Evaluating the Effects of Asperity Height on Shear Strength of Cohesive Soil-Structure Interface Subjected to Monotonic and Cyclic Axial Loading
Publication: Geo-Congress 2023
ABSTRACT
The load-carrying capacity of geotechnical systems (e.g., foundations supporting offshore wind turbines) subjected to static and/or cyclic axial loading could be enhanced using engineered or idealized textured surfaces (or surface elements). The use of surface elements may allow for the development of passive wedges during axial loading, which result in an additional interface resistance to the total load-carrying capacity. To investigate the effects of surface pattern and asperity height on the static and post-cyclic interface shear response, the cyclic interface shear test (CIST) device, which was developed by the research team, was used. To achieve this, a smooth plate representing the surface condition of commonly used steel piles and four engineered textured plates (i.e., rough plates) of different level of roughness (i.e., asperity height of 0.35, 0.65, 1.25, and 1.75 mm) were 3D printed, and then the soil-plate interface was subjected to monotonic and cyclic axial loading. The interface shear tests were performed in a normally consolidated sand-kaolinite mixture. In this paper, the experimental setup (i.e., CIST), sample preparation, and results of a series of static and displacement-controlled cyclic interface shear tests on smooth and textured (rough) plates are summarized and compared to the static and post-cyclic soil-smooth shear strength (no surface elements). For static tests, the interface shear strength increased with asperity height, and this increase ranged from ~55% to 105% of the soil-smooth interface shear strength. Similarly, the post-cyclic interface shear strength increased with asperity height, and this increase ranged from ~167% to 266% of the soil-smooth interface shear strength. The preliminary test results included in this paper also show that the interface shear resistance of surfaces with structured elements is controlled by asperity height (h) and asperity spacing to height ratio (Sc/h ratio).
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this chapter.
REFERENCES
Abu Qamar, M. I., and M. T. Suleiman. 2021. “Evaluating Effects of Cyclic Axial Loading on Soil-Pile Interface Properties Utilizing a Recently Developed Cyclic Interface Shear Test Device.” IFCEE 2021, 366–376. Dallas, Texas: American Society of Civil Engineers.
Abu Qamar, M. I., and M. T. Suleiman. 2022a. “Development of Cyclic Interface Shear Test Device and Testing Procedure to Measure the Response of Cohesive Soil-Structure Interface.” Submitt. ASTM Int. – Geotech. Test. J. Possible Publ.
Abu Qamar, M. I., and M. T. Suleiman. 2022b. “Evaluating the Influence of Surface Roughness on Interface Shear Strength of Cohesive Soil-Structure Interface Subjected to Axial Monotonic Loading.” Geo-Congr. 2022, 281–291. Charlotte, North Carolina: American Society of Civil Engineers.
Abu Qamar, M. I., and M. T. Suleiman. 2022c. “Evaluating the Influence of Surface Roughness on Interface Shear Strength of Cohesive Soil-Structure Interface Subjected to Axial Monotonic Loading.” Geo-Congr. 2022, 281–291. Charlotte, North Carolina: American Society of Civil Engineers.
Alyounis, M. E., and C. S. Desai. 2019. “Testing and Modeling of Saturated Interfaces with Effect of Surface Roughness. I: Test Behavior.” Int. J. Geomech., 19 (8): 04019096. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001459.
Dove, J. E., J. D. Frost, J. Han, and R. C. Bachus. 1997. The influence of geomembrane surface roughness on interface strength. 863–876.
Dove, J. E., and J. B. Jarrett. 2002. “Behavior of Dilative Sand Interfaces in a Geotribology Framework.” J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng., 128 (1): 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2002)128:1(25).
Fakharian, K., and E. Evgin. 1996. “An Automated Apparatus for Three-Dimensional Monotonic and Cyclic Testing of Interfaces.” Geotech. Test. J., 19 (1): 22. https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ11404J.
Frost, J., and J. Dejong. 2005. “In Situ Assessment of Role of Surface Roughness on Interface Response.” J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng. - J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, 131. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:4(498).
Han, F., E. Ganju, R. Salgado, and M. Prezzi. 2018. “Effects of Interface Roughness, Particle Geometry, and Gradation on the Sand–Steel Interface Friction Angle.” J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng., 144 (12): 04018096. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001990.
Hebeler, G. L., A. Martinez, and J. D. Frost. 2015. “Shear zone evolution of granular soils in contact with conventional and textured CPT friction sleeves.” KSCE J. Civ. Eng., 20 (4): 1267–1282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-015-0767-6.
Hryciw, R. D., and M. Irsyam. 1993. “Behavior of Sand Particles Around Rigid Ribbed Inclusions During Shear.” Soils Found., 33 (3): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf1972.33.3_1.
Huang, L., and A. Martinez. 2021. “Load Transfer Anisotropy at Snakeskin-Inspired Clay-Structure Interfaces.” IFCEE 2021, 119–129. Dallas, Texas: American Society of Civil Engineers.
Irsyam, M., and R. D. Hryciw. 1991. Friction and passive resistance in soil reinforced by plane ribbed inclusions. 14.
Kishida, H., and M. Uesugi. 1987. Tests of the interface between sand and steel in the simple shear apparatus. 8.
Lings, M. L., and M. S. Dietz. 2005. “The Peak Strength of Sand-Steel Interfaces and the Role of Dilation.” Soils Found., 45 (6): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.45.1.
Martinez, A., and J. D. Frost. 2017. “The influence of surface roughness form on the strength of sand–structure interfaces.” Géotechnique Lett., 7 (1): 104–111. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgele.16.00169.
Martinez, A., J. Frost, and G. Hebeler. 2015. “Experimental Study of Shear Zones Formed at Sand/Steel Interfaces in Axial and Torsional Axisymmetric Tests.” Geotech. Test. J., 38: 20140266. https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ20140266.
Martinez, A., and H. H. Stutz. 2019. “Rate effects on the interface shear behaviour of normally and overconsolidated clay.” Géotechnique, 69 (9): 801–815. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.17.P.311.
O’Hara, K. B., and A. Martinez. 2020. “Monotonic and Cyclic Frictional Resistance Directionality in Snakeskin-Inspired Surfaces and Piles.” J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng., 146 (11): 04020116. American Society of Civil Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002368.
Subba Rao, K. S., K. S. S. Rao, M. M. Allam, and R. G. Robinson. 1998. “Interfacial friction between sands and solid surfaces.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. - Geotech. Eng., 131 (2): 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1680/igeng.1998.30112.
Wang, X., H. Cheng, P. Yan, J. Zhang, and Y. Ding. 2021. “The influence of roughness on cyclic and post-cyclic shear behavior of red clay-concrete interface subjected to up to 1000 cycles.” Constr. Build. Mater., 273: 121718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121718.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
History
Published online: Mar 23, 2023
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.