Machine Learning Techniques for Soil Characterization Using Cone Penetration Test Data
Source abstract
Abstract
Seismic response assessment requires reliable information about subsurface conditions, including soil shear wave velocity (Vs). To properly assess seismic response, engineers need accurate information about Vs, an essential parameter for evaluating the propagation of seismic waves. However, measuring Vs is generally challenging due to the complex and time-consuming nature of field and laboratory tests. This study aims to predict Vs using machine learning (ML) algorithms from cone penetration test (CPT) data. The study utilized four ML algorithms, namely Random Forests (RFs), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Decision Trees (DT), and eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), to predict Vs. These ML models were trained on 70% of the datasets, while their efficiency and generalization ability were assessed on the remaining 30%. The hyperparameters for each ML model were fine-tuned through Bayesian optimization with k-fold cross-validation techniques. The performance of each ML model was evaluated using eight different metrics, including root mean squared error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), coefficient of determination (R2), performance index (PI), scatter index (SI), A10−I, and U95. The results demonstrated that the RF model consistently performed well across all metrics. It achieved high accuracy and the lowest level of errors, indicating superior accuracy and precision in predicting Vs. The SVM and XGBoost models also exhibited strong performance, with slightly higher error metrics compared with the RF model. However, the DT model performed poorly, with higher error rates and uncertainty in predicting Vs. Based on these results, we can conclude that the RF model is highly effective at accurately predicting Vs using CPT data with minimal input features.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Geotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures · Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics · Landslides and related hazards
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Department, Faculty of Architecture, Civil and Transport Sciences, Szechenyi Istvan University, H-9026, Egyetem Ter 1, 9026 Gyor, Hungary
Funding
Széchenyi István University
References (80)
Show source-provided references
1. Effect of the Upper Part of the Soil Profile on the Site Response10.3103/S0747923918040047 ↗
2. Site Effects on Strong Ground Motions10.1016/S0074-6142(03)80175-4 ↗
3. On the Characteristics of Local Geology and Their Influence on Ground Motions Generated by the Loma Prieta Earthquake in the San Franciso Bay Region, California10.1785/BSSA0820020603 ↗
4. The 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake and Its Effects: Introduction to the Special Issue10.1785/BSSA0810051415 ↗
5. Local Site Effect on Ground Motion
6. Tokimatsu, K. (1995). Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Proceedings of the IS-Tokyo’95, the First International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, 14–16 November 1995, A.A. Balkema.
7. Interpretation of CPT-Sand&Clay10.1139/t83-078 ↗
8. Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves10.1190/1.1444590 ↗
9. Delineation of Weathered Layer Using Uphole and Surface Seismic Refraction Methods in Parts of Niger Delta, Nigeria: Delineation of Weathered Layer
10. Musgrave, A.W. (1967). Seismic Refraction Prospecting, Society of Exploration Geophysicists.10.1190/1.9781560802679 ↗
11. Interpretation of Bender Element Tests10.1680/geot.1995.45.1.149 ↗
12. Measurement of Shear Wave Velocities in Diluvial Gravel Samples Under Triaxial Conditions10.3208/sandf1972.28.2_35 ↗
13. Drnevich, V. (1978). Resonant-Column Testing—Problems and Solutions, ASTM International.10.1520/STP35687S ↗
14. Le, T.T., Skentou, A.D., Mamou, A., and Asteris, P.G. (2022). Correlating the Unconfined Compressive Strength of Rock with the Compressional Wave Velocity Effective Porosity and Schmidt Hammer Rebound Number Using Artificial Neural Networks, Springer.10.1007/s00603-022-02992-8 ↗
15. Andrus, R.D., Mohanan, N.P., Piratheepan, P., Ellis, B.S., and Holzer, T.L. (2007, January 25–28). Predicting Shear-Wave Velocity From Cone Penetration Resistance. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Thessaloniki, Greece.
16. Interpretation of Cone Penetration Tests—A Unified Approach10.1139/T09-065 ↗
17. Comparison and Improvement of the Existing Cone Penetration Test Results: Shear Wave Velocity Correlations for Hungarian Soils
18. Correlations Between Shear Wave Velocity and Cone Tip Resistance in Natural Clays10.3208/sandf1972.35.2_107 ↗
19. Shear Wave Velocity as Function of Cone Penetration Test Measurements in Sand and Silt Mixtures10.1016/j.enggeo.2013.06.005 ↗
20. Cone Penetration Test (CPT)-Based Soil Behaviour Type (SBT) Classification System—An Update10.1139/cgj-2016-0044 ↗
21. Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D., and Greig, J. (1986). Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE.
