SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS Vol.29, No.3, 127-137, Sept.

1989
Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering

FRICTION BETWEEN SAND AND STEEL UNDER

REPEATED LOADING

MoRIMICHI U ESUGril, HmEAKI KrsHIDA iil ·and Y ASUNORI TsuBAKIHARA iiil

ABSTRACT
Friction between sand and steel is studied by laboratory tests under repeated loading. The
interface behavior under one-way and two-way repeated loading was compared with the
behavior under monotonic loading. Once.· a sand-steel interface slides, the coefficient of
friction at the re-start of sliding becomes different from the peak value in the first. The
·Coefficient of friction under repeated loading converges to a value close to the residual shear
stress ratio of the sand mass. A shear zone formation along sand-steel interface was observed
with macroscopic photographing. This shear zone formation along the sand-steel interface
·explains the decrease of upper-limiting value of the coefficient of friction. The amount of
particle crushing was evaluated by sieving the sand before and after the friction tests.
Particle crushing explains the influence of sand type and normal stress in the increase of
the coefficient of friction under repeated loading.

Key words : friction, laboratory test, repeated load, sand, shear strength, steel (IGC : D 6)

terfaces. The frictional resistance at yielding

:INTRODUCTION
Soil-structure interfaces transfer shear
forces as frictional resistance. For simple
strength design, the most important property
of the interface friction is the maxim urn
shear strength. Previous studies were con-
·Cerned with the maximum shear strength
.along the interface between soil and construc-
tion materials. For example, Uesugi and
Kishida (1986 a, b) studied the frictional re-
:Sistance at yielding along the sand-steel in-
was found to depend on normal stress,
steel roughness, median diameter and sand
type.
The change of the interface friction during
the sliding and its influential factors have
received less attention. Yoshimi and Kishida
(1981 a, b) is a rare exception discussing the
residual coefficient of friction. The sand-
steel interface, however, was tested only
under a 98 kN/m 2 and by monotonic load-
ing.

l) Associate Professor, Department of Architectural Engineering, Chiba University, 1-33 Yayoicho,

Chiba 260.
ii) Professor of Geotechnical Engineering, Graduate School at Nagatsuta, Tokyo Institute of Technol-
ogy, Yokohama.
iii) Research Associate, Tokyo Institute of Technology.
Manuscript was received for review on September 9, 1988.
Written discussions on this paper should be submitted before April 1, 1990, to the Japanese Society
of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Sugayama Bldg. 4 F, Kanda A waji-cho 2-23,
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101, Japan. Upon request the closing date may be extended one month.

This is an Open Access article under the CC-BY-NC-ND license.

NII-Electronic Library Service

 128 UESUG I ET AL.

In geotechnical engineering, the residual

shear strength of sand-steel interface has an
important role under repeated loading. For
example, the residual shear strength affects
the ultimate shaft resistance of piles under
repeated load such as wave, wind and earth-
quake. The residual shear strength also
affects the horizon tal motion of structures
with shallow foundations.
A new approach for anti-seismic design
allows the sliding of structures during earth-
quakes (Fujii, et al., 1986 ; Kurimoto and
Fig. 1. Section of friction test apparatus
Matsuda, 1986). They concluded that the (after Uesugi and Kishida, 1986 b)
displacement of a sliding structure depends
on the coefficient of friction at its base.
Transducer
Desai et al. (1985) proposed a modified c
Ramberg-Osgood (MRO) model from a series
of labor a tory tests on sand-concrete inter-
faces under cyclic loading. The test appara-
tus, however, was a shear box type. The
measured tangential displacement contained
both interface sliding and the shear defor-
mation of sand mass. In addition, the simu- <o1=o-o2>
lated behavior was limited to that be- (a) Simple shear type (b) Shear box type
fore the interface yielding (Uesugi and Kishi-
Fig. 2. Measurement of tangential dis-
da, 1987).
placement (after U esugi and Kishida,
This paper describes the sand-steel friction
1986 b)
under repeated loading in laboratory experi-
ments. The coefficient of friction changed m thickness. A stack of lubricated alumi-
under repeated loading. This change was num frames contained the sand mass. Each
dependent on surface roughness, normal aluminum frame was 2 mm in thickness.
stress, and sand type. The coefficient of This sand container allows the shear defor-
friction converged to a value after a number mation of sand mass with minimum resist-
of repeated sliding of the sand-steel inter- ance. A teflon sheet was attached to the
face. When the interface was rough, the bottom aluminum frame to prevent the fric-
coefficient of friction decreased because of tional resistance between the frame and the
the shear zone formation. When the inter- steel plate. For rough interfaces, a layer
face was smooth, the coefficient of friction of plastic sponge was inserted between the
increased depending on the degree of particle teflon sheet and the aluminum frame to pre-
crushing. vent particle leakage.
Normal load was applied through the trans-
ducer 'a' in Fig. 1 and was kept constant
EXPERIMENT during the friction test. Forced tangential
Fig. 1 shows a schematic diagram of simple displacement was applied at the steel speci-
shear type apparatus in the present study. men through the load transducer 'b'.
This is the same apparatus used by Uesugi As shown in Fig. 2( a), transducer 'c'
and Kishida (1986 b). The sand-steel inter- measured the total tangential displacement
face was 100 mm in length and 40 mm in o. Transducer 'd' measured the shear defor-
breadth. The sand mass was about 24 mm mation of sand mass o2 • The interface slid-

