Abstract
Centrifuge-based physical modelling is widely adopted for understanding the performance of geostructures, like levees subjected to flooding and drawdown and geogrid-reinforced soil walls subjected to seepage. In this paper, an attempt has been made to bring out the advantage of centrifuge-based physical modelling to understand (i) the performance of levees subjected to flooding using a custom-designed and developed in-flight flood simulator at 30 gravities with and without chimney drain and (ii) the performance of geogrid-reinforced soil walls with and without chimney drain subjected to seepage at 40 gravities. In both the cases, silty sand was used to model soil and fine sand was used in chimney drain. All centrifuge model tests were performed using the 4.5-m-radius large-beam centrifuge facility available at IIT Bombay. Models were instrumented with linearly variable differential transformers for measuring surface settlements and pore pressure transducers to measure raise in pore water pressure within the soil at the onset of flooding for levees and at the onset of seepage for geogrid-reinforced soil walls. Additionally, digital image analyses of photographs of front elevation of levee models and geogrid-reinforced soil wall models were carried out to obtain face movements, movements of markers embedded within the levee, markers stuck to geogrid layers of reinforced soil walls at the onset of flooding and seepage. The developed in-flight flood simulator was found to be capable of generating the flood rate ranging from 2.2 to 7 m/day. Further, results of centrifuge model tests conducted on levees without any chimney drain were noticed to undergo catastrophic failure within 4.25 days of flooding-induced seepage, whereas a levee with chimney drain was found to sustain flooding-induced seepage of 37.5 days. Geogrid-reinforced soil wall was constructed with silty sand as a structural as well as backfill, without any drainage system experienced catastrophic failure. Contrary to this, geogrid-reinforced soil walls with chimney drain as an external drainage system helped in averting catastrophic failure. However, probability of piping failure near the toe region of the wall cannot be ruled out. Further, the use of geocomposite layers as an internal drainage system within the reinforced zone also explored and the placement of geocomposite layers at one-third portion of height from bottom was found to be effective.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Koerner RM, Koerner GR (2011) The importance of drainage control for geosynthetic reinforced mechanically stabilized earth walls. J Geoeng 6(1):3–13
Fredlund DG, Rahardjo H (1993) Soil mechanics for unsaturated soils. Wiley, New York
Yoo C, Jung HS, Jung HY (2004) Lessons learned from a failure of geosynthetics reinforced segmental retaining wall. In: Proceeding of the 3rd Asian Regional Conference on Geosynthetics CIIR, Shim S, Yoo C, Heon HY (Eds.) pp. 265–274. Seoul, Korea
Pathak YP, Alfaro MC (2010) Wetting-drying behavior of geogrid-reinforced clay under working load conditions. Geosynth Int 17(3):144–156
Schofield AN (1980) Cambridge geotechnical operations. Geotechnique 30(3):227–268
Taylor RN (1995) Centrifuges in modelling: principles and scale effects, geotechnical centrifuge technology. Blackie Academic and Professional, Glasgow, U.K
Viswanadham BVS, König D (2004) Studies on scaling and instrumentation of a geogrid. Geotext Geomembr 22(5):307–328
Raisinghani DV, Viswanadham BVS (2011) Centrifuge model study on low permeable slope reinforced by hybrid geosynthetics. Geotext Geomembr 29(6):567–580
Mamaghanian J, Viswanadham BVS, Razeghi HR (2019) Centrifuge model studies on geocomposite reinforced soil walls subjected to seepage. Geosynth Int 26(4):371–386
Christopher BR, Stuglis RS (2005) Low permeable backfill soils in geosynthetic reinforced soil wall: state of the practice in North America. In: Proceedings of North American Geosynthetics Conference (NAGS2005), GRI-19, pp. 14–16. Las Vegas, USA
Holtz RD, Kovacs WD (1981) An introduction to geotechnical engineering. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
Chandrasekaran VS (2001) Numerical and centrifuge modelling in soil structure interaction. Indian Geotech J 31(1):30–59
Plaxis reference manual (2012) “PLAXIS 2D—version 9.0,” Bringkgreve RBJ, Engin E, Swolf WM (Eds.), Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the supporting staff at the National Geotechnical Centrifuge Facility and Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India, for their untiring support and involvement during executing of centrifuge model tests. Thanks are due to Dr. Rishabh Kumar Saran and Dr. Jaber Mamaghanian, former research scholars worked under the supervision of the author and also their help in analysing, plotting and interpreting centrifuge test results.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Viswanadham, B.V.S. Use of Centrifuge-Based Physical Modelling for Understanding the Performance of Geostructures. Indian Geotech J 51, 154–164 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-021-00517-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-021-00517-8