Obasi, S N N; Pemberton, J and Awe, O O (2025) A comparative study of soil classification machine learning models for construction management. International Journal of Construction Management, 25(5), pp. 584-593. ISSN 1562-3599
Abstract
Prior to the construction of buildings and roads, soil classification plays a vital role to ensure proper project management and durability of the structure. Civil engineers need to possess knowledge about soil behavior and properties of soil classification to construct reliable and long-lasting infrastructures. However, traditional soil classification methods are both expensive and time-consuming. Recently, machine learning (ML) has become increasingly popular in solving complex problems in Geotechnical Engineering, leading to novel approaches for automating soil classification. This research evaluates the effectiveness of various machine learning algorithms, including Multinomial Logistic Regression (MLR), Gaussian Naive Bayes (GNB), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), Random Forest, and Artificial Neural Network-Multilayer Layer Perceptron (ANN-MLP), in classifying soils. The paper also implemented Hard and Soft Voting Ensemble models. Each model was quantitatively evaluated and compared using various metrics. The models achieved high scores in multiple performance metrics across the soil classes with accuracies ranging between 87% and 93%, except the Naive Bayes model with a balanced accuracy of 77.6% while the hard-voting model outperformed the others with a balanced accuracy of 93%. The study's results benefit industry practitioners and academic researchers for integrating and assessing ML algorithms in soil classification.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | balanced accuracy; geotechnical engineering; machine learning; soil classification; voting ensemble |
| Index terms: | civil engineer, artificial neural network, accuracy, performance metric, forest, machine learning, multinomial, practitioner, multilayer, durability, logistic regression, project management, comparative study, effectiveness |
| Subjects: | material degradation and durability, artificial intelligence, modelling and simulation, research design and methodology, profession, statistical analysis, project management theory and practice, professional development, performance management, specialized materials and systems, performance measurement, environmental science, practitioner |
| Topics: | Information Management, Construction Materials, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Digital Applications, Project Management, Sustainability, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here