NII-Electronic Library Service

 REPEATED SAND-STEEL FRICTION 129

Table 1. Properties of sands Table 2. Shear stress ratio in simple

Dso w shear tests of sands under two··way
No. Sand type (mm) Uo Gs em in emax (%) repeated loading
1 Toyoura 0.18 1.4 2.65 0.604 0. 991 0.08 Sand D,. 11
No. Dso
2 Toyoura 0.19 1.4 2.66 0.620 o. 982 No. (mm) (%) (kN/m 2) (t/11)max (t/11),.

3 Seto 0.16 1.1 2.64 0. 780 1. 245 0. 04

0.18 95 98 0.86
4 Seto o. 54 1.1 2.64 0. 737 1.150 0.02
2 0.18 99 98 0.87
5 Seto 0. 54 5.1 2.64 0.535 0. 737 0.02
3 0.18 99 490 0. 76
6 Seto 1.8 1.1 2.65 0. 755 1. 054 0.02
4 0.18 96 490 0. 76
7 Seto 1.8 1.1 2.64 0. 748 1. 040 0.02
5 2 0.19 92 98 0.86 0.56
8 Fujigawa 0.16 1.1 2. 74 0. 768 1.117 0.4 6 2 0.19 99 98 0.84 0.56
9 Fujigawa 0. 54 1.1 2. 72 0.. 763 1.148 0. 6 7 3 0.16 90 98 0.81 0.56
10 Fujigawa o. 54 5.1 2. 72 0.532 0. 940 0.6 8 4 0. 54 97 98 0.85 0.55
11 Fujigawa 1.8 1.1 2. 72 0. 772 1. 067 0.5 9 5 0. 54 92 98 0.84 0.61
10 7 1.8 87 98 0. 78 0.55
11 8 0.16 89 98 0.84 0.59
ing o 1 was obtained from o and o2 as o1 12
13
9
10
0. 54
0.54
100
96
98
98
0. 87
0.89
0.63
0.62
o-o2· 14 11 1.8 91 98 0.86 0.65
In shear box type tests (Fig. 2( b)), the Note See Table 1 for Sand No.
stack of aluminum frames was replaced by a
18 mm thick steel frame. The frame had a specimen to prevent the interface sliding.
100 mm x 40 mm square space in the middle. The procedure of sand preparation was the
The sand thickness was about 17 mm. Fur- same as that of friction tests.
ther details of the apparatus are described in
Uesugi and Kishida (1986 b).
The steel specimen was a low-carbon struc- INTERFACE BEHAVIOR UNDER UE-
tural steel plate of 180 mm in length, 120 PEATED LOADING
mm in breadth and 8 mm in thickness. The Fig. 3 shows the results. of friction tests
surface of each specimen was finished to a between Toyoura sand and steel. The
specified roughness. The roughness was solid line indicates an interface behavior un-
measured in Rmax (L ~D 50 ) which is the der one-way repeated loading. For one-way
relative height between the highest peak and repeated loading, the servomechanism for
the lowest valley along a surface profile over the tangential load was set so as to keep
the gauge length L~D 50 (Uesugi and Kishi- the increase or decrease of o at 1 mm/s.
da, 1986 b).
Air-dried sand was sieved so that the sand Va 1 1 , 1

particles are within the specified range of 0.8 t- Monotonic loading -

(r\~--S~~tic frictio~ ~etic friction_

diameter. Table 1 shows the properties of
sands used in the present study. D.G
The values of emax. and emin were obtained "'-:: ""<:;, ----
-
-- --- -----
I

by the JSSMFE method (1979). The water I

I

content w was measured at the end of the 0.4r : I-

I
tests. The sand was rained into the sand 'I
container made of al umin urn frames stacked 0.2 -
'
I
I -

on the steel specimen. Raining the sand by '

