Professional Documents
Culture Documents
04 - Prediction of Uplift Capacity Using Genetic Programming PDF
04 - Prediction of Uplift Capacity Using Genetic Programming PDF
ABSTRACT
In most geotechnical problems, it is too difficult to predict soil and structural behavior
accurately, because of the large variation in soil parameters and the assumptions of numerical
solutions. But recently many geotechnical problems are solved using Artificial Intelligence
(AI) techniques, by presenting new solutions or developing existing ones. Genetic
Programming, (GP), is one of the most recently developed (AI) techniques based on Genetic
Algorithm (GA) technique.
In this research, GP technique is utilized to develop prediction criteria for uplift capacity of
shallow foundations using collected historical records. The uplift capacity formula is
developed using special software written by the authors in “Visual C++” language. The
accuracy of the developed formula was also compared with earlier prediction methods.
INTRODUCTION
Shallow footing ( Pad & Chimney ) is the most common type of uplift foundation. For wide
range of soil types, it is the easiest, preferred and most economic type of uplift foundation.
There are several methods to design the pad & chimney footing, these methods can be
classified into four groups based on the concept of design, these groups are Soil Load
Methods, Earth Pressure Methods, Shearing Methods and Constitutive Laws Methods
into consideration and therefore the actual important phenomenon of shear failure in earth
body is neglected.
The estimated loss of accuracy due to this simplification is about 3% of the ultimate uplift
capacity. To apply his method on the square foots Matsuo suggested to use the equivalent area
concept which means to replace the square footing with circular foot having the same area
taking into consideration that the perimeter of the square foot is about 10% greater than the
Eleventh International Colloquium on المؤتمر الدولى الحادى عشر للھندسة
Structural & Geotechnical Engineering االنشائية و الجيوتقنية
17-19 May 2005 2005 مايو19-17
Ain Shams University – Cairo القاھرة- جامعة عين شمس
perimeter of its equivalent circular foot. So he increases the uplift capacity by 10%. A series
of field tests done by Matsuo during a 66 kV transmission power line using a square foots
proved that the equivalent area concept is valid to be used with his method.
The Genetic Algorithm (GA) is an Artificial Intelligence (AI) technique, based on simulating
the natural reproduction process, following the well-known Darwin's rule "The fittest
survive". The natural selection theory for Darwin assumes that, for a certain population, there
is always some differences between its members. These differences make some members
more suitable for the surrounding conditions than the others. Accordingly, they have better
chances to survive and reproduce a next generation with enhanced properties. Generation after
generation most of the population will have these suitable properties, meanwhile the
unsuitable members will eventually be diminished. In other words, during the reproduction
process, the natural selection increases the fitness of the population, which means that this
population is developed to suite the surrounding conditions. In the natural reproduction
process, certain sequence of (DNA) characters represent properties of members, each
character is called "Gene", and every set of genes is called "Chromosome" (Michalewicz,
1992).
The theory of biological reproduction process was first simulated mathematically by John
Holland, 1975, where genes and chromosomes are replaced by a parameters and solutions
respectively, and the surrounding conditions are represented by a fitting function. Hence,
according to Darwin's rule, during the reproduction process the population is developed to
suite the fitting function (Holland 1975).
The most important advantage of GA technique is its generality and its applicability to very
wide range of engineering problems. This is because GA technique is not depending on type
of data. Encoding the problem parameters in genetic form is the first and the most important
step in the GA solution.
Eleventh International Colloquium on
o المؤتمر الدوولى الحادى عشر للھندسة
Structuraal & Geotechnnical Engineeriing االنشائئية و الجيوتقنية
17-19 May 20005 2005 مايو199-17
Ain Shhams Universsity – Cairo الق- جامعةة عين شمس
لقاھرة
TIC PROG
GENET GRAMMIN
NG (GP)
Figgure 1: Flow
w chart for GA procedu
ure
SE = Σ [ GP
SS P predictionn - Target ouutput ]2 (1)
Eleventh International Colloquium on
o المؤتمر الدوولى الحادى عشر للھندسة
Structuraal & Geotechnnical Engineeriing االنشائئية و الجيوتقنية
17-19 May 20005 2005 مايو199-17
Ain Shhams Universsity – Cairo الق- جامعةة عين شمس
لقاھرة
1. Any set of poiints in certain domain n of hyper space can be represeented by many m
surfacess with deferrent accuraccy dependinng on the complexity off these surfaaces.
2. Any complicatedd equation can be constructed froom certain basicb functions (operattors)
such as (=, +, -, x, /,
/ sin, cos.…
…etc. ).
3. The mmost simplee case is to use only thhe five basicc operators (=, +, -, x,, /) to consttruct
a polynoomial equattion.
4. The ffive basic operators havve two inpuuts and one output exceept the operrator (=) whhich
has one input and one
o output.
Using tthe previouss operators,, any polynnomial can be represennted in a trree form. The more
complexxity of the formula,
f thee more leveels of tree are
a needed to
t representt it. An exam
mple for
represennting formuulas in a treee form is shown in Fig.. 3.
As showwn in Fig. 3,
3 each chroomosome co onsists of tw
wo parts; op
perators partt and variabbles part.
Operatoors part represents all the tree ex
xcept the levvel 0 and it o (2 No. of levels
i consists of l
- 1)
Noo. of levels
genes. T
The variablles part reprresent only the level 0 of the treee and consiists of (2 )
genes. T t total nuumber of geenes on eveery chromosome is ( 2 No. of levels + 1 - 1)
Therefore, the
genes.
The seccond way too apply croossover wass proposed by the authhors. In thiis techniquee, a new
generatiion of chroomosomes is generated d by random mly selectinng each genne from thee similar
survivinng chromossomes. In other word ds, the first gene of the t new ch hromosome will be
selectedd randomly from the firrst genes off the whole surviving set of parentt chromosom mes, and
so do thhe next genees. This proccess is depiicted in Fig.. 5 for three parents and
d one child..
Eleventh International Colloquium on
o المؤتمر الدوولى الحادى عشر للھندسة
Structuraal & Geotechnnical Engineeriing االنشائئية و الجيوتقنية
17-19 May 20005 2005 مايو199-17
Ain Shhams Universsity – Cairo الق- جامعةة عين شمس
لقاھرة
Figuree 5: Random
m selection crossover method
m
PREDIICTION OF
F UPLIFT CAPACIT
TY USING (GP)
AI technniques had been wildlyy used in geeotechnical field recenttly because of its abilitty to dial
with nooisy and inaaccurate datta. In order to predict the uplift capacity
c of shallow fouundation
using GGP technique, the resultts of (31) pullout
p testss carried outt by (Matsuuo, 1967) iss used to
generatee the formu ulas, where another
a set of (4) pulloout tests carrried out by (Sarac, 19775) were
used to evaluate thee generatedd formulas.
The gennerating daata set conssists of (31) pullout fiield tests on square foootings of 66 K.V.
power transmissioon line, fouundation diimensions are rangedd between (1.20 to 22.00m ),
foundattion depths are ranged between (1.05 to 1.800m). The soil conditio on of these data set
includess (C-soil, ϕ-soil, C-ϕ soil) in i both bulkk and subm merged cases. Each datta record
includess footing width (B) andd depth (D)) beside threee soil paraameters whiich are the cohesion
c
(C), tanngent of inteernal frictionn angle (tann(ϕ)) and eff
ffective unit weight of soil
s (γ).
The evaaluation dataa set consissts of (4) pu ullout laboraatory tests on
o axi-symm metric footinngs. The
diameteer of the foooting is rannged betweeen (0.40 too 1.00m), where w the foundation
f depth is
constannt and equal to (1.00m)). All the seets had beenn carried ou ut using thee same (C-ϕϕ soil) in
bulk casse.
Eleventh International Colloquium on المؤتمر الدولى الحادى عشر للھندسة
Structural & Geotechnical Engineering االنشائية و الجيوتقنية
17-19 May 2005 2005 مايو19-17
Ain Shams University – Cairo القاھرة- جامعة عين شمس
In order to compare predicted and experimental capacities, the concept of equivalent area was
used to find the pullout load of the equivalent square footing with a width equal to the
diameter of the axi-symmetric footing.
During adapted research program to predict the uplift capacity of shallow foundation using
GP technique, the research program had been conducted using the last version of GP
software. The complexity of the generating formulas increases gradually from three levels in
the first trial and up to six levels in the last trail. Each trail had been conducted until the
solution error settled at it's minimum value (which corresponding to the maximum accuracy )
or until the solution exceeded the practical limits (when the solution takes too much time).
The first three trails had been conducted using only five variables ( B, D, C, tan(ϕ), γ) which
are footing width in meters, footing depth in meters, soil cohesion in tons per square meters ,
tangent of internal friction angle of soil and effective unit weight of soil in tons per cubic
meters respectively. Where the last two trails had been conducted using additional five
variables with constant values which are (1, 2, 3, 5, 11). A summary of the research program
and its results are shown in table (1).
The generated formula of each trail is represented in two charts, the first chart represent the
relationship between predicted and experimental capacities for both generating and evaluation
data sets, where the second chart shows the effect of shallowness ratio (B/D) and type of soil
on the accuracy of prediction. The average relative error could be calculated from the
following formula:
n Pcal − Pexp 100
Average Relative Error % = ∑ × ....... (1)
1 Pexp n
Where Pcal , Pexp are the predicted and the experimental uplift capacities respectively. The soil
type is represented by the ratio between cohesion and friction shear strength ( C / γ.D.tan(ϕ)),
for pure (ϕ-soil) this ratio is equal to zero and for pure (C-soil) the ratio yields to infinity.
Trial No. (1): Starting with a simple trail which has only three levels using generating data
set consists of five variables ( B, D, C, tan(ϕ), γ) produced formula (3) which corresponding
to SSE (Summation of Square Error) equals to (634). Applying this formula on the evaluation
data set produced SSE equals to (14). The corresponding accuracy of the formula in case of
generating, evaluation and total data sets are (82.30%) (75.78%) and (81.70%) respectively.
The graphical representation of predicated capacities of both generating and evaluation data
sets are shown in fig.(6), the graph shows that the slope of the best fitting line is (0.9858 ≈
1.00) and the coefficient of determination (R2 =0.8198) which indicate the good correlation
between the predicted and experimental capacities. Where the upper chart in fig. (7) shows
that the footing shallowness (B/D) has no significant effect on the prediction accuracy, on the
other hand, the lower chart indicates that the percentage of error in the (ϕ-soil) (up to 40%) is
higher than in (c-soil) (about 20%).
Eleventh International Colloquium on المؤتمر الدولى الحادى عشر للھندسة
Structural & Geotechnical Engineering االنشائية و الجيوتقنية
17-19 May 2005 2005 مايو19-17
Ain Shams University – Cairo القاھرة- جامعة عين شمس
Trial No. (2): Continuing the research program with the second trail which has four levels
using generating data set consists of five variables ( B, D, C, tan(ϕ), γ) produced formula (4)
which corresponding to SSE (Summation of Square Error) equals to (501). Applying this
formula on the evaluation data set produced SSE equals to (26). The corresponding accuracy
of the formula in case of generating, evaluation and total data sets are (84.26%) (67.00%) and
(83.50%) respectively.
tan( ϕ )
P = e ( B+ D ) + ( 2C − γB) + C.( D + tan( ϕ )). e e ......(4)
The graphical representation of predicated capacities of both generating and evaluation data
sets are shown in fig.(8), the graph shows that the slope of the best fitting line is (0.9896 ≈
1.00) and the coefficient of determination (R2 =0.8659) which indicate the good correlation
between the predicted and experimental capacities. Where the upper chart in fig. (9) shows
that the footing shallowness (B/D) has no significant effect on the prediction accuracy, on the
other hand, the lower chart indicates that the percentage of error in the (ϕ-soil) (up to 60%) is
higher than in (c-soil) (about 10%).
Trial No. (3): The conducting of the third trail which has five levels using generating data set
consists of five variables ( B, D, C, tan(ϕ), γ) generates formula (5) which corresponding to
SSE (Summation of Square Error) equals to (238). Applying this formula on the evaluation
data set produced SSE equals to (37). The corresponding accuracy of the formula in case of
generating, evaluation and total data sets are (89.16%) (60.57%) and (88.08%) respectively.
Trial No. (4): The forth trail five levels just like the third one but using generating data set
consists of ten variables ( B, D, C, tan(ϕ), γ,1,2,3,5,11). Conducting of this trial produced
formula (6) which corresponding to SSE (Summation of Square Error) equals to (226).
Applying this formula on the evaluation data set produced SSE equals to (35). The
corresponding accuracy of the formula in case of generating, evaluation and total data sets are
(89.44%) (61.57%) and (88.38%) respectively.
