Experimental study of soil arching effect under seepage condition

  • Changjie Xu
  • Luju LiangEmail author
  • Qizhi Chen
  • Wenjun Luo
  • Y. Frank Chen
Research Paper


Soil arching effect, which relates to the load transfer and stress redistribution in a soil mass, exists commonly in various geotechnical situations. Many researchers have conducted trapdoor tests and theoretical analyses to study the soil arching and its development in recent years. However, little attention has been paid to the interaction between soil arching and seepage flow, both occurring during the tunnelling of a seabed tunnel. To study the influence of the seepage flow on soil arching, a series of two-dimensional trapdoor tests were carried out considering different fill heights and water level heights. Two subvertical slip surfaces were observed during the tests using the PIV technique. It was found that seepage flow increased the displacement of the particles and the effective vertical stress acting at the top of the trapdoor. However, there was little difference in the development of slip surfaces between the seepage condition and the saturated/no-seepage condition. In addition, a nonuniform distribution of vertical stresses at the top of the trapdoor was observed. The effective earth pressure measured along the centreline of the trapdoor was larger than that on the two edges of the trapdoor. But this nonuniformity decreased with an increasing water level height in the test chamber.


PIV technique Seepage flow Slip surfaces Soil arching effect Stress redistribution 



Many people and organizations contributed to the success of this project. The financial supports received from the National Key Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) (No. 2015CB057801), National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars of China (NSFC Grant No. 51725802), and National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC Grant No. 51338009) are greatly acknowledged.


  1. 1.
    Adachi T, Kimura M, Nishimura T, Koya N, Kosaka K (1997) Trapdoor experiment under centrifuge conditions. In: Asaoka A, Adachi T, Oka F (eds) Deformation and progressive failure in geomechanics. Pergamon, New York, pp 725–730Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adachi T, Kimura M, Kishida K (2003) Experimental study on the distribution of earth pressure and surface settlement through three-dimensional trapdoor tests. Tunn Undergr Sp Tech 18(2):171–183Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ASTM (2011) Standard practice for classification of soils for engineering purpose. ASTM D2487-11, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen YM, Cao WP, Chen RP (2008) An experimental investigation of soil arching within basal reinforced and unreinforced piled embankments. Geotext Geomembr 26(2):164–174Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chevalier B, Otani J (2011) Arching observation in three-dimensional trapdoor problem with X-ray CT and discrete element method. Soils Found 51(3):459–469Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chevalier B, Combe G, Villard P (2012) Experimental and discrete element modelling studies of the trapdoor problem: influence of the macro-mechanical frictional parameters. Acta Geotech 7(1):15–39Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Costa YD, Zornberg JG, Bueno BS, Costa CL (2009) Failure mechanisms in sand over a deep active trapdoor. J Geotech Geoenviron 135(11):1741–1753Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dewoolkar MM, Santichaianant S, Ko HY (2007) Centrifuge modelling of granular soil response over active circular trapdoors. Soils Found 47(5):931–945Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Evans CH (1984) An examination of arching in granular soils. MS thesis, MITGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    González Lagos LL (2005) Centrifuge modeling of permeability and pinning reinforcement effects on pile response to lateral spreading. PhD Thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic InstituteGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Han J, Wang F, Ai-Naddaf M, Xu C (2017) Progressive development of two-dimensional soil arching with displacement. Int J Geomech 17(12):04017112Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Iglesia GR, Einstein HH, Whitman RV (2011) Validation of centrifuge model scaling for soil systems via trapdoor tests. J Geotech Geoenviron 137(11):1075–1080Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Iglesia GR, Einstein HH, Whitman RV (2014) Investigation of soil arching with centrifuge tests. J Geotech Geoenviron 140(2):248–256Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jenck O, Combe G, Emeriault F, De Pasquale A (2014) Arching effect in a granular soil subjected to monotonic or cyclic loading: kinematic analysis. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on physical modelling in geotechnics, Perth, Australia, pp 14–17Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ladanyi B, Hoyaux B (1969) A study of the trap-door problem in a granular mass. Can Geotech J 6(1):1–15Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee CJ, Chiang KH, Kuo CM (2004) Ground movement and tunnel stability when tunneling in sandy ground. J Chin Inst Eng 27(7):1021–1032Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li L, Aubertin M (2009) A three-dimensional analysis of the total and effective stresses in submerged backfilled stopes. Geotech Geol Eng 27(4):559–569Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Li L, Aubertin M (2009) Horizontal pressure on barricades for backfilled stopes. Part II: Submerged conditions. Can Geotech J 46(1):47–56Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    McNulty JW (1965) An experimental study of arching in sand. PhD Thesis, University of Illinois, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Muszynski MR, Olson SM, Hashash SM, Phillips C (2016) Earth Pressure measurements using tactile pressure sensors in a saturated sand during static and dynamic centrifuge testing. Geotech Test J 39(3):371–390Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Paikowsky SG, Tien HS (2002) Experimental examination of the arching effect mechanism on the micro level. In Proceeding of 3rd international DEM conference, Santa Fe, New Mexico, pp 23–25Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rui R, Van Tol AF, Xia YY, Van Eekelen SJM, Hu G (2016) Investigation of soil-arching development in dense sand by 2D model tests. Geotech Test J 39(3):415–430Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rui R, Van Tol AF, Xia XL, Van Eekelen SJM, Hu G, Xia YY (2016) Evolution of soil arching: 2D DEM simulations. Comput Geotech 73:199–209Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sadrekarimi J, Abbasnejad A (2010) Arching effect in fine sand due to base yielding. Can Geotech J 47(3):366–374Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stanier SA, Blaber J, Take WA, White DJ (2015) Improved image-based deformation measurement for geotechnical applications. Can Geotech J 53(5):727–739Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tao H, Tao JL (2017) Quantitative analysis of piping erosion micro-mechanisms with coupled CFD and DEM method. Acta Geotech 12(3):1–20Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Terzaghi K (1936) Stress distribution in dry and in saturated sand above a yielding trap-door. In: Proceeding of international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, vol 1, Harvard University, Cambridge, pp 307–311Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vardoulakis I, Graf B, Gudehus G (1981) Trap-door problem with dry sand: a statistical approach based upon model test kinematics. Int J Numer Anal Met 5(1):57–78Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    White DJ, Take WA, Bolton MD (2003) Soil Deformation measurement using particle image velocimetry (PIV) and photogrammetry. Géotechnique 53(7):619–631Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zhu B, Gao D, Li JC, Chen YM (2012) Model tests on interaction between soil and geosynthetics subjected to local. J Zhejiang Univ-Sci A 13(6):433–444Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Centre of Coastal and Urban Geotechnical EngineeringZhejiang UniversityHangzhouChina
  2. 2.School of Civil Engineering and ArchitectureEast China Jiaotong UniversityNanchangChina
  3. 3.Department of Civil EngineeringThe Pennsylvania State UniversityMiddletownUSA
  4. 4.College of Civil Engineering and ArchitectureZhejiang UniversityHangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations