Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:55:24.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Evaluation and use of clustering algorithms for standard penetration test data classification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2014

A. Burak Göktepe
Affiliation:
Kurum Holding, Rruga Bilal Golemi, Albania
Selim Altun
Affiliation:
Civil Engineering Department, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey
Alper Sezer*
Affiliation:
Civil Engineering Department, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey
*
Reprint requests to: Alper Sezer, Ege Universitesi Insaat Muhendisligi Bolumu 35100, Izmir, Turkey. E-mail: alper.sezer@ege.edu.tr

Abstract

The standard penetration test (SPT) is the most common test conducted in the field, and it is used to determine in situ properties of different soils. Although it is a matter of debate, these tests are also used for the determination of the consistency of fine-grained soils, whereby the test results can also be utilized to establish numerous empirical correlations to predict the strength of soils in the field. In this study, unsupervised clustering algorithms were employed to classify the SPT standard penetration resistance value (SPT-N) in the field. In this scope, shear strength and liquidity index parameters were used to classify the SPT-N values by taking the classification system of Terzaghi and Peck (1967) into consideration. The results showed that the input parameters were successful for classifying the SPT-N value to an acceptable degree of strength attribute. Therefore, in cases where the SPT tests are unreliable or could not be performed, laboratory tests on undisturbed specimens can give valuable information regarding the consistency and SPT-N value of the soil specimen under investigation. Data in this study is based on several tests that were conducted in a region; nevertheless, it is advised that the results of this study should be evaluated using global data.

Type
Regular Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ajayi, L.A., & Balogum, L.A. (1988). Penetration testing in tropical lateritic and residual soils—Nigerian experience. Penetration Testing, ISOPT-1, pp. 315328. Rotterdam: Balkema.Google Scholar
Amini, M., Afyuni, M., Fathianpour, C., Khademi, H., & Flühler, H. (2004). Continuous soil pollution mapping using fuzzy logic and spatial interpolation. Geoderma 124(3–4), 223233.Google Scholar
Arvas, M.A., & Bozkir, A.S. (2013). Profiling of sunk cost industries by soft clustering techniques: Turkey case. International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering 15(3), 290303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ASTM. (2007). ASTM Standard D2850-03a. Standard Test Method for Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test on Cohesive Soils. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.Google Scholar
ASTM. (2010). ASTM Standard D4318-10. Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.Google Scholar
ASTM. (2011). ASTM Standard D1586-11. Standard Test Method for Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.Google Scholar
Bezdek, J.C. (1981). Pattern Recognition With Fuzzy Objective Function Algorithms. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Bowles, J.E. (1996). Foundation Analysis and Design. Singapore: McGraw–Hill.Google Scholar
Cheng, L., Wang, Y., Wu, C., Wu, H., & Zhang, Y. (2013). Signal processing for a positioning system with binary sensory outputs. Sensors and Actuators A—Physical 201, 8692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das, B.M. (2001). Principles of Geotechnical Engineering. New York: Brooks–Cole.Google Scholar
Décourt, L. (1990). The standard penetration test: state of the art report. Norwegian Geotechnical Institute Publication 179, 112.Google Scholar
Göktepe, A.B., Altun, S., & Sezer, A. (2005). Soil clustering by fuzzy c-means algorithm. Advances in Engineering Software 36(10), 691698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Göktepe, A.B., Sezer, A., Sezer, G.İ., & Ramyar, K. (2008). Classification of time dependent unconfined compressive strength of fly ash treated clay. Construction and Building Materials 22(4), 675683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hara, A., Ohta, T., Niwa, M., Tanaka, S., & Banno, T. (1974). Shear modulus and shear strength of cohesive soils. Soils and Foundations 14(3), 112.Google Scholar
Haykin, S. (1996). Neural Networks. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice–Hall.Google Scholar
Hettiarachchi, H., & Brown, T. (2009). Use of SPT blow counts to estimate shear strength properties of soils: energy balance approach. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 135(6), 830834.Google Scholar
Kohonen, T. (1982). Self-organized formation of topologically correct feature maps. Biological Cybernetics 43(1), 5969.Google Scholar
Kohonen, T. (1998). The self-organising map. Neurocomputing 21(1–3), 16.Google Scholar
Kulhawy, F.H., & Mayne, P.W. (1990). Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design. Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Institute.Google Scholar
Lanhai, L. (1998). Comparison of conventional and fuzzy land classification and evaluation techniques in Oxfordshire, England. International Agricultural Engineering Journal 7(1), 112.Google Scholar
Lin, Q., Li, H., Luo, W., Lin, Z., & Li, B. (2013). Optimal soil-sampling design for rubber tree management based on fuzzy clustering. Forest Ecology and Management 308, 214222.Google Scholar
Mahmoud, M.A.A.N. (2013). Reliability of using standard penetration test (SPT) in predicting properties of silty clay with sand soil. International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering 3(3), 545556.Google Scholar
Miyamoto, S., Ichihashi, H., & Honda, H. (2008). Algorithms for Fuzzy Clustering. Berlin: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Nassaj, F., & Kalantari, B. (2011). SPT capability to estimate undrained shear strength of fine-grained soils of Tehran, Iran. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 16, 12291238.Google Scholar
Nixon, I.K. (1982). Standard penetration test: state of the art report. Proc. 2nd European Symp. Penetration Testing, ESOPT, Amsterdam, May 24–27.Google Scholar
Nourzadeh, M., Hashemy, S.M., Martin, J.A.R.Bahrami, H.A., & Moshashaei, S. (2013). Using fuzzy clustering algorithms to describe the distribution of trace elements in arable calcareous soils in northwest Iran. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 59(3), 435448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parcher, J.V., & Means, R.E. (1968). Soil Mechanics and Foundations. Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
Ross, T. (1995). Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications. New York: McGraw–Hill.Google Scholar
Sanglerat, G. (1972). The Penetrometer and Soil Exploration. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Şen, Z. (2004). Principles of Artificial Neural Networks. Istanbul: Turkish Water Foundation (in Turkish).Google Scholar
Sivrikaya, O., & Toğrol, E. (2002). Relations between SPT-N and qu. Proc. 5th Int. Congress on Advances in Civil Engineering, pp. 943952, Istanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
Sivrikaya, O., & Toğrol, E. (2006). Determination of undrained strength of fine-grained soils by means of SPT and its application in Turkey. Engineering Geology 86(1), 5269.Google Scholar
Sivrikaya, O., & Toğrol, E. (2009). A study on corrections of SPT results in fine-grained soils. ITU Dergisi/d 2(6), 5967.Google Scholar
Sowers, G.F. (1979). Introductory Soil Mechanics and Foundations: Geotechnical Engineering. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Stroud, M.A. (1974). The standard penetration test in insensitive clays and soft rock. Proc. 1st European Symp. Penetration Testing, pp. 367–375, Stockholm, June 5–7.Google Scholar
Terzaghi, K., & Peck, R.B. (1967). Soil Engineering in Engineering Practice. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Tomlinson, M.J. (1986). Foundation Design and Construction. London: Pitman.Google Scholar
Tschebotarioff, G.P. (1973). Foundations, Retaining, and Earth Structures. New York: McGraw–Hill.Google Scholar
Wu, K.L., & Yang, M.S. (2002). Alternative c-means clustering algorithms. Pattern Recognition 35(10), 22672278.Google Scholar