4.5 Article

Neural Network Modeling of Resilient Modulus Using Routine Subgrade Soil Properties

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 1-12

出版社

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2010)10:1(1)

关键词

Resilient modulus; Neural networks; Laboratory tests; Pavement design; Subgrades

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Artificial neural network (ANN) models are developed in this study to correlate resilient modulus with routine properties of subgrade soils and state of stress for pavement design application. A database is developed containing grain size distribution, Atterberg limits, standard Proctor, unconfined compression, and resilient modulus results for 97 soils from 16 different counties in Oklahoma. Of these, 63 soils (development data set) are used in training, and the remaining 34 soils (evaluation data set) from two different counties are used in the evaluation of the developed models. A commercial software, STATISTICA 7.1, is used to develop four different feedforward-type ANN models: linear network, general regression neural network, radial basis function network, and multilayer perceptrons network (MLPN). In each of these models, the input layer consists of seven nodes, one node for each of the independent variables, namely moisture content (w), dry density (gamma(d)), plasticity index (PI), percent passing sieve No. 200 (P-200), unconfined compressive strength (U-c), deviatoric stress (sigma(d)), and bulk stress (theta). The output layer consists of only one node-resilient modulus (M-R). After the architecture is set, the development data set is fed into the model for training. The strengths and weaknesses of the developed models are examined by comparing the predicted M-R values with the experimental values with respect to the R-2 values. Overall, the MLPN model with two hidden layers was found to be the best model for the present development and evaluation data sets. This model as well as the other models could be refined using an enriched database.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据