See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330290332

Estimating the Strength of Stabilized Dispersive Soil with Cement Clinker and
Fly Ash

Article  in  Geotechnical and Geological Engineering · January 2019

DOI: 10.1007/s10706-019-00808-1

CITATIONS READS

6 650

4 authors:

Samaptika Mohanty Nagendra Roy

National Institute of Technology Rourkela National Institute of Technology Rourkela
9 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS    10 PUBLICATIONS   16 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

s p Singh Parveen Sihag

National Institute of Technology Rourkela Shoolini University
63 PUBLICATIONS   207 CITATIONS    58 PUBLICATIONS   491 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Stabilization of Dispersive soil using Industrial by-products View project

Application of soft computing techniques in water resources engineering View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Samaptika Mohanty on 19 October 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:2915–2926
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-019-00808-1 (0123456789().,-volV)
( 01234567
89().,-volV)

ORIGINAL PAPER

Estimating the Strength of Stabilized Dispersive Soil

with Cement Clinker and Fly Ash
Samaptika Mohanty . Nagendra Roy . Suresh Prasad Singh . Parveen Sihag

Received: 18 August 2018 / Accepted: 7 January 2019 / Published online: 10 January 2019
Ó Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Abstract In this study, the potential of four popular
artificial intelligence techniques random forest (RF),
Gaussian process (GP), M5P tree and artificial neural
network (ANN) are assessed for estimating the
strength of stabilized dispersive soil with cement
clinker and fly ash. GP, M5P and ANN models were
providing a good estimate of performance, whereas
the RF model outperforms them. For this study, a
dataset containing 52 observations obtained from the
laboratory experiments. Total data set (52 observa-
tions) has been segregated in two different groups. The
larger group (36) was used for model development and
the smaller group (16) was used for testing the models.
Input dataset consists of dispersive soil (%), cement
clinker (%), fly ash (%) and curing time (days),
whereas unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of
soil (MPa) was taken as a target. Sensitivity testing
results conclude that the curing time is the most
essential factor in estimating the strength of dispersive
S. Mohanty  N. Roy  S. P. Singh
Civil Engineering Department, National Institute of
Technology, Rourkela, Rourkela, India
e-mail: mohantysamaptika4@gmail.com
N. Roy
e-mail: nroy@nitrkl.ac.in
S. P. Singh
e-mail: spsingh@nitrkl.ac.in
P. Sihag (&)
Civil Engineering, NIT Kurukshetra, Kurukshetra, India
e-mail: parveen12sihag@gmail.com
soil with cement clinker and fly ash for RF-based
modelling. The results of this study also suggest that
the combined mix of cement clinker and fly ash are
used to increase the UCS of dispersive soil than an
alone mix.
Keywords Random forest  Gaussian process
regression  M5P tree  Artificial neural network 
Unconfined compressive strength  Dispersive soil
1 Introduction
Dispersive soils (DS) are normally clayey, silty soils,
which exhibit erosive nature and consist higher
fraction of transferable sodium ions. Dispersive clays
have an inequity in the electrochemical forces among
their particles. This inequity develops the small soil
particles in the dispersive soil to be repulsed rather
than attracted to each other. Dispersive soil problems
have been found in several countries (India, USA,
Greece, South Africa, Australia, etc.). Clay in the
alluvial region and clayey soil collected from mud
rocks when spread in the marine atmosphere can be
dispersive. These soils are normally found in the bed
of the lakes and submerge plains deposits. These soils
show erosive nature with normal water due to clay
dispersion (Sherard and Decker 1977). These soils
show opposite nature in erosion in comparison to

123
2916
ordinary clay soils. Soil dispersivity is generally
occurring due to the existence of transferable sodium
available in the soil mass. The erosion of the
dispersion of soil is based on the dissolved salts in
pore water, clay chemistry and mineralogy. The
dispersive process has been evaluated by various soil
water scientists and researchers such as Heinzen and
Arulalandan (1977), Holmgren and Flanagan (1977).
Dispersive soil is the main reason behind the failure of
an earthen dam, embankments, hydraulic structure and
pavements when these structures are raised on these
soils. The stability of these soils can be improved by
adding lime, polymers, fly ash, pozzolans and cement.
Several researchers and soil scientists have tried to
increase the stability of these soils using fly ash and
found satisfactory results due to self-cementing fea-
tures are available in fly ash. The stabilization of
dispersive soils using lime and fly ash has been
examined by several researchers in the last few
decades (Bell 1993; Brown et al. 1991; Choquette
et al. 1987; Indraratna et al. 1991; Kolias et al. 2005;
Locat et al. 1990; Macphee et al. 1993; Ogundipe
2013; Sharma et al. 2012; Umesha et al. 2009; Umesh
et al. 2011; Firoozi et al. 2017a, b).
Direct measurement of the strength of dispersive
soil is very time consuming, labours, costly and
challenging process. On the other hand, some
researchers developed mathematical models to esti-
mate the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of
dispersive soil. Some researchers used soft-computing
to predict the UCS of soils (Kalkan et al. 2009; Nazari
and Khalaj 2012; Bohlooli et al. 2012; Motamedi et al.
2015; Besalatpour et al. 2013) ANFIS and ANN are
most common techniques used in the prediction of
UCS of dispersive soil mixed with different additive
material like fly ash, lime, cement, rice husk ash etc.
and found very reliable results.
In the last decades, RF, M5P, GP, ANN, Support
vector machine, ANFIS and Gene expression pro-
gramming have implemented as dominant tools in
solving various engineering related problems (Tiwari
et al. 2018; Sihag et al. 2018a, b; Vand et al. 2018;
Mehdipour et al. 2018; Singh et al. 2018; Nain et al.
2018; Haghiabi et al. 2017, 2018; Parsaie et al. 2017).
The benefit of using methods is that these methods
need limited user-defined parameters and lesser time
than experimentally observations. RF, M5P, GP, and
ANN methods were successfully used in several
engineering problems. Best Knowledge from authors
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:2915–2926
no one has used RF, M5P modelling approaches in the
field of the strength of dispersive soil stabilized with
cement clinker and fly ash. The main aim of this study
is to assess the performances of RF, M5P, GP, and
ANN based approaches for the estimation of UCS of
dispersive soil stabilized with cement clinker and fly
ash.
2 Soft Computing Techniques Methods
2.1 Gaussian Process Regression (GP)
GP indicates a nonparametric, probabilistic method
for solving complex and nonlinear problems. GP
supposes that the calculations of the target variable m
are calculated as follow:
m ¼ f ð nð k Þ Þ þ e ð1Þ
where f is the unidentified functional dependence, n is
the input variables, f is the unidentified functional
dependence and e is Gaussian noise with variance r2a .
It is a technique to indicate a prior directly over
function space. The covariance and mean of Gaussian
distribution are matrix and vector. GP model is able to
identify the forecasting distribution analogous to
ensure input knowledge (Rasmussen and Williams
2006). GP model works on the assumption that
adjacent data gives information to neighbours.
Several kernel functions are used in GP. Selection
of suitable kernel function is a limitation of GP
regression. In the study, two (Pearson VII kernel
function (PUK), Radial basis kernel) commonly used
kernel functions were selected for GP model
development.
,"  qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi2 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  2 #x !
 
PUK ¼ 1 1 þ 2 xi  xj  2ð1=xÞ  1 r
ð2Þ
2
RBF ¼ ecjxi xj j ð3Þ
c, r and x are kernel parameters.
2.2 M5P Model Tree (M5P)
M5P tree, first proposed by Quinlan (1992), is a
decision tree learner for regression problems. This tree
algorithm specifies linear regression functions on the
Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:2915–2926 2917

terminal nodes and fits a multivariate linear regression
model on each sub-location by categorizing or divid-
ing the multiple data spaces into numerous sub-space.
The M5 tree method is related to continuous class
problems rather than discrete sections and can handle
very high dimensional functions. It reveals the infor-
mation of each linear model piece created to approx-
imate the dataset’s nonlinear relationships. The
measure of error obtains information about the split-
ting criteria for the M5 model tree on each node. The
errors analyzed by the standard deviation of class
values which reaches the node. The attribute that
maximizes the decrease in expected error is selected
for the testing of each attribute on that node.
2018c, d, e; Angelaki et al. 2018; Sihag et al.
2017a, b; Tiwari and Sihag 2018). ANN contains
input layer, hidden layers (one or more than one) and
output layer. The hidden layer is connected to the other
layers by weights, transfer functions, and biases. For
detail information readers are referred to Haykin
(1999). In the present analysis, an ANN based on one
hidden layers is used.
The main limitation of ANN based models are that
there is no specific rule for determining the structure.
The suitable network structure is attained through
understanding and a large number of trials.
2.5 Model Performance Assessment Criteria

