Does water lubrication affect friction differently for rocks and soils? Evidence and open questions Cover

.blurhash-client-img { display: none !important; }

Does water lubrication affect friction differently for rocks and soils? Evidence and open questions

Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica

Volume 44 (2022): Issue 3 (September 2022)

By: F. Cafaro, A. Hamad and L. Monterisi

Open Access

|Jul 2022

Figures & Tables

Stribeck curve with different lubrication regimes (after Prölß et al. 2018).

Rate-strengthening frictional strength of a single-asperity contact between calcite and an AFM tip in a 100 mM CaCl2 solution (after Diao and Espinosa-Marzal 2018). AFM: atomic force microscopy.

Friction between calcite and an AFM tip as a function of load in CaCl2 solutions at sliding speed of 0.2 μm/s (after Diao and Espinosa-Marzal 2018).

Friction coefficient of quartz (after Lambe and Whitman 1969, data from Bromwell 1966 and Dickey 1966; replotted).

Interparticle friction versus normal force for DNA-1A lunar regolith simulant at different humidity conditions (after Marzulli et al. 2021).

Schematic representation of gradual wear of asperities. Abraded grains form a gouge layer between the interfaces (after Braun et al. 2021).

Campolattaro marl specimen subjected to direct shear test (the arrow indicates the hole in the middle for the rock joint saturation) (after ISMES 1982)

Bulk friction as a function of interparticle friction: 2D DEM results (after Calvetti and Nova 2004; replotted)

Static friction coefficient of minerals under different humidity conditions (data from Horn and Deere 1962)_

Mineral	Oven dried	Saturated
Rose quartz	0.13	0.45
Microcline feldspar	0.12	0.77
Calcite	0.14	0.68
Muscovite	0.43	0.23
Chlorite	0.53	0.22

Morphological and friction parameters for two granular soils (DNA-1A and OS) with different roughness, under both dry and wet conditions; the interparticle friction angle is assessed based only on tests carried out at 1 N normal contact force (data from Marzulli et al_ 2021)_

Material	Particle size (for microtest), mm	Hardness, GPa	Roundness	Roughness, nm	φ′_bulk low stresses range (°)	φ′_bulk medium–higher stresses range (°)	φ′_μ (°)
DNA-1A dry	1.0–1.8	0.3	0.6	1476	47.9	40.8	21
DNA-1A wet					45.9		30
OS dry	0.5–0.8	5.8	0.8	204	45.0	36.5	7.6
OS wet					40.8		-

Measured values of φb under different moisture conditions for granite and sandstone (data from Li et al_ 2020)_

Rock type	Moisture condition	φ_b (°)
Granite	Dry	33.46
	Wet surface	30.59
	Saturated	30.38
Sandstone	Dry	35.30
	Wet surface	32.92
	Saturated	32.62

Shear strength of rock fractures under dry and wet conditions (data from Barton 1973; Alejano et al_ 2012)_

Rock type	φ_b (°)

	Dry	Wet
Mudstone	32	29
Siltstone	32	30
Limestone	34	31
Sandstone	31	29
Marble	49	42
Shale	29	21
Granite	33	31

Values of residual friction angle of Campolattaro marls for different conditions of humidity and shearing direction (data from ISMES 1982)_

Sample joint	Shearing direction	Number of data	Friction angle by linear regression (°)	Average friction angle (°)
Saturated	Parallel to joint	8	17.7	16.3
Dry	Parallel to joint	9	38.0	37.8
Dry	Perpendicular to joint	8	44.4	44.5

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2022-0014 | Journal eISSN: 2083-831X | Journal ISSN: 0137-6365

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 211 - 223

Submitted on: Sep 4, 2021

Accepted on: May 24, 2022

Published on: Jul 27, 2022

Published by: Wroclaw University of Science and Technology

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

Keywords:

Water lubrication,

friction scale,

Related subjects:

Geosciences, other,

Materials sciences,

Porous materials,

Mechanics and fluid dynamics

© 2022 F. Cafaro, A. Hamad, L. Monterisi, published by Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous article Volume 44 (2022): Issue 3 (September 2022)Next article