Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV 2008
DOI: 10.1061/40975(318)214
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Full-Scale Laboratory Tests Using a Shape-Acceleration Array System

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The following section presents data that was collected during a full-scale lateral spreading experiment conducted in a laminar container at the University of Buffalo. The laminar container is 5 m (16.4 ft) long, 2.75 m (9.0 ft) wide, and 6 m (19.7 ft) high and is capable of holding 150 tons of sand; see Figure 2 [10]. The results from two SAAs installed in this experiment provide an example of the range and type of data that can be collected by this system.…”
Section: Sensor Descriptionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The following section presents data that was collected during a full-scale lateral spreading experiment conducted in a laminar container at the University of Buffalo. The laminar container is 5 m (16.4 ft) long, 2.75 m (9.0 ft) wide, and 6 m (19.7 ft) high and is capable of holding 150 tons of sand; see Figure 2 [10]. The results from two SAAs installed in this experiment provide an example of the range and type of data that can be collected by this system.…”
Section: Sensor Descriptionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…8). SAA sensors record triaxial accelerations, displacements, and rotations at each sensor location (Abdoun and Danisch 2005;Abdoun et al 2008;Bennett et al 2009). The instrumentation sensors that are installed inside the soil includes SAA sensors, submersible accelerometers, and pore pressure transducers.…”
Section: Fig 5-safety Cables: (A) Schematic Diagram Side View; (B) mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Peck [14] states that these differences come from the fact that science relies on laboratory soil sample tests, while practice is rooted in field performance data and associated empirical studies. Consequently, most practitioners remain skeptical about numerical models developed by geotechnical engineering scientists, mainly because very few models have been properly calibrated with field performance [1][2][3]5].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%