Cited by 41Geotechnical and construction materials studiesGeotechnical Engineering and Soil StabilizationGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Use of Machine Learning to Predict California Bearing Ratio of Soils

Open access
Kassa, Semachew Molla, Wubineh, Betelhem Zewdu·2023·Advances in Civil Engineering

Abstract

CBR is a crucial metric used to assess the durability of base course materials and subgrade soils in various types of pavements. In this research, the machine learning (ML) approach has been implemented using random forest (RF), decision tree (DT), linear regression (LR), and artificial neural network (ANN) models to estimate CBR (California bearing ratio) values of the soil based on seven predictors such as maximum dry density, soil classification, optimum moisture content, liquid limit, plastic limit, plastic index, and swell, which can be easily determined from the laboratory. AASHTO M 145 was used to categorize 252 soil samples that formed the basis of an experimental data set. In this model study, the data were split into 20% test data and 80% training data. Standard statistical measures including coefficient of determination, correlations, and errors were used to assess the effectiveness of the models such as MSE (mean squared error), MAE (mean absolute error), and RMSE (root mean square error). From these evaluation metrics, the random forest algorithm gets a smaller error and larger relative error (R2) value to compare with other algorithms. Therefore, it can be concluded that a random forest algorithm based on the analysis findings can accurately forecast the soil’s CBR.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1155/2023/8198648

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. S. M. Lakshmi, 2016, Evaluation of soaked and unsoaked CBR values of soil based on the compaction characteristics, Malaysian Journal of Civil Engineering, 28, 10.11113/mjce.v28.15712 · DOI
  2. 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.12.054 · DOI
  3. M. Vaquero Barnadas, 2016, Machine Learning Applied to Crime Prediction
  4. A. K. Sabat, 2015, Prediction of California bearing ratio of a stabilized expansive soil using artificial neural network and support vector machine, Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 20, 981
  5. D. Q. Vu, 2021, Estimation of California bearing ratio of soils using random forest based machine learning, Journal of Science and Transport Technology, 1, 48
  6. 10.3390/ma14216516 · DOI
  7. 10.1016/j.enggeo.2021.106239 · DOI
  8. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133587 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1007/s13369-020-04441-6 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2010.01.003 · DOI
  11. 10.1051/matecconf/201928003012 · DOI
  12. J. Connelly, 2008, Proctor Compaction Testing
  13. A T89, 2014, Determining the plastic limit and plasticity index of soils
  14. Astm, 3282/AASHTO M 145
  15. V. R. Schaefer, 2008, Design guide for improved quality of roadway subgrades and subbases, Iowa Highway Research Board (IHRB Project TR-525), 7, 8
  16. H. F. Southgate, 1988, Comparison of Rigid Pavement Thickness Design Systems
  17. F. Osisanwo, 2017, Supervised machine learning algorithms: classification and comparison, International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology, 48, 128, 10.14445/22312803/IJCTT-V48P126 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1016/b978-0-444-88650-7.50030-5 · DOI
  19. 10.1023/a:1010933404324 · DOI · Paper page
  20. X. Yan, 2009, Linear Regression Analysis: Theory and Computing, 10.1142/6986 · DOI
  21. 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 41

Metadata

Authors
Kassa, S. M., & Wubineh, B. Z.
Affiliations
  • Wachemo University (ET)
  • Wrocław University of Science and Technology (PL)
Corresponding author
Kassa, Semachew Molla
Venue
Advances in Civil Engineering
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2023-01-25
Volume
2023
Pages
1-11
ISSN
  • 1687-8086 (ISSN-L)
  • 1687-8094
OpenAlex
W4318033589
Cited by
41
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 5
FWCI
4.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Advances in Civil Engineering (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Geotechnical and construction materials studies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Keywords
California bearing ratio, soil property prediction, random forest, artificial neural networks, decision tree, linear regression, subgrade soil, pavement base materials, pavement design, liquid limit, plastic limit, plasticity index, optimum moisture content, maximum dry density

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review