22. Machine Learning–Based Digital Integration of Geotechnical and Ultrahigh–Frequency Geophysical Data for Offshore Site Characterizations10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002702 ↗
23. Evolving Strategies for Shear Wave Velocity Estimation: Smart and Ensemble Modeling Approach10.1007/s00521-021-06306-x ↗
24. CPT-Vs Correlations for Post-Glacial Sediments in Metropolitan Vancouver10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107693 ↗
25. Tsiaousi, D., Travasarou, T., Drosos, V., Ugalde, J., and Chacko, J. (2018, January 10–13). Machine Learning Applications for Site Characterization Based on CPT Data. Proceedings of the Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V, Austin, TX, USA.10.1061/9780784481486.048 ↗
26. Taheri, A., Makarian, E., Manaman, N.S., Ju, H., Kim, T.H., Geem, Z.W., and Rahimizadeh, K. (2022). A Fully-Self-Adaptive Harmony Search GMDH-Type Neural Network Algorithm to Estimate Shear-Wave Velocity in Porous Media. Appl. Sci., 12.10.3390/app12136339 ↗
27. Kang, T.H., Choi, S.W., Lee, C., and Chang, S.H. (2022). Soil Classification by Machine Learning Using a Tunnel Boring Machine’s Operating Parameters. Appl. Sci., 12.10.3390/app122211480 ↗
28. Soil Classification System from Cone Penetration Test Data Applying Distance-Based Machine Learning Algorithms10.28927/SR.422167 ↗
29. Multiclass Stand-Alone and Ensemble Machine Learning Algorithms Utilised to Classify Soils Based on Their Physico-Chemical Characteristics10.1016/j.jrmge.2021.08.011 ↗
30. Hikouei, I.S., Kim, S.S., and Mishra, D.R. (2021). Machine-Learning Classification of Soil Bulk Density in Salt Marsh Environments. Sensors, 21.10.3390/s21134408 ↗
31. Aydın, Y., Işıkdağ, Ü., Bekdaş, G., Nigdeli, S.M., and Geem, Z.W. (2023). Use of Machine Learning Techniques in Soil Classification. Sustainability, 15.10.3390/su15032374 ↗
32. A Multiple Model Machine Learning Approach for Soil Classification from Cone Penetration Test Data10.28927/SR.2021.072121 ↗
33. Chala, A.T., and Ray, R. (2023). Assessing the Performance of Machine Learning Algorithms for Soil Classification Using Cone Penetration Test Data. Appl. Sci., 13.10.3390/app13095758 ↗
34. Prediction of Shear Wave Velocity Using Artificial Neural Network Technique, Multiple Regression and Petrophysical Data: A Case Study in Asmari Reservoir (SW Iran)10.4236/ojg.2014.47023 ↗
35. An Investigation of Feature Selection Methods for Soil Liquefaction Prediction Based on Tree-Based Ensemble Algorithms Using AdaBoost, Gradient Boosting, and XGBoost10.1007/s00521-022-07856-4 ↗
36. Liquefaction Prediction with Robust Machine Learning Algorithms (SVM, RF, and XGBoost) Supported by Genetic Algorithm-Based Feature Selection and Parameter Optimization from the Perspective of Data Processing10.1007/s12665-022-10578-4 ↗
37. Machine Learning Modelling for Predicting Soil Liquefaction Susceptibility10.5194/nhess-11-1-2011 ↗
38. Machine Learning Approaches for Prediction of Fine-Grained Soils Liquefaction10.1016/j.compgeo.2022.105014 ↗
39. Predicting Seismic-Induced Liquefaction through Ensemble Learning Frameworks10.1038/s41598-019-48044-0 ↗
40. Explainable Machine Learning Model for Liquefaction Potential Assessment of Soils Using XGBoost-SHAP10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107662 ↗
41. Efficient Reliability Analysis of Earth Dam Slope Stability Using Extreme Gradient Boosting Method10.1007/s11440-020-00962-4 ↗
42. Assessment of Basal Heave Stability for Braced Excavations in Anisotropic Clay Using Extreme Gradient Boosting and Random Forest Regression10.1016/j.undsp.2020.03.001 ↗
43. Slope Stability Analysis Using Rf, Gbm, Cart, Bt and Xgboost10.1007/s10706-021-01721-2 ↗
44. Slope Stability Analysis: A Support Vector Machine Approach10.1007/s00254-007-1161-4 ↗
45. Xiao, L., Zhang, Y., and Peng, G. (2018). Landslide Susceptibility Assessment Using Integrated Deep Learning Algorithm along the China-Nepal Highway. Sensors, 18.10.3390/s18124436 ↗
46. Load-Settlement Behavior Modeling of Single Piles Using Artificial Neural Networks and CPT Data10.1016/j.compgeo.2017.04.003 ↗
47. Prediction of Pile Settlement Using Artificial Neural Networks Based on Standard Penetration Test Data10.1016/j.compgeo.2009.04.003 ↗
48. Prediction of Shield Tunneling-Induced Ground Settlement Using Machine Learning Techniques10.1007/s11709-019-0561-3 ↗
49. The Implementation of TPE-Bayesian Hyperparameter Optimization to Predict Shear Wave Velocity Using Machine Learning: Case Study From X Field in Malay Basin
50. Shear Wave Velocity by Support Vector Machine Based on Geotechnical Soil Properties
51. Support Vector Regression Based Determination of Shear Wave Velocity10.1016/j.petrol.2014.11.025 ↗
52. Cone Penetration Test Dataset Premstaller Geotechnik10.1016/j.dib.2020.106618 ↗
53. Ensemble Deep Learning-Based Models to Predict the Resilient Modulus of Modified Base Materials Subjected to Wet-Dry Cycles
54. Harandizadeh, H., Armaghani, D.J., Asteris, P.G., and Gandomi, A.H. (2021). TBM Performance Prediction Developing a Hybrid ANFIS-PNN Predictive Model Optimized by Imperialism Competitive Algorithm, Springer.10.1007/s00521-021-06217-x ↗
55. Hajihassani, M., Abdullah, S.S., Asteris, P.G., and Armaghani, D.J. (2019). A Gene Expression Programming Model for Predicting Tunnel Convergence. Appl. Sci., 9.10.3390/app9214650 ↗
56. A Hybrid GEP and WOA Approach to Estimate the Optimal Penetration Rate of TBM in Granitic Rock Mass10.1007/s00500-021-06005-8 ↗
57. Abushanab, A., Wakjira, T.G., and Alnahhal, W. (2023). Machine Learning-Based Flexural Capacity Prediction of Corroded RC Beams with an Efficient and User-Friendly Tool. Sustainability, 15.10.3390/su15064824 ↗
58. Machine Learning-Based Shear Capacity Prediction and Reliability Analysis of Shear-Critical RC Beams Strengthened with Inorganic Composites
59. Innovative Modeling Techniques Including MEP, ANN and FQ to Forecast the Compressive Strength of Geopolymer Concrete Modified with Nanoparticles10.1007/s00521-023-08378-3 ↗
60. Closed-Form Equation for Estimating Unconfined Compressive Strength of Granite from Three Non-Destructive Tests Using Soft Computing Models10.1007/s00603-022-03046-9 ↗
61. Xu, H., Zhou, J., Asteris, P.G., Armaghani, D.J., and Tahir, M.M. (2019). Supervised Machine Learning Techniques to the Prediction of Tunnel Boring Machine Penetration Rate. Appl. Sci., 9.10.3390/app9183715 ↗
62. Performance of ANN and M5P-Tree to Forecast the Compressive Strength of Hand-Mix Cement-Grouted Sands Modified with Polymer Using ASTM and BS Standards and Evaluate the Outcomes Using SI with OBJ Assessments10.1007/s00521-022-07349-4 ↗
63. Implementation of Multi-Expression Programming (MEP), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), and M5P-Tree to Forecast the Compression Strength Cement-Based Mortar Modified by Calcium Hydroxide at Different Mix Proportions and Curing Ages10.1007/s41062-022-00761-8 ↗
64. Improved Arithmetic Optimization Algorithm and Its Application to Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer-Steel Bond Strength Estimation10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.116599 ↗
65. Comparison of Solar Radiation Models and Their Validation under Algerian Climate—The Case of Direct Irradiance10.1016/j.enconman.2015.03.067 ↗
66. Random Forests for Classification in Ecology10.1890/07-0539.1 ↗
67. Random Forests10.1023/A:1010933404324 ↗
68. Classification and Regression by RandomForest
69. Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., Friedman, J.H., and Friedman, J.H. (2009). The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction, Springer.10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7 ↗
70. Wright, M.N., and Ziegler, A. (2015). Ranger: A Fast Implementation of Random Forests for High Dimensional Data in C++ and R. arXiv.
71. Snoek, J., Larochelle, H., and Adams, R.P. (2012). Practical Bayesian Optimization of Machine Learning Algorithms. arXiv.
72. Support-Vector Networks10.1007/BF00994018 ↗
73. Meyer, D., Dimitriadou, E., Hornik, K., Weingessel, A., and Leisch, F. (2023). E1071: Misc Functions of the Department of Statistics, Probability Theory Group (Formerly: E1071), TU Wien, R Core Team. R Package Version 1.7-13.
74. Quinlan, J.R. (1986). Induction of Decision Trees, Springer.10.1007/BF00116251 ↗
75. Therneau, T., Atkinson, B., Ripley, B., and Ripley, M.B. (2015). Rpart: Recursive Partitioning and Regression Trees, R Core Team. R Package version 4.1-10.
76. Decision Tree Methods: Applications for Classification and Prediction
77. Machine Learning in Soil Classification10.1016/j.neunet.2006.01.005 ↗
78. Chen, T., and Guestrin, C. (2016, January 13–17). Xgboost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Francisco, CA, USA.10.1145/2939672.2939785 ↗
79. Fei, Z., Liang, S., Cai, Y., and Shen, Y. (2023). Ensemble Machine-Learning-Based Prediction Models for the Compressive Strength of Recycled Powder Mortar. Materials, 16.10.3390/ma16020583 ↗
80. Ray, R.P., Wolf, A., and Kegyes-Brassai, O. (2020, January 7–11). Harmonizing Dynamic Property Measurements of Hungarian Soils. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization (ISC2020), Budapest, Hungary.