Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Laboratory investigation and constitutive modeling of the mechanical behavior of sand–GRP interfaces

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Acta Geotechnica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The frictional behavior of soil–pipe interfaces plays a paramount role in the design and construction of underground pipes, particularly applying trenchless technologies and pipe-jacking method. In the recent decades, there has been a growth in the application of glass-reinforced polymer (GRP) pipes for water/sewage transmission. This experimental study incorporates direct shear testing to assess the shear strength and volume change behavior of sand–GRP interfaces, by comparing them with interfaces of the same soil in contact with rough steel and concrete. The findings confirm the notion that shear strength mobilization and dilation at the sand–GRP interface are amenable to normalized roughness of the interface and overall morphological characteristics of sand particles. Test observations indicate that increase in sand angularity, relative density and also roughness of GRP contact surface result in higher shear strength mobilization at the sand–GRP interface and more pronounced dilative behavior. Furthermore, the increase in the vertical stress leads to relatively higher peak shear strength, while leading to lower peak friction and dilation angles at sand–GRP interfaces. Test results manifest that for sand–GRP interfaces the friction angle may range from 0.65 to 0.86 of the sand’s friction angle, depending on the overall morphology of particles. It is shown that a simple critical state sand–structure interface constitutive model can capture the salient features of the mechanical behavior of different sand–GRP interfaces studied here.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

All data are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Abbreviations

d i :

Particle diameter with i% finer by mass in sand gradation

D r, D r0 :

Relative density of sand, initial relative density of sand

G s :

Specific gravity of sand particles

C c, C u :

Coefficient of curvature, coefficient of uniformity for sand

e min, e max :

Minimum void ratio, maximum void ratio of sand

τ, τ p, τ cs :

Shear stress, peak shear stress, critical state shear stress

ϕ, ϕ p, ϕ cs :

Mobilized internal friction angle of sand, peak internal friction angle of sand, critical state internal friction angle of sand

ψ max :

Maximum dilation angle of sand

ξ max :

Maximum dilation angle at sand–structure interface

u :

Shear displacement in sand-alone and sand–structure interface tests

v :

Vertical displacement in sand-alone and sand–structure interface tests

\(\overline{S}\) :

Mean sphericity of sand particles

\(\overline{R}\) :

Mean roundness of sand particles

δu, δv:

Differential shear displacement in sand-alone and sand–structure interface tests, differential vertical displacement in sand-alone and sand–structure interface tests

σ n, \(\,\sigma_{{\text{n}}}^{{{\text{cs}}}}\) :

Vertical (normal) stress in sand-alone and sand–structure interface tests, vertical (normal) stress at critical state

δ, δ p, δ cs :

Friction angle mobilized at sand–structure interface, peak friction angle mobilized at sand–structure interface, critical state friction angle mobilized at sand–structure interface

R a, R n, R z :

Average roughness of surface, normalized roughness of interface, maximum peak-to-valley distance in surface profile

P :

Normal force resulting from ground pressure on pipe periphery

l :

Sampling length in roughness measurement

γ :

Average shear strain in the sand–structure interfaces zone

t :

Mean soil–structure interface thickness

μ :

Initial slope of τ vs. γ curve

μ 0 :

Constitutive model parameter related to the initial slope of τ vs. γ curve

ψ :

State parameter in the sand–structure interface zone for the critical state sand-structure interface constitutive model

M :

Slope of the critical state line in the τ vs. σn plane

p ref :

Reference normalizing pressure

e cs :

Critical state void ratio

N :

Soil–structure interface constitutive model parameter

ζ :

Soil–structure interface constitutive model parameter

k :

Soil–structure interface constitutive model parameter

Γ :

Soil–structure interface constitutive model parameter

λ :

Soil–structure interface constitutive model parameter

References

  1. Afzali-Nejad A, Lashkari A, Shourijeh PT (2017) Influence of particle shape on the shear strength and dilation of sand-woven geotextile interfaces. Geotext Geomembr 45(1):54–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Afzali-Nejad A, Lashkari A, Farhadi B (2018) Role of soil inherent anisotropy in peak friction and maximum dilation angles of four sand-geosynthetic interfaces. Geotext Geomembr 46(6):869–881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Afzali-Nejad A, Lashkari A, Martinez A (2021) Stress-displacement response of sand-geosynthetic interfaces under different volume change boundary conditions. J Geotechn Geoenvironmental Eng 147(8):04021062

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Anubhav, Basudhar PK (2013) Interface behavior of woven geotextile with rounded and angular particle sand. J Mater Civ Eng 25(12):1970–1974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Anubhav, Wu H (2015) Modeling of non-linear shear displacement behavior of soil geotextile interface. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng. 1(2):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. ASTM D3080/D3080M-11 (2011) Standard test method for direct shear test of soils under consolidated drained conditions

  7. ASTM D5321/D5321M-14 (2014) Standard test method for determining the shear strength of soil-geosynthetic and geosynthetic-geosynthetic interfaces by direct shear

  8. ATV-A 161 E-90 (1990) Structural calculation of driven pipes. German ATV rules and standards, Hennef, Germany

  9. AWWA (American Water Works Association) (2013) Fiberglass pipe design. AWWA M45. AWWA, Denver

  10. Barmpopoulos IH, Ho TYK, Jardine RJ, Anh-Minh N (2010) The large displacement shear characteristics of granular media against concrete and steel interfaces. In: Frost JD (ed) Proceedings of research symposium on characterization and behavior of interfaces, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 21 September, 2008

  11. Cancelli A, Rimoldi P, Togni S (1992) Frictional characteristics of geogrids by means of direct shear and pullout tests. In: Balkema AA(ed) Proceedings of the international symposium on earth reinforcement practice, Fukuoka, Japan, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, vol 1, pp 51–56

  12. Chen X, Zhang J, Xiao Y, Li J (2015) Effect of roughness on shear behavior of red clay–concrete interface in large-scale direct shear tests. Can Geotech J 52(8):1122–11325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cheng WC, Wang L, Xue ZF, Ni JC, Rahman MM, Arulrajah A (2019) Lubrication performance of pipejacking in soft alluvial deposits. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 91:102991

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cho G, Dodds J, Santamarina JC (2006) Particle shape effects on packing density, stiffness and strength: natural and crushed sands. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 132(5):591–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Choo CS, Ong DEL (2015) Evaluation of pipe-jacking forces based on direct shear testing of reconstituted tunneling rock spoils. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 141(10):04015044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Choudhary AK, Krishna AM (2016) Experimental investigation of interface behaviour of different types of granular soil/geosynthetics. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 2(1):4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Das BM (2016) Principles of foundation engineering, 8th edn. CENGAGE learning, Sacramento

    Google Scholar 

  18. DeJong JT, Randolph MF, White DJ (2003) Interface load transfer degradation during cyclic loading: a microscale investigation. Soils Found 43(4):81–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. DeJong JT, White DJ, Randolph MF (2006) Microscale observation and modeling of soil-structure interface using particle image velocimetry. Soils Found 46(1):15–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. DeJong JT, Westgate ZJ (2009) Role of initial state, material properties, and confinement condition on local and global soil-structure interface behavior. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 135(11):1646–1660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. de Leeuw LW, Martin G, Milewski H, Dietz MS, Diambra A (2020) Polypropylene pipe interface strength on marine sandy soils with varying coarse fraction. Proc Inst Civ Eng Geotech Eng 174:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeen.19.00137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Desrues J, Viggiani G (2004) Strain localization in sand: an overview of the experimental results obtained in Grenoble using stereophotogrammetry. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech. 28:279e321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Diniz Melo JD, Levy Neto F, de Araujo Barros G, de Almeida Mesquita FN (2011) Mechanical behavior of GRP pressure pipes with addition of quartz sand filler. J Compos Mater 45(6):717–726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dove JE, Jarrett JB (2002) Behavior of dilative sand interfaces in a geotribology framework. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 128(1):25–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Evgin E, Fakharian K (1997) Effect of stress paths on the behaviour of sand steel interfaces. Can Geotech J 33(6):853–865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Farhadi B, Lashkari A (2017) Influence of soil inherent anisotropy on behavior of crushed sand-steel interfaces. Soils Found 57(1):111–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Fioravante V (2002) On the shaft friction modelling of non-displacement piles in sand. Soils Found 42(2):23–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Frost JD, Han J (1999) Behavior of interfaces between fiber-reinforced polymers and sands. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 125(8):633–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Frost JD, DeJong JT, Recalde M (2002) Shear failure behavior of granular–continuum interfaces. Eng Fract Mech 69(17):2029–2048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Frost JD, Hebeler GL, Evans TM, DeJong JT (2004) Interface behavior of granular soil. In: Malla RB, Maji A (eds) ASCE Proceedings engineering, construction, and operations in challenging environments: earth and space conference. Houston, pp 65e72

  31. Frost JD, DeJong JT (2005) In situ assessment of role of surface roughness on interface response. J Geotechn Geoenvironmental Eng 131(4):498–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Frost JD, Kim D, Lee SW (2012) Microscale geomembrane-granular soil material interactions. KSCE J Civ Eng 16(1):79–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Goodhue MJ, Edil TB, Benson CH (2001) Interaction of foundry sands with geosynthetics. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 127(4):353–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gu X, Chen Y, Huang M (2017) Critical state shear behavior of the soil-structure interface determined by discrete element modeling. Particuology 35:68–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Han F, Ganju E, Salgado R, Prezzi M (2018) Effects of interface roughness, particle geometry, and gradation on the sand–steel interface friction angle. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 144(12):04018096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hebeler GL, Martinez A, Frost JD (2016) Shear zone evolution of granular soils in contact with conventional and textured CPT friction sleeves. KSCE J Civ Eng 20(4):1267–1282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ho TYK, Jardine RJ, Anh-Minh N (2011) Large-displacement interface shear between steel and granular media. Géotechnique 61(3):221–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Jewell RA (1996) Soil reinforcement with geotextiles. CIRIA Special Publication123, London

    Google Scholar 

  39. Ji X, Ni P, Barla M (2019) Analysis of jacking forces during pipe jacking in granular materials using particle methods. Undergr Space 4(4):277–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kishida H, Uesugi M (1987) Tests of the interface between sand and steel in the simple shear apparatus. Géotechnique 37(1):45–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Koerner RM (2005) Designing with Geosynthetics, 5th edn. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ladd R (1978) Preparing test specimens using undercompaction. Geotech Test J 1(1):16–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Lashkari A (2013) Prediction of the shaft resistance of nondisplacement piles in sand. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 37:904–931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Lashkari A (2017) A simple critical state interface model and its application in prediction of shaft resistance of non-displacement piles in sand. Comput Geotech 88:95–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Lashkari A, Jamali V (2021) Global and local sand-geosynthetic interface behavior. Géotechnique 71(4):346–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Lashkari A, Falsafizadeh SR, Shourijeh PT, Alipour MJ (2020) Instability of loose sand in constant volume direct simple shear tests in relation to particle shape. Acta Geotech 15:2507–2527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lee KM, Manjunath VR (2000) Soil-geotextile interface friction by direct shear tests. Can Geotech J 37:238e252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lings ML, Dietz MS (2005) The peak strength of sand-steel interfaces and the role of dilation. Soils Found 45(6):1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Liu H, Song E, Ling HI (2006) Constitutive modeling of soil-structure interface through the concept of critical state soil mechanics. Mech Res Commun 33:515–531

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. Look B (2007) Handbook of geotechnical investigation and design tables. Published by Taylor & Francis/Balkema, The Netherlands

    Book  Google Scholar 

  51. Lopes ML, Silvano R (2010) Soil/geotextile interface behaviour in direct shear and pullout movements. Geotech Geol Eng 28(6):791–804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Markou IN (2018) A study on geotextile-sand interface behavior based on direct shear and triaxial compression tests. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 4(1):8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Martinez A, Frost JD, Hebeler GL (2015) Experimental study of shear zones formed at sand/steel interfaces in axial and torsional axisymmetric tests. Geotech Test J 38(4):409–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Martinez A, Frost JD (2017) The influence of surface roughness form on the strength of sand–structure interfaces. Géotech Lett 7(1):104–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Mitchell JK, Soga K (2005) Fundamentals of soil behavior, 3rd edn. Published by John Wiley & Sons Inc, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  56. Mortara G, Mangiola A, Ghionna VN (2007) Cyclic shear stress degradation and post-cyclic behaviour from sand–steel interface direct shear tests. Can Geotech J 44(7):739–752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Najafi M (2005) Trenchless technology: pipeline and utility design, construction, and renewal. McGraw Hill Professional, New York

    Google Scholar 

  58. Namli M, Guler E (2017) Effect of bentonite slurry pressure on interface friction of pipe jacking. J Pipeline Syst Eng Pract 8(2):04016016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. O’rourke TD, Druschel SJ, Netravali AN (1990) Shear strength characteristics of sand-polymer interfaces. J Geotech Eng 116(3):451–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Osumi T (2000) Calculating Jacking Forces for Pipe Jacking Methods. No Dig Int Res 586:40–42

    Google Scholar 

  61. Pellet-Beaucour AL, Kastner R (2002) Experimental and analytical study of friction forces during microtunneling operations. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 17(1):83–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Peng SY, Ng CWW, Zheng G (2014) The dilatant behaviour of sand–pile interface subjected to loading and stress relief. Acta Geotech 9(3):425–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Pipe Jacking Association (1995) Guide to best practice for the installation of pipe jacks and microtunnels, 1st edn., London

  64. Porcino D, Fioravante V, Ghionna VN, Pedroni S (2003) Interface behavior of sands from constant normal stiffness direct shear tests. Geotech Test J 26(3):289–301

    Google Scholar 

  65. Punetha P, Mohanty P, Samanta M (2017) Microstructural investigation on mechanical behavior of soil-geosynthetic interface in direct shear test. Geotext Geomembr 45(3):197–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Rahjoo S, Najafi M, Williammee RS, Khankarli G (2012) Comparison of jacking load models for trenchless pipe jacking. In: Pipelines conference 2012, American Society of Civil Engineers

  67. Ramsey N, Jardine RJJ, Lehane BM, Ridley A (1998) A review of soil-steel interface testing with the ring shear apparatus. In: Proccedings of offshore site investigation and foundation behavior new frontiers, society for underwater technology, London, 22–24 Sept

  68. Randolph MF (2012) Cyclic interface shearing in sand and cemented soils and application to axial response of piles. Mechanical behaviour of soils under environmentally induced cyclic loads. Springer, Vienna, pp 481–528

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  69. Rui S, Wang L, Guo Z, Cheng X, Wu B (2021) Monotonic behavior of interface shear between carbonate sands and steel. Acta Geotech 16:167–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Rui S, Wang L, Guo Z, Zhou W, Li Y (2021) Cyclic behavior of interface shear between carbonate sand and steel. Acta Geotech 16(1):189–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Staheli K (2006) Jacking force prediction: an interface friction approach based on pipe surface roughness. Doctoral dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology

  72. Stein D, Möllers K, Bielecki R (1989) Microtunneling- installation and renewal of nonman-size supply and sewage lines by the trenchless construction method. Ernst & Sohn, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  73. Uesugi M, Kishida H (1986) Influential factors of friction between steel and dry sand. Soils Found 26(2):33–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Uesugi M, Kishida H, Uchikawa Y (1990) Friction between dry sand and concrete under monotonic and repeated loading. Soils Found 30(1):115–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Vangla P, Latha GM (2015) Influence of particle size on the friction and interfacial shear strength of sands of similar morphology. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 1(1):6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Vangla P, Gali ML (2016) Effect of particle size of sand and surface asperities of reinforcement on their interface shear behaviour. Geotext Geomembr 44(3):254–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Vieira CS, Lopes MDL, Caldeira LM (2013) Sand-geotextile interface characterisation through monotonic and cyclic direct shear tests. Geosynth Int 20(1):26–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Vieira CS, Lopes MDL, Caldeira L (2015) Sand-Nonwoven geotextile interfaces shear strength by direct shear and simple shear tests. Geomech Eng 9(5):601–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Wei LM, Yang J (2014) On the role of grain shape in static liquefaction of sand-fine mixtures. Géotechnique 64(9):740–745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Whitehouse D (2004) Surfaces and their measurement, 1st edn. Elsevier

    Google Scholar 

  81. Yang J, Wei LM (2012) Collapse of loose sand with the addition of fines: the role of particle shape. Geotechnique 62(12):1111–1125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Yang J, Luo XD (2015) Exploring the relationship between critical state and particle shape for granular materials. J Mech Phys Solids 84:196–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Yang J, Luo XD (2018) The critical state friction angle of granular materials: does it depend on grading. Acta Geotech 13(3):535–5547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Yonan SJ (1993) Pipe jacking forces in sand Doctoral dissertation, Loughborough University of Technology

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Farassan Manufacturing and Industrial Company for providing the GRP sheets.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Shiraz University of Technology, Shiraz, Iran

    Ali Qannadizadeh, Piltan Tabatabaie Shourijeh & Ali Lashkari

Authors
  1. Ali Qannadizadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Piltan Tabatabaie Shourijeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ali Lashkari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Piltan Tabatabaie Shourijeh.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

Various definitions of roundness and sphericity have been proposed by researchers in the literature. With reference to Fig. 

Fig. 17
figure 17

Schematic description of sphericity and roundness

Full size image

17 the definitions adopted herein are as follows.

Sphericity compares the particle’s shape with a sphere and indicates how close the particle is to an ideal sphere. Hence sphericity, S, is calculated as [46, 82, 83]:

$$S = {{2\pi R_{{\text{e}}} } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{2\pi R_{{\text{e}}} } {P_{{\text{r}}} }}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {P_{{\text{r}}} }}$$
(16)

where Re is the equivalent radius (i.e., radius of circle with area equal to projected surface area of particle) and Pr is the projected perimeter of the particle (cf. Figure 17a).

Roundness, R, measures sharpness of particle corners and is calculated as ratio of average corner radii to radius of largest inscribed sphere [46, 79, 83]. Thus:

$$R = {{r_{{{\text{ave}}}} } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{r_{{{\text{ave}}}} } {r_{\max } }}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {r_{\max } }}\; = [\;{1 \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {1 {r_{\max } }}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {r_{\max }] }}\sum\limits_{1}^{n} {\left( {{{r_{i} } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{r_{i} } n}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} n}} \right)}$$
(17)

where ri is the radius of the ith corner, n is the number of corners, rave is the average of radii of corners \(\left( {r_{{{\text{ave}}}} = \sum\limits_{1}^{n} {\left[ {r_{{\text{i}}} /n} \right]} } \right)\) and rmax \(\left( {r_{{{\text{max}}}} = \max \left\{ {r_{1} ,\,r_{2} ,\,r_{3} ,\,...,r_{{\text{n}}} } \right\}} \right)\) is the radius of maximum inscribed sphere (see Fig. 17b).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Qannadizadeh, A., Shourijeh, P.T. & Lashkari, A. Laboratory investigation and constitutive modeling of the mechanical behavior of sand–GRP interfaces. Acta Geotech. 17, 4253–4275 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-022-01533-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-022-01533-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation