Geosynthetics International, 2020, 27, No.

Centrifuge model studies on the settlement response

of geosynthetic piled embankments
B. Reshma1, K. Rajagopal2 and B. V. S. Viswanadham3
1
Research scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai,
India, E-mail: reshmab86@gmail.com
2
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India,
E-mail: gopalkr@iitm.ac.in (corresponding author)
3
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai,
India, E-mail: viswam@civil.iitb.ac.in

Received 27 March 2018, revised 17 August 2018, accepted 27 December 2018, published 17 June 2019

ABSTRACT: The paper aims at comparing the deformation behaviour of unreinforced embankments,
basal reinforced embankments and geosynthetic reinforced embankments with floating and end bearing
piles. The floating piles were terminated within the soft foundation soil, while the end bearing piles
transfer the loads to a hard stratum. Four series of centrifuge model tests were conducted at gravity
g = 40, using the 4.5 m radius large beam centrifuge facility at the Indian Institute of Technology
Bombay. The tests were performed at constant pile spacing, and the embankment was constructed
using an in-flight sand hopper. The deformations were measured using Linear Variable Differential
Transformers (LVDTs). A digital image analysis technique was employed to arrive at the surface
displacements, displacement vectors, and displacement contours. The geogrid reinforced embankments
resting on end bearing piles and floating piles showed 88% and 44% lesser settlements respectively,
compared to the unreinforced embankments. The geogrid reinforcement helps to distribute the load
uniformly. A deep-seated slope failure was observed for unreinforced embankments. The piled
embankments proved to be a practical solution for construction without prolonged waiting periods for
pre-consolidation of the foundation soil.

KEYWORDS: Geosynthetics, Centrifuge models, Digital image analysis, Geogrid-reinforced piled

embankments, Geosynthetic applications, Soft clay

REFERENCE: Reshma, B., Rajagopal, K. and Viswanadham, B. V. S. (2020). Centrifuge model

studies on the settlement response of geosynthetic piled embankments. Geosynthetics International, 27,
No. 2, 170–181. [https://doi.org/10.1680/jgein.19.00009]

embankment load directly to the piles via the arching

1. INTRODUCTION
The increasing population has necessitated the utilisation
of areas even with soft foundation soils for various
infrastructure development purposes. Construction of
tall embankments on soft soil may result in various
problems such as bearing capacity failure, intolerable total
and differential settlements, excessive lateral movements,
and slope failures (Han and Gabr 2002; Zheng et al. 2009;
Bhasi and Rajagopal 2014). This paper discusses the use
of pile elements to support embankments with basal
reinforcement. The model consists of an embankment
with one layer of geosynthetic reinforcement at the base
and piles placed in the soft foundation soil. Basal
reinforcement with piles is used for the construction of
embankments for roads or high-speed railways, storage
tanks bridge abutments, and bridge approaches.
The load transfer mechanism in a geosynthetic-
reinforced piled embankment involves the transfer of
1072-6349 © 2019 Thomas Telford Ltd
mechanism, transfer of load to the piles through geosyn-
thetic reinforcement via the tensioned membrane effect
and transfer of load directly to the subsoil (van Eekelen
et al. 2012a). Several researchers have adopted different
methods to understand the load transfer mechanism and
stability of basal reinforced piled embankments. Some
of these include full-scale field studies (Almeida et al.
2007; Liu et al. 2007; Cao et al. 2016; Briançon and
Simon 2012; Chen et al. 2015), centrifuge model studies
(Ellis and Aslam 2009a; Blanc et al. 2013; Girout et al.
2018), 1 g model studies (Jenck et al. 2007; Yun-min et al.
2008; van Eekelen et al. 2012a, 2012b; Taha et al. 2014;
Xu et al. 2016), analytical works (Chen et al. 2008; Nunez
et al. 2013; van Eekelen et al. 2013; Zhuang and Ellis
2014) and numerical studies (Han and Gabr 2002; Zheng
et al. 2009; Ariyarathne et al. 2013; Bhasi and Rajagopal
2013, 2015; Girout et al. 2014; Zhuang and Ellis 2014,
2016; Rowe and Liu 2015; Zhuang and Wang 2015, 2016).
170

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [22/05/20]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Centrifuge model studies on the settlement response of geosynthetic piled embankments 171