2.3 Random Forest Regression (RF) To estimate the potential of the above-discussed
modelling methods correlation coefficients (R), mean
Breiman (2001) introduced a novel and useful classi- square error (MSE), root mean square error (RMSE)
fier in 2001 known as Random. RF is a classification and Nash–Sutcliffe model efficiency (NSE) values
and regression tree technique and includes an assem- were used.
bly of regression plants trained using a variety of P  Pa  Pa
a ai¼1 pq i¼1 p ð i¼1 qÞ
bootstrap samples (bagging) of the training data. RF R¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffiq ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
Pa 2 Pa P P
employs an arbitrary division of input and output að i¼1 p ð i¼1 pÞ2 að ai¼1 q2 ð ai¼1 qÞ2
variables in the allotment of every node. Bagging is a
ð4Þ
method selected for training data development by
arbitrarily resampling the actual dataset with some 1 Xa
substitutes. Every division implemented using bag- MSE ¼ ð ðp  qÞ2 ð5Þ
a i¼1
ging to construct each separately develops a definite
part of the training dataset. These left-out data training sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
data called out-of-bag (out of the bootstrap sampling) 1X a
RMSE ¼ ðp  qÞ2 ð6Þ
were selected to estimate the difference in actual and a i¼1
estimated values and variable significance. For RF
Pa
model development two user-defined parameters are ð p  qÞ 2
essential, trees quantity in the forest (k) and the NSE ¼ 1  Pi¼1
a
ð7Þ
i¼1 ðp  pÞ2
number of variables used (m) at every node to grow a
tree. The limitations of the RF model are the occur- where p = actual value, q = estimated value, p =
rence of overfitting and need to choose the quantity of mean of actual values, a = number of observations.
trees.

2.4 Artificial Neural Network (ANN) 3 Experimental Program

ANN has the capability to learn from experiences and
develop model for estimation. ANN model collects
information from original data. The basic concept of
ANN model is human brain and neurones in brain.
This model is a artificial intelligence method which is
used for various numerical forecast/estimation prob-
lems in civil engineering (Parsaie and Haghiabi 2017;
Parsaie et al. 2016; Sihag 2018; Sihag et al.
3.1 Materials
3.1.1 Dispersive Soil
In this study, the dispersive soil is collected from
Cuttack, Odisha, India. Soil type was found sodium
bentonite. The results of double hydrometer test for
dispersive soil samples are presented in Fig. 1.

123
2918 Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:2915–2926

3.1.2 Cement Clinker

Cement clinkers are constructed by heating limestone

and clay in a revolving kiln at high-temperature.
Cement clinker was collected from Shiva cement
limited, Odisha, India. Figure 2 shows the size distri-
bution curve of the cement clinker.

3.1.3 Flyash

Flyash has some cementitious properties, but then in

the existence of water it reacts chemically and
develops cementitious material, and characteristic to
the increment in compressibility and strength of soils.
For this investigation class F Flyash was gathered
from steel plant of Rourkela, Odisha, India. The curve Fig. 2 Grain size distribution curves of cement clinker and fly
ash
of grain size distribution for flyash is shown in Fig. 2.
Physical features of the raw material are presented in
clinker in different percentages. The details of the
Table 1.
specimens are given in Table 2. Afterwards, a series of
UCS tests were measured on cylindrical specimens,
3.1.4 Experimental Procedure
which were made at optimum moisture content and
maximum dry density found using standard proctor
To identify the dispersiveness of soil double hydrom-
test according to IS 2720-Part 7 (1980) code. All
eter test is carried out as per Standard ASTM D4221-
specimens are along with a height of 100 mm and
99 (2005) code. The cement clinker, flyash and soil are
diameter of 50 mm were cured in closed plastic boxes
oven-dried at 110 °C. Geotechnical properties like
for 7, 14 and 28 days at normal room temperature.
specific gravity, Atterberg’s limit, grain size analysis,
After completion of the curing periods the specimens
compaction characteristics, unconfined compressive
are taken out and then the test is conducted. Average of
strength (UCS) and California bearing ratio (CBR) test
three specimen test is considered for this investigation.
are examined to describe the mixture as a geomaterial.
CBR tests are performed for both soaked and
The specimens were determined for the geotechnical
unsoaked condition on the specimen as per IS
properties as per code. To enhance the strength
2720-16 (1987) code.
features of dispersive soil by adding flyash and cement
3.1.5 Dataset

Dataset is collected from laboratory experiments.

Datasets consist of 52 observations were implemented
for model development and testing the models. 36
observations were used for training, while the left 16
was used to test the model. Input datasets are
consisting of dispersive soil (S) in %, cement clinker
(C) in %, fly ash (Fa) in % and curing time (T) in days,
whereas UCS in MPa was taken as a target. The
features of the dataset are listed in Table 3.

Fig. 1 Double hydrometer test for dispersive soil sample

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:2915–2926 2919

Table 1 Physical features of materials used

S. no. Properties Units Dispersive soil Flyash Cement clinker

1 Specific gravity – 2.74 2.45 3.24

2 Plastic limit % 62 Non-plastic Non-plastic
3 Plasticity index % 366 Non-plastic Non-plastic
4 Liquid limit % 428 31.5 –
5 Free swell index % 900 – –
6 Optimum moisture content % 34.12 37.8 14.36
7 IS classification – CH – –
8 Linear shrinkage index % 45 – –
9 Maximum dry density kN/m3 13.98 11.48 18.01
10 Unconfined compressive strength MPa 175.47 125.87 110.38

Table 2 Details of the Specimen/sample code Dispersive soil Flyash Cement clinker
sample prepared
S 100 – –
SF9505 95 5 –
SC9505 95 – 5
S3M1 90 5 5
SF8020 80 20 –
SC7030 70 – 30
S3M10 50 20 30

Table 3 The Features of Parameters Units Training dataset

the dataset
Lower Higher Mean Standard deviation Kurtosis Skewness

S % 0 95 73.6111 28.4507 2.9287 - 2.0041

C % 0 30 9.3056 10.1526 - 0.9310 0.7199
Fa % 0 30 5.4167 8.5670 2.3065 1.7399
T Days 0 28 12.2500 10.5000 - 1.1451 0.4538
UCS MPa 0.18 4.59 1.1211 1.2109 1.3852 1.5818
Testing dataset
S % 50 95 80.6250 14.3614 0.8315 - 1.2425
C % 0 30 10.9375 12.0026 - 1.1628 0.7065
Fa % 0 30 7.1875 9.1230 1.2342 1.3561
T Days 0 28 12.2500 10.6927 - 1.1228 0.4810
UCS MPa 0.2 4.23 1.1950 1.3050 1.0790 1.5498
All dataset
S % 0 95 75.7692 25.0369 4.4071 - 2.2229
C % 0 30 9.8077 10.6624 - 0.9508 0.7208
Fa % 0 30 5.9615 8.6907 1.5842 1.5562
T Days 0 28 12.2500 10.4541 - 1.1486 0.4477
UCS MPa 0.18 4.59 1.1438 1.2282 1.0435 1.5243

123
2920 Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:2915–2926

3.1.6 Implementation of Machine Learning Methods

Four standard statistical measures: R, MSE, RMSE,

and NSE were used as performance assessment
parameters to judge the performance of the machine
learning methods. Numerous trials were carried out to
find optimum value of primary parameters. Senior
values of R, NSE and lesser values of MSE, RMSE
indicates that better estimation accuracy of the mod-
els. Trees quantity in the forest (k) and the number of
variables used (m) at every node to generate a tree are
the two standard primary parameters essential for RF.
In M5P, calibration of models were done using
changing the value of no. of instances allowed at each
node (m) and Gaussian noise, c, r and x are the
primary parameters of GP regression. Hidden layers, Fig. 3 Compaction characteristic of raw materials
number of neurons, learning rate, momentum, and
iteration are the primary parameters for the ANN
model. The selected primary parameters of the mod-
elling approaches are presented in Table 4.

4 Result and Discussion

Figure 3 shows the compaction curve of raw materi-

als. For Dispersive soil MDD (13.34 kN/m3) was
achieved at 34.17% OMC. For fly ash, MDD (11.48
kN/m3) was obtained at 37.8% OMC, and the MDD
(18.05 kN/m3) of cement clinker was achieved at
14.55% of OMC. Figure 4 shows a discrepancy of
OMC and MDD concerning various mixtures. Fig-
ure 4 indicates that Cement clinker when added to the
dispersive soil there is the decrease in MDD and
increase OMC, but in case of flyash addition into the
dispersive soil, there is an increase in MDD and
decrease in the OMC.
Figure 5 shows the variations of UCS strength by
different combinations at various curing stages. Out-
comes of the figure indicate that specimen S3M10
gives highest as compared to other mixtures. From the
Fig. 4 Variation of OMC and MDD for various mixtures
unconfined compressive strength tests of 20% of
flyash and 30% of cement clinker indicated as an
optimum value.
Figure 6 shows the bar diagram of the percentage of
CBR for different samples. The figure suggests that
soaked specimen S3M10 has a higher CBR value in
soaked condition than other unsoaked conditions.
From the CBR value, it can be observed that cement

Table 4 Primary Machine learning approach Primary parameters

parameters
M5P m=4
GP PUK Gaussian noise = 0.01, c = 2
RBF Gaussian noise = 0.01, x = 0.1, r = 0.1
RF k = 1, m = 1, I = 100
ANN Structure- 4-4-1; Learning rate 0.2, momentum 0.1, Iteration 1500

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:2915–2926 2921

5.0 5
S SF9505 RF
4.5 SC9505 S3M1 Training
M5P
4.0 SC7030 S3M10 GP_PUK
4
3.5 GP_RBF

Estimated UCS (MPa)

ANN
UCS (MPa)

3.0
3
2.5

2.0

1.5 2
1.0

0.5 1
0.0
0 7 14 28
Curing Periods 0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Fig. 5 UCS versus curing stages for various mix design Actual UCS (MPa)

60 Fig. 7 Actual versus estimated values of the UCS of dispersive

Soaked soil using RF, M5P, GP, and ANN approaches for the training
Unsoaked dataset
50

5
40 RF Testing
CBR Value (%)

M5P
GP_PUK
30 4 GP_RBF
Estimated UCS (MPa)

ANN

20
3

10
2
0
S SF9505 SC9505 S3M1 SF8020 SC7030 S3M10
Mix Proportion 1

Fig. 6 CBR value versus mix proportion

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
clinker and flyash play a significant role in improving
Actual UCS (MPa)
the CBR value of dispersive soil.
Fig. 8 Actual versus estimated values of the UCS of dispersive
4.1 Modelling Results soil using RF, M5P, GP, and ANN approaches for the testing
dataset
Figures 7 and 8 showed the plot of actual and
predicted the UCS of dispersive soil using M5P, RF, of the UCS of dispersive soil. Table 5 presents the
GP, and ANN models with training and testing dataset value of performance assessment parameters of var-
respectively. The estimated values of all the models ious models for both training and testing dataset.
were very close to the line of perfect agreement. Table 5 suggests that the RBF based GP model works
However, the RF-based model has attained the lesser well than PUK based GP models in estimating the
value of MSE, RMSE (0.1285 and 0.3585) and higher UCS of dispersive soil. Figure 9 indicates the structure
value of R, NSE (0.9643 and 0.9195 respectively) in of the M5P tree model.
comparison to other models. So RF model is more M5P pruned model tree (using smoothed linear
suitable than other discussed models for the estimation models)
C \= 15:

123
2922 Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:2915–2926

Table 5 Detail of Techniques Training dataset Testing dataset

performance assessment
parameters for various R MSE RMSE NSE R MSE RMSE NSE
techniques
RF 0.9956 0.0216 0.1468 0.9849 0.9643 0.1285 0.3585 0.9195
M5P 0.9652 0.1050 0.3240 0.9263 0.8237 0.5323 0.7296 0.6666
GP_PUK 0.9990 0.0030 0.0544 0.9979 0.9366 0.2019 0.4493 0.8735
GP_RBF 0.9951 0.0139 0.1180 0.9902 0.9522 0.1642 0.4052 0.8972
Bold values shows the best ANN 0.9906 0.0337 0.1835 0.9764 0.9589 0.1599 0.3999 0.8999
fit model

Fig. 9 M5P pruned model

tree structure

|T \= 10.5: LM1 (12/7.049%) there is no considerable variation among actual and

|T [ 10.5: LM2 (13/8.824%)
C [ 15: LM3 (11/34.389%)
LM num : 1
UCS ¼ 0:0493  C þ 0:022  Fa
þ 0:0288  T  0:1012
LM num : 2
UCS ¼ 0:0699  C þ 0:0276  Fa þ 0:0232  T
 0:0782
LM num : 3
UCS ¼  0:0153  S þ 0:0541  C
þ 0:0257  Fa þ 0:0734  T þ 1:2381
ð10Þ
Further, in the study of Table 5, it is also noticeable
that the RF-based model works better in comparison to
other modelling based models. The features of actual
and estimated values obtained by soft computing-
based models are listed in Table 6. The single factor
ANOVA results listed in Table 7 have concluded that
estimated values of the UCS of dispersive soil using
various models. By examine of Fig. 10, it is again
apparent that the estimated value by the RF-based
model follows the same path which is followed by the
ð8Þ actual value. It has been concluded that all soft
computing models are giving comparable results in the
estimation of the unconfined compressive strength of
dispersive soil. As indicated in Fig. 11, the RF model
significantly decreases the overall residual errors due
to accurate estimation by the model. Other regression
models have large residues compared to the RF model
ð9Þ
and thus accurate estimates of the dispersive soil
unconfined compressive strength indicate the low
efficiency of the models.
4.2 Sensitivity Testing
A sensitivity testing was performed to determine the
mainly considerable input parameter in the estimation
of the UCS of dispersive soil. For this, RF model was
selected which is outperforming the above-discussed
models. Four sets of training data were prepared by
removing the particular (one) input parameter at a time
and outcomes were listed regarding R and RMSE with

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:2915–2926 2923

Table 6 The features of Techniques Training dataset

actual and estimated values
obtained using various Lower Higher Mean Std. dev. Kurtosis Skewness
approaches
Actual 0.18 4.59 1.1211 1.2109 1.3852 1.5818
RF 0.25 4.176 1.1105 1.1096 1.0763 1.5182
M5P 0.009 4.378 1.1231 1.0814 1.4213 1.4299
GP_PUK 0.189 4.559 1.1206 1.2009 1.3846 1.5784
GP_RBF 0.185 4.556 1.1212 1.1946 1.4981 1.5859
ANN 0.118 4.596 1.2016 1.2204 1.1627 1.5039
Testing dataset
Actual 0.2 4.23 1.1950 1.3050 1.0790 1.5498
RF 0.286 3.633 1.1412 1.1373 1.1797 1.6297
M5P 0.118 3.841 1.2792 1.1880 - 0.0361 1.0537
GP_PUK 0.242 3.522 1.2229 1.1478 0.4668 1.3809
GP_RBF 0.209 4.339 1.3022 1.3057 0.9394 1.4419
ANN 0.31 4.15 1.3573 1.3252 0.9002 1.5238

Table 7 Results of ANOVA Single Factor Test

Approaches F P value F crit Difference between actual and predicted values

RF 0.015462 0.901872 4.170877 Insignificant

M5P 0.036411 0.849954 4.170877 Insignificant
GP_PUK 0.004134 0.949159 4.170877 Insignificant
GP_RBF 0.053939 0.817923 4.170877 Insignificant
ANN 0.121856 0.729469 4.170877 Insignificant
ALL 0.064139 0.997137 2.315689 Insignificant

Fig. 10 Variation of 5
Actual RF M5P Training
estimated values of UCS Tesng
using soft computing based GP_PUK GP_RBF ANN
model 4

3
UCS (MPa)

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Data Number

the testing dataset. Outcomes from Table 8 suggest dispersive soil in comparison to other input
that curing time is the most significant role in parameters.
estimating the unconfined compressive strength of

123
2924 Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:2915–2926

Fig. 11 Variation of 2.5

relative error using soft RF M5P Training Testing
2
computing based model GP_PUK GP_RBF
1.5 ANN
1

Relative error
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
0 10 20 30 40 50
Data Number

Table 8 Sensitivity testing Input arrangement Parameter removed RF

by using RF
CC RMSE (cm/min.)

S, C, Fa, T 0.9643 0.3585

C, Fa, T S 0.9614 0.3704
S, Fa, T C 0.9108 0.5312
S, C, T Fa 0.9697 0.3315
S, C, Fa T 0.5692 1.1151

5 Conclusions clinker and soil-flyash-cement clinker mixes the

Knowledge of unconfined compressive strength of
dispersive soil is beneficial in designing, planning of
road and irrigation networks. The strength of disper-
sive soil under UCS is found to increase significantly
by adding several proportions of fly ash and cement
clinker. Based on the study the following conclusion
can be drawn:
1. The test results suggest that the combined mix of
cement clinker and fly ash are used to enhance the
strength than an alone mix. The Higher values of
UCS in soil–cement clinker mix is found for the
sample SC7030 (0.33 to 4.23 MPa) and for soil-
flyash mix sample SF8020 (0.34 to 0.84 MPa) at
28 days curing stage. Among soil-flyash-clinker
mix, sample S3M10 provides maximum
(4.59 MPa), and S3M1 combination provides
least (0.87 MPa) strength as compared to other
samples at 28 days curing stage.
2. For the soil-flyash mix, the CBR values of soaked
CBR is found to be lower than the unsoaked
condition. However, in the case of soil–cement
opposite trend is observed with the soaked CBR
being higher than the unsoaked condition.
3. Obtained modelling results suggest that the RF
model has an appropriate capability to accurate
estimation of the UCS of dispersive soil. The RF-
based model also gives improved performance
than the M5P, GP, and ANN models.
4. An additional main conclusion is that the radial
base kernel function-based GP model works
superior to the Pearson VII kernel function based
GP model for this dataset.
5. Results of sensitivity conclude that the curing time
is the primary essential parameter when the RF-
based model is selected for estimation of the UCS
of dispersive soil for this dataset.
References
Angelaki A, Singh N, Singh V, Sihag P (2018) Estimation of
models for cumulative infiltration of soil using machine

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:2915–2926
learning methods. ISH J Hydraul Eng. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09715010.2018.1531274
Bell FG (1993) Engineering treatment of soils. Spon, London,
p 346
Besalatpour A, Hajabbasi MA, Ayoubi S, Afyuni M, Jalalian A,
Schulin R (2013) Soil shear strength prediction using
intelligent systems: artificial neural networks and an
adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system. Soil Sci Plant Nutr
58(2):149–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.2012.
661078
Bohlooli H, Nazari A, Khalaj G, Kaykha MM, Riahi S (2012)
Experimental investigations and fuzzy logic modelling of
compressive strength of geopolymers with seeded fly ash
and rice husk bark ash. Compos Part B 43:1293–1301.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.01.012
Breiman L (2001) Random For Mach Learn 45(1):5–32
Brown T, Brown M, Sorini S, Huntington G (1991) The use of
coal fly ash for soil stabilization. University of Wyoming
Research Corp., Laramie, WY (United States). Western
Research Inst. https://doi.org/10.2172/10124960
Choquette M, Berube MA, Locat J (1987) Mineralogical and
microtextural changes associated with lime stabilization of
marine clays from eastern Canada. Appl Clay Sci
2(3):215–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-1317
Firoozi AA, Olgun CG, Firoozi AA, Baghini MS (2017a)
Fundamentals of soil stabilization. Int J Geo-Eng 8(1):26.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40703-017-0064-9
Firoozi AA, Firoozi AA, Baghini MS (2017b) A review of
physical and chemical clayey. J Civ Eng Urban 6(4):64–71
Haghiabi AH, Azamathulla HM, Parsaie A (2017) Prediction of
head loss on cascade weir using ANN and SVM. ISH J
Hydraul Eng 23(1):102–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09715010.2016.1241724
Haghiabi AH, Parsaie A, Ememgholizadeh S (2018) Prediction
of discharge coefficient of triangular labyrinth weirs using
adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system. Alexandria Eng J
57(3):1773–1782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2017.05.
005
Haykin S (1999) Neural networks: a comprehensive foundation.
Mc Millan, New Jersey
Heinzen RT, Arulanandan K (1977) Factors influencing dis-
persive clays and methods of identification. ASTM Spec
Tech Publ 623:202–217
Holmgren GG, Flanagan CP (1977) Factors affecting sponta-
neous dispersion of soil materials as evidenced by the
crumb test. ASTM Spec Tech Publ 623:219–239
Indraratna B, Nutalaya P, Kuganenthira N (1991) Stabilization
of a dispersive soil by blending with fly ash. Q J Eng Geol
Hydrogeol 24(3):275–290. https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.
QJEG.1991.024.03.03
IS: 2720-Part 7 (1980) Indian standard methods of test for soils:
determination of water content-dry unit weightrelation
using light compaction. BIS, New Delhi
IS: 2720-Part 16 (1987) Indian Standard Method of test for soils.
Laboratory Determination of CBR. Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi
Kalkan E, Akbulut S, Tortum A, Celik S (2009) Prediction of the
unconfined compressive strength of compacted granular
soils by using inference systems. Environ Geol
58(7):1429–1440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-008-
1645-x
2925
Kolias S, Kasselouri-Rigopoulou V, Karahalios A (2005) Stabili-
sation of clayey soils with high calcium fly ash and cement.
Cem Concr Compos 27(2):301–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cemconcomp.2004.02.019
Locat J, Bérubé MA, Choquette M (1990) Laboratory investi-
gations on the lime stabilization of sensitive clays: shear
strength development. Can Geotech J 27(3):294–304.
https://doi.org/10.1139/t90-040
Macphee DE, Black CJ, Taylor AH (1993) Cements incorpo-
rating brown coal fly ash from the Latrobe Valley region of
Victoria, Australia. Cem Concr Res 23(3):507–517. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0008-8846(93)90001-P
Mehdipour V, Stevenson DS, Memarianfard M, Sihag P (2018)
Comparing different methods for statistical modeling of
particulate matter in Tehran, Iran. Air Qual Atmos Health
11(10):1155–1165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-018-
0615-z
Motamedi S, Shamshirband S, Petkovic D, Hashim R (2015)
Application of adaptive neuro-fuzzy technique to predict
the unconfined compressive strength of PFA-sand-cement
mixture. Powder Technol 278:278–285. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.powtec.2015.02.045
Nain SS, Sihag P, Luthra S (2018) Performance evaluation of
fuzzy-logic and BP-ANN methods for WEDM of aero-
nautics super alloy. MethodsX. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
mex.2018.04.006
Nazari A, Khalaj G (2012) Prediction compressive strength of
lightweight geopolymers by ANFIS. Ceram Int
38:4501–4510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2012.
02.026
Ogundipe OM (2013) An investigation into the use of lime-
stabilized clay as subgrade material. Int J Sci Technol Res
2(10):82–86
Parsaie A, Haghiabi AH (2017) Mathematical expression of
discharge capacity of compound open channels using
MARS technique. J Earth Syst Sci 126(2):20. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12040-017-0807-1
Parsaie A, Haghiabi AH, Saneie M, Torabi H (2016) Applica-
tions of soft computing techniques for prediction of energy
dissipation on stepped spillways. Neural Comput Appl.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-016-2667-z
Parsaie A, Haghiabi AH, Saneie M, Torabi H (2017) Predication
of discharge coefficient of cylindrical weir-gate using
adaptive neuro fuzzy inference systems (ANFIS). Front
Struct Civil Eng 11(1):111–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11709-016-0354-x
Quinlan JR (1992) Learning with continuous classes. In: Adams
A, Sterling L (eds) 5th Australian joint conference on
artificial intelligence, vol 92, pp 343–348. https://doi.org/
10.1142/9789814536271
Rasmussen CE, Williams CKI (2006) Gaussian processes for
machine learning. MIT Press, Massachusetts
Sharma NK, Swain SK, Sahoo UC (2012) Stabilization of a
clayey soil with fly ash and lime: a micro level investiga-
tion. Geotech Geol Eng 30(5):1197–1205. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10706-012-9532-3
Sherard JL, Decker RS eds (1977) Dispensive clays, related
piping, and erosion in geotechmical projects, (Vol 623).
ASTM International
Sihag P (2018) Prediction of unsaturated hydraulic conductivity
using fuzzy logic and artificial neural network. Model
123
2926
Earth Syst Environ 4(1):189–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40808-018-0434-0
Sihag P, Tiwari NK, Ranjan S (2017a) Modelling of infiltration
of sandy soil using gaussian process regression. Model
Earth Syst Environ 3(3):1091–1100. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s40808-017-0357-1
Sihag P, Tiwari NK, Ranjan S (2017b) Prediction of unsaturated
hydraulic conductivity using adaptive neuro-fuzzy infer-
ence system (ANFIS). ISH J Hydraul Eng. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09715010.2017.1381861
Sihag P, Tiwari NK, Ranjan S (2018a) Support vector regres-
sion-based modeling of cumulative infiltration of sandy
soil. ISH J Hydraul Eng. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09715010.2018.1439776
Sihag P, Singh B, Gautam S, Debnath S (2018b) Evaluation of
the impact of fly ash on infiltration characteristics using
different soft computing techniques. Appl Water Sci
8(6):187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-018-0835-2
Sihag P, Singh B, Sepah Vand A, Mehdipour V (2018c)
Modeling the infiltration process with soft computing
techniques. ISH J Hydraul Eng. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09715010.2018.1464408
Sihag P, Tiwari NK, Ranjan S (2018d) Prediction of cumulative
infiltration of sandy soil using random forest approach.
J Appl Water Eng Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/23249676.
2018.1497557
Sihag P, Jain P, Kumar M (2018e) Modelling of impact of water
quality on recharging rate of storm water filter system using
various kernel function based regression. Model Earth Syst
Environ 4(1):61–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-017-
0410-0
123
View publication stats
Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:2915–2926
Singh B, Sihag P, Singh K, Kumar S (2018) Estimation of
trapping efficiency of vortex tube silt ejector. Int J River
Basin Manag. https://doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2018.
1476367
Standard, A.S.T.M., D4221-99, 1999 (2005) Standard test
method for dispersive characteristics of clay soil by double
hydrometer, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA
Tiwari NK, Sihag P (2018) Prediction of oxygen transfer at
modified Parshall flumes using regression models. ISH J
Hydraul Eng. https://doi.org/10.1080/09715010.2018.
1473058
Tiwari NK, Sihag P, Kumar S, Ranjan S (2018) Prediction of
trapping efficiency of vortex tube ejector. ISH J Hydraul
Eng. https://doi.org/10.1080/09715010.2018.1441752
Umesh T, Dinesh S, Sivapullaiah PV (2011) Characterization of
dispersive soils. Mater Sci Appl 2:629–633. https://doi.org/
10.4236/msa.2011.26085
Umesha TS, Dinesh SV, Sivapullaiah PV (2009) Control of
dispersivity of soil using lime and cement. Int J Geol
3(1):8–16
Vand AS, Sihag P, Singh B, Zand M (2018) Comparative
evaluation of infiltration models. KSCE J Civil Eng
22(10):4173–4184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-018-
1347-1
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.