Processing math: 100%
Research article Special Issues

Consolidation properties of clay and gyttja soils: A database study

  • Received: 01 February 2025 Revised: 31 March 2025 Accepted: 09 April 2025 Published: 27 April 2025
  • When constructing on clay and gyttja soils, low-carbon ground improvement methods such as preloading should be preferred over carbon-intensive solutions (e.g., piles or deep mixing with lime-cement binder). The design of preloading requires knowledge about the compressibility and consolidation properties of subsoil, but site-specific oedometer tests may be scarce or even lacking, especially in the early design phases. Hence, this paper presents two extensive databases based on oedometer tests performed on Finnish clay and gyttja soils, with a special emphasis on consolidation rate and creep properties. The FI-CLAY-oedo/14/282 database contains 282 oedometer test-specific data entries, such as initial hydraulic conductivity and maximum creep coefficient. The second database, FI-CLAY-cv/8/774, contains 774 load increment–specific data entries (e.g., coefficient of consolidation) from 232 oedometer tests. The analysis of these databases provided three main results: (ⅰ) statistics for bias factors, which quantify the differences between determination methods (log time vs. square root time method and oedometer vs. falling head test), (ⅱ) transformation models (and their transformation uncertainty) to predict creep coefficient from index or consolidation properties, and (ⅲ) typical value distributions for various consolidation rate and creep properties, in a form of histograms and fitted lognormal distributions. All the results are given with statistical information, which allows their straightforward utilization as input data for probabilistic assessment (reliability-based design). It is concluded that the consolidation properties of clay and gyttja soils are indeed characterized by significant uncertainty. Hence, such results are recommended to be used as existing (prior) knowledge when determining design parameters, either by supporting engineering judgement or via a more systematic framework such as Bayesian statistics.

    Citation: Monica S Löfman, Leena Korkiala-Tanttu. Consolidation properties of clay and gyttja soils: A database study[J]. AIMS Geosciences, 2025, 11(2): 343-369. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2025015

    Related Papers:

    [1] Yonghong Liu, Ghulam Farid, Dina Abuzaid, Hafsa Yasmeen . On boundedness of fractional integral operators via several kinds of convex functions. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(10): 19167-19179. doi: 10.3934/math.20221052
    [2] Ye Yue, Ghulam Farid, Ayșe Kübra Demirel, Waqas Nazeer, Yinghui Zhao . Hadamard and Fejér-Hadamard inequalities for generalized k-fractional integrals involving further extension of Mittag-Leffler function. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(1): 681-703. doi: 10.3934/math.2022043
    [3] Maryam Saddiqa, Saleem Ullah, Ferdous M. O. Tawfiq, Jong-Suk Ro, Ghulam Farid, Saira Zainab . k-Fractional inequalities associated with a generalized convexity. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(12): 28540-28557. doi: 10.3934/math.20231460
    [4] Maryam Saddiqa, Ghulam Farid, Saleem Ullah, Chahn Yong Jung, Soo Hak Shim . On Bounds of fractional integral operators containing Mittag-Leffler functions for generalized exponentially convex functions. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(6): 6454-6468. doi: 10.3934/math.2021379
    [5] Ghulam Farid, Saira Bano Akbar, Shafiq Ur Rehman, Josip Pečarić . Boundedness of fractional integral operators containing Mittag-Leffler functions via (s,m)-convexity. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(2): 966-978. doi: 10.3934/math.2020067
    [6] Hengxiao Qi, Muhammad Yussouf, Sajid Mehmood, Yu-Ming Chu, Ghulam Farid . Fractional integral versions of Hermite-Hadamard type inequality for generalized exponentially convexity. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(6): 6030-6042. doi: 10.3934/math.2020386
    [7] Xiuzhi Yang, G. Farid, Waqas Nazeer, Muhammad Yussouf, Yu-Ming Chu, Chunfa Dong . Fractional generalized Hadamard and Fejér-Hadamard inequalities for m-convex functions. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(6): 6325-6340. doi: 10.3934/math.2020407
    [8] Miguel Vivas-Cortez, Muhammad Uzair Awan, Sehrish Rafique, Muhammad Zakria Javed, Artion Kashuri . Some novel inequalities involving Atangana-Baleanu fractional integral operators and applications. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(7): 12203-12226. doi: 10.3934/math.2022678
    [9] Bushra Kanwal, Saqib Hussain, Thabet Abdeljawad . On certain inclusion relations of functions with bounded rotations associated with Mittag-Leffler functions. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(5): 7866-7887. doi: 10.3934/math.2022440
    [10] Gauhar Rahman, Iyad Suwan, Kottakkaran Sooppy Nisar, Thabet Abdeljawad, Muhammad Samraiz, Asad Ali . A basic study of a fractional integral operator with extended Mittag-Leffler kernel. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(11): 12757-12770. doi: 10.3934/math.2021736
  • When constructing on clay and gyttja soils, low-carbon ground improvement methods such as preloading should be preferred over carbon-intensive solutions (e.g., piles or deep mixing with lime-cement binder). The design of preloading requires knowledge about the compressibility and consolidation properties of subsoil, but site-specific oedometer tests may be scarce or even lacking, especially in the early design phases. Hence, this paper presents two extensive databases based on oedometer tests performed on Finnish clay and gyttja soils, with a special emphasis on consolidation rate and creep properties. The FI-CLAY-oedo/14/282 database contains 282 oedometer test-specific data entries, such as initial hydraulic conductivity and maximum creep coefficient. The second database, FI-CLAY-cv/8/774, contains 774 load increment–specific data entries (e.g., coefficient of consolidation) from 232 oedometer tests. The analysis of these databases provided three main results: (ⅰ) statistics for bias factors, which quantify the differences between determination methods (log time vs. square root time method and oedometer vs. falling head test), (ⅱ) transformation models (and their transformation uncertainty) to predict creep coefficient from index or consolidation properties, and (ⅲ) typical value distributions for various consolidation rate and creep properties, in a form of histograms and fitted lognormal distributions. All the results are given with statistical information, which allows their straightforward utilization as input data for probabilistic assessment (reliability-based design). It is concluded that the consolidation properties of clay and gyttja soils are indeed characterized by significant uncertainty. Hence, such results are recommended to be used as existing (prior) knowledge when determining design parameters, either by supporting engineering judgement or via a more systematic framework such as Bayesian statistics.



    Convex functions are very useful in diverse fields of mathematics, statistics, economics etc. They are especially important in the study of optimization problems where they are distinguished due to a number of appropriate properties. Convex functions serve as a model for generalizations and extensions of mathematical concepts [1,2]. Convex functions are defined as follows:

    Definition 1. [3] A function f:IR, where I is an interval in R, is said to be convex function, if the following inequality holds:

    f(ta+(1t)b)tf(a)+(1t)f(b),

    for all a,bI and t[0,1].

    Convex functions have been generalized, refined and extended in various forms. A refinement appears in the form of the strongly convex functions, defined as follows:

    Definition 2. [4,5] Let I be a nonempty convex subset of a normed space (X,||.||). A real valued function f is said to be strongly convex, with modulus λ>0, on I if for each a,bI and t[0,1]

    f(ta+(1t)b)tf(a)+(1t)f(b)λt(1t)||ba||2.

    Strongly convexity is a strengthening notion than convexity. A generalization of convex function defined on right half of real line is called s-convex function, defined as follows:

    Definition 3. [6] Let s[0,1]. A function f:[0,)R is said to be s-convex function in the second sense if

    f(ta+(1t)b)tsf(a)+(1t)sf(b), (1.1)

    holds for all a,b[0,) and t[0,1].

    An extension of a convex function on right half of real line is called m-convex function, defined as follows:

    Definition 4. [7] A function f:[0,b]R is said to be m-convex function, where m[0,1] and b>0, if for every x,y[0,b] and t[0,1] we have

    f(tx+m(1t)y)tf(x)+m(1t)f(y). (1.2)

    Definition 5. [8] A function f:[0,+)R is said to be strongly m-convex function with modulus λ if

    f(ta+m(1t)b)tf(a)+m(1t)f(b)λmt(1t)(ba)2. (1.3)

    with a,b[0,+), m[0,1] and λ>0.

    Further generalizations of above functions in the form of (s,m)-convex function and strongly (s,m)-convex function, are defined as follows:

    Definition 6. [9] A function f:[0,b]R is said to be (s,m)-convex function, where (s,m)[0,1]2 and b>0, if for every x,y[0,b] and t[0,1] we have

    f(tx+m(1t)y)tsf(x)+m(1t)sf(y).

    Definition 7. [10] A function f:[0,+)R is said to be strongly (s,m)-convex function with modulus λ>0, for (s,m)[0,1]2, if

    f(ta+m(1t)b)tsf(a)+m(1t)sf(b)mλt(1t)|ba|2 (1.4)

    holds for all a,b[0,+) and t[0,1].

    In [9,11,12,13], the authors have studied the bounds of Riemann-Liouville and other well-known fractional integral operators involving Mittag-Leffler functions, for convex and related functions. The goal of this paper is to produce refinements of bounds of these fractional integral operators by applying strongly (s,m)-convexity. It is noted that in "G. Farid, S. B. Akbar, S. U. Rehman, J. Pečarić, Boundedness of fractional integral operators containing Mittag-Leffler functions via (s, m)-convexity, Aims Mathematics, 5 (2020), 966–978." the definition of (s,m)-convex function is not correctly stated, therefore the results of this paper have some errors. We will also give correct versions of results of this paper.

    The Mittag-Leffler functions Eα(.) for one parameter is defined as follows[14].

    Eα(t)=n=0tnΓ(αn+1),

    where t,αC,(α)>0 and Γ(.) is the gamma function. It is a natural extension of exponential, hyperbolic and trigonometric functions. The Mittag-Leffler function and its extensions appear in the solutions of fractional integral equations and fractional differential equations. It was further explored by Wiman, Pollard, Humbert, Agarwal and Feller (see [15]). For detail study on the Mittag-Leffler function we refer the reader to [15,16,17,18,19].

    The following extended generalized Mittag-Leffler function is introduced by Andrić et al.:

    Definition 8. [20] Let μ,α,l,γ,cC, (μ),(α),(l)>0, (c)>(γ)>0 with p0, δ>0 and 0<kδ+(μ). Then the extended generalized Mittag-Leffler function Eγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l(t;p) is defined by:

    Eγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l(t;p)=n=0βp(γ+nk,cγ)β(γ,cγ)(c)nkΓ(μn+α)tn(l)nδ, (1.5)

    where βp is defined by

    βp(x,y)=10tx1(1t)y1ept(1t)dt

    and (c)nk=Γ(c+nk)Γ(c).

    A derivative formula of the extended generalized Mittag-Leffler function is given in following lemma.

    Lemma 1. [20] If mN,ω,μ,α,l,γ,cC,(μ),(α),(l)>0,(c)>(γ)>0 with p0,δ>0 and 0<k<δ+(μ), then

    (ddt)m[tα1Eγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l(ωtμ;p)]=tαm1Eγ,δ,k,cμ,αm,l(ωtμ;p)(α)>m. (1.6)

    Remark 1. The extended Mittag-Leffler function (1.5) produces the related functions defined in [17,18,19,21,22] (see [23,Remark 1.3]).

    Next, we give definition of the generalized fractional integral operator containing the extended generalized Mittag-Leffler function (1.5).

    Definition 9 [20] Let ω,μ,α,l,γ,cC, (μ),(α),(l)>0, (c)>(γ)>0 with p0, δ>0 and 0<kδ+(μ). Let fL1[a,b] and x[a,b]. Then the generalized fractional integral operators containing Mittag-Leffler function are defined by:

    (ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l,ω,a+f)(x;p)=xa(xt)α1Eγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l(ω(xt)μ;p)f(t)dt, (1.7)
    (ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l,ω,bf)(x;p)=bx(tx)α1Eγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l(ω(tx)μ;p)f(t)dt. (1.8)

    Remark 2. The operators (1.7) and (1.8) produce in particular several kinds of known fractional integral operators (see [20], also [23,Remark 1.4]).

    The classical Riemann-Liouville fractional integral operator is defined as follows:

    Definition 10. [22] Let fç1[a,b]. Then the Riemann-Liouville fractional integral operators of order α>0 are defined as follows:

    Iαa+f(x)=1Γ(α)xa(xt)α1f(t)dt,x(a,b], (1.9)
    Iαbf(x)=1Γ(α)bx(tx)α1f(t)dt,x[a,b). (1.10)

    It can be noted that (ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l,0,a+f)(x;0)=Iαa+f(x) and (ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l,0,bf)(x;0)=Iαbf(x). From the fractional integral operators (1.7) and (1.8), we have (see [24]):

    Jα,a+(x;p):=(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l,ω,a+1)(x;p)=(xa)αEγ,δ,k,cμ,α+1,l(w(xa)μ;p), (1.11)
    Jβ,b(x;p):=(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,β,l,ω,b1)(x;p)=(bx)βEγ,δ,k,cμ,β+1,l(w(bx)μ;p). (1.12)

    The bounds of Riemann-Liouville fractional integrals of convex functions are given in the following theorem.

    Theorem 1. [13] Let f:IR be a positive convex function, a,bI;a<b and fL1[a,b]. Then for α,β1, the following inequality for Riemann-Liouville fractional integrals holds:

    Γ(α)Iαa+f(x)+Γ(β)Iβbf(x)(xa)αf(a)+(bx)βf(b)2+f(x)[(xa)α+(bx)β2]. (1.13)

    The bounds of fractional integrals (1.7) and (1.8) for s-convex functions are given in the following theorem.

    Theorem 2. [11] Let f:[a,b]R be a real valued function and fL1[a,b]. If f is positive and s-convex, then for α,β1, the following fractional integral inequality for generalized integral operators holds:

    (ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l,ω,a+f)(x;p)+(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,β,l,ω,bf)(x;p)(f(a)+f(x)s+1)(xa)Jα1,a+(x;p)+(f(b)+f(x)s+1)(bx)Jβ1,b(x;p),x[a,b]. (1.14)

    The bounds of fractional integrals (1.7) and (1.8) for convex functions can be obtained by putting s=1, which are given in [12,Corollary 1]. The bounds of Riemann-Liouville fractional integrals can be obtained by putting s=1,p=ω=0 in (1.14). In [11,12] fractional integrals (1.7) and (1.8) are also estimated in the form of Hadamard inequality and in a modulus inequality. Here we provide refinements of all the results proved in [9,11,12] along with corrected versions of results given in [9] for (s,m)-convex functions.

    In the upcoming section refinements of the bounds of generalized fractional integral operators are established by using strongly (s,m)-convex functions. The results of [9] are correctly stated which appear in some special cases of presented results. Furthermore, the refinements of bounds of these operators are presented in Hadamard like inequality by using strongly (s,m)-convex functions. Also the results of this paper give refinements of some well-known inequalities.

    We use the extended generalized Mittag-Leffler function with the corresponding fractional integral operator in real domain. The first result provides an upper bound of sum of left and right fractional integrals for strongly (s,m)-convex functions on real domain.

    Theorem 3. Let fL1[a,b],0a<b. If f is a positive and strongly (s,m)-convex function on [a,mb] with modulus λ>0, m(0,1], then for α,β1, the following fractional integral inequality for generalized integral operators (1.7) and (1.8) holds:

    (ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l,ω,a+f)(x;p)+(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,β,l,ω,bf)(x;p)(f(a)+mf(xm)s+1λ(xma)26m)(xa)Jα1,a+(x;p)+(f(b)+mf(xm)s+1λ(mbx)26m)(bx)Jβ1,b(x;p),x[a,b]. (2.1)

    Proof. Let x[a,b]. Then for t[a,x) and α1, one can have the following inequality:

    (xt)α1Eγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l(ω(xt)μ;p)(xa)α1Eγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l(ω(xa)μ;p). (2.2)

    The function f is strongly (s,m)-convex function with modulus λ, therefore one can obtain

    f(t)(xtxa)sf(a)+m(taxa)sf(xm)λ(xt)(ta)(xma)2m(xa)2. (2.3)

    By multiplying (2.2) and (2.3) and then integrating over [a,x], we get

    xa(xt)α1Eγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l(ω(xt)μ;p)f(t)dt(xa)α1Eγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l(ω(xa)μ;p)(f(a)(xa)sxa(xt)sdt+mf(xm)xa(taxa)sdtλ(xma)2m(xa)2xa(xt)(ta)dt).

    Therefore, the left fractional integral operator satisfies the following inequality:

    (ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l,ω,a+f)(x;p)(xa)Jα1,a+(x;p)(f(a)+mf(xm)s+1λ(xma)26m). (2.4)

    Now, on the other hand for t(x,b] and β1, one can have the following inequality:

    (tx)β1Eγ,δ,k,cμ,β,l(ω(tx)μ;p)(bx)β1Eγ,δ,k,cμ,β,l(ω(bx)μ;p). (2.5)

    Again, from strongly (s,m)-convexity of f, we have

    f(t)(txbx)sf(b)+m(btbx)sf(xm)λ(tx)(bt)(mbx)2m(bx)2. (2.6)

    By multiplying (2.5) and (2.6) and then integrating over [x,b], we have

    bx(tx)β1Eγ,δ,k,cμ,β,l(ω(tx)μ;p)f(t)dt(bx)β1Eγ,δ,k,cμ,β,l(ω(bx)μ;p)(f(a)(bx)sbx(tx)sdt+mf(xm)bx(btbx)sdtλ(mbx)2m(bx)2bx(tx)(bt)dt).

    Therefore, we have that, the right integral operator satisfies the following inequality:

    (ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,β,l,ω,bf)(x;p)(bx)Jβ1,b(x;p)(f(b)+mf(xm)s+1λ(mbx)26m). (2.7)

    By adding (2.4) and (2.7), the required inequality (2.1) can be obtained.

    Some particular cases are given in the following results:

    Theorem 4. Let fL1[a,b],0a<b. If f is a positive and (s,m)-convex function on [a,mb], m(0,1], then for α,β1, the following fractional integral inequality for generalized integral operators (1.7) and (1.8) holds:

    (ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l,ω,a+f)(x;p)+(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,β,l,ω,bf)(x;p)(f(a)+mf(xm)s+1)(xa)Jα1,a+(x;p)+(f(b)+mf(xm)s+1)(bx)Jβ1,b(x;p),x[a,b]. (2.8)

    Proof. For (s,m)-convex functions the inequality (2.4) holds as follows (by setting λ=0):

    (ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l,ω,a+f)(x;p)(xa)Jα1,a+(x;p)(f(a)+mf(xm)s+1). (2.9)

    Also, for (s,m)-convex functions the inequality (2.7) holds as follows (by setting λ=0):

    (ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,β,l,ω,bf)(x;p)(bx)Jβ1,b(x;p)(f(b)+mf(xm)s+1). (2.10)

    By adding (2.9) and (2.10) the inequality (2.8) can be obtained.

