applied

sciences
Article
Prediction of Pile Axial Bearing Capacity Using
Artificial Neural Network and Random Forest
Tuan Anh Pham * , Hai-Bang Ly * , Van Quan Tran , Loi Van Giap, Huong-Lan Thi Vu and
Hong-Anh Thi Duong
University of Transport Technology, Hanoi 100000, Vietnam; quantv@utt.edu.vn (V.Q.T.);
loigv@utt.edu.vn (L.V.G.); lanvth@utt.edu.vn (H.-L.T.V.); honganhdt@utt.edu.vn (H.-A.T.D.)
* Correspondence: anhpt@utt.edu.vn (T.A.P.); banglh@utt.edu.vn (H.-B.L.)




Received: 5 January 2020; Accepted: 5 March 2020; Published: 9 March 2020


Abstract: Axial bearing capacity of piles is the most important parameter in pile foundation design.
In this paper, artificial neural network (ANN) and random forest (RF) algorithms were utilized to
predict the ultimate axial bearing capacity of driven piles. An unprecedented database containing
2314 driven pile static load test reports were gathered, including the pile diameter, length of pile
segments, natural ground elevation, pile top elevation, guide pile segment stop driving elevation,
pile tip elevation, average standard penetration test (SPT) value along the embedded length of pile,
and average SPT blow counts at the tip of pile as input variables, whereas the ultimate load on pile
top was considered as output variable. The dataset was divided into the training (70%) and testing
(30%) parts for the construction and validation phases, respectively. Various error criteria, namely
mean absolute error (MAE), root mean squared error (RMSE), and the coefficient of determination
(R2 ) were used to evaluate the performance of RF and ANN algorithms. In addition, the predicted
results of pile load tests were compared with five empirical equations derived from the literature
and with classical multi-variable regression. The results showed that RF outperformed ANN and
other methods. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to reveal that the average SPT value and pile tip
elevation were the most important factors in predicting the axial bearing capacity of piles.

Keywords: artificial neural network; random forest; pile bearing capacity; pile foundation;
sensitivity analysis

1. Introduction
In applied engineering, piles have been used as the foundation elements, in which the axial
bearing capacity of the pile (Pu ) is considered as the most important parameter in the design of pile
foundation. Normally, the axial bearing capacity of piles can be determined by five approaches, namely
the static analysis, dynamic analysis, dynamic testing, pile load testing, and in-situ testing [1]. Out of
these methods, the pile load test is considered as the best method to determine the pile bearing capacity.
However, such a method is time-consuming, and the costs are often difficult to justify for ordinary
or small projects, whereas other methods have lower accuracy. As a result, several approaches have
been developed to predict the axial bearing capacity of pile or to enhance the prediction accuracy. The
nature of these methods included some simplifications, assumptions, or empirical approaches with
respect to the soil stratigraphy, soil–pile structure interactions, and the distribution of soil resistance
along the pile. In such studies, the test results were used as complementary elements to improve
the prediction accuracy. Meanwhile, the European standard (Euro code 7) [2] recommends using the
following ground field tests: DP (dynamic probing test), SS (press-in and screw-on probe test), SPT
(standard penetration test), PMT (pressure meter tests), PLT (plate loading test), DMT (flat dilatometer
test), FVT (field vane test), CPTu (cone penetration tests with the measurement of pore pressure).

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1871; doi:10.3390/app10051871 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1871 2 of 21

Among the above indicators, the SPT is commonly used to determine the bearing capacity of piles [3].
Several propositions relying on the results of SPT have been proposed to predict the bearing capacity
of piles, including the empirical equations derived from the works of Meyerhof [4], Bazaraa and
Kurkur [5], Robert [6], Shioi and Fukui [7], Shariatmadari et al. [8]. In general, the pile diameter, SPT
blow counts along the pile shaft, and at the tip of the pile have been used in these equations. Besides,
Lopes and Laprovitera [9] proposed a formula to estimate the pile bearing capacity for different types
of soil, namely sand, and silt. Decort [10] has presented an empirical formula, including the adjustment
factors for sandy and clay soils. Last but not least, the Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) [11] has a
recommendation using an experimental formula, taking into account the effects of soil type or the use
of SPT value for sandy soil and untrained shear strength of soil (Cu ) for clayey soil. Overall, traditional
methods or empirical equations attempted to include a few key parameters to predict the pile strength.
However, if the input parameters of pile geometry and soil properties increased, these methods were
impossible to use.
In recent years, a widespread development in the use of information technology in civil engineering
has paved the way for many promising applications, especially the use of machine learning (ML)
approaches to solve practical engineering problems [12–21]. Moreover, different ML techniques have
been used, for instance, decision tree [22], hybrid artificial intelligence approaches [23–25], artificial
neural network (ANN) [26–31], adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) [32,33], and support
vector machine (SVM) [34] in solving many real-world problems, including the prediction of behavior
of piles. Precisely, Kumar et al. [35] developed a K-nearest neighbors (KNN) model to estimate the
soil parameters required for foundation design. In another work, Goh et al. [36,37] presented an
ANN model to predict the friction capacity of driven piles in clays, which was trained by on-field
data records. Besides, Shahin et al. [38–41] developed an ANN model for driven piles and drilled
shafts using a series of in-situ load tests as well as CTP results. Nawari et al. [42] developed an ANN
algorithm to predict the deflection of drilled shafts based on SPT data and the shaft geometry. In
addition, Pooya et al. [43] developed a model to predict the pile settlement using ANN, based on SPT
data using 12 input factors. Last but not least, Momeni et al. [44] presented an ANN model to predict
the shaft and tip resistance of concrete piles. In general, ML algorithm could be considered as an
efficient tool for predicting the mechanical behavior of piles. However, no general argument has yet
been reached on the selection of the best model to predict the bearing capacity of piles. Moreover, the
database is an important factor that highly affects the accuracy of ML algorithms and crucial to provide
a reliable modeling tool. The existing database in the literature related to the bearing capacity problem
was still limited due to the lack of experiments or on-field measurements.
Therefore, the main objective of this study is dedicated to investigating the prediction capability
of ANN and random forest (RF) algorithms, using all possible factors that might affect the bearing
capacity of driven piles. To this aim, a considerable effort in collecting 2314 pile load test reports from
the construction site of Ha Nam—Vietnam was devoted, which, to the best of our knowledge, is the
largest database in the available literature. The database was then divided into the training and testing
subsets, dedicated to the learning and validation phases of the two proposed ML models. Various
error criteria—namely, the mean absolute error (MAE), root mean squared error (RMSE), and the
coefficient of determination (R2 )—were applied to evaluate the prediction capability of the algorithms.
In addition, 1000 simulations taking into account the random splitting of the dataset were conducted
for each model in order to finely evaluate the accuracy of RF and ANN. Proved to outperform ANN,
the RF algorithm was next used to compare with five empirical formulas in the literature as well as
classical multivariable regression (MVR) in predicting the bearing capacity of piles. Finally, the feature
importance analysis was proposed to find out the important factors affecting the prediction capability
of the RF model.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1871 3 of 21

2. Significance of the Research Study

Accurately predicting the axial bearing capacity of pile is of crucial importance because of
many possible advantages and contributions to foundation engineering. Numerical or experimental
approaches in the available literature still face some limitations, for instance, the lack of dataset samples
(Momeni et al. [44] with 36 samples; Bagińska and Srokosz [45] with 50 samples; Teh et al. [46] with 37
samples), accuracy assessment and improvement of the ML algorithms or comparison with classical
prediction methodologies. Therefore, the contribution of the present work could be highlighted
through the following ideas: (i) the largest dataset, to the best of the author’s knowledge, was used
for the construction of ML models, including 2314 experimental tests; (ii) a comparison of two ML
algorithms, namely ANN and RF, was conducted and compared with classical MVR and five formulas
in the literature to fully assess the prediction performance of each approach; (iii) the performance of
ML algorithms was evaluated under the presence of random splitting dataset, which could truly find
out the efficiency of ML algorithms; and (iv) a sensitivity analysis was performed to reveal the role of
each input parameters in predicting the axial bearing capacity of piles.

