Abstract
Abstract
In geotechnical engineering, transformation models are often used as first estimates of parameters and to verify the order of magnitude of field and laboratory tests, which reliability might be constrained by many uncertainties. The undrained shear strength has been for long of particular interest for such models. The traditional transformation models for undrained shear strength are often rather simple. Still, the geotechnical community does not seem to have agreed upon which models to use. In particular, the question of including index properties to the models seems to be open. In the paper, the performance of traditional transformation models is compared to that of machine learning (ML)-based models. In addition, the influence of data coherence is studied by using two datasets of different quality. The ML-based transformation models proved to perform better than traditional ones for both datasets. Clearly, most dominant variables in the transformation model are the preconsolidation pressure and the effective vertical stress. Although including additional variable often may well improve the performance of the training set, the prediction of the testing sets generally tends to worsen, indicating overtraining. The risks for overtraining increase with incoherent data.
Funder
Tampere University including Tampere University Hospital, Tampere University of Applied Sciences
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Earth and Planetary Sciences,General Environmental Science
Reference33 articles.
1. Adamowski J, Chan HF (2011) A wavelet neural network conjunction model for groundwater level forecasting. J Hydrol 407(1–4):28–40
2. Adamowski J, Karapataki C (2010) Comparison of multivariate regression and artificial neural networks for peak urban water-demand forecasting: evaluation of different ANN learning algorithms. J Hydrol Eng 15(10):729–743
3. Bjerrum L (1972) Embankments on soft ground. Proc., ASCE Specialty Conf. on Performance of Earth and Earth-Support Structures, Purdue University, ASCE, Reston, VA, II, 1–54
4. Chandler RJ (1988) The in-situ measurement of the undrained shear strength of clays using the field vane. In Vane shear strength testing in soils: field and laboratory studies. ASTM STP 1014. ASTM, Philadelphia, Pa. pp. 13–44
5. Ching J, Phoon KK (2012) Modeling parameters of structured clays as a multivariate normal distribution. Can Geotech J 49(5):522–545. https://doi.org/10.1139/T2012-015
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献