    Remark 3. The inequality (2.8) is the correct version of [9,Theorem 1]. The inequality (2.1) provides refinement of inequality (2.8).

    Corollary 1. The following inequality holds for strongly convex functions by taking s=m=1 in (2.1):

    (ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l,ω,a+f)(x;p)+(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l,ω,bf)(x;p)(f(a)+f(x)2λ(xa)26)(xa)Jα1,a+(x;p)+(f(b)+f(x)2λ(bx)26)(bx)Jα1,b(x;p),x[a,b]. (2.11)

    Corollary 2. The following inequality holds for convex functions by taking s=m=1,λ=0 in (2.1) which is proved in [12,Corollary 1]:

    (ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l,ω,a+f)(x;p)+(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l,ω,bf)(x;p)(f(a)+f(x)2)(xa)Jα1,a+(x;p)+(f(b)+f(x)2)(bx)Jα1,b(x;p),x[a,b]. (2.12)

    Remark 4. The inequality (2.11) provides refinement of inequality (2.12).

    Corollary 3. If we set α=β in (2.1), then the following inequality is obtained:

    (ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l,ω,a+f)(x;p)+(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l,ω,bf)(x;p)(f(a)+mf(xm)s+1λ(xma)26m)(xa)Jα1,a+(x;p)+(f(b)+mf(xm)s+1λ(mbx)26m)(bx)Jα1,b(x;p),x[a,b]. (2.13)

    Corollary 4. If we set α=β and λ=0 in (2.1), then the following inequality is obtained for (s,m)-convex function:

    (ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l,ω,a+f)(x;p)+(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l,ω,bf)(x;p)(f(a)+mf(xm)s+1)(xa)Jα1,a+(x;p)+(f(b)+mf(xm)s+1)(bx)Jα1,b(x;p),x[a,b]. (2.14)

    Remark 5. The inequality (2.14) is the correct version of [9,Corollary 1]. The inequality (2.13) provides refinement of inequality (2.14).

    Corollary 5. Along with assumptions of Theorem 1, if fL[a,b], then the following inequality is obtained:

    (ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l,ω,a+f)(x;p)+(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,β,l,ω,bf)(x;p)||f||(1+m)s+1[(xa)Jα1,a+(x;p)+(bx)Jβ1,b(x;p)][λ(xma)2(xa)6mJα1,a+(x;p)+λ(mbx)2(bx)6mJβ1,b(x;p)]. (2.15)

    Corollary 6. Along with assumptions of Theorem 1, if fL[a,b],λ=0, then the following inequality is obtained for (s,m)-convex function:

    (ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l,ω,a+f)(x;p)+(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,β,l,ω,bf)(x;p)||f||(1+m)s+1[(xa)Jα1,a+(x;p)+(bx)Jβ1,b(x;p)] (2.16)

    Remark 6. The inequality (2.16) is the correct version of [9,Corollary 2]. The inequality (2.15) provides refinement of inequality (2.16).

    Corollary 7. For α=β in (2.15), we get the following result:

    (ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l,ω,a+f)(x;p)+(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l,ω,bf)(x;p)||f||(1+m)s+1[(xa)Jα1,a+(x;p)+(bx)Jα1,b(x;p)][λ(xma)2(xa)6mJα1,a+(x;p)+λ(mbx)2(bx)6mJα1,b(x;p)]. (2.17)

    Corollary 8. For α=β,λ=0 in (2.15), we get the following result for (s,m)-convex function:

    (ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l,ω,a+f)(x;p)+(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l,ω,bf)(x;p)||f||(1+m)s+1[(xa)Jα1,a+(x;p)+(bx)Jα1,b(x;p)] (2.18)

    Remark 7. The inequality (2.18) is the correct version of [9,Corollary 3]. The inequality (2.17) provides refinement of inequality (2.18).

    Corollary 9. For s=1 in (2.15), we get the following result:

    (ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l,ω,a+f)(x;p)+(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,β,l,ω,bf)(x;p)||f||(1+m)2[(xa)Jα1,a+(x;p)+(bx)Jβ1,b(x;p)][λ(xma)2(xa)6mJα1,a+(x;p)+λ(mbx)2(bx)6mJβ1,b(x;p)]. (2.19)

    Corollary 10. For s=1,λ=0 in (2.15), we get the following result for (s,m)-convex function:

    (ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l,ω,a+f)(x;p)+(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,β,l,ω,bf)(x;p)||f||(1+m)2[(xa)Jα1,a+(x;p)+(bx)Jβ1,b(x;p)]. (2.20)

    Remark 8. The inequality (2.19) provides refinement of inequality (2.20).

    Theorem 5. Let fL1[a,b],0a<b. If f is a differentiable and |f| is a strongly (s,m)-convex function on [a,mb] with modulus λ>0, m(0,1], then for α,β1, the following fractional integral inequality for generalized integral operators (1.7) and (1.8) holds:

    |(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α+1,l,ω,a+f)(x;p)+(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,β+1,l,ω,bf)(x;p)(Jα1,a+(x;p)f(a)+Jβ1,b(x;p)f(b))|(|f(a)|+m|f(xm)|s+1λ(xma)26m)(xa)Jα1,a+(x;p)+(|f(b)|+m|f(xm)|s+1λ(mbx)26m)(bx)Jβ1,b(x;p),x[a,b]. (2.21)

    Proof. As x[a,b] and t[a,x), by using strongly (s,m)-convexity of |f|, we have

    |f(t)|(xtxa)s|f(a)|+m(taxa)s|f(xm)|λ(xt)(ta)(xma)2m(xa)2. (2.22)

    From (2.22), one can have

    f(t)(xtxa)s|f(a)|+m(taxa)s|f(xm)|λ(xt)(ta)(xma)2m(xa)2. (2.23)

    The product of (2.2) and (2.23), gives the following inequality:

    (xt)α1Eγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l(ω(xt)μ;p)f(t)dt(xa)α1Eγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l(ω(xa)μ;p)((xtxa)s|f(a)|+m(taxa)s|f(xm)|λ(xt)(ta)(xma)2m(xa)2). (2.24)

