Centrifuge Model Studies on the Performance of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Structures
This paper highlights centrifuge model studies on geosynthetic-reinforced soil structures undertaken at IIT Bombay using a 4.5 m radius large beam centrifuge facility. First, attempt has been made to introduce scaling considerations for modelling geosynthetic materials in a geocentrifuge, like, geotextiles, geogrids from hydraulic and mechanical considerations point of view. Recent studies on the performance of geogrid-reinforced clay liners subjected to differential settlements at 40 gravities, geogrid-reinforced soil walls with marginal backfill at gravities, geotextile-reinforced slopes with variable gravity level and geosynthetic-reinforced slopes subjected to rainfall at 30 gravies are presented. The above studies could bring out the importance of centrifuge modelling along with digital image analyses technique for investigating the performance of geosynthetic-reinforced soil structures before and at failure. The analysis and interpretation of centrifuge test results have yielded valuable information for understanding the failure mechanism of geosynthetic-reinforced soil structures. Particularly, the effect of geogrid reinforcement layer in restraining clay-based cracking, effect of chimney drains on the performance of geogrid-reinforced soil walls subjected to seepage, failure mechanism of geotextiles reinforced slopes at the onset of failure and the performance of geosynthetic-reinforced slopes subjected to rainfall using in-flight rainfall simulator are postulated distinctly.
KeywordsGeosynthetics Centrifuge models Geosynthetic-reinforced soil structures Model tests Centrifuge modelling
The author would like to acknowledge doctoral research works of Dr. Ratnakar Mahajan, Dr. S. Rajesh, Dr. D. V. Raisinghani, Dr. P. V. Divya, Dr. A. Rajabian, Dr. Sreeja Balakrishnan, Dr. Dipankana Bhattacherjee, Mr. Jaber Mamaghanian and Master students Mr. Subhro Senguptha, Mr. Bibek Kumar Jha and Mr. Ch. Manikumar. Special thanks are due to Dr. Dipankana Bhattacherjee for providing excellent help in editing this manuscript. The authors would like to thank all the funding agencies (like DST, MHRD, IFCPAR) for sponsoring studies and the centrifuge staff at the large beam centrifuge facility of the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India for their active involvement and untiring support during the course of this endeavour.
- 5.Bhattacherjee, D., Viswanadham, B.V.S.: Design and performance of an in-flight rainfall simulator in a geotechnical centrifuge. Geotech. Test. J. (ASTM) 41(1), 72–91 (2018)Google Scholar
- 7.Izawa, J., Kuwano, J.: Centrifuge modeling of geogrid reinforced soil walls subjected to pseudo-static loading. Int. J. Phys. Model. Geotech. 10(6), 1–18 (2010)Google Scholar
- 8.Jewell, R.A.: Soil Reinforcement with Geotextiles. Constrution Indistry Research and Information Association, 332 pp. Special Publication 123, Thomas Telford (1996)Google Scholar
- 9.Koerner, J., Soong, T.Y., Koerner, R.M.: Earth retaining wall costs in the USA. GRI Report#20, Geosynthetic Institute, 38 p. Folsom, PA (1998)Google Scholar
- 10.Koerner, R.M.: Designing with Geosynthetics, 6th edn. Xlibris Publishing (2012)Google Scholar
- 14.Rajesh, S., Viswanadham, B.V.S.: Development of a motor-based differential settlement simulator setup for a geotechnical centrifuge. Geotech. Test. J. (ASTM) 33(6), 507–514 (2010)Google Scholar
- 17.Sarsby, R.W.: Geosynthetics in Civil Engineering, 1st edn. The Textile Institute, CRC Press, Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge, England (2007)Google Scholar
- 18.Springman, S., Bolton, M., Sharma, J., Balachandran, S.: Modelling and instrumentation of a geotextile in the geotechnical centrifuge. In: Ochiai, H., Hayashi, S., Otani, J. (eds.) Proceedings of International Symposium on Earth Reinforcement Practice, pp. 167–172. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam (Pubs)Google Scholar
- 19.Viswanadham, B.V.S., Bhattacherjee, D.: Studies on the performance of geocomposite reinforced low-permeable slopes subjected to rainfall. Jpn. Geotech. Soc. Spec. Publ. 2(69), 2362–2367 (2016)Google Scholar