Prediction of Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations on Cohesionless Soils: A Gaussian Process Regression Approach
Source abstract
Abstract
This study examines the potential of the soft computing technique—namely, Gaussian process regression (GPR), to predict the ultimate bearing capacity (UBC) of cohesionless soils beneath shallow foundations. The inputs of the model are width of footing (B), depth of footing (D), footing geometry (L/B), unit weight of sand (γ), and internal friction angle (ϕ). The results of the present model were compared with those obtained by two theoretical approaches reported in the literature. The statistical evaluation of results shows that the presently applied paradigm is better than the theoretical approaches and is competing well for the prediction of UBC (qu). This study shows that the developed GPR is a robust model for the qu prediction of shallow foundations on cohesionless soil. Sensitivity analysis was also carried out to determine the effect of each input parameter.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Dam Engineering and Safety · Geotechnical Engineering and Analysis · Soil and Unsaturated Flow
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, International Islamic University Malaysia, Jalan Gombak, Selangor 50728, Malaysia
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology Peshawar (Bannu Campus), Bannu 28100, Pakistan
State Key Laboratory of Coastal and Offshore Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China
Faculty of Engineering, University of Technology and Economics H. Chodkowska in Warsaw, Jutrzenki 135, 02-231 Warsaw, Poland
Faculty of Mechatronics, Armament and Aerospace of the Military University of Technology, Sylwestra Ka-liskiego 2, 00-908 Warsaw, Poland
Mineral and Energy Economy Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, Wybickiego St. 7A, 31-261 Kraków, Poland
Faculty of Mining and Geoengineering, AGH University of Science and Technology, 30-059 Kraków, Poland
Earthquake Engineering Center, University of Engineering and Technology Peshawar, Peshawar 25000, Pakistan
Key Laboratory of Transportation Tunnel Engineering, Ministry of Education, School of Civil Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu 610031, China
References (54)
Show source-provided references
1. Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical Soil Mechanics, John Wiley and Sons.10.1002/9780470172766 ↗
2. Some recent research on the bearing capacity of foundations10.1139/t63-003 ↗
3. Hansen, J.B. (1970). A Revised and Extended Formula for Bearing Capacity, Danish Geotechnical Institute.
4. Winterkorn, F.S., and Fand, H.Y. (1975). Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations. Foundation Engineering Handbook, Van Nostrand Reinhold.
5. Das, B. (2004). Principles of Foundation Engineering, Brooks/Cole-Thomson Learning, Inc.
6. A simple approach for evaluating the bearing capacity of piles subjected to inclined loads10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0002215 ↗
7. On the behavior of piles in non-cohesive soil under combined horizontal and vertical loading10.1007/s11440-010-0124-1 ↗
8. De Beer, E. (1965, January 8–15). The scale effect on the phenomenon of progressive rupture in cohesionless soils. Proceedings of the 6th ICSMFE, Montreal, QC, Canada.
9. Yamaguchi, H. (1977, January 10–15). On the scale effect of footings in dense sand. Proceedings of the 9th ICSMFE, Tokyo, Japan.
10. Progressive failure and particle size effect in bearing capacity of footing on sand
11. Ultimate bearing capacity prediction of shallow foundations on cohesionless soils using neurofuzzy models10.1016/j.compgeo.2007.03.001 ↗
12. Evaluation of liquefaction-induced lateral displacement using Bayesian belief networks10.1007/s11709-021-0682-3 ↗
13. Ali Khan, M., Zafar, A., Akbar, A., Javed, M.F., and Mosavi, A. (2021). Application of Gene Expression Programming (GEP) for the Prediction of Compressive Strength of Geopolymer Concrete. Materials, 14.10.31219/osf.io/bwm4k ↗
14. Ahmad, M., Hu, J.-L., Ahmad, F., Tang, X.-W., Amjad, M., Iqbal, M.J., Asim, M., and Farooq, A. (2021). Supervised Learning Methods for Modeling Concrete Compressive Strength Prediction at High Temperature. Materials, 14.10.3390/ma14081983 ↗
15. A hybrid approach for evaluating CPT-based seismic soil liquefaction potential using Bayesian belief networks10.1007/s11771-020-4312-3 ↗
16. Pirhadi, N., Tang, X., Yang, Q., and Kang, F. (2019). A new equation to evaluate liquefaction triggering using the response surface method and parametric sensitivity analysis. Sustainability, 11.10.3390/su11010112 ↗
17. Ahmad, M., Tang, X., and Ahmad, F. (2020). Evaluation of Liquefaction-Induced Settlement Using Random Forest and REP Tree Models: Taking Pohang Earthquake as a Case of Illustration. Natural Hazards-Impacts, Adjustments & Resilience, IntechOpen.10.5772/intechopen.94274 ↗
18. Ahmad, M., Al-Shayea, N.A., Tang, X.-W., Jamal, A., Al-Ahmadi, H.M., and Ahmad, F. (2020). Predicting the Pillar Stability of Underground Mines with Random Trees and C4. 5 Decision Trees. Appl. Sci., 10.10.3390/app10186486 ↗
19. A step forward towards a comprehensive framework for assessing liquefaction land damage vulnerability: Exploration from historical data10.1007/s11709-020-0670-z ↗
20. Feasibility of stochastic gradient boosting approach for evaluating seismic liquefaction potential based on SPT and CPT case histories10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001292 ↗
21. Structural damage assessment criteria for reinforced concrete buildings by using a Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy process10.1016/j.undsp.2018.04.002 ↗
22. New approaches to determine the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations based on artificial neural networks and ant colony optimization10.1016/j.enggeo.2010.10.002 ↗
23. Application of statistical learning algorithms to ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundation on cohesionless soil10.1002/nag.997 ↗
24. Prediction of ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations on cohesionless soils: An evolutionary approach10.1007/s12205-012-1651-0 ↗
25. Determining ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations using a genetic programming system10.1007/s00521-012-1150-8 ↗
26. Bearing capacity of shallow foundations on cohesionless soils: A random forest based approach
27. Cautious model predictive control using gaussian process regression10.1109/TCST.2019.2949757 ↗
28. Monthly streamflow forecasting using Gaussian process regression10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.01.023 ↗
29. Prediction of sediment transport rates in gravel-bed rivers using Gaussian process regression10.2166/hydro.2019.077 ↗
30. On the penetrating strengths (hardness) of plastic construction materials and the strength of cutting edges10.1002/zamm.19210010102 ↗
31. Reissner, H. (1924, January 22–26). Zum erddruckproblem. Proceedings of the 1st International Congress for Applied Mechanics, Delft, The Netherlands.
32. Taylor, D. (1948). Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics, Chapman & Hall.10.1097/00010694-194808000-00008 ↗
33. Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations10.1061/JSFEAQ.0001846 ↗
34. Cerato, A. (2005). Scale Effects of Foundation Bearing Capacity on Granular Material. [Ph.D. Dissertation, Lafayette College].
35. Ahmad, M., Tang, X.-W., Qiu, J.-N., and Ahmad, F. (2019). Evaluating Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential Using Bayesian Belief Network and C4. 5 Decision Tree Approaches. Appl. Sci., 9.10.3390/app9204226 ↗
36. Evaluation of liquefaction induced lateral displacements using genetic programming10.1016/j.compgeo.2006.05.001 ↗
37. Van Vuren, T. (2018). Modeling of Transport Demand–Analyzing, Calculating, and Forecasting Transport Demand, Elsevier.10.1080/01441647.2019.1635226 ↗
38. Susceptibility assessment of earthquake-induced landslides using Bayesian network: A case study in Beichuan, China10.1016/j.cageo.2011.09.011 ↗
39. Characterizing forest canopy structure with lidar composite metrics and machine learning10.1016/j.rse.2011.04.001 ↗
40. Gaussian process regression for estimating chlorophyll concentration in subsurface waters from remote sensing data10.1109/LGRS.2009.2039191 ↗
41. Rasmussen, C., and Williams, C. (2006). Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning, The MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/3206.001.0001 ↗
42. Robust estimation of water chlorophyll concentrations with gaussian process regression and IOWA aggregation operators10.1109/JSTARS.2014.2327003 ↗
43. Kumar, M., Elbeltagi, A., Srivastava, A., Kumari, A., Ali, R., Pande, C., Bajirao, T.S., Islam, A.R.M.T., and Kushwaha, D.P. (2021, September 24). Prediction of Daily Streamflow Using Various Kernel Function Based Regression: A Case Study in India. Available online: https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-784271/v1_covered.pdf?c=1631876022.10.21203/rs.3.rs-784271/v1 ↗
44. Novel approach to strength modeling of concrete under triaxial compression10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000494 ↗
45. River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I—A discussion of principles10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6 ↗
46. Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations10.13031/2013.23153 ↗
47. Quantifying hourly suspended sediment load using data mining models: Case study of a glacierized Andean catchment in Chile10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.10.015 ↗
48. Witten, I.H., Frank, E., and Hall, M. (2005). Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques, Morgen Kaufmann.
49. Facilitating the application of support vector regression by using a universal Pearson VII function based kernel10.1016/j.chemolab.2005.09.003 ↗
50. Closure to “Analysis of Ultimate Loads of Shallow Foundations”10.1061/AJGEB6.0000078 ↗
51. A hierarchical analysis for rock engineering using artificial neural networks10.1007/BF01045717 ↗
52. Prediction of ground vibration due to quarry blasting based on gene expression programming: A new model for peak particle velocity prediction10.1007/s13762-016-0979-2 ↗
53. A new design of evolutionary hybrid optimization of SVR model in predicting the blast-induced ground vibration10.1007/s00366-019-00895-x ↗
54. Prediction of flyrock in mine blasting: A new computational intelligence approach10.1007/s11053-019-09464-x ↗