    After integrating the above inequality over [a,x], we get

    xa(xt)α1Eγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l(ω(xt)μ;p)f(t)dt(xa)α1Eγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l(ω(xa)μ;p)(|f(a)|(xa)sxa(xt)sdt+m|f(xm)|xa(taxa)sdtλ(xma)2m(xa)2xa(xt)(ta)dx)=(xa)αEγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l(ω(xa)μ;p)(|f(a)|+m|f(xm)|s+1λ(xma)26m). (2.25)

    To compute the integral in the left-hand side of (2.25) we put xt=z, that is t=xz, and use the derivative property (1.6) of the Mittag-Leffler function, to obtain

    xa0zα1Eγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l(ωzμ;p)f(xz)dz=(xa)α1Eγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l(ω(xa)μ;p)f(a)xa0zα2Eγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l(ωzμ;p)f(xz)dz.

    Now, putting xz=t, in the second term of the right hand side of the above equation and then using (1.7), we get

    xa0zα1Eγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l(ωzμ;p)f(xz)dz=(xa)α1Eγ,δ,k,cμ,α,l(ω(xa)μ;p)f(a)(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α+1,l,ω,a+f)(x;p).

    Therefore, (2.25) takes the following form:

    (Jα1,a+(x;p))f(a)(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α+1,l,ω,a+f)(x;p)(xa)Jα1,a+(x;p)(|f(a)|+m|f(xm)|s+1λ(xma)26m). (2.26)

    Also, from (2.22), one can have

    f(t)((xtxa)s|f(a)|+m(taxa)s|f(xm)|λ(xt)(ta)(xma)2m(xa)2). (2.27)

    Following the same procedure as we did for (2.23), one can obtain:

    (ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α+1,l,ω,a+f)(x;p)Jα1,a+(x;p)f(a)(xa)Jα1,a+(x;p)(|f(a)|+m|f(xm)|s+1λ(xma)26m). (2.28)

    From (2.26) and (2.28), we get

    |(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α+1,l,ω,a+f)(x;p)Jα1,a+(x;p)f(a)|(xa)Jα1,a+(x;p)(|f(a)|+m|f(xm)|s+1λ(xma)26m). (2.29)

    Now, we let x[a,b] and t(x,b]. Then by using strongly (s,m)-convexity of |f| we have

    |f(t)|(txbx)s|f(b)|+m(btbx)s|f(xm)|λ(tx)(bt)(mbx)2m(bx)2. (2.30)

    On the same lines as we have done for (2.2), (2.23) and (2.27) one can get from (2.5) and (1.11), the following inequality:

    |(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,β+1,l,ω,bf)(x;p)Jβ1,b(x;p)f(b)|(bx)Jβ1,b(x;p)(|f(b)|+m|f(xm)|s+1λ(mbx)26m). (2.31)

    From inequalities (2.29) and (2.31) via triangular inequality, (2.21) is obtained.

    Theorem 6. Let fL1[a,b],0a<b. If f is a differentiable and |f| is a (s,m)-convex function on [a,mb], m(0,1], then for α,β1, the following fractional integral inequality for generalized integral operators (1.7) and (1.8) holds:

    |(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α+1,l,ω,a+f)(x;p)+(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,β+1,l,ω,bf)(x;p)(Jα1,a+(x;p)f(a)+Jβ1,b(x;p)f(b))|(|f(a)|+m|f(xm)|s+1)(xa)Jα1,a+(x;p)+(|f(b)|+m|f(xm)|s+1)(bx)Jβ1,b(x;p),x[a,b]. (2.32)

    Proof. For the (s,m)-convex function |f| the inequality (2.29) holds as follows (by setting λ=0):

    |(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α+1,l,ω,a+f)(x;p)Jα1,a+(x;p)f(a)|(xa)Jα1,a+(x;p)(|f(a)|+m|f(xm)|s+1). (2.33)

    Also, for the (s,m)-convex function |f| the inequality (2.31) holds as follows (by setting λ=0):

    |(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,β+1,l,ω,bf)(x;p)Jβ1,b(x;p)f(b)|(bx)Jβ1,b(x;p)(|f(b)|+m|f(xm)|s+1). (2.34)

    By adding (2.33) and (2.34), the inequality (2.32) can be obtained.

    Remark 9. The inequality (2.32) is the correct version of [9,Theorem 3]. The inequality (2.21) provides refinement of inequality (2.32).

    Corollary 11. If we put α=β in (2.21), then the following inequality is obtained:

    |(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α+1,l,ω,a+f)(x;p)+(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α+1,l,ω,bf)(x;p)(Jα1,a+(x;p)f(a)+Jα1,b(x;p)f(b))|(|f(a)|+m|f(xm)|s+1λ(xma)26m)(xa)Jα1,a+(x;p)+(|f(b)|+m|f(xm)|s+1λ(mbx)26m)(bx)Jα1,b(x;p),x[a,b]. (2.35)

    Corollary 12. If we put α=β and λ=0 in (2.21), then the following inequality is obtained for (s,m)-convex function:

    |(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α+1,l,ω,a+f)(x;p)+(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α+1,l,ω,bf)(x;p)(Jα1,a+(x;p)f(a)+Jα1,b(x;p)f(b))|(|f(a)|+m|f(xm)|s+1)(xa)Jα1,a+(x;p)+(|f(b)|+m|f(xm)|s+1)(bx)Jα1,b(x;p),x[a,b]. (2.36)

    Remark 10. The inequality (2.36) is the correct version of [9,Corollary 5]. The inequality (2.35) provides refinement of inequality (2.36).

    Corollary 13. If we put s=m=1 in (2.21), then the following inequality is obtained for strongly convex function:

    |(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α+1,l,ω,a+f)(x;p)+(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,β+1,l,ω,bf)(x;p)(Jα1,a+(x;p)f(a)+Jβ1,b(x;p)f(b))|(|f(a)|+|f(x)|2λ(xa)26)(xa)Jα1,a+(x;p)+(|f(b)|+|f(x)|2λ(bx)26)(bx)Jβ1,b(x;p),x[a,b]. (2.37)

    Corollary 14. If we put s=m=1 and λ=0 in (2.21), then the following inequality is obtained for convex function which is proved in [12,Corollary 2]:

    |(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α+1,l,ω,a+f)(x;p)+(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,β+1,l,ω,bf)(x;p)(Jα1,a+(x;p)f(a)+Jβ1,b(x;p)f(b))|(|f(a)|+|f(x)|2)(xa)Jα1,a+(x;p)+(|f(b)|+|f(x)|2)(bx)Jβ1,b(x;p),x[a,b]. (2.38)

    The following lemma is useful to prove the next result.

