Dynamic testing of free field response in stratified granular deposits

A Simple Approach for Estimating the Fundamental Mode Shape of Layered Soil Profiles

“…where fm i g is the vector of the masses lumped at the layer interfaces, and ½M is the associated diagonal mass matrix. The Hadjian method can directly model the fundamental mode shape and can be implemented using a spreadsheet [Dihoru et al, 2016;Nawras et al, 2016;Motazedian et al, 2011]. However, an exponential calculation (Eq.…”

Evaluation of Liquefaction Properties of East Coast Sand of New Zealand Mixed with Varied Kaolinite Contents Using the Dynamically Induced Porewater Pressure Characteristics

“…The quest for sustainable, economic, environment-friendly, and effective means of mitigating earthquake-induced liquefaction necessitates the need to conduct more research/studies on composite or mixed soils, which are most likely encountered in fields. The common conventional liquefaction-mitigation methods work with the principles of densification, solidification, improvement of soil engineering properties, soil reinforcements, soil replacement, and drainage improvement-based techniques for water repellence [5,6]. Conventional and emerging soil liquefaction-mitigation methods are effective but are mostly associated with one or more limitations.…”

“…Conventional and emerging soil liquefaction-mitigation methods are effective but are mostly associated with one or more limitations. Such limitations include poor cost feasibility associated with larger projects, negative environmental impacts/non-sustainable (due to introducing chemical agents), and disturbance to ancillary structures that are sensitive to deformation and vibrations, due to waves and disruptive installation effects [5,[7][8][9][10]. More recently, [11] presented a review of the existing liquefaction mitigation methods and highlighted some limitations associated with them, indicating their effectiveness, applicability, duration time, durability, cost, and long-term observation.…”

“…Possible minimal boundary effects may be attained, and the soil volume located around the central area of the soil model container is mainly considered an adequate representation of the free-field dynamics of the model soil. The control is possible for a large shaking table's input motion (i.e., 1-D, 2-D, 3-D, and multiples axis), and precise data measurement is probable [5]. On the other hand, limitations of large-sized, shaking table models may include the associated high cost of procurement and maintenance of actuators as the number of required actuators and payload increases [6].…”