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

net/publication/319014288

Modeling interface shear behavior of granular materials using micro-polar

continuum approach

Article in Continuum Mechanics and Thermodynamics · January 2018

DOI: 10.1007/s00161-017-0588-4

CITATIONS READS

11 129

3 authors:

Babak Ebrahimian Ali Noorzad

Shahid Beheshti University Shahid Beheshti University
132 PUBLICATIONS 361 CITATIONS 218 PUBLICATIONS 2,019 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mustafa I. Alsaleh
Caterpillar Inc.
50 PUBLICATIONS 805 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Babak Ebrahimian on 03 September 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Continuum Mech. Thermodyn.
DOI 10.1007/s00161-017-0588-4

O R I G I NA L A RT I C L E

Babak Ebrahimian · Ali Noorzad · Mustafa I. Alsaleh

Modeling interface shear behavior of granular materials

using micro-polar continuum approach

Received: 27 January 2017 / Accepted: 9 July 2017

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Abstract Recently, the authors have focused on the shear behavior of interface between granular soil body
and very rough surface of moving bounding structure. For this purpose, they have used finite element method
and a micro-polar elasto-plastic continuum model. They have shown that the boundary conditions assumed
along the interface have strong influences on the soil behavior. While in the previous studies, only very rough
bounding interfaces have been taken into account, the present investigation focuses on the rough, medium
rough and relatively smooth interfaces. In this regard, plane monotonic shearing of an infinite extended narrow
granular soil layer is simulated under constant vertical pressure and free dilatancy. The soil layer is located
between two parallel rigid boundaries of different surface roughness values. Particular attention is paid to
the effect of surface roughness of top and bottom boundaries on the shear behavior of granular soil layer. It
is shown that the interaction between roughness of bounding structure surface and the rotation resistance of
bounding grains can be modeled in a reasonable manner through considered Cosserat boundary conditions.
The influence of surface roughness is investigated on the soil shear strength mobilized along the interface as
well as on the location and evolution of shear localization formed within the layer. The obtained numerical
results have been qualitatively compared with experimental observations as well as DEM simulations, and
acceptable agreement is shown.

Keywords Interface behavior · Surface roughness · Strain localization · Micro-polar continuum · Cosserat
rotation · Granular materials

1 Introduction

The investigations on soil–structure interface behavior have attracted great attentions of many researchers over
the past 50 years [9,12,17,19,20,23,29–31,38,39,56,64,65,67,73,74,79,80]. Field observations, laboratory
experiments and numerical simulations have been carried out to gain insights into the complex phenomena

Communicated by Andreas Öchsner.

B. Ebrahimian (B) · A. Noorzad
Faculty of Civil, Water and Environmental Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University (SBU), Tehran, Iran
E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

B. Ebrahimian
The Highest Prestigious Scientific and Professional National Foundation, Iran ’s National Elites Foundation (INEF),
Tehran, Iran

M. I. Alsaleh
R&D, Virtual Product Development Technology, Caterpillar Inc., Mossville, IL 61552, USA
Micro-polar continuum approach

Fig. 15 Deformed shape of granular soil layer along with contour plot of void ratio after U1B /h 0 = 1.00 for: a Case (6): f T =
0.0001 and f B = 0.001, b Case (7): f T = f B = 0.001, c Case (8): f T = f B = 0.01 and d Case (9): f T = f B = 0.1

A more pronounced post-peak softening is observed as well. Maximum values of normalized normal stresses
∗ , σ ∗ ) are about −1.11, −1.10, −1.09 and −1.08 for Cases 6–9, respectively.
(σ11 33
According to Figs. 13 and 14, surface roughness or interface coefficient ( f B ) causes strength mobilization
within the shear band resulting in volume changes and higher shear resistance. The rougher interface (e.g.,
Case 6, 7) exhibits a higher strength compared to the smoother interface (e.g., Case 9). This is reasonable
because the rougher interfaces are more interlocked with the soil grains and thus more resistant to shear,
Fig. 13A, B. The curves plotted for rough interfaces have relatively obvious peaks, whereas those of smooth
interfaces do not, Fig. 13B. In the other words, rough interfaces exhibit post-peak displacement-softening
behavior and smooth interfaces approximately post-peak plastic behavior. The yielding of smooth interfaces
is almost elastic-perfectly plastic. According to Fig. 13B, elastic perfect-plastic failure mode occurs along the
smooth interfaces (Case 9). However, strain localization happens in a rough interface accompanied with strong
strain softening and dilatancy (Cases 6, 7).
 B. Ebrahimian et al.

