IJPMG-International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics 3 (2007) : 01-23

CATALOGUE OF SCALING LAWS AND SIMILITUDE QUESTIONS

IN GEOTECHNICAL CENTRIFUGE MODELLING

J. Garnieri), C. Gaudinii), S.M. Springmaniii), P.J. Culliganiv), D. Goodingsv),

D. Konigvi), B. Kuttervii), R. Phillipsviii), M.F. Randolphii), AND L. Thoreli),

ABSTRACT
Some forty years ago, when geotechnical centrifuge modelling had been rediscovered and was being developed
once more after the early work of Phillips (1869), only a few studies were devoted to the questions and concerns
about scaling laws and similitude conditions. During the first decades, it was relatively easy for researchers to keep
themselves informed about the main outcomes of these studies and to take them into account when designing new
centrifuge model tests. This is obviously not true today following the welcome growth in terms of the large number
of centrifuge facilities now in operation around the world. It is increasingly difficult, but yet absolutely essential, to
know about the relevant developments concerning studies into the scaling laws and, furthermore, into the limits of
the domains of the use of centrifuge modelling. On the other hand, new media offers a significant opportunity to provide
this resource to the physical modelling community.
New topics are investigated by many researchers as they become more inventive in the ways in which geotechnical
centrifuge modelling is applied to solve pressing problems within geotechnical engineering, and across other disciplines
too. Innovative work presenting comparisons between centrifuge model tests and true scale tests are providing original
data on the validity of the scaling factors.
During the TC2 meeting at St John’s (Canada) in July 2002, the first author, J. Garnier (LCPC), suggested making
an inventory of the scaling laws and similitude questions relating to centrifuge modelling. The aim of this catalogue
is to present the questions already solved (with inclusion of the references of the papers where the results have been
presented) and the unsolved problems (on which research should continue).
The first draft of this catalogue is now available and it is hoped that it will become a useful tool for scientists
and researchers involved in centrifuge modelling. Of course, this catalogue will be regularly updated, every four years
during the International Conferences on Physical Modelling in Geotechnics. The latest version of the catalogue is available
on the TC2 website (www.tc2.civil.uwa.edu.au).

Key words: geotechnical centrifuge, similitude, scale effect, grain size effect, dimensional analysis

Main topics and main contributors to the catalogue

A-Fundamental B-Grain size effects C-Grain size effects D-Size effects E-Density and stress
laws of statics, time on soil-structure on interfaces and derived from distribution in
and rate scaling interaction shear band patterns continuous media centrifuge models
factors (D. König, (B. Kutter, mechanics (J. Garnier)
(C. Gaudin, J. Garnier) D. König,) (C. Gaudin,
J. Garnier) J. Garnier)
F-In-flight in-situ G-Fluid flow in H-Unsaturated I-Dynamic J-Aqueous phase
tests saturated centrifuge conditions conditions transport in
(M.F. Randolph, samples (D. König, (B. Kutter, saturated soils
J. Garnier) (D. Goodings) J. Garnier) S.M. Springman) (P.J. Culligan)
K-Non aqueous L-Heat transfer M-Erosion, N-Current Other topics to
phase transport in (P.J. Culligan) sedimentation propagation, come?
soils and fractures Frost, Ice (D. Goodings) electro-osmosis
(P.J. Culligan) (R. Phillips) (L. Thorel)

i) Division RMS, Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chauss_es, Nantes, BP 4129, F44341, Bouguenais, France
ii) COFS, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley WA 6009, Australia
iii) Institute for Geotechnical Engineering, ETH H_nggerberg, HIL C13.1, CH-8093, Z_rich, Switzerland
iv) Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
v) Department of Civil Engineering, University of Maryland, Maryland, USA
vi) Department of Civil Engineering, Ruhr-University, Bochum, Germany
vii) University of California, Davis, California, USA
viii) Geotechnical Centrifuge Centre, C-CORE, Newfoundland, A1B 3X5, Canada
 2
Detail of the treated topics

A-Fundamental laws of B-Grain size effects on soil- C-Grain size effects on D-Size effects derived from E-Density and stress
dynamics, time and rate structure interaction interfaces and shear band continuous media mechanics distribution in centrifuge
scaling factors B1-Footing patterns models
B2-Pile (lateral loading)
A1-Scaling laws derived from B3-Anchor C1-Frictional interface D1-Normal stiffness in soil-pile E1-Vertical stress with depth
equations of statics B4-Tunnel (face stability) C2-Roughness modelling interface E2-“Silo” effect on stress
A2-Creep time B5-Pipeline uplift C3-Shear band patterns E3-Ko values
A3-Rate effect on undrained B6-Wall E4-Distribution of void ratio
shear strength B7-Geogrid
F-In-flight in-situ tests G-Fluid flow in saturated H-Unsaturated conditions I-Dynamic conditions J-Aqueous phase transport
centrifuge samples in saturated soils
F1-CPT: distance to the wall H1-Capillary rise I1-Boundary effects
F2-CPT: diameter of the G1-Laminar flow (Darcy) H2-Water content distribution I2-Wave propagation J1-Advection
container G2-Flow rate limit I3-Coupled consolidation and J2-Diffusion

GARNIER ET AL.
F3-Vane: effect of centrifuge G3-Turbulent flow dynamic phenomena J3-Mechanical dispersion
acceleration on shear strength G4-Self-weight consolidation I4-Cratering J4-Sinks or sources at aqueous
I5-Pile driving fluid-solid boundaries
I6-Rockfall J5-Sinks or sources within
I7-Explosion aqueous phase
K-Non-aqueous phase L-Heat transfer in M-Erosion, sedimentation N-Current propagation, Other topics to come?
transport in soils and saturated soils electro-osmosis
fractures M1-Cohesionless soil
L1&2-Conductive heat transfer N1-Electro-osmosis
K1-Capillary pressure L3-Convective heat transfer
K2-Entry pressure L4-Frozen soil
K3-Residual saturation L5-Thaw processes
K4-Unstable gravity driven flow L6-Ice
K5-Finger properties in uniform
soil

Pre-eminent papers or books on geotechnical centrifuge modelling

Phillips E. (1869): De l’équilibre des solides élastiques, Comptes rendus à l’Académie des Sciences, Paris, 68, Janvier-Juin.
Pokrovsky G.I. & Fyodorov (1968): Centrifugal modelling in the construction industry, Moscow: Stroiiedat, Translation of BRE library, Vol. 1 & Vol. 2.
Schofield A.N. (1980): Cambridge geotechnical centrifuge operations, Géotechnique 30, No. 3, pp. 227-268.
Craig W.H., James R.G. & Schofield A.N. (1988): Centrifuges in soil mechanics, Balkema, 266 p.
Taylor R.N. (1995): Geotechnical centrifuge technology, Blackie Academic & Professional, 296 p.
 Main Similitude Known data and results Still open Basic references
topics problems questions

CATALOGUE OF SCALING LAWS AND SIMILITUDE QUESTIONS IN GEOTECHNICAL CENTRIFUGE MODELLING

A A1 Different scales for Phillips (1869)
Scaling laws derived σ* = ρ* g* l* time, dynamics, Pokrowsky & Fyodorov
Fundamental from fundamental laws diffusion, creep) (1975a & b)
laws of statics of statics ξ* = gt*2 See also topic L on Schofield (1980)
“Dynamic conditions”

Other time and rate A2 From the comparison between true scale field test (Labenne, More tests needed to Canépa et al. (1988)
scaling factors Scaling factor on creep France) and centrifuge tests of footing loading it seems that clarify the creep time
time in sand: scaling factor
t* = 1
For consolidation of clay, secondary compression in the centrifuge Kutter (1994)
occurs according to the conventional equation:
e = eeop - Cα Log(t/tprimary)
where eeop is the void ratio at the end of primary consolidation
and Cα is the coefficient of secondary compression.

A3 Undrained shear strength of clayey soil has been observed to Kutter (1994)
Effect of loading rate on increase about 5% to 15% for every log cycle of strain rate. Randolph et al. (2005)
undrained shear strength If strains are the same in model and prototype while time is
of clayey soil scaled in the model tests, and if the soil in the model and
prototype are the same (including void ratio and effective stress),
the shear strength may increase according to:

= 1+(0.05 to 0.15) log(ε⋅*)

Cu,m
Cu,m
where ε⋅* = ε* / t*
Transition between drained, partially drained and fully undrained
behaviour may be assessed using the normalised velocity V=vd/
cv where v is the rate of penetration, d, the diameter of the
probe and cv the coefficient of consolidation of the clay. For
typical normally consolidated kaolin clay, the transition values
are respectively V=0.01 (fully drained) and V=30 (fully
undrained).

3
 4
Main Similitude Known data and results Still open Basic references
topics problems questions

In addition, the T-bar resistance with penetration rate may be

fitted by a backbone curve in the form of:
q
qref (
= 1+
q
1+cVd ){ 1+
µ
In(10) ( )}
sinh-1
V
V0
where qref is the resistance at the reference velocity (usually
1 mm/s), µ is a rate coefficient, essentially the increase of
undrained resistance per log cycle, V0 is the value of V for
which the rate correction starts to reduce to 0 and b, c and
d are curve fitting parameters.

B B1 Circular footing: B diameter or width of the footing, d50 mean Grain size effects on Christensen & Bagge
Bearing capacity of grain size: footing settlement not (1977)

GARNIER ET AL.
Grain size effects on shallow footings B/d50 > 35 well known Ovesen (1979)
soil-structure (circular or strip) King et al. (1984)
interaction:
Strip footing: B width of the footing, d50 Mean grain size: ditto Mikasa & Takada (1973)
- foundation B/d50 > 35 Gemperline & Ko
- anchor (1984)
- tunnel Kutter et al. (1988)
- pipe
- wall B2 No significant effects detected in modelling of model tests with More tests needed to (1) Nunez et al. (1988)
- geogrid Response of piles to B/d50 larger than 44 (Nunez et al., 1988) or 60 (Remaud, 1999): determine the B/d50 (2) Remaud (1999)
lateral loads B/d50 ( 45(1) or 60(2) limit value
B/d50 > 45(1) or 60(2)

B3 B Diameter or width of the anchor or plate Grain size effects on Ovesen (1981)
Pull out load of anchor B/d50 > 48 anchor heave not well Dickin & Leung (1983)
plates (circular or known
rectangular)

B4 B Diameter of the tunnel: Chambon et al. (1995)

Stability of tunnel faces BT/d50 > 175
 Main Similitude Known data and results Still open Basic references
topics problems questions

CATALOGUE OF SCALING LAWS AND SIMILITUDE QUESTIONS IN GEOTECHNICAL CENTRIFUGE MODELLING

Gr B5 Uplift resistances measured in centrifuge models and at full Mobilisation distances Palmer et al. (2003)
Uplift resistance of scale are consistent. are not consistent
pipelines (unscaled distance in the
centrifuge is roughly the
same as at full scale)

B6 No significant effects detected in modelling of model tests Marquaβ (1997)

Moment distribution in where height of the model H is larger than:
cantilever walls H/d50 > 550

B7 Guidelines are presented in the papers for selecting scaled-down Springman et al. (1992)
Scaling of geogrids geogrids. Springman &
Balachandran (1996)
Viswanadham & König
(2004)

C C1 In pullout loading tests, limited effects on peak shear strength Scaling law on (1) Garnier & K_nig
Grain size effects on are observed if the diameter of the model pile B satisfies: displacement at peak (1998), Foray et al.
Grain size effects on frictional interfaces B/d50 > 50(2) or 100(1) strength is not known (1998)
interfaces and shear (2) Fioravante (2002)
bands patterns
C2 The normalised roughness Rn = Rmax/d50 (e.g. Kishida & Uesugi, (1) Garnier & K_nig
Modelling the interface 1987) should be the same in the model and in the prototype. (1998)
roughness However, in perfectly rough or perfectly smooth interfaces, the (2) Fioravante (2002)
value of normalised roughness has no effect on the mobilisation (3) Lings & Dietz
of shear strength. (2005)
- Interface is perfectly rough if Rn is larger than a given value
ranging from 0.1 to 1 according to the authors (1), (2) or
(3).
- Interface is perfectly smooth if Rn is less than 0.01.

5
 6
Main Similitude Known data and results Still open Basic references
topics problems questions

C3 Significant effects have been detected in modelling of model This result is not in Stone & Muir Wood
Development of shear tests on a trap door of width B for a cavity collapse problem, agreement with other (1992)
band patterns where d50 was not scaled. investigations on limit White et al. (1994)
Collapse loads are not as sensitive to grain size effects, but state situations (e.g. Kutter et al. (1995)
the propagation of a collapsing chimney above a trapdoor is shallow footings). Is the
sensitive to B/d50, even for ratios as large as 1000. characteristic dimension
B/d50 > 50(2) or 100(1) of the structure
increasing the settlement
of the trap door? In that
case, the relationship
between characteristic
dimension of the
structure and grain size

GARNIER ET AL.
is very small at the
beginning of the test.

D D1 From the cavity expansion theory, the increment in normal The increase in normal Boulon & Foray (1986)
Change in normal stress stress is given by: stress is nil for smooth Fioravante (2002)
Size effects derived in soil-pile interface due ∆σ = 2G∆u/R interfaces and it depends Lehane et al. (2005)
from continuous to dilative or contractive The scaling factor on normal stiffness k1 = ∆σ / ∆u is then: on the soil dilation and
media soil behaviour k1* = 1/n shear modulus for rough
The dilation of the shear band is NOT SCALED and varies with interfaces.
the normal stiffness of the surrounding soil. It may be approximated
as
∆u0
∆umax =

( )
0.75
kn
1+ k
nref
where ∆u0 is the maximum dilation measured in a CNL test,
kref is the reference constant normal stiffness, corresponding
to the normal stiffness value kn when ∆umax = ∆u0/2.
Similarly, the shear modulus G value is not constant and varies
with the cavity strain, which is itself a function of the dilation
of the shear band. It may be assessed using classical shear
modulus degradation analysis.
 Main Similitude Known data and results Still open Basic references
topics problems questions

CATALOGUE OF SCALING LAWS AND SIMILITUDE QUESTIONS IN GEOTECHNICAL CENTRIFUGE MODELLING

E E1 The error caused by the difference between uniform acceleration Schofield (1980)
Effect of non-uniformity (prototype) and radially varying acceleration (model) is easy
Density and stress of the centrifuge to calculate and should be minimised to suit the prototype under
distribution in acceleration field on the consideration.
centrifuge models vertical stress in soil
samples

E2 Silo effects may strongly reduce the vertical stress with depth.
Effect of container walls The vertical stress distribution with depth in centrifuge samples Ternet (1999)
on vertical geostatic may be determined by recent silo theories, and is known to Garnier (2001 & 2002)
stresses in centrifuged depend primarily on the ratio between the height and diameter
samples of the box.

E3 Horizontal deflection of the container wall should be less than Lareal et al. (1995)
Effect of container wall H/2000 to keep Ko close to its assumed value for no lateral Ternet (1999)
deflection on horizontal strain.
geostatic stresses (Ko
value)

E4 Using appropriate techniques and equipment, variation on dry Garnier (2001)

Homogeneity of unit weight within a container may be less than +/-0.5%
pluviated sand samples (+/- 0.1 kN/m3).