I
I
I
multiple sieving pluviation method (Miura I· .I I I I I

and Toki, 1982) enabled the operator to make 0 1 4 5 mm

a dense sand mass of Dr~90%. Table 2
shows the shear strength of sand mass under Fig. 3. Test results under monotonic and
repeated loading by the same apparatus. In one-way repeated loading (Sand No.1
the tests of sand mass, the bottom frame of (Toyoura sand) in Table 1, Dr=95%,
the sand container was fixed to a rough steel 0'=98kN/m 2, Rn=150x10- 8 )

NII-Electronic Library Service

 130
The loading direction was switched manually
at the points of unloading and re-loading.
The broken line . is a comparable behavior
under monotonic loading. During the
interface sliding, the frictional resistance
under repeated loading was close to the
resistance under monotonic loading. During
the unloading and re-loading stages, there
was little sliding at the sand-steel interface.
In case of friction between solid bodies,
the coefficient of friction reduces at the start
of the interface sliding. This reduction is
.caused by the difference between the static
friction and kinetic friction. The same val-
ue of the coefficient of static friction is ob-
served at every re-start of the interface slid-
ing after the previous unloading.
In case of sand-steel friction (Fig. 3), on
the other hand, the difference between static
and kinetic friction appeared as the small
_peaks at the re-starts of the interface sliding.
The peak values, however, were obviously
lower than that at the first start of interface
t/a
Monotonic
: ·••... loading
0.6 . ···--.:1: ____
0.4
0.2
0 0.6
--0.2
-0.4
-0.6
mm
Fig. 4. A test result under two-way
repeated loading by small amplitude
of displacement (Sand No. 1 (Toyoura
sand) in Table 1, Dr=95%, Rmax (L=
.o. 2 mm) =28 p.m, a=98 kN/m 2)
UESUGI ET AL.
sliding py.
The difference between static and kinetic
friction of sand-steel interface has· been ob-
served by other researchers as the stick-slip
behavior of smooth interfaces (Yoshimi and
Kishida, 1981 a, b). The stick-slip behavior
appears when the stiffness of loading system
is not rigid enough (Butterfield and Andra-
wes, 1972).
Fig. 4 shows a test result of friction be-
tween steel and Toyoura sand under two-way
repeated loading. The amplitude of the total
displacement o was 1 mm and the frequency
was 1/100 Hz. In the early numbers of load-
ing cycles, the interface sliding o1 was much
smaller than the total displacement o. After
several cycles, the amplitude of sliding o1
became close to the total displacement o.
The maximum shear stress ratio became con-
stant after several cycles of loading.
Fig. 5 shows the same test result with the
cumulative interface sliding o1c on the abscis-
sa. The value of o1c is the accumulation of
the absolute value of the increase in o1•
The broken lines at 2nd, 4th and 6th load-
ing indicate the absolute value of 1:/ a in the
respective loading. Under two-way repeated
loading, the interface sliding is not negligibly
small in the reloading stage. This sliding
displacement can be attributed to the inelas-
tic deformation of shear zone under stress
reversal.
t/cr ~ ====---:::::: Loading number
')'-~:?:.. _
3::::::::----/ \ ~
f I ------ -----7~-"'"-~-,:L..............§.\ ,----~, 7
o.•/i
0.2
f I f\' i
0~~---+---L-r-L--~--~--+\~-L--~
\
Monotonic
-0.2 / loading
-0.4
1
...................£.
/
-0.6
0 2 3 4 5 6
Fig. 5. Relationship between shear stress
ratio and cumulative interface sliding
(Test in Fig. 4)
NII-Electronic Library Service
 REPEATED SAND-STEEL FRICTION 131

to the origin 0. Fig. 7 shows the translated

at/al Loading number : 4 curves for all the loading numbers in Fig. 5.
The dotted line is a comparable behavior by
0.6
monotonic loading under the same condition.
The interface behavior under monotonic load-
0.4 ing is the envelope of the behavior under
two-way repeated loading.

·0.2
INFLUENCE OF INTERFACE ROUGH-
A' NESS OF RESIDUAL COEFFICIEN1r OF
0 1 3 4 mm FRICTION
b1c , Ab1 Table 3 shows a list of friction tests be-
Fig. 6. Example of translation of inter- tween Seto sand and steel under two-way
face behavior of loading number 4 repeated loading. Normal stress was kept
(Test in Fig.4) constant during each test. Total tangential
displacement o
was applied at the period of
100 seconds with the amplitude of 4 mm up
Ut/a I to 15 th cycle of loading.
Fig. 8( a) shows a typical relationship be-
0.6 tween shear stress ratio ( 1: I a) and total dis-
placement o. Fig. 8( b) shows the relation-
0.4 ship between 1: Ia and sliding displacement

Table 3. List of tests between Seto sand

·0.2 and steel under two-way repe1:1~ted
loading
Test Sand Dr ~~') Rn
Test type
0 1 4mm No. No. (%) 6~~) (10-3)

1 3 91 3.0 17 Simple shear 0. 46 0. 53

2 3 96 3.1 18 Shear box 0. 4B 0. 55
Fig. 7. Comparison of the interface 3 91 19 97 Simple shear 0. 80 0. 54
3
behavior under two-way repeated 4 3 99 20 103 Shear box 0. 7:3 0. 56
loading and under monotonic loading 5 5 91 3.2 7 Simple shear 0. 38 0. 49
(Test in Fig.4) 6 5 99 3.4 8 Simple shear 0. 46 0. 53
7 5 99 17 48 Simple shear 0. 6'7 0. 52
8 5 100 19 58 Simple shear 0. 68 0. 55
Under one-way repeated loading (Fig. 3), 9 6 99 3.2 7 Simple shear 0. 4'7 0. 48
in contrast, the sliding displacement was 10 6 99 11 11 Simple shear 0. 50 0. 55
11 6 94 18 50 Simple shear 0. 66 0. 50
negligible during unloading and re-loading 12 6 103 88 71 Simple shear 0. 83 0. 58
·stages. The behavior of shear zone stayed 13 7 98 3.3 3 Shear box 0. 3'7 0. 54
-elastic until the shear stress ratio reached 14 7 92 3. 4 3 Simple shear 0. 36 0. 48
15 7 90 17 22 Simple shear 0. 5!5 0. 57
the coefficient of friction. The elastic de- 16 7 90 18 27 Shear box 0. 5:2 0. 56
formation of shear zone was so small that 17 3 100 20 11 Simple shear* 0. 50 0. 52
the interface sliding became negligibly small. 18 3 107 130 71 Simple shear* 0. 7'7 0. 55

Under two-way repeated loading, the load-
ing in alternative direction starts when 1:/ a=
,0 under cyclic loading. Fig. 6 shows a trans-
lation of the 1:/ a- o1 relationship for the
:loading number 4 in Fig. 5. The curve
ABCD is moved to A'B'C'D' so that A comes
Notes See Table for Sand No.
Normal stress <7=98 kNjm2
Following round figures are used for L=D50 •
L=0.15mm for D 50 =0.16mm
L=0.50mm for D 50 =0.54mm
L=2.00mm for D 50 =1.82mm
* Modified apparatus (Fig. 11) for particle observa·
tion in Nos.17, 18.

NII-Electronic Library Service

 132 UESUGI ET AL.

b
) 0.8

(/)
en
~ 0~~----------~------~~-;
1ii
'- Seto sand
C'V
~-o.4 5 10 15
({) Number of cycles N
Fig. 9•. Influence of number of loading
-0.8 cycles on the coefficient of friction.
(Test No.2, 4, 13, 16 in Table 3)
(a) -4 -2 0 2 4
Total displacement b (mm)
I I 1.0 I I I I I

b ' I
,_ Maximum shear stress ratio
) 0.8 of dense sand~------
~
1
::L
c0.8 - /"" 1- --- -----=:
0 0
:;::: Range of 1Jy:;4"',.....-,.../' !
-:;::;
~
en
0.4 -(( - (.)

:Eo.6
..... ..... f\.,1"'
/
/

,...-"
/
/

~ 4 Jl! . I
.

en
~~// '" /,
0 !
......
~ 0 c
til .920.4 J.lr
: r,./ Shear stress ratio
'-
C'V
~-o.4 1-
({)
))) - -(.)
4=
())

80.2 -
of sand S D 50 (mm)
under repeated load o• 0.16
0
D

0.54
(S : Simple shear type)
D : Shear box type /:::,A, 1.8
-0.8 1- - I I 1
I I 0 20
40 60 80 100
-4 -2 0 2 4 Normalized roughness Rn (1 o- 3 }
(b)
Sliding displacement b1 (mm)
Fig. 10. Residual coefficient of friction
Fig. 8. Typical test result under two-way between Seto sand and steel under two-
repeated loading (Test No.3 in Table way repeated loading (Test No.7 to
3) 10 in Table 2, Tests in Table 3)

o1 of the same test. The difference between
o and o 1 is the displacement due to the shear
deformation of sand mass o2• The sliding
displacement o1 did not come back to 0 at
the end of the test with some shifting to-
wards the negative side. This is because
the shear deformation of sand mass o2 did
not either come back to 0 or become nega-
tive by the tangential loading in the reverse
direction.
Fig. 9 shows the relationships between the
coefficient of friction p and the number of
loading cycles N. The coefficient of friction
at N =0 is the shear stress ratio at the peak
in the first cycle (i. e. uv). The values of
u for the successive loading number are the·
shear stress ratio at o= +4 mm. The coef-
ficient of friction became constant within 10·
cycles of loading.
In the present study, the residual coeffi-
cient of friction under two-way repeated load-·
ing Pr is represented by the maxim urn shear
stress ratio in the last (15th) cycle of load-
ing.
Fig. 10 shows the relationship between Pr
and the normalized roughness Rn- Rn is the·
ratio of Rmax (L=D 50 ) to the mean grain
size D 50 • For Rn>40 X 10- 3, the value of Pr·
became lower than that of py. The value
of Pr became higher than py for Rn < 40 X

NII-Electronic Library Service

 REPEATED SAND-STEEL .FRICTION 133

10- 3• As. the result, 1 Pr. became constant 71 x l0- 3• Fig. 13 shows the points of pho-
dose to the residual shear stress ratio ·of tographs 1, 2, 3 in the 1 st cycle and the
·sand (1:/a)r.· This distribution· of P,r is in points 4, 5, 6 in the· last (15th) cycle. On
dear contrast with that' of uy. py is higher· the photograph prints, the sand mass was
for larger Rm and is upper-limited by the partitioned into 9 layers, each containing 5
maximum shear stress ratio of dense sand. tracked particles.
Fig. 14 shows the average and standard de-
viation of particle displacement between the
BEHAVIOR OF SAND PARTICLES points indicated in the top left corner of each
NEAR THE SAND-STEEL IN.TERF ACE
Fig. 11 shows the test apparatus modified
for particle observation during a friction test
under repeated loading. A part of each alu-
minum frame was cut away 50 mm in length 0.8
to allow the particle observation through the
glass plate. The glass plate was 5 mm in 0.6
thickness. Fig. 12 shows this modification lly
<lid not affect the yield coefficient of friction
J.!Y· o Modified apparatus
A 35 mm reflex camera was fitted with a 0.2 • Original apparatus
200 mm macro objective at 0. 6 m from the
apparatus. Photographs were taken at speci-
fied points during a friction test. The pho- 20 40 60 80 100 (1Q-3)
tographs were enlarged for reading the coor- Rn
·dinates of sand particles. The accuracy of Fig. 12. Yield coefficient ol friction in the
the coordinate reading was about 0. 1 mm. tests for particle observation under
Further details of particle observation was two-way repeated loading (Test No .
.described in Uesugi et al. (1988). 7 to 10 in Table 2, Tests in Table 3)
The present study shows the behavior of
·sand particles in a friction test with Rn=
1.0
2
'100 b
'Thin frame r (mm) .........
1-! 0.5
~~~------------~~ 0
:;.:; ..... ·'.,-""
tiS .. ~"'

~[
1.... ,/'
I

en 4/ 1
en
<l)
0
1....
.......
C/)

'-
<U -0.5
(])
.c 1st cycle
(f)
15th cy<~Ie
-1.0
-4 -2
0 2 4
Total displacement,b (mm)
Fig. 13. Points of photographs in a 1test
Fig. 11. Apparatus modified for the with Rn=7lxl0- 3 under two-way re-
observation of particle displacement peated loading (Test No. 18 in T~Lble
3)

NII-Electronic Library Service

 134 UESUG I ET AL.

~ 21 Increase fn b= 2.6 mm 2~ 31 Increase In b= 1.3 mm

downward+-+ upward
. .
downwe.rd- upwe.rd

.
• f- .
lncre~iase . .
In b
~T
f L-1.-'-...J.......;'-..l.-J
I

0 5 -1 0 1 0 5 -1 0 1
Tangential dlsp. (mm) Normal dlsp. (mm) Tangential dlsp. (mm) Normal dlsp. (mm)

downward+-+ upwe.rd

(
. downwe.rd <-+upward

c
. .
(

pair of figures. Between the points 1 and 2, Table 4. List of tests between Fujiga wa:
the tangential displacement of sand particles sand and steel under two-way re-
distributed linearly with the initial distance peated loading
