## 5 Validation Methodology  
It is very complex to conduct physical tests under dynamic loading, and they are even impossible in some circumstances such as under seismic loading, in which no fixed reference point is available to provide a reliable benchmark. All of the loading areas in a particular environment are moving during a seismic event. Therefore, most investigations performed after earthquake events are generally intended to analyse the consequences of the earthquake rather than the behaviour of the system or system component during the seismic activity. Performing an accurate large-scale laboratory test is also complicated and costly and may be impossible depending on the desired degree of complexity and accuracy. For these reasons, it can be challenging for researchers to validate their studies in seismic engineering. Utilising a scaled testing technique with a shaking table or centrifuge tests in a 1g environment is a viable (and often the only) option. Nevertheless, calibration of the results remains a significant challenge. In the current work, it was necessary to develop an accurate, practical, and scientifically acceptable calibration method for establishing the relationship between full-scale numerical analysis and the scaled laboratory tests in a 1g environment. A sophisticated and novel validation approach was developed for this \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline
**Model Parameters** & **Symbol** & **Value** & **Units** & **\% Difference** \\ \hline Pile outer diameter & \(OD_{m}\) & \(50.8\times 10^{-3}\) & m & Scaled \\ \hline Pile wall thickness & \(t_{null.m}\) & \(711\times 10^{-6}\) & m & 76 \\ \hline Pile length & \(L\) & \(1.8288\) & m & Scaled \\ \hline Pile Young’s modulus & \(E_{pile}\) & \(68.95\) & GPa & Scaled \\ \hline Pile density & \(\rho_{pile\;m}\) & \(2700\) & kg/m\({}^{3}\) & Scaled \\ \hline Soil shear strength (with 0.75 dynamic correction) & \(S_{u}\) & \(4.07\) & kN/m\({}^{2}\) & 2.4 \\ \hline Shear wave velocity & \(V_{s}\) & \(40.0\) & m/s & Scaled \\ \hline Pile cross sectional area & \(A_{pile\;model}\) & \(0.115\times 10^{-5}\) & m\({}^{2}\) & Scaled \\ \hline Pile mass/\(m\) length & Ratio & \(0.07173\) & kg/m & Scaled \\ \hline Pile moment of inertia & \(I_{pile\;model}\) & \(3.5105\times 10^{-8}\) & m\({}^{4}\) & Scaled \\ \hline Pile flexural rigidity/Unit length & \(EI_{pile\;model}\) & \(2.420\) & kNm & 5.0 \\ \hline Pile \(L/D\) ratio & \(L/D_{model}\) & \(36.0\) & Dimensionless & 8.7 \\ \hline Pile \(d/t\) ratio & \(d/t_{model}\) & \(71.4\) & Dimensionless & 76 \\ \hline \(E_{pile}/G_{soil}\) & \(k_{model}\) & \(3840\) & Dimensionless & 93 \\ \hline \(EI_{pile}/E_{soil}\cdot D^{4}\) & \(k_{r\;model}\) & \(101\) & Dimensionless & 5.0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Soil and pile models’ input parameters, computed properties, and percentage of result deviation from target values. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline
**Model Input Parameters** & **Symbol** & **Value** & **Units** & **Criteria** \\ \hline Concrete flexural rigidity EI & \(EI_{concrete}\) & \(14,263.4\) & kNm\({}^{2}\) & Scale \\ \hline Composite concrete/steel flexural rigidity & \(EI_{composite}\) & \(75,179\) & kNm\({}^{2}\) & Scale \\ \hline Composite concrete/steel flexural rigidity & \(EI_{composite}\) & \(2.294\) & kNm\({}^{2}\) & Target \\ \hline Total Mass/m length & Ratio & \(397.24\) & kg/m & Target \\ \hline Prototype first mode period & \(T\) & \(0.7386\) & s & Target \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: _Cont._purpose that is shown schematically in Figure 13. The underlying principle of the approach was based on performing two parallel analyses, i.e., a scaled physical model and a full-scale numerical model. The first step in this process was to scale the prototype parameters using the scaling procedure described previously in Section 4. Prior to achieving the scale model, the physical test was performed according to the problem condition.