International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Vol...
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Vol...
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Vol...
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Vol...
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Vol...
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Vol...
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 2, ...
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Vol...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

20320140502012

134 views
83 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
134
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

20320140502012

  1. 1. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 2, February (2014), pp. 119-126 © IAEME 119 PREDICTING CBR OF FINE GRAINED SOILS BY ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK AND MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION Harini HN1 , Sureka Naagesh2 1 Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Department, REVA ITM, Bangalore-64 2 Professor, Civil Engineering Department, BMSCE, Bangalore-19 ABSTRACT The design of flexible pavement is based on CBR of the soil and traffic load. CBR depends on the type of soil and its properties. CBR tests on soil in the laboratory are time consuming and involve preparation of soil for compaction and testing. However several studies have shown that CBR can be estimated from basic physical properties of soil using STATISTICAL models. This paper presents the application of Artificial Neural Network (ANN) and Multiple Regression Analysis (MLR) to estimate California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of fine grained soils. The prediction models were developed to correlate CBR with properties of soil viz. optimum moisture content and maximum dry density, (OMC& MDD from modified proctor compaction test), liquid limit (LL), plastic limit (PL), plasticity index (PI) and percentage fines. Forty soil data sets are used for the study. It was observed that prediction of CBR from the properties of soil was better through ANN than MLR. The performance of the developed ANN model has been validated by actual laboratory tests and a good correlation of 0.94 was obtained. Keywords: ANN, CBR, LL, MLR, Modified OMC, MDD, PL, Percentage Fines, Soils. I. INTRODUCTION The design of flexible pavements is much dependent on the CBR of subgrade. CBR values can be measured directly in the laboratory test in accordance with BS1377:1990, ASTM D4429 and AASHTO T193. A laboratory test generally takes four days to measure the soaked CBR value for each soil sample. The result of the tests is actually an indirect measure, which represents comparison of the strength of sub grade material to the strength of standard crushed rock referred in percentage values. Civil engineers generally encounter difficulties in obtaining representative CBR values for design of pavement. The CBR tests performed in lab are time consuming. Instead it can be predicted from the index properties of soil which are easily determined and measured in laboratories. Several INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (IJCIET) ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print) ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 2, February (2014), pp. 119-126 © IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijciet.asp Journal Impact Factor (2014): 3.7120 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com IJCIET ©IAEME
  2. 2. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 2, February (2014), pp. 119-126 © IAEME 120 studies have been conducted to estimate CBR from liquid limit, plasticity index, clay content and standard proctor compaction parameters. MLR and ANN are the most common methods adopted to develop relationships between parameters. Multiple linear regressions (MLR) determine the relationship between two or more independent variables and a dependent variable by fitting a linear equation to observed data. Every value of the independent variable is associated with a value of the dependent variable. The equations are expressed as: (Y =ax1 + bx2 + cx3+-------) Where a= is dependent variable, Xn is an independent variable and a, b, c…. are coefficients. An Artificial Neural Network (ANN) is a massively parallel-distributed information processing system that has certain performance characteristics resembling biological neural networks of the human brain (Haykin 1994). ANNs have been developed as a generalization of mathematical models of human cognition or neural biology. The key element of ANN is the novel structure of its information processing system. An ANN is composed of a large number of highly interconnected processing elements called neurons working in unison to solve specific problems. Neurons having similar characteristics in an ANN are arranged in groups called layers. A typical ANN consists of a number of nodes that are organized according to a particular arrangement. One way of classifying neural networks is by the number of layers as single, bilayer and multilayer. ANNs can also be categorized based on the direction of information flow and processing. In a feed forward network, the nodes are generally arranged in layers, starting from a first input layer and ending at the final output layer. There can be several hidden layers, with each layer having one or more nodes. Fig. 1 shows the configuration of a feed forward three-layer ANN. In this figure, X is a system input vector composed of a number of causal variables that influence system behavior, and Y is the system output vector composed of a number of resulting variables that represent the system behavior. . Figure 1: Structure of feed forward ANN II. LITERATURE REVIEW Most researchers found that ANN performs better than MLR. Many models were developed by several researchers to predict CBR based on index properties or on the standard proctor compaction parameters of the soils for local region. Venkatasubramanian, et.al [1] developed a method for predicting CBR values from liquid limit, plasticity index, OMC, Maximum dry density, and UCC of soil samples from south India using ANN and MLR and found that MLR performed better and the value could be further improved by modifying the parameters. Taskiran, et.al, [2] successfully used Artificial Neural Network (ANN) and Gene Expression Programming (GEP) for the prediction of CBR from the properties of fine grained soils like plasticity properties, compaction properties and gradation properties collected from Southeast
  3. 3. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 2, February (2014), pp. 119-126 © IAEME 121 Anatolia Region/Turkey. The results showed that maximum dry unit weight is the most effective parameter influencing CBR. Gunaydın [3] presented the application of different methods (simple–multiple analysis and artificial neural networks) for the estimation of the compaction parameters (maximum dry unit weight and optimum moisture content) for soils from Turkey. Results showed that correlation equations obtained as a result of regression analyses are in satisfactory agreement with the test results. Zelalem [4] developed a correlation between CBR and index properties of granular soil and silty clayey soils. For granular soils the properties considered were Optimum Moisture Content, Maximum Dry Density, and 60% passing sieve size. CBR had best correlation with OMC and MDD with coefficient of determination 0.863. For Silty-clayey soils, the properties considered were LL, PL, PI, OMC, Percent passing 0.075mm sieve no, MDD. Correlation was not strong as granular soils. Mehrjardi [5] evaluated soil properties using artificial neural network and multiple regression analysis for125 soil samples from the Gorgan Province, North of Iran. Results showed that ANN with two neurons in hidden layer had better performance in predicting soil properties than multivariate regression. Patel, et.al, [6] developed correlation for alluvial soils of various zones of Surat city of Gujarat state, India using SPSS software. The correlation is established in the form of an equation of CBR as a function of different soil properties. Saklecha et al [7] suggested a Correlation between Mechanical Properties of weathered Basaltic Terrain and strength Characterization of foundation using ANN. Laboratory test data sets were collected for different locations in Wardha district in the state of Maharashtra, India. It has been shown that ANN was able to learn the relations between strength characteristic CBR and mechanical properties of foundation soil Mehmet Saltan [8] successfully used Artificial Neural Network for Flexible Pavement Thickness Modeling. ANN approach was used for the elimination of this drawback of time consumption and indirect measurements by Benkelman Beam dynaflect, road rater and falling weight deflectometer (FWD). Results indicate that the ANN can be used for back calculation of the thickness of layers with great improvement and accuracy. Encouraged by the earlier studies, an attempt has been made to correlate CBR with modified compaction test results and other index properties of fine grained soil. In the present study, ANN and MLR models were developed to predict the CBR value of fine grained soils from its basic properties such as LL, PL, Modified OMC, MDD, percentage fines. It was observed that ANN models can be an alternate method for estimation of CBR. ANN models are more precise, economical and rapid than MLR III. MATERIALS AND METHOD OF ANALYSIS Forty soil samples in and around Bangalore were collected. Experiments were conducted and the data obtained was first analysed for the relationship between parameters. The potential of using MLR and ANNs for the estimation of CBR were investigated by developing various models .The variables which appear to be potentially influential to CBR value were used for prediction models. Totally five basic soil parameters liquid limit (WL), Plastic Limit (WP), optimum water content (OMC), Maximum dry density(MDD), and Percent fines were taken into consideration as input parameters for the models.. To obtain the best model that governs CBR, ten different models were established by proper combination of input data with CBR as output. The input scenarios of different models used in the study is given in Table 1. Out of total 40 soils sample data, 30were used for training and 10 were used for testing.60% of data was used for training, 10% for cross validation and 25% for testing in ANN analysis.
  4. 4. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 2, February (2014), pp. 119-126 © IAEME 122 TABLE 1: INPUT AND OUTPUT FOR THE DIFFERENT MODELS Model Input Output Model 1 WL, Wp, OMC, MDD,percent fines CBR Model 2 WL, Wp, OMC,percent fines Model 3 WL,Wp,MDD Model 4 WL,Wp,OMC Model 5 percent fines,OMC ,MDD Model 6 WL, OMC Model 7 Wp, OMC Model 8 WL, percent fines Model 9 Wp, percent fines Model 10 percent fines, OMC MLR was carried out using STATISTICA software and ANN analysis was performed using MATLAB, which includes various training algorithms. Feed forward back propagation algorithm was made use of to obtain the models with 2 hidden layers. The statistics of the training and testing data set are given in Table 2. TABLE 2: STATISTICS OF THE TRAINING AND TESTING DATA SETS IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Analysis by Multiple Linear Regressions (MLR): The regression analysis was performed using STATISTICA software and yielded the relation equations as shown in Table 3 Statistical Parameters WL Wp OMC% MDDg/cc % FINES CBR% Training Minimum Maximum Mean SD 25 14 9 1.36 10.5 0.97 60 54 22.1 2.05 61 4.0 34.43 24.37 12.14 1.67 27.22 2.55 7.44 8.94 2.77 0.24 13.1 0.6 Testing Minimum Maximum Mean SD 26 15.5 9.2 1.27 38.24 2.11 73 30.7 30.12 2.05 82 7 40.36 21.98 14.76 1.74 48.66 4.79 13.97 4.39 6.03 0.22 13.29 1.78
  5. 5. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 2, February (2014), pp. 119-126 © IAEME 123 TABLE 3: PERFORMANCE INDICES FOR FINE GRAINED SOIL BY MLR A comparative study of above results showed that model 8 with relatively high Correlation coefficient (CC) = 0.86 with least RMSE and MAE values works out to be the best performing model among other models. This indicates CBR is well correlated with liquid limit and percent fines. These are reasonable values and indicate good learning of model 8.The scatter plot for fine grained soils by MLR is obtained by considering the CBR values obtained by feeding the inputs of testing data to the obtained equations and the CBR values obtained from the laboratory for the same set of data as shown in figure 2 Figure 2: Scatter plot of observed v/s predicted CBR for the best model by MLR Analysis by Artificial Neural Network (ANN): Analysis by ANN was carried out by feed forward back propagation technique using tansig transfer functions and two hidden layers. On the basis of performance in testing, the best ANN model was obtained. The test results are presented in table 4. Model No. RMSE MAE CC Equations generated Training Testing 1 2.52 2.17 0.82 0.80 CBR=5.03-(0.04WL)-(0.03Wp)-(0.02OMC)- (0.19MDD)+(0.01percent fines) 2 2.62 2.34 0.81 0.82 CBR =4.72-(0.05WL)-(0.02Wp)- (0.02OMC)+(0.01percent FINES) 3 2.81 2.58 0.81 0.85 CBR= 4.88-(0.06WL)-(0.01Wp)-(0.02MDD) 4 2.80 2.57 0.81 0.82 CBR= 4.97-(0.05 WL)-(0.02Wp)+(0.02OMC) 5 2.81 2.32 0.17 0.66 CBR= 2.17-(0.0001percent FINES)- (0.02OMC)+(0.34MDD) 6 2.86 2.63 0.80 0.85 CBR= 5.08-(0.07 WL)-(0.01OMC) 7 2.73 2.32 0.78 0.62 CBR= 4.53-(0.06Wp)-(0.05OMC) 8 2.51 2.26 0.81 0.86 CBR= 4.86-(0.07WL)+(0.01percent FINES) 9 3.25 2.88 0.69 0.64 CBR =3.71-(0.06Wp)-(0.01percent FINES) 10 2.77 2.27 0.1 0.6 CBR= 2.84+(0.00percent FINES)-(0.02OMC)
  6. 6. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 2, February (2014), pp. 119-126 © IAEME 124 TABLE 4: PERFORMANCE INDICES FOR FINE GRAINED SOIL GROUP BY ANN Model RMSE MAE CC No of neurons Training Testing 1 2.17 1.18 0.76 0.87 06 2 2.51 2.27 0.79 0.85 07 3 2.76 2.58 0.84 0.93 07 4 2.59 2.32 0.75 0.88 06 5 2.74 2.31 0.38 0.61 03 6 2.69 2.47 0.88 0.94 04 7 2.77 2.39 0.60 0.57 02 8 2.60 2.42 0.84 0.93 04 9 2.46 2 0.72 0.70 03 10 2.41 1.97 0.30 0.78 03 The results indicate that a strong correlation was obtained for model 6 with structure 4-2-1 with correlation coefficient (CC) of 0.94.This model was successfully trained in 25 epochs. For this best performing model, the final MSE after training was found to be 0.0339. The test reports showed a good coefficient of relationship (r) = 0.88 during training and 0.94 during testing. RMSE and MAE were found to be 2.65, 2.47 respectively. This indicates CBR is well correlated with liquid limit and OMC from modified proctor test. Figure 3 shows the variation of the RMSE with number of neurons for the best performing model 6. It is evident that the model with four neurons predicts the output with less error. Figure 3: Plot of number of neurons v/s RMSE Figure 4: Scatter plot of observed v/s predicted CBR of Model 6 The scatter plot for fine grained soils by ANN is obtained by considering the CBR values obtained by feeding the inputs of testing data to the trained networks and the CBR values obtained from the laboratory for the same set of data as shown in figure 4 V. COMPARISON BETWEEN ANN AND MLR The variation of RMSE, MAE, CC with different models for ANN and MLR analysis are as shown in figure 5, 6, 7 and 8. The Figures 5, 6 shows that RMSE and MAE are more for most of the MLR models when compared with ANN models. 2.6 2.65 2.7 2.75 2.8 2.85 2.9 1 2 3 4 5 6 RMSE No of neurons
  7. 7. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 2, February (2014), pp. It is evident from figures7 and 8 that the correlation coefficient is more for ANN during training and testing indicating the better learning and predicting ability of ANN models. Figure 5: Different models v/s RMSE Figure 7: Different models v/s CC during Training VI. CONCLUSIONS ANN and MLR analysis on fine grained soil was drawn 1. Neural network models trained by feed forward back layers, perform reasonably well for correlating CBR with properties of soil. 2. Neural network models, which can ea scattered predicted values than those given by MLR. 3. ANN analysis indicated that liquid limit and OMC have been found to be the most sensitive parameters in correlating CBR with Correlation coeffic 4. MLR method showed that liquid limit and percentage fines strongly correlated with CBR value with Correlation coefficient (CC) value of 0.86 5. The CC values obtained by MLR are less than that obtained from ANN for most of the models Hence it can be concluded that ANN model using Feed Forward Back Propagation Network algorithm with two hidden layers gives better correlation than MLR and hence can be used. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 e 5, Issue 2, February (2014), pp. 119-126 © IAEME 125 It is evident from figures7 and 8 that the correlation coefficient is more for ANN during training and testing indicating the better learning and predicting ability of ANN models. Different models v/s RMSE Figure 6: Different models v/s MAE Different models v/s CC during Figure 8: Different models v/s CC during Testing ANN and MLR analysis on fine grained soil was performed and following conclusions are Neural network models trained by feed forward back-propagation algorithm, with layers, perform reasonably well for correlating CBR with properties of soil. Neural network models, which can easily incorporate additional model parameters, give less scattered predicted values than those given by MLR. ANN analysis indicated that liquid limit and OMC have been found to be the most sensitive parameters in correlating CBR with Correlation coefficient (CC) of 0.94. MLR method showed that liquid limit and percentage fines strongly correlated with CBR value with Correlation coefficient (CC) value of 0.86 The CC values obtained by MLR are less than that obtained from ANN for most of the models Hence it can be concluded that ANN model using Feed Forward Back Propagation Network algorithm with two hidden layers gives better correlation than MLR and hence can be used. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), It is evident from figures7 and 8 that the correlation coefficient is more for ANN models during training and testing indicating the better learning and predicting ability of ANN models. Different models v/s MAE Different models v/s CC during performed and following conclusions are propagation algorithm, with two hidden sily incorporate additional model parameters, give less ANN analysis indicated that liquid limit and OMC have been found to be the most sensitive MLR method showed that liquid limit and percentage fines strongly correlated with CBR value The CC values obtained by MLR are less than that obtained from ANN for most of the models. Hence it can be concluded that ANN model using Feed Forward Back Propagation Network algorithm with two hidden layers gives better correlation than MLR and hence can be used.
  8. 8. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 2, February (2014), pp. 119-126 © IAEME 126 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors extend their sincere thanks to Dr. R. Satyamuthy, Sri. H.S.Satish, Dr.Radhika, BMSCE and faculty, staff of Civil Engineering Department, REVA ITM in providing support to carry out this work. REFERENCES [1] Venkatasubramanian and Dhinakaran “ANN model for predicting CBR from index properties of soils” International journal of civil and structural engineering- Volume 2, No 2, 2011. [2] T. Taskiran “Prediction of California bearing ratio (CBR) of fine grained soils by AI methods” Advances in Engineering Software-41 (2010). [3] O. Gunaydın “Estimation of soil compaction parameters by using STATISTICAl analyses and artificial neural networks” Environmental Geology (2009). [4] Zelalem Worku Ferede “Prediction of California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value from index properties of soil”-Addis Ababa University, April( 2010). [5] F. Sarmadian and R. Taghizadeh Mehrjardi “Modeling of Some Soil Properties Using Artificial Neural Network and Multivariate Regression in Gorgan Province, North of Iran”- Global Journal of Environmental Research (2008). [6] Patel, Rashmi S. Desai, M.D “CBR Predicted by Index Properties for Alluvial Soils of South Gujarat”, Indian Geotechnical Conference-December(2010). [7] Saklecha P.P, Katpatal Y.B “Correlation of Mechanical Properties of weathered Basaltic Terrain for strength Characterization of foundation using ANN” International Journal of Computer Applications-Nov(2011). [8] Mehmet Saltan, Mesut TI Gdemir, Mustafa Karasahin “Artificial Neural Network Application for Flexible Pavement Thickness Modeling”-Turkish J. Eng. Env. Sci.,(2006). [9] Dr. K.V.Krishna Reddy, “Benefit Analysis of Subgrade and Surface Improvements in Flexible Pavements”, International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 4, Issue 2, 2013, pp. 385 - 392, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316. [10] Mukesh A. Patel and Dr. H. S. Patel, “Correlation Between Physical Properties and California Bearing Ratio Test on Soils of Gujarat Region in Both Soak and Unsoak Condition”, International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 3, Issue 2, 2012, pp. 50 - 59, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316. [11] Dr. K.V.Krishna Reddy, “Correlation Between California Bearing Ratio and Shear Strength on Artificially Prepared Soils with Varying Plasticity Index”, International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 4, Issue 6, 2013, pp. 61 - 66, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316.

×