Geotextiles and Geomembranes 6 (1987) 133-156

Geosynthetic/Soil Studies Using a Geotechnical Centrifuge

Arthur E. Lord Jr
Geosynthetic Research Institute, Drexel University, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19104, USA

ABSTRACT

Presented herein is a brief introduction to the centrifuge as used in

geotechnical engineering studies. The rationale for centrifuge studies and the
basic background are discussed in the Introduction. More scientific detail
about centrifuge studies is presented in the 'Physics of the centrifuge'
section, including derivation of the radial stress distribution in the model.
Some history and mention of previous uses is given in the section entitled
'History and uses of the geotechnical centrifuge'. Another section deals
completely with scaling considerations. This is an important and difficult
area and discussions of geotextile and geotextile/soil interactions are given.
Previous centrifuge studies of reinforced slopes are detailed. The Drexel
Geotechnical Centrifuge is described and a conclusion ends the body of the
report and mention is made of future work planned for the Drexel system.
The article casts a critical eye at certain aspects of the centrifuge problem.
There appear to be some possible fundamental problems concerning the
basics of centrifuge modeling that have not been adequately addressed
theoretically or experimentally to date.

1 INTRODUCTION

T h e use of small-scale models to study physical p h e n o m e n a is widespread in

the engineering field. For example, wind tunnels are used extensively in
a e r o d y n a m i c studies and large hydraulic models of actual physical situations
are often used. In the geotechnical field, however, the stress levels in a small
laboratory model are not the same as the stress levels in the full scale
133
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 0266-1144/87l$03.50 O 1987, Elsevier Applied Science
Publishers Ltd, England. Printed in Great Britain
134 A r t h u r E. L o r d J r

r 1
counter wff.

or
I d t n f i c o l model

L.-J
(at resf)
Cat rest}

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the centrifuge.

prototype. One possible remedy for this problem is the use of an artificial
gravitational field, which makes the model appear heavier. The centrifuge
provides a method for supplying an enhanced gravitational effect. 1 The
increased gravitational field is supplied by the centripetal (radial)
acceleration. (A common use of centrifuges is for separation of the
components in liquid suspensions, e.g. separating the cream in milk and
separating suspended particles in medical laboratory samples.)
Figure 1 is a schematic diagram of a centrifuge. The container, with the
soil model, hangs downward when the centrifuge is at rest. As the centrifuge
is rotated the model rotates upward and, at sufficiently high rotational
speed, the model rotates in a horizontal plane. In this final position the
centripetal acceleration is
V2
a, - - rJ (1)
r

where v is the tangential velocity, r is the radius, and to is the angular

velocity.
According to Newton's second law, the bottom wall of the container must
push on the soil container in a direction toward the center with a total force
F, = mar, where m is the mass of the soil. From Newton's third law, the soil
mass pushes back on the container wall with an equal force mar which is the
apparent weight. If the centripetal acceleration is ng (g = acceleration of
gravity and n is an integer), then the soil is pushing outward with a force
m ( n g ) = n ( m g ) , which is n times the zero velocity weight. Hence as far as
self weight effects are concerned, the model corresponds to a prototype
structure n times larger (in the radial direction) than the model. Therefore
gravitational stresses in the model on the average are equivalent to those in a
prototype n times as large. (It is assumed that strains and lateral stresses are
equivalent in the model and prototype.) Thus prototype situations of
 Geosynthetic/soil studies using a centrifuge 135

various sizes can be simulated by varying the rotational velocity of the

centrifuge, with the same size model. The same size prototype can be
simulated with different size models and different rotational speeds. This is
called 'modeling of models'. Centrifuges capable of accelerations of 100 g or
above have been used in the past.
It should be mentioned that there are effects other than those of self
weight which may be difficult or impossible to completely model in a
centrifuge. H o w e v e r information as to the consequences of the lack of
similarity between model and prototype can be obtained by the afore-
m e n t i o n e d 'modeling of models' method. At any rate, in most cases,
building full scale models is prohibitive from a cost and logistics standpoint
and centrifuge modeling offers a very attractive (if not the only) experi-
mental alternative to full scale experiments.
The combination of an experimental centrifuge effort with a theoretical
numerical modeling approach would seem to be a viable approach to soil
structure problems, including those involving geosynthetics.

2 PHYSICS O F T H E C E N T R I F U G E

It is essential to know the radial stress distribution in a model undergoing

centrifugation. Applying Newton's second law in the radial direction to a
small element of the model rotating in the horizontal plane (see Fig. 2) we
have 2

F 2 - El = d F = d m a , (2)
where
F = force
dm = mass of the element

ar = -- = radial acceleration
r

Furthermore,
dm = tadV = odrA (3)
where
p = mass density
dV = volume of mass dm
dr = radial thickness of dm
A = area of drn
136 A r t h u r E. L o r d Jr

ro
/r-A
tO
f,, II A

Fig. 2. Schematic drawing of a soil element in the rotating body, showing the radial forces.

and with the definition of stress,

dF
do" - (4)
A

we have (using eqns (2) and (3))

dF = pdrAar

dF
do" - - pa~dr (5)
A
The radial acceleration is given by eqn (1) yielding

d o " = proJ 2 d r

Integrating from the free inner surface of the model (r = r0) where the stress
is zero, we obtain, for a given to, the radial stress at the position ri

J'0~' do-= p~o~ j'i~ rdr (6)

O'i =
P°J2
2
(4 - ro2) (6a)
 Geosynthetic/soil studies using a centrifuge 137

D u e to the unfamiliar n a t u r e o f this general a r e a to m o s t practicing

g e o t e c h n i c a l e n g i n e e r s , it might b e o f help in placing actual SI units in e q n
(6a) a n d d e t e r m i n i n g s o m e stress levels. W e shall use the p a r a m e t e r s for a
typical soil m o d e l in the centrifuge:

O = 2000 kg/m 3 (2-times the density of water)

to = 27r(4/s) = 87r/s (240 rpm)
ri = 1.0m
r0 = 0.9m

2000 (87r) 2( 12 _ (0.9) 2)

O" --
2

~r = 1.2 x 105 N/m 2 (or 17.4 psi)

U s i n g this in the e x p r e s s i o n for vertical stress with d e p t h

tr = p g h (7)

1-2(105) = 2000(9.8)h

1.2(105 )
-h
2(0-98)(104 )

6.12m = h

T h u s this stress c o r r e s p o n d s to a d e p t h o f 6.12 m in a real p r o t o t y p e (1 g) soil

s t r u c t u r e . T h e a p p r o x i m a t e radial scaling factor n is easily seen to be (with
ri - r0 = 0-1 m )

6.12
n - -- - 61.2
0.1

T h e scaling f a c t o r is also given by

V2
ng= -- = to2r (8)
F

w h i c h f o r o u r e x a m p l e c o m e s o u t to be

n(9.8) = (8702(1)

(8~r) 2
n - - - - 64.4
9.8
138 Arthur E. Lord Jr

The two values of n are slightly different due to the slight nonlinearity of eqn
(6a).
If the model's dimension is small with respect to the average radius of the
centrifuge, then the radial stress distribution is approximately linear with
depth from the free surface. This can be seen from eqn (6a).
2
(3"i _- - r0

p¢o
o'i = T [ ( r i + r0)(ri- r0)] (6b)

If ri - r0 = Ar < < r0 then eqn (6b) can be rewritten (ri ~ ro)

2
cri ~ p¢o 2roAr
2

cri = poj2 roAr (6c)

This gives the approximate linear dependence with depth. Equation (6a)
also demonstrates the scale factor concept. Equation (6c) can be written

o-i = p(oJ2 ro)Ar = p a , A r (6d)

which agrees with the standard stress/depth relation (eqn (7)) o-~ = p g h if

Ar = h

and
a, = geff = ng

The deviation of the linear eqn (6c) from the true stress distribution eqn
(6a) can be shown to be

O't . . . . 1 + - Ar
- (9)
O'linear 2r0

Table l shows this ratio as a function of Ar/2ro and also the percentage by
which o-~. . . . is below the true stress. It must be realized that if Ar represents
the m a x i m u m depth of the model, then the average stress is only about 50%
of this departure. The table shows that if the dimension of the model is 10%
or less of the radius of the centrifuge, then the maximum deviation from the
 Geosynthetic/soil studies using a centrifuge 139

TABLE 1
Deviation of True Stress from Linear Approximation

Ar/ ro 1 + Ar/2ro Linear model underestimation (%)

0.025 1.012 5 1-2

0-05 1.025 2.4
0.075 1.037 5 3.6
0.10 1.05 4.8
0.20 1.10 9
0.30 1.15 13
0.40 1.20 17
0.50 1.25 20

linear stress approximation is about 5% and the average deviation only

about half of this. This is certainly acceptable and accounts for the fact that
the 10% limit is often quoted in the centrifuge literature. (It seems that in
some reported experiments the 10% limit is violated.)
While we are on the physics of the problem, it is interesting to calculate
the angle, 0, from the vertical that the model makes as a function of
rotational speed. The equations are worked out in the Appendix and only
the result is given here. A transcendental equation results:

g tan 0 = to2(R + I sin 0) (10)

where R = length of the centrifuge arm, and l = distance from the arm
pivot point to the center of mass of the model.
The results of a graphical solution of eqn (10) are shown in Fig. 3 for the
case of R = 1 m and//R = 0.1 which is pertinent to many small centrifuges.
Experimental verification ofeqn (10) is shown in Fig. 3, the data being taken
on the Drexel one meter centrifuge. This result is quite important, for it
shows that a centrifuge can only be used above a certain rotational speed if
the model is to be rotating essentially in the horizontal plane (and hence
have the radial force directed perpendicular to the bottom wall). Figure 3
gives this as about 90 rpm, which corresponds to a scale factor n of 22.

3 H I S T O R Y A N D USES OF T H E G E O T E C H N I C A L C E N T R I F U G E

This section will borrow heavily from the excellent review of Chaney and
Fragaszy. ~Phillips 3 in France (in 1869) made the first suggestion of the use of
a centrifuge to study self-weight stresses in beams. Bucky 4 (USA) and
Pokrovsky 5 (USSR) and Davidenkov 6 (USSR) worked on centrifuges in t h e
140 Arthur E. Lord Jr

90
80
70
60 //z/ THEORY
"~ 50 , ~ .... EXPERIMENT
w
N
Z
40
3O
f
20
I0
0 I i i i i i i i
0 I 2 3 4
FREQUENCY (revo/./sec)
60 120 180 240
RPM

Fig. 3. Angle of model (with respect to the vertical) versus the frequencyof rotation.
Comparison of theoryand experiment.

early 1930s. A few projects were carried out subsequently in the U S A , 4"7'8
while in the USSR more than 50 centrifuges were built for model testing of
dams, foundations, earth fill embankments, etc., in the period 1932-1980. 9
In the late 1960s Rowe at University of Manchester Institute of Science
and Technology (UMIST) and Schofield at Cambridge University
developed excellent geotechnical centrifuge programs. In the early 1970s
Rowe built a large machine at Simon Engineering Laboratory at the
University of Manchester and a 3.7 m (12 ft) radius machine was developed
at Cambridge by Roscoe and James. The Cambridge project was taken over
by Schofield on his return to Cambridge from Manchester in 1974. England
is a most active center for geotechnical centrifuge studies and probably has
produced more PhDs and hosted more sabbatical visitors than any other
country in the world.
At present centrifuge activities are ongoing in many European countries
and Japan. The USA had a late start in the use of the centrifuge on
geotechnical problems. A small centrifuge was built at the University of
California at Davis in 1972 under Chaney. Scott at the California
Institute of Technology was active by 1975. Schmidt at Boeing in
Washington State worked on cratering starting in 1976 and Ko at the
University of Colorado began a program in 1978. An indication of the
present activity in the USA is given in Table 2 (from Chaney and Fragaszyt).
The very large centrifuges (8-10 m radius) at Moffet Field (previously
 Geosynthetic/soil studies using a centrifuge 141

TABLE 2
List of U S Centrifuge Facilities

Institution Radius Acceleration Payload Capacity

(ft a) (g) (lb b) (g ton c)

Boeing Company 4.6 600 122 66

Bureau of M i n e s at M a r y l a n d 3 high -- --
University of California at Davis
Swing p l a t f o r m 3.25 175 -- 5
Drum 2 600 -- 900
California Institute of Technology 4.2 50 -- --
U n i v e r s i t y of C o l o r a d o at Boulder 4.5 300 220 10
C o l u m b i a University 1 700 1 0.036
U n i v e r s i t y of Florida
A 3-3 100 50 2.5
B 6.6 160 185 --
U n i v e r s i t y of M a r y l a n d 4.4 200 1(~) 10
Missouri School of Mines at Rolla 3.5
New Mexico E n g i n e e r i n g Research Institute 6 100 500 25
P r i n c e t o n University 4-2 200 249 10
Queen's University at O n t a r i o 1.1 20 000 1 10
S a n d i a C o r p o r a t i o n , CA-2 7 150 500 15
Swing 25 150 4 000 300
Fixed 25 240 16 0O0 8(10

a 1 ft = 0.304 8 m.
b l Ib = 0"453 6 kg.
c I ton = 1.016 x 103 kg.

N A S A and run by the University of California at Davis) and Sandia are not
operational at present as far as the author is aware. (The Davis effort has
now been moved back to campus.) The Russian centrifuge at Baku is also
extremely large and its status at present is unknown to the author.
Centrifuges have been employed in research on a large number of
geotechnical-related problems:
• Beam-soil interaction. 10
• Bearing capacity. 11-13
• Earthquake effects. 14
• Excavations. 15
• Flow simulation. 16
• Foundations. iv
• Ice forces. 2
• Liquifaction. TM
• Phreatic surfaces observations.19
142 Arthur E. Lord Jr

• Sand drains. 23
• Slurry walls. 24
• Slope stability--many projects. 25'26
• Subsidence. 27
• Tunnels. 28

4 SCALING CONSIDERATIONS

Scaling, or model-prototype similarity conditions are most important in

centrifuge studies. The scaling of length and mass has already been
discussed in Section 2. A brief (and quite incomplete) introduction to scaling
will be attempted here with particular comments concerning the application
of scaling to geosynthetics and the geosynthetic/soil interaction. O u r
t r e a t m e n t here relies heavily on Ref. 1 and the work o f H o e k f l 9
Scaling relations can be determined in two ways:
• By evaluation of the differential equations governing the behavior, or
• By dimensional analysis.
As an example of the first approach we consider the differential equation for
one dimensional soil consolidation

/~u k(1 + e) 02/~/

- (11)
0t ay 0z2

where
u = pore water pressure
e = void ratio
k = coefficient of permeability
y = unit weight of water
a = coefficient of compressibility
z and t = the spatial and temporal variables

The scaling factor for z is 1/n yielding

Zp = nZm (12)

where the subscripts p and m refer to the prototype and model, respectively.
The other quantities are scaled accordingly
Um= O[uU p (12a)
'Ym = ay~/p (12b)
tm = a t t p (12c)
 Geosynthetic/soilstudies using a centrifuge 143

km = akkp (12d)
am = a.ap (12e)

w h e r e o~ represents the scaling factor for the particular quantity and it is

assumed that the void ratio need not be considered.
Equation (11) refers to the prototype. For the model and prototype to be
similar in soil consolidation behavior, eqns (12) are put in eqn (11) and
conditions placed on the o~s.

O(auu) _ akk(l +e) [O:(a,u) ] (13)

O(a,t) a, aa, y [ ~ J
or

Ou _ (Otkoqn____~2~ (k(l+___e) O~ (13a)

Ot - ]or,-c%\ \ aT ] Oz2

Comparing eqn (11) with eqn (13a) shows that for similarity of the model
and prototype, the following relation must exist among the various scale
factors

aka'n-----~2- 1 (14)
OgaO( 3,

If the permeability, unit weight of the fluid and the compressibility of the
soil are the same between model and prototype, i.e., ak = a, -- % = 1,
then

1 (14a)
O/t - - ?/2

Thus
1
tm= -~tp (15)

which says that the same process (e.g. consolidation of the model) happens
nZ-times faster in the model than in the prototype. (Obviously with choices
of the o~s other than one, tm 4=1/n 2tp.) This is easy to understand in physical
terms. Consolidation is a diffusion-type process, in which the time for a
process to occur depends on the pertinent distance squared. The model is
only (1/n)-times as thick as the prototype, therefore (with the same k) the
process takes only (1/n)2-times as long. In exactly the same m a n n e r one can
easily show that a process such as Darcy flow which has a velocity associated
with it will take (1/n)-times as long in the model as the prototype. Due to the
144 A r t h u r E. L o r d Jr

TABLE 3
List of Scaling Relations

Full scale Centrifuge m o d e l

Quantity (prototype) at ng

Linear dimension 1 l/n

Area 1 1/n 2
Volume 1 1/n 3
Time
Dynamic events 1 1/n
Hydrodynamic events l 1/n 2
Viscous flow 1 1
Velocity (distance/time) 1 1
Acceleration (distance/time 2) 1 n
Mass 1 1/n 3
Force l l/n2
Ene rgy l l/n 3
Stress (force/area) 1 l
Strain (displacement/unit length) 1 l
Density 1 l
Frequency 1 n

great time savings involved, it would appear that flow and consolidation
studies would be most popular in the centrifuge. In point-of-fact, they are
not as yet. Therefore there may be either significant difficulties with the
logistics of such measurements or with the scaling theory.
A set of scaling relations is given in Table 3 which is from Scott and
Morgan. 3° (All entries in Table 3 are not obvious to the author, but this will
possibly be addressed at a later date.)
In the second approach for determining the scaling relations, no
differential eqn(s) is (are) available describing the process and therefore
dimensional analysis must be used. A very readable treatment of this
approach as applied to elastic problems is given in Hoek. 29 Buckingham's
theory is used in which the displacement and stress at a point are written as a
function of a pertinent number of dimensionless parameters. These
parameters for the elastic problem are x, y, z, t, the Young's modulus of the
material (Poisson's ratio is already dimensionless), density, g, applied
stresses and forces and applied displacement, internal stresses and possibly
other variables. For similarity between the model and the prototype as
applied to the properties of the materials, the most pertinent result is (there
may also be other relations to be satisfied 29)
Lp _ Ep Pm gm
a (16)
Lm Em pp gp
 Geosynthetic/soil studies using a centrifuge 145

where
L = the length
E = modulus of elasticity (it could be another pertinent elastic constant but not
Poisson's ratio)
g = acceleration
ct -- the ratio between the resulting stress at an equivalent point in prototype
and model, i.e. O-p = Carm

F o r o u r purposes assume a = 1, and hence

L___i = E___2_p Pm gm (16a)

Lm Em pp gp

Thus for modeling at 1 g, the scaling will have to be accomplished by

changing the properties in the model such that

Lp _ Ep Pm
(16b)
Lm Em pp

It is easy to see that if L p / L , = n and Ep = Em, then if the model material is

n-times m o r e dense, the self stresses are n-times larger. If the scale factor
Lp/Lm < < 1, it may prove difficult to find materials with widely varying
moduli and/or density. This points up the beauty of centrifuge modeling in
that the scale factor can be achieved by changing the gravity field while using
the same soil. M o r e detail on scaling can be found in H o e k . 29 (m very often
referenced b o o k in the scaling area is Langhaar? ~)
Scaling considerations with regard to geotextiles and geotextile/soil
interactions have been discussed by Blivet et al. 22 The present author has
difficulty with some of the results of these workers. The limit equilibrium
analysis of a geotextile reinforced slope will be given and then dimensional
analysis applied to the resulting equations. Figure 4 shows a schematic
diagram of a geotextile reinforced slope. A circular arc failure is assumed,
and taking m o m e n t s about the center of the circle, we can write the
equilibrium of m o m e n t s in the conceptual form

EFo = 0 = mgR1--rlabRo--TR2 (17)

where
F0 = the sum of moments about point 0
m = the mass of the slipping (rotating) region
r = the resisting shear stress on the failure arc (this is shear force per length of
arc)
lab = arc length 'ab'
T = ultimate stress in the geotextile
 146 Arthur E. Lord Jr

Fig. 4. Schematic drawing of model for calculating limit equilibrium ofa geotextile reinforced
slope.

Equation (17) is written for one unit thickness perpendicular to the plane
of the drawing. Thus for dimensional analysis the one unit thickness is
included.
For a purely frictional material (e.g. a granular soil) we can use

7i = Ni t a n 0 i (18)
ri = m i g tan 01

Equation (17) becomes

mgR1 =
(h ~ migtanOi
)
liRo+ TR2 (17a)
i 1

Writing eqn (17a) in dimensional form, with a length scale factor of n,

(17b)

The first n (unparenthesized) on the right hand side comes from the fact
that 7-is a force/length along the arc 'ab'. (Note that there would appear to be
scaling problems with a c - ~bsoil because the cohesion would not scale with
mass. However, centrifuge slope stability studies are performed on cohesive
soils with no mention of this problem, to the author's knowledge.) From eqn
(17b):
I
aT -- n2 (19)

i.e. scaling says that the tensile strength of the geotextile should be (l/n2) -
times as large in the model as compared to the prototype. Blivet et al. 22find
that T should scale as 1/n. Regardless of which is correct, on physical
 Geosynthetic/soil studies using a centrifuge 147

grounds both values must be wrong. If a much weaker geotextile is placed in

the model, it will fail at much lower force than the designed tensile force
which uses the full strength geotextile at the prototype size. This problem is
undoubtedly associated with the fact that a geotextile (or geosynthetic in
general) is not an inertia element, i.e. it doesn't rely on its weight (or
imposed weight) for its strength.
The previous remarks apply to tensile failure of the geotextile. In the case
of pullout failure, scaling theory will probably not give insight (or lack
thereof). As long as the full friction can be developed (mobilized) between
the geotextile and the soil, independent of thickness of the geotextile, then
scaling will not be a factor.
A very important factor to keep in mind in all of this centrifuge work (and
geosynthetic work, in general), is the effect of soil confinement on the
properties of the geosynthetic. In this regard, there is very little experi-
mental information available to date. For example, the tensile strength of a
certain geotextile (like a needle punched nonwoven) could be very sensitive
to soil confinement.

5 PREVIOUS REINFORCED SLOPE STUDIES

USING THE CENTRIFUGE

There have been three reports of centrifuge studies involving reinforced

slopes or walls as far as the author is aware. Two PhD theses were conducted
at Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, 2°'21'33'34both involving
non-geosynthetic reinforcement. Multiple layer reinforcements were mild
steel rods (1.5 mm diameter), aluminum strips (0.05 mm thick) and stainless
steel strips (0.10 mm thick), their strength and roughness chosen so that the
model could be brought to collapse either by slippage of strong strips or
tensile failure of the rough, weak strips. The soil model of dry sand was of
dimension 200 mm high by 400 mm long by 160 mm deep (of mass about
20 kg) and the average centrifuge radius was 1.5 m. (Note here Ar/ro ~- 160/
1500 or 10-5%.) The strips were instrumented with many strain gages and
two total stress transducers (of 10 mm diameter diaphragms) were also used.
The strain gage data allowed the determination of the distribution of tension
in the reinforcement layers. (A maximum value of tension along the strips
was obtained in most cases.) The average lateral earth pressures acting on
the strips were determined from the data. Combining the lateral earth
pressure data with an estimate of the vertical earth pressure yielded a map of
earth pressure coefficients. Much analysis was done concerning earth
pressure coefficients and various methods of analyzing reinforced earth
walls.
148 Arthur E. Lord Jr

Blivet et a l . 22 have commented on the details of the large 5.5 m radius

centrifuge (Nantes, France) devoted in large part to studies of geotextile
reinforced walls and slopes. A dry sand model wall of dimensions 600 mm
high x 800 m m long × 400 mm deep (-300 kg) was strengthened by six
layersof a nonwoven, spunbonded polypropylene of density 100 g/m E. The
properties of the geotextile were:

failure stress = 6.6 kN/m

failure strain = 21%
initial modulus = 70 kN/m

The wall was instrumented with six horizontal displacement transducers

(for the wall face), four surface settlement transducers (for the top) and four
inclinometers with strain gages for internal displacements of the soil mass.
The top of the wall could be surcharged with water. The wall was taken to
31 g at which value of acceleration the fabric was predicted to break.
Breakage, however, did not occur. Results of horizontal displacement and
surface settlement are given for equivalent wall heights of 3.6 m and 9 m. At
31 g there was overturning of the wall, i.e. a horizontal displacement of the
top of the wall of 1% of its height with no displacement of the bottom of the
wall. The results were said to be the first of a series of tests on the effect of
geotextile reinforcement of walls and slopes.

6 THE DREXEL GEOTECHNICAL CENTRIFUGE

Many of our centrifuge design concepts come from observations of the

University of Kentucky's geotechnical centrifuge.32
Figures 5 and 6 are photographs of the Drexel centrifuge. It is built in a
deep concrete-lined pit, which previously housed a low energy ( - 5 0 keV)
particle accelerator. This serves as a very safe location in the case of a failure
at a high speed of rotation. The centrifuge is belt-driven by a two horse-
power motor. The radius of the arm is I m and with the bucket and
counterweight shown is capable of a radial acceleration of about 60 g. The
bucket can carry up to 445 N (100 lb), making this a 3g-ton machine.
According to Table 2, this would be rated as a modest capacity centrifuge.
The soil/geosynthetic models are constructed in aluminum boxes, with
plexiglas end windows for viewing, of dimensions 11.5 cm x 15-3 cm x
25.4 cm (see Fig. 7). The electrical slip ring assembly shown has 24 contacts,
which will connect displacement measuring probes, pore water cells and
load cells from the model to the control room readouts. Strobe lighting,
triggered magnetically by a Hall effect probe circuit, makes possible real
Fig. 5. Overhead photograph of the Drexel geotechnical centrifuge.

Fig. 6. Side photograph of the Drexel geotechnical centrifuge.

150 Arthur E. Lord Jr

Fig. 7. Photograph of the model container on the Drexel geotechnicai centrifuge.

time observations on the model with a closed circuit T V system. These are
seen in Figs 5 and 6. Reflecting balls or painted stripes placed in a regular
array in the model, will allow general m o v e m e n t (and strains) to be
m o n i t o r e d during rotation.

7 PRELIMINARY EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

T h e Drexel centrifuge is still in its shake-down phase, and only preliminary

experimental results are available. We present comparison of the stability of
two steep m o d e l sand slopes (of height 5.08 cm)---one unreinforced and one
reinforced with a 'spider-netting'. 35The spider-netting is a light-weight heat
set, n o n w o v e n staple filament polypropylene geotextile 'nailed' into the
slope face, toe and top with finishing nails. Figure 8 shows the unreinforced
slope after being rotated to an equivalent height of about 152.4 cm. It is seen
that a definite slope failure has occurred. In the case of the reinforced slope
(Fig. 9), it has maintained stability to an equivalent height of 335.3 cm,
which is the m a x i m u m available at present on the centrifuge ( n g = 66 g).
Fig. 8. Model of reinforced sand slope of soft clay foundation after spinning to an equivalent
height of 152.4 cm.

Fig. 9. Model of reinforced sand slope on soft clay foundation after spinning to an equivalent
height of 335.3 cm.
152 Arthur E. Lord Jr

8 CONCLUSION

This article has given a brief review of the geotechnical centrifuge together
with descriptions of the Drexel centrifuge and a preliminary experiment.
The centrifuge appears to be a viable modeling procedure to study soil/
geosynthetic problems at the large scale. It probably is the only full scale
modeling approach available. The design aspect of geosynthetics, which is in
its infancy, could very well use data from centrifuge related studies.
The author feels that there are fundamental aspects of centrifuge
modeling still to be researched. For example, lateral stress effects are not
well understood. Scaling has not been adequately addressed in many
problems (e.g. clay soils, geosynthetic and geosynthetic/soil interaction).
Placing instruments in small soil models could lead to unacceptable
disturbance effects.
Some possible future work on the Drexel centrifuge includes:
• soft soil base/sand berms, with geotextile reinforcing elements.
• spider netting soil-reinforcement.
• forces developed in geomembrane liners on slope walls of landfills.
• coastal erosion barriers.
• fundamental centrifuge experiments (not project oriented).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to express his appreciation to the geotechnical

engineering group at the University of Kentucky for their hospitality during
a visit to their centrifuge. Dr Harry Stirling, a previous member of the
Kentucky group, under whose guidance the Kentucky centrifuge was built,
was most helpful in providing an introduction to the work of small
centrifuges. Mr Darryl Greer and Mr Mike Ronayne, previous graduate
students at Kentucky, were very helpful. Also thanks go out to Mr Tom
Edmunds and Mr Rick Ackerman for design and construction help in the
building of the centrifuge. As always, Dr Robert Koerner has been a
stalwart colleague.

REFERENCES

1. Chaney, J. A. & Fragaszy, R. J., The Centrifuge as a Research Tool, Geotech.

Test. Jnl, 7(4) (1984), pp. 182-7.
2. Clough, H. F., Wurst, P. L. & Vinson. T. S., Determination of Ice Forces with
Centrifuge Models, Geotech. Test. Jnl, 9(2) (1986), pp. 49-60.
 Geosynthetic/soilstudies usinga centrifuge 153

3. Phillips, Comptes Rend. Acad. Sci., Paris, Jan.-June 1869, p. 68.

4. Bucky, P. B., The Use of Models for the Study of Mining Problems, Tech. Publ.
425 AIMME, NY (1931), pp. 3-28.
5. Pokrovsky, G. I., Zeit. f. Tech. Physik, 14(4) (1933).
6. Davidenkov, N. N., A New Method of Using Models for the Study of
Equilibrium of Structures, Tech. Physics of the USSR, 3(1) (1936), pp. 131--6.
7. Clark, G. B., Geotechnical centrifuges for model studies and physical property
testing of rock and rock structures, Colorado School of Mines Quarterly, 74(4)
(1981) (63 pp).
8. Panek, L. A., Design of Safe and Economic Structures, Trans. AIMME, 181
(1949), pp. 371-5.
9. Pokrovsky, G. I. & Fyodorov, I. S., Centrifuge Model Testing in the
Construction Industry, Vol. I, Centrifuge Testing in the Mining Industry, Vol.
II, Niedra Publishing House, Moscow (1969).
10. Leshchinsky, D., Frydman & Baker, R., Study of Beam-Soil Interaction
Using Finite Element and Centrifuge Models, Canad. Geot. Jnl, 19(3) (1982),
pp. 345-59.
11. Ovesen, N. K., Centrifugal Tests Applied to Bearing Capacity Problems of
Footings on Sand, Geotechnique, 25 (1975), pp. 394--401.
12. Herdy, A. C. & Townsend, F. C., Preliminary Investigation of Bearing
Capacity of Layered Soils by Centrifugal Modelling, Trans. Res. Record, 872
(1982), pp. 20-4.
13. Kimura, T., Kusakabe, O. & Saitoh, K., Geotechnical Model Tests of Bearing
Capacity Problems in a Centrifuge, Geotechnique, 35 (1985), pp. 33-45.
14. Kutter, B. L., Earthquake Deformation of Centrifuge Model Banks, J.
Geotech. Engng (ASCE), 110 (1984), pp. 1697-1714.
15. Lyndon, A. & Schofield, A. N., Centrifugal Model Test of a Short Term
Failure in London Clay, Geotechnique, 20 (1970), pp. 440-2.
16. Cargill, K. W. & Ko, H. Y., Centrifugal Modeling of Transient Water Flow, J.
Geotech. Engng, 109(4) (1983), pp. 536-55.
17. Almeida, M. S. S., Davies, M. C. R. & Parry, R. G. H., Centrifuge Tests of
Embankments on Strengthened and Unstrengthened Clay Foundations,
Geotechnique, 35 (1985), pp. 425-41.
18. Arulanandan, M., Anandarajah, A. & Abghari, S. M., Centrifugal Modeling
of Soil Liquifaction Susceptibility, J. Geotech. Engng, 109(3) (1982), pp.
281-300.
19. Sutherland, H. J. & Rechard, R. P., Centrifuge Simulations of Stable Tailings
Dam, J. Geotech. Engng, 110(3) (1984), pp. 390-402.
20. Bolton, M. D., Choudhury, S. P. & Pang, P. L. R., Reinforced Earth Walls: A
Centrifugal Study, Proc. Symposium on Earth Reinforcement ASCE,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (April 27, 1978), pp. 252-81.
21. Bolton, M. D., Choudury, S. P. & Pang, P. L. R., Modelling Reinforced
Earth, Ground Engineering, 11 (1978), pp. 1%24.
22. Blivet, J. C., Matichard, Y., Delmos, P. & Garnier, J., Model Test in a
Centrifuge of a Wall Reinforced with a Geotextile, Proc. 3rd Intern. Conf. on
Geotextiles, Vienna, Austria (April, 1986), Session 7B, pp. 121%24.
23. Whyte, I. L. & Tonks, D. M., Comments on Reference 17 above,
Geotechnique, 37(1) (1987), pp. 127-30.
24. Bolton, M. D., English, R., Hird, C. C. & Schofield, A. N., Ground
154 Arthur E. Lord Jr

Displacements in Centrifugal Models, Proc. 8th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and
Found. Engin., Moscow (1973), 1 (part 1), pp. 65-70.
25. Schofield, A. N., Cambridge Geotechnical Centrifuge Operations,
Geotechnique, 30(2), (1980), pp. 227-68. This was the 1980 Rankine Lecture.
26. Kim, M. M. & Ko, H. Y., Centrifugal testing of Soil Slope Models, Transp.
Res. Record, 872 (1982), pp. 7-15.
27. Sterling, H. J. & Ronayne, M., Simulating Landfill Cover Subsidence, Proc.
Conf. on Land Disposal of Hazardous Waste, U. S. E.P.A., Cincinnati, Ohio
(April, 1985), pp. 236--44.
28. Atkinson, J. H., Potts, D. M. & Schofield, A. N., Centrifugal Model tests on
Shallow Tunnels in Sand, Tunnels and Tunnelling, 9 (1977), pp. 59--64.
29. Hoek, E., The Design of a Centrifuge for the Simulation of Gravitational
Force Fields in Mine Models, J. South African Inst. Mining and Metall., 65
(1965), pp. 455-87.
30. Scott, R. F. & Morgan, N. R., Feasibility and Desirability of Constructing a
Very Large Centrifuge for Geotechnical Studies, Report 760-170 National
Science Foundation, Washington, DC, 1977.
31. Langhaar, H. L., Dimensional Analysis and the Theory of Models, Wiley, New
York (1951).
32. Personal communications with Mike Ronayne and Darryl Greer, previously
graduate students in Civil Engineering at the University of Kentucky.
33. Choudhury, S. P., A Study of Reinforced Earth Retaining Walls and Sand
Backfill by Centrifugal Modelling, PhD Thesis, University of Manchester
(1977).
34. Pang, P. L. R., Centrifugal Model Tests of Reinforced Earth Walls, PhD
Thesis, University of Manchester (1979).
35. Koerner, R. M., A new method of soil slope stabilization using geosynthetics,
Geotechnical Fabrics Report (Jan./Feb. 1984) pp. 18-25.

APPENDIX

Calculation of the angle of the model (with respect to vertical) versus the
rotational speed.

R e f e r to Fig. A1, which is a schematic diagram of a model rotating at angular

speed, oJ.
N e w t o n ' s second law for the radial direction can be written
V2
S,Fr = mar = m - - = mto2 r = T (A1)
r

where
E F r = the sum of the forces in the radial direction = T (the tensile force in the
connecting rod)
m = total mass of the model
ar = radial acceleration of center-of-mass (c.m.) of model
 Geosynthetic/soil studies using a centrifuge 155

and

v = tangential velocity of c.m.

r -- radius of c.m.

Using

r = R+lsinO (A2)

w h e r e R a n d l are s h o w n o n Fig. A1.

Y

I
N
.,~Ua 7" •

- R

mg

Fig. AI. Schematic diagram of the rotating model used to calculate the angle of model versus
speed of rotation.

Equation (A1) becomes

mtoE(R+/sin0) = T (A3)

N e w t o n ' s s e c o n d law in the vertical direction (neglecting any vertical

a c c e l e r a t i o n ) is

~Fy = 0 = N-mg (A4)

or

N= mg
156 Arthur E. Lord Jr

If there is to be no angular acceleration of the model about its center-of-

mass, then there can be no moments about the c.m.
Thus

tan0 - T (A5)
N
i.e. the vector sum of T and N passes through the c.m. (the weight m g
already goes through the c.m.).
Combining eqns (A3) and (A5)

NtanO = T
mg tan 0 = mtoZ(R+/sin O)
gtanO = toZ(R + lsinO) (lo)