Application of hybrid modeling to predict California bearing ratio of soil

Huong Thi Thanh Ngo, Quynh-Anh Thi Bui, Nguyen Van Vi, Nguyen Thi Bich Thuy
Author affiliations

Authors

  • Huong Thi Thanh Ngo University of Transport Technology, Hanoi, Vietnam
  • Quynh-Anh Thi Bui University of Transport Technology, Hanoi, Vietnam
  • Nguyen Van Vi University of Transport Technology, Hanoi, Vietnam
  • Nguyen Thi Bich Thuy University of Transport Technology, Hanoi, Vietnam

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15625/2615-9783/20766

Keywords:

California Bearing Ratio; AdaBoost, Decision Tree, Artificial Intelligence, Quang Ninh

Abstract

California Bearing Ratio (CBR) is used to assess bearing capacity, deformation characteristics of roadbed soil, and base layer material in pavement structure. In general, CBR is often determined by laboratory or in-situ tests. However, it is time- and cost-consuming to conduct this experiment because this test requires cumbersome equipment such as a compressor. In this study, two Artificial Intelligence models are developed, including a simple model (Decision Tree Regression, DT) and a hybrid model (AdaBoost - Decision Tree, AB-DT). Using 214 data samples from Van Don - Mong Cai expressway, Vietnam, 10 input variables of the model were considered namely particle composition (content of gravel (X1), coarse sand (X2), fine sand (X3), silt clay (X4), organic (X5)), Atterberg limits (Liquid limit (X6), Plastic limit (X7), Plastic index (X8)), and compaction curve (optimum water content (X9) and maximum dry density (X10)). The developed models were evaluated by using a variety of statistical indicators, including coefficient of determination (R2­­), Root mean square error (RMSE), and Mean absolute error (MAE). The results show that AB-DT model has higher accuracy than the DT model. Moreover, the SHAP value analysis shows that the variable X10 influences the CBR value the most. Thus, it implies that applying the AB-DT model to effectively predict the CBR of the roadbed soil saves time and money for experiments.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abdulnabi T.Y., Abdulrazzaq Z.G., 2020. An Estimated Correlation between California Bearing Ratio (CBR) with Some Soil Parameters of Gypseous Silty Sandy Soils. Tikrit Journal of Engineering Sciences, 27(1), 58–64.

Abnoosian K., Farnoosh R., Behzadi M.H., 2023. Prediction of Diabetes Disease Using an Ensemble of Machine Learning Multi-Classifier Models. BMC Bioinformatics, 24(1), 337. Doi: 10.1186/s12859-023-05465-z.

Agarwal K.B., Ghanekar K.D., 1970. Prediction of CBR from Plasticity Characteristics of Soil. Proceeding of 2nd South-East Asian Conference on Soil Engineering, Singapore. June, 11–15.

Alam S.K., Mondal A., Shiuly A., 2020. Prediction of CBR Value of Fine Grained Soils of Bengal Basin by Genetic Expression Programming, Artificial Neural Network and Krigging Method. Journal of the Geological Society of India, 95, 190–96.

Ampadu S.I.K., 2007. A Laboratory Investigation into the Effect of Water Content on the CBR of a Subgrade Soil. Experimental Unsaturated Soil Mechanics, Springer, 137–44.

Ariema F., Butler B.E., 1990. Guide to Earthwork Construction; State of the Art Report 8. Transportation Research Board National Research Council.

Atkins H.N., 1997. Highway Materials, Soils and Concretes, Prentice Hall. New Jersey, USA.

Bardhan A., Gokceoglu C., Burman A., Samui P., Asteris P.G., 2021. Efficient Computational Techniques for Predicting the California Bearing Ratio of Soil in Soaked Conditions. Engineering Geology, 291, 106239.

Barrett P., 2007. Structural Equation Modelling: Adjudging Model Fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 815–24.

Bharath A., Manjunatha M., Reshma T.V., Preethi S., 2021. Influence and Correlation of Maximum Dry Density on Soaked & Unsoaked CBR of Soil. Materials Today: Proceedings, 47, 3998–4002.

Black W.P.M., 1962. A Method of Estimating the California Bearing Ratio of Cohesive Soils from Plasticity Data. Geotechnique, 12(4), 271–82.

Brown S.F., 1996. Soil Mechanics in Pavement Engineering. Géotechnique, 46(3), 383–426.

Bui Q.-A.T., Al-Ansari N., Le H.V., Prakash I., Pham B.T., 2022. Hybrid Model: Teaching Learning-Based Optimization of Artificial Neural Network (TLBO-ANN) for the Prediction of Soil Permeability Coefficient. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2022, 8938836.

Chengsheng T., Huacheng L., Bing X., 2017. AdaBoost Typical Algorithm and Its Application Research. MATEC Web of Conferences, EDP Sciences, 139, 00222.

Czajkowski M., Kretowski M., 2016. The Role of Decision Tree Representation in Regression Problems-An Evolutionary Perspective. Applied Soft Computing, 48, 458–75.

De Graft-Johnson J.W., Bhatia H.S., Gidigasu D.M., 1969. The Engineering Characteristics of the Laterite Gravels of Ghana. Soil Mech & Fdn Eng Conf Proc/Mexico/.

Domingo C., Watanabe O., 2000. MadaBoost: A Modification of AdaBoost, COLT, 180–89.

Futagami K., Fukazawa Y., Kapoor N., Kito T., 2021. Pairwise Acquisition Prediction with SHAP Value Interpretation, The Journal of Finance and Data Science, 7, 22–44.

González Farias I., Araujo W., Ruiz G., 2018. Prediction of California Bearing Ratio from Index Properties of Soils Using Parametric and Non-Parametric Models. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 36(6), 3485–98.

Granger C.W., Newbold P., 1974. Spurious Regressions in Econometrics. Journal of Econometrics, 2(2), 111–20.

Hadzima-Nyarko M., Trinh S.H., 2022. Prediction of Compressive Strength of Concrete at High Heating Conditions by Using Artificial Neural Network-Based Bayesian Regularization. Journal of Science and Transport Technology, 2(1), 9–21.

Hair J.F., Sarstedt M., Ringle C.M., Mena J.A., 2012. An Assessment of the Use of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling in Marketing Research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414–33. Doi: 10.1007/s11747-011-0261-6.

Hastie T., Rosset S., Zhu J., Zou H., 2009. Multi-Class Adaboost. Statistics and Its Interface, 2(3), 349–60.

Haupt F.J., Netterberg F., 2021. Prediction of California Bearing Ratio and Compaction Characteristics of Transvaal Soils from Indicator Properties. Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering, 63(2), 47–56.

Hight D.W., Stevens M.G.H., 1982. An Analysis of the California Bearing Ratio Test in Saturated Clays. Geotechnique, 32(4), 315–22.

Ho L.S., Tran V.Q., 2022. Machine Learning Approach for Predicting and Evaluating California Bearing Ratio of Stabilized Soil Containing Industrial Waste. Journal of Cleaner Production, 370, 133587.

Kamrul Alam S., Shiuly A., 2024. Soft Computing-Based Prediction of CBR Values. Indian Geotechnical Journal, 54(2), 474–88. Doi: 10.1007/s40098-023-00780-x.

Katte V.Y., Mfoyet S.M., Manefouet B., Wouatong A.S.L., Bezeng L.A., 2019. Correlation of California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Value with Soil Properties of Road Subgrade Soil. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 37, 217–34.

Khasawneh M.A., Al-Akhrass H.I., Rabab'ah S.R., Al-sugaier A.O., 2022. Prediction of California Bearing Ratio Using Soil Index Properties by Regression and Machine-Learning Techniques. International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology, 1–19.

Lakshmi S.M., Geetha S., Selvakumar M., 2021. Predicting Soaked CBR of SC Subgrade from Dry Density for Light and Heavy Compaction. Materials Today: Proceedings, 45, 1664–70.

Maulud D., Abdulazeez A.M., 2020. A Review on Linear Regression Comprehensive in Machine Learning. Journal of Applied Science and Technology Trends, 1(2), 140–47.

Mishra D., Tutumluer E., Butt A.A., 2010. Quantifying Effects of Particle Shape and Type and Amount of Fines on Unbound Aggregate Performance through Controlled Gradation. Transportation Research Record, 2167(1), 61–71.

Mokhtari K.E., Higdon B.P., Başar A., 2019. Interpreting Financial Time Series with SHAP Values. Proceedings of the 29th Annual International Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering, 166–72.

Myles A.J., Feudale R.N., Liu Y., Woody N.A., Brown S.D., 2004. An Introduction to Decision Tree Modeling. Journal of Chemometrics: A Journal of the Chemometrics Society, 18(6), 275–85.

Nguyen Q.H., Ly H.-B., Ho L.S., Al-Ansari N., Le H.V., Tran V.Q., Prakash I., Pham B.T., 2021. Influence of Data Splitting on Performance of Machine Learning Models in Prediction of Shear Strength of Soil. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, e4832864. Doi: 10.1155/2021/4832864.

Onyelowe K.C., Effiong J.S., Ebid A.M., 2023. Predicting Subgrade and Subbase California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Failure at Calabar-Itu Highway Using AI (GP, ANN, and EPR) Techniques for Effective Maintenance. Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Smart City Planning. Elsevier, 159–70.

Patel R.S., Desai M.D., 2010. CBR Predicted by Index Properties for Alluvial Soils of South Gujarat. Proceedings of the Indian Geotechnical Conference. Mumbai, 79–82.

Pekel E., Estimation of Soil Moisture Using Decision Tree Regression. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 139(3–4), 1111–19.

Peng C.-Y.J., Lee K.L., Ingersoll G.M., 2002. An Introduction to Logistic Regression Analysis and Reporting. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(1), 3–14. Doi: 10.1080/00220670209598786.

Pham B.T., Amiri M., Nguyen M.D., Ngo T.Q., Nguyen K.T., Tran H.T., Vu H., Anh B.T.Q., Van Le H., Prakash I., 2021. Estimation of Shear Strength Parameters of Soil Using Optimized Inference Intelligence System. Vietnam Journal of Earth Sciences, 43(2), 189–198. https://doi.org/10.15625/2615-9783/15926.

Pham B.T., Pradhan B., Bui D.T., Prakash I., Dholakia M.B., 2016. A Comparative Study of Different Machine Learning Methods for Landslide Susceptibility Assessment: A Case Study of Uttarakhand Area (India). Environmental Modelling & Software, 84, 240–50.

Quan V., Do H.Q., 2021. Prediction of California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of Stabilized Expansive Soils with Agricultural and Industrial Waste Using Light Gradient Boosting Machine. Journal of Science and Transport Technology, 1–9.

Quinlan J.R., 1996. Learning Decision Tree Classifiers. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 28(1), 71–72.

Raja M.N.A., Shukla S.K., 2021. Predicting the Settlement of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Foundations Using Evolutionary Artificial Intelligence Technique. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 49(5), 1280–93.

Raja M.N.A., Shukla S.K., Khan M.U.A., 2022. An Intelligent Approach for Predicting the Strength of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Subgrade Soil. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 23(10), 3505–21.

Rakhra M., Soniya P., Tanwar D., Singh P., Bordoloi D., Agarwal P., Takkar S., Jairath K., Verma N., 2021. Crop Price Prediction Using Random Forest and Decision Tree Regression:-A Review. Materials Today: Proceedings.

Rätsch G., Onoda T., Müller K.-R., 2001. Soft Margins for AdaBoost. Machine Learning, 42, 287–320.

Rehman Z.U., Khalid U., Farooq K., Mujtaba H., 2017. Prediction of CBR Value from Index Properties of Different Soils, Technical Jour. University of Engineering and Technology (UET) Taxila. Pakistan, 22(2), 18–26.

Schaefer V.R., White D.J., Ceylan H., Stevens L.J., 2008. Design Guide for Improved Quality of Roadway Subgrades and Subbases. Iowa Highway Research Board (IHRB Project TR-525), 7, 8–72.

Schapire R.E., 2013a. Explaining Adaboost. Empirical Inference: Festschrift in Honor of Vladimir N. Vapnik, 37–52.

Schapire R.E., 2013. Explaining AdaBoost, in Empirical Inference. B. Schölkopf Z. Luo and V. Vovk, Eds., Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, accessed April 22, 2024b, from https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-642-41136-6_5, 37–52.

Solomatine D.P., Shrestha D.L., 2004. AdaBoost. RT: A Boosting Algorithm for Regression Problems, 2004 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IEEE Cat. No. 04CH37541). IEEE, 2, 1163–68.

Thai P.B., Nguyen D.D., Thi Q.-A.B., Nguyen M.D., Vu T.T., Prakash I., 2022. Estimation of Load-Bearing Capacity of Bored Piles using Machine Learning Models. Vietnam J. Earth Sci., 44(4), 470–480. https://doi.org/10.15625/2615-9783/17177.

Thanh D.Q., Nguyen D.H., Prakash I., Jaafari A., Nguyen V.-T., Van Phong T., Pham B.T., 2020. GIS Based Frequency Ratio Method for Landslide Susceptibility Mapping at Da Lat City, Lam Dong Province, Vietnam. Vietnam J. Earth Sci., 42(1), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.15625/0866-7187/42/1/14758.

Trong D.K., Pham B.T., Jalal F.E., Iqbal M., Roussis P.C., Mamou A., Ferentinou M., Vu D.Q., Duc Dam N., Tran Q.A., 2021. On Random Subspace Optimization-Based Hybrid Computing Models Predicting the California Bearing Ratio of Soils. Materials, 14(21), 6516.

Tso G.K., Yau K.K., 2007. Predicting Electricity Energy Consumption: A Comparison of Regression Analysis. Decision Tree and Neural Networks. Energy, 32(9), 1761–68.

Venkatasubramanian C., Dhinakaran G., 2011. ANN Model for Predicting CBR from Index Properties of Soils. International Journal of Civil & Structural Engineering, 2(2), 614–20.

Wang D., Thunéll S., Lindberg U., Jiang L., Trygg J., Tysklind M., 2022. Towards Better Process Management in Wastewater Treatment Plants: Process Analytics Based on SHAP Values for Tree-Based Machine Learning Methods. Journal of Environmental Management, 301, 113941.

Willmott C.J., Matsuura K., 2005. Advantages of the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) over the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) in Assessing Average Model Performance. Climate Research, 30(1), 79–82.

Xu M., Watanachaturaporn P., Varshney P.K., Arora M.K., 2005. Decision Tree Regression for Soft Classification of Remote Sensing Data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 97(3), 322–36.

Downloads

Published

10-05-2024

How to Cite

Ngo Thi Thanh, H., Bui Thi Quynh-, A., Nguyen Van, V., & Nguyen Thi Bich, T. (2024). Application of hybrid modeling to predict California bearing ratio of soil. Vietnam Journal of Earth Sciences. https://doi.org/10.15625/2615-9783/20766

Issue

Section

Articles