International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPI. October 2011, pp 89-93 Study on soil structure interface strength property Gireesha N.T Postgraduate student, Deparment of Coil Engineering, National Instat of Technolog, Tiruohirappali-620015, India, E-mail [email protected] K, Muthukkumaran Assistant Professor, Deparment of Civil Engineering, National Insite of Technology, Tiruchirappali-820015, India, E-mail bnkianitedu ABSTRACT: In soilsiructure interaction problems it often becomes important to make @ good estimation of fictional resistance between ground and foundation. The interface fiction angle of soil against structural material is of reat intrest among the researchers in sol structure interaction. This study conducts a series of direct shear tests to investigate the interface friction angle of different stractural materials (concrete, steel and wood) against well graded sand and poorly graded sand with varying relative density. The experimental results showed that both internal friction angle (9) of the sand andthe interface friction angle (8) increases with increasing the relative density in both well graded sand and poorly graded sand. The ratio of 8/9 is calculated for all the three (conerete, steel and wood) materials and among these three materials concrete is gives the higher value. The soil gradation is significantly changes the interface fiction angle inal three materials Key words: Direct shear test, Sand, Intemal friction angle, Interface ftition angle INTRODUCTION: NOTATIONS: ‘The understanding of soil structure interface shear [SYMBOL DESCRIPTION strength is essential to the design and analysis of [SW Well Graded Sand structures, a the present study the direct shear testis used | SP to find the friction angle between sand and structural | materials. Among a number of studies on friction between | soil and construction materials, there are some on the | D, fiction between the sand with concrete, stel and wood. | ya Poorly Graded Sand Angle of Internal Friction “Angle of Interface Fiction Relative Density Dry Density Based on the extensive experimentation, Potyondy (1960) proposed to express the skin friction resistance in a similar EXPERIMENT TEST PROCEDURE: orm to that of the Coulomb failuze envelope as a sum of the adhesion and the normal stress dependent component, In a study on the uplift capacity of piles, Esashi et al (1966) showed that skin friction coefficient between sand and construction material, such as steel, conerete, and wood, would be a function of the quantified surface roughness, While direct shear apparatus were used in the above mentioned studies, Yoshimi et al. (1981) used a ring torsion apparatus to overcome the disadvantages of direct shear apparatus. It was found that the quantified roughness of the metal surface could be correlated with the fictional coefficient, imespective of the sand density ‘The several kinds of apparatus were used to investigate th interfacial friction between sand and various construction materials are direct shear test apparatus, simple shear apparatus, ring torsion apparatus and dual shear apparatus, Several factors affecting the value of the interface friction angle are: () soil properties such as ‘mineralogical composition, density, grain shape, grain size and gradation; and (ji) the properties of the material surface such as hardness and surface roughness, ‘The object of the present paper is to study the soil structure interface strength property of sand with other structural materials (concrete, steel and wood) with varying relative density of sand. And also to study the effect of gradation on interface strength. For the present study the direct shear testis used. The direct shear test box of lower valve is filled with structural ‘material and upper valve is filled with sand of varying density. the size of the structural material is ‘60mm*60mm*lOmm, the sand used is local available sand of different gradation, ‘The test apparatus setup as shown in Fig. TES, OG : cOCRRA MI URRRUCR ER Figure 1: Direct shear test apparatus setup 4020410123 Copyright © 2011 CAFET-INNOVA TECHNICAL SOCIETY. All rights reservedRESULTS AND DISCUSSION: ‘This testis carried out forthe classification of sand and the test was carried out as per IS: 1498(1970), Fig.2 shows the particle size distibution of both well and poorly graded sand. The properties of sand are presented in Table 1 100 001 Otevestee Hmm 10 Fig.2 Gradation curve for well and poorly graded sand ‘Table 1 Properties of sand Well graded | Poorly graded Properties sand sand Triformity coefficient(C,) se is Coeficient of 6 0 curvaure(C) 186 089 Max. dry density in gee 2.28 21 (ans) Min. dry density in pee 174 wm (tess) Specific 5 gzavityiGs) 264 258 Effect of Gradation on Friction Angle The friction angle depends onthe surface roughness ofthe material, type of sand, loading system and relative density. In the present study the effect of particle size on the friction angle investigated for different relative density ‘The different relative densities are taken as relative density corresponding to minimum and maximum density of the soil and 50% of the maximum relative density. Using the known relative density, the weight of sample Gireesha N. T, K. Muthukkumaran Angle of Internal Friction ‘The variation ofthe angle of interna friction for both well ‘graded and poorly graded sand are shown in from Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 respectively. The percentages of reduction in o, for minimum and maximum relative densities are 9.8 and 9.9 respectively but for 50% Dr the percentage of reduction is 8.9. From the Figures its clearly seen that the increasing relative density increases the angle of intemal friction for both well and poorly graded sand. However the rate of change of fiction angle is more in well graded sand than poorly graded sand. The percentage of reduction in @ with respect to relative densities is presented in Table 2 Shes@stress(ks/emy 0 os 1 15 ‘Normal stress (kg/cm?) Fig. 3 for well graded sand Shepr stresstka/ea) 0 os 1 15 2 ‘Normal treestka/em’) Fig. 4 for poorly graded sand ‘Table 2 for SW and SP hhas been calculated to carry out the direct shear test Wal [Poorly | %of Estimation of weight of sample for different relative graded | graded | Reduction density Yanin) i8 the density corresponding to the soil in Dr__|sans__| sand ino Toose state and Yau is the density corresponding to the Min soil in dense state. The Yann) is obtained by conducting Dr 36.6 3 98 density test by sand replacement method where Yana ha fbiained by using vibrating the soil to the maximum 382 348 89 densification, Relative density = Tat — 2 Pénte 40.1 36.1 99 A Otems-Pende International Journal of Barth Scicnces and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp 89-93Study on sol structure interface strength propery Interface Friction Angle In the direet shear box the bottom portion is filled sith structural material and top portion is filled with soil, The ‘weight is varying due tothe change in volume Interface friction angle between sand and concrete The variation of & for well graded and poorly graded sand is shown in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 respectively. The value of S/o for Max.Dr of well graded sand is 0.8 and for poorly graded sand is 0.79, The Min.Dr of well graded sand has low value of &'@ which i 0.76 as reported in Table 3 Fig. 58 for Concrete and SW 2 5 5-288 , Ags ks =Min Dr 450% Dr eMaxDr Friction angle between sand and steel ‘The variation of 8 for well graded and poorly graded sand is shown in Fig 7 and Fig 8 respectively. The value of 8/@ for Max.Dr of well graded sand is 0.78 and in poorly graded sand is 0.79. The Min.Dr of well graded sand has low value of 6p is 0.75 as reported in Table 4 2 as 2 315 2 296 i S275 5 m Min Dr 4.50% Dr “¢ Max Dr 0 NOithatatrdss colby 2 Fig. 7 for Stel and SW 2 | 2 2 3-287 %1 aS 3 B53 is = Min Dr z A 4.50%6Dr — © Max Dr 0 : 9 aN emp) 8 for Steel and SP. ‘Table 4 6 and 6/9 for SW and SP of Steet ° 5 2 Dr | _Wellgraded sand | Poorly graded sand bral om ed ein | in em | 5 5 degree | degree | ® | degree | degree | 2! Fig. 6 8 for Concrete and SP Min Dr[ 366 [275 [o7s| 33 | 256 [om Table 38 and 8/9 for SW and SP of Conerete —'sorpr 382 | 29.6 [0.77 | 348 | 272 [0.78 Mex | 40.1 | 31s [ors] 361 | 287 [0.79 Dr_| Weil graded sand_[ Poorly graded sand ein | ain ein | ain Interface friction angle between sand and wood asgiee | acgee | aig | aspres | asgiee | sto | The variation of& for well graded and poorly graded sand Mame] 366 [ 241 [ore[ 33 [259 Tare] is shown in Tg. 9 and Fi, 10 respectively, The veo : '9 for Max.Dr of well graded sand is 0.76 and in poor'y SO eT S82 | 30 OTB SAB 275 O72) graded sand is 0.78. The value of 8 for Min.Dr of well Max ‘graded sand is 0.72 and in poorly graded sand is 0.76. The ‘well graded sand shows the lower value of 8/9 than the ‘graded sand its reported inthe Table § International Journal of Barth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp 89-93Shear stress(kgiom?) 5 1 ABE ™ Min Dr 7 450% Dr a Max Dr 0 fo pNortnal stress @averm?) Fig. 98 for Wood and SW 2 ‘gs 2 28.4 Za Ab 573 3 ZB ERs z A ds = Min Dr e o 450%Dr 5 a Max Dr © Nofifa strdss caidin’) 2 Fig 108 for Wood and SP ‘Table § 8 and d/g for SW and SP of Wood te |_wengeadedsand | poorly graded sand in | bin are | anger | | age | agree | ste MT s66 | 267 for| as | ass ors 3%) 32 [as [ors | sas om Wx vex aoi | a07 [ore] ser | 26a [ore Fig 11 and Fig. 12 shows the arson of imece fiction angle (8) for different structural materials (concrete, steel and wood) with both well graded and poorly graded sand respectively. It shows that concrete has more interface fFiction angle compared to other two ‘materials of steel and wood in both well graded and poorly ‘graded sand. Gireesha N. T, K. Muthukkumaran 33 31 B B 8 5 ——Conerete SW S Steel SW = Wood SW é =o 100 Relative density in % Fig. 118 Variation for different materials with SW 29 & 3 a S—Conerete SP 4 wSteel SP a —&- Wood SP 5 B =o Relative & ity in % 100 Fig 128 Variation for different materials with SP CONCLUSIONS ‘The following are the conclusions drawn from the present study, 1, The angle of interface ftietion or wall fiction angle (8) increases with increase in relative density for both well graded sané and poorly graded sand. 2, ‘The soil gradation has significant effect on the Wall friction angle (@), for instant the 6 value is 0.80 for well graded soil and 0,7 for poorly graded soil with maximum relative density in soil concrete interface friction. 3, The well graded sand shows the lower value of Big than the poorly graded sand in soil wood imerface friction. The value of 8p is 0.76 and 0.78 for well graded and poorly graded sand respectively in maximum relative density, where hhas in minimum relative densities there’ values are 0.72 and 0.76, 4, Concrete has more interface friction angle compared to other two materials of steel and ‘wood in both well graded and poorly graded sand, International Journal of Barth Scicnces and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp 89-93‘Study on soll structure interface strength property REFERENCES [1] Abdullah ILAl-Mhaidib (2006), “influence of shearing rate of interfacial fiietion between sand and steel”. Engineering Journal of the University of Qater, Vol19 [2] API: 2000, foundations" [3] Bosscher, P. J. and Ortiz, C. (1987), “Frictional Properties between Sand and Various Construction Materials”. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 9, pp. 1035-1039. [4] Bouloa M. (1989), “Basie Features of Soil Structure Interface Behavior”. Computers and Geotechnics 7, 15-131 [5] Hong, Z, and Hua, X, G. (1995), “A study of deformation in the’ interface between soil and cconerele". Computers and Geotechnies 11, 75-92 [6] Hsieh, C., Hsieh, M.W. (2003)," Load plate rigidity and seale effects on the frictional behavior of sand/geo-membrane interfaces”, Geotextles and Geomembranes 21(1), 25-47. “Design and construction of pile [7] Lui, S.H,, De’an Sun and Hajime Matsuoka (2005), “On the interface friction in direct shear test” Computers and Geotechnics 32, 317-325 [8] Nan Liu, Hsien Ho and Huang, W., (2009), “Large scale ditect shear test of soilPET-yam_geogrid interfaces". Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27, 19-30 [9] O'Rourke, T. D., Drushel, S. J. and Netravali, A.N., (1990), Shear Strength Characteristics of Sand- polymer Interfaces. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 116, No.3, pp. 451-469, [lo]Subbe, Rao, K-S., Allam, MM, Robinsoa, RG, (988), “Interfacial Frition between Sand and Solid Surfaces”. Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 131, pp. 75-82 [11JUesugi, M,, and Kishida, H., (1986), “Influential factors of friction between steel and dry sands”, Soil ‘and foundations Vol.26, NO. 2, 33-46. [12]Wang, Z., and Richwien, W., (2002), “A study of soil-tsinforcement interface friction”. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ‘VoI.128 No.1 International Journal of Barth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp 89-93