A Shallow Foundation Settlement Prediction Method Considering Uncertainty Based on Machine Learning and CPT Data
Source abstract
Abstract
In the field of geoengineering, predicting foundation settlement is a critical topic. Traditional settlement prediction methods struggle to accurately reflect settlement under complex geological conditions. This study combines cone penetration test (CPT) data and collects data from 46 different geoengineering sites from the literature. Gradient Boosting Decision Tree (GBDT), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), Deep Neural Network (DNN), Support Vector Machine (SVM), and Random Forest (RF) models are individually established, and an ensemble model is proposed to predict shallow foundation settlement St. The results show that the proposed ensemble model exhibits the best predictive performance, providing a reference for practical engineering projects. The predictions of the optimal model are compared with those of single models and traditional methods, and the uncertainty of model predictions is quantified using Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS). Sensitivity analyses are conducted using feature importance analysis and SHAP methods to assess the influence of input parameters on the prediction results. Finally, Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) are introduced to generate new data to validate the generalization capability of the model.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Geotechnical Engineering and Analysis · Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics · Rock Mechanics and Modeling
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Civil Engineering and Water Resources, Qinghai University, Xining 810016, China
Key Laboratory of Energy-Saving Building Materials and Engineering Safety, Xining 810016, China
Funding
the National Natural Science Foundation of China · the Qinghai Provincial Science and Technology Cooperation Project · the Fund of China Scholarship Council
References (39)
Show source-provided references
1. Holtz, R.D., Kovacs, W.D., and Sheahan, T.C. (1981). An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering, Prentice-hall.
2. Paikowsky, S.G., Fu, Y., Amatya, S., and Canniff, M.C. (2009, January 5–9). Uncertainty in shallow foundations settlement analysis and its utilization in SLS design specifications. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (Volumes 1, 2, 3 and 4), Alexandria, Egypt.10.3233/978-1-60750-031-5-1317 ↗
3. CPT-Based Nonlinear Stress–Strain Approach for Evaluating Foundation Settlement: Analytical and Numerical Analysis10.1007/s13369-019-04034-y ↗
4. A new computer program for pile capacity prediction using CPT data10.1007/s10706-005-2010-4 ↗
5. Reliability-based assessment of drilled displacement piles bearing capacity using CPT records10.1080/1064119X.2018.1448493 ↗
6. Robertson, P.K. (2010, January 9–11). Soil behaviour type from the CPT: An update. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Huntington Beach, CA, USA.
7. Mayne, P.W. (2007). Cone Penetration Testing, Transportation Research Board.
8. Lunne, T., Powell, J.J.M., and Robertson, P.K. (2002). Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice, CRC Press.10.1201/9781482295047 ↗
9. Use of CPTU to estimate equivalent SPT N 6010.1520/GTJ10286J ↗
10. Support vector machine applied to settlement of shallow foundations on cohesionless soils10.1016/j.compgeo.2007.06.014 ↗
11. Kaveh, A. (2024). Applications of Artificial Neural Networks and Machine Learning in Civil Engineering, Springer. Studies in Computational Intelligence.10.1007/978-3-031-66051-1 ↗
12. Machine learning for enhanced regional seismic risk assessments10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0003421 ↗
13. Evaluating deterioration of tunnels using computational machine learning algorithms10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002162 ↗
14. Faraz Athar, M., Khoshnevisan, S., and Sadik, L. (2023, January 26–29). CPT-Based Soil Classification through Machine Learning Techniques. Proceedings of the Geo-Congress 2023, Los Angeles, CA, USA.10.1061/9780784484708.026 ↗
15. A comparative analysis of gradient boosting algorithms10.1007/s10462-020-09896-5 ↗
16. Ester, M., Kriegel, H.P., and Xu, X. (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.
17. Deep learning in neural networks: An overview10.1016/j.neunet.2014.09.003 ↗
18. Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., and Friedman, J. (2009). The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction, Springer.10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7 ↗
19. Random forests10.1023/A:1010933404324 ↗
20. Ho, T.K. (1995, January 14–16). Random decision forests. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition, Montreal, QC, Canada.
21. A comprehensive survey on support vector machine classification: Applications, challenges and trends10.1016/j.neucom.2019.10.118 ↗
22. Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine10.1214/aos/1013203451 ↗
23. Dynamic ensemble-learning model for seismic risk assessment of masonry infilled steel structures incorporating soil-foundation-structure interaction10.1016/j.ress.2025.111839 ↗
24. Utilizing uncertainty information in remaining useful life estimation via Bayesian neural networks and Hamiltonian Monte Carlo10.1016/j.jmsy.2020.11.005 ↗
25. Assessing the uncertainty of deep learning soil spectral models using Monte Carlo dropout10.1016/j.geoderma.2022.116063 ↗
26. Nguyen, H.T.T., Cao, H.Q., Nguyen, K.V.T., and Pham, N.D.K. (2021, January 6–7). Evaluation of explainable artificial intelligence: Shap, lime, and cam. Proceedings of the FPT AI Conference, Ha Noi, Vietnam.10.1145/3543407.3543409 ↗
27. Lundberg, S.M., Erion, G.G., and Lee, S.I. (2018). Consistent individualized feature attribution for tree ensembles. arXiv.
28. Geological mapping using remote sensing data: A comparison of five machine learning algorithms, their response to variations in the spatial distribution of training data and the use of explicit spatial information10.1016/j.cageo.2013.10.008 ↗
29. Machine learning-based field geological mapping: A new exploration of geological survey data acquisition strategy10.1016/j.oregeorev.2024.105959 ↗
30. Evaluation of settlements in sand deposits following liquefaction during earthquakes10.3208/sandf1972.32.173 ↗
31. Janbu, N. (1967). Settlement Calculations Based on the Tangent Modulus Concept, Technical University of Norway.
32. Schmertmann, J.H. (1978). Guidelines for Cone Test, Performance, and Design, Federal Highway Administration. Report FHWA-TS-78209.
33. Stiffness of granular soils from field performance10.1680/geot.1991.41.1.149 ↗
34. Application of CPT data for estimating foundations settlement-case histories
35. Settlement predictions of shallow foundations for non-cohesive soils based on CPT records-polynomial model10.1016/j.compgeo.2020.103811 ↗
36. Eslami, A., and Gholami, M. (2005, January 12–16). Bearing capacity analysis of shallow foundations from CPT data. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Osaka, Japan.10.3233/978-1-61499-656-9-1463 ↗
37. Mayne, P.W., and Illingworth, F. (2010, January 9–11). Direct CPT method for footing response in sands using a database approach. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Huntington Beach, CA, USA.
38. Behavior of five large spread footings in sand10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1999)125:9(787) ↗
39. Analytical model for the ultimate bearing capacity of foundations from cone resistance