( B. tan( ϕ )) B.D .( 2 B − D − C )
P = e ( B+ D ) + D. C. B C + 2C. γ 2 . tan( ϕ ).( B + 2 ) − ........ (6)
2 Ln ( γ )
The graphical representation of predicated capacities of both generating and evaluation data
sets are shown in fig.(12), the graph shows that the slope of the best fitting line is (1.0033 ≈
1.00) and the coefficient of determination (R2 =0.9445) which indicate the very good
correlation between the predicted and experimental capacities. Where the upper chart in
fig. (13) shows that the prediction accuracy of deep footings is worst than shallow ones , on
the other hand, the lower chart indicates that the percentage of error in the (ϕ-soil) (up to
25%) is higher than in (c-soil) (about 10%).
Eleventh International Colloquium on
o المؤتمر الدوولى الحادى عشر للھندسة
Structuraal & Geotechnnical Engineeriing االنشائئية و الجيوتقنية
17-19 May 20005 2005 مايو199-17
Ain Shhams Universsity – Cairo الق- جامعةة عين شمس
لقاھرة
Eleventh International Colloquium on المؤتمر الدولى الحادى عشر للھندسة
Structural & Geotechnical Engineering االنشائية و الجيوتقنية
17-19 May 2005 2005 مايو19-17
Ain Shams University – Cairo القاھرة- جامعة عين شمس
Trial No. (5): The last trial in the research program has six levels using generating data set
consists of ten variables ( B, D, C, tan(ϕ), γ,1,2,3,5,11). Conducting of this trial generated
formula (7) which corresponding to SSE (Summation of Square Error) equals to (184).
Applying this formula on the evaluation data set produced SSE equals to (4). The
corresponding accuracy of the formula in case of generating, evaluation and total data sets are
(90.46%) (87.24%) and (90.15%) respectively.
( B − D ) 11
P = ( B. D + C + tan( ϕ )).( B + D + D. C ) + ( D 2 + 2D + 3B) + + 3
γ2 γ
⎛ 2C ⎞
− 2 γ − B.( γ + tan( ϕ )) + 2.2 B. C. γ . tan( ϕ ). ⎜ ( B + γ ). tan( ϕ ) + γ − ⎟ .... (7)
⎝ γ ⎠
The graphical representation of predicated capacities of both generating and evaluation data
sets are shown in fig.(14), the graph shows that the slope of the best fitting line is (0.997 ≈
1.00) and the coefficient of determination (R2 =0.9502) which indicate an excellent
correlation between the predicted and experimental capacities. Where the upper chart in fig.
(15) shows that the footing shallowness (B/D) has no significant effect on the prediction
accuracy, on the other hand, the lower chart indicates that the percentage of error in the (ϕ-
soil) (up to 30%) is higher than in (c-soil) (about 5%).
60
Generating set
50 Validation set
Best Fitting
Ppredicted capacity (ton)
40
30
20
y = 1.0045x
10 R2 = 0.9415
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Experimental capacity (ton)
Generating set
60 Validation set
Error %
40
20
0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
B/D
80
Generating set
60 Validation set
Error %
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
C / D.γ .tan(φ )
Figure 11: Effect of B/D and type of soil on the prediction accuracy For trail no. (3)
Eleventh International Colloquium on
o المؤتمر الدوولى الحادى عشر للھندسة
Structuraal & Geotechnnical Engineeriing االنشائئية و الجيوتقنية
17-19 May 20005 2005 مايو199-17
Ain Shhams Universsity – Cairo الق- جامعةة عين شمس
لقاھرة
Eleventh International Colloquium on المؤتمر الدولى الحادى عشر للھندسة
Structural & Geotechnical Engineering االنشائية و الجيوتقنية
17-19 May 2005 2005 مايو19-17
Ain Shams University – Cairo القاھرة- جامعة عين شمس
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The results of the research program are summarized in table (1), which shows each trail with
its the number of levels and input variables, in addition to its accuracy percentage and (SSE)
value in case of generating, validation and total data sets. From the summary table, it could be
noted that:
a ) For the same data set the accuracy of the generated formula increases with its
complexity ( no. of levels ).
b ) Using constants in the data sets saves the extra levels that will be used to create
these constants, hence they make the conversion faster.
c ) For second, third and forth trials, it is noticed that the accuracy of the validation
data set is significantly lower than that of the generating data set, that means that
these trials produced good estimations in case of generating data set and poor
estimations in case of the validation data set. In other words, these three trails
generated a "Memorized" formulas not "Generalized" formulas.
e ) The formula generated during the last trial is accurate enough to be applied in
design, the results indicates its validity in both generating and validation data sets,
hens, its generality and ability to be applied in the mentioned ranges of variables.
In order to compare the generated formulas with earlier prediction methods, the capacities of
both generating and validation data sets arfe calculated using six well known methods which
are (Earth cone 1958), (Morse 1959), (Shichiri 1943), (Gopal 1987), (Sarac 1961) and
(Matsuo 1967). Figures from (3-23) to (3-27) represent the relationship between predicted and
experimental capacities for both generating and evaluation data sets for each method of these
six methods.
For (Matsuo 1967) method, the chart in Fig.(16) shows that the slope of the best fitting
line is (0.8982) and the coefficient of determination (R2 =0.778) which indicate a good
correlation and also means that the predicted capacities is about 90% the experimental ones.
Where Fig.(17) which represents (Sarac 1961) method and Fig.(18) which represents
(Shichiri 1943) method, indicate a fair correlation and also show that the predicted capacities
is about 60-66% the experimental ones. For (Sarac 1961) the slope of the best fitting line is
(0.6566) and the coefficient of determination (R2 =0.7388) and for (Shichiri 1943) the slope
of the best fitting line is (0.6134) and the coefficient of determination (R2 =0.7402).
For (Gopal 1987) method, the chart in Fig.(19) shows that the slope of the best fitting line is
(0.9863) and the coefficient of determination (R2 =0.3306) which indicate a poor correlation
and also means that the predicted capacities is almost the same as the experimental ones.
Where Fig.(20) which represents (Morse 1959) method and Fig.(21) which represents (Earth
cone 1958) method, indicate no correlation and also show a poor relationship between
predicted and experimental capacities.
Eleventh International Colloquium on
o المؤتمر الدوولى الحادى عشر للھندسة
Structuraal & Geotechnnical Engineeriing االنشائئية و الجيوتقنية
17-19 May 20005 2005 مايو199-17
Ain Shhams Universsity – Cairo الق- جامعةة عين شمس
لقاھرة
Eleventh International Colloquium on
o المؤتمر الدوولى الحادى عشر للھندسة
Structuraal & Geotechnnical Engineeriing االنشائئية و الجيوتقنية
17-19 May 20005 2005 مايو199-17
Ain Shhams Universsity – Cairo الق- جامعةة عين شمس
لقاھرة
Eleventh International Colloquium on المؤتمر الدولى الحادى عشر للھندسة
Structural & Geotechnical Engineering االنشائية و الجيوتقنية
17-19 May 2005 2005 مايو19-17
Ain Shams University – Cairo القاھرة- جامعة عين شمس
60
Generating set
50 Validation set
Best Fitting
30
20
y = 0.6377x
10
R2 = -0.677
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Experimental capacity (ton)
Generating set
50 Validation set
Best Fitting
Ppredicted capacity (ton)
40
30 y = 0.2812x
R2 = -0.9362
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Experimental capacity (ton)
The results of the comparison are summarized in table (2), which shows the method
with its input variables in addition to its accuracy percentage and (SSE) value in case of
generating, validation and total data sets. From the summary table, it could be noted that:
a ) Earth cone and Morse methods have poor accuracy due to the neglecting the soil
cohesion. where the other earlier predicting methods shows a fair to good accuracy
according to their complexity.
b ) In spite of the simplicity of trail (1) formula, it shows an accuracy better than the
complicated earlier predicting methods.
c ) The best predicting method is trail (5) formula, which shows an excellent
accuracy ( about 90%).
Eleventh International Colloquium on
o المؤتمر الدوولى الحادى عشر للھندسة
Structuraal & Geotechnnical Engineeriing االنشائئية و الجيوتقنية
17-19 May 20005 2005 مايو199-17
Ain Shhams Universsity – Cairo الق- جامعةة عين شمس
لقاھرة
Eleventh International Colloquium on المؤتمر الدولى الحادى عشر للھندسة
Structural & Geotechnical Engineering االنشائية و الجيوتقنية
17-19 May 2005 2005 مايو19-17
Ain Shams University – Cairo القاھرة- جامعة عين شمس
REFERENCES
7 Matsuo M., (1967). “Study on the Uplift Resistance of Footing I”, Soils and
Foundations, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 1.37.
8 Matsuo M., (1968). “Study on the Uplift Resistance of Footing II” , Soils and
Foundations, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 18.48.
11 Saran S. and Rajan G. (1987). “Soil Anchors and Constitutive Lows “, Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 112, GT(12), pp. 1084.1099