Shear wave velocity as a geotechnical parameter: an overview
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shear wave velocity, V s , is a soil mechanical property that can be advantageously measured in both the field and laboratory under real and controlled conditions. The measured V s values are customarily used in conjunction with other in situ (e.g., standard penetration test blow count, N-SPT, and cone penetration resistance, q c -CPT) and laboratory (e.g., effective confining pressure, [Formula: see text], and void ratio, e) measurements to establish an abundant number of V s -based correlations that could later be utilized to augment (in some cases, replace) designated testing. An attempt is made here to present the salient features of some existing widely used correlations to provide the reader with a comprehensive understanding about the nature of these correlations and their applicability in geotechnical engineering practices. It is recognized that the reliability of some of these empirical formulations, still in general use today, has been questioned, as they are characterized by their lack of dependence on stress state and particle characteristics. A new V s1 –(N 1 ) 60 (where V s1 is the stress-normalized shear wave velocity, and (N 1 ) 60 is the stress-normalized penetration blow count) correlation that accounts for grain sizes is highlighted by combining a recently published V s1 –q c1 (where q c1 is the stress-normalized cone tip resistance) formulation and available (N 1 ) 60 –q c1 relationships. The new formulation is applicable to uncemented relatively young Holocene-age soil deposits. The estimated V s1 values based on the proposed correlation are compared with reliable laboratory and field measurements, and the comparison shows that accounting for grain size of granular soils yields more realistic results regarding the V s values than when particle size is not considered. The prime effect of grain size was to change the range of possible void ratios, which in turn had a substantial impact on V s values. Moreover, a new V s1 –(N 1 ) 60 chart has been proposed, allowing the practitioner to estimate V s1 values based on a combination of data including N-SPT, e, grain size, and relative density.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".