3. Data Collection and Preparation

3.1. Experimental Measurement of Bearing Capacity

In this work, pile load tests were conducted on 2314 reinforced concrete piles at the test site in
Ha Nam province—Vietnam, where the location is shown in Figure 1a. Pre-cast square section piles
with closed tips were driven to the ground by hydraulic pile presses machine with a constant rate
of penetration. The piles were assembled from 1 to 3 pile segments, connected by welding through
intermediate steel plates and fixed steel plates at the top of each pile segment. The pile top was driven
into the ground to the pile top elevation design by the use of the guide pile segment. These pile load
tests started at least 7 days after piles were driven, and the experimental layout could be depicted in
Figure 1b–d. In each pile test, the load increased progressively. If, after one hour of monitoring, the
settlement of the pile top was less than 0.20 mm, the load was increased to a new level. Depending on
the design requirements, piles could load up to 200% of the design load. The time required for 100%,
150%, and 200% of load could last for more than 6 h to 12 h or 24 h, respectively. The determination of
the bearing capacity of piles were conducted as follows:

(i) (i) If the settlement of pile top at a given load level was 5 times higher than the settlement of pile
top at the previous load level, or the settlement of the pile top at a given load level increased
continuously while the load did not increase, the pile bearing capacity was determined based on
that given failure load. The number of piles corresponded to this situation was 688, representing
about 30% of the samples. An example of this situation is given in Appendix A (Figure A1).
(ii) When the pile load capacity was too large to be able to test by the destructive load, the load curve
(P)– settlement (S) was plotted in log(P)–log(S). The intersection point of two lines was considered
as a result of failure and taken as the pile bearing capacity, according to De Beer (1968) [47]. The
number of piles corresponded to this situation was 1225 piles (accounting for more than 50% of
the samples). An example of this situation is given in Appendix A (Figures A2 and A3).
(iii) For the remaining samples, when the log(P)–log(S) relationship is linear, which could not find
the intersection point compared with the previous case. The determination of the pile bearing
capacity was taken at the load level when the settlement of the pile top exceeded 10% of the
pile diameter.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1871 4 of 21
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 21

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 1. (a)
(a)Experimental
Experimental location;
location; (b)
(b) pre-cast
pre-cast square-section
square-section concrete
concrete pile; (c) hydraulic
hydraulic pile presses
presses
machine; (d) experimental layout.

