Comparing laminar and equivalent shear beam (ESB) containers for dynamic centrifuge modelling

Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, 6th ICPMG'06 - Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Physical Modelling in Geotechnics

Volumn 1-2, Issue , 2006, Pages 171-176

  Brennan, A J ^a   Madabhushi, S P G ^b   Houghton, N E ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CAMBRIDGE; CENTRIFUGE MODELLING; DESIGN CONDITION; DRY SOIL; DYNAMIC CENTRIFUGE MODEL; DYNAMIC PERFORMANCE; END-WALL; EQUIVALENT SHEAR; FREQUENCY TRANSFER; HORIZONTAL SHAKING; MODEL CONTAINERS; PHASE LAGS; SOIL STRATUM;

CENTRIFUGATION; SOILS;

CONTAINERS;

EID: 67649492362     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (15)

1. Brennan, A.J., Madabhushi, S.P.G. & Houghton, N.E. 2006. Comparing containers for dynamic centrifuge modelling. Cambridge University Engineering DepartmentTechnical Report, University of Cambridge, UK. In press.
2. Butler, G. 1999. A dynamic analysis of the stored angular momentum earthquake actuator used with the equivalent shear beam container. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, UK.
3. Campbell, D.J., Cheney, J.A. & Kutter, B.L. 1991. Boundary effects in dynamic centrifuge model tests. In H.-Y. Ko & F.G. McLean (eds.), Centrifuge '91, Boulder, CO, USA. pub. Balkema, Rotterdam: 441-448.
4. Dar, A.R. 1993. Development of a flexible shear stack for shaking table testing of geotechnical problems. PhD thesis, University of Bristol, UK.
5. Madabhushi, S.P.G., Schofield, A.N. & Zeng, X. 1994. Complementary shear stresses in dynamic centrifuge modelling. In R.I. Ebelhar, V.P. Drnevich & B.L. Kutter (eds.), Dynamic Geotechnical Testing, ASTM Special Technical Publication, n 1213, v. 2.
6. Madabhushi, S.P.G. 1996. Boundary effects in dynamic centrifuge testing. UK-Japan Seismic Risk Forum, 2-4 April, Imperial College, London.
7. Schofield, A.N. 1980. Cambridge geotechnical centrifuge operations. Géotechnique. 30(3): 227-268.
8. Teymur, B. 2002. The significance of boundary conditions in dynamic centrifuge modelling. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, UK.
9. Teymur, B. & Madabhushi, S.P.G. 2003. Experimental study of boundary effects in dynamic centrifuge modelling. Géotechnique. 53(7): 655-663.
10. Thusyanthan, N.I., Madabhushi, S.P.G. & Singh, S. 2004. Modelling the seismic behaviour of municipal solidwaste. In D. Doolin, A. Kammerer, T. Nogami, R.B. Seed & I. Towhata (eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. University of California, Berkeley. v. 2.: 283-290.
11. Thusyanthan, N.I. & Madabhushi, S.P.G. 2005. Seismic behaviour of municipal solid waste (MSW) - data report on centrifuge tests IT02, IT03 and IT09. Cambridge University Engineering Department Technical Report no. CUED/D-SOILS/TR337, University of Cambridge, UK.
12. Ueno, K. 1998. "Methods for preparation of sand samples". In T. Kimura, O. Kusakabe & J. Takemura (eds.), Centrifuge 98,Tokyo, Japan. pub. Balkema, Rotterdam 2: 1047-1055.
13. van Laak, P.A., Taboada, V.W., Dobry, R. & Elgamal, A.W. 1994. Earthquake centrifuge modeling using a laminar box. In R.I. Ebelhar, V.P. Drnevich & B.L. Kutter (eds.), Dynamic Geotechnical Testing, ASTM Special Technical Publication, n 1213: 370-384.
14. Wilson, D.W., Boulanger, R.W., Kutter, B.L. & Abghari, A. 1997. Aspects of dynamic centrifuge testing of soil-pilesuperstructure interaction. Observations and Modeling in Numerical Analysis and Model Tests in Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction Problems, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication 64: 47-63.
15. Zeng, X. & Schofield, A.N. 1996. Design and performance of an equivalent shear beam container for earthquake centrifuge modelling. Géotechnique. 46(1): 83-102.