4.7 Article

An investigation on the Su-NSPT correlation using GMDH type neural networks and genetic algorithms

期刊

ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
卷 104, 期 1-2, 页码 144-155

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2008.09.006

关键词

Standard penetration test; Low plasticity clays; Correlation; Neural networks; GMDH; Genetic algorithm (GA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is perhaps one of the most effective tests for quick and inexpensive evaluation of the mechanical properties of soil layers. There have been numerous studies directed towards establishment of correction factors for SPT blow count (N-SPT) and correlations between N-SPT and the properties of cohesionless soils. However, the test method is commonly used in all types of soils. It is, therefore, necessary to investigate the applicability of the correction factors and develop the appropriate correlations for fine-grained soils. In order to investigate the relevancy of the overburden correction factor for N-SPT in fine-grained soils, as well as establishing a correlation between undrained shear strength of such soils with N-SPT, a data bank of SPT results on low plasticity fine-grained soils has been compiled. The effect of natural moisture content, plasticity index and effective overburden stress on the correlation of SPT-N-60 and undrained shear strength of the soils has been studied by the use of Group Method of Data Handling (GMDH) type neural network optimized with genetic algorithms (GA). Through this study a correlation has been obtained, expressing undrained shear strength of low-plasticity (PI<20) fine-grained soils in terms of SPT-N60, PI and effective overburden stress. It has also been shown that natural moisture content has negligible effect on the correlation. The performance of this correlation was compared with other available correlations for this type of soil, and it has been shown that appreciable improvement in prediction of the output has been achieved. (c) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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