Advertisement

Settlement Prediction Using Support Vector Machine (SVM)-Based Compressibility Models: A Case Study

  • Scott KirtsEmail author
  • Boo Hyun Nam
  • Orestis P. Panagopoulos
  • Petros Xanthopoulos
Research paper
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

The magnitude of soil settlement depends on several variables such as the compression index, Cc, and recompression index, Cr, which are determined by a consolidation test. This laboratory test is time consuming and labor intensive, thus efforts to correlate the compressibility indexes and soil index properties have been made. In this study, soil compressibility prediction models are enhanced by the support vector machine (SVM) algorithm, and the performances of those correlations are tested via field verification in terms of settlement calculation. The field verification portion of the study consists of identifying sites with borings, consolidation tests, and measured settlement from overlying load. Soil layers, within the influence zone of settlement, are tested to obtain soil index parameters. Once a complete soil profile has been established, a series of settlement analyses were performed. Settlement predictions were made based on both predicted and measured Cr for each soil layer. An additional settlement prediction was made using a rule of thumb equating Cc to Cr. The predicted settlements were then compared to the measured settlement taken in close proximity. Upon conclusion, using the Cr and Cc correlations provides comparable settlement predictions compared to measured settlement and the predicted Cr (using a correlation from predicted Cc) exhibits the strongest settlement predictions. The predicted settlements are lower than the measured settlements for both site locations. This leads one to believe that the influence zone of settlement may be deeper than originally considered.

Keywords

Consolidation Soil compressibility Support vector machine Field verification Settlement 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the support from Dr. David Horhota, Mr. Jose Hernando, and the CPT operation crew from Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) State Materials Office.

References

  1. 1.
    Azzouz AS, Krizek RJ, Corotis RB (1976) Regression analysis of soil compressibility. Soils Found 16(2):19–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Koppula SD (1981) Statistical estimation of compression index. Geotech Test J 4(2):68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Herrero AM (1983) Universal compression index equation. J Geotech Eng 109(5):755–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Park HI, Lee SR (2011) Evaluation of the compression index of soils using an artificial neural network. Comput Geotech 38(4):472–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Miyakawa I (1960) Some aspects of road construction in peaty of marshy areas in Hokkaido. In: Hokkaido Development Bureau. Civil Engineering Research Institute, Sapporo (text in Japanese)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cook PN (1956) Consolidation characteristics of organic soils. In: Proc., 9th Canadian Soil Mechanics Conf., vol 41, NRC, ACSSM, Technical Memorandum, Ottawa, 82–87Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nishida Y (1956) A brief note on compression index of soils. J Soil Mech Found Div 82(3):1–14Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cozzolino VM (1961) Statistical forecasting of compression index. In: Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, vol 1, Paris, 51–53Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sowers GB (1970) Introductory soil mechanics and foundations, 3rd edn. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bowles JE (1989) Physical and geotechnical properties of soils. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ahadiyan J, Ebne JR, Bajestan MS (2008) Determination of soil compression index, Cc, in Ahwaz region. J Faculty Eng 35(3):75–80Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hough BK (1957) Basic soils engineering. Ronald Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mayne PW (1980) Cam-clay predictions of undrained strength. J Geotech Eng Div 106(11):1219–1242Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Terzaghi K, Peck RB (1967) Soil mechanics in engineering practice, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McClelland B (1967) Progress of consolidation in delta front and pro-delta clays on the Mississippi River. Marine geotechnique. University of Illinois Press, Champaign, pp 22–40Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Al Khafaji AWN, Andersland OB (1992) Equations for compression index approximation. J Geotech Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1992)118:1(148) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yoon GL, Kim BT (2006) Regression analysis of compression index for Kwangyang Marine Clay. KSCE J Civ Eng 10(6):415–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ozer M, Isik NS, Orhan M (2008) Statistical and neural network assessment of the compression index of clay-bearing soils. Bull Eng Geol Environ 67(4):537–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Elnaggar HA, Krizek RJ (1970) Statistical approximation for consolidation settlement. Highway Res Rec 323(1):87–96Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Peck RB, Reed WC (1954) Engineering properties of Chicago subsoils. Engineering Experiment Station, Univ. of Illinois, UrbanaGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kirts S, Panagopoulos O, Xanthopoulos P, Nam B (2017) Soil-compressibility prediction models using machine learning. J Comput Civil Eng 32:1Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bishop CM (2006) Pattern recognition and machine learning. Springer, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liu S, Cai G, Puppala AJ, Tu Q (2011) Prediction of embankment settlements over Marine Clay using piezocone penetration tests. Bull Eng Geol Environ 70(3):401–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Abu-Farsakh M, Yu X (2013) Comparison of predicted embankment settlement from piezocone penetration test with field measurement and laboratory estimated. Geotech. and Geoph. S. Char. 4—Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Site Characterization, ISC-4, vol 7, pp 349–355Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Salem M, El-Sherbiny R (2013) Comparison of measured and calculated consolidation settlements of thick under consolidated clay. Alexandria Eng J 53(1):107–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dhowian AW, Erol AO, Sultan S (1987) Settlement predictions in complex Sabkha soil profiles. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 36(1):11–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Leu SS, Chen CN, Chang SL (2001) Data mining for tunnel support stability: neural network approach. Autom Constr 10(4):429–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Melhem HG, Cheng Y (2003) Prediction of remaining service life of bridge decks using machine learning. J Comput Civ Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(2003)17:1(1)17(1) Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sou-Sen L, Hsien-Chuang L (2004) Neural-network-based regression model of ground surface settlement induced by deep excavation. Autom Constr 13(3):279–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Panagopoulos AA, Alam M, Rogers A, Jennings NR (2015) AdaHeat: A general adaptive intelligent agent for domestic heating control. In: Proc. 2015 Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland, SC, pp 1295–1303Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Panagopoulos AA, Chalkiadakis G, Jennings RN (2015) Towards optimal solar tracking: a dynamic programming approach. In: Proc., 29th AAAI Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2015), AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CAGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sewell JA, Abboud MA (2012) Final plans update geotechnical report for roadways SR 415 widening from the Seminole County line to Reed Ellis Rd. Volusia County, Florida financial project I.D. 407355-3. Professional Services Industries, Inc. Orlando, FLGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Das BM (2002) Principles of geotechnical engineering. Thomson Learning, UrbanaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Iran University of Science and Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott Kirts
    • 1
    Email author
  • Boo Hyun Nam
    • 2
  • Orestis P. Panagopoulos
    • 3
  • Petros Xanthopoulos
    • 4
  1. 1.Florida Department of TransportationOrlandoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil, Environmental, and Construction Engineering, Florida Sinkhole Research InstituteUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA
  3. 3.Department of Computer Information SystemsState University, StanislausTurlockUSA
  4. 4.Department of Decision and Information SciencesStetson UniversityDelandUSA

Personalised recommendations