Interfacial friction between

soils and solid surfaces

Dr. R. G. Robinson
Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
IIT Madras
 Typical field situations

Shallow foundation

Tip resistance
Deep foundation
Typical field situations

Retaining walls
Typical field situations

Reinforced earth walls

Typical field situations

Geosynthetic reinforced earth slopes

Typical field situations

Geotextiles

www.geosyntheticssociety.org
 Definition of coefficient of friction and friction angle

P
P Normal Force
T Shear Force T
Soil
Coefficient of friction,
Solid material
=tan=T/P
where,  is the friction angle

P
Shear stress = T/A

T
Normal stress=P/A
Apparatus used for evaluating friction angle

Potyondy (1961) Rowe (1962) Silberman (1961)

Ingold (1984) Ingold (1984)

Apparatus used for evaluating friction angle

Jewell and Wroth (1987) Murthy et al. (1993)

Coyle and Sulaiman (1967)

Apparatus used for evaluating friction angle

Brumund and Leonards (1973) Ingold (1984)

Heerema (1979) Yoshimi and Kishida (1981)

Apparatus used for evaluating friction angle

Desai et al. (1985) Uesugi and Kishida (1986)

Paikowsky et al. (1995) Abderrahim and Tisot (1993)

Some Terminologies
 Three Phases in Soils
S : Solid Soil particle
W: Liquid Water
A: Air Air

Void ratio, e = Vv/Vs Water content, w = Mw/Ms

Relative Density (Dr)

Loosest Densest
emax = 0.92 emin = 0.35
(Lambe and Whitman, 1979)

emax  e
Dr   100
emax  emin
 Particle shapes-- Sand

Coarse- Rounded Subrounded

grained
soils

Subangular Angular

(Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)

 Maximum and minimum void ratio

ASTM D 4253; ASTM D 4254

Minimum void ratio

Maximum void ratio
 Direct shear test

 f  c   n tan 

f shear strength of soil

n Normal stress
c cohesion intercept
 angle of internal friction
Typical direct shear test results

Dense sand
Loose sand


cv

Displacement n1 n2 n3

Displacement
n1
Angle of repose
n2

n3
cv ~ Angle of repose
Interface friction in sands
Factors influencing interfacial friction angle of Sand

 Surface Roughness
 Density of sand
 Normal stress
 Rate of deformation
 Size of apparatus
 Grain size and shape
 Type of apparatus
Influence of sand density and surface Roughness

0.75

Steel Dr = 40%
/ cv

0.5 Steel Dr = 60%

Steel Dr = 90% Toyoura
Brass Dr=65% sand
Aluminium Dr=65%
0.25 Steel
Soma sand Wood
Concrete
0
1 10 100 1000
Surface roughness, Rmax,  m
 Influence of sand density……
Results of triaxial and soil-steel friction tests (after Noorany, 1985)

 
Soil Type Soil Condition
Silica sand loose 35 21
dense 40 20
Calcareous loose 46 18
sand from dense 49 18
Guam
loose, crushed 46 21
loose, ground 46 -
dense, crushed 48 22
Calcareous loose 44 20
sand from medium 45 20
Florida dense 47 23
medium, crushed 45 23
medium, ground 45 -
dense, crushed 49 23
 Influence of sand density……

Acar et al. 1982 Levacher and Sieffert 1984

1.2
Steel
Wood 0.4
1 Concrete
Sand

Coefficient of friction,
0.8
tan(  or )

0.3

0.6

0.2
0.4

0.2 0.1
0 20 40 60 80 100
15 16 17 18
Relative Density (% ) 3
Sand density kN/m
 Limiting values of

I Maximum Values:

Potyondy (1961), Panchanathan and

Ramaswamy (1964), Uesugi and co-workers
reported the limiting maximum value of  is the
peak angle of internal friction p

Yoshimi and Kishida (1981) report that the

maximum limiting value is the critical state
friction angle cv
 Minimum Values of  Reported by Various Authors

Interface  Source
Sand-material
Sand-smooth surface  Lambe and Whitman (1969)
Sand-smooth material 0.5  Yoshimi and Kishida (1981)
Sand-normal glass 7 - 10 Tatsuoka and Haibara (1985)
Sand-pyrex glass 5–6 Tatsuoka and Haibara (1985)
Sand-stainless steel 7 Tatsuoka and Haibara (1985)
Sand-steel Uesugi and kishida (1986b)
tan -1 (0.07/Ri) §
Sand-steel Tejchman and Wu (1995)
0.5 
Glass beads-steel Paikowsky et al. (1995)
5
Material-Material
Diamond-diamond Bowden and tabor (1986)
3
Sapphire-sapphire Bowden and tabor (1986)
11
Metal-diamond Bowden and tabor (1986)
3
Steel-sapphire Bowden and tabor (1986)
7

Notes:   Particle-to particle friction angle

§ Ri Modified roundness
 Influence of normal stress
Potyondy (1961); Acar (1982):
Both δ and Φ decreases with normal stress
but the ratio (δ/) remains constant

Heerema (1979), Uesugi and Kishida (1986),

O’Rourke et al. (1990)
 is independent of normal stress

For soft materials:

 increases with normal stress due to
indentation of sand into the material
(Panchanathan and Ramaswamy, 1964;
Valsangkar and Holm (1997)
 Influence of Rate of deformation

 Heerema (1979)
– Rate of deformation from 0.7 to 600 mm/s
– No influence
 Lemos (1986)
– Rate of deformation 0.0038 to 133 mm/min
– No influence
 Influence of Size of apparatus

 Brumund and Leonards (1973)

– Rods with interface area of 225 cm2 and 400 cm2
– No appreciable difference
 Uesugi and kishida (1986)
– Simple shear apparatus, 40 cm2 and 400 cm2
– No influence
 O’Rourke et al (1990)
– Direct shear apparatus of size equal to 6cm x 6 cm, 10
cm x10 cm, 28 cm x28 cm and 30.5x30.5 cm
– No significant influence
 Influence of grain size and shape

Rowe (1962)

Friction angle (degrees)

Rowe (1962), Uesugi and Kishida
(1986), Jardine and Lahane (1994):

 decreases with increase in grain size

Particle diameter (mm)

Angular particles give higher friction angle

(Uesugi and Kishida 1986; O’Rourke et al. 1990; Paikowski et al. 1995)
 Influence of type of apparatus

 Kishida and Uesugi (1987)

– Simple shear versus direct shear
– No difference
 Thandavamurthy (1990)
– Direct shear versus model pile tests
– Direct shear gives 20% higher
 Abderrahim and Tisot (1993)
– Direct shear- Ring torsion-Pressuremeter probe
– Direct shear > Pressuremeter probe >Ring shear
 QUANTIFICATION OF
INTERFACE ROUGHNESS
 versus Roughness (Bosscher and Ortiz 1987)
 Normalized Roughness (Kishida and Uesugi 1987)

Rmax ( L  D50 )
Rn 
D50
Correlation with Normalized Roughness (Kishida &Uesugi 1987)
Definition of modified roundness (Uesugi and Kishida 1986)

Modified roundness of a particle

1  r2  r4 r1  r3 
R    
2  l1 l2 
Correlation between , Rn and R

(0.27)
(0.19)
(0.17)
 Summary of some published interface friction tests
Author(s) Type of testing apparatus Results of investigation

Potyondy (1961) Direct shear apparatus  increases with density and

with the sand on the top lim=p
of test material
Broms (1963) Direct shear mode by A  value of 23o was obtained
sliding the material over irrespective of sand density
the sand
Yoshimi and Ring shear with the test Density has no influence and
Kishida (1981) material on top of sand lim=cv

Acar et al. (1982) Similar to Potyondy  increases with density

Noorany (1985) Similar to Broms Influence of density is negligible

Uesugi et al. Simple shear with the  increases with density lim=p
(1990) sand on top of the test
material
 Analysis of past studies

From the review the following three conclusions

can be drawn:
(1) increases with surface roughness and
reaches a maximum limiting value
(2) For very rough surfaces,  tends to a limiting
maximum value which could be either the peak
angle of internal friction p or the critical state
friction angle cv.

(3) can either increase or remain constant with

the increase in sand density.
 Summary of some published interface friction tests

Author(s) Type of testing apparatus Results of investigation

Potyondy Direct shear apparatus  increases with density

(1961) with the sand on the top and lim=p
of test material
Broms (1963) Direct shear mode by A  value of 23o was
sliding the material over obtained irrespective of
the sand sand density
Yoshimi and Ring shear with the test Density has no influence
Kishida (1981) material on top of sand and lim=cv

Acar et al. Similar to Potyondy  increases with density

(1982)

Noorany Similar to Broms Influence of density is

(1985) negligible

Uesugi et al. Simple shear with the  increases with density

(1990) sand on top of the test lim=p
material
Schematic of Type A and Type B apparatus

Loading cap

SAND SAND
Material

Type A apparatus Type B apparatus

 Features of Type A and Type B apparatus

Sl.No. Features Type A Type B

I Apparatus configuration

1 Relative position of Soild material is on the top of The sand specimen is

solid material and sand sand. The sand specimen is on the top of solid
and sample prepared first and the solid material surface. The
preparation. surface is placed over the sand is prepared
prepared leveled surface. directly on the solid
surface.

Application of normal Normal stress is applied through Normal stress is

2 applied through the
stress to the interface. the material to the interface.
sand the interface.

Ring torsion apparatus, direct Direct shear apparatus

Apparatus type in
3 by sliding soil over solid
literature shear apparatus by sliding solid
material over sand. material, simple shear
apparatus, translational
test box etc.
 ….. Features of Type A and Type B apparatus

Sl.No. Features Type A Type B

II Influence of type of apparatus on the results obtained

4 Influence of  increases with  increases with

roughness roughness roughness.
 increases with

5 Influence of Negligible. the increase of

density of sand. density.

Maximum limiting The maximum limiting The limiting

6
value of  maximum value is
value for very rough
interface is critical state of the peak angle of
angle of internal friction of internal friction of
sand sand.
Experiments in Direct shear
apparatus
 Solid materials used

Material 1– Stainless steel

Material 2– Mild steel

Material 3– Mild steel

Material 4– Ferrocement

Material 5– Ferrocement
Surface profiles of the materials

Stainless steel

Mild steel

Mild steel

Concrete surface

Concrete surface
Grain size distribution curves of the sands used
 Properties of sands used

Sand Gs D50 Cu Dav (d)max (d)min

No. mm mm kN/m3 kN/m3
1 2.64 1.60 1.3 1.53 15.9 13.0
2 2.64 1.10 1.3 1.01 16.0 12.9
3 2.64 0.74 1.5 0.69 16.1 13.1
4 2.64 0.42 1.4 0.41 16.0 13.0
5 2.65 0.27 1.6 0.27 16.2 13.0
6 2.64 0.78 3.4 1.10 18.0 14.0
7 2.65 2.20 8.3 1.92 18.6 14.5

Note:

Gs Specific gravity of soil grains

(d)max Maximum dry density

(d)min Minimum dry density

Raining Technique--Calibration curves
Schematic of Type A apparatus
Type A apparatus
Schematic of Type B apparatus
Type B apparatus
 Typical shear stress-movement curves

Sand 6, ’n = 140 kPa

150 150
Sand/Material 5
Type A Type B
Sand/Material 4
Sand/Material 3
Sand/Material 2

Shear stress, kPa

Shear stress, kPa

100 Sand/Material 1 100

50 50

0 0
0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6
Shear movement, mm
Shear movement, mm
 80
Shear stress, kPa
60
Sand 4
Material 5
40

20
Type B (Plate below)
Type A (Plate above)
n’ = 70 kPa
0
0 1 2 3 4
Shear movement, mm
1.6

1.2
Volume change, %

0.8

0.4

0
0 1 2 3 4
-0.4

-0.8
Shear movement, mm
 Typical failure envelopes (Type B)

Peak Critical state

(pB/) versus Relative density (Type B)

Thandavamurthy (1990)
Variation of (pB/) with Dav (Type B)
 Proposed Roughness index

Relative Roughness (R)

Ra
R
Dav

Ra Average Roughness
Dav Average particle size
Variation of (pB/) with R
Variation of cvB with R
Comparison of cvA with cvB
Drained shear strength of fine-
grained soil-solid surface
interfaces
Clays are sheet like
and possess
plasticity
characteristics
Grain size distribution curves of the soils used
 Properties of cohesive soils used

Soil
Property
Red Earth Kaolinite Illite

Atterberg Limits
Liquid limit (%) 33 55 131

Plastic Limit (%) 19 33 78

Plasticity index (%) 14 22 53

Grain Size
Sand (%) 44 0 0

Silt size (%) 47 80 36

Clay size (%) 9 20 64

Average particle size (m) 88.4 12.0 8.5

Coefficient of consolidation, Cv (cm2/sec) 1.09 x 10 -3 1.37 x 10 -2 4.59 x 10 -4

Variation of shear stress with deformation rate of illite
Deformation rates calculated and adopted for tests under drained condition

Deformation rate (mm/min.)

Soil
Calculated Adopted

Red Earth 0.05 0.05

Kaolinite 0.63 0.25

Illite 0.02 0.05

 Shear stress OC NC

nc

’
c’

p’c
Normal stress

Failure envelope of a soil at constant preconsolidation pressure

FAILURE ENVELOPE WITH CONSTANT OCR
Red earth

OCR=1

n’=100, 200 and 300 kPa

OCR=5

’p=500 kPa ’n = 100 kPa

’p=1000 kPa ’n = 200 kPa
’p=1500 kPa ’n = 300 kPa
Illite

OCR=10

’p= 500 kPa ’n = 50 kPa

’p=1000 kPa ’n = 100 kPa
’p=1500 kPa ’n = 150 kPa
 Typical shear stress-movement curves

0 2 4 6 8

Shear movement, mm Shear movement, mm

 Typical failure envelopes

Normal stress
Normal stress
 Variation of ’B and (’B/’) with OCR

Bo
B/
Variation of (B/) with Ra
Variation of (B/) with R
Comparison of  values from Type A and Type B
 SUMMARY
 Interfacial friction depends on mode of shear
for sands and the maximum value of friction
angle is controlled by the type of apparatus
used to evaluate the friction angle
 For clays, mode of shear has no influence
 Research Issues

 Modeling of interface behaviour : shear

stress-movement curves
 Roughness
 Hardness of solid material
 Rigidity of materials
 Mode of shear
 Particle size and shape
 Acknowledgements
1. Prof. K. S. SUBBA RAO
Department of Civil Engineering
IISc, Bangalore

2. Prof. M. M. Allam
Department of Civil Engineering
IISc, Bangalore

CSIR for funding

Thank you