2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2016.05.018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Multivariate correlation among resilient modulus and cone penetration test parameters of cohesive subgrade soils

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 45 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Some data points are classified as clayey silts or silt mixtures, and few are classified as sand mixtures or sands. This line of research has inspired comparable databases to be assembled in the literature recently (Müller et al 2014;Liu et al 2016). The availability of SPM2 (Soil Properties Manual version 2) as a freeware will hopefully encourage more data sharing and further enrichment of these databases to cover more parameters and/or more site conditions -http://140.112.10.150/fmanalysis.html?view=spm2 (Phoon and Ching 2017).…”
Section: Data Rich or Data Poor?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some data points are classified as clayey silts or silt mixtures, and few are classified as sand mixtures or sands. This line of research has inspired comparable databases to be assembled in the literature recently (Müller et al 2014;Liu et al 2016). The availability of SPM2 (Soil Properties Manual version 2) as a freeware will hopefully encourage more data sharing and further enrichment of these databases to cover more parameters and/or more site conditions -http://140.112.10.150/fmanalysis.html?view=spm2 (Phoon and Ching 2017).…”
Section: Data Rich or Data Poor?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, these improvements were only achieved for particular soil types and site conditions, thereby limiting the applicability for wider use. In the attempt to assuage the effect of spatial variability, Liu et al [ 20 ] used data from different sites based on cone penetration test for model calibration and employed an advanced multivariate technique. Unfortunately, the predictions were found to be biased when a different dataset was applied.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%