F F1 The ratio S/B should be larger than 10 for sand (S distance Phillips &Valsangkar
Effect of the distance to of the centre of the CPT test from the nearest container wall, (1987)
In-flight in-situ the container wall on B diameter of the cone): Bolton et al. (1999)
testing CPT tip resistance qc S/B > 10

F2 The ratio D/B should be larger than 30 for sand (D diameter Bolton et al. (1999)
Effect on the tip of the container, B diameter of the cone):
resistance qc of the D/B > 30
diameter D of the
container

7
 8
Main Similitude Known data and results Still open Basic references
topics problems questions

F3 Contrary to what was suggested by Pincent & Tchocothé (1981), Pincent & Tchocothé
Effect of centrifuge it is shown that in the range 1g-100g, centrifuge acceleration (1981)
acceleration on vane has no effect on the undrained shear strength of clay for a given Corté et al. (1991)
undrained shear stress level and strain rate.
strength

G G1 Theoretical scaling factors from Darcy law (same soil and same k* = n has been Laut (1975)
Flow of water in fluid) are as follows: approximately verified Goodings (1982, 1984)
Fluid flow in saturated saturated soil with Darcy k*= n experimentally (Khalifa Cargill & Ko (1983)
centrifuge samples law v = ki v*= n et al., 2000) Goforth et al. (1991)
k: Darcy i*= 1 Khalifa et al. (2000)
permeability t = 1/n2
* Butterfield (2000)
v: Darcy flow rate Singh & Gupta (2000)
i: Hydraulic gradient Taylor (1995)

GARNIER ET AL.
Flow of water in Theoretical scaling factors (same soil and same fluid) from fluid
saturated soil with flow in porous media are:
v = - λ Grad p with λ *= 1
λ: Coeff. of mobility v*= n
v: Flow rate t = 1/n2
*
p: pore pressure

G2 Flow rate is n times larger in the model since v* = n. Critical Results obtained on Goodings (1994)
Limit of Darcy’s law for centrifuge acceleration defining the limit to Darcy’s law has five sands should be Khalifa et al. (2000)
flow at high velocity been determined by Khalifa et al. (2000) in five different sands. extended to other
materials

G3 All particles in the model should be reduced in size by a factor Goodings (1984)
Turbulent flow of n. If so, turbulent flow may be reproduced and the following
time scaling factor apply :
t*= 1/n2

G4 Good agreement between prototype scale and centrifuge test Balay et al. (1988)
Self-weight results: Williams (1988)
consolidation of very t*= 1/n2
soft soils
 Main Similitude Known data and results Still open Basic references
topics problems questions

CATALOGUE OF SCALING LAWS AND SIMILITUDE QUESTIONS IN GEOTECHNICAL CENTRIFUGE MODELLING

H H1 Theoretical scaling factors have been verified experimentally Both the capillary rise Lord (1999)
Capillary rise in soils in Congleton sand (d10/d50=0.1/0.15 mm) and rate scaling factors Rezzoug et al.
Unsaturated Hc being the the capillary rise, scale factors are: have been verified (2000a & b, 2004)
conditions Hc*= 1/n experimentally in sands
t*= 1/n2 at accelerations up to
32g

H2 h*= 1/n Successful modelling of Crançon et al. (2000)

Water content w* = 1 model tests in the range Esposito (2000)
distribution in 1g-100g Knight et al. (2000)
unsaturated soils More experimental data Garnier (2002)
are needed to conclude
(limit of validity at very
high suction)
Residual saturation at
very high suction is
sensitive to g*.

I I1 An ideal container may deform as a flexible shear beam that Smooth walls are needed Kutter (1994), Fiegel et
Boundary effects for 1- does not affect shearing associated with a vertically propagating during swing-up to al. (1994), Lai (2002),
Dynamic problems D vertical propagation of shear waves. Minimizing the ratio of container mass to soil minimize arching and Teymur & Madabushi
shear waves mass, reducing friction between rings of laminar containers, silo effect due to limited (2003)
and reducing stiffness of flexible shear beam containers will container size, but rough
help approach this ideal. walls are better during
The container should also provide for complementary shear shaking to provide
stresses associated with horizontal shear stresses on horizontal complementary shear
plane. stress.

I2 In large rectangular containers, field of P-waves and S-waves Discussion is still open Chazelas et al. (2001)
Wave propagation due to in the model is similar to what could be expected at true scale. on the advantages of
motion of an object A vibrating foundation should not be placed at the centreline using Duxseal on the
within the soil container of a cylindrical container because coherent reflected waves will container walls.
-footing vibration be reflected back directly to the foundation.
-impact

9
 10
Main Similitude Known data and results Still open Basic references
topics problems questions

I3 If pore fluid is the same in model and prototype, then: Option (b) raises issues Kutter (1994)
Coupled consolidation t*dynamic* = n-1 and t*diffusion = n-2 associated with particle
and dynamic phenomena If t diffusion ≠ t*dynamic is unacceptable due to coupling in
* size effects
(problems where the model or prototype, then for precise modelling, we must require:
time scale of L*2 / cv* = L* _ cv* = L* ➞ = n-1
consolidation is of the This may be achieved by:
same order as the time a) increasing viscosity of the fluid (µ* = 1/L* = n), or
scale for dynamic b) by decreasing the particle size of the soil (e.g. use Hazen’
events) s equation k* = C(d10*)2 for uniform sands and considering
the fact that cv is proportional to k)

I4 Detailed studies of scaling laws regarding the explosive energy Scaling laws relating to Schmidt (1980),
Cratering, explosion have been presented by Schmidt, Housen and Holsapple for changing gravity fields Holsapple & Schmidt

GARNIER ET AL.
both 1G and centrifuge tests. The centrifuge scaling laws have acting on ejecta material (1982), Housen et al.
been validated experimentally by Kutter et al. using modelling and the formation of the (1983)
of model techniques. resulting crater are not Kutter et al. (1988)
resolved yet.

I5 Scaling laws have been discussed by Fedoroff & Sheffield. It Fedoroff & Sheffield
Explosion has been shown that underground explosions may be correctly (1960)
simulated in centrifuge models (Dutheil). Dutheil (1998)

I6 The following theoretical scaling factors have been verified by Scaling factor on energy Sieffert & Levacher
Pile driving, modelling modelling of model tests: (W =1/n3) is still (1995)
t* =1/n, a*= 1 doubtful Garnier (2001)
F* =1/n2, σ*= 1s
Care must be taken over changing g levels if a falling weight
is used c.f. whether this remains in the enhanced gravity field
or not (see I6)
 Main Similitude Known data and results Still open Basic references
topics problems questions

CATALOGUE OF SCALING LAWS AND SIMILITUDE QUESTIONS IN GEOTECHNICAL CENTRIFUGE MODELLING

1I7 Energy at instant of boulder impact (r = r2) can be derived Valid for a straight (1) Chikatamarla
Rockfalls (allowing a from kinetic energy guiding tube, orthogonal (2006);
boulder to ‘fall’ (Eimpact = 0.5*m*v2). Standard scaling laws give equation (1) to the impact zone; new (2) Chikatamarla et al.
orthogonally onto a but due to the presence of the guiding tube and movement of laws need to be (2006)
model protection the boulder in the g - field, equation (2), accounting for friction developed for inclined
gallery) (mixture dynamic & static), is valid (see list of symbols at the impact or curved chutes
end of the table). for which the angular
Eimpact = n23Emodel (1) Eimpact = n2*3Emodel (2) velocity of flowing
detritus will cause the
The n*2 theoretical value in equation (2) < n2. It may be value of n to change
determined when the coefficient of friction between the boulder throughout the event.
and the guiding tube is known (1) & (2).

J J1 Advective transport velocity, ua scales as ua* = n. Hence, time- Scaling of advective Arulanandan et al.
Advection (a.k.a scale for advective transport is: transport for non- (1988)
Aqueous phase convection) laminar flow regimes. Hensley & Schofield
transport in saturated ta* = 1/n2 (1991)
soils Taylor (1995)
Nakajima et al. (1998)

(see comments by J2 Effective diffusion coefficient, Dd scales as Dd* = 1. Hence, Scaling of tortuosity, Arulanandan et al.
P. Culligan at the end Diffusion time-scale for diffusive transport is: and hence Dd, in (1988)
of topic K table) heterogeneous media. Hensley & Schofield
td* = 1/n2 Scaling of diffusive (1991)
transport in dual porosity Taylor (1995)
media with dead-end McKinley et al. (1998)
pores. Nakajima et al. (1998)

J3 Mechanical dispersion coefficient Dm scales as Dm* = n. Hence, By scaling dispersivity Arulanandan et al. (1988)
Mechanical dispersion time-scale for dispersive transport is: in a centrifuge test, can Hensley & Schofield
tm* = 1/n we achieve Dm* = 1? (1991)
Taylor (1995)
Hensley & Randolph
(1994)
Nakajima et al. (1998)

11
 12
Main Similitude Known data and results Still open Basic references
topics problems questions

J4 For linear-equilibrium sorption, the distribution coefficient Kd Scaling for contaminant Gurung et al. (1998)
Sinks (or sources) at scales as Kd* = 1. Hence, time-scale for sorption at solid interfaces sorption isotherms other Antoniadis & McKinley
aqueous fluid-solid is: than linear-equilibrium (2000)
phase boundaries tS* = 1/n2 isotherms. Schrijver et al. (2000)
(Sorption) Basford et al. (2002)

J5 For similitude, the rate at which dissolved contaminant mass Scaling for sinks (or Modelling radioactive
Sinks (or sources) within is removed from the aqueous phase, k, must scale as: sources) caused by contaminant transport:
aqueous phase K* = 1/n2 biological and/or Villar & Merrifield
geochemical processes. (1994)

K K1 If there is similitude in the fluid-solid phase contact angle and Influence of transport Culligan & Barry (1998)
Capillary Pressure the microscopic void-space configuration, the capillary pressure velocity on capillary Levy et al. (2002)

GARNIER ET AL.
Aqueous phase between wetting and between the wetting and non-wetting fluid phases Pc scales pressure. Wettability of Levy et al. (2003)
transport in saturated non-wetting fluid phases as: natural materials versus
soils Pc* = 1 test materials.

