## 8 Bayes' Approach in the Interpretation of Test Results from the Proposed Formula
Based on the nomogram chart for soils with \(E_{D}<1.2\) MPa, soil unit weight less than 15.0 kN/m\({}^{3}\) was not determined. However, other formulas gave the possibility to determine this parameter (\(\gamma\)) with a different result. The results obtained were compared with those from laboratory tests that may be considered as reference. Since the obtained results do not show adequate results consistent with the results of laboratory tests, both on the basis of [PERSON]'s nomogram and literature models, there is a need for a new design. Very promising results have been obtained using the unit weight values proposed in this article (Equation (13)) for all soils (mineral and organic soils). The obtained results are presented in Table 10. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Siles**} & \multirow{3}{*}{**Soil Type**} & **[PERSON] (1980)** & **[PERSON],** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON] and** & **[PERSON]** \\  & & **[4] (Nomogram Chart)** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **2013 [30]** & **[PERSON] (2016)** & **11.8 \(\times\) 13.5** & 10.5 \(\times\) 14.5 \\ \cline{2-6}  & & **(2002)** & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Soil unit weight \(\gamma\) (kN/m\({}^{3}\))**} \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Antonuity} & \multirow{2}{*}{Peat (oc)} & \multirow{2}{*}{15.0} & \multirow{2}{*}{12.8 \(\times\) 14.3} & \multirow{2}{*}{11.4 \(\times\) 13.8} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} \(m_{pp}=17\) kN/m\({}^{3}\) \\ \(\gamma=14\) kN/m\({}^{3}\) \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{10.4 \(\times\) 14.2} & \multirow{2}{*}{10.5 \(\times\) 14.5} \\ \cline{2-6}  & & & & & \\ \cline{2-6}  & & & & & \\ \cline{2-6}  & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Koszyee} & \multirow{2}{*}{Peat (oc)} & \multirow{2}{*}{15.0} & \multirow{2}{*}{12.0 \(\times\) 15.0} & \multirow{2}{*}{11.7 \(\times\) 15.4} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} \(m_{pp}=18\) kN/m\({}^{3}\) \\ \(\gamma=14\) \\ \(\gamma=16\) \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{10.3 \(\times\) 13.8} & \multirow{2}{*}{10.3 \(\times\) 14.5} \\ \cline{2-6}  & & & & & \\ \cline{2-6}  & & & & & \\ \cline{2-6}  & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Nielisz} & \multirow{2}{*}{Peat (oc)} & \multirow{2}{*}{15.0} & \multirow{2}{*}{13.6 \(\times\) 16.0} & \multirow{2}{*}{13.6 \(\times\) 16.0} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} \(m_{pp}=38\) kN/m\({}^{3}\) \\ \(\gamma=17\) \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{12.2 \(\times\) 14.8} & \multirow{2}{*}{12.0 \(\times\) 15.0} \\ \cline{2-6}  & & & & & \\ \cline{2-6}  & & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{\begin{tabular}{c} SCGW Campus \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{16.0 \(\times\) 21.0} & \multirow{2}{*}{17.0 \(\times\) 21.0} & \multirow{2}{*}{16.0 \(\times\) 24.0} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} \(m_{pp}\geq 60\) kN/m\({}^{3}\) \\ \(\gamma\geq 23\) kN/m\({}^{3}\) \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{19.5 \(\times\) 22.1} & \multirow{2}{*}{20.0 \(\times\) 22.0} \\ \cline{2-6}  & & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} Stegny \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{Pibocene clay} & \multirow{2}{*}{15.0} & \multirow{2}{*}{18.0 \(\times\) 21.0} & \multirow{2}{*}{18.0 \(\times\) 23.0} & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} \(m_{pp}\geq 60\) kN/m\({}^{3}\) \\ \(\gamma\geq 23\) kN/m\({}^{3}\) \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{20.5 \(\times\) 22.0} & \multirow{2}{*}{21.0 \(\times\) 22.0} \\ \cline{2-6}  & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Comparison of results obtained based on empirical correlations in the literature with results calculated by the proposed formula (Equation (13)) and the results from laboratory tests.