from the steel surface. This means the sand Test Sand D,. ~~) R,.
(L Test type fJu p,.
mass deformed uniformly before the initial No. No. (%) O. 2~m) (10-3)
peak in the frictional resistance.
8 102 3.0 18 Simple shear 0. 49 0. 51
Between the points 4 and 5 in 15 th cycle, 2 8 92 3. 3 20 Simple shear 0. 50 0. 51
in contrast, there was a large shear deforma- 3 8 90 3. 3 19 Shear box 0. 46 0. 54
4 8 95 18 98 Simple shear 0. 79 0. 52
tion near the sand-steel interface. A large 19 100 Shear box 0. 84 0. 55
5 8 99
shear deformation also took place between 6 9 104 3. 3 8 Simple shear 0. 47 0. 53
the points 5 and 6 during which the frictional 7 9 104 3.4 8 Simple shear 0. 49 0. 54
8 9 99 18 58 Simple shear 0. 67 0. 52·
resistance remained almost constant. The 9 101 37 130 Simple shear 0. 90 0. 56
9
residual coefficient of friction fi-r IS upper- 10 10 93 3.1 8 Simple shear 0. 45 0. 49
limited by the maximum shear stress ratio 11 10 88 18 50 Simple shear 0. 70 0. 49·
12 11 99 3. 0 3 Simple ·shear 0. 38 0. 40
of shear zone along the sand-steel interface. 13 11 102 3.2 4 Simple shear 0. 38 0. 40·
This shear zone thickness was about 5 mm. 14 11 92 3. 2 3 Shear box 0. 36 0. 43
This is in good agreement with a previous 15 11 104 3. 3 3 Simple shear 0. 34 0. 44
16 11 98 17 23 Simple shear 0. 55 0. 58
observation with a larger apparatus under 17 11 99 19 23 Simple shear 0. 56 0. 56
monotonic loading (U esugi et al., 1988). 18 11 99 20 29 Shear box 0. 50 0.57
Notes See Table 1 for Sand No.
Normal stress 0'=98kN;mz
INFLUENCE OF SAND TYPE ON RE- Following round figures are used for L=D50 •
L=0.15mm for D 50 =0.16mm
SlDU -4\.L COEFFICIENT OF. FRICTION L=O. 50 mm for D 50 =0. 54 mm
Table 4 shows a list of friction tests be- L=2.00mm for D 50 =1.82mm

tween Fujigawa sand and steel under two- gential displacement o was applied at the pe-
way repeated loading. Normal stress was riod of 100 seconds with the amplitude of 4
kept constant during each test. Total tan- mm up to 15th cycle of loading.

NII-Electronic Library Service

 REPEATED SAND-STEEL FRICTION 135

Before each friction test, sand particles finer

1.0 J J J J
Maximum sllear stress ratio than 1. 68 mm had been removed with a sieve.
::t of dense sand__..,. <t-!!l. ::::.::-:..-:.::.
c::O.S r- Range of IJY
.2
. . . . ....-- I - The particles finer than 1. 41 mm after the
0 .. ~ ....- ,......-/;it test were those crushed during the friction
-. 'Y
/
... __ ...-
:Eo6 0
tests. Table 5 shows that the amount of
0
'E tl~~.,.
~-..
" ..... ....- 0 0 o• crushed particles depends on the type o:E sand
f : .........-
.,...... ...... J.lr even subjected to the same plastic work.
;~0.4 ,__....--
s
-;;:.. Shear stress ratio D Dso<mm) The difference of particle crushing explains
(1) of sand
8o.2 r- under repeated load 0
0
0.16
0.54
• the influence of sand type on the residual
(S : Simple shear type) coefficient of friction. In case of Seto sand
D : Shear box type c. A 1.8
I 1
(Fig. 10), large amount of particle crushing
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Normalized roughness Rn (1Q-3) increased the normalized roughness Rn of the
sand-steel interface. The higher Rn increas-
Fig. 15. Residual coefficient of friction ed the coefficient of friction upper-limited by
between Fujigawa sand and steel un- the residual shear stress ratio of crushed
der two-way repeated loading (Test
sand. In case of Fujigawa sand (Fig. 15),
No.ll to 14 in Table 2, Tests in Table
on the other hand, the particles were less
4)
susceptible to particle crushing. The
Table 5. Amount of crushed particles amount of crushed particle was not enough
during the friction tests under to cause the increase of Rn along the sand-
two-way repeated loading steel interface.
Table Test Sand R,. w. Wp W.!Wp
No. No. type (lQ-3) (Njm2) (kN·mjm2) (1Q-3jm)
3 14 Seto 3 8. 84 8.53 1. 04 INFLUENCE OF NORMAL STRESS ON
3 15 Seto 22 11.8 10.3 1.15
4 13 Fujigawa 4 0.249 8.63 0.03
RESIDUAL COEFFICIENT OF 18"RIC·
4 17 Fujigawa 23 1. 96 10.3 0.19 TION
Notes w.... weight of particles crushed during the fric· Table 6 shows a list of friction tests be-
