EC7 - Peat Negative Skin Friction

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/289830705
Skin Friction between Peat and Silt Soils with Construction Materials
Article in Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering · January 2005
CITATIONS READS
9 1,151
2 authors, including:
Taner Aydogmus
Flatiron Constructors, Inc., Denver, CO, USA
70 PUBLICATIONS 100 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Wheatstone Project; Onslow, Western Australia, Australia View project
The New Champlain Bridge Project; Montreal, Quebec, Canada View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Taner Aydogmus on 25 November 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

©AYDOGMUS, Dr. Taner AYDOGMUS, dr.taner.aydogmus@gmail.com
11/25/2017 ejge paper 2005 -0557
Skin Friction between Peat and Silt Soils with

Construction Materials
Basuki Ampera
Doctor Candidate in Institut für Geotechnik - TU Bergakademie Freiberg From Engineering Faculty,
Tanjungpura University, West of Kalimantan, Indonesia
Basuki.Ampera@ifgt.tu-freiberg.de
and
Taner Aydogmus
TU Bergakademie Freiberg, Institut für Geotechnik, Gustav-Zeuner-Straße 1, 09596 Freiberg, Germany
Taner.Aydogmus@ifgt.tu-freiberg.de
ABSTRACT
Until recently the values of skin friction used for design purposes were the average values
obtained by field tests, with only qualitative reference to such factor influencing their
magnitude as type of soil, type of construction material, and surface finish, moisture
content of the soil, etc.
The modern trend is to establish skin friction coefficients through laboratory experiments
in which the factors influencing the results may be controlled quantitatively.
Seventy-two experiments were carried out by the Author to determine the magnitude of
skin friction, in which the following variables were considered:
(1) Various construction materials: steel, concrete, wood.
(2) For each material two surface conditions were used: smooth and rough which are
described in such a way that they may be reproduced by anyone with a reasonable degree
of accuracy.
(3) Variation of the normal load between the friction surfaces.
The test results show that for cohesive soils both cohesion and internal friction should be
considered in evaluation of skin friction. The results include ratios of adhesion to
cohesion, and of angle of skin friction to the angle of internal friction for definite types of
soil, moisture content, various construction materials and their surface finishes; so that for
practical application it is necessary to test the soil in shear and to make a sieve analysis.
From the shear test data skin friction can then be evaluated by used of the given
coefficients.
http://www.ejge.com/2005/Ppr0557/Ppr0557.htm 1/13
11/25/2017 ejge paper 2005 -0557
KEYWORDS: Peat and silty soils, soil-structure interaction, skin friction, direct shear
tests
INTRODUCTION
The classical laws of friction do not apply to footwear sliding on artificial and natural surface (Valiant,
1993; de Lange and Winkelmolan, 1995). They only apply to two dry solid metallic surfaces sliding over
each other. This has been known for more than fifty years, since early work on rubber tires tested on
concrete and varnished wood (Derieux, 1934), yet their application continues to be reported in the
scientific and promotional literature.
Friction has been the subject of intensive study since the early investigation of da Vinci, Amontos,
Coulomb and Euler (Dawson, 1979). At the molecular level, even smooth, solid surfaces have valleys and
ridges or asperities, and at a given instant some of these asperities will be touching. How these asperities
respond to each other when sliding depends on their respective material deformation properties. For
inelastic materials like polymers, visco-elastic, visco-plastic, and relaxation effects, lead to a time-
dependence of the contact area and hysteresis losses associated with the loading-unloading cycles
(Czichos, 1986). Analytical research into friction attributed this to a complex molecular-mechanical
interaction between the contacting surface. This complex interaction was though to be due to a multitude
of factors, including, the combined effects of asperity deformation, plowing by hard surface asperities and
wear particles, and adhesion between flat surface. Despite considerable experimental and analytical
research, no “simple” theoretical model has been developed to calculate the friction between two given
surface (Suh and Sin, 1981; Czichos, 1986). Outsoles have various pattern or cleat configurations that
interact with either artificial turf or natural turf made of particles of soil and grass. While the mechanism
of traction would be different, the mechanism used to explain dry friction could provide the basis to
explain the mechanisms associated with field footwear-surface interaction.
Soils have a particular structure consisting of discrete particles that are not strongly bonded together and
are relatively free to move with respect to each other. Natural surfaces are usually subjected to rain so the
pore space between the soil particles can be partly filled with water and what space remained would be
filled with air depending upon the degree of saturation of the pore space. When a load is applied to the soil
surface through the outsole and cleats, the soil resists the applied loads by developing contact forces
wherever they touch at their asperities. There are a large number of contacts within a soil mass – about
five million contacts within one cubic centimeter of fine sand, for example. At each contact, the particle
respond by deforming in three ways: compressing, bending, and sliding. Deformation due to sliding is
usually the most significant, and is non-linear and irreversible, making the load-deformation behavior of
soil non-linear and irreversible as well (Lambe and Whitman, 1979). Because sliding between particles
predominates, the mechanisms used to explain dry friction can been applied to soils.
The external forces that cause sliding within soils are resisted by friction and bonding forces between the
particles. If the applied forces become sufficiently large, failure of the soil mass may occur when the
contact resistance (friction and bonding) reaches its limit and the soil mass as whole slides. The plane
connecting all the particles where failure has occurred is known as the failure or slip plane, and unlike
solid surface, where it corresponds to the plane between the surfaces, the failure plane in soils is not
predefined.
Recent developments in civil engineering, especially in soil mechanics and foundations of structures,
permit the designing engineer to take a great step forward from “design by experience” to design by a
well-established theory verified by experiments. In the case of the question: What is the stress-strain
relation if one starts to move in relation to the other? This mutual effect of soils and structures in the
transmission of forces from the one to the other through the contact surface is called skin friction.
Until recently the values of skin friction were obtained from filed observations, or they were calculated
from the resistance of pile driving, sinking of caisson, etc. These previous values were values averaged
11/25/2017 ejge paper 2005 -0557
along the pile of caisson, and it was impossible to relate them to the behavior of soil layers. Furthermore,
no relationship was given to the surface finish of different construction materials.
Many geotechnics problems involve estimation of stresses transferred along the interface between soils
and solid surfaces (structures). While considerable work (Paikowsky et al. has listed several works of
significance) has been done on the interfacial friction between cohesion-less soils (sands) and solid
surfaces, The interfacial shear resistance between fine grained soils and solid surface depends on whether
its mobilization takes place in the drained or in the un-drained condition. Accordingly, there are basically
two approaches for the estimation of interface resistance. One is the total stress or un-drained strength
approach in which the interface resistance is related to the un-drained shear strength by an empirical
adhesion factor, a.
In the second approach, known as the effective stress approach, the interface resistance is related to the
effective normal stress (s¢n) acting on the interface and the effective angle friction (f). In the case of piles,
the shear deformation occurs within a relatively thin zone around the pile shaft, and drainage from this
narrow zone take place rapidly during loading. Thus most pile loading situations tends towards the drained
condition. The interface resistance (f) in this approach is expressed as
(1)
Several kinds of apparatus have been used to investigate the interfacial friction between fine-grained soil
and solid surfaces, for example the direct shear apparatus and the simple shear apparatus. Model pile tests
have also been used for this purpose. The results of the studies reported in the literature show that (’
depends on the roughness of the solid surface. It increases with the surface roughness, and when the
roughness reaches a critical value it becomes constant and is equal to the angle of internal friction of the
soil. As most of these studies are on normally consolidated soils, the influence of over-consolidation ratio
on (’ values has received little attention.
Herein is examined the effective angle of interfacial friction obtaining between cohesive soils and solid
surface as influenced by the roughness of the material surface, soil type.
The purpose of the investigation carried out by Author was to determine the values of skin friction
between peat and silty soils and construction materials. The subject of this article is to make an analysis of
these values and to give a relationship between skin friction and the strength of peat and silty soil and also
between skin friction and the surface characteristics of various construction materials.
APPLICATION OF GENERAL FRICTION THEORY

The basic idea of friction seems simple, but it has constituted a problem for many decades. Every filed of
engineering is concerned with friction, but so far in connection with soils and solids no theory has been
available. The theory of skin friction between solid materials has had some development, and some of the
conclusions may be applied to the friction between soils and solids.
For solid materials it was found that the magnitude of friction always depended on whether the surface
was dry or moist, or completely lubricated by some liquid. This led to the division of friction into such
groups as dry and liquid friction. Between them is semi-fluid or composite friction. The magnitude of
friction is a very great extent dependent upon cleanliness, atmospheric dust and humidity, oxide and other
films, surface finish, velocity of sliding, contact pressure, temperature, grain size, direction of grain,
vibration and static loads, etc. One can see that the problem of friction between solids is more complicated
than it may seem at first. The analysis and investigation of skin friction of soils, which are much less
homogeneous materials, is obviously still more complicated. Bowden and Tabor (1950) showed that in the
case of smooth steel plates the contact surface varied from 1/100,000 of the gross area at a low normal
load to 1/400 at a high normal load. Merriman (1930) quotes a similar postulate for wood specimens;
when the normal pressure reaches the allowable stress for wood the fibers bite into each other and the
11/25/2017 ejge paper 2005 -0557
coefficient of friction increases. In the case of a lubricated solid surface, the liquid could only partly
produce a lubricant film between the two surfaces because the two solid materials are in contact over a
percentage of the gross area. Therefore, the friction force lies between the values that it would have for a
solid-solid boundary and a solid-liquid boundary.
Soils are, according to their composition, in a state between solid and liquid materials. Therefore, the
mechanics of friction will be partly like those of a solid and partly like those of a liquid. The skin
resistance could not be higher than the ultimate shearing strength of soil, and it is important to find out the
ratio between soil strength and skin resistance. Since the development of skin friction due to displacement,
the stress-strain curves can be obtained only from the experimental results. For granular soils, the
experimental stress-strain relation was expressed in a mathematical term by Kézdi (1959) and applied to
determine the earth pressure and pile resistance. In the case of skin friction, the stress-strain curve was
expressed as an exponential function of displacement:
(2)
where t= shearing stress which produces a displacement of “s”