K2 If there is similitude in the fluid-solid phase contact angle and Influence of transport Levy et al. (2002)
(see comments by Entry pressure for non- the microscopic void-space configuration, the entry pressure velocity on entry Levy et al. (2003)
P. Culligan at the end wetting fluid phase for non-wetting fluid invasion into a soil or fracture Pentry scales pressure. Wettability of Oung et al. (2005)
of topic K table) as: natural materials versus
Pentry* = 1 test materials.

K3 If the microscopic capillary, Ca, and Bond, Bo, numbers scale If there is similitude in Knight & Mitchell
Residual saturation as Ca* = Bo* = 1, then the residual fluid saturation, Sr, will the microscopic void (1996)
scale as: space then Ca* = Bo* = Ratnam et al. (1996)
Sr* = 1 1/n. Hence, there is still Culligan & Barry (1998)
a need to quantify the Cooke (2000)
influence of elevated Lo et al. (2004)
fluid velocities and Oung et al. (2005)
g-levels on Sr during a
model test.

See Comments on topics J and K at the end of topic K table

 Main Similitude Known data and results Still open Basic references
topics problems questions

CATALOGUE OF SCALING LAWS AND SIMILITUDE QUESTIONS IN GEOTECHNICAL CENTRIFUGE MODELLING

K4 If the microscopic Stokes number, St, scales as St* = 1 then Modelling conditions for Griffioen et al. (1997)
On-set of unstable conditions for the on-set of gravity driven unstable flow will the onset of channelling Culligan & Barry (1998)
gravity driven flow be similar in a model and prototype. and bypass mechanisms. Culligan et al. (2002)
Modelling unstable flow
under 3-D conditions.

K5 For 2-D fingers, finger velocity, uf, scales as uf* = n, finger Finger properties under Griffioen et al. (1997)
Finger properties during width, wf, scales as: 3-D conditions. Culligan & Barry (1998)
unstable flow in uniform wf* = 1/n Culligan et al. (2002)
soil and finger spacing λf, scales as:
λf* = 1/n

Comments on topics J and K (P.J. Culligan): Scaling Relationships for Contaminant Transport

The vast majority of centrifuge testing that has concerned problems of contaminant transport in geo-materials has concentrated on studies in uniform media. In reality,
subsurface contaminant transport can be greatly impacted by the heterogeneity of the subsurface, a property that is difficult to replicate in a reduced-scale model. In
addition, the biological and geochemical processes that are known to influence contaminant transport in the field are rarely considered during centrifuge testing. For
these reasons, the coupling of centrifuge test results and scaling relationships for the prediction of prototype behaviour should be approached with caution. Nonetheless,
scaling relationships can provide a consistent framework that enables centrifuge test results to be presented at a uniform scale - namely the equivalent 1g scale. This
is helpful for: (i) The comparison of results obtained at different g-levels, during different test series or at different institutions; (ii) the comparison of test results with
theoretical predictions and/or field observations, and (iii) the testing of the relationships themselves via the technique of “modelling-of-models”.

The relationships discussed in the catalogue are presented in two sections, namely aqueous-phase transport (Topic J) and non-aqueous phase transport and fracture
flow (Topic K). Aqueous phase transport describes the transport of a contaminant that is dissolved in the aqueous phase of a porous medium. Non-aqueous phase transport
describes the transport of a separate non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) within the pore-space of a medium or within a fracture.

13
 14
Main Similitude Known data and results Still open Basic references
topics problems questions

L L1 If there is similitude of the thermal conductivities of the fluid Conductive heat transfer Savvidou (1988)
Conductive heat transfer and solid phases, the time-scale for conductive heat transfer in systems with Krishnaiah & Singh
Heat transfer, in saturated soils is given by: heterogeneous thermal (2004)
frost, ice tcond.* = 1/n2 conductivity.

L2 If there is similitude of the thermal diffusivity of the medium, Savvidou (1988)

On-set of convective the thermal Rayleigh number for the medium, RaT, will scale Hensley & Savvidou
heat transfer in saturated as RaT* = 1. Because the magnitude of RaT determines the (1993)
soils on-set of convective heat transfer, conditions for the on-set of Taylor (1995)
convection will be similar in a model and its prototype.

L3 For RaT > ~ 40 convective fluid motion will be induced at Investigations of scaling Savvidou (1988)
Convective heat transfer a velocity uconv that scales as uconv*= n. Hence, relationships for Hensley & Savvidou

GARNIER ET AL.
in saturated soils convective heat transfer (1993)
tconv.* = 1/n2 are limited and need to Taylor (1995)
be expanded.

L4 Chen et al. (1993), Smith (1995), Yang (1996) and Ketcham Chen et al. (1993)
Frozen soil et al. (1997) presented centrifuge scaling relationships for frost Smith (1995)
heave. Specific concerns include creep, the grain size of ice Yang (1996)
generated in a centrifuge, frozen fringe thickness and the effects Ketcham et al. (1997)
of creep. Ice lenses in silt seem to be scaled generally in terms Clark & Phillips (2003)
of spatial frequency and size. Modelling of model tests and
comparison with full scale data give confidence over the use
of centrifuge testing to examine frost heave issues Chen et al.
(1993), Clark & Phillips (2003).

L5 Similitude is achieved during thawing of fine-grained soils Ketcham & Black

Thaw processes containing evenly distributed thin ice lenses. No scaling conflicts (1995)
observed during gelifluction. Harris et al. (2000)
Harris et al. (2002)
 Main Similitude Known data and results Still open Basic references
topics problems questions

CATALOGUE OF SCALING LAWS AND SIMILITUDE QUESTIONS IN GEOTECHNICAL CENTRIFUGE MODELLING

L6 Most tests to date have been conducted on crystalline ice, such Creep is an important (1) Langhorne &
Ice as found in sea ice sheets, rather than on freshwater ice. (1) unresolved issue. Robinson (1983)
& (2) suggest that the grain size of sea ice is scaled as 1/N (2) Lovell & Schofield
in the centrifuge, consistent with the macro length scale and (1986)
(4). Flexural strength of model ice is comparable with field (3) Palmer (1991)
ice, minor differences can be accommodated by variations of (4) Barrette et al.
brine volume or temperature (6). The modulus of model ice (1999)
is relatively low, which can be partly compensated by increased (5) Langhorne et al.
confining stress (4). Interaction loads between ice sheets and (1999)
rubble ice with structures have compared well to those from (6) Lau et al. (2000)
full scale ice tank tests, where very weak ice is required to (7) Lau et al. (2002)
satisfy Froude scaling (6&7). Ice is also a brittle material
characterized by fracture. (3) presents a scaling law for fracture
rather than yield; there appears to be a threshold below which
this is less important (5).

M1 In granular soil, erosion and surface flow events in the model No experimental Goodings (1982)
M
Erosion will achieve similarity provided the particle size is reduced by validation of the
n: theoretical scaling
Erosion, sedimentation
d50* > 1/n factor.

This condition may be in conflict with the following one (that

could be needed to keep the flow under laminar conditions):

d10* > 1/ n

15
 16
Main Similitude Known data and results Still open Basic references
topics problems questions

N N1 Mf the soil and the pore fluid are the same in model and in These scaling laws are Beddiar (2001)
Electro-osmosis the prototype, then: still assumptions and Beddiar et al. (2002)
Electric current modelling have to be checked in Beddiar et al. (2006)
propagation, electro- the future.
osmosis Casagrandes’ law qe* = v* = i* = n and ∆V*=1
qe = ke (∆V/∆L)
i : current density (electrical current per unit area)
Ohm’s law ke (m2/Vs) : electro-osmotic coefficient
i = (1/ρ) . (∆V/∆L) kh (m/s): horizontal permeability
n: centrifuge acceleration
Darcy law qe (m/s) : electro-osmotic flow rate per unit area
v = - λ (∆P/∆L) v (m/s) : rate of discharge per unit area (or Darcy velocity)
∆V/∆L (V/m) : imposed electrical gradient.

GARNIER ET AL.
λ (m2/Pa/s) : fluid mobility = kh / η
ρ (Ω.m) : electrical resistivity
 CATALOGUE OF SCALING LAWS AND SIMILITUDE QUESTIONS IN GEOTECHNICAL CENTRIFUGE MODELLING 17

Notation and units

a [a] = LT-2 Acceleration

B [B] = L Diameter or width of foundation
BT [BT] = L Diameter of tunnel model
c [c] = ML-1T-2 Cohesion
cu [cu] = ML-1T-2 Undrained shear strength
d [d] = L Characteristic dimension
Cu [Cu] = 1 Coefficient of secondary compression
cv [cv] = L2T-1 Coefficient of consolidation
dc [dc] = L Diameter of the CPT tip
d50 [d50] = L Mean grain diameter
D [D] = L Depth of foundation
e [e] = 1 Void ratio
eeop [eeop ] = 1 Void ratio at the end of primary consolidation
Emodel [Em] = ML2T-2 Model input energy
Eprototype [Ep] = ML2T-2 Prototype input energy
F [F] = MLT-2 Force
FF [FF] = 1 Friction factor
g [g] = LT-2 Earth gravity (9.81 m/s2)
G [G] = ML-1T-2 Shear modulus
H [H] = L Height of wall model
Hc [Hc] = L Capillary rise
i [i] = 1 Hydraulic gradient (Darcy)
[i] = ML-2T-2 Hydraulic gradient (Coussy)
[i] = AM-2 Current density
ID [ID] = 1 Relative density
k [k] = LT-1 Darcy coefficient of permeability
ke [ke]= L2V-1T-1 Electro-osmotic coefficient
kh [kh] = LT-1 Horizontal permeability
kn [kn] = ML-2T-2 Constant normal stiffness (∆σ/∆u)
K [K] = L2 Intrinsic or geometrical permeability
Ko [Ko] = 1 Ratio σh’ / σv’ (at rest earth pressure coefficient)
l [l] = L Dimension, length
m [m] = M mass of the boulder
n [n] = 1 Centrifuge acceleration level (n times earth gravity)
n2 Nominal g value at radius of impact r = r2
n*2 g - value at the time of impact, allowing for friction
ns [ns] = 1 Soil porosity
OCR [OCR] = 1 Overconsolidation ratio
p [p] = ML-1T-2 Lateral soil reaction (horizontally loaded
piles)[p] = ML-1T-2 Pressure, Pore pressure
q [q] = ML-1T-2 T-bar resistance
qc [qc] = ML-1T-2 CPT tip resistance
qe [qe] = MT-1 Electro osmotic flow rate per unit area
Qc [Qc] = 1 Normalised dimensionless CPT tip
resistance Qc = qc/ρgz
R [R] = L Peak to peak surface roughness
[R] = L Radius of the pressuremeter
Re [Re] = 1 Reynolds number (ρvd/µ)
Rn [Rn] = 1 Normalised dimensionless interface roughness
18 GARNIER ET AL.

t [t] = T Time
T [T] = MT-2 Surface tension at the air/water interface
u [u] = L Radial displacement
up [up] = L Relative displacement at peak load
(interface shear tests)
V [V] = 1 Normalised velocity
[V] = L2MT-3A-1 Potential difference
v [v] = LT-1 Velocity (also at time of impact), flow or discharge velocity
w [w] = 1 Water content
W [W] = ML2T-2 Energy (pile driving)
y [y] = L Relative horizontal displacement (laterally
loaded piles)
zc [zc] = L Critical depth
Z [Z] = ML-1T-2 Dynamic impedance

δ [δ] = 1 Contact angle

ε [ε] = 1 Strain
γ [γ] = ML-2T-2 Unit weight
∆h[∆h] = L Hydraulic head loss
∆u[∆u] = L Dilatation of the shear band
λ [λ] = M-1L3T Coefficient of mobility
η [η] = ML-1T-1 Dynamic viscosity (( = (.()
µ [µ] = L2T-1 Cinematic viscosity (( = (/()
µ [µ] = 1 Rate coefficient
θ [θ] = 1 Volumetric water content
ρ [ρ] = ML-3 Unit mass
σv [σv] = ML-1T-2 Vertical stress acting on the horizontal
plane
σh [σh] = ML-1T-2 Horizontal stress acting on the vertical
plane
τ [τ] = 1 Tortuosity of the porous material
τp [τp] = ML-1T-2 Interface frictional resistance
ξ [ξ] = L Displacement, deflection
 CATALOGUE OF SCALING LAWS AND SIMILITUDE QUESTIONS IN GEOTECHNICAL CENTRIFUGE MODELLING 19

REFERENCES
1) Antoniadis, V. and McKinley, J. D. (2000): “Leaching tests in a laboratory centrifuge on zinc migration in London
Clay,” International Symposium on Physical Modelling and Testing in Environmental Geotechnics, La Baule,
France, J. Garnier, L. Thorel, E. Haza, LCPC (eds), pp. 53-60.
2) Arulanandan, K., Thompson, P. Y., Kutter, B. L., Meegoda, N. J., Muraleetharan, K.K. and Yogachandran, C. (1988):
“Centrifuge modeling of transport processes for pollutants in soils,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering., ASCE,
Vol. 114, No. 2, pp. 185-205.
3) Balachandran, S. (1996): “Modelling of geosynthetic reinforced soil walls,” PhD Dissertation, University of Cambridge.
4) Balay, J., Berdat, R. and Harfouche, L. (1988): “Etude en centrifugeuse de la consolidation sous poids propre de
sols très lâches,” Proceedings International Conference Centrifuge 88, Paris, Corté (ed.), Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp. 193-202.
5) Barrette, P. D., Phillips, R., Clark, J. I., Crocker, G. and Jones, S. J. (1999): “Flexural behaviour of model sea ice
in a centrifuge,” ASCE Journal of Cold Regions Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 122-138.
6) Basford, J., Goodings, D. J. and Torrents, A. (2002): “Fate and transport of lead through soil at 1g and in the
centrifuge,” International Conference of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, ICPMG ’02, St Johns, Canada, R.
Phillips, P.J. Guo, R. Popescu (eds), Balkema, Lisse, pp. 379-383.
7) Beddiar, K. (2001): “Sur certains aspects des couplages dans les milieux poreux électrisés. Application à l’électro-
osmose dans les argiles,” thèse de l’Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées, 212 p.
8) Beddiar, K., Rault, G., Thorel, L. and Berthaud, Y. (2002): “Electro-osmosis on clay in 1D-centrifuge test,” Physical
Modelling in Geotechnics, ICPMG02, R. Phillips, P.J. Guo, R. Popescu (eds), Balkema, Lisse, pp. 337-342.
9) Beddiar, K., Rault, G., Berthaud, Y., Thorel, L. and Dupas, A. (2006): “Accélération de la consolidation des argiles
par électro-osmose : essais en centrifugeuse,” Revue Française de Géotechnique ISSN 0181-0529. No. 114, pp.
43-52.
10) Bolton, M. D., Gui, M. W., Garnier, J., Corte, J. F., Bagge, G., Laue, J. and Renzi, R. (1999): “Centrifuge cone
penetration test in sand”, Géotechnique, Vol. 49, No. 4, pp. 543-552.
11) Boulon M. & Foray P. (1986): “Physical and numerical simulation of lateral shaft friction along offshore piles
in sand,” 3rd Iinternational Conference on Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling, Nantes, France, pp. 127-147.
12) Butterfield, R. (2000): “Scale-modelling of fluid flow in geotechnical centrifuges,” Soils and Foundations, Vol.
40, No. 6, pp. 39-45.
13) Canépa, Y., Garnier, J., Amar, S. and Corté, J.-F. (1988): “Confrontation d’essais de chargement de fondations
superficielles réalisés en vraie grandeur et en centrifugeuse,” Proceedings of International Conference Centrifuge
88, Paris, Corté (ed.), Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 313-323.
14) Cargill, K.W. and Ko, H-Y. (1983): “Centrifugal modeling of transient water flow,” Journal Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 109, No. 4, pp. 536-555.
15) Chambon, P., Couillaud, A., Munch, P., Schürmann, A. and König, D. (1995): “Stabilité du front de taille d’un
tunnel: Étude de l’effet d’échelle,” Geo 95, pp. 3.
16) Chazelas, J. L., Abraham, O. and Semblat, J. F. (2001): “Identification of different seismic waves generated by
foundation vibration in the centrifuge: travel time, spectral and numerical investigations,” Proceedings 4th International
Conference Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering And Soil Dynamics, San Diego, March 26-
31, Paper N˚ 9.21, Univeristy of Missouri-Rolla, San Diego CA (Eds.), 6 p.
17) Chen, X., Schofield, A. N. and Smith, C. C. (1993): “Preliminary tests of heave and settlement of soils undergoing
one cycle of freeze-thaw in a close system on a small centrifuge,” Proceedings 6th International Conference
Permafrost, Vol. 2. pp. 1070-1072.
18) Chikatamarla, R. (2006): “Optimisation of cushion materials for rockfall protection galleries,” PhD Thesis No. 16315,
ETH Zurich.
19) Chikatamarla, R., Laue, J. and Springman, S.M. (2006): “Centrifuge scaling laws for guided free fall events including
rockfalls,” International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 14-25.
20) Christensen, S.N. and Bagge, G. (1977): “Centrifugal testing on the bearing capacity of circular footings on the
surface of sand,” Dialogue, 20th anniversary of the Danish Engineering Acadamy, Copenhagen, from Fuglsang,
L.D., Ovesen (1988).
21) Clark, J. I. and Phillips, R. (2003): “Centrifuge modelling of frost heave of arctic gas pipelines,” Proceedings 8th
International Permafrost Conference, ICOP 2003, M. Phillips, S.M. Springman and L.U. Arenson (eds), Vol. 1,
pp. 151-156.
20 GARNIER ET AL.

22) Cooke, B. (2000): “Centrifuge Modeling of LNAPL Infiltration,” International Symp. on Physical Modelling and
Testing in Environmental Geotechnics, La Baule, J. Garnier, L. Thorel, E. Haza (eds), pp. 269-276.
23) Corté, J. F., Garnier, J., Cottineau, L. M. and Rault, G. (1991): “Determination of the model soil properties in
the centrifuge,” Proceedings International Conference Centrifuge 91, Boulder, Colorado, H-Y. Ko, F.G. Maclean
(eds), Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 607-614.
24) Crançon, P., Guy, C., Pili, E., Dutheil, S. and Gaudet, J. P. (2000): “Modeling of capillary rise and water retention
in centrifuge tests using time domain reflectometry,” International Symposium on Physical Modelling and Testing
in Environmental Geotechnics, La Baule, J. Garnier, L. Thorel, E. Haza, LCPC (eds), pp. 199-206.
25) Culligan, P. J., and Barry, D. A. (1998): “Similitude requirements for modelling NAPL movement with a geotechnical
centrifuge,” Proceedings Institution Civil Engineers in Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 131, pp. 180-186.
26) Culligan, P. J., Banno, K., Barry, D. A. and Parlange, J-Y. (2002): “Preferential flow of a light non aqueous phase
liquid in dry sand,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 128, No. 4, pp. 327-
337.
27) Dickin, E. A. and Leung, C. F. (1983): “Centrifugal model tests on vertical anchor plates,” Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 109, No. 2, pp. 1503-1525.
28) Dutheil, S. (1998): “Simulation des effets d’une explosion enterrée - Essais sur modèles réduits centrifug_s,” Th_se
de doctorat, Ecole Polytechnique, Paris, 155 p.
29) Esposito, G. (2000): “Centrifuge simulation of light hydrocarbon spill in partially saturated Dutch dune sand,”
Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, Vol. 58, pp. 89-93.
30) Fiegel, G. L., Hudson, M., Idriss, I. M., Kutter, B. L. and Zeng, X. (1994): “Effect of Model Containers on Dynamic
Soil Response,” Proceedings International Conference, Centrifuge 94, Singapore, C.F. Leung, F-H. Lee, T.S. Tan
(eds), Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 145-150,
31) Fioravante, V. (2002): “On the shaft friction modelling of non-displacement piles in sand,” Soils and Foundations,
Vol. 42, N˚ 2, pp. 23-33, Japanese Geotechnical Society.
32) Foray, P., Balachowski, L., Rault, G. (1998): “Scale effect in shaft friction due to the localisation of deformations,”
Proceedings International Conference Centrifuge 98, Tokyo, T. Kimura, O. Kusakabe, J. Takemura (eds), Balkema,
Rotterdam, Vol. 1, pp. 211-216.
33) Fedoroff, B.T. and Sheffield, O.E. (1960): “Encyclopedia of Explosives and Related Items,” Picatinny Arsenal Dover ,
New Jersey, USA, Volume 4.
34) Fuglsang, L.D. and Ovesen, N.K. (1987): “The application of theory of modelling to centrifuge studies. Centrifuge
in soil mechanics,” Craig, W., James, Schofield, A. (eds), Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 119-138.
35) Garnier, J. and König, D. (1998): “Scale effects in piles and nail loading tests in sand, Proceedings International
Conference Centrifuge 98, Tokyo, T. Kimura, O. Kusakabe, J. Takemura (eds), Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 1, pp.
205-210.
36) Garnier, J. (2001): “Physical models in geotechnics: state of the art and recent advances,” First Coulomb Lecture,
Paris, 3 October, CFMS (ed.).
37) Garnier, J. (2002): “Properties of soil samples used in centrifuge models,” International Conference Physical Modelling
in Geotechnics, ICPMG ’02, St John’s, R. Phillips, P.J. Guo, R. Popescu (eds), pp. 5-19.
38) Gemperline, M. C. and Ko, H. Y. (1984): “Centrifugal model tests for ultimate bearing capacity of footings on
steep slopes in cohesionless soils,” Proceedings Application of centrifuge modelling to geotechnical design. Craig,
W. (ed.), Manchester, pp. 206-225.
39) Goforth, G. F., Townsend, F. C. and Bloomquist, D. (1991): “Saturated and unsaturated fluid flow in a centrifuge,”
Proceedings International Conference Centrifuge 91, Boulder, Colorado, H-Y. Ko, F.G. Maclean (eds), Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp. 497-502.
40) Goodings D. J. (1982): “Relationships for centrifugal modelling of seepage and surface flow effects on embankment
dams,” Géotechnique, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 149-152.
41) Goodings D. J. (1984): “Relationships for modelling water effects in geotechnical centrifuge models,” Proceedings
Application of centrifuge modelling to geotechnical design, Craig, W. (ed.), Manchester, pp. 1-23.
42) Goodings D. J. (1994): “Implications of changes in seepage flow regimes for centrifuge models,” Proceedings
International Conference, Centrifuge 94, Singapore, C.F. Leung, F-H. Lee, T.S. Tan (eds), Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp. 393-398.
43) Griffioen, J. W., Culligan, P. J., Barry, D. A. and Banno, K. (1997): “Centrifuge scaling of unstable infiltration,”
Recent Research Developments in Soil Science, Research Signpost, Trivandrum, India. 1997, pp. 29-41.
 CATALOGUE OF SCALING LAWS AND SIMILITUDE QUESTIONS IN GEOTECHNICAL CENTRIFUGE MODELLING 21

44) Gurung, S. B., Almeida, M. S. S. and Bicalho, K. V. (1998): “Migration of zinc through sedimentary soil models,”
Proceedings International Conference Centrifuge 98, Tokyo, T. Kimura, O. Kusakabe, J. Takemura (eds), Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp. 589-594.
45) Harris, C., Davies, M. C. R. and Rea, B. (2000): “Geotechnical centrifuge modelling of gelifluction: validation
of a new approach to cryogenic mass movement processes studies,” Annals of Glaciology, Vol. 31, pp. 417-421.
46) Harris, C., Davies, M. C. R. and Rea, B. (2002): “Centrifuge modelling of slope processes in thawing ice-rich
soils,” International Conference Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, ICPMG ’02, St John’s, R. Phillips, P.J. Guo,
R. Popescu (eds), Balkema, Lisse, pp. 297-302.
47) Hensley, P. J. and Savvidou, C. (1993): “Modelling coupled heat and contaminant transport in groundwater,”
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, Vol. 17, pp. 493-527.
48) Hensley, P. J. and Schofield, A. N. (1991): “Accelerated physical modelling of hazardous-waste transport”, G_otechnique
41(3), 447-465.
49) Hensley, P. J. and Randolph, M. F. (1994): “Modeling contaminant dispersion in saturated sand,” Proceedings of
the XIIIth International Conference of Soil Mechannics and Foundation Engineering, New Delhi, pp. 1557 - 1560.
50) Holsapple, K. A. and Schmidt, R. M. (1982): “On the Scaling of Crater Dimensions - 2. Impact processes,” Journal
of Geophysical Research, Vol. 87, No. B3, pp. 1849-1870.
51) Housen, K. R., Schmidt, R. M. and Holsapple, K. A. (1983): “Crater Ejecta Scaling Laws: Fundamental Forms
Based on Dimensional Analysis,” Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 88, No. B3, pp. 2485-2499.
52) Ketcham, S. A. and Black, P. B. (1995): “Initial results from small scale frost heave experiments in a centrifuge,”
U.S. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory Report 95-9, 18 p.
53) Ketcham, S., Black, P. and Pettro, R. (1997): “Frost heave loading of constrained footing by centrifuge modelling,”
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 123, No. 2, pp. 874-881.
54) Khalifa, A., Garnier, J., Thomas, P. and Rault, G. (2000): “Scaling laws of water flow in centrifuge models,”
International Symposium on Physical Modelling in Environmental Geotechnics, La Baule, J. Garnier, L. Thorel,
E. Haza (eds), LCPC, Paris, pp. 207-216.
55) King, G. J. W., Dickin, E. A. and Lyndon, A. (1984): “The development of a medium size centrifugal testing
facilities,” Proceedings Application of centrifuge modelling to geotechnical design. Craig, W. (ed.), Manchester,
pp. 25-46.
56) Kishida, H., and Uesugi M. (1987): “Tests of the interface between sand and steel in the simple shear apparatus,”
Géotechnique, 37(1), pp. 45-52.
57) Knight, M. A. and Mitchell, R. J. (1996): “Modelling of light nonaqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) releases into
unsaturated sand,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 33, pp. 913-925.
58) Knight, M. A., Cooke, A. B. and Mitchell, R. J. (2000): “Scaling of the movement and fate of contaminant releases
in the vadose zone by centrifuge modelling,” International Symposium on Physical Modelling and Testing in
Environmental Geotechnics, La Baule, J. Garnier, L. Thorel, E. Haza, LCPC (eds), LCPC, Paris, pp. 233-242.
59) Krishnaiah, S. and Singh, D. N. (2004): “Centrifuge modelling of heat migration in soils,” International Journal
of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 39-47.
60) Kutter, B. L., Moquette O’Leary, L., Thompson, P. Y. and Lather, R. (1988): “Gravity-scaled tests on blast-induced
soil-structure interaction,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 114, No. 4, pp. 431-447.
61) Kutter, B. L., Chang, J-D. and Davis, B. C. (1995): “Collapse of Cavities in Sand and Particle Size Effects,”
Proceedings International Conference, Centrifuge 94, Singapore, C.F. Leung, F-H. Lee, T.S. Tan (eds), Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp. 809-815.
62) Kutter, B. L. (1994): “Recent Advances in Centrifuge Modeling of Seismic Shaking,” State-of-the-Art Paper, Proceedings,
3rd International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics,
St. Louis, MO, Vol. 2, pp. 927-942, April, 1995.
63) Lai, T., Elgamal, A., Kutter, B. L. and Wilson, D. W. (2002): “Three Dimensional Modeling for Site Seismic Response
in Laminated and Rigid Centrifuge Containers,” Proceedings International Conference on Physical Modelling in
Geotechnics, St. Johns, Canada, R. Phillips, T.J. Guo, R. Popescu, (eds), Balkema, Lisse, Netherlands, pp. 189-194.
64) Langhorne, P. J. and Robinson, W.H. (1983): “Effects of acceleration on sea ice growth,” Nature, Vol. 305, pp.
695-698.
65) Langhorne, P. J., Stone K. J. L., and Smith C. C. (1999): “The bearing capacity of saline ice sheets: centrifugal
modeling,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 36 pp. 467-481.
66) Lareal, P., Boulebnane, A., Garnier, J. and Cottineau, L.M. (1995): “Détermination expérimentale du coefficient
Ko - Méthode d’essai en Laboratoire,” 11th European Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foudation Engineering,
Copenhague, Danemark, 28 May/1 June, pp. 143-148.
22 GARNIER ET AL.

67) Lau, M., Jones, S. J., Phillips, R. and McKenna, R. F. (2000): “Influence of velocity on ice-cone interaction,”
IUTAM conference.
68) Lau, M., Phillips, R., McKenna, R. F. and Jones, S. J. (2002): “Modelling Ice-Structure Interactions in a Geotechnical
Centrifuge. Proceedings International Conference on Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, St. John’s, Newfoundland,
Canada, R. Phillips, P. Guo, R. Popescu (eds). Balkema, pp. 325-330.
69) Laut, P. (1975): “Application of centrifugal model tests in connexion with studies of flow patterns of contaminated
water in soil structures,” Géotechnique, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 401-406.
70) Lehane, B. M., Gaudin, C. and Schneider, J. (2005): “Scale effects on tension capacity for rough piles buried
in dense sand,” Géotechnique, Vol. 55, No. 10, pp. 709-719.
71) Levy, L. C., Culligan, P. J. and Germaine, J. T. (2002) : “Use of the geotechnical centrifuge as a tool to model
dense non-aqueous phase liquid migration in fractures,” Water Resources Research, Vol. 38, No. 8, pp. 34-12.
72) Levy, L. C., Culligan, P. J. and Germaine, J. T. (2003): “Modeling of DNAPL behavior in vertical fractures,”
International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics., Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 1-19.
73) Lings, M. L. and Dietz, M. S. (2005): “The peak strength of sand-steel interfaces and the role of dilation,” Soils
and Foundations, Vol. 45, No. 6, pp. 1-14.
74) Lo, I. M. C., Hu, C. M. and Meegoda, J. N. (2004): “Centrifuge modeling of LNAPL transport in unsaturated
soils,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 5, pp. 535-539.
75) Lord, A. E. (1999): “Capillary flow in the geotechnical centrifuge. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 22,
No. 4, pp. 292-300.
76) Lovell, S. and Schofield, A. N. (1986): “Centrifugal modeling of sea ice,” Proceedings 1st International Conference
Ice Technology, pp. 105-113.
77) Marquaß, K. (1997): “Zentrifugen-Modellversuche zum Tragverhalten einer biegeweichen Verbauwand,” Diploma
thesis, Institute for soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Ruhr-Universität Bochum (not published).
78) McKinley, J. D., Price, B. A. Lynch, R. J. and Schofield, A. N. (1998): “Centrifuge modelling the transport of
a pulse of two contaminants through a clay layer,” Géotechnique, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 421-426.
79) Mikasa, M. and Takada, N. (1973): “Significance of centrifugal model tests in soil mechanics,” 8th International
Conference of Soil Mechancis and Foundation Engineering, Moscow, pp. 273-278.
80) Nakajima, H., Hirooka, A., Takemura, J. and Mariño, M. A. (1998): “Centrifuge Modeling of One-Dimensional
Subsurface Contamination,” AWRA Paper Number 97115 Vol. 34, No. 6, pp. 1415-1425.
81) Nunez, I. L. (1988): “Driving and tension loading of piles in sand on a centrifuge,” Proceedings International
Conference Centrifuge 88, Paris, Corté, J.F. (ed.), Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 353-362.
82) Oung, O., Bezuijen, A., Westrate, F., Haza, E., Favraud, C., Garnier, J., Spiessal, S., Taylor, N., Coumoulos, H.,
Soga, K., Esposito, G. and Allersma, H. (2005): “Investigations of a European Network of Geotechnical Centrifuges
on Multiphase Flow,” International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 1-14.
83) Ovesen, N. K. (1979): “The scaling law relationship,” Panel discussion, Proceedings 7th European Conference in
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Brighton, Vol. 4, pp. 319-323.
84) Ovesen, N. K. (1981): “Centrifuge tests of the uplift capacity of anchors,” 10th International Conference of Soil
Mechancis and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, pp. 717-722.
85) Palmer, A. C. (1991): “Centrifuge modeling of ice and brittle materials,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 28,
pp. 896-898.
86) Palmer, A. C., White, D. J., Baumgard, J., Bolton, M. D., Barefoot, J., Finch, M., Powell, T., Faranski, A. S. and
Baldry, J. A. S. (2003): “Scale effects in the uplift resistance of buried pipelines” Géotechnique, Vol. 53, No. 10,
pp. 877-883.
87) Phillips, E. (1869): “De l’équilibre des solides élastiques,” Comptes rendus à l’Académie des Sciences, Paris,
68, Janvier-Juin 1869.
88) Phillips, R. and Valsangkar, A. (1987): “An experimental investigation of factors affecting penetration resistance
in granular soils in centrifuge modelling,” CUED/DTR210. 17p.
89) Pincent, B. and Tchocothé, F. (1981): “Centrifugation: vérification expérimentale de la similitude,” Proceedings
10th International Conference of Soil Mechancis and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, Vol. 1, pp. 741-744.
90) Pokrowsky, G. I. and Fyodorov, I. S. (1975a): “Centrifugal model testing in the construction industry,” Niedra
Publishing House, Moscow, English translation by BRE, 1, 173 p.
91) Pokrowsky, G. I. and Fyodorov, I. S. (1975b): “Centrifugal model testing in the construction industry,” Niedra
Publishing House, Moscow, English translation by BRE, 2, 195 p.
92) Randolph, M. F., Cassidy, M. J., Gourvenec, S. M. and Erbrich, C. (2005): “Challenges of offshore geotechnical
engineering,” Proceedings 16th International Conference of Soil Mechancis and Foundation Engineering, Osaka,
Japan, Vol. 1, pp. 123-176.
 CATALOGUE OF SCALING LAWS AND SIMILITUDE QUESTIONS IN GEOTECHNICAL CENTRIFUGE MODELLING 23

93) Ratnam, S., Culligan-Hensley, P. J. and Germaine, J. T. (1996): “Geotechnical Centrifuge Modeling of Light Nonaqueous
Phase Liquid (LNAPL) Entrapment in Sand Samples Under Hydraulic Flushing,” Geotechnical News, Vol. 14;
No. 3, pp. 22-31.
94) Remaud, D. (1999): “Pieux sous charges latérales : Etude expérimentale de l’effet de groupe,” Thése de Doctorat
de l’Université de Nantes, 328 p.
95) Rezzoug, A., König, D., Triantafyllidis, Th., Coumoulos, H. and Soga, K. (2000a): “Numerical analysis of scaling
laws for capillary rise,” International Symposium on Physical Modelling and Testing in Environmental Geotechnics,
La Baule, J. Garnier, L. Thorel, E. Haza, LCPC (eds), LCPC, Paris, pp. 225-232.
96) Rezzoug, A., König, D. and Triantafyllidis, Th. (2000b): “Scaling laws in centrifuge modelling for capillary rise
in soils,” International Symposium on Physical Modelling and Testing in Environmental Geotechnics, La Baule,
J. Garnier, L. Thorel, E. Haza, LCPC (eds), pp. 217-224.
97) Rezzoug, A., König, D. and Triantafyllidis, Th. (2004): “Scaling laws for centrifuge modeling of capillary rise
in sandy soils,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 6, pp. 615-
620.
98) Savvidou, C. (1988): “Centrifuge modelling of heat transfer in soil,” Proceedings International Conference Centrifuge
88, Paris, Corté (ed.), Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 583-591.
99) Schofield, A. N. (1980): “Cambridge geotechnical centrifuge operations,” Gtéotechnique, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 227-
268.
100) Schrijver, R., Van Lochen, M. and Westrate, F. A. (2000): “Centrifuge Research on Sorption Kinetics,” International
Symposium on Physical Modelling and Testing in Environmental Geotechnics, La Baule, J. Garnier, L. Thorel,
E. Haza, LCPC (eds), pp. 107-116.
101) Sieffert, J. G. and Levacher, D. (1995): “Etude de l’effet d’échelle de pieux battus en cours de centrifugation,”
Revue Franéaise de Géotechnique, Vol. 10, pp. 55-68.
102) Singh, D. N. and Gupta, A. K. (2000): “Modelling hydraulic conductivity in a small centrifuge,” Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 37, No 5, pp. 1150-1155.
103) Schmidt, R. M. (1980): “Meteor Crater: Energy of formation - Implications of centrifuge scaling,” Proceedings
11th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, pp. 2099-2128
104) Smith, C. C. (1995): “Cold Regions Engineering in Geotechnical Centrifuge Technology,” R.N. Taylor (ed.) Glasgow,
Chapman & Hall.
105) Springman, S. M., Bolton, M. D., Sharma, J. S. and Balachandran, S. (1992): “Modelling and instrumentation
of a geotextile in the geotechnical centrifuge,” International Symposium on Earth Reinforcement Practice, Kyushu,
H. Ochiai, S. Hayashi, J. Otani (eds), Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 167-172.
106) Springman, S. M. and Balachandran, S. (1994): “Performance of a woven geotextile-reinforced retaining wall
in the centrifuge,” International Conference Geotextiles, Geomembranes and Related Products, Singapore. G.P.
Karunatne, S.H. Chew, K.S. Wong (eds), SEAC-International Geotex. Soc., 1, pp. 251-254.
107) Stone, K. J. L. and Muir Wood, D. (1992): “Effects at dilatancy and particle size observed in model tests on
sand,” Soils and Foundations, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 43-47.
108) Taylor, R. N. (1995): “Geotechnical Centrifuge Technology,” Chapman and Hall, London.
109) Ternet, O. (1999): “Reconstitution et caractérisation des massifs de sable: application aux essais en centrifugeuse
et en chambre de calibration,” Thése de doctorat, Université de Caen, 184 p.
110) Teymur, B. and Madabushi, S. P. G. (2003): “Experimental study of boundary effects in dynamic centrifuge
modelling,” Géotechnique Vol. 53, No. 7, pp. 655-663.
111) Villar, H. and Merrifield, C. M. (1994): “Studies on groundwater transport of radioactive waste,” Proceedings
International Conference, Centrifuge 94, Singapore, C.F. Leung, F-H. Lee, T.S. Tan (eds), Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp. 369-374.
112) Williams, D.J. (1988): “Consolidation, crusting and loading of a soil slurry at 1 and 100 gravities,” Proceedings
of 5th Australia - New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics, Sydney, Australia, August 1988, pp. 202-206.
113) Viswanadham, B. V. S. and König, D. (2004): “Studies on scaling and instrumentation of a geogrid,” Geotextiles
and Geomembranes, Elsevier (www.sciencedirect.com) Vol. 22, pp. 307-328.
114) White, R. J., Stone, K. J. L. and Jewell, J. J. (1994): “Effect of particle size on localisation development in model
tests on sand,” Proceedings International Conference, Centrifuge 94, Singapore, C.F. Leung, F-H. Lee, T.S. Tan
(eds), Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 817-822.
115) Yang, D. (1996): “Investigation of the Scaling law for centrifuge modeling of frost heave,” PhD Thesis, University
of Maryland.