Figure 14 shows the evolution of normalized vertical displacement (u 2 /h 0 ), void ratio (e) and normalized
couple stress (m ∗2 ) at different positions across the layer height. In this figure, void ratio curves branch out
before meeting the stress peak. Void ratio increases very strongly inside the shear band and tends toward
a stationary value. However, it slightly increases outside the shear band and becomes almost constant with
continuous shearing. This indicates that for a continuous shearing the material outside shear band behaves like
a rigid body after the peak stress.
Figure 15 presents the deformed granular soil layer along with contour plot of void ratio for different
micro-polar boundary conditions, described along the top and bottom surfaces of layer and after the horizontal
shear displacement of U1B / h 0 = 1.0. The brighter zones in the plots indicate higher void ratios caused by
dilatancy within the shear band. Shear band is located in the vicinity of interface in Case 9 ( f T = f B = 0.1),
in the mid-height of soil layer in Cases 7, 8 ( f T = f B = 0.001, 0.01), and close to the mid-height of soil layer
in Case 6 ( f T = 0.0001, f B = 0.001). The distributions of state quantities in Cases 1–6 are different from the
results obtained for symmetric Cosserat boundary conditions presented in Cases 7–9. The calculated values
of shear band thickness are about 27.5d50 , 22.5d50 , 17.5d50 and 7.5d50 in Cases 6–9, respectively.

5 Conclusions

The main findings of the present study can be summarized as follows:

• The pattern and location of shear band(s) depend on the roughness of top and bottom boundaries. Strain
localization is formed near the boundary with large Cosserat rotations at the boundary surface. When
Cosserat rotations are locked or very small, then the zone of strain localization is formed far away from
the boundary. Otherwise, it is located close to the boundary with higher Cosserat rotations. Particularly, if
the top or bottom boundaries are smooth, shear band is created directly at the boundaries. If the boundaries
are very rough, then shear band occurs in the mid-height of granular soil layer; the latter outcome has been
presented in the previous investigations of the authors. Regarding rough boundaries, it forms close to the
mid-height and in medium rough boundaries between the middle and bottom of layer.
• Thickness of shear band, or the zone with intense shear strain, increases with increasing surface roughness
or decreasing interface coefficient ( f ). The values of shear band thickness, obtained in this study, are ranged
from negligible (1–2d50 ) for relatively smooth interface up to maximum (32.5d50 ) for rough interface which
can fully mobilize the material strength. As a result, the surfaces with greater roughness generally sustain
higher stress ratios and develop thicker shear bands.
• Mobilized interface friction angle is derived as natural outcome rather than described when using micro-
polar boundary conditions; i.e., no special interface element is needed. The peak and residual mobilized
interface friction angles decrease with decreasing interface roughness or increasing interface coefficient
( f ).
• With respect to surface roughness, two primary interface shearing modes are likely taken place: (a) shearing
along the interface with insignificant deformation of granular structure and (b) shearing within the soil that
induces the deformation of granular structure. In the former, no fully developed shear band is observed with
soil grains deformations being limited to less than about (1–2)d50 adjacent to the continuum surface. With
minimal deformation of the granular structure, the volumetric change of granular–continuum interface
may be negligible. In the latter, the shear strength at the interface of soil–solid materials is likely greater
than that of the soil. By increasing the interface roughness, the primary shearing mechanism changes from
sliding along the interface to internal shearing into the soil layer far from the interface.
• The Cosserat rotation, micro-curvature and couple stress along the interface increase with decreasing
interface roughness. Horizontal displacement decreases with increasing distance from the interface. Non-
symmetry of stress tensor, non-uniformity of stress distribution in the shear band, and stress and couple
stress jumps at the edges of shear band increase with the decrease in interface roughness. Maximum stress
and couple stress in the shear band grow with increasing shear displacement of bounding structure. Strain
softening is more evident in the shear stress–horizontal displacement curves of rougher interfaces.
• The elasto-plastic Cosserat model, employed in this study, can properly simulate the complicated behavior
of granular–continuum interfaces with different roughness values. In addition, the developed model can
predict the evolution of strain localization and shear banding in granular soil.
The results of this investigation are qualitatively in good agreement, and of course comparable, with those
presented in the previous experiments and numerical simulations available in the literature. However, the
obtained results are based on a certain interface condition. It is noted that microscopic experimental data, at the
Micro-polar continuum approach

scale of soil grains, interior to the granular soil samples are hardly found in the literature. Therefore, detailed
and quantitative comparisons do not seem possible for the authors at this stage. The numerical results obtained
in this study can provide a basis for comparing and verifying with DEM simulations as well as the future
experimental investigations at micro-level.

Acknowledgements The first author also wants to express his sincere gratitude to the Iran’s National Elites Foundation (INEF)
for his moral support and encouragement. The anonymous reviewers are greatly appreciated by the authors for their constructive
comments and valuable suggestions that helped to improve the quality of the paper.

Appendix A

The kinematics of Cosserat continuum, constitutive equations of micro-polar elasto-plastic Lade’s model and
finite element formulations are summarized as follows [2,29]:

E i j = ei j + ηi j (A1)
 
ei j = u i, j + u j,i /2 (A2)
 
ηi j = u k,i u k, j /2 (A3)
 
γ̇i j = Ė i j +  ˙ icj
˙ ij −  (A4)
 
˙ i j = 1/2 νi, j − ν j,i (A5)
icj = −ei jk ωkc (A6)
κi j = ωcj,i (A7)
 λ
E = M L Pa (I I /Pa )2 + (6(1 + υ)/(1 − 2υ)) J2 /Pa2 (A8)
   
J2 = (σ11 − σ22 )2 + (σ33 − σ22 )2 + (σ11 − σ33 )2 + ((σ12 + σ21 )/2)2 + m 21 + m 22 /l 2 (A9)
fP = f P(σ ) − f P (W P ) = 0 (A10)
 
f P = ψ1 I I3 /IIII − I I2 /III (I I /Pa )h eq (A11)
−1.27
ψ1 = 0.00155 m (A12)
III = 1/2 (σ12 σ21 − σ11 σ22 − σ11 σ33 − σ22 σ33 ) − m 1 m 2 /l 2 (A13)
IIII = (σ11 σ22 σ33 − σ33 σ12 σ21 ) (A14)
q = αS/(1 − (1 − α) S) (A15)
 
S = 1/η1 I I3 /IIII − 27 (I I /Pa )m (A16)
W P = C Pa (I I /Pa ) P
(A17)
f P
= (1/D) (1/ρ L )
(W P /Pa ) (1/ρ L )
(A18)
ρ L = P/ h (A19)
D = C/(27ψ1 + 3)ρ L (A20)
f  P = Ae−B(W P /Pa ) (A21)
 
A = f P e(BW P /Pa ) (A22)
S=1
    
B = b ∂ f P /∂ (W P /Pa ) . 1/ f P S=1 0 ≤ b ≤ 1.0 (A23)
ε̇iPj = λ̇ p ∂g p /∂σi j (A24)
p
κ̇i = λ̇ p ∂g p /∂m i (A25)
 
g p = ψ1 I I3 /IIII − I I2 /III + ψ2 (I I /Pa )μ (A26)
{σ } = {σ11 σ22 σ33 σ12 σ21 m 1 /l m 2 /l} T
(A27)
σ11 = (K + G) E 11 + (K − G) E 22 (A28)
σ22 = (K − G) E 11 + (K + G) E 22 (A29)
 B. Ebrahimian et al.

 
σ12 = 2G E 12 + 2G c 12 − c12 (A30)
 
σ21 = 2G E 21 + 2G c 21 − c21 (A31)
m 1 = Mκ1 ; M = G · l , (m 1 = μ31 , κ1 = κ31 )
2
(A32)
m 2 = Mκ2 ; M = G · l 2 , (m 2 = μ32 , κ2 = κ32 ) (A33)
α = 1/ (1 + G/G c ), 0 ≤ α ≤ 1 (A34)
{γ } = {γ11 γ22 γ33 γ12 γ21 lκ1 lκ2 } T
(A35)
γ11 = E 11 = e11 + η11 (A36)
γ22 = E 22 = e22 + η22 (A37)
γ33 = E 33 = e33 + η33 (A38)
   
γ12 = E 12 + α 2 12 − c12 / 1 − α 2 (A39)
   
γ21 = E 21 + α 2 21 − c21 / 1 − α 2 (A40)
T
{U } = u 1 u 2 ω3c (A41)
{σ̇ } = [D] {γ̇ } (A42)
n+1
Si j = n σi j + n Si j (A43)
l
n
σII = n
ΣII d x j , {i, j} = {(1, 2) or (2, 1)} (A44)
−l
l
n
σi j = n
Σi j d xi , {i, j} = {(1, 2) or (2, 1)} (A45)
−l
N
(1 − n)
n
Σi j = n
Pik n kj (A46)
πl
k=1
n+1 n+1  
Si j δ n γ̇i j + n+1 m i δ n+1
n κ̇i dV =
n+1
R (A47)
nV
n+1  

R= Ti δνi + n+1 mδ ω̇c d n+1 S +
ρ ν̇i δνi + I ω̈c δ ω̇c d n+1 V (A48)
n+1 S n+1 V
 
n+1
n γi j = n
ei j + n
ηi j + n
i j − 
n c
ij = n
E i j + n
 i j − 
n c
ij (A49)
m = m i ni (A50)
Ti = σi j n j (A51)
ρ = (1 − n) ρg (A52)
n+1
σi j = J −1 X i,I X j,J n+1
n SI J (A53)
X i,I = ∂ xi /∂ X I = ∂ X i /∂ X I n+1 n

n  n   
σi j δ ėi j + n η̇i j + n ˙ i j − n
˙ icj + n m i δ n κ̇i dV (A54)
nV
   
+ ˙ i j − n
n Si j δ n ėi j + n η̇i j + n  ˙ icj + (m i ) δ n κ̇i d V = n+1 R (A55)
nV

γ = Bu; B = ∇ N (A56)
N I (ξ ) = 1/4 (1 + ξ ξ I ) (1 + ηη I ) (A57)
δu T K u = δu T Φ (A58)
K u = Φ (A59)
   
Φ = n+1 R − B T σ + Bco2
T
m d V = n+1 R m +n+1 R σ − B T σ + Bco2
T
m dV (A60)
nV nV

Rm = (N T M)d n+1 S+ I N T cd n+1 V − T

BCO2 md n+1 V (A61)
n+1 S n+1 V n+1 V
Micro-polar continuum approach

Rσ = (N T n+1 T )d n+1 S+ ρ N T bd n+1 V − B T σ d n+1 V (A62)

n+1 S n+1 V n+1 V

4
∂ X i /∂ξ j = X ik ∂ N k /∂ξ j (A63)
k=1
4
∂u i /∂ξ j = u ik ∂ N k /∂ξ j (A64)
k=1
 
(N T M)d n+1 S+ I N T cd n+1 V = T
BCO2 md n+1 V (A65)
n+1 S n+1 V n+1 V
K k
 
(N T n+1 T )d n+1 S+ ρ N T bd n+1 V = B T σ d n+1 V (A66)
n+1 S n+1 V n+1 V
K k
1 1 ni

g(x, y)dV = g (ξ, η)J (ξ, η)dξ dη =
1
g  (ξII , ηII )J 1 (ξII , ηII )WII (A67)
V −1 −1 ii=1

((δωc )T n+1 R m + (δu)T n+1 R σ ) = 0 (A68)

N
R (ωc + ωc ) + R σ (u + u) = 0
m
(A69)
K i u i+1 = R i (A70)
u i+1 = u i + u i (A71)
where E i j is Green or Lagrangian strain tensor; u i, j is displacement field derivative with respect to current
position; γ̇ is spatial objective strain rate tensor; Ė i j is classical strain rate tensor;  and c are classical
spin and Cosserat spin tensors, respectively; ei jk is the Ricci permutation tensor; κi j is curvature vector of
deformation or gradient of grain rotation; E is nonlinear elasticity modulus; Pa is a reference pressure used
for normalizing the stress invariants (this pressure is assumed as atmospheric pressure); I I is first invariant of
stress tensor (I I = σII ,; i = 1, 2, 3); M L and λ are dimensionless material parameters, determined by a series of
simple experiments of loading–unloading–reloading cycles ([53]); υ is constant Poisson’s ratio; J2 is second
invariant of deviatoric stress tensor; σi j and m i are stresses and couple stresses, respectively; l is internal length
scale equal to d50 (as mean grain size); f P is yield function; f P (σ ) is driving yield function; f P (W P ) is plastic
work hardening function; W pis plastic work; ψ1 is a weighting factor that allows the variation of yield surface
shape from triangular to circular; m is a failure criterion parameter, determined from experiments ([54]); III
and IIII are the second and third stress invariants;h is a material yield parameter, determined from experimental
data ([54]); q is a model parameter ranging from zero at the hydrostatic condition to unity at failure; α is a
material parameter ([48]); S is a stress level ranging from zero to unity, under hydrostatic loading condition
and at failure, respectively; η1 is a failure criterion parameter, estimated from experiment ([54]); C and P are
model parameters, estimated by isotropic loading data; A and B are material constants, estimated at the failure
point (i.e., when S = q = 1.0); b is a material constant that describes the concavity of softening part in the
p
stress–strain curve; ε̇iPj is plastic strain increment; κ̇i is plastic curvature increment of rotation; λ̇ p is positive
plastic proportionality constant; g p is plastic potential function; ψ2 is plastic potential parameter and controls
the intersection between plastic potential and hydrostatic pressure axis; μ is plastic potential parameter and
determines the curvature of plastic potential in the principal stress space; {σ } is non-symmetric stress tensor
in 2D Cosserat continuum; K is bulk modulus; G is macroscopic shear modulus that links the symmetric
macroscopic shear strain to the symmetric part of shear stress; G c is Cosserat shear modulus by which the
skew-symmetric part of relative deformation is connected to the skew-symmetric part of obtained shear stress
component; M is bending modulus that relates stress couples to corresponding curvatures and takes the unit
of a force; α is coupling number which relates shear modulus (G) to Cosserat shear modulus (G c ); {γ } is non-
symmetric objective strain vector, including strain and curvature of rotations; κ1 and κ2 are micro-curvatures;
{U } displacement vector; [D] is elasto-plastic stiffness matrix in terms of both stresses and couple stresses;
Si j is second Piola–Kirchhoff stress; n σi j is non-symmetric Cauchy stress tensor in nth configuration; n Σi j is
intergranular stress tensor; n is the medium porosity; l is dimension of macro-element that contains N grains;
n P k is kth intergranular forces at kth contact with unit normal n k in nth configuration; R is external virtual
i j
work; Ti is traction force; M = m i n i is traction couple stress; ρ ν̇i and I ω̈c are inertial forces and couples,
 B. Ebrahimian et al.

respectively; ρ is micro-medium density; ρg is density or specific gravity of grains; I is first moment of inertia
for micro-medium; J is Jacobian; X i,I is deformation gradient; γ is objective strain vector; N is the standard
bilinear shape function used for computing strains, positions and etc. at nodal points; BCO2 and Bare element
and strain-nodal displacement matrixes, respectively; ξ j and X i are material point position at time (t) and
(t − t), respectively, in the local and global coordinate systems, respectively; V is body volume; S is surface;
NE is total number of elements; NN is total number of nodes; k (k = 1, …, 4) is node number; K(K = 1, 2, …,
NE) is element number; N (N = 1, 2, …, NN) is node number; δωc is virtual Cosserat rotation; δu is virtual
displacement; g (x,y) is any function within an element;g  (ξ, η) is any function within an element considered
as the function of parent coordinates; J 1 (ξ, η) is Jacobin value at current time step; ii is Gaussian integration
point; ni is total number of Gaussian points used in the element; and WII is Gaussian weighting factor for the
iith Gaussian point; K is the element stiffness matrix; and Ri is residual force vector.

References

1. ABAQUS: ABAQUS user’s manual version 6.3. Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen Inc., Pawtucket (2002)
2. Alsaleh, M.: Numerical modeling for strain localization in granular materials using Cosserat theory enhanced with microfabric
properties. Ph.D. Dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA (2004)
3. Alsaleh, M., Voyiadjis, G., Alshibli, K.: Modeling strain localization in granular materials using micropolar theory: mathe-
matical formulations. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 30(15), 1501–1524 (2006)
4. Alsaleh, M., Kitsabunnarat, A., Helwany, S.: Strain localization and failure load predictions of geosynthetic reinforced soil
structures. Interact. Multiscale Mech. 2(3), 235–261 (2009)
5. Alshibli, K., Alsaleh, M., Voyiadjis, G.: Modeling strain localization in granular materials using micropolar theory: numerical
implementation and verification. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 30(15), 1525–1544 (2006)
6. Bauer, E., Huang, W.: Numerical study of polar effects in shear zone. In: Pande, G.N., Pietruszczak, S., Schweiger, H.,
(eds.) Proceeding of the 7th International Symposium on Numerical Models in Geomechanics, pp. 133–138. Balkema Press,
Rotterdam (1999)
7. Bauer, E., Huang, W.: Evolution of polar quantities in a granular Cosserat material under shearing. In: Mühlhaus, H.B.,
Pasternak, E., (eds.) Proceeding of the 5th International Workshop on Bifurcation and Localisation in Geomechanics, pp.
227–238. Balkema Press, Perth, Australia (2001)
8. Belytschko, T., Liu, W.K., Moran, B.: Nonlinear Finite Elements for Continua and Structure. Wiley, New York (2000)
9. Boulon, M.: Basic features of soil structure interface behaviour. Comput. Geotech. 7, 115–131 (1989)
10. Boulon, M., Nova, R.: Modelling of soil-structure interface behaviour a comparison between elastoplastic and rate type laws.
Comput. Geotech. 9(1–2), 21–46 (1990)
11. Bolton, M.D., Cheng, Y.P.: Micro-geomechanics. In: Springman, S.M., (ed.) Proceeding of Constitutive and Centrifuge
Modelling: Two Extremes. Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse (2002)
12. Brumund, W.F., Leonards, G.A.: Experimental study of static and dynamic friction between sand and typicial construction
materials. J. Test. Eval. 1, 162–165 (1973)
13. Chen, Z., Schreyer, H.: Simulation of soil-concrete interfaces with nonlocal constitutive models. J. Eng. Mech. 113(11),
1665–1677 (1987)
14. De Borst, R.: Numerical methods for bifurcation analysis in geomechanies. Ing. Arehiv 59, 160–174 (1989)
15. De Borst, R.: A generalisation of J2-flow theory for polar continua. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 103, 347–362 (1993)
16. De Borst, R., Sluys, L.J., Mühlhaus, H.B., Pamin, J.: Fundamental issues in finite element analyses of localization of
deformation. Eng. Comput. 10, 99–121 (1993)
17. De Gennaro, V., Frank, R.: Elasto-plastic analysis of the interface behaviour between granular media and structure. Comput.
Geotech. 29(7), 547–572 (2002)
18. DeJong, J.T., Frost, J.D.: Physical evidence of shear banding at granular-continuum interfaces. In: Smyth, A. (ed.) Proceeding
of 15th ASCE Engineering Mechanics Conference. http://www.civil.columbia.edu/em2002/ (2002)
19. DeJong, J.T., Westgate, Z.J.: Role of initial state, material properties, and confinement condition on local and global soil-
structure interface behavior. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE 135(11), 1646–1660 (2009)
20. Desai, C.S., Zaman, M.M., Lightner, J.G., Siriwardane, H.J.: Thin-layer element for interface and joints. Int. J. Numer. Anal.
Methods Geomech. 8, 19–43 (1984)
21. Dietz, M., Lings, M.: Postpeak strength of interfaces in a stress-dilatancy framework. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE
132(11), 1474–1484 (2006)
22. Dove, J.E.: Particle-geomembrane interface behavior as influenced by surface topography. Ph.D. Dissertation, Georgia
Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA (1996)
23. Dove, J.E., Frost, J.D.: Peak friction behavior of smooth geomembrane-particle interfaces. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
ASCE 125(7), 544–555 (1999)
24. Dove, J.E., Harping, J.C.: Geometric and spatial parameters for analysis of geomembrane/soil interface behavior. In: Pro-
ceeding of Geosynthetics, vol. 1, pp. 575–588. International Fabrics Association International, Boston (1999)
25. Dove, J.E., Jarrett, J.B.: Behavior of dilative sand interface in a geotribology framework. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE
128(1), 25–37 (2002)
26. Ebrahimian, B., Noorzad, A.: Effect of periodic fluctuation of soil particle rotation resistance on interface shear behaviour.
In: IOP Conference Series. Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 10. (2010). doi:10.1088/1757-899X/10/1/012082
27. Ebrahimian, B., Noorzad, A.: Numerical investigation on polar effects in localized shear zone. Key Eng. Mater. 452–453,
381–384 (2011)
Micro-polar continuum approach