s = normal stress
d = angle of skin friction
s = displacement
s0 = maximum displacement due to failure
k= constant for the soil.
DESCRIPTION OF TESTS
To determine the strength of peat soil, and skin friction between peat soil and construction materials, strain
controlled shear box was used throughout this investigation.
For the determination of physical properties of soil well-known standard equipment was used.
The stress controlled shear box had a shearing area 40 cm2, and it was drained on both sides. For the
measuring of horizontal movement a dial gauge was fixed to the base plate. The specimens of construction
material were placed in the lower portion of the box, and the soil was placed in the upper half.
Selection of Construction Material and Soils

In the choice of construction materials for the tests, consideration was given to the application of the
results in the field of civil engineering. In the present stage of engineering, important construction
materials are steel, concrete, and wood, and thus it was logical to select them for the investigation of skin
friction.
Steel; The quality of the steel was that of common (U-36; spl = 3600 kN/m2), commercial mild steel,
which is widely used for piles, sheet piles, etc. For practical purposes, two kinds of surface finish were
used in this investigation. The completely smooth surface polished by finer sandpaper which have value of
crudity of surface N =3 (0.1 mm; N £ 4) represents one extreme case. The other case was produced by
artificially rusting the specimen which have value of rough of surface N = 9 (6.3 mm; N ³ 8) and
afterwards removing the loose rusted.
Wood; It was much harder to choose the type and quality of the wood specimens. In engineering practice –
especially in West of Kalimantan, Belian –local name or Iron-wood is possibly the most commonly used
for sub-structure construction, because it was class I. Sound Belian (iron wood) was used, and it was
11/25/2017 ejge paper 2005 -0557
cleaned from any unnatural surface irregularities and defects. Each test piece was shaped by planning to
minimize the effect of roughness attributed by other than the natural texture of the wood. The finish thus
obtained was similar to the surface of the plywood sheets used in shuttering. Unfortunately, no test or
references are available in connection with the effect of hardness of wood on the contact with differences
soils. It may be supposed that granular materials produced a certain indentation into the surface of the
wood, and this may be increased with the intensity of the normal load. The tests were carried out in two
directions to the grain of the wood, parallel and at right angle.
Concrete; concrete type used at this research is quality of K-225 (sv = 225 kN/m2) which is commonly
used for construction. For concrete specimens two different grain sizes of aggregate were used. For fine
surface the maximum grain size was 4.75 mm and for a rough surface 9.52 mm. The first concrete was
poured into a plywood form, and the second one flat rough ground. The first specimen represents the
smooth concrete surface made in planed wood form, and the second specimen represents the rough
concrete surface poured against the side of an excavation.
Two soils –peat soil, and silty soil– were used for the study. After the selection of the basic types of soils,
the next step was to determine their general physical properties. This was an important procedure, because
it was necessary to know these values for the purposes of later discussion and comparison with other
results.
For silt soil, based on data in Table 1 and Unified Soil Classification System, when the plastic index and
the liquid limit plot in the hatched portion of the plasticity chart, the soil given double symbol ML–OL.
According to AASHTO system, a soil is term fine-grained if more than 35% passes No. 200 (0.075 mm)
sieve, 82.5 > 36; Liquid limit = 37.4 < 40; and also make an Plasticity index = 7.2 % > 10 %; is entering
group classification of A-4 with most dominant material type is soil have silt. Become its conclusion [of]
clay soil used at this research enter organic clay group with low plasticity (OL).
For peat soil, it can be described as follows:
Fiber content of equal to 24.992%, classified as Peat of Fibrous, that is fiber content of 20% (Mac
Farlane).
Having high void ratio that is 15.75; for the peat of Fibrous of natural conditions its void ratio about
6 - 17 (Mac Farlane).
Dust content 4.16%; mean this peat soil have low degree; level to dusty content (peat ash low), that
is dusty rate 5% (ASTM D4427-84, 1989)
The physical properties of these soils are presented in Table 1. To achieve a large variation in the value of
roughness, six solid material round plates of size ( 71,5 x 6 mm consisting of mild steel smooth and rough
(material 1 and 2) and Belian wood in the grain of the wood and parallel to right angle direction (material
3 and 4) and concrete smooth and rough surface (material 5 and 6) were adopted as materials representing
the solid surface. The methods adopted to achieve various grades of roughness are detailed elsewhere. The
average roughness or qualities of construction material roughness are given in Table 2.
Table 1. Properties of the soils used

