Test SH01 - Preliminary Report

Submitted by Luciano Souza Junior

Submitted on December 20, 2019

Week of test
Monday - 16/12/2019
• The calibration with the concrete block was performed and all the parameters indicated a good performance by
the shaker
• The final layer of instruments were placed and the consolidometer plate was placed on top of the model.

Tuesday - 17/12/2019
• The model was left with the consolidometer plate until its is removal on the morning. The container was moved
to the centrifuge room late in the morning and placed on the basket
• During the T-bar system placement, a failure on the data system was verified. The hard disk of the computer
responsible for recording the data was compromised. No T-bar test is planned due to this failure.
• Due to the same problem, the potentiometer recording system was compromised. It was decided to try to connect
it to the LMS ( dynamic recording system)
• The model was kept with a double geotextile layer and a plastic film on top, to avoid desaturation.

• All the cables were connected to the corresponding channels. Some failures were observed and the channels that
didn’t respond prior to the test are reported in the sensor table attached at the end of this report.

Wednesday - 18/12/2019 - SH01-0 Test

Prior to the Test
• The connections for the potentiometers and the bender element system were done.
• A final check for accelerometers signals was made
• The geotextile and plastic film remained at the top of the model
• A hole on the geotextile and the plastic was made to place the potentiometers

• The bender system was tested and appeared to be fully operational

During the test

Flight
• During the flight, it appeared that the potentiometers were not operational due to the filtering imposed by the
LMS system.
• It was decided that, during the pause, the potentiometers were going to be substituted for laser sensors.
• After the first 2-hour consolidation, the laser was placed and the signal was tested.
• The pore-pressure sensors seemed to work properly.

• The inputs motions with 0.075g amplitude were not test due to the lack of the driver file. It will be fixed for the
next test on the canyon model.
• The model was left for a longer time after the last shake for a pore pressure dissipation

1
 Test Timeline

09:40 Start Spin-up

09:44 40g - Start of in-flight consolidation
11:44 Bender 2
11:50 Spin down
11:53 1g - Laser Placement
12:23 Spin- up
12:26 40g - Start of in-flight consolidation
13:26 Bender 3
13:31 Emilia 0.05g
13:41 Bender 4
13:45 Sine 0.05g
13:57 Bender 5
14:01 Emilia 0.1g
14:11 Bender 6
14:16 Sine 0.1g
14:26 Bender 7
14:31 Emilia 0.15g
14:41 Bender 8
14:46 Sine 0.15g
15:03 Bender 9
15:55 Bender 10
16:00 Spin Down

After the test

• After the spin down, the bar with the laser instruments was removed
• It was decided to left the canyon cut to the next day, to avoid desaturation
• The model seemed with a good aspect, after the first day of tests, with no signs of desaturation or swelling

LMS File Table

File Sampling Frequency (Hz) Event

sistalsub2_1_1 200 2 hour consolidation
sistalsub2_1_2 200 1 hour consolidation
sistalsub2_1_3 12800 Emilia 0.05 g
sistalsub2_1_4 200 Consolidation
sistalsub2_1_5 12800 Sine 0.05g
sistalsub2_1_6 200 Consolidation
sistalsub2_1_7 12800 Emilia 0.1 g
sistalsub2_1_8 200 Consolidation
sistalsub2_1_9 12800 Sine 0.1g
sistalsub2_1_10 200 Consolidation
sistalsub2_1_11 12800 Emilia 0.15g
sistalsub2_1_12 200 Consolidation
sistalsub2_1_13 12800 Sine 0.15g
sistalsub2_1_14 200 Consolidation

2
Thursday - 19/12/2019 - SH01-30
Prior to the test
• The geotextile and the plastic were removed from the model
• The slope was cut and samples were taken to measure the water content. Three accelerometers were taken out
due to the slope excavation as planned.
• A bender element test high low amplitude input was done to test the bender system before the start of the
shaking table to avoid the vibration coming from it. The system worked fine
• There was no change in the channel acquisition system and the accelerometers that were working in the previous
model continue to work on this model
• The same test procedure was adopted for this model and the 0.075g inputs will not be done due to the lack of
the driver file
• After the slope cut, geotextiles were placed at each end of the model to avoid desaturation

During the Test

Flight
• The spin up went from 1 to 40 g directly in 4 minutes and the consolidation started
• A bender element test was performed at the end of each consolidation period
Timeline

09:06 Bender 1
09:11 Shaker started
09:33 Spin up
09:37 40g - Start of Consolidation
11:24 Bender 2
11:30 Spin Down - End of consolidation
11:34 1g
12:01 Spin up
13:01 Bender 3
13:14 Emilia 0.05g
13:25 Bender 4
13:29 Sine 0.05g
13:39 Bender 5
13:44 Emilia 0.1g
13:56 Bender 6
14:00 Sine 0.1g
14:10 Bender 7
14:15 Emilia 0.15g
14:25 Bender 8
14:30 Sine 0.15g
14:31 Bender 9
15:23 Bender 10
15:26 Spin Down

3
After the test
• After the spin down, the model had a good appearance. All the surface felt wet, with no signs of severe process
of dryness.
• As it is possible to observe from Figure 6 (b), comparing the canyon geometry from the beginning of the test
with the geometry at the end, a small difference is presented.
• During the exhumation and the slope cut, samples were taken to measure the water content. The result is
presented below

Depth (cm) Wcontainer Wwet Wdry w (%) wavg (%)

2,50* 7 65,5 48 42,68%
41,88%
2,50* 6,7 75,4 55,4 41,07%
2,50 6,8 84,4 61,9 40,83%
40,46%
2,50 6,9 100,2 73,5 40,09%
10,00 7 188,2 136,2 40,25%
10,00 7 186,5 135,1 40,12% 40,28%
10,00 7 155,2 112,5 40,47%
25,00 7 177,5 129,1 39,64%
25,00 7 178,9 130,8 38,85% 39,40%
25,00 7 163,2 118,8 39,71%

Table 1: Water content measurements (* indicates the sample that was taken during the slope cut)

• The reason why accelerometer A13 didn’t work can be explained by a mistake made during the cut on the
geotextile to place the potentiometer.

LMS File Table

File Sampling Frequency (Hz) Event

sistalsub2_2_2 200 3 hour consolidation
sistalsub2_2_3 12800 Emilia 0.05 g
sistalsub2_2_4 200 Consolidation
sistalsub2_2_6 12800 Sine 0.05g
sistalsub2_2_7 200 Consolidation
sistalsub2_2_8 12800 Emilia 0.1 g
sistalsub2_2_9 200 Consolidation
sistalsub2_2_10 12800 Sine 0.1g
sistalsub2_2_11 200 Consolidation
sistalsub2_2_12 12800 Emilia 0.15g
sistalsub2_2_13 200 Consolidation
sistalsub2_2_14 12800 Sine 0.15g
sistalsub2_2_15 200 Consolidation

Observations for next tests

• Make changes to some instruments positions

• Check all the accelerometers before placing them, especially the ones that failed
• Decrease the time to place the last layer of sensors. It is the most important layer since it tends to loose water
content more easily.
• Check the t-bar and potentiometer system

• Place a camera on top of the model to monitor more closely the canyon

4
Conclusions
Based on the previous test failure, it is possible to conclude that the measures taken to overcome the verified
problems were successful. The main problem, a high degree of dryness, was avoided by not using geotextile at the
wall, keeping the water table constant during the 1g consolidation, and using a geotextile a plastic film during the
tests. For the next planned tests, some improvements can be made and the main changes are related to instrument
positioning. Further adjustments will be proposed as the data is analyzed.

List of Figures
1 Flat Model - (a) Model before placement (b) Model in the centrifuge basket with sensors to be connected 6
2 Flat Model - (a) Model ready to run with the potentiometers in place (b) Detail of potentiometer
positioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3 Flat Model - (a) Model after the first test with plastic and geotextile cover (b) Detail of the tool used
to help with the canyon cut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4 Canyon Model - (a) Model ready to run with the potentiometers in place (b) Detail of potentiometer
positioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5 Canyon Model - (a) Top view after the test (b) Lateral view after the test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6 Canyon Model - (a) Model Ready for exhumation (b) Difference between the initial geometry and the
geometry after the tes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

5
Pictures

(a) (b)

Figure 1: Flat Model - (a) Model before placement (b) Model in the centrifuge basket with sensors to be connected

(b)

(a)

Figure 2: Flat Model - (a) Model ready to run with the potentiometers in place (b) Detail of potentiometer positioning

6
 (b)

(a)

Figure 3: Flat Model - (a) Model after the first test with plastic and geotextile cover (b) Detail of the tool used to
help with the canyon cut

(a) (b)

Figure 4: Canyon Model - (a) Model ready to run with the potentiometers in place (b) Detail of potentiometer
positioning

7
 (a) (b)

Figure 5: Canyon Model - (a) Top view after the test (b) Lateral view after the test

(b)

(a)

Figure 6: Canyon Model - (a) Model Ready for exhumation (b) Difference between the initial geometry and the
geometry after the tes

8
 Sensor Table
Coordinates before
Channel of Type of
Sensor +/-
acquisition Sensor X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm)

01 A1 115 - Frame 1
02 A2 139 - Frame 5
03 A3 96 - Frame 8
28 A4 113 - Frame 11
06 A5 120 - Frame 12
29 A6 100 - Frame 14
08 A7 150 + 170 405 403
09 A8 153 + 170 398 267
10 A9 122 + 168 399 180
11 A10 146 + 168 403 104
12 A11 68 + 172 402 71
13 A12 142 + 170 400 50
14 A13 121 + 170 230 52
15 A14 145 + 170 156 266
17 A15 147 + 167 155 182
19 A16 143 + 170 156 106
20 A17 152 + 170 155 72
21 A18 151 + 168 155 51
22 A19 154 + 168 77 178
23 A20 148 + 167 75 105
24 A21 144 + 167 77 70
25 A22 141 + 168 77 50
26 AV1 86 V
Top of Container
27 AV2 78 V

33 P1 166 170 60 103

34 P2 129 170 284 406
35 P3 108 172 272 220
36 P4 165 170 282 105
37 P5 92 167 228 70

BE1 B21 217 260 264

BE1 B22 122 262 266
BE2 B11 225 255 105
BE2 B12 115 253 103
BE3 B32 220 262 62
BE3 B31 115 262 63
Legend
Sensor not working
Bender at the opposite border