Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

ISSN 2095-2430

ISSN 2095-2449(Online)

CN 10-1023/X

邮发代号 80-968

2019 Impact Factor: 1.68

Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering  2020, Vol. 14 Issue (1): 185-198   https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-019-0591-x
  本期目录
SPT based determination of undrained shear strength: Regression models and machine learning
Walid Khalid MBARAK1, Esma Nur CINICIOGLU2, Ozer CINICIOGLU1()
1. Department of Civil Engigeering, Bogazici University, Istanbul 34342, Turkey
2. School of Business, Quantitative Methods Division, Istanbul University, Istanbul 34320, Turkey
 全文: PDF(1129 KB)   HTML
Abstract

The purpose of this study is the accurate prediction of undrained shear strength using Standard Penetration Test results and soil consistency indices, such as water content and Atterberg limits. With this study, along with the conventional methods of simple and multiple linear regression models, three machine learning algorithms, random forest, gradient boosting and stacked models, are developed for prediction of undrained shear strength. These models are employed on a relatively large data set from different projects around Turkey covering 230 observations. As an improvement over the available studies in literature, this study utilizes correct statistical analyses techniques on a relatively large database, such as using a train/test split on the data set to avoid overfitting of the developed models. Furthermore, the validity and consistency of the prediction results are ensured with the correct use of statistical measures like p-value and cross-validation which were missing in previous studies. To compare the performances of the models developed in this study with the prior ones existing in literature, all models were applied on the test data set and their performances are evaluated in terms of the resulting root mean squared error (RMSE) values and coefficient of determination (R2). Accordingly, the models developed in this study demonstrate superior prediction capabilities compared to all of the prior studies. Moreover, to facilitate the use of machine learning algorithms for prediction purposes, entire source code prepared for this study and the collected data set are provided as supplements of this study.

Key wordsundrained shear strength    linear regression    random forest    gradient boosting    machine learning    standard penetration test
收稿日期: 2018-10-18      出版日期: 2020-02-21
Corresponding Author(s): Ozer CINICIOGLU   
 引用本文:   
. [J]. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2020, 14(1): 185-198.
Walid Khalid MBARAK, Esma Nur CINICIOGLU, Ozer CINICIOGLU. SPT based determination of undrained shear strength: Regression models and machine learning. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(1): 185-198.
 链接本文:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/CN/10.1007/s11709-019-0591-x
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/CN/Y2020/V14/I1/185
Fig.1  
variable minimum maximum median mean
N60 1 50 14 16.56
wn 9% 96% 31% 32.23%
LL 23 44 57 56.48
PL 11 60 25 24.43
PI 7 80 32 32.29
cu (kPa) 8 200 68 77.25
Tab.1  
researcher(s) cu (kPa) number of observations used R2 p-values RMSE
Sanglerat [9] 12.5N60 NA NA NA NA
Nixon [10] 12N60 NA NA NA NA
Ajayi and Balogun [18] 1.39N60 + 74.2 NA NA NA NA
Decourt [11] 12.5N NA NA NA NA
15N60
Kulhawy and Mayne [19] 6.25N60 NA NA NA NA
Sivrikaya and Toğrol [1] 4.45N 226 0.64 NA NA
6.35N60 0.6084
Hettiarachchi and Brown [14] 4.1N60 26 NA NA NA
Sivrikaya [2] 3.33N− 0.75wn+ 0.20LL + 1.67PI 100 0.6724 NA NA
4.43N60 − 1.29wn+ 1.06LL + 1.02PI 0.6561
Nassaji and Kalantari [3] 2N60 − 0.4wn − 1.1LL + 2.4PI + 33.3 72 0.6561 NA NA
Tab.2  
Fig.2  
coefficient estimate Std. error t-value p-value (Pr (>| t |))
intercept 32.639 4.8078 6.789 1.82E-10
N60 2.771 0.244 11.339 2.00E-16
Tab.3  
coefficient estimate Std. error t-value p-value (Pr (>| t |))
intercept 49.53 11.472 4.318 2.72E-05
N60 2.67 0.256 10.437 2.00E-16
wn − 0.935 0.252 − 3.714 0.000279
LL − 11.235 15.239 − 0.737 0.462
PL 11.279 15.227 0.741 0.4599
PI 11.657 15.242 0.765 0.4454
Tab.4  
Fig.3  
coefficient estimate Std. error t-value p-value (Pr (>| t |))
intercept 69.562 9.15 7.594 2.14E-12
N60 2.602 0.235 11.047 2.00E-16
wn -1.789 0.44 -4.057 7.63E-05
wn×LL 0.0122 0.005 2.453 0.0152
Tab.5  
Fig.4  
Fig.5  
Fig.6  
Fig.7  
Fig.8  
Fig.9  
predictions multiple linear model random forest gradient boosting
multiple linear model 1 -0.26645 -0.1636
random forest -0.26645 1 0.086442
gradient boosting --0.1636 0.086442 1
Tab.6  
Fig.10  
model RMSE (kPa) R2 adjusted R2
models in references Sanglerat [9] 181.53 − 18.1 − 18.57
Nixon [10] 171.29 − 16 − 16.42
Ajayi and Balogun [18] 39.49 0.10 0.07
Decourt [11] 232.90 − 30.5 − 31.2
Kulhawy and Mayne [19] 57.51 − 0.92 − 0.96
Sivrikaya and Toğrol [1] 59.30 − 1.04 − 1.09
Sivrikaya [2] 64.51 − 1.41 − 1.67
Hettiarachchi and Brown [14] 30.14 0.47 0.46
Nassaji and Kalantari [3] 32.44 0.39 0.33
models developed in this study SLR: Equation (6) 27.93 0.55 0.54
MLR: Equation (8) 24.55 0.68 0.67
random forest 23.50 0.70 0.69
gradient boosting 25.15 0.66 0.65
stacked 22.89 0.73 0.72
Tab.7  
Fig.11  
simple linear regression equation RMSE R2
Sanglerat [9] 146.81 − 19.59
Decourt [11] 190.15 − 33.54
Nixon [10] 138.20 − 17.20
Ajayi and Balogun [18] 35.85 − 0.23
Kulhawy and Mayne [19] 41.22 − 0.62
Sivrikaya and Toğrol [1] 42.77 − 0.75
Hettiarachchi and Brown [14] 19.18 0.65
This study: SLR Equation (6) 18.47 0.67
Tab.8  
1 O Sivrikaya, E Toğrol. Determination of undrained strength of fine-grained soils by means of SPT and its application in Turkey. Engineering Geology, 2006, 86(1): 52–69
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.05.002
2 O Sivrikaya. Comparison of artificial neural networks models with correlative works on undrained shear strength. Eurasian Soil Science, 2009, 42(13): 1487–1496
https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229309130092
3 F Nassaji, B Kalantari. SPT Capability to estimate undrained shear strength of fine- grained soils of Tehran, Iran. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2011, 16: 1229–1238
4 N Vu-Bac, T Lahmer, X Zhuang, T Nguyen-Thoi, T Rabczuk. A software framework for probabilistic sensitivity analysis for computationally expensive models. Advances in Engineering Software, 2016, 100: 19–31
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2016.06.005
5 K M Hamdia, M Silani, X Zhuang, P He, T Rabczuk. Stochastic analysis of the fracture toughness of polymeric nanoparticle composites using polynomial chaos expansions. International Journal of Fracture, 2017, 206(2): 215–227
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-017-0210-6
6 K M Hamdia, H Ghasemi, X Zhuang, N Alajlan, T Rabczuk. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis for flexoelectric nanostructures. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2018, 337: 95–109
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2018.03.016
7 R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2017
8 K Terzaghi, R B Peck. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. New York: Wiley, 1967
9 G. Sanglerat The Penetrometer and Soil Exploration: Interpretation of Penetration Diagrams, Theory and Practice. Developments in Geotechnical Engineering 1. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing Company, 1972
10 I K Nixon. Standard penetration test: State of the art report. In: Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Vol 1. Stockholm: AA Balkema Publishers, 1982, 3–24
11 L Decourt. General Report/Discussion session 2: SPT, CPT, pressuremeter testing and recent developments in in-situ testing- Part 2: The standard penetration test, state-of-the-art report. In: The 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Rio De Janeiro: Taylor & Francis, 1989, 2405–2416
12 H Bolton Seed, K Tokimatsu, L F Harder, R M Chung. Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1985, 111(12): 1425–1445
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1985)111:12(1425)
13 A W Skempton. Standard penetration test procedures and the effects in sands of overburden pressure, relative density, particle size, ageing and overconsolidation. Geotechnique, 1986, 36(3): 425–447
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1986.36.3.425
14 H Hettiarachchi, T Brown. Use of SPT blow counts to estimate shear strength properties of soils: Energy balance approach. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2009, 135(6): 830–834
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000016
15 W Khalid, E N Cinicioglu, O. Cinicioglu Undrained Shear Strength, SPT, Water Content, Atterberg Limits-2018. Mendeley Data v1, 2018
16 D C Bisht, A Jangid. Discharge modelling using adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 2011, 31: 99–114
17 J A McGregor, J M Duncan. Performance and Use of the Standard Penetration Test in Geotechnical Engineering Practice. Blacksburg, Virginia: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1998
18 L A Ajayi, L A Balogum. Penetration testing in tropical lateritic and residual soils—Nigerian experience. In: First International Symposium on Penetration Testing. Rotterdam: Balkema Pub., 1988, 315–328
19 F H Kulhawy, P W Mayne. Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design. California: Palo Alto, 1990
20 G James, D Witten, T Hastie, R Tibshirani. An Introduction to Statistical Learning. New York: Springer, 2013
21 J Zhou, X Shi, K Du, X Qiu, X Li, H S Mitri. Feasibility of random-forest approach for prediction of ground settlements induced by the construction of a shield-driven tunnel. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2017, 17(6): 04016129
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000817
22 L Breiman. Random forests. Machine Learning, 2001, 45(1): 5–32
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324
23 S Adusumilli, D Bhatt, H Wang, P Bhattacharya, V Devabhaktuni. A low-cost INS/GPS integration methodology based on random forest regression. Expert Systems with Applications, 2013, 40(11): 4653–4659
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.02.002
24 M Kuhn. Building predictive models in R using the CARET package. Journal of Statistical Software, 2008, 28(5): 1–26
https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v028.i05
25 M Kuhn, K Johnson. Applied Predictive Modeling. New York: Springer, 2013
26 C M Bishop. Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning. New York: Springer, 2011
27 J H Friedman. Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine. Annals of Statistics, 2001, 29(5): 1189–1232
https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1013203451
28 L Breiman. Stacked regressions. Machine Learning, 1996, 24(1): 49–64
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117832
29 W Khalid, E N Cinicioglu, O Cinicioglu. Code for Predicting Undrained Shear Strength Using CARET Package in R. Mendeley Data v1, 2019
30 M F Badawy, M A Msekh, K M Hamdia, M K Steiner, T Lahmer, T Rabczuk. Hybrid nonlinear surrogate models for fracture behavior of polymeric nanocomposites. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 2017, 50: 64–75
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.probengmech.2017.10.003
31 K M Hamdia, T Lahmer, T Nguyen-Thoi, T Rabczuk. Predicting the fracture toughness of PNCs: A stochastic approach based on ANN and ANFIS. Computational Materials Science, 2015, 102: 304–313
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2015.02.045
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed