Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Use of neural networks for the prediction of the CBR value of some Aegean sands

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Neural Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study deals with the development of an artificial neural network (ANN) and a multiple regression (MR) model that can be employed for estimating the California bearing ratio (CBR) value of some Aegean sands. To achieve this, the results of CBR tests performed on the compacted specimens of nine different Aegean sands with varying soil properties were used in the development of the ANN and MR models. The results of the ANN and MR models were compared with those obtained from the experiments. It is found that the CBR values predicted from the ANN model matched the experimental values much better than the MR model. Moreover, several performance indices, such as coefficient of determination, root-mean-square error, mean absolute error, and variance, were used to evaluate the prediction performance of the ANN and MR models. The ANN model has shown higher prediction performance than the MR model based on the performance indices, which demonstrates the usefulness and efficiency of the ANN model. Thus, the ANN model can be used to predict CBR value of the Aegean sands included in this study as an inexpensive substitute for the laboratory testing, quite easily and efficiently.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Agarwal KB, Ghanekar KD (1970) Prediction of CBR from plasticity characteristics of soil. In: Proceeding of the 2nd south-east Asian conference on soil engineering, Singapore, June 11–15. Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, pp 571–576

  2. Alawi MH, Rajab MI (2013) Prediction of California bearing ratio of subbase layer using multiple linear regression models. Road Mater Pavement Des 14(1):211–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Al-Refeai T, Al-suhaibani A (1997) Prediction of CBR using dynamic cone penetrometer. King Saud U J Eng Sci 9(2):191–204

    Google Scholar 

  4. ASTM D 422-63 (1994) Standard test method for particle size analysis of soils. In: Annual book of ASTM standards. ASTM, West Conshohocken, pp 10–16

  5. Banimahd M, Yasrobi SS, Woodward PK (2005) Artificial neural network for stress-strain behavior of sandy soils: knowledge based verification. Comput Geotech 32:377–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Black WPM (1962) A method of estimating the CBR of cohesive soils from plasticity data. Geotechnique 12:271–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. BS1377 (1990) Soils for civil engineering purposes; part 4 compaction-related tests. British Standards Institution

  8. Cabalar AF, Cevik A (2009) Modeling damping ratio and shear modulus of sand-mica mixtures using neural networks. Eng Geology 104:31–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Caglar N, Arman H (2007) The applicability of neural networks in the determination of soil profiles. Bull Eng Geol Environ 66(3):295–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cevik A, Sezer EA, Cabalar AF, Gokceoglu C (2011) Modeling of the uniaxial compressive strength of some clay-bearing rocks using neural network. Appl Soft Comput 11(2):2587–2594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ceylan H, Gopalakrishnan K, Kim S (2010) Soil stabilization with bioenergy coproduct. Transporation Research Record. No. 2186, Washington, DC, pp 30–137

  12. Chegenizadeh A, HR Nikraz (2011) CBR test on reinforced clay. In: The 14th Pan-American conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering (PCSMGE), the 64th Canadian geotechnical conference (CGC), Oct 2. Canadian Geotechnical Society, Toronto, ON, Canada

  13. Cho SE (2009) Probabilistic stability analyses of slopes using the ANN-based response surface. Comput Geotech 36:787–797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Choobbasti AJ, Farrokhzad F, Barari A (2009) Prediction of slope stability using artificial neural network (a case study: Noabad, Mazandaran, Iran). Arab J Sci Eng 2:311–319

    Google Scholar 

  15. Das SK, Basudhar PK (2006) Undrained lateral load capacity of piles in clay using artificial neural network. Comput Geotech 33(8):454–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Day WR (2001) Soil testing manual ‘procedures, classification data, and sampling practices, USA, p 619

  17. Demuth H, Beale M, Hagan M (2006) Neural network toolbox user’s guide. The Math Works. Inc., Natick

    Google Scholar 

  18. Doshi SN, Mesdary MS, Guirguis HR (1983) Conference: statistical study of laboratory CBR for Kuwaiti soils. In: Fourth conference of the road engineering association of Asia and Australasia, vol 2, Jakarta, pp 43–51

  19. Erzin Y (2007) Artificial neural networks approach for swell pressure versus soil suction behavior. Can Geotech J 44(10):1215–1223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Erzin Y, Rao BH, Singh DN (2008) Artificial neural networks for predicting soil thermal resistivity. Int J Therm Sci 47:1347–1358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Erzin Y, Gumaste SD, Gupta AK, Singh DN (2009) ANN models for determining hydraulic conductivity of compacted fine grained soils. Can Geotech J 46:955–968

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Erzin Y, Rao BH, Patel A, Gumaste SD, Gupta AK, Singh DN (2010) Artificial neural network models for predicting of electrical resistivity of soils from their thermal resistivity. Int J Therm Sci 49:118–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Erzin Y, Gunes N (2011) The prediction of swell percent and swell pressure by using neural networks. Math Comput Appl 16(2):425–436

    Google Scholar 

  24. Erzin Y, Cetin T (2012) The use of neural networks for the prediction of the critical factor of safety of an artificial slope subjected to earthquake forces. Sci Iran 19(2):188–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Erzin Y, Cetin T (2013) The prediction of the critical factor of safety of homogeneous finite slopes using neural networks and multiple regressions. Comput Geosci 51:305–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Erzin Y, Cetin T (2014) The prediction of the critical factor of safety of homogeneous finite slopes subjected to earthquake forces using neural networks and multiple regressions. Int J Geomech Eng 6(1):1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Erzin Y, Gul T (2013) The use of neural networks for the prediction of the settlement of pad footings on cohesionless soils based on standard penetration test. Int J Geomech Eng 5(6):541–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Erzin Y, Gul T (2014) The use of neural networks for the prediction of the settlement of one-way footings on cohesionless soils based on standard penetration test. Neural Comput Appl 24:891–900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Erzin Y, Patel A, Singh DN, Tiga MG, Yılmaz I, Srinivas K (2012) Investigations on factors influencing the crushing strength of some Aegean sands. B Eng Geol Environ 71:529–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Erzin Y, Ecemis N (2014) The use of neural networks for CPT-based liquefaction screening. B Eng Geol Environ (in press)

  31. Fausett LV (1994) Fundamentals of neural networks: architecture, algorithms, and applications. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Finol J, Guo YK, Jing XD (2001) A rule based fuzzy model for the prediction of petrophysical rock parameters. J Petrol Sci Eng 29:97–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Garson GD (1991) Interpreting neural-network connection weights. AI Expert 6(7):47–51

    Google Scholar 

  34. Goh ATC (1995) Back-propagation neural networks for modelling complex systems. Artif Intell Eng 9:143–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Goh ATC (1995) Modelling soil correlations using neural networks. J Comput Civil Eng 9:275–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Gokceoglu C (2002) A fuzzy triangular chart to predict the uniaxial compressive strength of Ankara agglomerates from their petrographic composition. Eng Geol 66(1–2):39–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Gokceoglu C, Zorlu K (2004) A fuzzy model to predict the uniaxial compressive strength and the modulus of elasticity of a problematic rock. Eng Appl Artif Intell 17(1):61–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Grima MA, Babuska R (1999) Fuzzy model for the prediction of unconfined compressive strength of rock samples. Int J Rock Mech Min 36:339–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Gunaydin O (2009) Estimation of compaction parameters by using statistical analyses and artificial neural networks. Environ Geol 57:203–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hecht-Nielsen R (1990) Neurocomputing. Addison-Wesley, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hornik K, Stinchcombe M, White H (1989) Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximators. Neural Netw 2:359–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Kaur S, Ubboveja VS, Agarwal A (2011) Artificial neural network modeling for prediction of CBR. Indian Highw 39(1):31–37

    Google Scholar 

  43. Khandelwal M, Singh TN (2009) Prediction of blast-induced ground vibration using artificial neural network. Int J Rock Mech Min 46(7):1214–1222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kin MW (2006) California bearing ratio correlation with soil index properties. Master degree Project, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University Technology Malaysia

  45. Köroğlu MA, Köken A, Arslan MH, Çevik A (2013) Neural network prediction of the ultimate capacity of shear stud connectors on composite beams with profiled steel sheeting. Sci Iran 20(4):1101–1113

    Google Scholar 

  46. Kumar V, Venkatesh K, Tiwari RP, Kumar Y (2012) Application of ANN to predict liquefaction potential. Int J Comput Eng Sci 2(2):379–389

    Google Scholar 

  47. Linveh M (1989) Validation of correlations between a number of penetration test and in situ California bearing ratio test. Transp Res Rec 1219:56–67

    Google Scholar 

  48. Maren A, Harston C, Pap R (1990) Handbook of neural computing applications. Academic Press, San Diego

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  49. Mohan S, Sreeram J (2005) Application of neural network model for the containment of groundwater contamination. Land Contam Reclam 13(1):81–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Moradi G, Khatiba BR, Sutubadi MH (2011) Determination of liquefaction potential of soil using (N1)60 by numerical modeling method. EJGE 16:407–417

    Google Scholar 

  51. Najjar YM, Ali HE (1999) Simulating the stress-strain behavior of Nevada sand byANN. In: Proceedings of the 5th U.S. National Congress on computational mechanics (USACM), Boulder, CO

  52. Orbanić P, Fajdiga M (2003) A neural network approach to describing the fretting fatigue in aluminum-steel couplings. Int J Fatigue 25:201–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Ott LR, Longnecker M (2001) An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis, 5th edn. Duxbury, Pacific Grave

    Google Scholar 

  54. Ozer M, Isik NS, Orhan M (2008) Statistical and neural network assessment of the compression index of clay-bearing soils. Bull Eng Geol Environ 67:537–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Park HI, Cho CH (2010) Neural network model for predicting the resistance of driven piles. Mar Georesour Geotech 28(4):324–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Park HI, Kim YT (2010) Prediction of strength of reinforced lightweight soil using an artificial neural network. Eng Comput 28(5):600–605

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  57. Patel SR, Desai MD (2010) CBR predicted by index properties for alluvial soils of South Gujarat, Dec. 16–18. In: Proceedings of the Indian geotechnical conference, India, pp 79–82

  58. Pathak SR, Dalvi AN (2011) Performance of empirical models for assessment of seismic soil liquefaction. Int J Earth Sci Eng 4:83–86

    Google Scholar 

  59. Penumadu D, Zhao R (1999) Triaxial compression behavior of sand and gravel using and artificial neural networks (ANN). Comput and Geotech 24(3):207–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Purwana YM, Nikraz HR, Jitsangiam P (2012) Experimental study of suction-monitored CBR test on sand-kaolin clay mixture. Int J Geomate 3(2):419–422

    Google Scholar 

  61. Ramakrishna AN, Pradeep Kumar AV, Gowda K (2011) Complex CBR (of BC soil-RHA-cement Mix) estimation: made easy by ANN approach [a soft computing technique]. Adv Mater Res 261–263:675–679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Ramasubbarao GV, Siva Sankar G (2013) Predicting soaked CBR value of fine grained and compaction characteristics. Jordan J Civil Eng 7(3):354–360

    Google Scholar 

  63. Ripley BD (1996) Pattern recognition and neural networks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  64. Rumelhart DH, Hinton GE, Williams RJ (1986) In: Rumelhart DE, McClelland JL (eds) Learning internal representation by error propagation: parallel distributed processing, vol 1, Chap 8. MIT Press, Cambridge

  65. Sabat AK (2013) Prediction of California bearing ratio of a soil stabilized with lime and quarry dust using artificial neural network. Electron J Geotech Eng 18: 3261–3272

  66. Sakellariou MG, Ferentinou MD (2005) A study of slope stability prediction using neural networks. Geotech Geol Eng 23:419–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Satyanarayana Reddy CNV, Pavani K (2006) Mechanically stabilised soils-regression equation for CBR evaluation. In: Proceedings of the Indian geotechnical conference, Chennai, India, pp 731–734

  68. Seed HB, De Alba P (1986) Use of SPT and CPT tests for evaluating the liquefaction resistance of sands. In: Proceedings of the In-situ, ASCE, New York, pp 281–302

  69. Shahin MA, Jaksa MB (2005) Neural network prediction of pullout capacity of marquee ground anchors. Comput Geotech 32:153–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Shahin MA, Jaksa MB, Maier HR (2001) Artificial neural network applications in geotechnical engineering. Aust Geomech 36(1):49–62

    Google Scholar 

  71. Shahin M, Maier H, Jaksa M (2002) Predicting settlement of shallow foundations using neural networks. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 128(9):785–793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Shahin MA, Maier HR, Jaksa MB (2004) Data division for developing neural networks applied to geotechnical engineering. J Comput Civil Eng 18(2):105–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Shahin MA, Jaksa MB, Maier HR (2005) Stochastic simulation of settlement prediction of shallow foundations based on a deterministic artificial neural network model. In: Proceedings of the international congress on modelling and simulation, MODSIM 2005, Melbourne, Australia, pp 73–78

  74. Shahin MA, Jaksa MB, Maier HR (2008) State of the art of artificial neural networks in geotechnical engineering. EJGE Special Volume Bouquet 08. http://www.ejge.com/Bouquet08/Shahin/Shahin_ppr.pdf

  75. Shi JJ (2000) Reduction prediction error by transforming input data for neural networks. J Comput Civil Eng 14(2):109–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Singh TN, Kanchan R, Saigal K, Verma AK (2004) Prediction of p-wave velocity and anisotropic properties of rock using artificial neural networks technique. J Sci Ind Res India 63(1):32–38

    Google Scholar 

  77. Smith GN (1986) Probability and statistics in civil engineering: an introduction. Collins, London

    Google Scholar 

  78. Stephens DJ (1990) Prediction of the California bearing ratio. J Civil Eng S Afr 32(12):523–527

    Google Scholar 

  79. Taskiran T (2010) Prediction of California bearing ratio (CBR) of fine grained soils by AI methods. Adv Eng Softw 41(6):886–892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. TS 1900-1 (2006) Methods of testing soils for civil engineering purposes in the laboratory—part 1: determination of physical properties

  81. TS 1900-2 (2006) Methods of testing soils for civil engineering purposes in the laboratory—part 2: determination of mechanical properties

  82. Turkoz D (2014) Investigations on the factors influencing the California bearing ratio value of some Aegean sands. MSc. Thesis, Celal Bayar University Manisa (in Turkish)

  83. Tüysüz C (2010) The effect of the virtual laboratory on the students’ achievement and attitude in chemistry. IOJES 2(1):37–53

    Google Scholar 

  84. Twomey M, Smith AE (1997) In: Kartam N, Flood I, Garrett JH (eds) Validation and verification, artificial neural networks for civil engineers: fundamentals and applications. ASCE, New York, pp 44–64

  85. Venkatasubramanian C, Dhinakaran G (2011) ANN model for predicting CBR from index properties of soils. Int J Civil Struct Eng 2(2):605–611

    Google Scholar 

  86. Vinod P, Reena C (2008) Prediction of CBR value of lateritic soils using liquid limit and gradation characteristics data. Highw Res J IRC 1(1):89–98

    Google Scholar 

  87. Venkatesh K, Kumar V, Tiwari R (2013) Appraisal of liquefaction potential using neural networks and neuro fuzzy approach. Appl Artif Intell 27(8):700–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Yildirim B, Gunaydin O (2011) Estimation of California bearing ratio by using soft computing systems. Expert Syst Appl 38:6381–6391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Yilmaz I, Yuksek AG (2008) An example of artificial neural network application for indirect estimation of rock parameters. Int J Rock Mech Rock Eng 41(5):781–795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Yoo C, Kim J-M (2007) Tunneling performance prediction using an integrated GIS and neural network. Comput Geotech 34:19–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Zhao HB (2008) Slope reliability analysis using a support vector machine. Comput Geotech 35:459–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Zumrawi M (2012) Prediction of CBR from index properties of cohesive soils. In: Chang S-Y, Al Bahar SK, Zhao J (eds) Advances in civil engineering and building materials. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 561–565

  93. Zurada JM (1992) Introduction to artificial neural systems. West, St. Paul

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Celal Bayar University, 45140, Manisa, Turkey

    Yusuf Erzin & D. Turkoz

Authors
  1. Yusuf Erzin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. Turkoz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yusuf Erzin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Erzin, Y., Turkoz, D. Use of neural networks for the prediction of the CBR value of some Aegean sands. Neural Comput & Applic 27, 1415–1426 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-015-1943-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-015-1943-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation