Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Soft Computing-Based Prediction of CBR Values

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Indian Geotechnical Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

California Bearing Ratio method is an empirical method of design of flexible pavement developed by California Division of Highways, in 1928 for the design of Roadways, Railways and Airfield. In order to design a pavement by CBR method, the soaked CBR value of soil is evaluated which takes around 4 days or 96 h to complete the test process. The soaked CBR value is used to determine the total thickness of flexible pavement needed to cover the subgrade of the known CBR value. However, the determination of soaked CBR in the laboratory is time-consuming and requires skilled labour and supervision, prompting researchers to explore alternating approaches. Various machine learning methods including artificial neural network (ANN), deep neural networks (DNN) and gene expression programming (GEP) have been previously employed to predict CBR values. However, these methods come with inherent limitations such as sensitivity to hyper-parameters, limited flexibility, lack of interpretability and explainability which raise concerns in critical decision-making applications. In the present study, we have endeavoured to address the shortcomings observed in deep neural networks models and proposed an improved and efficient prediction model for California Bearing Ratio. Three distinct models have been developed using three different methodologies: a fuzzy inference system, an artificial neural network & an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system. To conduct the study, large datasets of 2000 Soil samples have been used which were tested under the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY). Out of the total data, 1501 datasets have been used for training, 499 datasets have been used for testing and for validation of the proposed model, datasets of 15nos soil samples have been used which were entirely separated from the datasets used for training and testing. Upon analysing the prediction results, we found that while ANN demonstrates commendable accuracy in predicting CBR values, the predictability of the manually developed FIS model falls short. Intriguingly, the ANFIS model surpasses both ANN and FIS in terms of predictive accuracy with an a-20 index of 0.83 and R values of 0.92. In Conclusion, our study suggests that the hybrid model of ANN and FIS (ANFIS) emerges as a promising approach for predicting CBR values, offering enhanced accuracy compared to traditional methods and other machine learning models.

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
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Johnson DG, Bhatia H (1969) The engineering characteristics of the lateritic gravels of Ghana. In: Proceedings of 7th international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering

  2. Uyanik KG, Guler N (2013) A study on multiple linear regression analysis. Soc Behav Sci 2013:234–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Agarwal KB, Ghanekar KD (1970) Prediction of CBR from plasticity characteristics of soil. In: South-east Asian conference on soil engineering

  4. Stephens D (1992) Variation of the California Bearing Ratio in some synthetic Clayey soils. Civil Engineering Siviele Ingenieurswese, pp 379–380

  5. Al-Refeai T, Al-Suhaibani A (1997) Prediction of CBR using dynamic cone penetrometer. J King Saud Univ Eng Sci 9(2):191–203

    Google Scholar 

  6. NCHRP (2001) Guide for mechanistic-empirical design of new and rehabilitated structures. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Transportation Research Board National Research Council, Illinois

  7. Kin MW (2006) California Bearing Ratio Correlation with Soil Index Properties. Master Degree Project Faculty of Civil Engineering University of Technology, Malayasia

    Google Scholar 

  8. Das R, Wason HR, Sharma M (2011) Global regression relations for conversion of surface wave and body wave magnitudes to moment magnitude. Nat Hazards 59(2):801–810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Das R, Wason HR, Sharma M (2013) General Orthogonal Regression relation between body and moment magnitudes. Seismol Res Lett 84(2):219–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Erdik T, Pektas AO (2019) Rock slope damage level prediction by using multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS). Neural Comput Appl 31:2269–2278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Patel RS, Desai M (2010) CBR Predicted by Index Properties for Alluvial Soils of South Gujarat. In: Indian geotechnical conference

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Alawi M, Rajab M (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 

  14. Varghese V, Babu S, Bijukumar R, Cyrus S, Abraham B (2013) Artificial neural networks: a solution to the ambiguity in prediction of engineering properties of fine-grained soils. Geotech Geol Eng 31(4):1187–1205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kumar KSP, Nanduri PMBRK, Kumar PND (2014) Validation of predicted California bearing ratio values from different correlations. Am J Eng Res 3(8):344–352

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  17. Talukdar DK (2014) A study of correlation between California bearing ratio (CBR) value with other properties of soil. Int J Emerg Technol Adv Eng 4(1):559–562

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sabat KA (2015) Prediction of california bearing ratio of a stabilized expansive soil using artificial neural network and support vector machine. Electron J Geotech Eng 20(3):981–991

    Google Scholar 

  19. Araoujo W, Ruiz G (2013) Correlation equations of CBR with index properties of soil in the city of Piura. In: Proceeding of 14th LACCEI international multi-conference for engineering, education & technology

  20. Erzin Y, Turkoz D (2016) Use of neural networks for the prediction of the CBR value of some Aegean sands. Neural Comput Appl 27:1415–1426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Rehman ZU, Khalid U, Farooq K, Mujtaba H (2017) Prediction of CBR value from index properties of different soils. Tech J Univ Eng Technol Taxila 22(2):18–26

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ghorbani A, Hadi H (2018) Prediction of UCS and CBR of microsilica-lime stabilized sulfate silty sand using ANN and EPR models; application to the deep soil mixing. Soils Found 58(1):34–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Farias I, William A, Gaby R (2018) Prediction of California bearing ratio from index properties of soils using parametric and non-parametric models. Geotech Geol Eng 36(6):3485–3498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Suthar M, Aggarwal P (2018) Predicting CBR value of stabilized pond ash with lime and lime sludge using ANN and MR models. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 4

  25. Katte V, Mfoyet S, Bertille M, Wouatong AS, Bezeng L (2019) Correlation of California bearing ratio (CBR) value with soil properties of road subgrade soil. Geotech Geol Eng 37(1):217–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tenpe A, Patel A (2018) Application of genetic expression programming and artificial neural network for prediction of CBR. Road Mater Pavement Des 19(1):1–18

    Google Scholar 

  27. 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 

  28. Fikret KT, Kaya Y (2019) Prediction of the California bearing ratio (CBR) of compacted soils by using GMDH-type neural network. Eur Phys J Plus 134:0–15

    Google Scholar 

  29. Alam KS, Abhijit M, Amit S (2020) Prediction of CBR value of Fine-grained soils of West bengal region by Linear-regression Analysis. In: Proceedings of international conference on energy and sustainable development 2020

  30. Al-Busultan S, Gafel KA, Raid RAA, Sajjad ER (2020) Application of artificial neural networks in predicting subbase CBR values using soil indices data. In: IOP conference series: materials science and engineering

  31. Islam MR, Roy AC (2020) Prediction of california bearing ratio of fine-grained soil stabilized with admixtures using soft computing systems. J Civ Eng Sci Technol 11(1):28–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Yuanyou X, Yanming X, Ruigeng Z (1997) An engineering geology evaluation method based on an artificial neural network and its application. Eng Geol 47:149–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Sinha SK, Wang MC (2007) Artificial neural network prediction models for soil compaction and permeability. Geotech Geol Eng 26:47–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Shyamal G, Atin R, Subrata C (2019) Kriging metamodeling based Monte Carlo simulation for improved seismic fragility analysis of structures. J Earthq Eng

  35. Shiuly A, Sahu R, Mandal S (2017) Site specific seismic hazard analysis and determination of response spectra of Kolkata for maximum considered earthquake. J Geophys Eng 14(3):466–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Shiuly A, Roy N (2018) A generalized Vs-N correlation using various regression analysis and genetic algorithm. Acta Geodaetica Geophys 53(3):479–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. SandhyaRani and Nagaraj (2017) Prediction of CBR Value with Soil Index Properties; Case Study on Yadadri Region. Int J Latest Eng Manag Res 2(7):9–12

    Google Scholar 

  38. Reddy CNV, Pavani K (2006) Mechnically stabilsed soils-Regression equation for CBR evaluation. In: Indian geotechnical conference

  39. Lee IM, Lee JH (1996) Prediction of pile bearing capacity using artificial neural network. Comput Geotech 18(3):189–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lakshmi SM, Subramanian S, Lalithambikhai MP, Vela AM, Ashni M (2016) Evaluation of soaked and unsoaked CBR values of the soil based on the compaction characteristics. Malays J Civ Eng 28(2):172–182

    Google Scholar 

  41. Gunaydin O, Gokoglu A, Fener M (2010) Prediction of artificial soil’s unconfined compression strength test using statistical analyses and artificial neural networks. Adv Eng Softw 41:1115–1123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Das R, Wason HR, Sharma M (2014) Unbiased Estimation of Moment from Body and Surface Wave Magnitude. Bull Seismol Soc Am 104(4):1802–1811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Chandrakar V, Yadav RK (2016) Study of correlation of CBR value with engineering properties and index properties of coarse grained soil. Int Res J Eng Technol 3(11):772–778

    Google Scholar 

  44. Soumya B, Subrata C (2018) An improved robust multi-objective optimization of structure with random parameters. Adv Struct Eng 21(11):1597–1607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Simpson AR, Priest SD (1993) The application of genetic algorithms to optimisation problems in geotechnics. Comput Geotech 15(1):1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Lee SJ, Lee SR, Kim YS (2003) An approach to estimate unsaturated shear strength using artificial neural network and hyperbolic formulation. Computer 30:489–503

    Google Scholar 

  47. Harini H, Nagesh S (2014) Predicting CBR of fine-grained soils by artificial neural network and multiplelinear regression. Int J Civ Eng Technol 5(2):119–126

    Google Scholar 

  48. Alam K, Abhijit M, Amit S (2020) Prediction of CBR value of fine grained soils of Bengal Basin by genetic expression programming, artificial neural network and Krigging method. J Geol Soc India 95(2):190–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Black WPM (1962) Method of estimating the California Bearing Ratio of Cohesive Soils from Plasticity Data. Geotechnique 12(4):271–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Panagiotis AG, Maria A, Athanasia SD, Antonia M (2019) Application of artificial neural networks for the prediction of the compressive strength of cement-based mortars. Comput Concr 24(4):329–345

    Google Scholar 

  51. Han-Lin W, Zhen-Yu Y (2020) High performance prediction of soil compaction parameters using multi expression programming. Eng Geol 276:105758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Lai S, Serra M (1997) Concrete strength prediction by means of neural network. Constr Build Mater 11(2):93–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Kaymaz I (2005) Application of kriging method to structural reliability. Struct Saf 27(2):133–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Kalyan K, Soumya B, Saibal K, Shiuly A (2019) An efficient robust cost optimization procedure for rice husk ash concrete mix. Comput Concr 23(6):433–444

    Google Scholar 

  55. Johari A, Habibagahi G, Ghahramani A (2006) Prediction of soil–water characteristic curve using genetic programming. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132(5):661–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Javadi AA, Rezania M, Nezhad MM (2006) Evaluation of liquefaction induced lateral displacements using genetic programming. Comput Geotech 33(4):222–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Gurtug Y, Sridharan A (2002) Prediction of compaction characteristics of fine-grained soils. Géotechnique 52(10):761–763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Black W (1943) A Method of estimating the California Bearing Ratio of Cohesive Soils from Plasticity Data 281–282

  59. Navid K, Abidhan B, Pijush S, Majidreza N, Panagiotis AG, Annan Z (2022) Predicting the thermal conductivity of soils using integrated approach of ANN and PSO with adaptive and time-varying acceleration coefficients. Int J Therm Sci 173:107427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Panagiotis AG, Mehdi N (2019) Artificial bee colony-based neural network for the prediction of the fundamental period of infilled frame structures. Neural Comput Appl 31:4837–4847

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Asteris GP, Apostolopoulou M, Skentou DA, Moropoulou A (2019) Application of artificial neural networks for the prediction of the compressive strength of cement-based mortars. Comput Concr 24:329–345

    Google Scholar 

  62. Jang J-SR (1991) Fuzzy modelling using generalized neural networks and Kalman filter algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 9th national conference on artificial intelligence, Anheim, CA, USA

  63. Abraham A (2005) Adaption of Fuzzy Inference System Using Neural Learning. In: Fuzzy system engineering: theory and practice, Springer, pp 53–83

  64. Jang JS (1993) ANFIS: adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference system. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 23(3):665–685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Jang JS (1997) Neuro-fuzzy and soft computing. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, pp 335–368

    Google Scholar 

  66. Tahmasebi P, Ardeshir H (2012) A hybrid neural networks-fuzzy logic-genetic algorithm for grade estimation. Comput Geosci 42:18–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Bardhan A, Candan G, Avijit B, Pijush S, Panagiotis AG (2021) Efficient computational techniques for predicting the California bearing ratio of soil in soaked conditions. Eng Geol 291:1062

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Bardhan A, Panagiotis AG (2023) Application of hybrid ANN paradigms built with nature inspired meta-heuristics for modelling soil compaction parameters. Transp Geotech 41:100995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Bardhan A, Abdel AK, Sangeetha P, Pouria H, Anasua G, Gaurav K, Markos TZ, Panagiotis AG (2023) A hybrid approach of ANN and improved PSO for estimating soaked CBR of subgrade soils of heavy-haul railway corridor. Int J Pavement Eng 24(1):2176494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Pangiotis AG, Saeed N, Mehdi N, Liborio C, Mohammad N (2019) Krill herd algorithm-based neural network in structural seismic reliability evaluation. Mech Adv Mater Struct 26(13):1146–1153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Ghani S, Kumari S (2022) Liquefaction behavior of Indo-Gangetic region using novel metaheuristic optimization algorithms coupled with artificial neural network. Nat Hazards 111:2995–3029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Ghani S, Kumari S (2022) Reliability analysis for liquefaction risk assessment for the City of Patna, India using hybrid computational modeling. J Geol Soc India 98:1395–1406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Ghani S, Kumari S, Shamsad A (2022) Prediction of the seismic effect on liquefaction behavior of fine-grained soils using artificial intelligence-based hybridized modeling. Arab J Sci Eng 47:5411–5441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Ghani S, Sunita K, Abidhan B (2021) A novel liquefaction study for fine-grained soil using PCA-based hybrid soft computing models. Sadhana 46(3):113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. David E, Geoffrey E, Ronald J (1986) Learning representations by back-propagating errors. Int J Sci 323:533–536

    Google Scholar 

  76. Demuth H, Beale M, Hagan M (1992) Neural Network Toolbox™ 6”

  77. D’Urso P, Gil M (2017) Fuzzy data analysis and classification. Adv Data Anal Classif 11:645–657

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  78. Mathworks (1990) Matlab Optimization Toolbox. United States of America

  79. Apostolopoulou M, Armaghani JD, Bakolas A, Douvika GM, Moropoulou A, Asteris GP (2019) Compressive strength of natural hydraulic lime mortars using soft computing techniques. Procedia Struct Integr 17:914–923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Chen H, Asteris GP, Armaghani JD, Gordan B, Pham TB (2019) Assessing dynamic conditions of the retaining wall: developing two hybrid intelligent models. Appl Sci 9:1042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Apostolopoulou M, Asteris GP, Armaghani JD, Douvika GM, Lourenço BP, Cavaleri L, Bakolas A, Moropoulou A (2020) Mapping and holistic design of natural hydraulic lime mortars. Cem Concr Res 136:106167

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No financial help needed to carry the research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. OmDayal Group of Institutions, Uluberia, Howrah, West Bengal, 711316, India

    Sk Kamrul Alam

  2. Civil Engineering Department, Jadavpur University, Jadavpur, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700032, India

    Amit Shiuly

Authors
  1. Sk Kamrul Alam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amit Shiuly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amit Shiuly.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There is no competing interest among the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 227 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kamrul Alam, S., Shiuly, A. Soft Computing-Based Prediction of CBR Values. Indian Geotech J 54, 474–488 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-023-00780-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-023-00780-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation