Improving Techniques and Practices On The Geotechnical Centrifuge. Including Literature Review

University of Nottingham
Department of Civil Engineering
Improving techniques and practices on

the Geotechnical Centrifuge at the
An investigative report by Jonathon Simons
May 2010
The is an investigative report submitted in part consideration of the

degree of MEng (Honours) in Civil Engineering
Module: H24A04
This dissertation contains 13500 words, including the

text captions for the figures, tables and plates.
Removing these captions the word count drops below
13000 words
ABSTRACT
The University of Nottingham has one of only a handful of geotechnical

centrifuges in the UK. This is a investigative report aimed at improving practices
and techniques currently used in centrifuge testing. This report is individual to
the University of Nottingham, and the Nottingham Centre of Geomechanics. The
developments brought about by this report will hopefully complement future
work on the centrifuge and the refinement of the techniques and processes will
enable more accurate and precise modelling.
The report consists of several static loading centrifuge tests and differing
g-levels and comparing the results of these experiments to investigate and
improve the practices already in place.
This report and the experimentation within provides a base for all future work
carried out at this centrifuge. The scope for supplementary work to the report is
immense such as investigations into foundation design of buried structures or
effects of weather on embankments causing landslips and precautionary
methods that can be taken.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Firstly, I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude and

appreciation to my tutor, Dr Dave Reddish, who has not only supervised this
project but has been a constant source of help and advice.
My thanks also to Mr Craig Cox, who helped me immensely on the analysis of

the results and MatLab programming. I am very grateful for him taking time out
from his own work to assist me with mine. He was extremely helpful and was
always willing to share his knowledge and experience with me.
I would also like to thank Dr Alec Marshall who always made himself available to
quickly and precisely answer any questions I had. I wish him all the best with his
new career at the University of Nottingham.
I would also like to thank Dr Rick Munro. His comments and advice on the
interim dossier report were invaluable when it came to writing this report.
Finally, a thank you to my parents, who’s never ending support and

encouragement helped me to stay focused and motivated and whose belief in
me has never waned.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT.................................................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...............................................................................ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................iii
LIST OF FIGURES.....................................................................................vii
LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................ix
LIST OF PLATES........................................................................................x
1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................1
1.1. Introduction...................................................................................1
1.2. Aims.............................................................................................1
1.3. Objectives.....................................................................................2
1.4. What is a centrifuge........................................................................2
1.5. Centrifuge principles.......................................................................2
1.6. Outline of Report............................................................................5
2. LITERATURE REVIEW.........................................................................6
2.1. Introduction...................................................................................6
2.2. Developments in Centrifugal technology............................................6
2.3. Theories of Soil Behaviour in a Centrifuge..........................................8
2.4. Scale Effects in Modelling Using a Centrifuge....................................11
3. EQUIPMENT AND APPARATUS...........................................................13
3.1. The Centrifuge Facility...................................................................13
3.2. Plane strain box...........................................................................15
3.3. Material.......................................................................................15
3.4. Ultimate Bearing capacity of the Soil...............................................16
3.4.1. General Shear........................................................................17
3.4.2. Local Shear............................................................................17

3.4.3. Punching Shear.......................................................................18
3.4.4. Failure Mechanism in these experiments.....................................19
3.4.5. Calculating Ultimate Bearing Capacity........................................22
3.5. Additional apparatus.....................................................................26
4. METHODOLOGY...............................................................................26
4.1. Preliminaries................................................................................27
4.2. Pluviating the sand.......................................................................27
4.3. Preparing to test the model............................................................32
4.4. Testing........................................................................................33
4.5. Analysis of test.............................................................................33
4.6. Experimental Errors......................................................................34
4.6.1. Boundary conditions................................................................34
4.6.2. Particle grain size increasing.....................................................35
4.6.3. Plate is not infinitely long.........................................................35
5. USE OF MATLAB IN CENTRIFUGE MODELLING.....................................36
5.1. Introduction.................................................................................36
5.2. Technical Introduction...................................................................36
5.3. PIV Analysis.................................................................................36
5.4. Use of MatLab in GeoPIV analysis....................................................38
5.5. Getting Results from the GeoPIV analysis.........................................38
5.6. Possible source of error in the analysis............................................40
5.6.1. Non co-planarity of the CCD and target......................................40
5.6.2. Radial and Tangential lens distortion..........................................42
5.6.3. Refraction through viewing window............................................42
5.6.4. CCD pixel non-squareness........................................................42
5.7. Performance of GeoPIV..................................................................43
6. TESTING & RESULTS........................................................................45

6.1. Test One.....................................................................................45
6.1.1. Test arrangement....................................................................45
6.1.2. The positioning of the plates.....................................................47
6.1.3. Results..................................................................................48
6.2. Test Two.....................................................................................49
6.2.1. Preparation............................................................................49
6.2.2. Results..................................................................................50
6.3. Test Three...................................................................................51
6.3.1. Preparation............................................................................51
6.3.2. Results..................................................................................52
6.4. Test Four.....................................................................................53
6.4.1. Lighting.................................................................................53
6.4.2. Perspex.................................................................................54
6.4.3. Changes to Experimentation Method..........................................56
6.4.4. Test Procedure........................................................................59
6.4.5. Results..................................................................................59
7. DISCUSSION..................................................................................61
7.1. Improvements in testing................................................................61
7.2. What is happening in the soil..........................................................61
8. FURTHER STUDY.............................................................................62
8.1. Foundation design and limits..........................................................62
8.2. Tunnel & buried structures.............................................................63
8.3. Further improvements to centrifuge modelling..................................63
8.3.1. Investigation into the effect of grain size....................................63
8.3.2. Frictional effects of Perspex and walls of plane strain box.............64
8.4. Investigations into geotechnical structures.......................................64
8.5. Non geotechnical investigations......................................................64

9. REFERECENCES...............................................................................65
10. BIBLIOGRAPHY...............................................................................66
10.1. Book Sources............................................................................66
10.2. Internet sources........................................................................67
APPENDIX A............................................................................................69
Risk assessment Chart...........................................................................70
Additional Information...........................................................................71
Checklist..............................................................................................74
COSHH Assessment Form (2 Pages)........................................................75
APPENDIX B............................................................................................77
Diary...................................................................................................78
APPENDIX C............................................................................................85
Ballistic Pendulum.................................................................................86
APPENDIX D...........................................................................................87
Matlab List of Commands.......................................................................88
Matlab List of Commands

LIST OF FIGURES
1 - Introduction
Figure 1–1..............................................................................................3
Stages of a hammer throw
Figure 1–2..............................................................................................4
A diagram showing the forces on an object as it travels on a circular orbit
Error: Reference source not found Fourth test. Contour plot of displacement with
use of Mylar sheet, Magnitude 100-g.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2–1.............................................................................................13
Error: Reference source not foundContours of equal vertical stress beneath a
foundation in a semi-infinite elastic solid defined by the Boussinesq equation
LIST OF PLATES
4 - Methodology
Plate 4–1..............................................................................................28
Picture of the pluviating room, with metal hopper and extractor fan
Plate 4–2..............................................................................................28
Picture of the hopper showing the end plate
Error: Reference source not found Image of Perspex sheet, notice large scratch
across centre of sheet and many other marks and imperfections
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1.Introduction
For any construction project, a sound knowledge of the ground conditions is

important to ensure the safety of any constructions against soil failure. Since the
soil will be the ultimate foundation material, investigations into how the ground
will react to increased dead and live loads are essential.
Geotechnical centrifuge testing offers a means of modelling complex 2 & 3

dimensional problems under well controlled and repeatable conditions.
Centrifuge testing is unique compared with conventional geotechnical testing as

there is the ability to change the gravitational field of the model and hence the
limiting factors, without running separate experiments. This flexibility allows a
small model, which can be tested in the centrifuge, to represent a much larger
prototype in the field. This concept of scaling is covered in more detail in
sections 2.3 and 2.4 of this report.
This project will involve using the centrifuge to statically test a sand model, to
investigate the stresses and strains at increasing g-levels and the effects a
foundation has on soil strata below. The model will consist of a metal plate which
will be placed on layers of sand to represent an infinitely long strip foundation.
This plate will be cut to size and accurately weighed in order to be a
representative of a real life situation when taken to a higher g-level. This could
be the foundation of a building acting on the ground, and by increasing the
weight on the plate a large structure can be modelled.
1.2.Aims
• To investigate how centrifuge experimentation techniques can be

improved at the University of Nottingham.
~1~
• To study how stresses and strains develop in a homogenous soil sample

and how these results can be applied to a construction situation
1.1.Objectives
• Investigate quality of current centrifugal techniques by comparing results

with existing centrifuge theory.
• Research previous investigations in centrifuge technology and consider
previous work when designing and testing the model
• Construct and test a model under static loading
• Suggest trial improvements and compare the results of these tests against
previous tests
• Consider how testing could further be improved and what further work
could be carried out
1.1.What is a centrifuge
A geotechnical centrifuge is a machine with an arm that transects the centre of

the machine with one end of the arm capable of holding a model which is
counterweighted at the other end. The centrifuge is often powered by an electric
motor, which allows the arm to rotate about the vertical axis of the machine.
The centrifuge can rotate at very high speeds causing large centrifugal forces to
act on the model, which has the effect of increasing the gravitational field acting
at the sample. This can be used, with the scaling laws described in section 2.4,
to produce a scaled model of a real life situation.
1.2.Centrifuge principles
A centrifuge works in the same way and uses the same principle as an athlete
who takes part in the hammer throw event. In the figure below, the hammer
thrower represents the centrifuge and the motor, his arms are the centrifuge
~1~
arms and the hammer is the model. As in the centrifuge, as the hammer thrower
spins, the hammer can ‘swing-up’ around a pivot point, the throwers’ hand, from
an initial stationary position, see figure 1-1(a), to a position where the hammer
is completely horizontal figure 1-1(c) and in line with the throwers’ arm.
The phenomenon of centrifugal force is caused by inertia from Newton’s first law
of motion, which is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary (2010) as:
“That property of matter by virtue of which it continues in its existing state,

whether of rest or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless that state is
altered by an external force”
a. b. c.
Figure 1–1
Stages of a hammer throw. Left (a): hammer is at rest, Centre (b) : hammer
starts to take flight, Right (c) : Hammer in full swing
In centrifuge modelling and the hammer throw, the direction of the object is
constantly changing, which figure 1-2 attempt to demonstrate. At any time in
the orbit, if released the object would continue on its instantaneous direction of
travel which is always tangential to the curvature of the orbit.
~2~
ORBIT PATH
ANGULAR
OBJECT VELOCITY
CENTRIFUGAL CENTRIPITAL
FORCE FORCE
INSTANTANEOUS
VELOCITY AND
DIRECTION
Figure 1–2
A diagram showing the forces on an object as it travels on a circular orbit
Centrifugal force is the force acting directly outwards from the centre and is
equal and opposite to the centripetal force, which is the force acting towards the
centre of the orbit. Centripetal force can be calculated from the mass of the
object, its velocity and the radius of the orbit by the equation,
F=mv2r Eq. 1–1
Where; m = mass of object
v = velocity
r = radius of curvature
~2~
since v=rω, (Eq. 1-1) becomes;
F=mrω2 Eq. 1-2
Where; ω = angular velocity
The size of this centrifugal force can be changed by changing the angular
velocity of the centrifuge. An increase in the centrifugal force is directly
proportional to the increase in g-level at the model.
1.3.Outline of Report
This reports aims to inform the reader about centrifuge technology and
techniques. The literature review, Section 2, gives the reader a background into
the history of centrifuge and some of the principles behind the soil mechanics
and principles involved in the testing.
Then a more general introduction to the specific facility available to the

