Advertisement

Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

, Volume 44, Issue 5, pp 4325–4337 | Cite as

A Ranking Distance Analysis for Performance Assessment of UCS Versus SPT-N Correlations

  • Hamza GüllüEmail author
  • Hanifi Canakci
  • Ali Alhashemy
Research Article - Civil Engineering
  • 26 Downloads

Abstract

It is important to know the reliability of the correlations unconfined compressive strength (UCS) versus blow count of standard penetration test (SPT-N) available in the literature for foundation design of constructions. However, selection of best performed equation verified with local data always becomes a primary issue for the site of interest foundation constructed. Thus, this paper investigates the performances of some UCS versus SPT-N correlations for the applicability to fine-grained soils in an interested area. A novel ranking measure called ranking distance (RD) that accounts equal weighting to the accuracy and precision of estimation has been used for the performance assessment of the equations, in comparison with alternative measures. The RD index is a comprehensive ranking measure for performing the dependability of an empirical equation with regard to the accuracy and precision, using the ratios of estimated and measured UCS. Dependent upon the analysis results in the study, the performances of equations have been ranked high, moderate, low and unacceptable (the worst equations). The equations have also been categorized whether they influence more weighting to precise or accuracy, or equal accuracy and precise during the estimations of UCS. From the results, it is concluded that the best performed estimation based on the RD is proposed by the equation of low plastic clay (Sivrikaya and Togrol, in: 5th international congress on advances in civil engineering, Istanbul, Turkey, pp 943–952, 2002; Eng Geol 86:52–69, 2006). Consequently, the study has successfully demonstrated the use of RD for assessing the best equation by confirming its results with the alternative methodologies compared. This could be beneficial for the experimenters in practice to attempt the validations of different empirical equations with different parameter through a good ranking procedure.

Keywords

Ranking distance Correlation performance Unconfined compressive strength SPT-N 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The Scientific Research Project Unit of University of Gaziantep offers funding for this research. The authors would like to present their gratitude to Andrea Engineering Testing Laboratory for supplying data used in this work. The suggestions of reviewers for improvement of manuscript are gratefully acknowledged by the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Sivrikaya, O.; Togrol, E.: Relations between SPT-N and \(\text{q}_{u}\). In: 5th International Congress on Advances in Civil Engineering, pp. 943–952, Istanbul, Turkey (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sivrikaya, O.; Togrol, E.: Determination of undrained strength of fine-grained soils by means of SPT and its application in Turkey. Eng. Geol. 86, 52–69 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Uzielli, M.; Lacasse, S.; Nadim, F.; Phoon, K.K.: Soil variability analysis for geotechnical practice. In: Tan, T.S., Phoon, K.K., Hight, D.W., Leroueil, S. (eds.) Characterization and Engineering Properties of Natural Soils, pp. 1653–1752. Taylor and Francis, London (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Onyejekwe, S.; Kang, X.; Ge, L.: Assessment of empirical equations for the compression index of fine-grained soils in Missouri. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 74, 705–716 (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Güllü, H.; Canakci, H.; Alhashemy, A.: Use of ranking measure for performance assessment of correlations for the compression index. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 22(5), 578–595 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Terzaghi, K.; Peck, R.B.: Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 2nd edn, p. 729. Wiley, New York (1967)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sanglerat, G.: The Penetrometer and Soil Exploration; Interpretation of Penetration Diagrams-Theory and Practice. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1972)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sowers, G.F.: Introductory Soil Mechanics and Foundations, 4th edn, p. 621. Macmillan, New York (1979)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nixon, I.K.: Standard penetration test: state of the art report. In: Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, pp. 3–24, Amsterdam (1982)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kulhawy, F.H.; Mayne, P.W.: Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design. Electric Power Institute, Palo Alto (1990)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sivrikaya, O.: Comparison of artificial neural networks models with correlative works on undrained shear strength. Eurasian Soil Sci. 42(13), 1487–1496 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Parcher, J.V.; Means, R.E.: Soil Mechanics and Foundations. Charles E. Merrill, Columbus (1968)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tschebotarioff, G.P.: Foundations, Retaining, and Earth Structures, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (1973)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ASTM D2166/D2166M-16: Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil. West Conshohocken, PA, USAGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    ASTM D1586-11: Standard Test Method for Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils. West Conshohocken, PA, USAGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bowles, J.E.: Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Coduto, D.P.: Foundation Design: Principles and Design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Giasi, C.I.; Cherubini, C.; Paccapelo, F.: Evaluation of compression index of remolded clays by means of Atterberg limits. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 62(4), 333–340 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Broms, B.B.: Penetration tests. In: Proceedings of 4th International Geotechnical Seminar on Field Instrumentation and In-Situ Measurements, 25–27 November, pp. 21–49, Singapore (1986)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Décourt, L: The Standard Penetration Test: State-of-the-Art-Report. Norwegian Geotechnical Institute Publication No. 179, Part II, pp. 1–12, Oslo, Norway (1990)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Orr, T.L.L.; Cherubini, C.: Use of the ranking distance as an index for assessing the accuracy and precision of equations for the bearing capacity of piles and at-rest earth pressure coefficient. Can. Geotech. J. 40, 1200–1207 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Abu-Farsakh, M.Y.; Titi, H.H.: Assessment of direct cone penetration test methods for predicting the ultimate capacity of friction driven piles. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE 130(9), 935–944 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Güllü, H.: On the prediction of shear wave velocity at local site of strong ground motion stations: an application using artificial intelligence. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 11(4), 969–997 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Güllü, H.: Function finding via genetic expression programming for strength and elastic properties of clay treated with bottom ash. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 35, 143–157 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cherubini, C.; Greco, V.R.: A comparison between measured and calculated values in geotechnics: an application to settlements. In: Frantziskonis, G.N. (ed.) Probabilities and Materials: Proceedings of the Workshop Probamat 21st Century, Perm, Russia, pp. 481–498. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1997)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Briaud, J.L.; Tucker, L.M.: Measured and predicted axial load response of 98 piles. J. Geotech. Eng. ASCE 114(9), 984–1001 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Long, J.H.; Wysockey, M.H.: Accuracy of methods for predicting axial capacity of deep foundations. In: Proceedings of the OTRC’99 Conference: Analysis, Design, Construction, and Testing of Deep Foundation, GSP No. 88, pp. 190–195. ASCE, Reston, VA (1999)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cherubini, C.; Orr, T.L.L.: A rational procedure for comparing measured and calculated values in geotechnics. In: Nakase, A., Tsuchida, T., Balkema, A.A.: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Coastal Geotechnical Engineering in Practice, Yokohama, vol. 1, pp. 261–265. Rotterdam, The Netherlands (2000)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sissakian, V.K.: Geological Map of Iraq, 3rd edn. State Company of Geological Survey and Mining, Baghdad (2000)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Alhashemy, A.: Geotechnical Properties of Soil around Tigris River in Baghdad. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Gaziantep, Gaziantep (2015)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    ANDREA: Andrea Engineering Tests Laboratory. Baghdad, Iraq (2017). http://andrealab.com/. Accessed 24 Feb 2017
  32. 32.
    Skempton, A.W.: Standard penetration test procedures and the effects in sands of overburden pressure, relative density, particle size, aging and overconsolidation. Geotechnique 36(3), 425–447 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Saran, S.: Analysis and Design of Substructures. Balkema, Rotterdam (1996)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Farrar, J.A.; Nickell, J.; Alien, M.G.; Goble, G.; Berger, J.: Energy loss in long rod penetration testing-Terminus Dam liquefaction investigation. In: Proceedings of the ASCE Specialty Conference on Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics III, vol. 75, Seattle, pp. 554–567 (1998)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    McGregor, J.; Duncan, J.M.: Performance and Use of the Standard Penetration Test in Geotechnical Engineering Practice. Report of CGPR, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia (1998)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lacasse, S.; Nadim, F.: Uncertainties in characterizing soil properties. In: Shackleford, C.D., Nelson, P.P., Roth, M.J.S. (eds.) Uncertainty in the geological environment: from theory to practice, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 58, pp. 49–75. ASCE, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Whitman, R.V.: Organizing and evaluating uncertainty in geotechnical engineering. In: Shackleford, C.D., Nelson, P.P., Roth, M.J.S. (eds.) Uncertainty in the geological environment: from theory to practice, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 58, pp. 1–28. ASCE, New York (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of GaziantepGaziantepTurkey

Personalised recommendations