tion test.
tween Toyoura sand and steel under two-way
Wp .. ·Plastic work by the interface sliding during
the friction test. repeated loading. Normal stress was kept
constant during each test. Total tangential
Fig. 15 shows the relationship between P.r displacement o was applied at the period of
and normalized roughness Rn of the sand- 100 seconds with the amplitude of 4 mm up
steel interface. The value of P.r became con- to 15 th cycle of loading.
stant irrespective of the normalized rough- Fig. 16 shows the residual coefficient of
ness Rn except at Rn :::::::3 X 10-a encircled by friction between Toyoura sand and steel un-
a broken line. At this roughness, the resi- der two-way repeated loading. The coeffi-
dual coefficient of friction P,r became lower cient of friction was virtually constant close
than the value at larger roughness. This is to the residual shear stress ratio of the sand
in contrast with the case of Seto sand (Fig. except for Rmax (L=O. 2 mm) ::::::::3 p.m. At
10) in which P.r at this roughness was almost this roughness, the residual coefficient of
the same as those at other roughness. friction was obviously lower than the resid-
Table 5 shows the weight of crushed par- ual shear stress ratio of the sand.
ticles We along the sand-steel interface col· Fig. 17 shows the relationship between the
lected after the friction tests under repeated coefficient of friction at o= +4. 0 mm and the
loading. We is the weight of particles finer number of loading cycle N for Rmax (L=O. 2
than 1. 41 mm per unit area of interfaces mm) ::::::::3 p.m. Under normal stress cr=490
after the friction tests. W 11 was obtained as 2
kN/m , the coefficient of friction became high-
the sum of the product of the interface shear er than that under a=98 kN/m 2 • This dif-
stress r and the sliding displacement o1• ference was caused by the amount of crushed

NII-Electronic Library Service

136 UESUGI ET AL.

Table 6. List of test between Toyoura

sand and steel under two-way re-
peated loading a = 490kNfm2 ·
0.4
Test D,. RmaxC/lm) q.
J.l
No. (%) (L=0.2mm) (kNjm2) /ly !lr

87 2. 9 98 0.27 0.25 0.2

2 3.0 490 0.30 0.43 98kN/m 2 .
3 99 3.1 98 0.31 0.26
4 93 3. 7 98 0.28 0.25
15
5 99 9.1 490 0.50 0.55
6 96 9.4 98 0.48 0.50
N
7 101 9.5 490 0.46 0.55 :Fig. 17. Influence of normal stress on the
8 98 9. 7 98 0.47 0. 51
coefficient of friction under repeated
9 100 10 490 0.44 0.55
10 98 11 98 0. 51 0. 52
· loading (Test Nos. 2, 3 in Table 6)
11 97 11 98 0.53 0.52
12 94 19 98 0.63 0.54
13 98 23 98 0.63 0.53 particles dependent on the plastic work along
14 97 23 98 0. 64 0. 55 the sand-steel interface (Uesugi and Kishida,
15 96 23 98 0.66 0.56
16 96 24 98 0.64 0. 53 1986 a). Even if the sliding displacement
17 88 28 98 o. 74 0. 54 was the same, the plastic work became larg-
18 97 28 490 0. 72 0.57 er under higher normal stress. Larger plas-
19 95 28 490 0. 71 0.57
20 91 29 98 0. 77 0. 56 tic work increased the amount of particle
21 88 29 98 0.80 0.54 crushing causing larger normalized roughness
22 96 30 98 0.80 0. 57
23 95 30 490 0. 70
Rn.
0.58
24 92 31 98 0.83 0.58 At Rmax (L=O. 2 mm) ::::::::3 .um, the plastic
25 94 40 98 0.83 0. 57 work along the interfaces was not large
26 96 40 98 0.84 0.57
enough to increase the coefficient of friction
27 92 40 98 0.84 0.59
28 98 40 490 0. 79 0.61 up to the residual shear stress ratio of sand.
29 98 40 490 0. 78 0.59
30 98 40 490 0. 76 0.59
Note Sand No.1 (Toyoura sand) in Table 1. CONCLUSIONS
Friction between sand and steel is studied
by laboratory tests under repeated loading.
The test results are concluded as follows :
( 1 ) Once a sand-steel interface slid, the
0 8 _ Range of lly /' t
/ f- -:::::::::::::::::.
coefficient friction became different from the
. ~':,... .... '
....
maximum coefficient of friction in the first
/
/
/
/
sliding. The coefficient of friction under
0.6 / / repeated loading converged to a value close
/
/
/ to the residual shear stress ratio of the sand.
• / / / // Residual shear stress ( 2) Shear zone formation along the sand-
0.4 / / .. / ratio of sand steel interface explains the decrease of up-
.. llr
per-limiting value of the coefficient of fric-
0.2 Sym. a tion. Particle crushing along the interface
o 98kN/m 2
explains the increase of the coefficient of fric-
• 490kN/m 2
tion which is dependent on sand type and
10 20 30 40(1Jm) normal stress.
Rmax<L=0.2mm)
Fig. 16. Residual coefficient of friction
between Toyoura sand and steel ACKNOWLEDGMENT
under two-way repeated lading (Test Some of the test results in the present
No.1 to 6 in Table 2, Tests in Table 6) paper are those obtained by Mr. M. Eguchi,

NII-Electronic Library Service

 REPEATED SAND-STEEL FRICTION
and Mr.]. Yajima in their thesis for the
degree of Master of Engineering at Tokyo
Institute of Technology. Their enthusiastic
efforts in carrying out the laboratory tests
are appreciated.
NOTATIONS
L =gage length of Rmax
N =number of loading cycles
Rmax=maximum height over a gage length L
(see U esugi and Kishida, 1986 a)
Rn =normalized roughness= (RmaxCL =Dso)) /
D 50 (see U esugi and Kishida, 1986 b)
Wc=weight of particles crushed during a
friction test
Wp=plastic work by the interface sliding dur-
ing a friction test
8 =total tangential displacement= 01 + Oz
(see U esugi and Kishida, 1986 a)
o1 =sliding displacement of sand-steel inter-
face
o1c=accmulated value of ilo 1
o2 =tangential displacement due to the shear
deformation of sand mass
o' =tangential displacement measured m
shear box type friction tests
i/o 1 =absolute value of increase in o1
/.t =coefficient of interface friction
Pr= residual coefficient of interface friction
py=coefficient of friction when interface
yields for the first time (see U esugi and
Kishida, 1986 a, b)
('r/a)max= maximum shear stress ratio (i.e. the
ratio of shear stress to normal stress)
of sand in a simple shear test
('Z'/a)r=residual shear stress ratio of sand in a
simple shear test under repeated loading
REFERENCES
1) Butterfield, R. and Andrawes, K. z. (1972) :
"On the angles of friction between sand and
plane surfaces," Journal of Terramechanics,
Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 15-23.
2) Desai, C. S., Drumm, E. C. and Zaman, M. M.
137
(1985) : "Cyclic testing and modeling of inter-
faces," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,"
ASCE, Vol.111, No.6, pp. 793-815.
3) Fujii, S., Iwano, M., Tanizawa, F. and Mura-
matsu, M. (1986) : "Studies on the sliding of
structures during earthquakes," Proc. of 7th
Japan Earthquake Engineering Symposium,
Tokyo, pp. 1075-1080 (in Japanese).
4) Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foun-
dation Engineering (1979) : "Recommendations
for Laboratory Soil Testing, pp. 172-188 (in
Japanese).
5) Kurimoto, M. and Matsuda, A. (1986) : "Esti-
mation of sliding displacement of rigid body
by model vibration test," Proc. of 7th Japan
Earthquake Engineering Symposium, Tokyo,
pp. 871-876 (in Japanese).
6) Miura, S. and Toki, S. (1982) : "A sample pre-
paration method and its effect on static and
cyclic deformation-strength properties of
sand," Soils and Foundations, Vol. 22, No.1,
pp. 61-77.
7) Uesugi, M. and Kishida, H. (1986 a) : "Influen-
tial factors of friction between steel and dry
sands," Soils and Foundations, Vol. 26, No.2,
pp. 33-46.
8) Uesugi, M. and Kishida, H. (1986 b) : "Fric-
tional resistance at yield between dry sand and
mild steel, " Soils and Foundations, Vol. 26,
No.4, pp.139-149.
9) U esugi, M. and Kishida, H. (1987) : Discussion
on "Cyclic testing and modeling of interfaces"
by Desai et al. (1985), Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 113, No.9, pp. 1086-
1087.
10) U esugi, M., Kishida, H. and Tsubakihara, Y.
(1988) : "Behavior of sand particles in sand-
steel friction, " Soils and Foundations, Vol. 28,
No.1, pp. 107-118.
11) Yoshimi, Y. and Kishida, T. (1981 a) : "A ring
torsion apparatus for evaluating friction be-
tween soil and metal surfaces, " Geotechnical
Testing Journal, GTJODJ, Vol. 4, No.4, pp.
145-152.
12) Yoshimi, Y. and Kishida, T. (1981 b) : "Fric-
tion between sand and metal surface, " Proc.
10th ICSMFE, Vol. 1, pp. 831-834.
NII-Electronic Library Service