Environmental Earth Sciences

, Volume 61, Issue 2, pp 393–403 | Cite as

Prediction of swelling pressure of soil using artificial intelligence techniques

  • Sarat Kumar Das
  • Pijush Samui
  • Akshaya Kumar Sabat
  • T. G. Sitharam
Original Article

Abstract

The swelling pressure of soil depends upon various soil parameters such as mineralogy, clay content, Atterberg’s limits, dry density, moisture content, initial degree of saturation, etc. along with structural and environmental factors. It is very difficult to model and analyze swelling pressure effectively taking all the above aspects into consideration. Various statistical/empirical methods have been attempted to predict the swelling pressure based on index properties of soil. In this paper, the computational intelligence techniques artificial neural network and support vector machine have been used to develop models based on the set of available experimental results to predict swelling pressure from the inputs; natural moisture content, dry density, liquid limit, plasticity index, and clay fraction. The generalization of the model to new set of data other than the training set of data is discussed which is required for successful application of a model. A detailed study of the relative performance of the computational intelligence techniques has been carried out based on different statistical performance criteria.

Keywords

Expansive soil Swelling pressure Artificial neural network Support vector machine 

References

  1. Abdujauwad SN (1994) Swelling behaviour of calcareous clays from the Eastern Provinces of Saudi Arabia. Q J Eng Geol 27:333–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abdujauwad SN, Al-Sulaimani GJ, Basunbul IA, Sl-Buraim I (1998) Laboratory and field studies of response of structures to heave of expansive clay. Geotechnique 48(1):103–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aciroyd LW, Husain R (1986) Residual and lacustrine black cotton soil of North-East Nigeria. Geotechnique 36:113–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Basheer IA (2001) Empirical modeling of the compaction curve of cohesive soil. Can Geotech J 38(1):29–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boser BE, Guyon IM, Vapnik VN (1992) A training algorithm for optimal margin classifier. In: The Proceedings of the fifth annual ACM workshop on computational learning theory, 27–29 July, Pittusburgh, PA, USAGoogle Scholar
  6. Cortes C, Vpanik VN (1995) Support-vector networks. Mach Learn 20(3):273–297Google Scholar
  7. Cristianini N, Shawe-Taylor J (2000) An introduction to support vector machine. University press, London, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Das BM (2002) Principles of geotechnical engineering. Brookes-Cole, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Das SK (2005) Application of genetic algorithm and artificial neural network to some geotechnical engineering problem. Ph.D. thesis submitted to Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  10. Das SK, Basudhar PK (2006) Undrained lateral load capacity of piles in clay using artificial neural network. Comput Geotech 33(8):454–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Das SK, Basudhar PK (2008) Prediction of residual friction angle of clays using artifical neural network. Eng Geology 100(3-4):142–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Demuth H, Beale M (2000) Neural network toolbox. The MathWorks Inc, USAGoogle Scholar
  13. El-Sohby MA, El-Sayed AR (1981) Some factors affecting swelling of clayey soils. Geotech Eng 12:19–39Google Scholar
  14. Erzin Y, Erol O (2004) Correlations for quick prediction of swelling pressure. Electron J Geotech Eng 9, Bundle F, paper 0476Google Scholar
  15. Gill WR, Reaves CA (1957) Relationships of Atterberg limits and cation-exchange capacity to some physical properties of soil. Soil Sci Soc Am Proc 21:491–494Google Scholar
  16. Goh ATC (2002) Probabilistic neural network for evaluating seismic liquefaction potential. Can Geotech J 39:219–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goh ATC, Goh SH (2007) Support vector machines: their use in geotechnical engineering as illustrated using seismic liquefaction data. Comput Geotech 34(5):410–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goh ATC, Kulhawy FH, Chua CG (2005) Bayesian neural network analysis of undrained side resistance of drilled shafts. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 131(1):84–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gourley CS, Newill D, Shreiner HD (1993) Expansive soils: TRL’s research strategy. In: Proceedings of first international symposium on engineering characteristics of arid soilsGoogle Scholar
  20. Gray CW, Allbrook R (2002) Relationships between shrinkage indices and soil properties in some New Zealand soils. Geoderma 108(3–4):287–299Google Scholar
  21. Gunn S (1998) Support vector machines for classification and regression. Image speech and intelligent systems technical report, University of Southampton, UKGoogle Scholar
  22. Holtz WG (1959) Expansive clays—properties and problems. Q Colo Sch Mines 54(4):89–117Google Scholar
  23. Ilonen J, Kamarainen JK, Lampinen J (2003) Differential evolution training algorithm for feed-forward neural network. Neural Process Lett 17:93–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jones DE, Holtz WG (1973) Expansive soils—the hidden disaster. Civil engineering. ASCE 43(8):49–51Google Scholar
  25. Kayadelen C, Taskiran T, Gnaydin O, Fener M (2009) Adaptive neuro-fuzzy modeling for the swelling potential of compacted soils. Environ Earth Sci. doi:10.1007/s12665-009-0009-5
  26. Liong SY, Lim WH, Paudyal GN (2000) River stage forecasting in Bangladesh: neural network approach. J Comput Civ Eng 14(1):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mallikarjuna R (1988) A proper parameter for correlation of swell potential and swell index for remould expansive clays. M. Tech. dissertation submitted to dept. of civil engg, J.N.T. University College of Engg, Kakinada, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  28. MathWork, Inc. (2001) Matlab user’s manual, version 6.5. The MathWorks, Inc., NatickGoogle Scholar
  29. McCormack DE, Wilding LP (1975) Soil properties influencing swelling in Canfield and Geeburg soils. Soil Sci Soc Am Proc 39:496–502Google Scholar
  30. Morshed J, Kaluarachchi JJ (1998) Parameter estimation using artificial neural network and genetic algorithm for free-product migration and recovery. Water Resour Res 34(5):1101–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mowafy MY, Bauer GE (1985) Prediction of swelling pressure and factors affecting the swell behavior of an expansive soils. Transp Res Rec 1032:23–28Google Scholar
  32. Mukherjee S, Osuna E, Girosi F (1997) Nonlinear prediction of chaotic time series using support vector machine. In: Proceedings of IEEE workshop on neural networks for signal processing 7, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York, pp 511–519Google Scholar
  33. Muller KR, Smola A, Ratsch G, Scholkopf B, Kohlmorgen J, Vapnik VN (1997) Predicting time series with support vector machines. In: Proceedings of international conference on artificial neural networks. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, p 999Google Scholar
  34. Nelson JD, Miller DJ (1992) Expansive soils: problem and practice in foundation and pavement engineering. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Osuna E, Freund R, Girosi F (1997) An improved training algorithm for support vector machines. In: Proceedings of IEEE workshop on neural networks for signal processing 7, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York, pp 276–285Google Scholar
  36. Pal M (2006) Support vector machine-based modelling of seismic liquefaction potential. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 30:983–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Parker JC, Amos DF, Kaster DL (1977) An evaluation of several methods of estimating soil volume change. Soil Sci Soc Am J 41:1059–1064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Samui P (2008) Slope stability analysis: a support vector machine approach. Environ Geol 56:255–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Scholkopf B (1997) Support vector learning. R. Oldenbourg, MunichGoogle Scholar
  40. Seed HB, Woodward RJ Jr, Lundgren R (1962) Prediction of swelling potential for compacted clays. J Soil Mech Found Div Am Soc Civ Eng 88(SM3):53–87Google Scholar
  41. Shahin MA, Maier HR, Jaksa MB (2002) Predicting settlement of shallow foundations using neural network. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 128(9):785–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith GN (1986) Probability and statistics in civil engineering: an introduction. Collins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  43. Smola AJ, Scholkopf B (2004) A tutorial on support vector regression. Stat Comput 14:199–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Storn R, Price K (1995) Differential evolution—a simple and efficient adaptive scheme for global optimization over continuous spaces. Technical report TR-95-012. International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  45. Vapnik V (1995) The nature of statistical learning theory. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Vapnik V (1998) Statistical learning theory. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Yule DF, Ritchie JT (1980) Soil shrinkage relationships of Texas vertisols. 1. Small cores. Soil Sci Soc Am J 44:1285–1291CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarat Kumar Das
    • 1
  • Pijush Samui
    • 2
  • Akshaya Kumar Sabat
    • 3
  • T. G. Sitharam
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringNational Institute of TechnologyRourkelaIndia
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringTampere University of TechnologyTampereFinland
  3. 3.Department of Civil EngineeringKIIT UniversityBhubaneswarIndia
  4. 4.Indian Institute of ScienceBangloreIndia

Personalised recommendations