioravante, V., Ghionna, V. N., Pedroni, S., Porcino, D., 1999,
“A Constant Normal Stiffness Direct Shear Box for Soil-Solid
Interafces Tests,” Italian Geotechnical Journal, No. 3, pp.
7–22.
Hoteit, N., 1990, “Contribution à l’Etude du Comportement d’In-
terface Sable-Inclusion et Application au Frottement Apparent,”
These de Docteur Ingenieur, University of Grenoble, France.
Jardine, R. J. and Chow, F. C., 1996, “New Design Methods for
Offshore Piles,” Marine Technology Directorade Ltd Publica-
tions 96/103, pp. 3–48.
Jardine, R. J., Lehane, B. M., and Everton, S. J., 1993, “Friction
Coefficients for Piles in Sands and Silts,” Offshore Site Investi-
gations and Foundation Behavior, Vol. 28, Society for Under-
water Technology, Netherlands, pp. 661–677.
Kishida, H. and Uesugi, M., 1987, “Tests of the Interface between
Sand and Steel in the Simple Shear Apparatus,” Géotechnique,
Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 45–52.
Lehane, B. M., and Jardine, R. J., 1994, “Shaft Capacity of Driven
Piles in Sand: A New Design Approach,” BOSS ‘94 Behavior of
Offshore Structures, Vol. 1, Geotechnics, Pergamon, pp. 23–36.
Mitutoyo, Practical Manual of the Roughness Tester Surftest 301.
Moutraji, J., 1992, “Etude Expérimentale et Numérique du
Cisaillement Direct Silt-Structure: Application à l’Amélioration
du Frottement Latéral dans les Sols Fins,” Thèse de Docteur
Ingenieur, University of Grenoble, France.
Ooi, L. H., and Carter, J. P., 1987, “A Constant Normal Stiffness
Direct Shear Device for Static and Cyclic Loading,” Geotechni-
cal Testing Journal, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 3–12.
Paikowsky, S. G., Player, C. M., and Connors, P. J., 1995, “A Dual
Interface Apparatus for Testing Unrestricted Friction of Soil
along Solid Surfaces,” Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 18,
No. 2, pp. 168–193.
Porcino, D., 1997, “Studio Sperimentale del Comportamento
all’Interfaccia Terreno-Inclusioni attraverso Prove di Taglio
Diretto a Rigidezza Normale Imposta,” Tesi di Laurea, Univer-
sità degli Studi di Reggio Calabria.
Potyondy, J. G., 1961, “Skin Friction between Various Soils and
Construction Materials,” Géotechnique, Vol. 2, No. 4,
pp. 339–353.
Schlosser, F. and Guilloux, A., 1979, “Le Frottement Sol-Armature
dans les Ouvrages en Terre Armée, R. Colloque International
sur le Renforcement des Sols, Paris, France, Vol. 1, pp. 151–156.
Schlosser, F. and Guilloux, A., 1981, “Le Frottement dans le Ren-
forcement des Sols,” Revue Française de Géotechnique, No. 16,
pp. 65–79.
Tabucanon, J. T., Airey, D. W., and Poulos, H. G., 1995, “Pile Skin
Friction in Sands from Constant Normal Stiffness Tests,”
Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 350–364.
Uesugi, M., and Kishida, H., 1986a, “Influential Factors of Friction
between Steel and Dry Sand,” Soils and Foundations, Vol. 26,
No. 2, pp. 33–46.

Uesugi, M. and Kishida, H., 1986b, “Frictional Resistance at Yield
between Dry Sand and Mild Steel,” Soils and Foundations, Vol.
26, No. 4, pp. 139–149.
Vita, G. P., 1998, “Comportamento delle Interfacce tra Terreni
Sabbiosi ed Inclusioni Solide in Campo Dinamico,” Tesi di Lau-
rea, Università degli Studi di Reggio Calabria.
Wernick, E., 1978a, “Stresses and Strains on the Surface of
Anchors,” Revue Française de Géotechnique, numéro spécial
sur les tirants d’ancrages, pp. 113–119.
View publication stats
PORCINO ET AL. ON DIRECT SHEAR TESTS 13
Wernick E., 1978b, “Skin Friction of Cylindrical Anchors in Non-
Cohesive Soils,” Symposium on Soil Reinforcing and Stabilising
Techniques, Sydney, Australia, pp. 201–219.
Yoshimi, Y. and Kishida, T., 1981a, “Friction between Sand and
Metal Surface,” 10th International Conference of Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 831–834.
Yoshimi, Y. and Kishida, T., 1981b, “A Ring Torsion Apparatus
for Evaluating Friction between Soil and Metal Surfaces,”
Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 145–152.