Abstract
Shear characteristics of the interface between sand and the suction caisson wall play an important role in determining the friction resistance along the suction caisson wall. In this study, a variable normal load (VNL) reflecting the effects of the penetration depth and installation rate of a suction caisson is applied using the torsional interface shear apparatus to examine the interface shear behavior. Results show that the interface friction coefficient decreases with the increase of the normal stress and shearing rate until reaching a critical value. When the friction coefficient reaches the critical value, the friction coefficient changes little with the increase of normal stress. The variation of the friction coefficient caused by the seepage flow and penetration rate should be considered for calculating the frictional force along the caisson wall. Given the same shearing rate, the normalized efficiency parameter of the interface under the VNL is higher than that obtained under the CNL. The suction calculated based on the test results of this study is in good agreement with that from the Tenby project, indicating that our findings are reliable and beneficial to analyze the installation process of the suction caisson.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Al-Emami O (2018) Investigation of soil-steel interface behavior of Iraqi soil by direct shear apparatus. Matec Web of Conferences 162: 01003, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201816201003
Borana L, Yin JH, Singh DN, Shukla SK (2016) Interface behavior from suction–controlled direct shear test on completely decomposed granitic soil and steel surfaces. International Journal of Geomechanics 16(6):D4016008, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000658
Boukpeti, N, White DJ (2017) Interface shear box tests for assessing axial pipe–soil resistance. Géotechnique 67(1):18–30, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.15.P.112
Burgess AS (1983) Elastic analysis of soil-foundation interaction. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 10(2):329, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7952(81)90027-2
Canakci H, Hamed M, Celik F, Sidik W, Eviz F (2016) Friction characteristics of organic soil with construction materials. Soils Found 56(6):965–972, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2016.11.002
Chen F, Lian JJ, Wang HJ, Liu F, Wang HZ, Zhao Y (2016) Large-scale experimental investigation of the installation of suction caissons in silt sand. Applied Ocean Research 60:109–120, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2016.09.004
Cui GJ, Zhang CQ, Chen JL, Yang FJ, Zhou H, Lu JJ (2020) Effect of bolt inclination angle on shear behavior of bolted joints under CNL and CNS conditions. Journal of Central South University 27(3): 937–950, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11771-020-4342-x
Dietz MS, Lings ML (2006) Post peak strength of interfaces in a stress–dilatancy framework. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 132(11):1474–1484, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:11(1474)
Dove JE, Jarrett JB (2002) Behavior of dilative sand interfaces in a geotribology framework. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 128(1):25–37, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2002)128:1(25)
El-Mhaidib AI (2006) Influence of shearing rate on interfacial friction between sand and steel. Engineering Journal of Qatar University 19:1–16
Farhadi B, Lashkari A (2017) Influence of soil inherent anisotropy on behavior of crushed sand-steel interfaces. Soils and Foundations 57(1):111–125, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2017.01.008
Feligha M, Hammoud F, Belachia M, Nouaouria MS (2016) Experimental investigation of frictional behavior between cohesive soils and solid materials using direct shear apparatus. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 34(2): 567–578, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-015-9966-5
Fuggle AR (2011) Geomaterial gradation influences on interface shear behavior. PhD Thesis, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
Ganesan S, Kuo M, Bolton M (2014) Influences on pipeline interface friction measured in direct shear tests. Geotechnical Testing Journal 37(1):94–106, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ20130008
Ghionna VN, Mortara G (2002) An elastoplastic model for sand-structure interface behavior. GeÂotechnique 52(1):41–50, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.52.1.41.40826
Houlsby GT, Byrne BW (2005) Design procedures for installation of suction caissons in sand. Geotechnical Engineering 158(3): 35–144, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1680/geng.158.3.135.66297
Hu LM, Pu JL (2004) Testing and modeling of soil-structure interface. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 130(8):851–860, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:8(851)
Jin ZH, Yang Q, Chen C, Leng WM, Guo FQ, Zhao CY (2018) Experimental study on effects of the roughness on mechanical behaviors of concrete-sand interface. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering 37(3):754–765, DOI: https://doi.org/10.13722/j.cnki.jrme.2017.1311 (in Chinese)
Koerner RM (1990) Designing with geosynthetics. Prentice Hall, Inc., Engelwood Cliffs, N.J. 652
Liu R, Ma WG, Qi Y, Wu XL (2019) Experimental studies on the drag reduction effect of bucket foundation installation under suction pressure in sand. Ships and Offshore Structures 14(5):421–431, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2018.1500188
Martinez A, Frost JD (2017) The influence of surface roughness form on the strength of sand-structure interfaces. Géotechnique Letters 7:104–111, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1680/jgele.16.00169
Martinez A, Stutz HH (2019) Rate effects on the interface shear behavior of normally and overconsolidated clay. Geotechnique 69(9):801–815, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.17.p.311
Nardelli A, Cacciari PP, Futai MM (2019) Sand-concrete interface response: The role of surface texture and confinement conditions. Soils and Foundations 59(6):1675–1694, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2019.05.013
Oh KY, Nam W, Ryu MS, Kim JY, Epureanu BI (2018) A review of foundations of offshore wind energy converters: Current status and future perspectives. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 88(C):16–36, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.02.005
Pérez-collazo C, Greaves D, Iglesias G (2015) A review of combined wave and offshore wind energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42:141–153, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.09.032
Ragni R Bienen B, O’Loughlin CD, Stanier SA, Morgan N (2020) Observations of the effects of a clay layer on suction bucket installation in sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 146(5):04020020, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002217
Rui SJ, Wang LZH, Guo ZH, Chen XM, Wu B (2021) Monotonic behavior of interface shear between carbonate sands and steel. Acta Geotechnica 16:167–187, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-020-00987-9
Senders M, Randolph MF (2009) CPT-based method for the installation of suction caissons in sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 135(1):14–25, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2009)135:1(14)
Sweta K, Hussaini SKK (2019) Behavior evaluation of geogrid-reinforced ballast-subballast interface under shear condition. Geotextiles & Geomembranes 47(1):23–31, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2018.09.
Taha A, Fall M (2013) Shear behavior of sensitive marine clay-concrete interfaces. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 139(4):644–650, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000795
Uesugi M, Kishida H (1986) Influential factors of friction between steel and dry sands. Soils Found 26(2):33–46, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf1972.26.2_33
Vangla P, Latha GM (2016) Effect of particle size of sand and surface asperities of reinforcement on their interface shear behavior. Geotext. Geomembr 44(3):254–268, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2015.11.002
Wu XN, Hu Y, Li Y, Yang J, Duan L, Wang TG, Adcock T, Jiang ZhY, Gao Zh, Lin ZhL, Borthwick A, Liao ShJ (2019) Foundations of offshore wind turbines: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 104:379–393, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.01.012
Yuan ZL, Qin YL, Tang HY (2010) Shallow bucket foundation platform. Beijing: Petroleum Industry Press (in Chinese)
Zhang PY, Hu RQ, Ding HY, Guo YH, Xiong KP (2017) Comparative analysis of seepage field characteristics in bucket foundation with and without compartments. Ocean Engineering 143(1):34–49, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.07.043
Acknowledgments
This study was financially supported by the National Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 51879044 and 51639002) and the SDUST Research Fund (Grant No. 2015KYJH104).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Li, Y., Li, D., Wu, Y. et al. Experimental Studies on Shear Behavior of Sand-Suction Caisson Wall Interface under Variable Normal Load and Penetration Rate. KSCE J Civ Eng 27, 2766–2777 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-023-0498-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-023-0498-x