No. Property Soil
Peat Silty
1 Bulk unit weight, (g) gr/m3 0.965 1.572
2 Dry unit weight, (gd) gr/m3 0.083 0.933
3 Water content, (w) % 1169 68.4
4 Specific gravity, (Gs). 1.27 2.41
5 Void ratio, (e) 15.8 -
11/25/2017 ejge paper 2005 -0557
6 Dust content 4.2 -

7 Organic Carbon content, % 95.8 -
8 pH H2O 3.6 -
9 Average fibre content, % 25.0 -
- Coarse fibre 13.1 -
- Medium fibre 29.4 -
- Small fibre 32.5 -
10 Consistency limit
- Liquid limit, (wL), % - 37.4
- Plastic limit, (wP), % - 30.2
- Plasticity index, (Ip), % - 7.2
11 Gradation Analysis -
- Sand, % - 17.5
- Silt and Clay, % - 82.5
Table 2. Properties of materials used

Material No. Type of material Surface condition
1 Mild steel smooth surface N =3 (0.1 (m)
2 Mild steel rough surface N = 9 (6.3 (m)
3 Wood in grain of wood “smooth”
4 Wood in parallel to right angle “rough”
5 Concrete smooth surface “Fly-wood surface”
6 Concrete rough surface “Excavation surface”
Shear tests on soils were conducted in direct shear mode as per standard procedures in the conventional
direct shear box (specimen size 40 cm2). The direct machine was strain controlled. For interface friction
tests, the conventional direct shear box (40 cm2) was modified to conduct the interface friction tests. The
lower half of the conventional direct shear apparatus was replaced by an Æ 71.5 x 22 mm mild steel plate.
The test material of 6 mm thickness was mounted over this plate so that the total thickness was equal to
the thickness of the bottom half of the box (28 mm), as can be seen in Figure 1. The area of the interface
was 40 cm2 and remains unchanged throughout the test.
11/25/2017 ejge paper 2005 -0557
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the apparatus used for the study (dimensions in mm)
The soils were undisturbed condition and prepared in tube sample having a diameter of 100 mm and a
height of 400 mm. The sample thus obtained was cut by a wire, trimmed and transferred to the 40 cm2
direct shear box. The sample was further consolidated to the required pressure directly over the test
material using monotonically increasing load increments. A sample thickness of 25 mm was adopted for
the soil-soil test and 15 ± 1 mm was used for the soil-material interface test. The sample thickness adopted
satisfied the recommendations of Jardine and Chow. Pairs of rubber strips coated with silicon grease were
used to reduce the friction between the edge of the box and the solid surface (Figure 1).
Direct shear tests were conducted in normally consolidated states under drained conditions. The normal
stress (s¢n) values adopted are 12.5 kN/m2, 25 kN/m2, and 50 kN/m2.
In the investigation of skin friction, the Author found that similar redistribution occurred, but the various
construction materials had different effects on the moisture content of the contact surface. In order to avoid
absorption of moisture by building materials, the specimens made of wood and concrete were saturated in
water 48 hours, and just before the testing were surface dried. The average moisture content of wood was
41% and 3% of concrete.
(a) Between the soil and steel specimen the moisture was higher than the average the soil sample. In the
case of rough steel this increment was 2-3% and in the case of smooth steel 4.5-5.5%.
(b) In the case of wood, in testing parallel to the grain, the increase was 0-1.5%, while testing at right
angles to the grain there was no increment at all.
(c) In the case of concrete the moisture content on the contact surface decreased, on smooth concrete by 7-
10%, and 5-8% on rough concrete.
For determination of moisture content on the contact surface a thin slice was taken from the soil, the
thickness of which was about 2 mm.
ANALYSIS OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

The investigation results are presented in Table 3 for peat soil and Table 4 for silt soil.
Table 3. Values of shear strength and skin friction for peat Material
Material s'v c or ca f or d
(kN/m2)
11/25/2017 ejge paper 2005 -0557
(kN/m2)
12.5 23.1 1 15°55’48 1 1
Peat 25 23.1 1 16°00’36 1 1
50 23.6 1 16°25’12 1 1
12.5 18.4 0.797 10°54’00 0.684 0.675
Peat - peat 25 17.2 0.745 11°33’36 0.722 0.713
50 16.5 0.699 11°09’00 0.679 0.669
12.5 15.2 0.658 6°02’42 0.379 0.371
Smooth steel 25 15.4 0.667 6°31’48 0.408 0.399
50 16.1 0.682 6°10’48 0.376 0.367
12.5 17.3 0.749 13°43’12 0.861 0.855
Rough steel 25 15.8 0.684 14°24’00 0.899 0.895
50 14.9 0.631 14(24’07 0.877 0.871
12.5 20.4 0.883 10°48’00 0.678 0.668
Wood parallel to grain 25 21.2 0.918 10°54’36 0.681 0.672
50 18.6 0.788 10°32’24 0.642 0.631
12.5 17.3 0.749 12°38’24 0.793 0.786
Wood at right angles to grain 50 21.2 0.918 12°04’12 0.754 0.745
25 186 0.788 11°53’24 0.724 0.714
12.5 22.4 0.970 11°18’36 0.710 0.701
Smooth concrete 25 23.0 0.996 11°49’48 0.739 0.730
50 19.9 0.843 11°15’00 0.685 0.675
12.5 20.0 0.686 14°52’12 0.933 0.930
Rough concrete 25 22.1 0.957 15°12’00 0.949 0.947
50 20.5 0.869 15°19’48 0.934 0.930
Table 4. Values of shear strength and skin friction for silt Material
c or ca
Material f or d
(kN/m2)
Silt 239 1 30°30’00 1 1
231 1 30°42’00 1 1
246 1 29°18’00 1 1
Silt - Silt 214 0.895 23°36’00 0.774 0.742
208 0.900 23°24’00 0.762 0.729
158 0.642 24°54’00 0.850 0.827
Smooth steel 152 0.636 22°48’00 0.748 0.714
154 0.667 21°54’00 0.713 0.677
161 0.654 22°48’00 0.778 0.749
Rough steel 173 0.724 30°00’00 0.984 0.980
158 0.684 28°54’00 0.941 0.930
149 0.606 29°30’00 1.007 1.008
11/25/2017 ejge paper 2005 -0557
Wood parallel to grain 204 0.854 22°06’00 0.725 0.689

212 0.918 23°00’00 0.749 0.715
186 0.756 25°48’00 0.881 0.861
Wood at right angles to grain 173 0.724 26°00’00 0.852 0.828
212 0.918 28°00’00 0.912 0.896
186 0.756 25°18’00 0.863 0.842
Smooth concrete 224 0.937 22°36’00 0.741 0.707
230 0.996 27°42’00 0.902 0.884
199 0.809 26°30’00 0.904 0.888
Rough concrete 200 0.837 29°54’00 0.980 0.976
221 0.957 30°00’00 0.977 0.972
205 0.833 30°00’00 1.024 1.029
Skin Friction on Steel

(a) Peat. Table 3 shows the values of internal and skin friction of saturated peat. It can be seen that, when
the normal load was increased from 12.5 kN/cm2 to 50 kN/cm2, the angle friction increased from 15° 55’
48 to 16° 25’ 12. The relation between d¢ and f¢ shows the same value under different loads. For peat-peat
interface/friction angle (d¢) to the angle of internal friction (f¢) are d¢ = 0.695f¢. It is interesting to note that
the rough steel has a good skin resistance on peat and better than smooth steel. The values are d¢ = 0.879f¢
for rough steel, and d¢ = 0.388f¢ for smooth steel with peat.
(b) Silt. The skin friction between silt and steel was investigated with the silt in saturated conditions. The
values of internal and skin friction of saturated silt. It can be seen that, when the normal load was
increased from 12.5 kN/cm2 to 50 kN/cm2, the angle friction increased from 29° 18’ 00 to 30° 42’ 00. The
relation between d¢ and f¢ shows the same value under different loads. For silt-silt interface/friction angle
(d¢) to the angle of internal friction (f¢) are d¢ = 0.795f¢. In the case of saturated silt the stress controlled
shear box was used with smooth and rough specimens. For saturated silt both of rough and smooth steel
were applicable because it could be tested in the small strain controlled shearing box (0.30 mm/min). The
test results are shown in Table 4. It is interesting to note that the rough steel has a good skin resistance on
silt and better than smooth steel. The values are d¢ = 0.977f¢ for rough steel, and d¢ = 0.746f¢ for smooth
steel with silt. In the case of rough steel and saturated silt the skin friction was close to the internal friction
of the soil itself. The values of d¢ and f¢ increase somewhat with the increase of the normal load.
Skin Friction on Wood

Relative to the direction of shear force, two positions of grains of wood specimens were used; grain
parallel and grain at right angles.
(a) Peat. Table 3 shows the values of internal and skin friction of saturated peat. The relation between d¢
and f¢ shows the same value under different loads. It is interesting to note that the right angle to grain
wood has a good skin resistance on peat and better than parallel to grain. The values are d¢ = 0.757f¢ for
right to angle to grain wood, and d¢ = 0.667f¢ for parallel to grain of wood with peat.
(b) Silt. Values of skin friction are shown in Table 4. The skin friction between silt and wood was
investigated with the silt in saturated conditions. In the case of saturated silt the strain controlled shear box
was used with parallel to grain and right angle to grain specimens. For saturated silt both of parallel to
grain and right angle to grain wood were applicable because it could be tested in the small strain controlled
11/25/2017 ejge paper 2005 -0557
shearing box (0.30 mm/min). The test results are shown in Table 4. It is interesting to note that the right
angle to grain wood has a good skin resistance on silt and better than parallel to grain. The values are d¢ =
0.876f¢ for right to angle to grain wood, and d¢ = 0.785f¢ for parallel to grain of wood with silt. In the case
of rough steel and dry silt the skin friction was close to the internal friction of the silt soil itself. The values
of f and d increase somewhat with the increase of the normal load.
Skin Friction on Concrete

The concrete specimens, as was mentioned before, had two kinds of roughness.
(a) Peat. Table 3 shows the values of internal and skin friction of saturated peat. The relation between d¢
and f¢ shows the same value under different loads. It is interesting to note that the rough concrete has a
good skin resistance on peat and better than smooth concrete. The values are d¢ = 0.939f¢ for rough
concrete, and d¢ = 0.711f¢ for smooth concrete with peat.
(b) Silt. The skin friction between silt and concrete was investigated with the silt in saturated conditions.
The values of internal and skin friction of saturated silt. The test results are shown in Table 4. It is
interesting to note that the rough concrete has a good skin resistance on silt and better than smooth
concrete. The values are d¢ = 0.994f¢ for rough concrete, and d¢ = 0.849f¢ for smooth concrete with silt. In
the case of rough steel and saturated silt the skin friction was close to the internal friction of the soil itself.
The values of d¢ and f¢ increase somewhat with the increase of the normal load.
CONCLUSIONS
The angle of internal friction (f¢) of silt soil (29° 18' 00 - 30° 42' 00) is bigger than the angle of internal
friction (f¢) of peat soil (15° 55' 48 - 16° 25' 12), in spite of visual that fibers of peat soil are rougher than
grain-size of silt soil.
The angle of friction (d¢) of silt soil (0.762f¢-0.850f¢) is bigger than the angle of friction (d¢) of peat soil
(0.679f¢-0.722f¢), thus generally these values are agree with Bowles recommendation, for practical design
d¢ = 2/3f¢.
The peak shear stress increases as the solid surface roughness increases. The shear deformation required to
reach the peak value also increases with the surface roughness.
The modified direct shear apparatus used to generate the data reported in this study does not permit the
establishment of residual friction angles. Therefore, the results and the relationships established in this
paper are limited to peak values. It is suggested that in geotechnical applications where deformations at the
interface are small, as in the case of gravity retaining walls, the peak value of interfacial friction is
appropriate. When interfacial deformation are large, as in the case piles, a critical state value of this
frictional resistance is more preferable, as has been observed from field and laboratory studies.
The Authors have analyzed the results of experimentation on the change of skin friction as a function of
grain distribution of soils, moisture content, normal load, type of construction material, and difference of
surface finish. In every case the skin friction was lower than the shearing strength of the soil. It is therefore
important to determine the ratio between skin friction and shearing stress. However, because the two types
of soil investigated behave in different ways, the Author believes that it is more practical to give the value
of the “Coulomb line” for skin friction. In this equation the total skin resistance can be expressed in a
similar form to that of Coulomb, if fc = ca/c and ff = d/f, the equation of skin friction becoming:
(3)
11/25/2017 ejge paper 2005 -0557
Because cohesive soils have constant cohesion at maximum density, other coefficient should be given for
purely cohesive soils in the range where the shearing stress is independent of normal load. These fc, fa
coefficients are given in Table 3 and 4.
For the designing engineer the safety against failure is essential. Therefore, in cases where the skin friction
works as the bearing capacity of soils, the skin friction values should be reduced. Two basic theories could
be applied, the plastic and elastic. In the ultimate strength design the factor of safety means the ratio of
applied external load to the ultimate capacity of the structure. Therefore, in connection with skin friction,
the ultimate skin resistance must be divided by the factor of safety.
In elastic theory this can be done in two ways:
(a) Plotting the stress-strain curve in regard to the Coulomb line. The yield point in the stress-strain curve
(or reduced value of the yield point) projected back to the values of normal load (normal stress) will
intersect the reduced safety value. In this case the sum of the cohesion and the friction part of the skin
resistance is reduced by the safety factor.
(b) Approaching the allowable value of skin friction by reducing the adhesion and the angle of skin
friction with safety factor separately.
Some authors suggest a comparison between the angle of skin friction and the angle of internal friction;
others suggest a comparison of their tangents. The Author, however, made a quite wide range investigation
of skin friction, which showed that it is more convenient to use the angle values of friction both in the
designing and in field engineering. In some cases the angle value could be used directly (angle of
inclination of earth pressure); in other cases and interpolation for ca, c and d, f values will be easier.
In summarizing it must be note that four major factors determine skin friction; the moisture content of
soils, the roughness of surface, the composition of soils, and the intensity of normal load. By these the
Author has shown, that in the case of cohesive soils the adhesion and friction part should be taken into
account in evaluating skin friction.
REFERENCES
1. Acar, Y. B., H. T. Durgunoglu and M. T. Tumay (1982) “Interface properties of sand.” Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 108, No. 4, pp. 648-654
2. American Society for Testing and Materials (2002) “Classification of Peat Samples by Laboratory
Testing.” D4427 – 92(1996). Annual Book of ASTM Standard Section 4 Volume 04.08. U.S.A.
3. American Society for Testing and Materials (2002) “Test Methods for Direct Shear Test of Soils
Under Consolidated Drained Conditions.” D3080 – 98. Annual Book of ASTM Standard Section 4
Volume 04.08. U.S.A.
4. American Society for Testing and Materials (2002) “Test Methods of Sampling Processed Peat
Materials.” D 2944 – 71(1998). Annual Book of ASTM Standard Section 4 Volume 04.08. U.S.A.
5. American Society for Testing and Materials (2002) “Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of
the Fiber Content of Peat Samples by Dry Mass.” D 1997 – 91(1996). Annual Book of ASTM
Standard Section 4 Volume 04.08. U.S.A.
6. Barry, E. B. and P. D. Milburn (2004) Proceeding 4th World Congress Soccer Football
7. Bowden, F. P., and D. Tabor (1950) “The friction and lubrication of solids” Oxford, Clarendon
Press
11/25/2017 ejge paper 2005 -0557
8. British Standard Institution (1990) “Determination of Shear Strength by Direct Shear (Small Shear
Box Apparatus)” BSI, Milton Keynes, BS 1337; part 7
9. Burland, J. B. (1973) “Shaft friction of piles in clay-a simple fundamental approach” Ground
Engineering, 6, No. 3, pp. 30-42
10. Chandler, R. J. and J. P. Martins (1982) “An experimental study of skin friction around piles in
clay” Géotechnique, 32, No. 2, pp. 119-132
11. Clark, J. I. and G. G. Meyerhof (1972) “The behaviour of piles driven in clay I. An investigation of
soil stress and pore water pressure properties” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 9, No. 4, pp. 351-
373
12. Coop, M. R. and C. P. Wroth (1989) “Field studies of an instrumented model pile in clay”
Géotechnique, 39, No. 4, pp. 670-696
13. Coulomb, C. A. (1776) “Essai sur une Application des Règles des Maximis et Minimis à quelques
Problèmes de Statique relatifs à l’Architecture” Mem. Acad. Roy. Pres. Divers Savants. Vol. 7.
Paris.
14. Czichos H. (1986) “Friction and Wear of Polymer Composite” Elsevier
15. De Lange and Winkelmolan W. (1995) Proceeding 2nd Symposium Footwear Biom.“
16. Derieux, J. B. (1934) “J. Elisha Mitchell Soc.“ Vol 50, P. 53-55
17. Jáky, J. (1938) “Die klassische Erddruck-Theorie mit besonderen Rücksicht auf die
Stützwandbewegung.” Abhandle. d. Int. Vereig. für Brückenbau und Hochbau.
18. Jardine R. J. and F. C. Chow “New Design Methods for Offshore Piles.” Marine Technology
Directorate, London, publication 96/103
19. Kézdi, A. (1959) “Talajmechanika” (“Soil Mechanics”, in Hungarian), Budapest, Tankonyukiado.
20. Lambe, T. W. and R. V. Whitman (1979) “Soil Mechanics” John Wiley, pp. 119-120
21. Littleton I. (1976) “An experimental study of the adhesion between clay and steel.” Journal of
Terramechanics, 13, No. 3, pp. 141-142
22. Merriman, T., and T. H. Wiggin (1930) “American civil engineering handbook.” 5th ed., John
Wiley and Sons, New York.
23. Meyerhof, G. G. (1951) “The Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Foundation.” Géotechnique, 2 : 301-
332.
24. Meyerhof, G. G., and L. J. Murdock (1953) “An Investigation of the Bearing Capacity of some
Bored and Driven Piles in London Clay.” Géotechnique, 3 : 267-282.
25. Mochtar, I. B. and T. B. Edil (1988) “Shaft Resistance of Model Piles in Clay.” Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 114, No. 11, pp. 1227-1244
26. O’Rourke, T. D., S. J. Druschel, and A. N. Netravalli (1990) “Shear strength characteristics of
sands-polymer interfaces.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 116, No. 3, pp. 451-469
27. Paikowsky, S. G., C. M. Player, and P. J. Connors (1995) “A dual interface apparatus for testing
unrestricted friction of soil along solid surfaces.” Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, 18, No. 2,
pp. 168-193
28. Potyondy, J. G. (1960) “Skin friction between cohesive granular soils and construction materials.”
M.E. Thesis, Nova Scotia Tech. College, Halifax, N.S.
11/25/2017 ejge paper 2005 -0557
29. Potyondy, J. G. (1961) “Skin friction between various soils and construction materials.”
Géotechnique, , 11, No. 4, pp. 339-353
30. Subba, Rao K. S., M. M. Allam, and R. G. Robinson (1996) “A note on the choice of interfacial
friction angle.” Geotechnical Engineering, 119, No. 2, pp. 123-128
31. Subba, Rao K. S., M. M. Allam, and R. G. Robinson (1998) “Interfacial friction between sands and
solid surfaces.” Proceeding of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Engineering, 131,
April, pp. 75-82
32. Suh, N. P. and H. C. Sin (1981) “Wear.” Vol. 69, p. 91-114
33. Tomlison, G. A. (1929) “Molecular theory of friction.” Phil. Mag. 7: 905-909.
34. Tomlinson, M. J. (1971) “Some Effects of Pile Driving on Skin Friction.” Proceeding, Conference
on Behaviour of Piles, Institution of Civil Engineers, London, pp. 107-114
35. Tsubakihara, Y. and H. Kishida (1993) “Frictional behaviour between normally consolidated clay
and steel by two direct shear apparatus.” Soils and Foundations, 33, No.2, pp. 1-13
36. Tsubakihara, Y. and H. Kishida, and T. Nishiyama (1993) “Friction between cohesive soils and
steel.” Soils and Foundations, 33, No.2, pp. 145-156
37. Uesugh, M. and K. Kishida (1986) “Influential factors of friction between steel and dry sands.”
Soils and Foundations, 26, No. 2, pp. 33-46
38. Yoshimi, Y. and T. Kishida (1981) “Friction between sand and metal surface.” Proceeding, 10th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, Vol. 1, pp.
831-834
© 2005 ejge
View publication stats