    Lemma 2. Let f:[a,mb]R be strongly (s,m)-convex function with modulus λ. If f(a+mbxm)=f(x) and (s,m)[0,1]2, m0, then the following inequality holds:

    f(a+mb2)(1+m)f(x)2sλ14m(a+mbxmx)2. (2.39)

    Proof. As f is strongly (s,m)-convex function, we have

    f(a+mb2)12s(f((1t)a+mtb)+mf(ta+m(1t)bm))λ4m(t(1+m)(amb)+mbma)2. (2.40)

    Let x=a(1t)+mtb. Then we have a+mbx=ta+m(1t)b.

    f(a+mb2)f(x)2s+mf(a+mbxm)2sλ14m(a+mbxmx)2. (2.41)

    Hence, by using f(a+mbxm)=f(x), the inequality (2.39) can be obtained.

    Theorem 7. Let fL1[a,b],0a<b. If f is a positive and strongly (s,m)-convex function on [a,mb] with modulus λ>0, m(0,1] and f(a+mbxm)=f(x), then for α,β0, the following fractional integral inequality for generalized integral operators (1.7) and (1.8) holds:

    2s1+m(f(a+mb2)(Jα+1,a+(b;p)+Jβ+1,b(a;p))+λ4m(K1+K2))(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α+1,l,ω,a+f)(b;p)+(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,β+1,l,ω,bf)(a;p)(Jβ,b(a;p)+Jα,a+(b;p))(ba)(f(b)+mf(am)s+1λ(mba)26m). (2.42)

    where

    K1=(ba)β+2Jβ+1,b(a;p)2(1+m)(ba)β+1Jβ+2,b(a;p)+2(1+m)2Jβ+3,b(a;p),K2=(ba)α+2Jα+1,a+(b;p)2(1+m)(ba)α+1Jα+2,a+(b;p)+2(1+m)2Jα+3,a+(b;p).

    Proof. For x[a,b], we have

    (xa)βEγ,δ,k,cμ,β+1,l(ω(xa)μ;p)(ba)βEγ,δ,k,cμ,β+1,l(ω(ba)μ;p),β>0. (2.43)

    As f is strongly (s,m)-convex so for x[a,b], we have:

    f(x)(xaba)sf(b)+m(bxba)sf(am)λ(xa)(bx)(mba)2m(ba)2. (2.44)

    By multiplying (2.43) and (2.44) and then integrating over [a,b], we get

    ba(xa)βEγ,δ,k,cμ,β+1,l(ω(xa)μ;p)f(x)dx(ba)βEγ,δ,k,cμ,β+1,l(ω(ba)μ;p)(f(b)(ba)sba(xa)sdx+mf(am)ba(bxba)sdxλ(mba)2m(ba)2ba(xa)(bx)dx).

    From which we have

    (ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,β+1,l,ω,bf)(a;p)(ba)β+1Eγ,δ,k,cμ,β+1,l(ω(ba)μ;p)(f(b)+mf(am)s+1λ(mba)26m), (2.45)

    that is

    (ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,β+1,l,ω,bf)(a;p)(ba)Jβ,b(a;p)(f(b)+mf(am)s+1λ(mba)26m). (2.46)

    Now, on the other hand for x[a,b], we have

    (bx)αEγ,δ,k,cμ,α+1,l(ω(bx)μ;p)(ba)αEγ,δ,k,cμ,α+1,l(ω(ba)μ;p),α>0. (2.47)

    By multiplying (2.44) and (2.47) and then integrating over [a,b], we get

    ba(bx)αEγ,δ,k,cμ,α+1,l(ω(bx)μ;p)f(x)dx(ba)αEγ,δ,k,cμ,α+1,l(ω(ba)μ;p)(f(b)(ba)sba(xa)sdx+mf(am)ba(bxba)sdxλ(mba)2m(ba)2ba(xa)(bx)dx).

    From which we have

    (ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α+1,l,ω,a+f)(b;p)(ba)α+1Eγ,δ,k,cμ,α+1,l(ω(ba)μ;p)(f(b)+mf(am)s+1λ(mba)26m), (2.48)

    that is

    (ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α+1,l,ω,a+f)(b;p)(ba)Jα,a+(b;p)(f(b)+mf(am)s+1λ(mba)26m). (2.49)

    By adding (2.46) and (2.49), the second inequality of (2.42) is obtained. To prove the first inequality; multiplying (2.39) with (xa)βEγ,δ,k,cμ,β+1,l(ω(xa)μ;p) and integrating over [a,b], we get

    f(a+mb2)ba(xa)βEγ,δ,k,cμ,β+1,l(ω(xa)μ;p)dx1+m2sba(xa)βEγ,δ,k,cμ,β+1,l(ω(xa)μ;p)f(x)dxλ4mba(xa)βEγ,δ,k,cμ,β+1,l(ω(xa)μ;p)(a+mbxmx)2dx. (2.50)

    By using (1.8), (1.11) and integrating by parts, we get

    f(a+mb2)Jβ+1,b(a;p)1+m2s(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,β+1,l,ω,bf)(a;p)λ4m(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,β+1,l,ω,b(a+mbxmx)2)(a;p).

