{"title":"对文章《利用流动性指数预测粘土的排水抗剪强度》的讨论,作者:Q. Wang, S. Qiu, H. Zheng, R. Zhang","authors":"Brendan C. O’Kelly, Stuart K. Haigh","doi":"10.1007/s11440-024-02385-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This communication presents a critical discussion of the article “Undrained shear strength prediction of clays using liquidity index”, authored by Q. Wang, S. Qiu, H. Zheng, R. Zhang, and recently published in <i>Acta Geotechnica</i> (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-023-02107-9). Various inaccurate claims and flaws regarding the Authors’ newly developed three-parameter strength–liquidity index (<i>S</i><sub><i>u</i></sub>–<i>I</i><sub><i>L</i></sub>) models/correlations are highlighted and discussed herein. In particular, comparing existing two-parameter and their newly developed three-parameter <i>S</i><sub><i>u</i></sub>–<i>I</i><sub><i>L</i></sub> models, contrary to the Authors’ claims, no improvement in prediction accuracy is achieved over the two-parameter model by introducing a third model parameter. Rather, it is shown herein that the existing two-parameter and the Authors’ three-parameter <i>S</i><sub><i>u</i></sub>–<i>I</i><sub><i>L</i></sub> models are mathematically identical. Furthermore, two of the Authors’ newly developed <i>S</i><sub><i>u</i></sub>–<i>I</i><sub><i>L</i></sub> correlations, i.e., relating the triaxial-compression and shearbox derived strengths to the liquidity index, are shown to be inaccurate, forecasting gross under- and over-predictions of the measured strengths, respectively. This highlights the need for a reassessment of the proposed correlations, and emphasizes the importance of accurate and reliable correlations in geotechnical engineering.</p>","PeriodicalId":49308,"journal":{"name":"Acta Geotechnica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discussion to the article Undrained shear strength prediction of clays using liquidity index, by Q. Wang, S. Qiu, H. Zheng, R. Zhang\",\"authors\":\"Brendan C. O’Kelly, Stuart K. Haigh\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11440-024-02385-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This communication presents a critical discussion of the article “Undrained shear strength prediction of clays using liquidity index”, authored by Q. Wang, S. Qiu, H. Zheng, R. Zhang, and recently published in <i>Acta Geotechnica</i> (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-023-02107-9). Various inaccurate claims and flaws regarding the Authors’ newly developed three-parameter strength–liquidity index (<i>S</i><sub><i>u</i></sub>–<i>I</i><sub><i>L</i></sub>) models/correlations are highlighted and discussed herein. In particular, comparing existing two-parameter and their newly developed three-parameter <i>S</i><sub><i>u</i></sub>–<i>I</i><sub><i>L</i></sub> models, contrary to the Authors’ claims, no improvement in prediction accuracy is achieved over the two-parameter model by introducing a third model parameter. Rather, it is shown herein that the existing two-parameter and the Authors’ three-parameter <i>S</i><sub><i>u</i></sub>–<i>I</i><sub><i>L</i></sub> models are mathematically identical. Furthermore, two of the Authors’ newly developed <i>S</i><sub><i>u</i></sub>–<i>I</i><sub><i>L</i></sub> correlations, i.e., relating the triaxial-compression and shearbox derived strengths to the liquidity index, are shown to be inaccurate, forecasting gross under- and over-predictions of the measured strengths, respectively. This highlights the need for a reassessment of the proposed correlations, and emphasizes the importance of accurate and reliable correlations in geotechnical engineering.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49308,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Geotechnica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Geotechnica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-024-02385-x\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Geotechnica","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-024-02385-x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Discussion to the article Undrained shear strength prediction of clays using liquidity index, by Q. Wang, S. Qiu, H. Zheng, R. Zhang
This communication presents a critical discussion of the article “Undrained shear strength prediction of clays using liquidity index”, authored by Q. Wang, S. Qiu, H. Zheng, R. Zhang, and recently published in Acta Geotechnica (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-023-02107-9). Various inaccurate claims and flaws regarding the Authors’ newly developed three-parameter strength–liquidity index (Su–IL) models/correlations are highlighted and discussed herein. In particular, comparing existing two-parameter and their newly developed three-parameter Su–IL models, contrary to the Authors’ claims, no improvement in prediction accuracy is achieved over the two-parameter model by introducing a third model parameter. Rather, it is shown herein that the existing two-parameter and the Authors’ three-parameter Su–IL models are mathematically identical. Furthermore, two of the Authors’ newly developed Su–IL correlations, i.e., relating the triaxial-compression and shearbox derived strengths to the liquidity index, are shown to be inaccurate, forecasting gross under- and over-predictions of the measured strengths, respectively. This highlights the need for a reassessment of the proposed correlations, and emphasizes the importance of accurate and reliable correlations in geotechnical engineering.
期刊介绍:
Acta Geotechnica is an international journal devoted to the publication and dissemination of basic and applied research in geoengineering – an interdisciplinary field dealing with geomaterials such as soils and rocks. Coverage emphasizes the interplay between geomechanical models and their engineering applications. The journal presents original research papers on fundamental concepts in geomechanics and their novel applications in geoengineering based on experimental, analytical and/or numerical approaches. The main purpose of the journal is to foster understanding of the fundamental mechanisms behind the phenomena and processes in geomaterials, from kilometer-scale problems as they occur in geoscience, and down to the nano-scale, with their potential impact on geoengineering. The journal strives to report and archive progress in the field in a timely manner, presenting research papers, review articles, short notes and letters to the editors.