Several design codes have been published based on Table 1. Summary of soft soil properties
different arching mechanisms and load distribution on
the geosynthetic reinforcement. These include BS 8006 Properties Values
(BSI 2010), CUR 226 (van Eekelen and Brugman 2016), Specific gravity of solids, G 2.59
EBGEO (DGGT 2010) and so on. Liquid limit 45.5%
Though many researchers have reported centrifuge Plastic limit 21%
model studies, studies on in-flight embankment construc- Shrinkage limit 16%
tion on geosynthetic reinforced piled embankments to Plasticity index 24.5%
Sand fraction [0.075–2 mm] 0.3%
simulate the real prototype stress conditions are limited.
Silt fraction [0.002–0.075 mm] 39.7%
Researchers such as Ellis and Aslam (2009a), Blanc et al. Clay fraction [<0.002 mm] 60%
(2013), Okyay et al. (2014), Girout et al. (2018) have Average particle size, d50 0.0015
performed centrifuge tests but could not simulate the Soil classification (As per USCS) CL
actual behaviour of pile-supported embankments accu- Compression index, Cc 0.17
Recompression index, CR 0.04
rately. The method of pouring sand in-flight had been Swelling index, CS 0.03
studied by many researchers (Beasley 1973; Almeida et al. Coefficient of consolidation at 50 kPa effective stress 0.0062
1985; Madabhushi et al. 2006; Zhao et al. 2006; Detert (m2/day)
et al. 2014), and gives a realistic method of embankment Coefficient of consolidation at 100 kPa effective stress 0.0056
construction. (m2/day)
Coefficient of consolidation at 800 kPa effective stress 0.0142
In the present study, the performance of four series of (m2/day)
centrifuge model tests; that is, unreinforced embankments Coefficient of permeability, (from Falling head 9.13 × 10−7
(UE), basal geogrid reinforced embankments (GR), method, k) in m/s
geogrid reinforced embankments supported on end
bearing piles (GRPE) and geogrid reinforced embank-
ments supported on floating piles (GRPF) are assessed. Table 2. Summary of properties of Goa sand
The test results are presented in the form of deformation
Properties Values
profiles, contours of horizontal and vertical displace-
ments, and variation of deformations with time. Specific gravity (G) 2.645
Maximum dry density, γd, max 16.67 kN/m3
Minimum dry density, γd, min 14.1 kN/m3
2. SCALING CONSIDERATIONS OF Effective particle size (d10) 0.14 mm
GEOGRID REINFORCED PILED Average particle size (d50) 0.18 mm
Coefficient of uniformity, Cu 1.64
EMBANKMENTS Coefficient of curvature, Cz 1.006
Scaling considerations for modeling basal reinforced USCS Classification SP
Friction angle ϕ at relative density = 45%# 33°
embankments in centrifuge tests are based on Friction angle ϕ at relative density = 67% 35°
Viswanadham and König (2004), Izawa and Kuwano Friction angle ϕ at relative density = 85% 41°
(2010), Balakrishnan and Viswanadham (2016). These
scaling considerations are relatively well known and hence # Friction angles at different relative densities are obtained from direct
are not discussed in the current paper. shear tests.

the field is constructed of gravel to facilitate the develop-

3. MODEL MATERIALS
Materials used for the present study are (i) Kaolin clay for
foundation soil (ii) Goa sand to construct embankments,
a working platform and, to represent a stiff base in
foundation soil, (iii) model aluminum piles and (iv) model
geogrids.
3.1. Kaolin clay soil
Commercially available kaolin was used to model soft
foundation soil. Table 1 provides a summary of the
properties of the soft foundation soil, including the
consolidation properties of the clay soil determined from
one-dimensional consolidation tests.
3.2. Sand
The sand used for the present study was typical river sand
from the state of Goa in India composed of rounded to
sub-rounded particles. Table 2 gives a summary of the
properties of the Goa Sand. The load transfer platform in
Geosynthetics International, 2020, 27, No. 2
ment of shear strength through the interlocking mechan-
ism between reinforcement layer and gravel. The gravel
size particles in the prototype were simulated using
medium coarse sand particles in the model. The particle
size effects were minimised by ensuring a sufficient
number of particles across the model pile dimensions so
that the soil could be considered as a continuum. The
gradation of the sand was chosen to meet the criterion
(D/d50 > 50 where D is the diameter of the pile), as
suggested by Garnier et al. (2007) to minimise the particle
size effects in model tests.
3.3. Model geogrids
Springman et al. (1992), Viswanadham and König (2004),
Izawa and Kuwano (2010) have investigated the par-
ameters affecting the selection of model geogrids. The
geometric characterisation of the geogrid material and
the critical criteria while selecting a model geogrid are
described by Viswanadham and König (2004). The model

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [22/05/20]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 172 Reshma, Rajagopal and Viswanadham

geogrid represents the bandwidth of the prototype biaxial
geogrid characteristics. Table 3 shows the properties of the
model geogrid used in this study and reported as geogrid
G1 by Balakrishnan and Viswanadham (2016).
3.4. Model piles
The model piles were fabricated from hollow circular
aluminum (Al) tubes for ease of fabrication and instru-
mentation. Hollow sections were preferred to adjust the
wall thickness to achieve the required axial stiffness in the
Table 3 Summary of geogrid properties (Balakrishnan and
Viswanadham 2016)
Properties
Material type and composition
Color
Aperture size in longitudinal and transverse
directions (mm)
Tensile load (kN/m) at:a,b
2% strain
5% strain
10% strain
Secant modulus, J (kN/m) up to 5% straina,b
Ultimate tensile load, T (kN/m)a,b
Ultimate tensile strain εg (%)a,b
Percentage open area, f (%)
a
Wide width tensile tests according to ASTM D4595-2010.
b
In longitudinal direction (i.e. laid direction in model tests),
PET-Polyethylene, PVC-Polyvinyl chloride; Prototype equivalent values
at N = 40 are given within the parentheses.
prototype. The total length of the model pile was divided
into three detachable segments. The geometry of the piles
is as shown in Figure 1 and Table 5. The length of the
floating piles is 126 mm, which is terminated within the
soft clay layer. The length of the end bearing piles is
163 mm and these are terminated in the hard strata. Both
types have the same cross-sectional shape and area. The
present paper aims to study the effect of the length of the
piles on the deformation behaviour of foundation soil. The
model pile would represent a concrete pile of approxi-
mately 600 mm diameter in the prototype. The pile caps
were also made of aluminum and were screwed to the top
of the piles. The aluminum piles were coated with grade II
sand using adhesives to simulate a similar surface rough-
ness to the prototype.
Values
3.5. Determination of interface properties
PET + PVC
Black Direct shear tests were performed to understand geogrid-
3.5 × 3.5 sand interface characteristics and aluminum plate-sand
interface characteristics. A direct shear box of 100 mm ×
100 mm × 60 mm was used to perform the tests. The
2.2 (88)*
lower box was filled with a solid block, and the soil
3.2 (128)
5.6 (224) was placed in the upper half of the box. The solid surface
64 (2560) in the lower box was covered with geogrid or rough
11 (440) aluminum plate depending on the interface tests to be
15 conducted. The tests were performed at a constant strain
75.8
rate of 1.25 mm/min under three normal stresses of
50 kPa, 100 kPa and 150 kPa. The geogrid-dry sand
interface friction angle was found to be 33.4°. Similarly,
the aluminum-dry sand interface friction angle was found
to be 34°.

40.00 40.00
8.00
8.00
40.00

12.70 12.70
70.00

70.00

40.00
125.50

Plan view of pile

cap
∅ 8.70
162.50

35.00
37.00

∅ 12.7

Plan view of pile

35.00

Floating pile

End-bearing pile

Figure 1. Plan and section of piles used for the study (all dimensions in mm)
Geosynthetics International, 2020, 27, No. 2

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [22/05/20]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Centrifuge model studies on the settlement response of geosynthetic piled embankments 173

Air supply valve

Sand hopper

Hopper supports

Swinging basket

Pneumatic cylinder
Closure plates
Geogrid anchorage system

LVDT

Data acquisition system

Clay layer
Permanent markers
L markers
Earthen bund

Base sand layer

Digital camera

Illumination arrangement

Figure 2. A perspective view of centrifuge model setup

4. PREPARATION OF CENTRIFUGE 100

MODELS AND TEST PROGRAM w = 26.105(su/pa)–0.182
The centrifuge employed for the tests is a large beam type R2 = 0.9289
Water content, w (%)

centrifuge with a radius of 4.5 m and payload capacity of

2500g-kN. The detailed specifications of the centrifuge
are given by Chandrasekaran (2001). Figure 2 shows the
perspective view of the model test setup. The test models
were prepared in a strong box with internal dimensions of
760 mm length, 200 mm width and 410 mm height. One
side of the strong box is provided with 100 mm thick
transparent acrylic sheet to monitor the response of the
model during the testing using a high-resolution digital
camera (Canon PowerShot A400). The rear and front
inner wall surfaces were coated with a thin layer of white
petroleum grease, and thin flexible polythene sheets were
placed to reduce the wall friction (Balakrishnan and
Viswanadham 2016). In the model, the foundation soil
layer comprised 20 mm thick Goa sand placed at 85%
relative density by the sand raining technique at 1 g. After
placing the sand, it was allowed to saturate and water was
drained off to represent a firm base in the prototype. The
clay bed was prepared and placed above the sand layer
by the wet tamping method, as described by Ladd (1978).
For the preparation of the clay bed, the remoulded
and pulverised clay soil was oven dried. The undrained
shear strength of the clay was found to be 10 kPa at a
water content of 40% by vane shear tests conducted in
the laboratory. A relation between water content and
undrained shear strength of soil had been given by
Koumoto and Houlsby (2001) as w = a(su/pa)−b, where w
Geosynthetics International, 2020, 27, No. 2
10
0.01 0.1 1
Normalised undrained shear strength, su/pa
Figure 3. Variation of undrained shear strength with water content
from lab vane shear tests
is the water content (%), su is the undrained shear strength
(kPa), pa is the atmospheric pressure (kPa), a and b are
coefficients that vary with the type of the clay. The
variation of undrained strength profile with water content
from vane shear tests is shown in Figure 3. The dry clay
powder was thoroughly mixed at this water content to
form a uniform paste and kept for two days for saturation
by wrapping it in a polythene sheet. The strong box was
filled with wet clay soil in layers with uniform compaction
to achieve a height of 170 mm. A constant uniform
surcharge pressure of 4 kPa was applied over the clay soil
and maintained steadily for 24 h. Care was taken to avoid
air entrapment by careful placement and tamping in thin

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [22/05/20]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 174
layers. The prepared clay bed was trimmed to the required
height of 150 mm. After the clay bed was prepared,
Torvane tests were conducted at different locations at 1 g
and the undrained cohesion of the soil was found to
be around 10 kPa. Torvane tests are performed on the
surface of the clay bed. The variation of undrained
strength profile with depth could not be determined due
to experimental limitations.
The aluminum piles were installed in a square pattern at
6D spacing at normal gravities. The piles were driven
vertically using a guide beam. As the embankment was
constructed in-flight using sandhoppers and other ancil-
lary attachments, the space constraints did not allow
performing in-flight shear strength tests and in-flight pile
driving. This traditional method of pile installation at 1 g
would result in lower load carrying capacity of pile group
and larger deformations in soil (Li et al. 2018). However,
this method of installation is comparable to the construc-
tion of bored piles in the field, which have very little
horizontal stresses in the soil surrounding the pile
(Madabhushi 2014).
The geogrid reinforcement, sandwiched within a 20 mm
thick Goa sand, was placed on the clay soil layer. A geogrid
anchorage system was developed that allowed only vertical
movement of the geogrid while restraining lateral move-
ment to ensure symmetry about the vertical plane at the
midsection of the embankment. On the other side, geogrid
was embedded into the clay strata and was held in position
using an earthen bund.
The set up for construction of the embankment at 40 g
consisted of the sand hopper, guide rails, closure plates,
and hopper supports (Hussain 2010). The sand hopper
consisted of a cuboidal aluminum box placed above the
closure plate and supported on the strongbox with the
help of hopper supports. The sand hopper contains three
compartments separated by vertical plates. These com-
partments helped to pour the required volumes of sand
by the raining technique to enable the construction of
embankments of the required geometry. The diffuser
sieves placed in the hopper helped to control the rate of
construction. The closure plates moved over the guide
rails, whose movement was controlled by a pneumatic
cylinder. Closure plates were provided with directional
vanes at the bottom to reduce the Coriolis effect and
provide a nearly vertical path for the falling sand particles
in the centrifuge. Initially, the holes at the bottom of
the sand hopper were closed by the closure plates so that
sand was retained in the hopper. After the model
preparation, the strong box was placed on the swinging
basket. Only half the embankment was constructed in the
centrifuge model at an acceleration of 40g considering
symmetry. Figure 4 shows the schematic representation of
a test set up used in the present study including the plan
view of the pile group. During in-flight, the embankment
was constructed to a height of 150 mm, a crest width
of 210 mm and base width of 435 mm at a slope of
1 vertical to 1.5 horizontal. The corresponding dimen-
sions in the prototype are shown in Table 4. After placing
the strongbox containing the model in the swinging
basket, the pneumatic cylinder was connected to the air
Geosynthetics International, 2020, 27, No. 2
Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [22/05/20]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Reshma, Rajagopal and Viswanadham
supply valves. When the model was spun, the clay soil
settled under its weight and embankments were con-
structed at 40 times gravity. Table 5 lists the details of
the centrifuge tests performed.
5. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
The results from the model tests are discussed in this
section. The immediate undrained settlement response of
the soft foundation soil during embankment construction
is studied. The centrifuge was brought to a halt after
the full height of embankment was constructed. The
studies were performed in undrained condition as the
embankment is most critical under such quick loading
conditions.
5.1. Surface deformations
LVDTs were used for measuring the surface deformations
on the working platform. For UE tests and GRPE tests,
LVDTs were placed at 30 mm and 50 mm from the toe of
the model embankment (1.2 m and 2 m in the prototype
dimensions). The results showed significant heaving at
both the locations. To understand the magnitude of
settlement occurring at the centre of the embankment,
an LVDT was placed at the mid-section for GRPF tests.
The sign convention used in the study is that the positive
Y-axis refers to heaving, the negative Y-axis refers to the
settlement, the positive X-axis refers to the distance
measured from the toe to the centre of the embankment
and the negative X-axis refers to the distance measured
away from the toe of the embankment. From Figure 5,
it can be seen that as time of construction increases,
the normalised vertical displacement increases due to
the increase of the embankment load with time. The
normalised vertical displacement (Sv/H ) is the value
of the displacement recorded at the surface of the work-
ing platform normalised with the height of the embank-
ment (H ). However, after two days of prototype time,
the normalised vertical displacements became constant.
The constant value of vertical displacement may be
because 90% of the embankment construction was
finished after two days. The rate of embankment con-
struction could not be controlled in the present study.
Unreinforced embankments showed the largest heaving
of Sv/H = 0.105 (630 mm in prototype dimensions)
whereas geosynthetic-reinforced embankments resting
on end bearing piles showed much less heave of about
Sv/H = 0.0055 (33 mm in prototype dimensions). The
large deformations in the model tests may be because
the subsoil was unconsolidated.
5.2. Marker-based image analysis
The deformation profile was obtained by tracing
the movement of markers placed on the surface of the
geogrid reinforcement and the surface of the subsoil layer
using image analysis software. Figure 6a gives a plot of
the deformation profiles on the subsoil surface and the
surface of the geogrid reinforcement at different stages
of embankment construction for the GR tests. It can be
 Centrifuge model studies on the settlement response of geosynthetic piled embankments 175

A 200 79 40

Sand
hopper

385
385
Hopper supports

Closure plate

Guide rails
LVDT 210 Geogrid anchorage

80
plate
L2 L1 LVDT
1.5H Wooden block

150
150
5

1V Embankment
Geogrid
10
410

Pile cap
Soft 76.2
150

Pile

180
clay
20

Base sand layer

100
100

(b) 100 200 100

100 A 760 100
(c)
100

Embankment toe Geogrid anchorage plate

Pile cap
76.2
200

∅12.7
Wooden block
40 76.2
40
100

(a)

Figure 4. Plan view and elevation of the centrifuge model setup for geogrid-reinforced piled embankments resting on hard stratum
(all dimensions in mm). (a) Plan of file mesh, (b) elevation, (c) section A-A

Table 4. Geometry considerations of model and prototype plot of deformation profiles on the subsoil surface at
different stages of embankment construction for UE tests.
Geometry considered Model Prototype
dimensions dimensions
It can be seen that a slip surface started forming at
(mm) at 40g (m) a normalised horizontal distance, Sh/H = 1.7 (68 mm in
prototype dimensions) after 1.4 m height of the embank-
Base layer depth 20 0.8 ment had been constructed. The failure surface becomes
Soft soil depth 150 6 predominant after 1.9 m height of the embankment
Working platform thickness 10 0.4
Embankment height 150 6
had been constructed. The maximum value of heaving
Base width of embankment 435 17.4 shifted towards the embankment toe as the height
Crest width of embankment 210 8.4 of embankment increased and had reached the embank-
Slope 1.5H : 1V 1.5H : 1V ment toe at the end of construction. Tensile forces in
External diameter of pile 12.7 6 the geogrid reinforcement were mobilised after about 1 m
Pile cap dimensions 40 × 40 × 8 1.6 × 1.6 × 0.32
Axial stiffness (MN) 4.706 7530
of the embankment height was achieved. Figure 7 shows
a comparison of deformation profiles of all the tests
at the end of embankment construction. Unreinforced
embankments show a localised slip failure of soil resulting
seen that the deformation profiles on the subsoil surface in a more substantial settlement and heaving beyond
and the surface of the geogrid reinforcement are the the toe. At the end of construction, maximum heave
same. Settlements are nearly uniform and the point of value is comparable for geogrid reinforced embankments
contraflexure moves towards the toe of the embankment and unreinforced embankments. GRPE and GRPF have
with the increase in embankment load for all tests. settlements reduced by 88% and 45.45% and reduced
The magnitude of maximum settlement and heaving heaving by 95% and 67% respectively compared to
increases with time of construction. Figure 6b gives a unreinforced embankments.
Geosynthetics International, 2020, 27, No. 2

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [22/05/20]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 176 Reshma, Rajagopal and Viswanadham

Table 5. Details of the centrifuge tests

Tests Geogrid Pile length (mm) Pile spacing (mm) Soft soil depth (mm) Embankment height (mm)

UE Nil Nil Nil 150 150

GR Yes Nil Nil 150 150
GRPE Yes 163 (L) 76.2 (6D) 150 150
GRPF Yes 126 (0.75L) 76.2 (6D) 150 150

0.14 L2L1
UE and UE-L1
GRPE
Normalised vertical displacement, Sv /H

UE-L2
20 30
0.10 GRPE-L1
GRPE-L2
L1 GRPF-L1
L2
0.06 GRPF GRPF-L2
30

0.02

–0.5 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
–0.02

–0.06

–0.10
Time in prototype dimensions (days)

Figure 5. Variation of normalised vertical displacement of the initial ground surface with construction time

5.3. Digital image analysis for deformation measurements are missing since they moved out of the ROI (Region of
(PIV technique) Interest) due to heaving. In Figure 9a, a sudden change in
This is another image-based deformation measurement the direction and increase in the length of vectors at a
technique to measure the displacements in the form distance of 11.5 m (1020 pixels) from the toe of the
of contours and displacement vectors. MATLAB based embankment indicates slip circle failure. The vectors
software GeoPIV-RG (developed by White et al. 2003 and change their direction as they move towards the toe and
modified by Stanier et al. 2016) is used. Square-shaped point upwards, indicating heaving of soil. The loci of the
black tapes of 0.2 mm were used as artificial seeding for vectors show a circular path indicating a circular failure
PIV analysis. The region of interest (ROI) for the study is surface. In Figure 9b, the length of the vectors is nearly the
the soft foundation soil layer. The deformation behaviour same and vectors are predominant only up to a depth of
of the soft clay soil layer was studied. One pixel in the 4 m. Negligible soil movements are observed below this
image corresponds to 11.6 mm in prototype dimensions. depth. In Figure 9c, vectors are seen as small dots, indicating
Figure 8 shows the variation of vertical displacement lesser soil movement. This is due to the load being
contours for various tests. It can be seen that localised transferred to the piles rather than to the subsoil. The
settlement of large magnitude occurred in the UE tests directions of the vectors in Figure 9d are the same as in
whereas settlements were distributed over a wider area Figure 9b, but the length of the vectors is reduced, indicating
for the other tests. This reaffirms the function of geogrid lesser soil movement. Figure 10 shows a comparison of
reinforcement in distributing the load more uniformly horizontal displacement contour plots. Larger magnitudes
over a wider area. The stronger the reinforcement, the of horizontal displacements are observed towards the toe of
wider the load distribution. Settlements are observed the embankment. However, lateral movements are not
only to a depth of 4 m from the top of the foundation observed beyond the toe of the embankments for all the
soil. The magnitude of settlement is least for the GRPE cases. For the UE tests, large lateral displacements are found
tests. For the GRPE tests, load was distributed to to extend to a large depth. The magnitude of lateral
nearly 75% of the base width of the embankment. The movements is very small and extends to a smaller depth of
magnitude of settlement was much less, and settlements around 1.2 m for the GRPE tests.
were not observed beyond 1.12 m depth from the top of
the foundation soil. As observed from the figure, the
magnitude of heaving was greatest for the UE tests and
least for the GRPE tests.
6. CONCLUSIONS
Figure 9 shows a comparison of displacement vectors for This paper presents the deformation behaviour of foun-
all the tests. Some vectors near the toe of the embankment dation soil in unreinforced embankments, basal reinforced
Geosynthetics International, 2020, 27, No. 2

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [22/05/20]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Centrifuge model studies on the settlement response of geosynthetic piled embankments 177

0.15
Top of soft clay soil
t = 0.3 days
t = 0.74 days
0.10 t = 1.33 days

Normalised vertical displacement, Sv /H

t = 5.04 days
Top of basal reinforcement
t = 0.3 days
0.05 t = 0.74 days
t = 1.33 days
t = 5.04 days
0
–1.0 –0.5 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

–0.05
Embankment toe at (0,0)

–0.10

–0.15
Normalised horizontal distance Sh/H

(a)

0.15
t = 0.3 days
0.10 t = 0.89 days
Normalised vertical displacement, Sv /H

t = 1.19 days
0.05 t = 1.48 days
t = 3.7 days
0
–1.0 –0.5 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
–0.05
Embankment toe at (0,0)

–0.10

–0.15

–0.20

–0.25
Normalised horizontal distance, Sh/H
(b)

Figure 6. Variation of normalised vertical displacement with normalised horizontal distance during the construction period.
(a) Geogrid-reinforced embankment (GR) tests, (b) unreinforced embankment (UE) tests

0.15
UE
0.10 GR
GRPF
Normalised vertical displacement, Sv/H

GRPE
0.05
Normalised horizontal distance, Sh/H
0
–1.0 –0.5 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

–0.05
Embankment toe at (0,0)

–0.10

–0.15

–0.20

–0.25

Figure 7. Comparison of deformation profiles at the end of construction

Geosynthetics International, 2020, 27, No. 2

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [22/05/20]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 178 Reshma, Rajagopal and Viswanadham

Pixels
150 Pixels
125 150
X (pixels) 125
100
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 100
75
X (pixels) 800 75
50 50
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 900

Y (pixels)
800 25 25
1000
Y (pixels)

0 0
1100
1000 –25 –25
–50 1200 –50
–75 1300 –75
1200
(a) (b)

Pixels Pixels
25 25
X (pixels) 20 X (pixels) 20
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 15 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 15
800 800
10 10
900 5 900 5
Y (pixels)

Y (pixels)
1000 0 1000 0
–5 –5
1100 1100
–10 –10
1200 –15 1200 –15
1300 –20 1300 –20
(c) (d)

Figure 8. Variation of vertical displacement contours for all tests at the end of embankment construction. (a) Unreinforced embankments
(UE), (b) geogrid reinforced embankments (GR), (c) geogrid reinforced embankments with piles resting on hard stratum (GRPE),
(d) geogrid reinforced embankments with piles resting within the soft soil (GRPF)

96 (pixels) 96 (pixels)

X (pixels) X (pixels)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
800 800
Y (pixels)

Y (pixels)

1000 1000

1200 1200

(a) (b)

96 (pixels)
96 (pixels)
X (pixels) X (pixels)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
800 800
Y (pixels)

Y (pixels)

1000 1000

1200 1200

(c) (d)

Figure 9. Comparison of displacement vectors for all tests at the end of embankment construction. (a) Unreinforced embankments (UE),
(b) geogrid reinforced embankments (GR), (c) geogrid reinforced embankments with piles resting on hard stratum (GRPE), (d) geogrid
reinforced embankments with piles resting within the soft soil (GRPF)

embankments and basal reinforced embankments resting have settlements reduced by 88% and 45.45% and
on end bearing piles and floating piles, through centrifuge heaving reduced by 95% and 67% respectively.
model tests at 40 times gravity. The deformation measure- 2) Unreinforced embankments experience excessive
ments using LVDTs, marker-based image analysis, and deformations rapidly, leading to base failure.
digital image correlation techniques are presented. Based 3) The steady linear increase in the settlements
on the analysis and interpretation of centrifuge tests during the initial days of construction and larger
results, the following conclusions can be drawn: magnitude of settlement observed in all the tests may
be due to using an unconsolidated clay bed in the
1) Unreinforced embankments showed the largest heave model tests.
whereas basal reinforced embankments resting on end 4) Basal reinforcement distributes the load uniformly,
bearing piles showed the least heaving. Compared to resulting in the movement of soil from the entire
unreinforced embankments, the GRPE and GRPF region below the embankment.
Geosynthetics International, 2020, 27, No. 2

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [22/05/20]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Centrifuge model studies on the settlement response of geosynthetic piled embankments 179

Pixels
Pixels
0
0
–25 –25
X (pixels)
–50 –50
X (pixels) –75 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
800 –75
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 –100 –100
800 –125 900 –125

Y (pixels)
Y (pixels)

–150 1000 –150

–175 –175
1000 1100
–200 –200
–225 1200 –225
1200 –250 1300 –250

(a) (b)

Pixels
0 Pixels
0
X (pixels) X (pixels)
–10
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 –10
800 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
–20 800
–20
900 900
–30

Y (pixels)
–30
Y (pixels)

1000 1000
–40 –40
1100 1100
1200 –50 –50
1200
1300 –60 1300 –60
(c) (d)

Figure 10. Comparison of horizontal displacement contours for all tests at the end of embankment construction. (a) Unreinforced
embankments (UE), (b) geogrid reinforced embankments (GR), (c) geogrid reinforced embankments with piles resting on hard stratum
(GRPE), (d) geogrid reinforced embankments with piles resting within the soft soil (GRPF)

5) From digital image analysis, the zone of influence of d50 average particle size (m)
settlement and heaving is observed to be 28% larger f fraction open area (dimensionless)
for the GR and GRPF compared to GRPE tests. G specific gravity (dimensionless)
6) The geosynthetic reinforced piled embankment H height of the embankment (m)
resting on hard stratum proved to be an effective J secant stiffness of geogrid (N/m)
method for constructing embankments quickly by k coefficient of permeability (m/s)
avoiding staged construction. L pile length (m)
7) Digital image analysis and PIV techniques are N scale factor (dimensionless)
effective for understanding the deformation patterns pa atmospheric pressure (kPa)
of model embankments. Sh horizontal distance measured from toe of the
embankment (m)
Sv vertical displacement at the surface of the
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS working platform (m)
su undrained shear strength (kPa)
The authors would like to thank the staff of the National T ultimate tensile load of geogrid (N/m)
Geotechnical Centrifuge Facility and friends at Indian w water content (%)
Institute of Technology Bombay for their immense γ unit weight of soil (N/m3)
support in performing the tests. The authors would also γd, max maximum dry density (N/m3)
like to thank the editor and reviewers for their critical γd, min minimum dry density (N/m3)
review in improving the quality of the manuscript. δsg soil-geogrid friction angle (°)
εg ultimate tensile strain of geogrid (dimensionless)
ϕ angle of internal friction (°)
NOTATION
Basic SI units are given in parentheses.
ABBREVIATIONS
a, b coefficients
B width of square pile cap (m) CL low plasticity clays
Cc compression index (dimensionless) GR geogrid reinforced embankments
CR recompression index (dimensionless) GRPE geogrid reinforced embankments resting on end
CS swelling index (dimensionless) bearing piles
Cu coefficient of uniformity (dimensionless) GRPF geogrid reinforced embankments resting on
Cz coefficient of curvature (dimensionless) floating piles
D diameter of pile (m) LVDT linear variable differential transducer
dmax maximum size of particle (m) PET polyethylene
d10 effective particle size (m) PIV particle image velocimetry
Geosynthetics International, 2020, 27, No. 2

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [22/05/20]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 180
PVC polyvinyl chloride
ROI region of interest
UE unreinforced embankments
USCS unified soil classification system
REFERENCES
Almeida, M. S. S., Davies, M. C. R. & Parry, R. H. G. (1985). Centrifuge
tests of embankments on strengthened and unstrengthened clay
foundations. Geotechnique, 35, No. 4, 425–441.
Almeida, M. S. S., Ehrlich, M., Spotti, A. P. & Marques, M. E. S. (2007).
Embankment supported on piles with biaxial geogrids.
Geotechnical Engineering, 160, No. 4, 185–192.
Ariyarathne, P., Liyanapathirana, D. S. & Leo, C. J. (2013). A
comparison of different two-dimensional idealizations for a
geosynthetic reinforced pile-supported embankment. International
Journal of Geomechanics, 13, No. 6, 754–768.
ASTM D4595-2010 Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of
Geotextiles by the Wide Width Strip Method. ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
Balakrishnan, S. & Viswanadham, B. V. S. (2016). Performance
evaluation of geogrid reinforced soil walls with marginal backfill
trough centrifuge model tests. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 44,
No. 1, 95–108.
Beasley, D. H. (1973). Centrifuge Modeling of Soft Clay Strata Subject to
Embankment Loading, PhD thesis, University of Cambridge,
Cambridge, UK.
Bhasi, A. & Rajagopal, K. (2013). Numerical investigation of
time-dependent behavior of geosynthetic reinforced piled embank-
ments. International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 7, No. 3,
232–240.
Bhasi, A. & Rajagopal, K. (2014). Geosynthetic-reinforced piled
embankments: comparison of numerical and analytical methods.
International Journal of Geomechanics, 15, No. 5, 04014074.
Bhasi, A. & Rajagopal, K. (2015). Numerical study of basal reinforced
embankments supported on floating/end bearing piles considering
pile-soil interaction. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 43, No. 6,
524–536.
Blanc, M., Rault, G., Thorel, L. & Almeida, M. (2013). Centrifuge
investigation of load transfer mechanisms in a granular mattress
above a rigid inclusions network. Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
36, No. 1, 92–105.
Briançon, L. & Simon, B. (2012). Performance of pile-supported
embankment over soft soil: full-scale experiment. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 138, No. 4,
551–561.
BSI (2010). British Standard. BS8006: Code of practice for
strengthened/reinforced soils and other fills, British Standard
Institution, London, UK, 260 p.
Cao, W. Z., Zheng, J. J., Zhang, J. & Zhang, R. J. (2016). Field test of
a geogrid-reinforced and floating pile-supported embankment.
Geosynthetics International, 23, No. 5, 348–361.
Chandrasekaran, V. S. (2001). Numerical and centrifuge modelling
in soil structure interaction. Indian Geotechnical Journal, 31, No. 1,
30–59.
Chen, R. P., Chen, Y. M., Han, J. & Xu, Z. Z. (2008). A theoretical
solution for pile-supported embankments on soft soils under
one-dimensional compression. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
45, No. 1, 611–623.
Chen, R. P., Wang, Y. W., Ye, X. W., Bian, X. C. & Dong, X. P. (2015).
Tensile force of geogrids embedded in pile-supported reinforced
embankment: a full-scale experimental study. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 44, No. 2, 157–169.
Detert, O., Konig, D. & Schanz, T. (2014). Centrifuge modeling of a
self-regulating foundation system for embankments on soft soils. In
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Physical
Modelling in Geotechnics 2014 (ICPMG 2014), Perth, Australia,
vol. 2, Gaudin, C. & White, D., Editors, CRC Press, London, UK,
pp. 871–877.
Geosynthetics International, 2020, 27, No. 2
Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [22/05/20]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Reshma, Rajagopal and Viswanadham
DGGT (German Geotechnical Society) (2010). EBGEO: German
Standard-Recommendations for design and analysis of earth struc-
tures using geosynthetic reinforcement – EBGEO. German
Geotechnical Society, Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, Germany,
pp. 1–338.
Ellis, E. & Aslam, R. (2009a). Arching in piled embankment:
comparison of centrifuge tests and predictive methods – part 1 of
2. Ground Engineering, 42, No. 6, 34–38.
Garnier, J., Gaudin, C., Springman, S. M., Culligan, P. J.,
Goodings, D. J., Konig, D., Kutter, B. L., Phillips, R.,
Randolph, M. F. & Thorel, L. (2007). Catalogue of scaling laws
and similitude questions in geotechnical centrifuge modeling.
International Journal of Physical modeling in Geotechnics, 7,
No. 3, 1–23.
Girout, R., Blanc, M., Dias, D. & Thorel, L. (2014). Numerical analysis
of a geosynthetic-reinforced piled load transfer platform-validation
on centrifuge tests. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 42, No. 5,
525–539.
Girout, R., Blanc, M., Thorel, L. & Dias, D. (2018). Geosynthetic
reinforcement of pile-supported embankments. Geosynthetics
International, 25, No. 1, 37–49.
Han, J. & Gabr, M. A. (2002). Numerical analysis of geosynthetic
reinforced and pile-supported earth platforms over soft soil. Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 128, No. 1,
44–53.
Hussain, A. D. (2010). Design and Fabrication of Inflight Sand
Hopper, MTech thesis, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay,
Mumbai, India.
Izawa, J. & Kuwano, J. (2010). Centrifuge modeling of geogrid
reinforced soil walls subjected to pseudo-static loading.
International Journal of Physical Modeling in Geotechnics, 10,
No. 1, 1–18.
Jenck, O., Dias, D. & Kastner, R. (2007). Two dimensional physical and
numerical modeling of a pile-supported earth platform over soft
soil. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
133, No. 3, 295–305.
Koumoto, T. & Houlsby, G. T. (2001). Theory and practice of the fall
cone test. Geotechnique, 51, No. 8, 701–712.
Ladd, R. S. (1978). Preparing test specimens using under compaction.
Geotechnical Testing Journal, 1, No. 1, 16–23.
Li, Y., Zhang, G. & Liu, C. (2018). Effects of pile installation simulation
on behavior of pile groups in centrifuge model tests. Geotechnical
Testing Journal, 41, No. 4, 815–820.
Liu, H. L., Ng, C. W. W. & Fei, K. (2007). Performance of a
geogrid-reinforced and pile-supported highway embankment over
soft clay: a case study. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133, No. 12, 1483–1493.
Madabhushi, G. (2014). Centrifuge Modelling for Civil Engineers. CRC
Press, London, UK, 324p.
Madabhushi, S. P. G., Houghton, N. E. & Haigh, S. K. (2006). A new
automatic sand pourer for model preparation at University of
Cambridge. Proceedings of the Sixth ICPMG International
Conference on Physical Modelling in Geotechnics (ICPMG 2006),
Hong Kong, Ng, C.W.W., Zhang, L.M. & Wang, Y.H., Editors,
Taylor & Francis Publication, London, UK, pp. 217–222.
Nunez, M. A., Briancon, L. & Dias, D. (2013). Analyses of a
pile-supported embankment over soft clay: full-scale experiment,
analytical and numerical approaches. Engineering Geology, 153,
No. 2, 53–67.
Okyay, U. S., Dias, D., Thorel, L. & Rault, G. (2014). Centrifuge
modeling of a pile-supported granular earth-platform. Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 140, No. 2,
1–12.
Rowe, R. K. & Liu, K. W. (2015). 3D finite element modeling of a full
scale geosynthetic reinforced pile supported embankment.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 52, No. 12, 2041–2054.
Springman, S. M., Bolton, M. D., Sharma, J. S. & Balachandran, S.
(1992). Modeling and instrumentation of a geotextile in the
geotechnical centrifuge. Proceedings of International Symposium
on Earth Reinforcement Practice, Fukuoka, Japan, Ochiai H.,
Hayashi S. & Otani J., Editors, Balkema, Rotterdam,
the Netherlands, pp. 167–172.
 Centrifuge model studies on the settlement response of geosynthetic piled embankments 181

Stanier, S. A., Dijkstra, J., Leśniewska, D., Hambleton, J. P., White, D. J.
& Muir Wood, D. (2016). Vermiculate artefacts in image analysis
of granular materials. Computers and Geotechnics, 72, No. 2,
100–113.
Taha, A., El Naggar, M. H. & Turan, A. (2014). Experimental and
numerical study on lateral behavior of geosynthetic-reinforced pile
foundation system. Geosynthetics International, 21, No. 6, 352–363.
van Eekelen, S. J. M. & Brugman, M. H. A. (2016). CUR 226: Design
Guideline Basal Reinforced Piled Embankment. CRC Press, Delft,
Netherlands.
Van Eekelen, S. J. M., Bezuijen, A., Lodder, H. J. & van Tol, A. F.
(2012a). Model experiments on piled embankments part I.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 32, No. 3, 69–81.
Van Eekelen, S. J. M., Bezuijen, A., Lodder, H. J. & van Tol, A. F.
(2012b). Model experiments on piled embankments part II.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 32, No. 3, 82–94.
Van Eekelen, S. J. M., Bezuijen, A., Lodder, H. J. & van Tol, A. F.
(2013). An analytical model for arching in piled embankments.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 39, No. 4, 78–102.
Viswanadham, B. V. S. & König, D. (2004). Studies on scaling and
instrumentation of a geogrid. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 22,
No. 5, 307–328.
White, D. J., Take, W. A. & Bolton, M. D. (2003). Soil deformation
measurement using particle image velocimetry (PIV) and photo-
grammetry. Geotechnique, 53, No. 7, 619–631.
Xu, C., Song, S. & Han, J. (2016). Scaled model tests on influence factors
of full geosynthetic-reinforced pile supported embankments.
Geosynthetics International, 23, No. 2, 140–153.
Yun-Min, C., Wei-Ping, C. & Ren-Peng, C. (2008). An experimental
investigation of soil arching within basal reinforced and unrein-
forced piled embankments. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 26,
No. 1, 164–174.
Zhao, Y., Gafar, K., Elshafie, M. Z. E. B., Deeks, A. D., Knappett, J. A.
& Madabhushi, S. P. G. (2006). Calibration and use of a new
automatic sand pourer. Proceedings of the Sixth International
Conference on Physical Modelling in Geotechnics (ICPMG
2006), Hong Kong, Ng C.W.W., Zhang L.M. & Wang Y. H.,
Editors, Taylor & Francis Publication, London, UK,
pp. 265–270.
Zheng, J. J., Chen, B. G., Lu, Y. E., Abusharar, S. W. & Yin, J. H. (2009).
The performance of an embankment on soft ground reinforced with
geosynthetics and pile walls. Geosynthetics International, 16, No. 3,
173–182.
Zhuang, Y. & Ellis, E. A. (2014). Finite element analysis of a piled
embankment with reinforcement compared with BS 8006 predic-
tions. Geotechnique, 64, No. 11, 910–917.
Zhuang, Y. & Ellis, E. A. (2016). Finite element analysis of a piled
embankment with reinforcement and subsoil. Geotechnique, 66,
No. 7, 596–601.
Zhuang, Y. & Wang, K. Y. (2015). Three-dimensional behavior of biaxial
geogrid in a piled embankment: numerical investigation. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 52, No. 10, 1629–1635.
Zhuang, Y. & Wang, K. Y. (2016). Finite-element analysis on the effect of
subsoil in reinforced piled embankments and comparison
with theoretical method predictions. International Journal of
Geomechanics, 16, No. 5, 1–15.

The Editor welcomes discussion on all papers published in Geosynthetics International. Please email your contribution to
discussion@geosynthetics-international.com by 15 October 2020.

Geosynthetics International, 2020, 27, No. 2

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [22/05/20]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.