Skip to main content
Log in

Using neural networks and support vector regression to relate marchetti dilatometer test parameters and maximum shear modulus

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the last two decades, small strain shear modulus became one of the most important geotechnical parameters to characterize soil stiffness. Finite element analysis have shown that in-situ stiffness of soils and rocks is much higher than what was previously thought and that stress-strain behaviour of these materials is non-linear in most cases with small strain levels, especially in the ground around retaining walls, foundations and tunnels, typically in the order of 10−2 to 10−4 of strain. Although the best approach to estimate shear modulus seems to be based in measuring seismic wave velocities, deriving the parameter through correlations with in-situ tests is usually considered very useful for design practice.The use of Neural Networks for modeling systems has been widespread, in particular within areas where the great amount of available data and the complexity of the systems keeps the problem very unfriendly to treat following traditional data analysis methodologies. In this work, the use of Neural Networks and Support Vector Regression is proposed to estimate small strain shear modulus for sedimentary soils from the basic or intermediate parameters derived from Marchetti Dilatometer Test. The results are discussed and compared with some of the most common available methodologies for this evaluation.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Clayton C, Heymann G (2001) Stiffness of geomaterials at very small strains. Géotechnique 51(3):245–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Fahey M (2001) Soil stiffness values for foundation settlement analysis. In: Balkema L (ed) Proceedings 2nd international conference on pre-failure deformation characteristics of geomaterials, vol 2, pp 1325–1332

  3. Peck R, Hanson W, Thornburn T (1974) Foundation engineering, 2nd edn. Wiley

  4. Lunne T, Robertson P, Powell J (1997) Cone penetration testing in geotechnical practice. Spon E & F N

  5. Marchetti S (1980) In-situ tests by flat dilatometer. J Geotechn Eng Div 106 (GT3):299–321

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cruz N, Devincenzi M, Viana da Fonseca A (2006) Dmt experience in iberian transported soils. In: Proceedings 2nd international flat dilatometer conference, pp 198–204

  7. Cruz N (2010) Modelling geomechanics of residual soils by DMT tests, PhD thesis, Universidade do Porto

  8. Marchetti S (1997) The flat dilatometer: design applications. In: Third geotechnical engineering conference Cairo University

  9. Mayne P (2006) Interrelationships of dmt and cpt in soft clays. In: Proceedings 2nd international flat dilatometer conference, pp 231–236

  10. Hryciw R (1990) Small-strain-shear modulus of soil by dilatometer. J Geotech Eng ASCE 116(11):1700–1716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hardin B, Blandford G (1989) Elasticity of particulate materials. J Geotech Eng Div 115(GT6):788–805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Jamiolkowski B, Ladd C, Jermaine J, Lancelota R (1985) New developments in field and laboratory testing of soilsladd, c.c. In: XI ISCMFE, vol 1, pp 57–153

  13. Sully J, Campanella R (1989) Correlation of maximum shear modulus with dmt test results in sand. In: Proceedings XII ICSMFE, pp 339–343

  14. Tanaka H, Tanaka M (1998) Characterization of sandy soils using CPT and DMT. Soils Found 38(3):55–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Marchetti S, Monaco P, Totani G, Marchetti D (2008) From research to practice in geotechnical engineering D.K. Crapps, volume 180, chapter In -situ tests by seismic dilatometer (SDMT). ASCE Geotech Spec. Publ., pp 292–311

  16. Huang Y, Draper N (2003) Transformations, regression geometry and R2. Comput Stat Data Anal 42 (4):647–664

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Netlab. http://www1.aston.ac.uk/eas/research/groups/ncrg/resources/netlab/ Accessed 11 Oct 2013

  18. Bishop C (1996) Neural networks for pattern recognition. Oxford university Press

  19. Cortes C, Vapnik V (1995) Support-vector Networks. J Mach Learn 20(3):273–297

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Chang C, Lin C (2011) LIBSVM: a library for support vector machines. ACM Trans Intell Syst Technol:2:27:1–27:27

  21. Vapnik V (1998) Statistical learning theory. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Schölkopf B, Smola A, Williamson R, Bartlett P (2000) New support vector algorithms. Neural Comput 12:1207–1245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hollander M, Wolfe DA (1973) Nonparametric statistical methods. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thanks the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manuel Cruz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cruz, M., Santos, J.M. & Cruz, N. Using neural networks and support vector regression to relate marchetti dilatometer test parameters and maximum shear modulus. Appl Intell 42, 135–146 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-014-0576-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-014-0576-3

Keywords

Navigation