2023
DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2023.107827
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An overview of the model container types in physical modeling of geotechnical problems

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 74 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The determination of the scale was based on the experimental scale by considering the laboratory capacity, test tubes and sample material, as well as supporting literature based on previous research (Alfani et al, 2022). In building scaling, there were no definite criteria regarding the scale range used, but most laboratory experiments have been successful with a scale range of 1:10 to 1:50 depending on the tested parameters and laboratory capacity (Esmaeilpour et al, 2023). Also, micro-piles testing as a reinforcement for shallow foundations on soft soils to increase ultimate bearing capacity used a scale value of 1:30 where 1 cm in the laboratory represents 30 cm in field or actual conditions, as shown in Table 1.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…The determination of the scale was based on the experimental scale by considering the laboratory capacity, test tubes and sample material, as well as supporting literature based on previous research (Alfani et al, 2022). In building scaling, there were no definite criteria regarding the scale range used, but most laboratory experiments have been successful with a scale range of 1:10 to 1:50 depending on the tested parameters and laboratory capacity (Esmaeilpour et al, 2023). Also, micro-piles testing as a reinforcement for shallow foundations on soft soils to increase ultimate bearing capacity used a scale value of 1:30 where 1 cm in the laboratory represents 30 cm in field or actual conditions, as shown in Table 1.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Neoprene rubber specifications based on test results by the Indian Rubber Manufacturers Research Association (IMRA) based on ASTM D395 standards for 35% compression test, ASTM D412 for 17 MPa Tensile test, ASTM D2240 for Durometer 65 ± 5 HA hardness test, and ASTM D297 for composition test Chemical Ash Content 8-12% [20]. The test was carried out with specimens in the form of neoprene rubber sheets with a thickness of 3mm, length of 10m, and width of 1m [21].…”
Section: A Neoprene Rubber (Polychloroprene/cr)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To achieve the planned specimen characteristics (cu) of 0.211 kg/cm 2 and a water content (wc) of 58.631%, the slurry needed to be subjected to an effective stress load (σp') of 114,149 kN/m 2 over a timeframe (t) of 5 to 7 days. In this laboratory study, a 1/30 scale was adopted, consistent with the field scale used by Alfani et al [18,19]. The resulting clay soil test object, obtained through loading, had a diameter (ds) of 0.33 m and a height (Hs) of 0.185 m. The loading process of the slurry is visually represented in Fig.…”
Section: Manufacture Of Test Objectsmentioning
confidence: 99%