Predicting CBR Value of Stabilized Pond Ash with Lime and Lime Sludge Using ANN and MR Models

Original Paper
  • 16 Downloads

Abstract

In the present study, a multilayer perception-artificial neural network and multiple regression model is developed for predicting the California bearing ratio (CBR) value of stabilized pond ash. Pond ash collected from Panipat thermal plant is stabilized with lime (2, 4, 6 and 8%) alone and in combination with lime sludge (5, 10 and 15%). Total 51 datasets of experimentally observed CBR value were used in the development of models. Fitness of the model was observed through three statistical parameters i.e. coefficient of correlation (CC), root mean square error (RMSE) and mean absolute error. Both the models predict CBR value with high degree of accuracy having CC more than 0.96. From the sensitivity analysis, it is observed that curing period is the most significant parameter affecting the CBR value of stabilized pond ash.

Keywords

Multilayer perception-artificial neural network Multiple regression California bearing ratio Pond ash Lime Lime sludge 

References

  1. 1.
    Bera AK, Ghosh A, Ghosh A (2007) Compaction characteristics of pond ash. J Mater Civ Eng 19(4):349–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Suthar M, Aggarwal P (2017) Analysis of heavy metals in pond ash samples from Haryana. In Proceedings of 29th research world international conference, Las Vegas, USA, 16–17 March 2017, ISBN: 978-93-86291-88-2Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ASTM C618-08a (2008) Specification for fly ash and raw or calcined natural pozzolana for use as material admixture in portland cement concreteGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Parsa J, Munson-McGee SH, Steiner R (1996) Stabilization/solidification of hazardous wastes using fly ash. J Environ Eng 122(10):935–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ghosh A, Subbarao C (2006) Tensile strength bearing ratio and slake durability of class F fly ash stabilized with lime and gypsum. J Mater Civ Eng 18(1):18–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ghosh A (1996) Environmental and engineering characteristics of stabilized low lime fly ash. PhD dissertation, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ghosh A, Subbarao C (2007) Strength characteristics of class F fly ash modified with lime and gypsum. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 1337:757–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pandian NS (2004) Fly ash characterization with reference to geotechnical applications. J Indian Inst Sci 184:189–216Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Suthar M, Aggarwal P (2015) Class-F pond ash a potential highway construction material—a review. Ind Highways IRC 43(8):23–32Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sahu V, Gayathri V (2014) The use of fly ash and lime sludge as partial replacement of cement in mortar. Int J Eng Technol Innov 4(1):30–37Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Battaglia A, Calace N, Nardi E, Petronio BM, Pietroletti M (2007) Reduction of Pb and Zn bioavailable forms in metal polluted soils due to paper mill sludge addition. Effects on Pb and Zn transferability to barley. Biores Technol 98:2993–2999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Calacea N, Campisib T, Iacondinib A, Leonia M, Petronioa BM, Pietroletti M (2005) Metal-contaminated soil remediation by means of paper mill sludges addition: chemical and ecotoxicological evaluation. Environ Poll 136:485–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mahmood T, Elliot A (2006) A review of secondary sludge reduction technology for the pulp and paper industry. Water Res 40(11):2093–2112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Medhi UJ, Talukdar AK, Deka S (2005) Physicochemical characteristics of lime sludge waste of paper mill and its impact on growth and production of rice. J Ind Pollut Contr 21(1):51–58Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Singh M, Garg M (2008) Utilization of waste lime sludge as building materials. J Sci Ind Res 67:161–166Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang B, Yu X (2012) Experimental evaluation of lime sludge performance in subgrade stabilization. In GeoCongress ASCE, pp. 3775–3785.  https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784412121.387
  17. 17.
    Talukdar DK (2015) A study of paper mill lime sludge for stabilization of village road sub-base. Int J Emerg Technol Adv Eng 5(2):389–393Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ghosh A (2010) Compaction characteristics and bearing ratio of pond ash stabilized with lime and phosphogypsum. J Mater Civ Eng 22(4):343–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Day WR (2001) Soil testing manual procedures, classification data, and sampling practices. McGraw Hill, New York, p 619Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kin MW (2006) California bearing ratio correlation with soil index properties master of engineering (civil-geotechnics). Thesis, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University Teknology MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Banimahd M, Yasrobi SS, Woodward PK (2005) Artificial neural network for stress-strain behavior of sandy soils: knowledge based verification. Comput Geotech 32:377–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Caglar N, Arman H (2007) The applicability of neural networks in the determination of soil profiles. Bull Eng Geol Environ 66(3):295–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shahin MA, Jaksa MB, Maier HR (2008) State of the art of artificial neural networks in geotechnical engineering. EJGE Special Volume Bouquet 08. http://www.ejge.com/Bouquet08/Shahin/Shahin_ppr.pdf
  24. 24.
    Najjar YM, Ali HE (1999) Simulating the stress-strain behavior of Nevada sand byANN. In: Proceedings of the 5th U.S. national congress on computational mechanics (USACM), Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Penumadu D, Zhao R (1999) Triaxial compression behavior of sand and gravel using and artificial neural networks (ANN). Comput Geotech 24(3):207–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ozer M, Isik NS, Orhan M (2008) Statistical and neural network assessment of the compression index of clay-bearing soils. Bull Eng Geol Environ 67:537–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Park HI, Kim YT (2010) Prediction of strength of reinforced lightweight soil using an artificial neural network. Eng Comput 28(5):600–605CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Das SK, Basudhar PK (2006) Undrained lateral load capacity of piles in clay using artificial neural network. Comput Geotech 33(8):454–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Park HI, Cho CH (2010) Neural network model for predicting the resistance of driven piles. Mar Georesour Geotech 28(4):324–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cho SE (2009) Probabilistic stability analyses of slopes using the ANN-based response surface. Comput Geotech 36:787–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Erzin Y, Cetin T (2013) The prediction of the critical factor of safety of homogeneous finite slopes using neural networks and multiple regressions. Comput Geosci 51:305–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Erzin Y, Cetin T (2014) The prediction of the critical factor of safety of homogeneous finite slopes subjected to earthquake forces using neural networks and multiple regressions. Int J Geomech Eng 6(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zhao HB (2008) Slope reliability analysis using a support vector machine. Comput Geotech 35:459–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Erzin Y, Gul T (2013) The use of neural networks for the prediction of the settlement of pad footings on cohesionless soils based on standard penetration test. Int J Geomech Eng 5(6):541–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Erzin Y, Gul T (2014) The use of neural networks for the prediction of the settlement of one-way footings on cohesionless soils based on standard penetration test. Neural Comput Appl 24:891–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shahin MA, Jaksa MB, Maier HR (2005) Stochastic simulation of settlement prediction of shallow foundations based on a deterministic artificial neural network model. In: Proceedings of the international congress on modelling and simulation, MODSIM, Melbourne, Australia, pp 73–78Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shi JJ (2000) Reduction prediction error by transforming input data for neural networks. J Comput Civil Eng 14(2):109–116MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yoo C, Kim JM (2007) Tunneling performance prediction using an integrated GIS and neural network. Comput Geotech 34:19–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yildirim B, Gunaydin O (2011) Estimation of California bearing ratio by using soft computing systems. Expert Syst Appl 38:6381–6391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sabat AK (2013) Prediction of California bearing ratio of a soil stabilized with lime and quarry dust using artificial neural network. Electron J Geotech Eng 18:3261–3272Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Khandelwal M, Singh TN (2009) Prediction of blast-induced ground vibration using artificial neural network. Int J Rock Mech Min 46(7):1214–1222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Singh TN, Kanchan R, Saigal K, Verma AK (2004) Prediction of p-wave velocity and anisotropic properties of rock using artificial neural networks technique. J Sci Ind Res India 63(1):32–38Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kashi H, Emamgholizadeh S, Ghorbani H (2014) Estimation of soil infiltration and cation exchange capacity based on multiple regression, ANN (RBF, MLP), and ANFIS models. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 45:1195–1213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Suthar M, Aggarwal P (2015) Environmental impact and physicochemical assessment of pond ash for its potential application as a fill material. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 2:20.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-016-0061-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    IS: 2720 Part-7 (1980) (Reaffirmed 2002) Method of test for soils- determination of water content-dry density relation using light compaction (second revision)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    IS: 2720 Part-16 (1987) (Reaffirmed 2002) Method of test for soils- laboratory determination of CBR (second revision)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Civil Engineering DepartmentNational Institute of TechnologyKurukshetraIndia

Personalised recommendations