Acceso abierto

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

F. Cafaro
F. Cafaro
, 
A. Hamad
A. Hamad
 y 
L. Monterisi
L. Monterisi
   | 27 jul 2022
Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica's Cover Image
Acerca de este artículo
Artículo anterior
Artículo siguiente
Cite
Article Category: Original Study
Publicado en línea: 27 jul 2022
Páginas: 211 - 223
Recibido: 04 sept 2021
Aceptado: 24 may 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2022-0014
Palabras clave
© 2022 Cafaro F. et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Figure 1

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

Figure 2

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.
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.

Figure 3

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 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).

Figure 4

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

Figure 5

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

Figure 6

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

Figure 7

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

Figure 8

Bulk friction as a function of interparticle friction: 2D DEM results (after Calvetti and Nova 2004; replotted)
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 φb (°)
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 φb (°)
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
eISSN:
2083-831X
Idioma:
Inglés
Calendario de la edición:
4 veces al año
Temas de la revista:
Geosciences, other, Materials Sciences, Composites, Porous Materials, Physics, Mechanics and Fluid Dynamics
RSS Feed de revista