Sample Outline for Review Gap Purpose Significance Scope
Sample Outline for Review, Gap, Purpose, Significance and Scope
1.3.1 The Numerical Approach
… (omitted review of earlier studies)
Modified Smith’s model incorporating Novak’s theoretical solution -Simon & Randolph (1985), Wong (1988) different definitions of ultimate failure – assumptions difference in result – insignificant
Discrepancy - measured & simulated radiation damping effect - cause (Nogami & Konagai, 1986)
Deal with discrepancy - include shear zone - Novak & Sheta, 1994
[Summary/Comments]
All models able to simulate pile dynamic response
Simulate soil nail dynamic pullout response-uncertain: assumption vs reality
1.3.2 Experimental Approach
[Link to section 1.3.1] Models require pre-determination of ultimate failure behavior need guideline on determination of ultimate dynamic interfacial strength experimental work on relationship betw ultimate soil strength & loading freq
Coyle & Gibson (1970)– triaxial condition, sample, results
Comment –why results may not explain soil nail dynamic pullout response
Heerema (1979) – modifications to Coly & Gibson’s, results
Comment –No restraint dilatancy effect, no load displacement response
Dayal and Allen (1975) & Litkouhi and Poskiti (1980) –on pile driven rate
No direct assessment on friction. No base resistance, rely on interfacial res
Different mechanisms in compression& tension test (Nicola & Randolph,1993)
Randolph (1998) interfacial resistance in compression test - 30% higher than tension test
[Summary/Comments] studies reported effect of dynamic loading on ultimate interfacial resistance Dynamic load displacement relationship – essential, to predict soil nailed structure deformation numerical model, experimental observation on characteristic of dynamic interfacial resistance not applicable to describe dynamic interfacial resistance of dynamic soil nail pullout response
[Transitional paragraph summarizing gaps]
Purpose of study ….. (please add content- do not leave blank)
1.3.1 The Numerical Approach
… (omitted review of earlier studies)
Modified Smith’s model incorporating Novak’s theoretical solution -Simon & Randolph (1985), Wong (1988) different definitions of ultimate failure – assumptions difference in result – insignificant
Discrepancy - measured & simulated radiation damping effect - cause (Nogami & Konagai, 1986)
Deal with discrepancy - include shear zone - Novak & Sheta, 1994
[Summary/Comments]
All models able to simulate pile dynamic response
Simulate soil nail dynamic pullout response-uncertain: assumption vs reality
1.3.2 Experimental Approach
[Link to section 1.3.1] Models require pre-determination of ultimate failure behavior need guideline on determination of ultimate dynamic interfacial strength experimental work on relationship betw ultimate soil strength & loading freq
Coyle & Gibson (1970)– triaxial condition, sample, results
Comment –why results may not explain soil nail dynamic pullout response
Heerema (1979) – modifications to Coly & Gibson’s, results
Comment –No restraint dilatancy effect, no load displacement response
Dayal and Allen (1975) & Litkouhi and Poskiti (1980) –on pile driven rate
No direct assessment on friction. No base resistance, rely on interfacial res
Different mechanisms in compression& tension test (Nicola & Randolph,1993)
Randolph (1998) interfacial resistance in compression test - 30% higher than tension test
[Summary/Comments] studies reported effect of dynamic loading on ultimate interfacial resistance Dynamic load displacement relationship – essential, to predict soil nailed structure deformation numerical model, experimental observation on characteristic of dynamic interfacial resistance not applicable to describe dynamic interfacial resistance of dynamic soil nail pullout response
[Transitional paragraph summarizing gaps]
Purpose of study ….. (please add content- do not leave blank)