University of Nottingham and an introduction into the materials and processes
involved in centrifuge testing and analysis, sections 3, 4 and 5.
Sections 6 and 7 describe the individual tests done, the results achieved and a
discussion on these results.
Section 8 completes the report with a set of recommended further work and
study that could be carried out to supplement this report.
Sections 9 and 10 include all the references cited in the text and a list of
additional reading material on topics discussed within this report.
Appendices A, B, C, D and E are provided to supplement the main text
~4~
1. LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1.Introduction
Centrifuge modelling in short, allows an accurate representation of stress and

strain trends of a much larger structure than the one being modelled. This is
achieved by using the appropriate scaling laws (section 2.4) and assumptions
and equations set out by Boussinesq (section 2.3). Below is a brief history of the
centrifuge and how it developed (section 2.2).
1.2. Developments in Centrifugal technology
It is possible that centrifuge technology spawned out of a similar but different

invention.
Benjamin Robins (1707 – 1751) was an English military engineer who was
influenced by Newton’s laws of physics and among other things, invented the
ballistic pendulum see Appendix C. He carried out work on a ‘whirling arm
apparatus’ to determine drag forces in the air, a machine which looked strangely
familiar to what we would call a centrifuge today.
The next major step towards the modern centrifuge was made by a man named
Antonin Prandtl, a German who has the first recorded practical use of a
centrifuge in 1864, when he used a spinning rotary arm to separate cream from
milk.
In 1869, a French man by the name of Eduoard Phillips published two papers on
the subject of centrifuge technology. The first of which, (Phillips 1869a),
recognised the limitations of contemporary elastic theory and advocated model
testing of structures, especially bridges, to centrifugal forces of 50 gravities. He
introduced scaling relationships and examined several different scenarios,
concluding with the case where self-weight body forces are significant. The first
paper Phillips wrote, he considered only quasi-steady problems of analysis and
~1~
design, but later in the same year (Phillips 1869b) he extended his work to
dynamic effects. He concluded that, in the centrifuge, inertial time scaling is the
same as linear scaling, which is commonly accepted by today's centrifuge
modellers. Although Phillips had the correct idea of a ‘modern’ geotechnical
centrifuge, he seemed to be ahead of his time.
Even after the publishing of his papers, there is no recorded use of a centrifuge
used for modelling of this kind until 1931, when Phillip Bucky used a centrifuge
to assess the integrity of mine roof structures. He constructed a small scaled
model of the mine structure and accelerated it until failure. Bucky's work
continued for many years, albeit on a small scale, but he lead the way for many
more to carry on his work, providing the base for the increase of centrifuge work
in the United States.
Whilst work was progressing at a slow rate in Europe and the United States,
huge technological advances were being made in the USSR. G.I. Pokrovskii and
I.S. Fiodorov, two Russian centrifuge pioneers, both published papers in 1933
and presented them at the first ICSMFE (International Conference of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering) in 1936. Due to the Second World War
and subsequent cold war, their work was largely unknown to the west until the
8th meeting of the ICSMFE historically held in Moscow by Pokrovskii in 1973.
Here the extent of soviet expertise in the field became apparent. The soviet
scientists had extensive work on underground explosions and the extent of
cratering and ground transmission of vibrations. These were obviously withheld
from the west due to their military implications, but also revealed at the
conference was the advances they made in non-military centrifugal technology.
Progression was also happening across the rest of the world. In the United
States by U.S. Bureau of Mines and the University of Missouri, in Japan by M.
Mikasa, and notably in the United Kingdom by Andrew Schofield whose work was
as valuable as the Russian's. After an increased awareness of centrifuge
research illustrated at the 7th and 8th meetings of the ICSMFE, an international
technical committee was set up to promote activity in the field of centrifuge,
headed by Schofield.
~2~
The geotechnical centrifuge has been, and always will be an integral part of the
design stage and is now a worldwide essential machine. This is demonstrated no
better than at the 14th meeting of the ICSMFE hosted in 1994 in Singapore which
resulted in publication of about 130 papers by more than 280 authors from 20
countries on six continents.
1.3.Theories of Soil Behaviour in a Centrifuge
Elastic theory is the driving principle in centrifugal technology, first investigated

in this context by Phillips in 1869. He recognised the possibilities and advantages
of testing in such a way and developed the scaling relationships described below
(section 2.4). Static centrifugal testing is based on principle of elastic theory in
soil. This theory was developed by Boussinesq in 1885, who assumed that the
soil could be represented as a semi-infinite, homogeneous, isotropic mass. He
determined an equation to calculate the vertical stress, at any point below a
point load on a soil as;
σz= 3Q2πz211+rz252 σz= 3Q2πz211+rz252

Eq. 2–1
Where;
– Q is the point load at the location of application
– r is the horizontal distance to the point of interest from the point of

applied load, Q
– z is the vertical depth of the point of interest
– σz is the vertical stress at the point of interest
– Axis-symmetric case
~3~
Figure 2–1
Stress at a point below a point load. R.F. Craig (1997), p163
Figure 2.1 shows the horizontal and vertical stresses at the point of interest, X,
when point load Q, is applied.
This and subsequent equations all make the core assumption that the stress is
independent of Poisson’s ratio and the modulus of elasticity, as long as the
material is homogeneous and isotropic.
As stated above, this equation is specific to point loads. To generate the

equation that is relevant for the experiment described in this report, it is
necessary to integrate the point source loads over the particular area required.
This generates the following equations, which show the vertical and horizontal
stress respectively.
σz= qπα+sinαcosα+2β Eq. 2–2

σx= qπα-sinαcosα+2β Eq. 2–3
Where;
~1~
– q is the uniform pressure on a strip area of width B and infinite

length
– α and β are angles in radians defined in the diagram below
Figure 2.2 shows the horizontal and vertical stresses at any point below a strip
foundation of width B and infinite length, with a uniform pressure, q.
Figure 2–2
Stress at a point below a strip foundation. R.F. Craig (1997), p166
Boussinesq’s equations can be used to calculate the vertical stress at all points in
the vicinity of the foundation. These are plotted in the figure below (Figure 2.3),
with the contours representing lines of equal vertical stress intensity. The
vertical stress contour of value 0.2q is described as the bulb of pressure.
Boussinesq equations also demonstrate that the further away the point of
interest is from the position of applied load, i.e. increased z or r and
subsequently larger α and β, the smaller the stress intensity is. This agrees with
figure 2.3, where nearer to the sides and edges the smaller the stress intensity
is, which relates to increasing values of z and r.
Above distances from the point of load where the stress is less than 10% or
0.1q, the change in stress is such that the stresses become negligible.
~1~
Figure 2–3
Contours of equal vertical stress beneath a foundation in a semi-infinite elastic

solid defined by the Boussinesq equation (Herndon 1990)
1.1.Scale Effects in Modelling Using a Centrifuge
Phillips first developed the appropriate scaling relationships between model and
prototype when testing in a centrifuge after recognising ‘the significance of self
weight body forces in a number of different situations’, (Taylor 1995). It is
important to realize that the small model in the geotechnical centrifuge
experiences the same physical effects as a large prototype in the earth’s
gravitational field. This is because all the material properties, aside from the self
weight, remain the same, regardless of the gravity level in the centrifuge,
(Schofield 1990). For example, as any stress intensity increases due to the
increase in gravities in the centrifuge, the same proportional increase can be
~3~
expected for the prototype in the field. Consequently, this emphasises the
importance of scaling the model’s linear dimensions to correspond with the
prototypes dimensions when the model is placed under the specified gravity
level in the centrifuge. The linear dimensions of the prototype must be reduced
by a factor of n, where the centrifugal acceleration is n gravities. The model is
built to ensure stress similarity between model and corresponding prototype.
Therefore, if at a gravity level n, the stresses at depth hm of the model, will be
identical to the corresponding stress at depth hp of the prototype, assuming
similarity between the physical dimensions of the model and prototype.
hp=nhm Eq. 2–4

If the soil being tested has a specific density ρ and the centrifuge is accelerated
to experience n times the earth’s gravity, g, then σvm, the vertical stress in the
model at a depth of hm, is calculated according to the formula;
σvm=ρgn hm Eq. 2–5
using (Eq. 2-4) then;
σvm=σvp Eq. 2–6

Where; σvp=ρghp
This shows that the stress in both the prototype and the model will be identical
Table 2.1 below shows the scaling laws for each parameter derived from
dimensional analysis.
~2~
Table 2–1
Centrifugal scaling laws obtained from Soft Soil Engineering, C.F. Lee et al.
(2001), cross referenced with a presentation by the Japanese Geotechnical
Society (1998) and Geotechnical centrifuge technology, R. N. Taylor 1995
Scaling Laws
Parameter Scale (prototype : model)
Length 1 : 1/n
Area 1 : 1/n2
Volume 1 : 1/n3
Stress 1:1
Strain 1: 1
Density 1: 1
Unit Weight 1:n
Gravity 1:n
Mass 1 : 1/n3
Force 1 : 1/n2
Time 1 : 1/n2
where n is the scale factor in G
2. EQUIPMENT AND APPARATUS
2.1.The Centrifuge Facility
The geotechnical centrifuge is part of the Nottingham Centre of Geomechanics

(NCG) at the University of Nottingham. It is a 50g-T modular beam centrifuge
with a 2.0 metre platform radius, designed and installed by Broadbent & Sons
Ltd (Huddersfield, UK). The centrifuge is capable of rotating up to 280 times per
minute creating model accelerations of up to 150-g. The facility is enclosed in a
0.5 metre thick concrete chamber and the data recording and analysis is done in
~1~
a separate room with remote connection to the centrifuge’s onboard computers.

Figure 3-1 show a schematic of the centrifuge with all major components
labelled.
During testing the model will be attached to the swing cradle, which is hinged to
the centrifuge ‘arm’ at the clevis. The swing cradle is able to pivot about this
point and will ‘swing up’ during testing so that it is in horizontal alignment with
the rest of the arm. This is necessary as the scaling effects of centrifuge testing
act radially out from the vertical axis, meaning that if the swing cradle did not
‘swing up’ then the centrifugal forces would act horizontally through the side of
the soil sample rather than down through the plate.
Figure3–1
Schematic of Geotechnical Centrifuge at the University of Nottingham showing

all main components
~2~
2.2.Plane strain box
The centrifuge can accommodate different models for different tests. The testing
carried out as part of this study requires the use of the plane strain box shown in
figure 3-2. The plane strain box has internal dimension of 700mm length x
400mm depth x 200mm width, although this width gets reduced by 4mm when
the required sacrificial Perspex sheet is installed. The box is made from
hardened steel and is designed for the purpose of withstanding the high forces
experienced during centrifuge testing.
Internal Length,
700mm
Internal Width,
200mm
Internal Height,
400mm
Viewing window
Figure 3–2
Schematic of Plane Strain box, showing internal dimensions
2.3.Material
The chosen soil material is Leighton Buzzard Fraction C sand and the plates are
cut from steel.
A simple pouring test was carried out on the sand by Aslam 2006, which
involved measuring the height and width of a pile of sand to find the natural
~1~
friction angle. This was found to be 35°. This value represents a quite loose state
of the sand, and probably slightly lower than what would be expected in the
field, and in the experimentation included in the report. Direct shear tests on
Leighton Buzzard Fraction C by Simoni and Houlsby (2006) gave values of
nearer 45°.
The unit weight of the sand is 16.7kN/m3. Further material properties are
calculated in the next section of this report.
The steel plates are of approximate density 7800 kg/m 3 and are cut to suit the
model and experimental requirements.
2.4.Ultimate Bearing capacity of the Soil
The ultimate bearing capacity of a soil is defined as the ultimate load that the
soil can support before it fails. In other words it is the ability that the soil has to
support the loads that are imposed on it, and is denoted by the term (qf). The
bearing capacity is a function of the soil properties and influenced by the size
and weight of the structure above it.
In general, the recognised bearing capacity for sands ranges from <100 kN/m2
for loose sand up to values >300 kN/m2 for dense sands (Craig 1997). The
bearing capacity for this particular soil is calculated in this section.
The metal plate used for the experiments in this project represents an infinitely
long, strip footing, with b / L equal to zero, where b and L represent width and
length of the plate respectively. Since the plate is assumed to be infinitely long,
then there are three recognised failure mechanisms for the supporting soil.
• General Shear
• Punching Shear
• Local Shear
1.1.1.General Shear
~2~
(See in figure 3-3(a))
In general shear, total rupture occurs of the soil immediately below the
foundation and in the locality of the failure. The soil immediately below the
foundation is displaced as the foundations moves into the soil. The failure
surfaces propagate from the failure zone beneath the foundation to the ground
surface. The soil in these new failure zones are forced upwards and outwards, by
the movement of the foundation into the ground, in a process known as heaving
or bulging. Heaving occurs on both sides of the foundation at first, but only of
one side as the soil reaches failure. This caused tilting or twisting of the
foundation as the soil reaches its plastic limits with q => qf. This type of failure
is abrupt and catastrophic and will occur in incompressible (dense or stiff) soils
such as hard clay. Due to the suddenness of the failure, q f is well defined on the
Pressure-Settlement curve.
1.1.2.Local Shear
(See figure 3-3(b))
Local shear can be described as a mix of punching and general shear failure. It
consists of the same well defined shear failure zone beneath the footing like
punching shear, but also shows slight heaving and lateral displacement in
surrounding soil. This is because the failure surfaces are not well defined and do
not reach the ground surface to cause heaving as in general shear. Large
settlements only occur directly below the foundation and as the load, q,
approaches the failure load, qf, partial plasticity develops in the failure zones of
the soil which can lead to minor tilting. This failure is gradual and qf is not well
defined on the Pressure-Settlement curve. It can occur in loose or silty sands
and in weak clay. Local shear often acts as a transitional stage between general
and punching shear failure.
1.1.3.Punching Shear
~2~
(See figure 3-3(c))
Punching shear does not develop the same shear planes as in general shear and
there is little lateral soil displacement and no heaving of the surrounding ground.
The failure zone is located directly below the foundation and the shearing
extends up to the perimeter of the foundation. The soil undergoes compression
with the greatest compression occurring directly below the foundation and
dissipates with increased depth. This type of failure is not catastrophic and only
occurs at high pressures. It generally occurs in soils with low compressibility
(loose soils) such as sand. Due to the type of failure, it is not readily recognised,
apart from large settlements of the foundation into the ground
Figure 3-3
Three shear failure modes for soil
(a) General Shear Failure, (b)Local Shear Failure, (c)Punching shear failure
In all three of the cases, the dotted line represents the ground surface with the
solid grey lines representing the shear failure planes.
1.1.4.Failure Mechanism in these experiments
~3~
The mechanism of failure at ultimate load is determined by several factors.

Properties of the supporting soil such as strength and compressibility as well as
the depth, length, breadth and nature of the foundation. Work carried out by
Vesic (1973) on the ultimate failure mechanisms in sand, explains in detail these
factors and there effects on the type of failure caused by a shallow foundation.
His work was summarised by Som and Das (2004).
Figure 3-4 shows the nature of the soil failure at ultimate load with regards to
the relative densities.
In this case, R is the hydraulic radius and is defined as
R=AP Eq.
3–1
Where;
A =Area of Foundation =BL
P = Perimeter of foundation =2(B + L)
Therefore;
R =BL2(B+L) Eq.
3–2
Figure 3–4
~3~
Nature of failure in soil with relative density of sand Dr and Df/R. Som and Das
(2004)
This is where Df is the depth of the foundation below surface and Dr is the
relative density of the sand. From figure 3-4, it is apparent that above a D f / R
value of about 18, the soil will fail by punching shear, regardless of the density
of the sand. The relative density is expressed as a percentage and is a measure
of the soils density with respect to the densest and loosest possible soil
conditions. As the relative density nears 100% it indicates a very dense compact
soil, whereas values nearer to 0%, indicate a very low density loose material.
Relative density, Dr can be expressed as
Dr = emax- e0emax- eminx 100%

Eq. 3–3
Where;
emax = Maximum Voids Ratio (soil in its loosest condition)
emin = Minimum Voids Ratio (soil in its densest condition)
e0 = Natural Voids Ratio of the soil or condition in question
For the experiments in this report, Df = 0 (depth of footing below ground

surface), and hence Df / R =0.
Work carried out by Aslam (2006) on Leighton Buzzard Fraction C, determined

the Maximum and Minimum Densities and from these, a minimum and maximum
void ratio can be calculated
Minimum density (Loose sample)
ρ d,min = 1.47 Mg/m3
with a corresponding maximum void ratio of;
~4~
max = 0.80
e
Maximum Density (Dense sample)
ρ d,max = 1.707 Mg/m3
with a corresponding minimum void ratio of;
min = 0.55
e
Where;
= Gsγwρbulk-1 Eq.
e
3–4
Full explanation and test procedure can be found in R. Aslam, Centrifuge

Modelling of Reinforced Piled Embankments (2006), 1st year PhD report for the
University of Nottingham.
Values of e0 can be calculated from the weight of the samples that were tested
on the centrifuge. Knowing the dimensions of the plane strain box and the mass
of the sand to be tested, the density of the sample in question can be calculated
using eq. 3-5 with results from the tests
ρ= MV= 58.6 kg0.0357 m3=1641.46 kgm-3

Eq. 3–5
And from the density, the void ratio of the sample can be found using (Eq. 3-4)
0=2.65 × 10001641.46-1=0.614
e
Calculating Dr, using Eq. 3-3
~5~
Dr = emax- e0emax- eminx 100%= 0.80-0.6140.80-0.55 x 100%=74.4
From figure 3-2 this indicates that the soil failure is most likely to occur by local
shear failure.
1.1.5.Calculating Ultimate Bearing Capacity
Understanding the failure mechanisms gives a better understanding of how the

soil will fail and sub sequentially, how better to design future tests. The failure
mechanism defines how the soil will fail, the next section will explain when the
soil should theoretically fail. The bearing capacity, qf, or the ability of the soil to
resist the loads applied to it was derived by Terzaghi (1967) as,
qf = c Nc sc +  D Nq + 0.5  B N s Εq. 3–6
where,
a) Bearing capacity factors;
Nq = exp ( tan ∅) tan2 (450 + ∅ /2)

Nc = (Nq - 1) cot ∅ (For ∅ > 0 )
= 5.14 (For ∅ = 0) (Jumikis 1966)
N = 1.8 (Nq -1) tan ∅ by Hansen (1968)
Note: ∅ is the friction angle of the soil

b) Shape factors:
sc = 1 + 0.20 B / L …………………………….……………. (∅ ≠ 0 conditions)

sc = [1 + 0.20 B / L] [1 + 0.3 (D / B) 0.25 ] ….. (∅ = 0 conditions,
saturated clays)
s = 1 - 0.2 (B / L) ………………… (B / L = footing width to length
ratio)
s = 0.6 ………………… (circular footing)
~7~
c) Other Factors
B = Width of Plate
C = Cohesion Coefficient of Soil
D = Depth of Footing Below Surface
It is customary to take B / L = 0 for a strip footing, and B / L = 1 for a square

footing. In this report, the metal plate acts as a strip footing, therefore B / L =
1, where L => ∞.
For use in these experiments, Terzaghi’s equation simplifies to,
qf = 0.5  Β Ν s Eq.
3–7
This is due to;
c Nc sc = 0
• For a granular, non cohesive soil, such as sand, c = 0

• Since the plate is acting as a strip footing, B / L = 0 and therefore, Sc = 1
• Hence value of Nc is irrelevant
and
 D Nq = 0
• The plate is not buried and is on top of the surface, therefore D = 0

• Hence the values of  and Nq are irrelevant
The term s can also be removed as;
• s = 1
• B / L ≡ 0, therefore s = (1 – 0) = 1
~3~
This equation give the bearing capacity in soil property terms of friction angle,
∅, unit weight, , and the width of the plate, b, all of which are known.
Therefore a calculation can be made for the bearing capacity of the soil at 1-g
and using the scaling laws, the bearing capacity at an arbitrary g-level, say 100-
g,
At 1-g.  = 16.7 kN/m3

B = 0.055 m
∅ = 350
Ν =1.8 ×(Nq+1) tan∅
Where;
Nq= etan∅ × tan 2(45° + ∅2)
Nq = 33.29
Ν = 48.02
qf = 0.5 × 16.7 × 0.055 × 48.02
2
qf=26.062 kN/m
At 100-g, using the scaling laws in section 2.4
 = 16.7100= 0.167 kN/m3
B = 0.055 ×100=5.5 m
∅ = 350 which is an unchanged material property
∅ is constant, therefore Nq and hence Ν are unchanged
∴ qf= 0.5 ×0.167 × 5.5 × 48.02
~3~
2
qf=26.062 kN/m
This means that the bearing capacity of the soil is the same at 100-g as it is at
1-g. At first this answer seems incorrect, but it makes sense when considering
what actually happens during centrifuge testing. Bearing capacity of the sand
depends on two variables, the linear dimensions of the plate and the unit weight
of the sand, both of which, need to be scaled according to the change in g-level.
The scaling laws discussed in section 2.4 show the appropriate factors to be
applied to each variable are 1/n and n for the linear dimensions and unit weight
respectively. This means, that if the prototype has a linear dimension of 1 then
the corresponding linear dimension of the plate in the model has a length of 1/n
where n is the g-level. Similarly for the unit weight, if the prototype has a unit
weight of 1, then the model must have a unit weight of n. This second statement
is one of the major disadvantages of centrifuge testing. It states that as the
centrifuge is in flight, the increase in g-level does not only increase the apparent
size and weight of the plate, it also increase the apparent size of the sand grains
and net strength of the soil sample. The increase in the strength of the soil is
inversely proportional to the rate of the apparent increase in the size of the
plate. This is demonstrated in the above equations as the increase in plate size ,
n, is essentially multiplied by the decrease in unit weight, 1/n, giving an overall
scale factor to be applied to the bearing capacity of 1. Note this is ‘model to
prototype transformation’, therefore the ratios are the inverse of the ‘prototype
to model transformation’. This inaccuracy in centrifuge testing will be discussed
in more detail in section 4.6.
It is still possible to fail the soil using this simple test but would require a large
force, acting on the plate. Therefore this type of static loading test using the
centrifuge is not ideal for simulating large structures. It would be much more
efficient to add a hydraulic ram to force the plate down at the same time as the
centrifuge was in motion. This way, it would be possible to have a large applied
load which is not dependant on the gravitational field acting on the model.
1.1.Additional apparatus
~3~
When working and performing tests in the laboratory, hard cap boots and
laboratory coats need to be worn. In addition, when pluviating the sand to build
the model, the fan assisted ventilation mask must be worn to ensure that no
sand or dust particles come in contact with the eyes, nose or mouth.
2. METHODOLOGY
This section will explain how the test is set up and how to achieve results from
the analysis. Accompanying this methodology is a risk assessment for the
preparation of the model, see Appendix A.
2.1.Preliminaries
Before testing and the construction of the model, all screws need to be secured
on the plane strain box. The box needs to be empty and the sacrificial Perspex
sheet needs to be installed. Both of the Perspex sheets need to be polished to
remove any marks and minor scratches that could distort the PIV analysis. The
plane strain box now needs to be put onto the hydraulic trolley so that it can be
transported and weighed. The hydraulic trolley has a built in scale which can
give the weight of the box in kg. This should be noted for comparison with the
weight of the plane strain box after pluviation, so the mass of sand can be
calculated and since the internal dimensions of the box are known, the density of
the model can be calculated also.
~3~
2.2.Pluviating the sand
Pluviating the sand is important to ensure that the model is as homogeneous

and isotropic as possible. Pluviation is a method by which the sand is poured into
the plane strain box in even layers and from a constant drop height so that the
sand is compacted evenly across the whole model. Pluviating minimises any
stresses or strains to be induced on the system prior to experimentation. The
hopper is specially designed with a sieve-like base which is covered by a
removable end plate. Once the end plate is removed, the sand can pour out of
the holes in the base of the hopper uniformly and at a constant rate.
The pluviating or pouring of the sand model takes place in the designated
pluviating room, see plates 4-1 and 4-2 for pictures of the pluviating room and
hopper respectively. To pluviate the sand, the hopper is lowered to the ground
and filled with more than enough sand than is required. This is done to ensure
that the hopper does not run out of sand half way through the pluviation. This is
an issue as it both introduces errors into the experiment and for health and
safety reasons (to fill the hopper requires standing on a kick stool and lifting
bags of sand to the height of the hopper). Stopping and starting the pluviation
could cause stratification of the sand causing it to be non-homogeneous and
adversely affect the experiment.
~1~
PULLEY SYSTEM USED

EXTRACTOR
HOPPER
TO WINCH HOPPER
FAN
INTO POSITION
Plate 4–1
Picture of the pluviating room, with metal hopper and extractor fan
~3~
HOPPER
END PLATE
(NOT YET REMOVED)
Plate 4–2
Picture of the hopper showing the end plate
Once the hopper is raised, the wooden rests are moved into position in the
pluviating room, providing a place to rest the plain strain box, whilst pluviating.
This is required so that the plane stress box is raised off the floor which allows it
to be easily removed after pluviation is finished. The pulley system is used to
raise the hopper to the calculated drop height, which is defined as the distance
between the base of the hopper to the base of the plane strain box, see figure 4-
1.
~5~
DROP HEIGHT
PLANE
HOPPERSTRAIN
BOX
Figure 4–1
Figure illustrating the drop height
~7~
The pluviation is started by removing the end plate. The original technique used
on this project was to take the end plate fully out so that the sand was being
released from the entirety of the base. This resulted in a pluviating technique
moving the hopper side to side. This technique caused a build up of sand in the
centre of the model, as figure 4-2 attempts to demonstrate.
SAND
END
HOPPER
PLANE
MOVEMENT
PLATE
STRAIN
(OUT)
OFBOX
HOPPER
~9~
Figure 4–2
Side view of the plane strain box, side view of hopper. An illustration of the
pluviation technique
Consequently, the pluviating method was altered so that the sand was more
evenly distributed. This was achieved by rotating the hopper by 90° and only
removing the end plate part of the way. See figure 4-3.
~ 10 ~
SAND
END
PLANE
MOVEMENT
PLATE
STRAIN
(PARTIALLY
BOX
OF HOPPEROUT)
HOPPER
~ 11 ~
Figure 4–3
Side view of Plane strain box, end view of hopper. An illustration of the refined
pluviation technique
Although this method would take longer as the rate at which the sand is filling
the box is less, it gives a more even layer thickness and distribution of sand.
Once the sand is to the required height, the end plate is re-inserted, stopping
the flow of the sand. The plane strain box is removed by using the hydraulic
trolley and the hopper is lowered to the ground.
2.3.Preparing to test the model
Whilst the model is on the hydraulic trolley, the weight of the plane strain box
and sand can once again be recorded. Weighing the box serves two purposes.
Firstly for calculation of the density of the sample and secondly to assess
whether the counterweight on the centrifuge needs to be moved, the heavier the
model the further away the counter weight needs to be. The plane strain box
then needs to be loaded onto the swing cradle of the centrifuge and securely
fastened down with the bolts. Loading is done using the stacker which can only
be used by an appropriately qualified technician. Once the model is securely
fastened, all centrifuge components are checked to ensure they are working. The
following are some of the routine checks that need to take place before testing
can begin.
• Check camera is working and connections are secure

• Check that the lighting is securely fastened and illuminate viewing window
sufficiently
• Attach and securely fasten all equipment to centrifuge
~ 13 ~
• Tie down all loose wires so they cannot work loose during testing and
either obstruct the view of the camera or cause connections to break.
• Ensuring the wires have sufficient slack to accommodate the increased
distance between the model and the centre of the centrifuge. As the swing
cradle moves up to its horizontal position.
The g-level experienced at the model is produced by different speeds of the
centrifuge. The faster the centrifuge travels, the greater the angular velocity,
which produces a higher centrifugal force and hence a larger apparent
gravitational field is created at the model. The centrifuge input is in revolutions-
per-minute (rpm), and these need to be calculated for each g-level that the
centrifuge is to be taken to for each test.
1.1.Testing
Once the centrifuge is set and all equipment is secured to the centrifuge and all
components are working correctly, the test can begin. An initial image is taken,
which is at 1-g to give a reference image for the others to be evaluated against.
Once the image has been captured, the quality of the image is assessed by
visual inspection to see if there is sufficient detail in the image for the PIV
analysis to detect specific regions of textured soil. The centrifuge is then started
by inputting the rpm value for the first g-level to be tested, in the case of this
report, this was always 10-g. Once the centrifuge has reached this value with no
fluctuations in rpm, the next image can be recorded. This process is repeated at
every 10-g until the required g-level is reached.
The centrifuge motor is then turned off and the centrifuge slows down to a stop.
Once it has fully stopped, the plane strain box is removed and placed on the
wooden rests. The box is emptied and cleaned so that it is ready for use for the
next test.
~1~
1.2.Analysis of test
Please see appendix D for full MatLab command list and terminologies
All the images are automatically stored in a folder, which is assigned by the
operator prior to the first image captured. The analysis implements MatLab
modules to analyse each image and to track regions of specific textured sand
through a series of images. This is explained in detail in section 5. This section
aims to provide a brief explanation of the stages carried out in the analysis.
• Create the mesh
A mesh is created which divides the primary images up into rows and columns of
square patches. These patches are where the GeoPIV will search for regions of
textured soil.
• Run the GeoPIV
The GeoPIV requires two input files, one being the mesh that has just been
created and the other being a launcher file which is set up by the operator and
instructs the GeoPIV.
• Track movements of control points
Control points are marked onto the Perspex sheet and do not move during the
experiment. If these appear to move through the images then the operator
knows that there is distortion of the camera lens. Tracking these movements
and then removing them from the soil displacement data gives the true
displacement of the soil
• Interpolate any erroneous results
Any result that obviously is an error, caused by localised disruptions in the

viewing window or otherwise can be removed and interpolated in MatLab.
• Plot the results
A contour plot can be produced which shows the movement of specific regions of
soil, showing trends in displacements and the influence of the plate(s).
~1~
1.1.Experimental Errors
1.1.1.Boundary conditions
Error introduced by boundary conditions refers to the interaction between sand

grains and the walls of the Plane Strain Box. The sand grains adjacent to the
boundaries (walls) ‘feel’ a frictional force restricting the movement of the grains.
The frictional force is proportional to the force that the grains exert of the walls,
hence at higher g-levels, the frictional force is greater. It is for these reasons
that there are regions of sand left unanalysed. The frictional force will not affect
the sand towards the centre of the model and therefore will not affect the
results. The Perspex sheet is polished before testing in order to try and reduce
the frictional effect of the sheet on the sand. Although, its effect is minimal
anyway due to the Perspex having a relatively low friction coefficient.
1.1.1.Particle grain size increasing
Centrifuge testing relies on the scaling laws to allow a scaled model to represent
a prototype in the field. It would be sensible to also assume that these same
scaling laws would have an effect on the sand particles. If the centrifuge was
taken up to n-g, then the sand particles would resemble a particle N times their
own actual size and weigh n2 their own actual physical weight. This would
represent more of gravel than sand.
This is an unfortunate effect of centrifuge modelling. Although there is no effect

on the stress / strain properties of the material. This effect is much more
apparent when experimenting with gravel as the scaling effect on the already
large grained material introduces other distorting factors. Inter-particle friction
and interaction causes the model to act different to the continuous soil that
would be found in the prototype in the field.
~3~
1.1.2.Plate is not infinitely long
The assumption is that the plate is acting like an infinitely long strip foundation.
In reality, it is not and the ratio b / L, which should be zero is actually 0.25. This
has the effect of increasing the calculated bearing capacity as the load is spread
over a wider region of soil.
1. USE OF MATLAB IN CENTRIFUGE MODELLING
1.1.Introduction
In order to evaluate the strains produced when the soil is subjected to increasing
loads, there needs to be an appropriate method of comparing the soil samples
from one g-level to the next. Physical strain tests whilst the centrifuge was in
motion would be impractical, and stopping the centrifuge to perform tests would
be pointless as the majority of the strains would be elastic and dissipate when
the weight of the load was equal only to the weight of the plate with no scaling
effects. Tests would also be intrusive and disturb the soil sample so that it may
not show true stress strain properties. However, it is possible to record small
deviations and displacements in the soil sample and convert these into strains.
1.2.Technical Introduction
Soil displacement data is derived by processing a series of sequential images

taken at regular g-level intervals, from 1 to a nominal value of N gravities.
Images are captured and stored remotely during a test. Analysis of the results is
carried out using software called GeoPIV developed by Dave White et al at
Cambridge University. GeoPIV is a suite of programs designed to run in the
~1~
MatLab environment. The software implements Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV)

in a manner suited to geotechnical testing to determine the displacement field of
an area of soil.
1.3.PIV Analysis
The PIV analysis operates by tracking a specific region of soil texture or

arrangement of soil particles throughout a series of images. It works by dividing
up an initial image into a mesh of patches and tracking the movement of specific
textured soil in each of the patches through the series of images. In the context
of this project the primary image is the soil at 1-g state, when the machine is
stationary. The software searches within the next image in the series to
determine the new location of each patch. A parameter is passed to the software
to instruct it to search only within a given area for the new location of a patch
with matching regions of soil texture. For a particular patch, this area of the
image is analysed to find the highest correlation of texture within the search
area which corresponds to the displacement of the patch of soil. The process is
illustrated in Figure 5-1.
Figure 5–1
~2~
Showing the evaluation of two subsequent images to find correlations in soil

texture
Where;
SMAX : is the maximum distance that the search patch increases by to find
corresponding regions of similar texture
Image 1: Shows the first image in the sequence, in the context of this
project it would correspond to the lowest g-level
Image 2: Shows the second image in the sequence, in the context of this
project it would correspond to an incrementally higher g-level
Search patch 1: the area which the GeoPIV looks in for soil of
corresponding texture that was found in Patch 1
The texture of the soil can be recognised in a number of ways. The soil in this
project is Leighton Buzzard fraction C sand which has a natural distinctive
texture in the form of different coloured sand grains, but regions could also be
identified by different light and shadow formations between adjacent grains
when illuminated.
The process of comparing a patch on the primary image to a larger patch on the
secondary image is repeated for the entire mesh. This produces a complete list
of trajectories and displacements for all similar textures of soil throughout the
test sample.
1.4.Use of MatLab in GeoPIV analysis
To run the analysis of the series of images, MatLab uses a number of programs
written specific for GeoPIV analysis. These programs are initiated by certain
command lines when entered on the MatLab command screen and designed
specifically to run in the MatLab environment.
~2~
1.5.Getting Results from the GeoPIV analysis
The MatLab module requires two input files (a launcher and an initial mesh file)
which are prepared in ASCII format by the user. In short, the launcher file
contains the input variables for each PIV analysis and the initial mesh file
contains the locations of the initial mesh of patches. The GeoPIV analysis
produces output files which are also in ASCII format, which can be manipulated
by the user in MatLab or a spreadsheet to produce displacement data and hence
soil strains.
After the running the GeoPIV program a set of results and displacements are
given in pixels in a ‘(u,v) co-ordinate system’ where u and v are the axis of the
image. This is known as image-space. This data needs to be converted to
physical dimensions of mm or in an ‘(x,y) co-ordinate system’, which is known
as object -space.
In essence, this transformation is a very simple process whereby a constant

scale factor can be applied across the surface of the soil and all measurements
can be scaled up or down according to the quality of the camera. For example, in
the case of the experiments detailed in this report, this scale factor is roughly 5
pixels to every 1mm. This simple scaling procedure does however require a set
of assumptions to be made. It assumes that there are no distortions or errors
associated with the camera, the lens, the viewing window and assumes
regularity and squareness of the pixels.
It is unreasonable to make these assumptions for this project in order to get the
accuracy required. Plate 5-1 below clearly illustrates camera lens distortion.
~1~
Movement Caused by distortion
of the camera lens
Plate 5–1
Comparison of soil at 1-g and 100-g. Left: Image of soil sample at 1-g, Right:
Image of soil at 100-g
The bolts in the image are securely fastened in place and do not move position
during the test, but appear to move on the image. Also notice at the top of the
image, it is possible to see the top of the plane strain box at 100-g, whereas in
the 1-g image it is not there. This is caused by vertical and rotational distortion
of the camera lens and/or CCD set-up. The CCD is an internal element of the
camera and will be explained under ‘Non co-planarity of the CCD and target’.
There are other distortional errors in the image, some which are apparent and
can be observed, such as refraction of the lighting equipment in the Perspex
viewing window as well as some which cannot be detected by visual observation,
without close inspection.
1.6.Possible source of error in the analysis
1.1.1.Non co-planarity of the CCD and target
This refers to the normals of the CCD and target being on parallel planes. The
CCD or Charge- Coupled Device is a light sensitive chip in the camera, which
~3~
converts light into an analogue signal, which gets converted into a digital image,
which is observed on the computer screen. The dimensions of the CCD are
represented in pixels a ‘(u,v) co-ordinate system’ which directly correspond to
the u and v axis on the image. The face of the CCD should be vertical and so
should the viewing window. Therefore the normal’s of both of these planes
should be parallel. If the equipment is correctly assembled at the start of the
experiment then this should be the case, but as the experimentation begins and
the centrifuge spins the normal’s to the two surfaces can become misaligned.
The camera and its components experience increased self weight, in the same
way that the model does. This can cause the CCD and lens system to move out
of alignment especially as the centrifuge reaches higher g-levels. Since the
experiments completed in this report reach g-levels of up to 100-g, then this
becomes a significant source of error. The result of this error is to give a set of
data which has much higher displacement vectors of the soil than is actually
occurring. The increase in displacement can be very large as the two figures
below show.
Figure 5–2
Displacement vectors of the soil including the camera distortion
~2~
Figure5–3
Displacement vectors of the soil after being scaled up and compensating for
camera distortion
This figure shows how the movement of the camera is much larger than the
displacement of the soil. This has the effect of masking the true soil
displacements which are not easily detected without compensating for the
distortion. In these tests, the movement of the camera resulted in a recorded
displacements of up to 25 times the actual displacement of the soil.
1.1.2.Radial and Tangential lens distortion
Radial lens distortion is a feature of the camera lens whereby the light rays
coming from the target are deflected radially from the lens normal. This causes
problems for the CCD in trying to detect the exact origin of the source of the
light as it has become scattered. A second error arises when the camera has
more than one lens for the light to pass through. If the multiple lenses do not
have the same centres of curvature then the light rays will not be collinear which
creates a decentring distortion. This has both a radial and tangential distortions.
~3~
1.1.3.Refraction through viewing window
Much like looking at an object underwater where it seems closer to the surface
and at a different position to where it actually is. This is caused by light
diffraction through the medium, in the case of these experiments, this will be
through the Perspex viewing window. The degree of diffraction depends on the
thickness and diffractive index of the Perspex and the inclination of the incidence
rays.
1.1.4.CCD pixel non-squareness
This is small error that can be corrected by one stage in the image-space to
object-space transformation. It refers to the pixels of the CCD not being
perfectly square but only requires a simple linear scaling factor which can be
applied across the whole image.
Digital camera are prone to suffer significant internal distortion from the sources
above and therefore the broad assumptions that we detailed earlier, which
ignored these errors, cannot be used. The simple scaled transformation from
image-space to object-space cannot be used and a more detailed transformation
is required. A 14 parameter transformation is therefore used, developed from
work done by Heikkila and Silven (1997). This complex transformation attempts
to model every possible form of image distortion and correct them. This
transformation can be divided into six sets of parameters detailed in ‘Soil
deformation measurement using Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) and
photogrammetry’ by White et al. (2003). These are;
1) Camera pose: six parameters to describe the translation and rotation

between the image-space and object-space coordinate systems.
2) Focal length, f
3) Principal point, (uo, vo): the pixel coordinates of the intersection of the
optical axis and the CCD plane
~1~
4) Radial lens distortion, (two parameters k1, k2)

5) Tangential lens distortion, (two parameters p1, p2)
6) CCD pixel squareness (α)
In addition to these parameters, the refractive index and thickness of any
viewing windows are included in the transformation.
1.1.Performance of GeoPIV
The performance of GeoPIV can be analysed by considering the accuracy and

precision of the results. Accuracy is defined as the systematic difference between
a measured quantity and the true value, whereas precision is defined as the
random difference between multiple measurements of the same quantity.
In general, the accuracy of the PIV analysis depends on the ability to convert
from image-space to object-space correctly. Errors arise when the conversion
ratios between image- and object- space are ignored.
To ensure that the answers that the PIV analysis produces are accurate it is
important to set the search zone to a large enough range to ensure that the
displacements of textured sand are within the boundaries of the search area, i.e.
GeoPIV cannot detect a region of sand outside of the area in which it is looking
for it.
The precision of the PIV analysis can be effected by a number of things;
a) The test patch size

b) Soil type / appearance
c) Movement distance (whether pixel size is greater or smaller than
displacements)
From work carried out by White et al. (2001a) and more extensively White
(2002) and Take (2002), it was found that the precision of the PIV analysis has
a strong correlation to patch size and less effected by the image content.
Although a larger patch size leads to improved precision, the number of
measurement points that can be contained within a single image is reduced.
~1~
Larger patches ‘smear’ the displacement field in areas of high strain gradient. A
compromise is necessary.
Leapfrog is simple function of the GeoPIV analysis which dictates to the program
which two images to compare. The analysis run on this project uses the most
common Leapfrog value of one. This means that the GeoPIV will compare image
one with image two, image two with image 3, image (x) with image (x+1) etc.
until the final image is reached. For example, if leapfrog was set to two then the
GeoPIV would compare image one with image three, image two with image
four, image (x) with image (x+2) etc. until the final image. Leapfrog can be
changed to observe different trends in the soil deformation in this way
The performance of the PIV analysis can be link credited to the ability of the
user. Poor input images to GeoPIV will result in poor and incorrect output
displacement values. Simple precautions should be taken such as ensuring that
the image that has been captured is of good quality and not blurred or
unfocused and that the viewing surface is not sufficiently scratched or damaged
to interfere with the recorded displacements of the sand behind it.
1. TESTING & RESULTS
1.1.Test One
1.1.1.Test arrangement
In this experiment, the sand was pluviated to a height of 350mm. This height
was chosen so that the height of the sand and plate combined, did not exceed
the height of the box. The plane strain box has internal height of 400mm, and
leaving this 50mm gap was more than sufficient for the height of the plate as
well as having room to accommodate an extra weight on top of the plate in sub
sequent experiments if needed. The width of the plates was then determined
from knowing this height and using the graph of contours of equal vertical strain
derived by using the Boussinesq equation, (figure 2.3). By assuming that all
~2~
strains that are less than 10% of the maximum strain are negligible (Herndon
1990) and that the footing is infinitely long, the maximum depth of the sand can
only be approximately 6.3 times the width of the footing, b. This led to the
maximum footing width being,
350mm=6.3 × b ∴b= 350mm6.3=55.56 mm
Therefore the first plate was cut to 55mm width.
One of the aims of the first experiment was to evaluate the possibility of running
two plates per experiment, so that twice the number of results could be attained
per experiment. Using again the contour plot and still assuming less than 10%
strain was negligible, a horizontal distance can be calculated for the region of
sand affected by the plate to this strain intensity. From the graph, at a
horizontal distance of approximately 2.1 b from the centre of the plate, the
strain never is greater than 10% of the total. Therefore, the contour line at 10%
intensity is approximately 4.2b wide. The internal length of the plane strain box
is 700 mm, and again, the boundary effects of the walls need to be avoided
hence, a 50 mm region of sand is given at each wall so that the boundary effects
are exerted on this region, which will not be used in the analysis. The resulting
effective length of plane strain box is,
700mm-2 ×50mm= 600mm
If the first plate is 55mm wide, then the remaining region of unaffected sand is,
600mm-4.2×55mm=369mm
hence, the maximum width of the second plate could be
369mm4.2=87.86mm
~2~
Although, the maximum width has already been defined as 55.56mm, so this
plate size cannot be used. The width of the second plate is an arbitary35mm,
which allows for 7% negligible strains in the vertical direction
Depth of boxWidth of plate= 350mm35mm=10
∴depth of box=10b corresponds to ≈0.07q
and less than 1% in the horizontal direction.
Region of unnaffected sandWidth of plate= 369mm35mm=10.54
∴width of sand=10.54b correspond to ≈0.01q
1.1.2.The positioning of the plates
The position of the plates were calculated so that they were in the optimum
position for recording the results. This was as close to the centre of the
experiment as possible, without either plate severely affecting the displacement
vector field of the other. The distances were calculated by assuming that at less
than 10% strain intensity, the effects were negligible. Hence the distance
between the plates had to be at least,
2.1 ×bfirst plate+ 2.1 ×b(second plate)
=>minimum distance between plates=2.1 ×55mm+2.1 ×35mm

=189mm
The minimum distance between the plates, imposed by the boundary conditions
(leaving a 50mm region of ‘unaffected’ sand) is,
~4~
2.1 ×bfirst plate+bfirst plate2+ 2.1 ×b(second plate)+ b(second plate)2

=>maximum distance between plates=2.1 ×55mm+55mm2+2.1
×35mm+ 35mm2
=300mm
Note: the b2 term is introduced as the width of the area enclosed by the
contour lines is measured from the middle of the plate.
Each of the plates will be 30mm closer to the centre than the furthest possible
position they can be placed. This will aid the analysis, as the displacement
results will suffer from less distortion and error the closer they are to the centre
of the viewing window.
1.1.3.Results
The first test was run to investigate the viability of running two plates
simultaneously and to understand what kind of results future experiments should
yield. For this reason the centrifuge was only taken to 50-g as the test was only
to assess the trend and patterns of the results. With only the self weight of the
plates acting on the soil, small displacements were expected, but still showing
general trends and contours of equal stress. Figure 6-1 shows the contour plot
after the PIV analysis was run. There is little evidence that either plate caused
any additional settlement in the soil and the plot shows pretty uniform
settlement across the whole sample, caused by the increased self weight of the
sand which is getting compressed under its own weight at increased g-levels.
The lighter blue areas, representing displacements of between 0.06 and
0.08mm, could be caused by the presence of the plates as each area
corresponds to the position of each plate. Although, the difference in
displacements between these areas and the rest of the sample is so small, that
assuming this may be incorrect.
~3~
The red area of the plot at [x,y (525,75)] is caused by either a distortion caused
by either an imperfection on the Perspex or reflection from one of the LED’s. The
red area just above this is caused by an excess of sand that has built up on one
side when levelling the surface. Before the test, this was noticed but it was not
thought that it would affect the results of the testing. This was a correct
assumption, as although the plot looks dramatic, the red regions correspond to a
soil movement of only 0.18mm, which is a very minor movement. It can also be
noticed that below approximately 200mm depth, there is virtually no movement
of the sand.
Figure 6–1
Contour plot of displacement of magnitude 50-g. First Test
It is apparent from this test that the self weight of the plates alone is not
sufficient to cause any significant displacement of the sand.
1.2.Test Two
1.2.1.Preparation
~3~
In preparing the second test there was no need to re-pluviate the sand as the
displacements were small and hence sand deformations were still completely
elastic as the sand had been taken nowhere near to its failure point. The result
of this is the sand sample returned to its original state, with no residual strains.
Since the first test yielded such small displacements, additional weights were
added to the plates in an attempt to create larger displacements in the sand.
The additional weights were an extra 2.000kg on the 55mm plate and an extra
1.000kg on the 35 mm plate. The mass of these weights were weighed with
accuracy to three decimal places, so that the exact weight of the system was
known. The two plates were reinserted in the same position as they were as
there was no indication of interaction between the strain vectors of the two
plates in the first experiment. The additional weights were attached to a foam
pad with a strong adhesive material which was then securely attached to the
plate using the same adhesive. When attaching the weights to the plates, it is
important to ensure that the weights were perfectly central so no torsion
effects . For this test the centrifuge was taken to 80-g to increase the apparent
weight and dimensions of the plate (with the additional weight attached). The
centrifuge could still not be taken to its limits or to 100-g as expected due to a
new piece of equipment installed on the centrifuge that had not been tested to
that g-level.
1.2.2.Results
The resulting contour plot from the PIV analysis is shown in figure 6-2. The plot
shows regions of soil displacement that are much larger than the previous
experiment, but still small as the max displacement is only 0.2mm. Due to these
larger soil displacements, the imperfections in the viewing window are more
clearly seen. These are the dark blue regions shown in figure 6-2 as the
sporadic blue patches above 200mm on the Y-axis and the large blue region
below this point shows little or no movement. This shows that with the current
weight on the plate, no significant strains are developing in the soil at depth.
~3~
Figure 6–2
Contour plot of displacement of magnitude 80-g. Second Test
1.3.Test Three
1.3.1.Preparation
The first two tests yielded very poor results, which was due to the force caused
by the weight and the plates being small, even at increased g-levels. It was
obvious that picking up basic strain patterns and trends with small weights was
difficult and to achieve this, larger weights needed to be added. The sand was
re-pluviated in case the previous test caused any residual strains to remain in
the soil and an larger weight was prepared. The additional weight to be placed
onto the plate was 5.000kg, again measured precisely and the smaller plate was
removed. Only having one plate on this test allowed the plate to be placed
directly in the centre of the plane strain box, without it interfering with the
results of another plate.
~3~
1.3.2.Results
The analysis of this test was only run over the top half of the sample as below
this point, only very minor displacements are observed. This would aid the
analysis and produce a better contour plot as the deviation between the
maximum and minimum displacements would be smaller. With increased depth,
the change in magnitude of displacements get smaller hence displaying the
slight change in size would require a more complex plot. The resulting
displacement vectors are shown in figure 6-3, which does show larger vectors
directly beneath the plate which becomes smaller with increased distance from
the plate, which is what would was expected.
Figure 6–3
Figure showing displacement vectors from of magnitude 80-g. Third Test
~1~
1.4.Test Four
Test 3 produced much better results with larger displacements showing the
trends that were expected in the literature review. Although, there is many
distorted regions caused by poor lighting and imperfections in the viewing
window. The aim of the fourth test was to improve on these results by improving
the experiment set-up and quality of analysis.
1.4.1.Lighting
The results from the previous test showed patches of inconsistency where the
LED lights were reflecting of the Perspex. The reflection of the LED’s severely
distorted several patches on the image and sub sequentially, damaged the
ability of the GeoPIV analysis to run accurately at these points. Prior to this
experiment, the results have been interpolated in the MatLab environment or
removed completely if the interpolation was unsuccessful. In general, the
disturbance caused by lights has been derogatory to results of the experiments.
Therefore for this test, a new lighting rig was installed with the aim to minimise
the disturbance caused by the light on the results. Instead of the LED lights,
three fluorescent tubes were installed to get a more even distribution of light.
Difference combinations of the lighting were set up and photographed, as if the
experiment was running. The combination which gave the most detail and
textured sand was chosen. This was a combination of a 22 Watt fluorescent bulb
along the base of the model, and two 9 Watt fluorescent bulbs attached to the
top of the front of the box. On each side there are three, 1 Watt, high intensity
LEDs, which were the same ones that were used in the previous experiments.
The lighting in this arrangement provided a much more even illumination of the
viewing window compared to previous experiments.
~1~
Plate 6–1
Comparison between old and new lighting. Left: an image from first experiment,
Right: an image from fourth experiment with new lighting set up
1.4.2. Perspex
Further to the improvements in the lighting was the changing of the sacrificial
Perspex sheet. This sheet is only a few millimetres thick and installed to save the
thicker, more expensive sheet of Perspex behind it. The sacrificial Perspex sheet
is likely to become scratched from sand and equipment inside of the box and is
designed to be quick and easy to replace. Plate 6-2 shows an image of the
Perspex sheet and figure 6-4 shows the result of using the scratched sheet in
the GeoPIV analysis.
~2~
Figure 6–4
Contour plot of displacement, magnitude 80-g. Data from second test
Plate 6–2
Image of Perspex sheet, notice large scratch across centre of sheet and many
other marks and imperfections
The regions circled in red on plate 6-2 and figure 6-4 show the scratch on the
Perspex and the result of the scratch in the analysis.
~2~
The new Perspex sheet had a new set of control points mapped onto it. These
control points were at approximately 100mm centres, starting at 50mm from the
sheet edge. This change in the number and positioning of the control points
gives an increased number of control points in the centre of the sheet, which
should allow for a greater accuracy when modelling movements of the control
points, as there is naturally less distortion at the centre of the image than at the
edges. Also, the camera can be zoomed in to capture a smaller area of the soil,
with the aim of increasing accuracy, and still include control points in the image.
The ultimate aim of using a new Perspex sheet is to eliminate disturbance
caused by the scratches across the viewing window.
1.4.3.Changes to Experimentation Method
The analysis of these test results were run twice, once using the conventional
methods and secondly with a new method of tracking the control points
introduced by Dr Alec Marshal a new lecturer at the University of Nottingham
with expertise in geotechnical centrifuge technology. This technique used a Mylar
sheet, which is a very precise grid of 3mm diameter, circular dots with centres
exactly 6mm apart. See figure 6-5.
~4~
Array of 480 3 mm diameter dots, located at exact 6 mm centres
Figure 6–5
Mylar sheet
This grid of dots is very precise and can be used to accurately give all positions
of control points from one reference point. One of the control points, normally a
corner point, is labelled (0,0) in object-space, (x,y) coordinates in mm, and all
other control points are referenced to this one point. By knowing the exact
position of one control point in object-space, when tracking the control point’s
precise movement distances can be established. The exact position of the
reference control point in image-space can be determined in pixels, from an
image at 1-g, when the centrifuge is stopped and there is no camera lens or CCD
distortion. This point in pixels can then be called (0,0) in object space in physical
(x,y) coordinates. After the centrifuge testing, the position of the reference
control point at higher g-levels can be found in pixels. Knowing the original
position and the final position of the reference control point in pixels, and the
original position in (x,y) coordinates, the final position of the control point can be
found in (x,y) coordinates, in mm. This same procedure can be implemented for
all the control points, as the original positions are all know down to an accuracy
of 0.001mm provided by the Mylar sheet. The position of all the control points
~3~
are reference back to the first control point and so can all the image-space pixel
distances.
The advantage of doing this process is that all movements of the camera lens
and CCD components can be modelled in all directions. The MatLab program is
designed to compensate for the both rotational and transverse movements of
the camera lens and CCD by calculating both a transverse and rotational
components of the movement of the control points.
Note, the actual position of the control points does not move, it is only the
apparent position that changes on the images due to distortion.
Figure 6-6 attempts to show this.
y,v
x,u
Figure 6–6
Showing movement of control points due to camera distortion
The solid circular dots in the figure show the original position of the control
points and the dashed circular dots show the apparent position on the last image
of the image series. The movements have been exaggerated for demonstration
purposes.
In conclusion, the Mylar sheet should increase the precision and accuracy of the
experiment by reducing error induced by camera lens and CCD distortion. It
~2~
achieves this by allowing the operator to deduce an accurate conversion factor

for the image-space to object-space transformation.
1.4.4.Test Procedure
The sand was only pluviated up to a height of 280mm. This was to avoid
interference from the reflection caused by the new lighting arrangement. This
depth of sand was sufficient for the test as from analysing previous test results it
is apparent that the displacements and hence the soil strains quickly dissipate
with depth. This meant that boundary effects of the base of the plane strain box
would not influence the displacement results. The plate was placed in the centre
of the box due to the light disturbance still caused by the LED at the edge of the
viewing window (see Plate 6-2). This LED disturbance at the edge of the viewing
window was out of the anticipated region of high stress and in a region where
the GeoPIV analysis would not be running so this would not be a problem.
The centrifuge was taken up to 100-g for this experiment to fully test the
changes made to the set-up and analysis in order to achieve the strain patterns
that have been expected.
1.4.5. Results
As discussed, the test results were analysed twice, once by the conventional
method, the same as the previous test and once using the accurate positions of
the control points.
Figures 6-6 and 6-7 show the contour plots for the data from test four, analysed
firstly without and then with the exact positions of the control points, using the
Mylar sheet. The contour lines or lines of equal stain on figure 6-7 are very well
defined and there are very few erroneous results. The plot resembles what was
expected in section 2.3 of the literature review and figure 2-3, which shows
contours of equal vertical stress beneath a foundation in a semi-infinite elastic
solid defined by the Boussinesq equation.
~3~
x-axis, mm
y-
a
axi
xi
s,
s,
mm
m
m
Figure 6–7
Fourth test. Contour plot of displacement, magnitude 100-g.
~3~
Figure 6–8
Fourth test. Contour plot of displacement with use of Mylar sheet, magnitude
100-g.
The small, circular dark blue regions on figure 6-8 are the locations of the
control points, which were not removed from this plot.
2. DISCUSSION
2.1.Improvements in testing
The improvements in the results comparing test one to test four are vast.
Compared to figure 6-1 (from the first test), figure 6-8 (from the fourth test)
shows much more well defined contours of equal strain. This is much closer to
what was expected from the research, see section 2.3 and figure 2-3, where the
maximum displacement vectors and hence strains are found directly beneath the
plate which dissipate with depth and distance.
~5~
2.2.What is happening in the soil
What was expected to be observed was the soil moving towards failure passing
through elastic stage to a plastic failure. The results actually showed something
slightly different to this. As the g-level was increased, to simulate a larger
weight being placed on the soil, the net strength of the soil also increased on a
linear scale, this concept is further discussed in section 3.5 and section 4.6.2.
This meant that any increase in force by increasing the g-level was counteracted
by an equivalent increase in soil strength. Therefore to fail the soil by this
method would require the load equal to the bearing capacity of the soil to be
placed on the model prior to the start of testing. The centrifuge could then be
spun up to recreated the same dimensions of a prototype.
The displacements seen here are most possibly all elastic and would dissipate
when the centrifuge was stopped. Therefore the weights added in these test
have been insufficient to cause shear failure in the soil. The displacements
observed are caused by the settlement or consolidation of the soil and the
presence of the plate intensifies the process which causes larger displacements
under the plate.
Although the net strength of the soil increases with the g-level and the soil is not
failing, the strain patterns are still valid for a prototype geotechnical situation.
Since the strain properties of soil at any g-level has a scale factor of one, the
strain vectors model the same strains that would be found in the field.
In many of the tests, the displacement vectors dissipated at much shallower

depth than was expected. This could be due to the frictional boundary effects of
the Perspex on the sand grains or due to the fact that the plate is not infinitely
long as assumed in the calculations. The ratio b / L should equal zero for the
infinitely long case but in actual fact, it only equals approximately 0.25. This
would have the effect of making the displacements smaller and hence be more
easily dissipated throughout the soil. This change in assumption would also
increase the calculated bearing capacity of the soil, meaning that even if the
sand was statically loaded with the value calculated in section 3.4, the soil might
not reach its failure criterion.
~1~
1. FURTHER STUDY
The tests carried out in this report are very basic and the main focus has been
on improving the testing procedure and analysis of the results. Therefore the
scope for further work on this project is immense. This section aims to highlight
and briefly explain the tests that could be carried out supplementary to this
project.
1.1.Foundation design and limits
Ultimately, the base of any buildings foundation is the ground soil and the
foundations to a building are paramount to the strength and the survival of that
building. Therefore the effects of foundations on the soil with all associated loads
need to be well understood. Modelling a building’s foundation in the centrifuge
with dynamic loading can accurately represent real-life conditions and help
engineers understand the effect that the foundation has on the soil. It was
discovered in this report that simple static loading is not sufficient for this.
1.2.Tunnel & buried structures
Deep buried structures, such as pipelines and tunnels experience huge forces
acting on them from the weight of the soil above. The strength of the buried
structure need to be able to resist these forces and remain structurally stable.
LVDT’s (linear variable differential transformer) and the conventional PIV
analysis discussed in this report can be used as well as monitoring the distortion
from inside the buried structure using strain gauges.
~2~
1.3.Further improvements to centrifuge modelling
The extent that the experimental errors highlighted in this report have on the
results is not fully known. There are improvements which could have been
investigated which have not been covered.
1.1.1.Investigation into the effect of grain size
By testing different sized sand grains at different g-levels, it is possible to

examine what effect the grain size of the sand under the same conditions. This
could be done by testing a larger grain size sand at a lower g-level, with a larger
plate size and weight with a smaller grain size sand at a higher g-level with a
smaller plate size and weight. The strain contours should be similar and could be
compared to expected strain patterns
1.1.2.Frictional effects of Perspex and walls of plane strain box
This can be investigated by running the regular PIV to capture displacements at

the viewing window and installing LVDT’s to record soil movement in the sample
at varying depths from the centre of the plane strain box. By comparing the
displacement results, it is possible to evaluate the interference caused by the
boundaries.
Further to this, different materials instead of the Perspex sheet could be used or
applying a lubricating material to the face of the Perspex to try and reduce the
sheet friction.
~2~
1.1.Investigations into geotechnical structures
An embankment, cliff or hillside could be modelled and investigations into failure

zones caused by environmental influences such as rain, heat or ice. Investigation
could include inducing landslips in hills or excess settlement caused by weakened
wet embankments. Also the use of geogrids, grouting or retaining walls could be
investigated for these cases.
1.2.Non geotechnical investigations
The geotechnical centrifuge is a multipurpose facility and is not only restricted to

geotechnical investigations. The scale effects would still apply if modelling a
structural member of a building or simple structure. Using dynamic loading and
a range of analysis, such as the PIV analysis, strain gauges or LVDT could be
used to model the twisting, bending or distortion of a steel beam.
2. REFERECENCES
Craig, R. F. 1997. Soil Mechanics 6th Ed. Chapman & Hall.
Craig, W. H. 2001.The Seven Ages of Centrifuge Modelling. University of

Manchester.
Hansen, J. B. 1968. A revised extended formula for bearing capacity, Danish

Geotechnical Institute Bulletin, No. 28
Herndon, R. L. 1990. Engineering and Design - Settlement Analysis. U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers.
~1~
Jumikis A. R. 1966. Thermal Soil Mechanics. Rutgers University.
McCarthy, D. F. 1998. Essentials of Soil mechanics and Foundations, 5th Ed.

Prentice Hall.
Simoni, A. and Houlsby G. T. 2004. The direct shear strength & dilatancy of
sand-gravel mixtures. Springer Netherlands.
Som, N. N. and Das, S. C. 2004. Theory and Practice of Foundation Design.

Prentice-Hall
Taylor, R.N. 1995. Geotechnical Centrifuge Technology. Chapman & Hall.
Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. B. 1967. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 2nd

Ed. John Wiley and Sons,
Vesic, A. S. 1973. Analysis of ultimate loads on shallow foundations . Duke

University
White D. J, et al. 2003. Geotechnique 53, No. 7.
White D.J. and Take W.A. 2002. Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) software for
use in geotechnical testing. Cambridge University Engineering Department
(CUED).
http://www.hammerthrow.com. 2005. Youth Handbook. Date accessed

23/03/2010
3. BIBLIOGRAPHY
3.1.Book Sources
Atkinson, M.F. 2004. Structural Foundations Manual 2nd Ed. Spon Press.
Bowles, J.E. 1988. Foundation Analysis and Design, 4th Ed. McGraw Hill.
Calabar A. F. et al. 2009. Constitutive modelling of Leighton Buzzard sands using

genetic programming. Springer-Verlag London.
~3~
Ellis, E.A. et al. 1994. Centrifuge and Analytical Studies of Full Height Bridge
Abutment on Piled Foundation Subjected to Lateral Loading. Cambridge
University Engineering Department (CUED).
Japanese Geotechnical Society. 1998. CD-ROM Library on Geotechnical

Centrifuge
Lee, C. F. et al. 2001. Soft Soil Engineering. Swets and Seitelinger B. V.
Madabhushi, S. P. G. 1994. Stress wave propagation in a centrifuge model
Meguid, M.A. et al. 2007. Physical modelling of tunnels in soft ground: A review.
McGill University.
Milovic, D. M. and Tournier, J. P. 1971. Stresses and displacements due to

rectangular load on a layer of finite thickness, Soils and Foundations Volume 11.
Japanese Geotechnical Society.
Reddish, D. J. et al. Centrifuge modelling of rock cavity collapse mechanisms.
Schofield, A. N. 1998. Geotechnical centrifuge development corrects Terzaghi’s

errors., Cambridge University Engineering Department (CUED), (lecture to the
Tokyo Conference of TC2, 23 September 1998).
Turner, P. Geotechnical Centrifuges. www-g.eng.cam.ac.uk, 199?
Valsangkar, A.J. 1987. An Experimental investigation of factors affecting

penetration resistance in granular soils in centrifuge modelling. Cambridge
University Engineering Department (CUED).
3rd World Congress on Industrial Process Tomography, Canada 607
Use of ERT in a Geotechnical Centrifuge
Friederike K Günzel, Colin J Fyfe, Michael C R Davies, C. R.
Coelho, P. A. L. F. et al. 2003. Boundary effects in dynamic centrifuge modelling

of liquefaction in sand deposits. University of Washington.
3.2.Internet sources
~3~
University of Bolton. Stress under applied loads.

http://data.bolton.ac.uk/staff/phm2/files/Sem2/J2%20PJ3%20Geotechnics/Stre
ss%20and%20Found%20Dist%20Session%2002%20V1.00%20Feb2009.pdf.
Accessed January 2010
http://eprints.brighton.ac.uk/1655/01/Banff_paper.pdf.
http://www.atypon-link.com/TELF/doi/pdf/10.1680/geot.53.7.655.37392?
cookieSet=1 -
http://www.earth.cardiff.ac.uk/research/geoenvironment/pace/CH31/Geotechnic
alCentrifugeModelling.htm
http://www.geotech.cv.titech.ac.jp/~cen-98/Library/. Accessed October 2009.
Harris, C. and Leutchg, M. Geotechnical Centrifuge Modelling - Scaled Physical

Modelling In The Geotechnical Centrifuge.
http://www.geotech.cv.titech.ac.jp/~cen-
98/Library/3_EQUIPM/3_2_IMPO/SCALING1.HTM. Acessed January 2010
~3~
APPENDIX A
~2~
Risk assessment Chart
Task Hazard(s) Harm Rating
1. Failure of Machine -3 Contr

Operation of Structural
Centrifuge elements, rotor,
swing, machine
Detachment of 3 Assur
Payload and b
Personnel inside 3 Physic

chamber during
~2~
use
Additional Information
This is a checklist to accompany the risk assessment forms, detailing activities that do
not fit into one of the listed categories or to give more detail on the safety risks and
precautionary measures
Payload
Checked by authorised approver
Mass of payload within operational limits of machine; 500kg
Payload securely fastened to swing
Counterweight positioned at required distance from crossbar
DAS
Physical inspection that cables and hoses correctly terminated in cabinet
Physical inspection that DAS doors are closed and locked
Machine and chamber
Physical inspection that no personnel are present in chamber before the doors are
locked and the machine is turned on.
Physical inspection that there are no loose objects in the chamber and that there are
not hanging objects on the arm
Chamber door closed and locked before experimentation begins
~3~
CCTV cameras functioning correctly
During Test
Never leave machine unattended. If it is necessary to leave the area, arrange suitable
and authorised ‘cover’. This includes toilet breaks
Stop test if any unusual circumstances start occurring. Never be in doubt
Model
Ensure model and model box can be taken to the required g-level without any
structural failure
Ensure model is concurrent to design and assumptions
If any external elements are being used, ensure that they have been tested to
withstand forces that are to be expected at the required g-level
Calculations
Approved by authorised approver
State calculated payload mass, Mp, (kg)
State calculated effective radius, Rp, (kg)
State calculated payload, MpRp, (kg)
State theoretically ideal counterweight position x, (mm)
State actual counterweight position x, (counterweight to crossbar), (mm)
~4~
Note: Before the running of any experiment, check with authorised supervisors that
machine is fully operational and that no faults or possibilities of any part machine
failing are known of and that the machine is safe to run.
~5~
Checklist
~6~
COSHH Assessment Form (2 Pages)
~7~
~8~
APPENDIX B
~9~
Diary
Week Commencing 5th October 2009
• Although I had not settled on a firm project title, I started to preliminary

research into Geotechnical Centrifuge Modelling
• I was attending all of the timetabled lectures until I had decided which
ones to enrol on for the coming year
• Met with my tutor, Dr Dave Reddish to discuss how to approach the

project and started to discuss possible project titles. I wanted to do
something different from what was offered so that my work was of more
use than something that had been already done.
• Dr Reddish provided me with a paper, ‘Centrifuge Modelling of Rock
Cavity Collapse Mechanisms’ which he himself had part written.
• I continued my research into Geotechnical centrifuge and loaned three
books out from the library on soil mechanics and the foundations
• Continued research into centrifugal theory and mechanics of foundations

on soil
• Met with Dr Reddish and suggested project title which were we both
happy for me to proceed with. The title was ‘The effect of strip
foundations on a homogeneous soil sample using the static loading in the
Geotechnical Centrifuge’.
• Wrote preliminary aims and objectives and writing up some of the
literature that I had read
• Met with Dr Reddish early who introduced me to Mr Craig Cox, who would
be assisting me with the centrifuge testing
• Dr Reddish and I discussed the research that I had found and what results
I was expecting and trying to prove. Discussed in particular the Bousinesq
equations.
~ 10 ~
• Discussed with Mr Cox the procedure in centrifuge testing and got to fully
understand the testing process. Also got my first exposure to the
machinery and equipment that I would be using
• Wrote up a preliminary aims and objectives and drafted a title page
Week Commencing 2th November 2009
• Continued with research and writing the literature review. Found several
Google book references such as ‘Geotechnical Centrifuge Technology’ by
R. N Taylor
• Arranged a date with Mr Cox for when I could build and test the first
experiment so that I would have a set of results for the Viva
• Designed the first test, calculated the size of the plates and required
depth of the sand
• Met with Dr Kim Elliot to try and get a reasonable weight to simulate a
medium sized building and an approximate size of the foundations. Used
the information provided in design the first test
• Pluviated the sand for the first model to be tested later in the week. Had
to Pluviate the sand twice as first time I did not feel that the sand was as
evenly distributed as it could be and that it might adversely affect the
results of the test.
• Finalised dossier for hand-in date and presented it to Dr Reddish so that
he could give me his opinion on it
• During the meeting, we also discussed the progress of the testing
• Towards the end of the week, I ran the first experiment
• Ran the analysis on the results from the test and began to evaluate the
results for inclusion in the Viva
• Met with Mr Cox and after analysing results and realising why they did not
yield the result that I was expecting, I quickly designed the and arranged
to run another test for later in the week
• Prepared for the Viva and produced the powerpoint presentation and
presentation prose to learn
• After the Viva, I ran the second test and started the analysis
~ 11 ~
• Continued the analysis of test two and evaluated the results

• During this week, I spent a lot of time on the coursework for the Coastal
and Business modules
• Now that I had general understanding of the processes involved in

centrifuge testing I started to write an initial methodology
Week Commencing 7th December 2009
• Was away for personal reasons and therefore could not work on project
Week Commencing 14th December 2009 – 25th January 2010
• During these weeks, no progress was made on the dissertation as they

were designated to revision for my January exams
Week Commencing 25th January 2010
• After the exams period was over, I re-read through the research that I
had acquired and the interim dossier. I was grateful to Dr Rick Munro for
providing such good feedback on my interim dossier.
• Spoke with both Dr Reddish and Mr Cox to become re-acquainted with the
project and experimentation
Week Commencing 1st February 2010
• During this week I researched in depth past papers on centrifugal

technology
• I wrote up the changes to the interim dossier as suggested by Dr Munro
Week Commencing 8th February 2010
• Met with Mr Cox to discuss possible times to run the next test.
Unfortunately, due to his own commitment and other users of the
centrifuge I was not able to run a test this week. He kindly agreed to
explain to me fully how the analysis works and the commands that need
to be input. I was keen to be able to run the analysis by myself by the end
of the project
• Looked over previous tests and started to design for the third test
~ 12 ~
• Continued to expand on the interim dossier in preparation for submission

in the final report
Week Commencing 15th February 2010
• Met with Dr Reddish to discuss progress on the report

• Received an email from Mr Cox containing two very useful documents on
the GeoPIV software. Started to read through these and understand
exactly how the analysis worked
Week Commencing 22nd February 2010
• Started to write up a report about how MatLab was used in the analysis of
the tests
• Designed the third test
• Arranged to run the third test the following week when there was an
appropriate time
Week Commencing 1st March 2010
• Met with Dr Reddish to discuss progress on project. Showed him the

MatLab piece that I had written and explained that I had made all the
changes to my interim dossier. Also discussed the results that I had
already achieved and what I wanted to achieve in the rest of the project.
• Pluviated the model and ran the third test
• Started the analysis
Week Commencing 8th March 2010
• Continued the analysis of the third test