    The integral operator appearing in the last term of the right hand side is calculated as follows:

    (ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,β+1,l,ω,b(a+mbxmx)2)(a;p)=n=0βp(γ+nk,cγ)β(γ,cγ)(c)nkΓ(μn+β+1)1(l)nδba(xa)β+μn(a+mbxmx)2dx=n=0βp(γ+nk,cγ)β(γ,cγ)(c)nkΓ(μn+β+1)1(l)nδ((ba)β+μn+3β+μn+12(1+m)(ba)β+μn+3(β+μn+1)(β+μn+2)+2(1+m)2(ba)β+μn+2(β+μn+1)(β+μn+2)(β+μn+3))=(ba)β+2Jβ+1,b(a;p)2(1+m)(ba)β+1Jβ+2,b(a;p)+2(1+m)2Jβ+3,b(a;p)

    i.e

    f(a+mb2)Jβ+1,b(a;p)1+m2s(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,β+1,l,ω,bf)(a;p)λ4m((ba)β+2×Jβ+1,b(a;p)2(1+m)(ba)β+1Jβ+2,b(a;p)+2(1+m)2Jβ+3,b(a;p)). (2.51)

    By multiplying (2.39) with (bx)αEγ,δ,k,cμ,α+1,l(ω(bx)μ;p) and integrating over [a,b], also using (1.7) and(1.12), we get

    f(a+mb2)Jα+1,a+(b;p)1+m2s(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α+1,l,ω,a+f)(b;p)λ4m(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α+1,l,ω,a+(a+mbxmx)2)(b;p). (2.52)

    The integral operator appearing in last term of right hand side is calculated as follows:

    (ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α+1,l,ω,a+(a+mbxmx)2)(b;p)=(ba)α+2Jα+1,a+(b;p)2(1+m)(ba)α+1Jα+2,a+(b;p)+2(1+m)2Jα+3,a+(b;p).

    By using it in (2.52) then adding resulting inequality in (2.51), the first inequality of (2.42) can be obtained.

    Theorem 8. Let fL1[a,b],0a<b. If f is a positive and (s,m)-convex function on [a,mb], m(0,1] and f(a+mbxm)=f(x), then for α,β0, the following fractional integral inequality for generalized integral operators (1.7) and (1.8) holds:

    2s1+m(f(a+mb2)(Jα+1,a+(b;p)+Jβ+1,b(a;p)))(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α+1,l,ω,a+f)(b;p)+(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,β+1,l,ω,bf)(a;p)(Jβ,b(a;p)+Jα,a+(b;p))(ba)(f(b)+mf(am)s+1). (2.53)

    Proof. For the (s,m)-convex function f the inequality (2.46) holds as follows (by setting λ=0):

    (ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,β+1,l,ω,bf)(a;p)(ba)Jβ,b(a;p)(f(b)+mf(am)s+1). (2.54)

    Also, for the (s,m)-convex function f the inequality (2.49) holds as follows (by setting λ=0):

    (ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α+1,l,ω,a+f)(b;p)(ba)Jα,a+(b;p)(f(b)+mf(am)s+1). (2.55)

    By adding (2.54) and (2.53), the second inequality in (2.53) can be obtained. For first inequality using (2.51) for λ=0 we have

    f(a+mb2)Jβ+1,b(a;p)1+m2s(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,β+1,l,ω,bf)(a;p). (2.56)

    Also, from (2.52) for λ=0 we have

    f(a+mb2)Jα+1,a+(b;p)1+m2s(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α+1,l,ω,a+f)(b;p). (2.57)

    From inequalities (2.56) and (2.57), the first inequality in (2.53) can be obtained.

    Remark 11. The inequality (2.53) is the correct version of [9,Theorem 4]. The inequality (2.42) provides refinement of inequality (2.53).

    If s=m=1 in (2.42), then the following result obtained for strongly convex function.

    Corollary 15. Let f:[a,b]R, 0a<b, be a real valued function. If f is a positive, strongly convex and f(a+bx)=f(x), then for α,β>0, the following fractional integral inequality holds:

    f(a+b2)(Jα+1,a+(b;p)+Jβ+1,b(a;p))+λ4((ba)β+2Jβ+1,b(a;p)4(ba)β+1Jβ+2,b(a;p)+8Jβ+3,b(a;p)+(ba)α+2×Jα+1,a+(b;p)4(ba)α+1Jα+2,a+(b;p)+8Jα+3,a+(b;p))((ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,α+1,l,ω,a+f)(b;p)+(ϵγ,δ,k,cμ,β+1,l,ω,bf)(a;p))(Jβ,b(a;p)+Jα,a+(b;p))(ba)(f(b)+f(a)2λ(ba)26). (2.58)

    Remark 12. For λ=0 in (2.58) we get [12,Corollary 3]. Therefore (2.58) is the refinement of [12,Corollary 3].

    The presented results provide the refinements of the bounds of generalized fractional integral operators given in (1.7) and (1.8), by applying the definition of strongly (s,m)-convex functions. The results for strongly convexity give improvements of previously known results determined in [11,12,13]. In particular cases results for several known integral operators defined in [17,18,19,21,22] can be deduced. The method used in this paper for obtaining refinements of bounds of fractional integral operators can be extended for refinements of inequalities already exist in literature.

    The work of Josip Pečarić is supported by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (the Agreement No. 02.a03.21.0008).

    It is declared that authors have no competing interests.

    Ghulam Farid proposed the work with the consultation of Maja Andrić and Josip Pečarić, Maryam Saddiqa make calculations and verifications of results along with Chahn Yong Jung. Ultimately all authors have equal contributions. Further, all authors are agree for Chahn Yong Jung as corresponding author.



    [1] Perttu O, Vicente S, Löfman M, et al. (2024) Carbon management in geotechnical engineering solutions, Geotechnical Engineering Challenges to Meet Current and Emerging Needs of Society, CRC Press, 3228–3232.
    [2] Kivi E (2022) Pohjanvahvistusmenetelmät Suomessa—Käyttömäärät ja hiilijalanjälki. Espoo: Aalto University. Available from: https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/items/0a309556-72a4-468b-b089-cd6da2ec962a.
    [3] Lee IK, White W, Ingles OG (1983) Geotechnical Engineering, Boston: Pitman.
    [4] Leroueil S, Magnan J-P, Tavenas F (1990) Embankments on Soft Clay, Chichester: Ellis Horwood.
    [5] Gardemeister R (1975) On engineering-geological properties of fine-grained sediments in Finland. 91.
    [6] Löfman MS, Korkiala-Tanttu LK (2022) Transformation models for the compressibility properties of Finnish clays using a multivariate database. Georisk Assess Manage Risk Eng Syst Geohazards 16: 330–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/17499518.2020.1864410 doi: 10.1080/17499518.2020.1864410
    [7] D'Ignazio M, Phoon KK, Tan SA, et al. (2016) Correlations for undrained shear strength of Finnish soft clays. Can Geotech J 53: 1628–1645. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2016-0037 doi: 10.1139/cgj-2016-0037
    [8] Baecher GB (2019) Putting Numbers on Geotechnical Judgment. Companion whitepaper to the 27th Buchanan Lecture, Texas A & M University. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338801782_Baecher_2019_-_Putting_Numbers_on_Geotechnical_Judgment_27th_Buchanan_Lecture.
    [9] Cao Z, Wang Y, Li D (2016) Quantification of prior knowledge in geotechnical site characterization. Eng Geol 203: 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.08.018 doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.08.018
    [10] Wang Y, Cao Z, Li D (2016) Bayesian perspective on geotechnical variability and site characterization. Eng Geol 203: 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.08.017 doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.08.017
    [11] Taylor DW (1948) Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics, New York, John Wiley & Sons Inc.
    [12] Casagrande A (1936) The determination of preconsolidation load and its practical significance. Proc 1st Int Conf Soil Mech.
    [13] Buisman A (1936) Results of Long Duration Settlement Tests. Int Conf Soil Mech Found Eng, 103–106.
    [14] Mesri G, Choi YK (1985) The uniquenes of the end-of-primary (EOP) void ratio-effective sress relationship. 587–590.
    [15] Larsson R (1986) Consolidation of soft soils, Linköping.
    [16] Mesri G, Castro A (1987) C α/C c concept and K 0 during secondary compression. J Geotech Eng 113: 230–247. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1987)113:3(230) doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1987)113:3(230)
    [17] Mataić I (2016) On structure and rate dependence of Perniö clay.
    [18] Suhonen K (2010) Creep of Soft Clay. Master thesis, Aalto University. 103. Available from: https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/05a2a28b-aadd-4878-aa25-62a179ee52be/content.
    [19] Korhonen KH, Gardemeister R, Tammirinne M (1974) Geotekninen maaluokitus. Geotekniikan laboratorio, tiedonanto 14. Otaniemi, Espoo. Available from: https://publications.vtt.fi/julkaisut/muut/1970s/geotekniikan_tiedonanto_14.pdf.
    [20] Koskinen M (2014) Plastic Anisotropy and Destructuration of Soft Finnish Clays. Espoo: Aalto University.
    [21] Phoon K-K, Kulhawy FH (1999) Characterization of geotechnical variability. Can Geotech J 36: 612–624. https://doi.org/10.1139/t99-038 doi: 10.1139/t99-038
    [22] Ching J, Phoon K-K (2014) Transformations and correlations among some clay parameters—The global database. Can Geotech J 51: 663–685. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2013-0262 doi: 10.1139/cgj-2013-0262
    [23] Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, et al. (2011) Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. J Mach Learn Res 12: 2825–2830.
    [24] Ang AHS, Tang WH (2006) Probability Concepts in Engineering: Emphasis on Applications to Civil and Environmental Engineering. Wiley, 432.
    [25] Berilgen SA, Berilgen MM, Ozaydin IK (2006) Compression and permeability relationships in high water content clays. Appl Clay Sci 31: 249–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2005.08.002 doi: 10.1016/j.clay.2005.08.002
    [26] Feng S, Vardanega PJ (2019) Correlation of the hydraulic conductivity of fine-grained soils with water content ratio using a database. Environ Geotech 6: 253–268. https://doi.org/10.1680/jenge.18.00166 doi: 10.1680/jenge.18.00166
    [27] Feng S, Vardanega PJ (2019) A database of saturated hydraulic conductivity of fine-grained soils: probability density functions. Georisk Assess Manage Risk Eng Syst Geohazards 13: 255–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/17499518.2019.1652919 doi: 10.1080/17499518.2019.1652919
    [28] Andersen JD (2012) Prediction of compression ratio for clays and organic soils. Proceedings of the 16th Nordic Geotechnical Meeting, Copenhagen, 1: 303–310.
    [29] Phoon K-K, Tang C (2019) Characterisation of geotechnical model uncertainty. Georisk Assess Manage Risk Eng Syst Geohazards 13: 101–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/17499518.2019.1585545 doi: 10.1080/17499518.2019.1585545
    [30] Ching J, Noorzad A (2021) Statistics for transformation uncertainties. State-of-the-art review of inherent variability and uncertainty in geotechnical properties and models, 171–180.
    [31] Uzielli M, Lacasse S, Nadim F, et al. (2006) Soil variability analysis for geotechnical practice. Charact Eng Prop Natural Soils 3: 1653–1752.
    [32] Löfman MS, Korkiala-Tanttu LK (2021) Inherent variability of geotechnical properties for Finnish clay soils. 18th International Probabilistic Workshop. IPW 2021. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73616-3_32
    [33] Phoon K-K (2017) Role of reliability calculations in geotechnical design. Georisk Assess Manage Risk Eng Syst Geohazards 11: 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/17499518.2016.1265653 doi: 10.1080/17499518.2016.1265653
    [34] Ching J, Phoon K-K, Wu C-T (2022) Data-centric quasi-site-specific prediction for compressibility of clays. Can Geotech J 59: 2033–2049. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2021-0658 doi: 10.1139/cgj-2021-0658
    [35] Phoon K-K, Zhang W (2023) Future of machine learning in geotechnics. Georisk Assess Manage Risk Eng Syst Geohazards 17: 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/17499518.2022.2087884 doi: 10.1080/17499518.2022.2087884
    [36] Zhang W, Li H, Li Y, et al. (2021) Application of deep learning algorithms in geotechnical engineering: a short critical review. Artif Intell Rev 54: 5633–5673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-021-09967-1 doi: 10.1007/s10462-021-09967-1
  • geosci-11-02-015-s001.xlsx
    geosci-11-02-015-s002.xlsx
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Ghulam Farid, Yu-Ming Chu, Maja Andrić, Chahn Yong Jung, Josip Pečarić, Shin Min Kang, Xinguang Zhang, Refinements of Some Integral Inequalities for s , m -Convex Functions, 2020, 2020, 1563-5147, 1, 10.1155/2020/8878342
    2. Yanliang Dong, Maryam Saddiqa, Saleem Ullah, Ghulam Farid, José Francisco Gómez Aguilar, Study of Fractional Integral Operators Containing Mittag-Leffler Functions via Strongly α , m -Convex Functions, 2021, 2021, 1563-5147, 1, 10.1155/2021/6693914
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2025 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(457) PDF downloads(66) Cited by(0)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog