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

IF 5.6 1区 工程技术 Q1 ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL
Brendan C. O’Kelly, Stuart K. Haigh
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇通讯对最近发表在《岩土力学》(Acta Geotechnica)(https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-023-02107-9)上由 Q. Wang、S. Qiu、H. Zheng、R. Zhang 撰写的文章 "使用流动性指数预测粘土的排水抗剪强度 "进行了批判性讨论。本文重点讨论了作者新开发的三参数强度-流动性指数(Su-IL)模型/相关性的各种不准确说法和缺陷。特别是,在比较现有的双参数和他们新开发的三参数 Su-IL 模型时,与作者的说法相反,通过引入第三个模型参数,与双参数模型相比,预测精度并没有提高。相反,本文表明,现有的双参数模型和作者的三参数 Su-IL 模型在数学上是相同的。此外,作者新开发的两个 Su-IL 相关性(即三轴压缩和剪切盒得出的强度与流动性指数的相关性)也被证明是不准确的,分别预测了测量强度的严重偏低和偏高。这突出表明有必要重新评估拟议的相关性,并强调了准确可靠的相关性在岩土工程中的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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 (SuIL) models/correlations are highlighted and discussed herein. In particular, comparing existing two-parameter and their newly developed three-parameter SuIL 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 SuIL models are mathematically identical. Furthermore, two of the Authors’ newly developed SuIL 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Acta Geotechnica
Acta Geotechnica ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL-
CiteScore
9.90
自引率
17.50%
发文量
297
审稿时长
4 months
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信