• Had geology coursework due in this week which consumed a lot of the
time that I had set aside for project work
• Completed the analysis and discussed results with Mr Cox
• In order to improve analysis, a new lighting system was bought and

started to be installed on the centrifuge. There were many problems in
setting up the lights with the right distribution of light evenly across the
whole screen. Photos were taken to assess the quality of each
combination.
~ 13 ~
• Pluviated the sand for the fourth test in preparation for whenever the
lighting rig was fully set-up
• Modified methodology and combined all my work that I had done for the
final report
• Also started to write up the testing procedure for each individual test
Week Commencing 22nd March 2010
• During this week, a lot of time was dedicated to other coursework

commitments, such as business, geology and soil mechanics
• Met up with Mr Cox to run the test. The final light was being installed but
it got cracked when securing it to the centrifuge. Had to postpone test
while a new light was bought. Sub sequentially a metal plate was attached
to the light case and small wooden block were placed under the plate so
that the light was not in direct contact with the centrifuge.
• When the lighting was finally ready and when the test ran, it had to be
quickly stopped due to problem with the centrifuge. These included,
○ The camera disconnecting from the computer
○ Lighting cables coming unplugged as insufficient slack had been
given to adjust for increased distance to model during test
○ The test was again postponed for the following week
• Met with tutor and explained problem that I had experienced during
testing. A decision was made to change the title of the project to
‘Improving techniques and practices on the Geotechnical Centrifuge at the
University of Nottingham and the Nottingham Centre for Geomechanics’.
• The fourth test was finally run
• Further researched into the soil properties in preparation for further write
up
• Started writing the introduction section explaining what a centrifuge is and
its uses
Week Commencing 5th April 2010
• Analysis of fourth test. I attempted to run the MatLab without instruction

for Mr Cox with varying success. I was remotely logging in to the
~ 14 ~
centrifuge from another computer as there were other people using the
centrifuge.
• During this week, I first met Dr Alec Marshall. He introduced the concept
of using a Mylar sheet in the PIV analysis to accurately plot the control
point positions.
• Finished the introduction sections for the final report
• I arranged a meeting with Dr Marshall so that I could understand fully the

advantages of using the Mylar sheet and how it was used in the analysis.
Also discussed general progress on the project and the quality of the
results that I had already got.
• Was waiting for Dr Marshall to provide the exact positions of the control
points so that the analysis could be run with again with these positions
known
• Calculated and wrote up the Bearing Capacity of the soil section and
continued work on the methodology. Also continued the write up on the
individual tests
• After Dr Marshall provided the control point locations, the analysis of the
fourth test was run again yielding some very positive results.
• At the end of this week, whilst transferring files between the University
computer and my home, my USB flash drive broke and I lost all the work
that I had done up to this point, apart from the interim dossier. I informed
the University but unfortunately it was a matter that they could do
nothing about. I sent the USB off to a data recovery company to see if it
was repairable. I continued work regardless and wrote up the results of
the tests.
• Found out that the USB was irreparably damaged and that I had to rewrite
all that I had lost. Managed to recover a few documents which came to
about a fifth of what I had previously written.
• Began rewriting what I had lost
• Met with Dr Reddish to discuss final approach to project
~ 15 ~
• Spoke with Mr Cox to investigate the possibility of running another test,

but again, unfortunately it was difficult to arrange a time before the hand-
in date of this report
• Met with Dr Reddish who looked over work that I had rewritten and was
able to give me prompt feedback
• Continued to write report and was able to almost finish and proof read
over the weekend
Week Commencing 3rd May
• Added final documents to the report

• Finishes and hand in
~ 16 ~
APPENDIX C
~ 17 ~
Ballistic Pendulum
A ballistic pendulum harnesses the concept of conservation of momentum which

Benjamin Roberts used to ascertain for the first time the velocity of a bullet. The
experiment was very simple, a shot of known mass was fired from a musket into
pendulum of known mass. Using conservation of momentum and the period of
the oscilation, Roberts was able to calculate the momentum of the pendulum
which would be equal to the momentum of the bullet, before the collision. The
velocity of the bullet is then easily calculated. The figure below attempts to
explain how a ballistic pendulum works.
BeforeCollision:
Instant
After Collision:
of Collision:
Bullet has abullet

Combined
Pendulum swings
mass, and
up
m ,and
velocity,
block
kinetic
mass,
energy
v and
m+M,
is turned
an
momentum,
unknown
into potential
velocity,
p=energy.
mv.but
Height
has momentum
of ‘swing equal
up’ and
to
Block has mass, M,
that of thetime
oscillation bullet
can
before
be
velocity, V =0 and
collision, p=mv.
measured and a
therefore no momentum
momentum, p calculated.
~ 18 ~
APPENDIX D
~ 19 ~
Matlab List of Commands
This list of commands is specific for use in testing using the Centrifuge at the
University of Nottingham. All MatLab commands appear with >> before the
command which is input to MatLab.
Before starting the analysis, ensure that the directory is correct by typing,
>>cd C:\GeoPIV
Collect all the images in the same folder, does not have to be the above
directory and label them image_01 to image_xx. Modify the launcher file to
coincide with the series of images to be analysed and the mesh to be created.
e.g.
Name of Mesh to load. (Just created)
Size of the area around the patch in the succeeding

image to search for regions of similar textured sand
Directory location of images
Range of images to run analysis over
Create the mesh of patches in which the PIV analysis will search for the regions
of textured sand.
>>GeoMESHuv8(‘Name of new MESH’, size of square patch, separation of patch)
E.g. GeoMESHuv8(‘example_mesh.txt’, 50, 50)
This prompts the operator to select the first image in the series and create the
mesh on this image. Once the mesh has been completed press the return key.
~ 20 ~
Run the GeoPIV analysis on the series of images. Ensure that the launcher file
and mesh file are in the C:\GeoPIV folder and that the MatLab is also in this
directory.
>>GeoPIV8
This command prompts the operator for the launch file, which should be
prepared prior to testing and when selected, the PIV analysis then starts to run.
Once the analysis has finished, a series of PIV outfiles will be created in the form
of ASCII text files for each translation between subsequent images. This data
needs to be extracted and combined for analysis. Change back to the C:\GeoPIV
directory and run
>> uvdata=consolidate8
This extracts the data from the ASCII files and stores it under the variable name
uvdata. This data then needs to be compensated for camera movements and
distortional errors. Produce copies of the whole series of images, in the same
directory that they are and give all the copies the prefix or suffix cp. This is to
ensure that the PIV outfiles for the first analysis are not overwritten. To
compensate for distortional effects, the control points need to be tracked. This is
done with the command
>>conpoint_patch(‘Name of control point’, file name of first image, patch size,

number of points)
E.g. conpoint_patch(‘example_meshcp.txt’, C:\GeoPIV\images\image1.jpg, 20,

20)
This brings up the image specified in the command line. Zoom in to the first
control point and click in the centre of it. Zoom out and repeat this process for
all the control points.
Then run the GeoPIV analysis on the movement of these control points. The
launcher file needs to be modified to cover the new range of images (with the
prefix of suffix cp) and to apply the new mesh (e.g. example_meshcp.txt) and
saved with a name to that effect (e.g. geoPIV_launcher_examplecp.txt). Again
ensure that the MatLab is in the C:\GeoPIV directory
~ 21 ~
>>GeoPIV8
This will prompt the operator to select the launcher files which is has just been
created. After the analysis has completed, it will have produced another set of
PIV outfiles for the control points. The data needs to be extracted from these
files.
>>cpdata=consolidate8
The lens movements now need to be removed from the original data.
>>uvdatac=camera_pos_comp2d09(uvdtata,cpdata)
This removes the control point movements from the soil displacement data. To
interpolate and erroneous results use
>>uvdatac=geoWILDcc1(uvdatac, image x, image x+1, scale factor)
E.g. uvdatac=geoWILDcc1(uvdatac, 1, 2, 5)
Repeat this stage, removing all wild vectors from the each image translation.
Using the command,
qquvdatac(first image, last image, scale factor)
E.g. qquvdatac(1, 11, 10)
the displacement vectors from the first to the last image can be viewed. This can
give the operator a good indication of how successful the test has been and an
indication on the quality of the results.
The final stage is to produce a contour plot of the results
>>uvcontour
Terminology
MESH and PATCHES

A Mesh is a grid of patches.
~ 22 ~
GRAVITY
1-g or 1 gravity corresponds to the normal gravitational pull of the earth
(9.81ms-2)
PHOTOGRAMMETRY
Photogrammetry is the making of precise measurements from photographs
ASCII
ASCII (American Standard Code for Information Interchange) is the most
common format for text files in computers and on the Internet. In an ASCII file,
each alphabetic, numeric, or special character is represented with a 7-bit binary
number (a string of seven 0s or 1s). 128 possible characters are defined.
UNIX and DOS-based operating systems use ASCII for text files. Windows NT
and 2000 uses a newer code, Unicode. IBM's S/390 systems use a proprietary 8-
bit code called EBCDIC. Conversion programs allow different operating systems
to change a file from one code to another.
(definition from:
http://searchcio-
midmarket.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid183_gci211600,00.html#)
~ 23 ~

Improving Techniques and Practices On The Geotechnical Centrifuge. Including Literature Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Improving Techniques and Practices On The Geotechnical Centrifuge. Including Literature Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of Nottingham

Department of Civil Engineering

Department of Civil Engineering

Improving techniques and practices on

An investigative report by Jonathon Simons

The is an investigative report submitted in part consideration of the

This dissertation contains 13500 words, including the

The University of Nottingham has one of only a handful of geotechnical

Firstly, I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude and

My thanks also to Mr Craig Cox, who helped me immensely on the analysis of

Finally, a thank you to my parents, who’s never ending support and

1.4. What is a centrifuge........................................................................2

1.5. Centrifuge principles.......................................................................2

1.6. Outline of Report............................................................................5

2.2. Developments in Centrifugal technology............................................6

2.3. Theories of Soil Behaviour in a Centrifuge..........................................8

2.4. Scale Effects in Modelling Using a Centrifuge....................................11

3. EQUIPMENT AND APPARATUS...........................................................13

3.1. The Centrifuge Facility...................................................................13

3.2. Plane strain box...........................................................................15

3.4. Ultimate Bearing capacity of the Soil...............................................16

3.4.1. General Shear........................................................................17

3.4.2. Local Shear............................................................................17

3.4.3. Punching Shear.......................................................................18

3.4.4. Failure Mechanism in these experiments.....................................19

3.4.5. Calculating Ultimate Bearing Capacity........................................22

3.5. Additional apparatus.....................................................................26

4.2. Pluviating the sand.......................................................................27

4.3. Preparing to test the model............................................................32

4.5. Analysis of test.............................................................................33

4.6. Experimental Errors......................................................................34

4.6.1. Boundary conditions................................................................34

4.6.2. Particle grain size increasing.....................................................35

4.6.3. Plate is not infinitely long.........................................................35

5. USE OF MATLAB IN CENTRIFUGE MODELLING.....................................36

5.2. Technical Introduction...................................................................36

5.3. PIV Analysis.................................................................................36

5.4. Use of MatLab in GeoPIV analysis....................................................38

5.5. Getting Results from the GeoPIV analysis.........................................38

5.6. Possible source of error in the analysis............................................40

5.6.1. Non co-planarity of the CCD and target......................................40

5.6.2. Radial and Tangential lens distortion..........................................42

5.6.3. Refraction through viewing window............................................42

5.6.4. CCD pixel non-squareness........................................................42

5.7. Performance of GeoPIV..................................................................43

6. TESTING & RESULTS........................................................................45

6.1. Test One.....................................................................................45

6.1.1. Test arrangement....................................................................45

6.1.2. The positioning of the plates.....................................................47

6.2. Test Two.....................................................................................49

6.3. Test Three...................................................................................51

6.4. Test Four.....................................................................................53

6.4.3. Changes to Experimentation Method..........................................56

6.4.4. Test Procedure........................................................................59

7.1. Improvements in testing................................................................61

7.2. What is happening in the soil..........................................................61

8.1. Foundation design and limits..........................................................62

8.2. Tunnel & buried structures.............................................................63

8.3. Further improvements to centrifuge modelling..................................63

8.3.1. Investigation into the effect of grain size....................................63

8.3.2. Frictional effects of Perspex and walls of plane strain box.............64

8.4. Investigations into geotechnical structures.......................................64

8.5. Non geotechnical investigations......................................................64