Estimation of Proper Strain Rate in the CRSC Test Using a Artificial Neural Networks
Trang 1Estimation of Proper Strain Rate in the CRSC Test
Using a Artificial Neural Networks
Jum Sik Chae, Hyung Kyu Park, and Song Lee
University of Seoul Seoul, Korea
ABSTRACT
The Constant rate of strain consolidation (CRSC) test, in which the
continuous loading is applied the sample has been developed to
overcome some of the problems associated with the incremental
loading consolidation (ILC) test Therefore, it is able to reduce the test
time and provide a well defined the curve of effective stress versus
strain due to continuous Stress-strain points Also, the CRSC test has
been accepted widely as a standard method in foreign countries because
of its many advantages However, in Korea the CRSC test has not been
used in engineering practice and experimentally verified Because there
is not a precise criterion of strain rate despite consolidation
characteristics are influenced on strain rate Consequently, it is difficult
to apply in engineering practice
In this study, artificial neural networks are applied to the estimation of
the proper strain rate of the CRSC test
This study shows the possibility of utilizing the artificial neural
networks model for estimation of the strain rate in the CRSC test
KEY WORDS: Constant rate of strain consolidation (CRSC);
incremental loading consolidation (ILC); preconsolidation
pressure; strain rate; artificial neural networks (ANN)
INTRODUCTION
Recently, a number of construction projects for obtaining industrial
areas have been increased in many coastal areas or soft ground though
these areas have a weak condition The structure constructed on soft
ground are seriously damaged due to soft ground with a high water
content, low stress, and large strain undergoing large settlement
Accordingly, the properties of consolidation must be precisely
perceived to solve these problems
The ILC test has been used widely until now as most common method
for predicting the consolidation properties in softy clay However, the
period of testing is required the time more than a week to finish the ILT
test Also, It is difficult to determine the preconsolidation pressure due
to the curve of stress and strain is not appeared is to definitely
Several types of continuous consolidation test have been introduced in
recent years to overcome some of the problems associated with the ILT test Among the continuous tests, the CRSC test has been accepted widely as a standard method in foreign countries because of its many advantages
The CRSC test was first described by Hamilton and Crawford(1959) as
a rapid means of determining the preconsolidation pressure In the CRSC test, the imposed boundary conditions are similar to those in the ILC test, but with one-way drainage The specimen is loaded at a constant rate of strain instead of incrementally Therefore, new interpretation methods were required for data obtained by the CRSC test The analysis method proposed by Wissa et al (1971) has been widely used in most countries Their method is based on the consolidation theory in which strain is assumed small and the coefficient of consolidation is assumed constant in the vertical direction
at a time They proposed some options for the analysis method by assuming or not steadiness of the solution
To perform the CRSC test, appropriate strain rate for the material tested must be pre-selected Because consolidation properties that calculated using the CRSC test are influenced on strain rate The methods that generally recommended to select the strain rate in the CRSC test are ASTM D 4186-82, Armour & Drnevich(1986) etc al
However, the ASTM recommendation is not reasonable for soils with high liquid limit And Armour & Drnevich’s method is difficult to apply because strain rate would depend on selection of the three assumed values
The purpose of this study is to examine the applicability of the ANN model for the estimation of the proper strain rate
This study was performed with strain rate that determined by various estimate methods Also, These results are compared to data calculated using the CRSC test as well as the ILC test results on the same soil
METHOD OF ANALYSIS
In this study, the nonlinear theory of Wissa et al (1971) was used the interpret the results of CRSC tests Wissa et al formulated a nonlinear theory based on assuming a constant coefficient of consolidation leading to a generalized, nonlinear equation for strain distribution through the specimen By assuming a constant ratio between incremental ε and increments of log σv, nonlinear theory equations were developed to compute consolidation properties for steady state an
Proceedings of The Twelfth (2002) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference
Kitakyushu, Japan, May 26–31, 2002
Copyright © 2002 by The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers
ISBN 1-880653-58-3 (Set); ISSN 1098-6189 (Set)
Trang 2transient conditions If no transient conditions exist, average effective
stress and coefficient of consolidation are calculated as follows
3 / 1 2 2
ave = σ − σ ∆ u + σ ∆ u
σ (1)
−
∆
−
=
v b v v V
u t
H
C
σ
σ σ
1 log
2
log
1
2 2
(2)
where
H = current specimen height
2
1, v
v σ
σ = total stresses at two times of difference ∆ t
b
u = excess pore pressure measured at the base of the specimen
However, it is found that transient conditions that typically occur at the
start of loading and throughout higher strain rate tests in which large
excess pore pressures are generated Also, assumption of a constant
coefficient of consolidation is reasonable in the normally consolidated
stress range, it is almost not valid in the overconsolidated stress range
SELECTION OF STRAIN RATE
The CRSC tests are generally performed at much higher strain rates
than those typically encountered in the field These strain rates
determine the pore pressures that will be generated in the testing and
thus the applicability of the theory If a specimen is strained at too slow
a rate, little or no pore pressure will be generated and, the effect on the
determination of Coefficient of consolidation will be pronounced On
the other hand, if pore pressures become excessive, assumptions made
in deriving the theory will again be rendered invalid because the pore
pressure distribution will not be parabolic
In this study, the strain rates are determined from the ASTM
recommendation and Armour & Drnevich’s method The ASTM
recommendation is relies on empirical correlation between the liquid
limit of the soil and assumed parameters Also, Armour and
Drnevich(1986) proposed an empirical equation for calculating the
strain rate, as below
−
−
=
max
1 log )
3
8
exp(
v
b o
w
o
H
k P LI
r
σ
γ (3)
in which LI is the liquidity index with soil saturated, P a is the
atmospheric pressure, k is the permeability at start of test, and o H ois
the initial thickness of specimen In this study, the permeability of the
specimen is estimated using empirical equations And the maximum
pore pressure ratio is used 30% that set by ASTM D4186
DESIGN ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK MODEL
Neural networks are computer models that mimic the knowledge
acquisition and organization skills of the human brain Since, the
characteristics of a neural network come from the activation function
and connection weights, it is possible to realize complex mapping
through its characteristics of distributed representations ANN models are efficient computing techniques that are widely used to solve complex problems in many fields In this study, a back-propagation neural network model for estimating of proper strain rate form soil parameter is proposed The back-propagation neural network program adopted in the present study essentially followed the formulations of Eberhart(1990) as shown in Fig.1 The implementation of the back-propagation neural network model for predicting proper strain rate involved three phases
First, data collection phase involved gathering the data for use in training and testing the neural network A large training data reduces the risk of under-sampling the nonlinear function, but increases the training time To improve training, preprocessing of the data to values between 0 and 1 was carried out before presenting the patterns to the neural network The following normalization procedure (Master, 1993) was used in this study
min max
min
V V
V V A
−
−
= (4)
Training was performed iteratively until the average of sum squared error over all the training patterns was minimized Experiment were carried out using a number of combinations of input parameters to determine the neural network model that gave the smallest average of the sum square error There is currently no rule for determining the optimal number of neurons in the hidden layer other than by experiment In this study, the structure of neural network with one input layer – two hidden layer – one output layer is used ANN model was designed to build and operate a database for the physical properties of the soil and results of consolidation test, to learn the database, and to predict the properties of consolidation
Fig 1 Flow chart for programming of the artificial neural network
VERIFICATIONS OF MANN MODEL
In order to verify the applicability of MANN model, a total of 46 data
of the consolidation test results are used 43 learning data are used for training the ANN model, and the others are used for the comparison
Data Collection
Data Normalization
Parametric Studies
Training and Testing ANN
Verify the reliance of the ANN
Trang 3between the predicted value and the measured value
The properties of the soil used for training of the MANN models are
shown in Table 1
Table 1 Properties of the soil used for learning of the MANN models
Class Range of values Water content (%) 33.9 ~ 142.8
Liquid limit (%) 38.0 ~ 120.2
Plasticity index 16.6 ~ 74.2
Specific gravity 2.42 ~ 2.70
Initial void ratio 0.924 ~ 3.499
Dry unit eight (g/cm3) 0.542 ~ 1.367
60% particle size subject to a grain size
distribution curve (mm) 0.0046 ~ 0.075
Passing the # 200 (%) 60.0 ~ 99.8
Clay fraction < 2µ 0 ~ 45.0
Present effective vertical pressure (kg / cm2) 0.04 ~3.86
Strain rates (%/min) 0.01 ~ 0.5
The number of neuron for each hidden layer is determined as 7 from
the results of consolidation test and the learning ratio is determined as
0.1 to optimize network learning In this analysis, system error was
limited to 2.0E-5 after about 30,000 cycles of training as shown in Fig
2 With the learning results, the most important factors on the
preconsolidation pressure ratio are LI and strain rate as shown in Fig 3
Iteration Number (N)
1E-005
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
Fig 2 Variation of the learning error with Iteration Number
Factor
0 4 8 12 16
Wn LL PI LI Gs e o r d D60 #200 2 µ Po r
Fig 3 Relative importance of the input parameter on the pre-consolidation pressure ratio
In order to verify the reliance of the ANN model, the measure value, which have not been included in database, are also inferred to compare with the predicted value Properties of the soil used for verification of the ANN models are summarized in Table 2
Table 2 Properties of the soil used for verification of the MANN models
o
d
γ (g/cm3 ) 0.668 0.891 1.249 60
Passing the # 200 (%) 89.0 82.9 99.1 Clay fraction < 2µ (%) 26.0 32.0 16.0 0
p (kg / cm2) 0.28 1.46 0.19 Strain rates (%/min) 0.02 0.04 0.05 Fig 4 shows the results of the preconsolidation pressure ratio(P C(CRS) P C(ILC)) and compression index ratio(C C(CRS) C C(ILC)) The abscissa presents the measured values from the consolidation tests, the ordinate shows the predict values using the ANN model The results show the high correlation between the measured value and predicted value This result implies that the ANN model can predict the consolidation properties with high degree of confidence
Trang 40 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Measured Value
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2
Preconsolidation Stress Ratio Compression Index Ratio
Fig 4 Comparison between the predicted and measured values
TEST PROGRAM
To investigate the applicability of MANN model, consolidation tests
were performed on undisturbed samples obtained in-situ by using both
ILC test equipment and CRSC test equipment The CRSC test was
performed with strain rates that determined by various estimate
methods The soil samples used in this study were obtained from
marine clayey soil deposit at the offshore area of Ha-dong in Korea
The physical properties of this clay are presented in Table 3
Table 3 Properties of the soil and strain rate used for the test
Class D Range of value
o
d
γ (g/cm3 ) 0.970 0.891 ~ 1.067
60
D (mm) 0.011 0.011 ~ 0.023
Passing the # 200 (%) 99.1 97.8 ~ 99.8
Clay fraction < 2µ (%) 29.7 10.5 ~ 38.0
0
p (kg / cm2) 1.24 0.64 ~ 1.42
ASTM 0.004 0.004 ~ 0.010
Armour & Drnevich 0.086 0.008 ~ 0.086
Strain rates
(%/min)
MANN model 0.008 0.008 ~ 0.046
All tests were performed on specimens, 2 cm high with a diameter 6 cm, taken with 76mm diameter piston sampler ILC test were loaded in steps using a load increment ratio of 1.0 which was maintained for 24 hours The CRSC tests were carried out after confirming full saturation using B value, and were performed with the strain rate selected as illustrated in Table 3
TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
In Fig 5 a comparison is made between the measured values from the test and the predicted values using ANN model for the sample D There appeared to be an almost nonlinear relationship between preconsolidation pressure ratio and strain rate, where the results show a similar tendency With the result, the preconsolidation pressure ratio increases as the increase of strain rate and their trends are similar to those of the previous research In the case of sample D, the predicted values of ANN model are slightly different from the field data In particular, these differences are increase at the high strain rate range The reason is that ANN model has not a lot of database on the high strain rate To eliminate this effect should be collected database
Strain Rate (%/min)
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Predicted Value Measured Value
PR = 34.36 * r 2 + 1.87 * r + 1.00
R 2 = 0.98
Fig 5 Comparison between the predicted and measured values
for preconsolidation pressure ratio with strain rate
Fig 6 shows the preconsolidation pressure ratio obtained from the consolidation test performed with various strain rates These strain rates are determined by various estimate methods As can be recognized form Fig 6, the ranges of strain rates obtained from ANN model were between those from ASTM recommendation and those from Armour & Drnevich’s method Also, the preconsolidation pressures measured from the CRSC test with strain rate determined by ANN Model were close to those from the ILC test This implies that the predicted strain rates of ANN model are reasonable
According to these results, ANN model can predict the proper strain rate of the CRSC test with high reliability
Trang 50.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Strain Rate(%/min)
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
ASTM Armour ANN Model
Fig 6 Preconsolidation pressure ratio with strain rate that
determined by various estimation methods
CONCLUSIONS
A rational approach has been developed to estimate the strain rate for
use in the CRSC test The following conclusions have been derived
from this research
The main factors on the preconsolidation pressure ratio are liquid index
and strain rate from various parametric studies
The ranges of strain rates obtained from ANN model were between
those from ASTM recommendation and those from Armour &
Drnevich’s method
In general, the preconsolidation pressures ratio measured from the experiment was closed to that predicted from the ANN Model This implies that the predicted strain rates of ANN model are more reasonable than those of other methods
These limited results show the possibility of utilizing the Artificial neural network model for prediction of the proper strain rate of the CRSC test
REFERENCES
Armour, DW, and Drnevich, VP (1986) "Improved Techniques for the
Constant Rate of Strain Consolidation Test," Consolidation of soils :
Testing and Evaluation ASTM STP 892, Philadelphia, pp 170-183
Bailey, D, and Thompson, D (1990) "How to develop neural network
application," AI Expert, 5(6), pp 38-47
Crawford, CB (1988) "Importance of Rate of Strain in the Consolidation
Test," Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol 11, No 1, pp 60-62
Ellis, GW (1992) "Neural network modeling of the mechanical behavior
of sand," Proc 9 th Conf ASCE, New York, pp 421-424
Garson, GD (1991) "Interpreting neural-network connection weights," AI
Expert, 6(7), pp 47-51
Gorman, CT, Hopkins, TC, Deen, RC, and Drnevich, VP (1978)
"Constant Rate of Strain and Comtrolled Gradient Consolidation
Testing," Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol 1, No 1, pp 3-15
Hamilton, JJ, and Crawford, CB (1959) "Improved Determination of
Preconsolidation Pressure of a Sensitive Clay," ASTM STP 254,
Philadelphia, pp 254-271
Jingsheng, SJ, Ortigao, AR, and Junli, B (1998) "Modular Neural
Networks for Predicting Settlement during Tunneling," J Geotech
ASCE, Vol 124, No 5, pp 389-395
Smith, RE, and Wahls, HE (1969) "Consolidation Under Constant Rates
of Strain," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
ASCE, Vol 95, No SM2, pp 519-539
Wissa, AE, Christian, JT, Davis, EH, and Heilberg, S (1971)
"Consolidation at Constant Rate of Strain," Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol 97, No SM10, pp
1393-1413