Similitude laws in

centrifuge modelling

Content

Principle of scaling laws Vashy-Bukingham theorem

Scaling
g laws for centrifuge
g tests
Scaling laws of water flow in centrifuge
Grain size effects on interface and shear band pattern

 Vaschy-Buckingham theorem
If we have a physically meaningful equation involving a certain number, n, of physical
variables, and these variables are expressible in terms of k independent fundamental
physical quantities, then the original expression is equivalent to an equation involving a
set of p = n k dimensionless p
parameters constructed from the original
g
variables

f X 1 , X 2 ,..., X n = 0
i=1,n

X i r11i r2 2 i ... rk ki

i=1,n-k

i X 1 X 2 ... X n
1i

2i

ni

f 1 , 2 ,..., nk = 0

Significance : Two systems for which these dimensionless parameters coincide are called
similar (they differ only in scale); they are equivalent for the purposes of the equation,

 Application on the equation of dynamic equilibrium

div p + p g p + 2 p = 0

t
p

n=6

p: stress tensor
up: distance
p: density
gp: volumic forces
tp: time
p: displacement

k=3
L: meter
M: mass
T: time

- Direct method

= m
p
*

= m
p
*

g* =

gm
gp

t* =

tm
tp

* =

m
p

L* =

Lm
Lp

*
gL
*

* *

*
* *2

gt

=1

=1

- Second method

f ( , u, , g, t , ) = 0
M

-2

-1

-3

-2

General expression of the none

dimensional parameters

i = u
i

ui

gi

t ti

Rank 3 p=3

1 = 1 =

*
gh
*

* *

2 =1=

* *

gt

3 =1=

u*
5

 Scalling law for reduce scale tests

Experimental work on geotechnical structures
* = 1/n

Models at reduce scale

scaling
l
ffactor L*=1/n
* /
Test at 1g : g*=1

*= 1
* = 1/n

Material with the same

density:
*=1
=1

tt* = 1/n

Hooke law
ij =

kk ij
ij +
1 +
1 2

'

E
1
ij =
n
1 + '

'
ij +
kk ij
'

1 2

E' =

1
E
n

Mechanical characteristics of the

material must be modified

'=

 Some examples of 1g tests problem on reduced scale model

- Bearing capacity of shallow foundation (De Beer cited by Cort, 1989; Garnier, 2003)
Terzaghi
g ((1943))

1
qu = BN ( )
2

(De Beer cited by Cort, 1989)

effect of B on Ny for cohesionless soils Kn=(qu(B)/B)/(qu(B0)/B0)

1
4A
3
qu = BN (B ) N (B ) =

+
2
3
2B
Sol : E=E0(1+z)

sin (1+ sin )

1+ sin

Ratio Kn

Comabrieu (1997)

Ratio B/B0
(Garnier, 2003)

 Some example of 1g tests problem on reduced scale model

Suction anchors (Puech A)

Full scale

model

(Garnier, 2001)

Shallow foundation reinforcement with a geotextil (Garnier 1995 1997)

Full scale

model
d l

(Garnier, 2001)

 Centrifuge tests
- First idea : Phillips (1869) France

- First tests : Bucky (1931) USA

Pokrovskii (1933) - URSS

1 scaling factor is fixed same stress in the model and in the prototype

* =1
+
Same soil

* =1

g* = n
9

 Scaling law for centrifuge tests

Technical committee 2 ((TC2)) of the ISSMGE
Catalogue of scaling laws and similitude questions in geotechnical centrifuge modelling.
J. Garnier, C. Gaudin, S.M. Springman, P.J. Cullingan, D. Goodings, D. Konig, B. Kutter, R.
Phillips, M.F. Randolph and L. Thorel. IJPMG, Vol. 3 (2007)
Available one line : http://www.tc2.civil.uwa.edu.au

10

 Scalling law derived from the equation of equilibrium + *=1

1 = 1 =

Scaling factor

* g *h*

3 =1=

distance

u*

1/n

stress

*soil

u*

soil density

gravity

g*

g *t *

displacement

1/n

dynamic time

t*dyn

1/n

strain

velocity

v*

acceleration

a*

frequency

f*

F * = * u*2

force

F*

1/n2

m * = * u*3

Unit weight

mass

m*

1/n3

2 =1=

*
v * = * / t dyn

a =v /t
*

*
dyn

*
f * = 1 / t dyn

= g
*

(same soil as prototype)

11

 Vertical stress with depth in centrifuge tests

Center of rotation

R0 R1 RN

R
Surface of the soil layer
y

Schofield A. N. (1980)

dR

2 =

Bottom of the container

For a constant , centrifuge

acceleration varies with depth

G
Rn

Minimum difference for

Rn= H/3 below the soil surface

d v = Gdr = R 2 dR
R

R0

2 Rn

v = R 2 dR =

(R

R02

12

 Scaling law of water flow in centrifuge models

Navier Stokes equation (incompressible and Newtonien fluid)

u p
+ u p grad p u p = g p 1fl grad p Pp + pfl p u p
p
t p
Dimensional analysis (direct method)

*u*fl2
u*fl2
um
+ u m grad m u m = * * g m
P*
t m
g x
Froud number
F =
*
r

u*fl2
g* x*

=1

*fl u*fl2
P

=1

pfl

grad p Pp +

u*fl x *

pfl p u p

Reynolds number

Re* =

u*fl x *

=1

P * = 1 and *fl = 1

u*fl = 1
13

 Scaling law of water flow in centrifuge models

Dimensionall analysis
l
((second
d method)
h d)
Hypothesis : not deformable porous media, incompressible and Newtonian fluid

f P, ufl,dp, L, , =0
P: fluid pressure
Ufl: microscopic fluid velocity (interstitial velocity)
(Babendrier, 1991; Stephensen, 1979;
Menand, 1995)

dp: pore diameter

L: length
:dynamic viscosity
:density of the fluid

Friction factor

F =
*
f

i *d *p g *
u*fl

Reynolds number
* * *

u x
*
Re =
=1
*

14

 Scaling law of water flow in centrifuge models

Flow
o regimen
g

Flow
o medium
du

Friction factor

F =
*
f

Permanent flow

Reynolds number

i *d *p g *
u

* * *

u x
Re* =
*

*
fl

Flow in porous media

Flow
o domain
do
Forchheimer equation

u ffl = K ffl i

i = av fl + bv + c
2
fl

v fl
t

Creeping flow
Laminar flow without or
with non-linear convective
inertia forces

Transient flow
Flow ((ex:waves))

Fully turbulent flow

Froud number
F =
*
r

u*2
*

g x

Forchheimer equation

u fl = K fl i

i = au fl + bu 2fl

15

 Scaling law of water flow in centrifuge models

Same fluid
Scaling factor
distance
soil density
gravity
dynamic time
velocity

L*

1/n

*soil

g*

t*dyn

1/n

v*

First approach

v fl = K fl i =
i=

h
h
i* = 1
L

K*fl =

i
=n
v fl

Diffusion time

T*diff

1/n

Fl id velocity
Fluid
l i

V*fl

Dynammic
viscosity

Second approach

Darcys formulation

k
kg

Scaling factor

Same soil

Hydraulic gradient express as a pressure

v fl = K flp gradP =
i* =

*
flp

P*
L*
=

i*
v *fl

gradP

=n

=1

16

 Scaling law of water flow in centrifuge models

Fluid flow in porous media - permanent flow regimen
Scaling
factor

Same fluid
Scaling factor
distance
soil density
gravity
dynamic time
velocity
l it

L*

1/n

*soil

g*

t*dyn

1/n

v*
*

Friction factor
F =
*
f

i *d i* g *
v *fl

n 1 n
=
=n
n

Same soil

Diffusion time

T*diff

1/n

2nd
approach

Fluid velocity

V*fl

Dynammic viscosity

Intrinsic permability

K*

Pressure gradient

Grain diameter

d*i

Pore size

p*
p

R
Reynolds
ld number
b
* * *
v fl d i 1 n 1

*
Re =
=
=n
*

1
17

Scaling law of water flow in centrifuge models

Static domain permanent regimen: limit of validity of the Darcy law
(Khalifa et al., 2000 ; Goodings, 1994 ; Bezuijen,2010 ; Wahuydy, 1998)

- Several definition of the reynolds number and friction factor in soils

Ff =

ign 3d eq

3v fl (1 n) )

Ff =

id 50 gn 2
v 2fl

Re=3.9 -5.5 (5%)

(Khalifa et al., 2000 )

Re =

2 v fld eq

3 (1 n )

v fl d 50
Re =
n

(Khalifa et al., 2000 )

(Goodings, 1994)

Re=3.3

(Goodings, 1994)
18

 Scaling law of water flow in centrifuge models

Static domain permanent regimen: limit of validity of the Darcy law
Pokrovski & Fyodorov, 1975 : maximum hydraulic gradient for static
geotechnical problems : imax=1

Fontainebleau

Labenne

Hostun

Le Rheu

Loire

d50

0.21

0.3

0.35

0.55

0.65

5% error

78

36

21

12

10% error

155

72

43

23

Maximum gravity level for similar behaviour between model and prototype (Khalifa et al., 2000 )

19

Scaling law of water flow in centrifuge models

v
0
t
t

Dynamic domain

Non steady state flow

Same fluid

Scaling factor
dynamic time
velocity

t*dyn

1/n

v*

Same soil

Scaling factor

2nd

approach

Diffusion time

T*diff

1/n

Fluid velocity

V*fl

Forchheimer equation

i = av fl + bv + c
2
fl

v fl
t

2 stages
During the shaking : consolidation+dynamic strains

After the shaking : consolidation

Dynamic loading of the soil mass :t*dyn=1/n

Pore pressure dissipation : t*diff=1/n

Pore pressure dissipation : t*diff=1/n

20

 Scaling law of water flow in centrifuge models

Stewart et al.,, 1998
Nondimensional time factor (consolidation)

T=

cv t diffff
h2

kmv t diffff

Hypothesis : Darcy law valuable

Iff *=n, t*diff=t*dyn

30g centrifuge

HPMC = 10 water

v fl =

v *fl = v * = 1

gradP

m = n p

*
*
t diff
= t dyn

*v *fl d i* 11 1 1
R =
=
=
*
n
n
*
e

11s
+4.5s
+45s
(Stewart et al., 1998)

21

 grain size effects on interfaces and shear band patterns

- Scale effects on shear mobilisation (Garnier & Knig, 1998)

Pull out tests

Scaling effects ?
- roughness effect : R/D50
- pile diameter effect
ff
: B/D50

D (1/n)

R (selected)

D50 (1)

B (1/n)

(Garnier & Knig, 1998)

22

Roughness effect : R/D50

Normalized roughness: Rn=Rmax/D50
Shear box tests
(steel/sand
interface)

(Garnier & Knig

Knig, 1998)

(Paikowski et al
al., 1995)

Centrifuge pull out

t t on vertical
test
ti l
piles (b=12mm,
D50=0,2mm 50g)

(Garnier & Knig, 1998)

Three different zones of roughness
- smooth interface : interfacial shear along the soil-grain contact, small strength, no dilatency
-Intermediate roughness : frictional resistance increases with the increase in roughness, low
dilantency
-Large
Large roughness (rough interface): internal shear localised in shear band into the sand friction
angle independant from the roughness, large dilantency
23

Pile diameter effect : B/D50

Balachoski tests (1995)
Hostun sand d50=0.32mm
Pile diameter BB: 16 to 55mm
Centrifuge acceleration : 100g

LCPC tests
Fontainebleau sand D50=0.2 mm
Pile diameter B from 2 to 36 mm
Centrifuge acceleration 50g
(Garnier & Knig, 1998)

If B/d50 > 100 scale effect on

p is limited

24