28. Ebrahimian, B., Bauer, E.: Numerical simulation of the effect of interface friction of a bounding structure on shear deformation
in a granular Soil. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 36(2), 1486–1506 (2012)
29. Ebrahimian, B., Noorzad, A., Alsaleh, M.I.: Modeling shear localization along granular soil-structure interfaces using elasto-
plastic Cosserat continuum. Int. J. Solids Struct. 49, 257–278 (2012a)
30. Ebrahimian, B., Noorzad, A., Alsaleh, M.I.: FE simulation of shear localization along granular soil-structure interfaces using
micro-polar elasto-plasticity. Mech. Res. Commun. 39, 28–34 (2012b)
31. Ebrahimian, B., Noorzad, A., Alsaleh, M.I.: Effects of periodic fluctuations of micro-polar boundary conditions on shear
localizations in granular soil-structure interaction. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 36, 855–880 (2012c)
32. Ebrahimian, B.: Numerical investigations of shear banding in granular materials. In: Proceeding of 10th HSTAM International
Congress on Mechanics, Paper No. 103, Chania, Crete, Greece (2013)
33. Ebrahimian, B., Noorzad, A.: Numerical investigations of shear strain localization in an elasto-plastic Cosserat material. In:
Proceeding of 18th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Paris, France, pp. 703–706
(2013)
34. Ebrahimian, B.: Evolution of shear localization in an elasto-plastic cosserat material under shearing. Key Eng. Mater. 577–
578, 21–24 (2014)
35. Ebrahimian, B., Bauer, E.: Numerical analysis of interface shear test box size effect on shear behavior of soil specimen using
micro-polar continuum approach. In: Chau, K., Zhao, J., (eds.) Proceeding of 10th International Workshop on Bifurcation
and Degradation in Geomaterials (IWBDG 2014), pp. 143–148. Springer, (2015)
36. Frost, J., Han, J.: Behavior of interfaces between fiber-reinforced polymers and sands. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE
125(8), 633–640 (1999)
37. Frost, J.D., Lee, S.W., Cargill, P.E.: The evolution of sand structure adjacent to geomembranes. In: Proceeding of Geosyn-
thetics Conference, vol. 99, pp. 559–573. (1999)
38. Frost, J.D., DeJong, J.T., Recalde, M.: Shear failure behavior of granular-continuum interfaces. Eng. Fract. Mech. 69, 2029–
2048 (2002)
39. Frost, J., DeJong, J.: In situ assessment of role of surface roughness on interface response. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
ASCE 131(4), 498–511 (2005)
40. Gudehus, G.: Physical Soil Mechanics. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
41. Guler, M., Edil, T.B., Bosscher, P.J.: Measurement of particle movement in granular soils using image analysis. J. Comput.
Civil Eng. ASCE 13(2), 116–122 (1999)
42. Hu, L., Pu, J.: Application of damage model for soil-structure interface. Comput. Geotech. 30, 165–183 (2003)
43. Hu, L., Pu, J.: Testing and modeling of soil-structure interface. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE 130(8), 851–860 (2004)
44. Huang, W.: Hypoplastic modelling of shear localization in granular materials. Ph.D. Dissertation. Graz University of Tech-
nology, Graz, Austria (2000)
45. Huang, W., Bauer, E.: Numerical investigations of shear localization in a micro-polar hypoplastic material. Int. J. Numer.
Anal. Methods Geomech. 27, 325–352 (2003)
46. Huang, W., Bauer, E., Scott, S.W.: Behavior of interfacial layer along granular soil-structure interfaces. Struct. Eng. Mech.
15(3), 315–329 (2003)
47. Huang, W., Huang, L., Sheng, D., Sloan, S.: DEM modelling of shear localization in a plane Couette shear test of granular
materials. Acta Geotech. 10(3), 389–397 (2015)
48. Kim, M.K., Lade, P.V.: Single hardening constitutive model for frictional materials. Comput. Geotech. 5, 307–324 (1988)
49. Kishida, H., Uesugi, M.: Tests of the interface between sand and steel in the simple shear apparatus. Géotechnique 37, 45–52
(1987)
50. Kitsabunnarat, A.: Predicting the performance of geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls under working stress conditions
and at failure. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, USA (2008)
51. Kitsabunnarat, A., Alsaleh, M., Helwany, S.: Capturing strain localization in reinforced soils. Acta Geotech. 3, 175–190
(2008)
52. Koval, G., Chevoir, F., Roux, J.N., Sulem, J., Corfdir, A.: Interface roughness effect on slow cyclic annular shear of granular
materials. Granul. Matter 13, 525–540 (2011)
53. Lade, P.V., Nelson, R.B.: Modeling the elastic behavior of granular materials. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 11,
521–542 (1987)
54. Lade, P.V., Kim, M.K.: Single hardening plasticity model for frictional materials. Comput. Geotech. 6, 13–29 (1988)
55. Lashkari, A.: Modeling of sand-structure interfaces under rotational shear. Mech. Res. Commun. 37(1), 32–37 (2010)
56. Lehane, B., Jardine, R., Bond, A., Frank, R.: Mechanisms of shaft friction in sand from instrumented pile tests. Geotech.
Test. J. 119(1), 19–35 (1993)
57. Liu, H., Song, E., Ling, H.I.: Constitutive modeling of soil-structure interface through the concept of critical state soil
mechanics. Mech. Res. Commun. 33, 515–531 (2006)
58. Mühlhaus, H.B.: Shear band analysis in granular materials by Cosserat theory. Ing. Archiv 56, 389–399 (1986)
59. Mühlhaus, H.B., Vardoulakis, I.: The thickness of shear bands in granular materials. Géotechnique 37, 271–283 (1987)
60. Mühlhaus, H.B.: Application of Cosserat theory in numerical solutions of limit load problems. Ing. Archiv 59, 124–137
(1989)
61. Nübel, K.: Experimental and numerical investigation of shear localization in granular material. Ph.D. Dissertation. University
of Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany (2002)
62. Oda, M.: Micro-fabric and couple stress in shear bands of granular materials. In: Thornton, C. (ed.) Powders and Grains, pp.
161–167. Balkema, Rotterdam (1993)
63. O’Rourke, T.D., Druschel, S.J., Netravali, A.N.: Shear strength characteristics of sand-polymer interfaces. J. Geotech. Eng.
ASCE 116(3), 451–469 (1990)
64. Paikowsky, S., Player, C.M., Connors, P.J.: A dual interface apparatus for testing unrestricted friction of soil along solid
surfaces. Geotech. Test. J. 18(2), 168–193 (1995)
65. Potyondy, J.G.: Skin friction between various soils and construction materials. Géotechnique 2(4), 339–353 (1961)
 B. Ebrahimian et al.

