Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37998940›Full record

ArticleGels (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Strength Assessment of Water-Glass Sand Mixtures.

Toshiyuki Motohashi, Shigeo Sasahara, Shinya Inazumi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gels (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Toshiyuki MotohashiOsaka Bousui Construction Co., Ltd., Osaka 543-0016, Japan.
Shigeo SasaharaFuji Chemical Co., Ltd., Osaka 534-0024, Japan.
Shinya InazumiShibaura Institute of Technology, College of Engineering, Tokyo 135-8548, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-5639-5254

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For years, the chemical injection process has aided construction works by increasing the strength and water-sealing efficiency of sandy soil. Despite its growing popularity in projects, such as seismic strengthening and liquefaction mitigation, a unified understanding of how chemically treated soil develops its strength, especially under static conditions, remains elusive. Some studies have proposed that strength is derived from the tensile effects of dilatancy, where shearing of the sandy soil causes expansion, creating tension in the interstitial hydrogel and resulting in negative pressure that consolidates the soil particles. Other studies, however, attribute this strength development to the volumetric shrinkage of the hydrogel, which the authors argue confines and compresses the sandy soil particles. Challenges are encountered with this theory, particularly with respect to the consistency of the volumetric shrinkage measurements and the timing of these measurements in relation to changes in soil strength. The aim of the current research is to shed light on this mechanism by using consolidation drainage triaxial compression (CD) tests to measure the cohesive strength and internal friction angle of chemically enhanced soil. By eliminating the dilatancy-induced negative pressure effects and coupling this with an analysis of the molecular structure of the hydrogel, the present study provides an in-depth look at the strength development mechanism and its durability. This holistic approach not only fills in the existing gaps in the understanding of this mechanism, but also paves the way for optimized construction techniques.

Indexed as

chemical injectionconsolidation drainage triaxial compression testhydrogelsand-gelsmall angle X-ray scattering test

Identifiers

PMID37998940
PMCPMC10670836

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.