Comparative study on data-driven prediction of overconsolidation ratio using supervised machine learning models

Abstract

Overconsolidation ratio (OCR) is an important geotechnical parameter that plays a crucial role in the analysis and design of foundations and structures on clay deposits. In this study, five machine learning (ML) algorithms, including gradient boosting machine (GBM), random forest (RF), artificial neural network (ANN), support vector machine (SVM), and eXtreme gradient boosting (XGB) were developed to estimate the OCR of clays based on the piezocone penetration test data. The ‘GridSearchCV’ function from the Scikit-learn package was employed to perform hyper-parameter tuning and k-fold cross-validation, ensuring the best possible model performance. Vertical total stress (σ_v0), hydrostatic pore water pressure (u₀), corrected cone resistance (q_t), pore pressure elements at the cone tip (u₁), and above the cone base (u₂), along with the type of clay (intact or fissured) were selected as the main features of input data. Sensitivity analysis revealed that q_t was the most influential parameter for RF, GBM, XGB, and SVM predictions, while all inputs affected the ANN model. It was found that the SVM model delivered the lowest accuracy in predicting OCR. In contrast, the XGB model showed the best performance, while the remaining models achieved reliable results, each with a coefficient of determination of 0.90 or higher.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

clay / piezocone penetration test / overconsolidation ratio / machine learning

References

[1] Kurup P U, Dudani N K. Neural networks for profiling stress history of clays from PCPT data. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2002, 128(7): 569–579

[2] Konrad J M, Law K T. Preconsolidation pressure from piezocone tests in marine clays. Geotechnique, 1987, 37(2): 177–190

[3] Mayne P W. Determining preconsolidation stress and penetration pore pressures from DMT contact pressures. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 1987, 10(3): 146–150

[4] Mayne P W. Determination of OCR in clays by piezocone tests using cavity expansion and critical state concepts. Soil and Foundation, 1991, 31(2): 65–76

[5] MayneP WBachus R C. Profiling OCR in clays by piezocone. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Penetration Testing. Trondheim: A.A. Balkema, 1988

[6] Mayne P W, Holtz R D. Profiling stress history from piezocone soundings. Soil and Foundation, 1988, 28(1): 16–28

[7] SandvenRSenneset KJanbuN. Interpretation of piezocone tests in cohesive soils. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Penetration Testing. Trondheim: A.A. Balkema, 1988

[8] SennesetKJanbu NSvanoG. Strength and deformation parameters from cone penetration tests. In: European Symposium on Penetration Testing. Amsterdam: A.A. Balkema, 1982

[9] Baligh M M, Vivatrat V, Ladd C C. Cone penetration in soil profiling. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, 1980, 106(4): 447–461

[10] CampanellaR GRobertsonP K. Applied cone research. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, 1981: 343–362

[11] ChenBMayne P. Profiling the OCR of clays by piezocone tests. In: Rep. No. CEEGEO-94. Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology, 1994

[12] Chen B S, Mayne P. Statistical relationships between piezocone measurements and stress history of clays. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1996, 33(3): 488–498

[13] Sully J P, Campanella R G, Robertson P K. Overconsolidation ratio of clays from penetration pore pressures. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1988, 114(2): 209–216

[14] TumayM TAcar YDesezeEYilmazR. Soil exploration in soft clays with the quasi-static electric cone penetrometer. In: European symposium on penetration testing. Amsterdam: A.A. Balkema, 1982

[15] Kim Y S, Park H I. Committee neural network for estimating preconsolidation pressure from piezocone test result. Engineering Computations, 2012, 29(8): 842–855

[16] Goswami S, Anitescu C, Rabczuk T. Adaptive fourth-order phase field analysis using deep energy minimization. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 2020, 107: 102527

[17] Samaniego E, Anitescu C, Goswami S, Nguyen-Thanh V M, Guo H, Hamdia K, Zhuang X, Rabczuk T. An energy approach to the solution of partial differential equations in computational mechanics via machine learning: Concepts, implementation and applications. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2020, 362: 112790

[18] Ahmad M, Tang X W, Qiu J N, Ahmad F, Gu W J. Application of machine learning algorithms for the evaluation of seismic soil liquefaction potential. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2021, 15(2): 490–505

[19] Lin S, Liang Z, Dong M, Guo H, Zheng H. Imbalanced rock burst assessment using variational autoencoder-enhanced gradient boosting algorithms and explainability. Underground Space, 2024, 17: 226–245

[20] Lin S, Zheng H, Han C, Han B, Li W. Evaluation and prediction of slope stability using machine learning approaches. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2021, 15(4): 821–833

[21] Griffin E P, Kurup P U. Prediction of OCR and SU from PCPT data using tree-based data fusion techniques. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2017, 143(9): 04017045

[22] Samui P, Kurup P. Use of the relevance vector machine for prediction of an overconsolidation ratio. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2013, 13(1): 26–32

[23] Samui P, Sitharam T G, Kurup P U. OCR Prediction using support vector machine based on piezocone data. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2008, 134(6): 894–898

[24] ChenB S Y. Profiling Stress History of Clays by Dual Piezocones. Georgia Tech.: Atlanta, 1994

[25] Anitescu C, Atroshchenko E, Alajlan N, Rabczuk T. Artificial neural network methods for the solution of second order boundary value problems. Computers, Materials & Continua, 2019, 59(1): 345–359

[26] Mishra A, Anitescu C, Budarapu P R, Natarajan S, Vundavilli P R, Rabczuk T. An artificial neural network based deep collocation method for the solution of transient linear and nonlinear partial differential equations. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2024, 18(8): 1296–1310

[27] Hinton G E. How neural networks learn from experience. Scientific American, 1992, 267(3): 144–151

[28] Wang T, Knap J. Stochastic gradient descent for semilinear elliptic equations with uncertainties. Journal of Computational Physics, 2021, 426: 109945

[29] JinHSongQ HuX. Auto-keras: An efficient neural architecture search system. In: Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. Anchorage, AK: Association for Computing Machinery, 2019

[30] VapnikV. The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. New York: Springer Science & Business Media, 1999

[31] SzeliskiR. Computer vision: Algorithms and Applications. Switzerland: Springer Nature, 2022

[32] Natekin A, Knoll A. Gradient boosting machines, a tutorial. Frontiers in Neurorobotics, 2013, 7: 21

[33] ChenTGuestrin C. XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. San Francisco, CA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2016

[34] Herman J, Usher W. SALib: An open-source Python library for sensitivity analysis. Journal of Open Source Software, 2017, 2(9): 97

[35] Iwanaga T, Usher W, Herman J. Toward SALib 2.0: Advancing the accessibility and interpretability of global sensitivity analyses. Socio-environmental Systems Modelling, 2022, 4: 18155

[36] Sobol’I.M.. Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 2001, 55(1): 271–280

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

The Author(s). This article is published with open access at link.springer.com and journal.hep.com.cn