66. Tejchman, J., Wu, W.: Numerical study on shear band patterning in a Cosserat continuum. Acta Mech. 99, 61–74 (1993)
67. Tejchman, J., Wu, W.: Experimental and numerical study of sand-steel interfaces. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech.
19, 513–536 (1995)
68. Tejchman, J., Bauer, E.: Numerical simulation of shear band formation with a polar hypoplastic model. Comput. Geotech.
19(3), 221–244 (1996)
69. Tejchman, J.: Modelling of shear localisation and autogeneous dynamic effects in granular bodies. In: Gudehus, G., Natau,
O. (eds.) Publication Series of the Institute of Soil and Rock Mechanics, vol. 140, pp. 1–353. University Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe
(1997)
70. Tejchman, J.: Behaviour of granular bodies in induced shear zones. Granul. Matter 2(2), 77–96 (2000)
71. Tejchman, J., Gudehus, G.: Shearing of a narrow granular layer with polar quantities. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech.
76(2), 513–536 (2001)
72. Tejchman, J.: FE modeling of shear localization in granular bodies with micro-polar hypoplasticity. In: Wu, W., Borja, R.
(eds.) Springer Series in Geomechanics and Geoengineering. Springer, Berlin (2008)
73. Tejchman, J., Wu, W.: FE-investigations of micro-polar boundary conditions along interface between soil and structure.
Granul. Matter 12(4), 399–410 (2010)
74. Uesugi, M., Kishida, H.: Influential factors of friction between steel and dry sands. Soils Found. 26(2), 33–46 (1986a)
75. Uesugi, M., Kishida, H.: Frictional resistance at yield between dry sand and mild steel. Soils Found. 26(4), 139–149 (1986b)
76. Uesugi, M., Kishida, H., Tsubakihara, Y.: Behavior of sand particles in sand-steel friction. Soils Found. 28(1), 107–118
(1988)
77. Unterreiner, P., Vardoulakis, I., Boulon, M., Sulem, J.: Essential features of a Cosserat continuum in interfacial localisation.
In: Chambon, R., Desrues, J., Vardoulakis, I. (eds.) Proceeding of 3rd International Workshop on Localization and Bifurcation
Theory for Soils and Rocks, pp. 141–155. Balkema, Rotterdam (1994)
78. Vardoulakis, I., Sulem, J.: Bifurcation Analysis in Geomechanics. Blackie Academic & Professional (an imprint of Chapman
& Hall), Glasgow, London (1995)
79. Vardoulakis, I., Unterreiner, P.: Interfacial localisation in simple shear tests on a granular medium modelled as a Cosserat
continuum. In: Selvadurai, A.P.S., Boulon, M.J. (eds.) Proceeding of Mechanics of Geomaterial Interfaces, vol. 42, pp.
487–512. Elsevier Science B.V (1995)
80. Vermeer, P.A.: Frictional slip and non-associated plasticity. Scand. J. Metall. 12, 268–276 (1983)
81. Voyiadjis, J., Alsaleh, M., Alshibli, K.: Evolving internal length scales in plastic strain localization for granular materials.
Int. J. Plasticity 21, 2000–2024 (2005)
82. Westgate, Z.J., DeJong, J.T.: Evolution of sand-structure interface response during monotonic shear using particle image
velocimetry. In: Proceeding of Geo-Congress Atlanta 2006—Role of Geotechnical Engineering in the Information Technol-
ogy Age. (2006)
83. Wójcik, M., Tejchman, J.: Modeling of shear localization during confined granular flow in silos within non-local hypoplas-
ticity. Powder Technol. 192, 298–310 (2009)
84. Zhang, G., Liang, D., Zhang, J.: Image analysis measurement of soil particle movement during a soil-structure interface test.
Comput. Geotech. 33, 248–259 (2006)

View publication stats