EC7 - Peat Negative Skin Friction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EC7 - Peat Negative Skin Friction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Article in Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering · January 2005

Wheatstone Project; Onslow, Western Australia, Australia View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Skin Friction between Peat and Silt Soils with

(1) Various construction materials: steel, concrete, wood.

(3) Variation of the normal load between the friction surfaces.

APPLICATION OF GENERAL FRICTION THEORY

where t= shearing stress which produces a displacement of “s”

Selection of Construction Material and Soils

For peat soil, it can be described as follows:

Table 1. Properties of the soils used

6 Dust content 4.2 -

Table 2. Properties of materials used

ANALYSIS OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Wood parallel to grain 204 0.854 22°06’00 0.725 0.689

Skin Friction on Steel

Skin Friction on Wood

Skin Friction on Concrete

In elastic theory this can be done in two ways:

14. Czichos H. (1986) “Friction and Wear of Polymer Composite” Elsevier

19. Kézdi, A. (1959) “Talajmechanika” (“Soil Mechanics”, in Hungarian), Budapest, Tankonyukiado.

32. Suh, N. P. and H. C. Sin (1981) “Wear.” Vol. 69, p. 91-114

33. Tomlison, G. A. (1929) “Molecular theory of friction.” Phil. Mag. 7: 905-909.

You might also like