3.2. Data
3.2. Data Preparation
Preparation
In order
In ordertotocorrectly
correctly predict
predict thethe bearing
bearing capacity
capacity of piles,
of piles, a thorough
a thorough understanding
understanding of the
of the factors
factors that affect the bearing capacity of the pile is needed.
that affect the bearing capacity of the pile is needed. Most traditional pile bearing capacity Most traditional pile bearing capacity
determination methods
determination methods included included the the following
following parameters:
parameters: pile pilegeometry,
geometry, pile pile material
material properties,
properties,
and soil properties [4,5]. The depth of the water table was
and soil properties [4,5]. The depth of the water table was not included in this study, as it isnot included in this study, as it is believed
believed
that the effect is already accounted in the SPT blow counts
that the effect is already accounted in the SPT blow counts [43]. Since the bearing capacity of [43]. Since the bearing capacity of piles
piles
depended on
depended onthe thesoilsoilcompressibility
compressibility andand the the
SPTSPT was was one of theofmost
one the commonly
most commonly used tests used in practice
tests in
(indicating the in situ compressibility of soils), the SPT blow
practice (indicating the in situ compressibility of soils), the SPT blow count/300 mm (N) along thecount/300 mm (N) along the embedded
length of the
embedded pile was
length of the used
pileaswas a measure
used as aofmeasuresoil compressibility. In this study,
of soil compressibility. the study,
In this average theSPT blow
average
count along the pile shaft (N ) and pile tip (N ) were calculated.
SPT blow count along the pile shaft (Ns) and pile tip (Nt) were calculated. It is worth mentioning that,
s t It is worth mentioning that, in order
to order
in obtaintothe average
obtain SPT (Nt )SPT
the average value (Naround the pile tip, Meyerhof’s recommendation (1976) [4] was
t) value around the pile tip, Meyerhof's recommendation (1976)
considered.
[4] The average
was considered. SPT (Nt )SPT
The average value (Nfor 8D above and 3D below the pile tip was obtained, where D
t) value for 8D above and 3D below the pile tip was obtained,
represented the pile diameter.
where D represented the pile diameter.
Hence, the
Hence, the factors
factors that that were
were used used for for ML
ML simulation
simulation were were (Figure
(Figure 2): 2): (i)
(i) pile
pile diameter
diameter (D); (D); (ii)
(ii)
length of
length of pile
pile tip
tip segment
segment (L (L11);); (iii)
(iii) length
length of of second
second pile pile segment
segment (L (L22);); (iv)
(iv) length
length of of pile
pile toptop segment
segment
(L ); (v) the natural ground elevation (E ); (vi) pile top elevation
(L33); (v) the natural ground elevation (Egg); (vi) pile top elevation (Epp); (vii) guide pile segment stop(E ); (vii) guide pile segment stop
driving elevation
driving elevation (E (Ett);); (viii)
(viii) pile
pile tiptip elevation
elevation (Z (Zm m);); (ix)
(ix) the
the average
average SPT SPT blowblow along
along thethe embedded
embedded
length of the pile (N ) and (x) the average SPT blow at the tip of
length of the pile (Ns) and (x) the average SPT blow at the tip of the pile (Nt). The bearing capacity
s the pile (N t ). The bearing capacity was
the single output variable in
was the single output variable in this study this study (P ).
u (Pu).
Due to an important quantity
Due to an important quantity of data (2314 of data (2314 samples),
samples), the the dataset
dataset used used in in this
this study
study is is partly
partly
presented and summarized in Table 1, along with the statistical
presented and summarized in Table 1, along with the statistical information of the input and output information of the input and output
variables. As
variables. As observed
observed in inTable
Table1,1,the thepile
pilediameter
diameter (D)(D) ranged
ranged fromfrom300300 to 400 mm.mm.
to 400 TheThe length of pile
length of
tip section (L ) ranged from 3 m to 8.4 m. The length of the second
pile tip section (L1) ranged from 3 m to 8.4 m. The length of the second pile segment (L2) ranged from
1 pile segment (L 2 ) ranged from
1.47 m to 8 m. The length of pile top segment (L3) ranged from 0 m to 3.95 m, where a 0 value means
that segment did not exist. The natural ground elevation (Eg) varied from −1.6 m to 3.4 m. The pile
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1871 5 of 21

1.47 m to 8 m. The length of pile top segment (L3 ) ranged from 0 m to 3.95 m, where a 0 value means
Appl. Sci. 2020,
that segment did10,not
x FOR PEER The
exist. REVIEW natural ground elevation (Eg ) varied from −1.6 m to 3.4 m. 5 ofThe
21 pile

top elevation (Ep ) varied from 2.05 m to 4.13 m. The guide piles stop driving elevation (Et ) varied
top elevation (Ep) varied from 2.05 m to 4.13 m. The guide piles stop driving elevation (Et) varied
−1.6 −1.6
from from m tom8.4m. The
to 8.4m. Thepile tiptipelevation
pile elevation(Z(Zm ) varied from 8.27 m to 18.35 m. The average SPT blow
m) varied from 8.27 m to 18.35 m. The average SPT blow
counts
counts along the embedded length of the pile (N
along the embedded length of the pile (Nss)) ranged
rangedfrom
from5.57
5.57
to to 19.2.
19.2. TheThe average
average SPT blow
SPT blow
counts at the
counts at tip
the of
tipthe pilepile
of the (N(Nt ) ranged
t) rangedfrom
from4.35
4.35 to 8.47.
8.47.The
Thebearing
bearing capacity
capacity load
load (Pu),(Pranged
u ), ranged
from from
384 kN
384tokN1860 kN kN
to 1860 with a mean
with a mean value
valueofof1164.5
1164.5 kN and aastandard
kN and standarddeviation
deviation of 268.6
of 268.6 kN.kN.

Et

Extra pile segment

Eg
Layer 1 - sand Ep

Layer 2 - small grain sand

L1

L
Layer 3 - sand clay mix
D
L2

L3 Zm
Layer 4 - fine grained sand

Layer 5 - sandy clay

Figure 2. Schematic diagram for soil stratigraphy and pile parameters.

Figure 2. Schematic diagram for soil stratigraphy and pile parameters.
Table 1. Inputs and output of the present study
In this work, the collected dataset was divided into the training and testing datasets. The training
N°
part (approximatelyD 70%L1 of the
L2 total Ldata)
3 Eg used
was Ep to train
Et the ML Zm models,Ns Nt
whereas Pu
testing data
Unit mm m m m m m m m - - kN
(approximately 30% of the remaining dataset) was used to validate the performance of the ML models.
1 400 3.45 8 0.07 2.95 3.42 2.95 14.47 11.52 7.44 1163
Different2
from the
400
original
3.4
data,
7.29
the training
0
dataset
3.4
(including
3.49 3.4
1014.09
inputs and
10.69
1 output)
7.27
was1240
scaled in
the [−1;31] range400
(Table4.35
2). By 8considering
1.2 all
2.05variables
3.4 in 5.8
a uniform15.6 range,
13.55bias 7.74
within the dataset
1297.8
between. inputs could
. be. minimized.
. . In the present
. . study, . the range
. [−1; .1] was selected
. to
. better
capture .the non-Gaussian
. . distribution
. . of input
. variables.
. A. scaling . process . of parameters,
. . such as
. . . . . . . . . . . .
the minimum
2312
and
400
maximum
5.72
values
8
of the training
1.67 0.68
data were
4.13 1.06
also
16.07
used 15.39
to scale the
7.50
testing
1344
dataset.
The scaling
2313 procedure
400 of
4.1 input
2.19and output
0 variables
2.7 3.72 was applied
2.73 using
8.99 Equation
6.29 4.94(1). Besides,
480 the
histograms
2314 of all400
the data,
4.05 including
8 10
0.7inputs
2.35and 13.5
output2.4are presented
15.1 in Figure
12.75 3.
7.58 1318
Min 300 3.00 1.47 0.00 −1.60 2.05 −1.60 8.27 5.57 4.35 384
Average 393.3 4.02 7.27 0.49 2.53 − α) 2.70
2(x3.52 14.30 11.78 7.24 1164.5
Max 400 8.40 8.00 3.95xscaled =
3.40 4.13 −8.40
1 18.35 19.20 8.47 1860 (1)
β−x
SD 24.85 0.55 1.53 0.50 0.63 0.09 0.75 1.68 2.02 0.71 268.63
where α and β represented the minimumSDand = Standard
maximumdeviation.
values of the corresponding variables, and x
denoted the value of the selected input variable to be scaled.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1871 6 of 21
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 21

In this work, the collected dataset

Table wasand
1. Inputs divided
outputinto thepresent
of the training and testing datasets. The training
study
part (approximately 70% of the total data) was used to train the ML models, whereas testing data
N◦ D
(approximately 30%L1 of the L2 remaining
L3 Eg
dataset) wasEp used toEt validate
Zm the performance
Ns Nt of thePu ML
Unit mm m m m m m m m -
models. Different from the original data, the training dataset (including 10 inputs and 1 output) was - kN

scaled
1 in the
400 [−1; 1]3.45range (Table
8 2).
0.07By considering
2.95 all variables
3.42 2.95 in 14.47
a uniform range,7.44
11.52 bias within
1163 the
2 400 3.4 7.29 0 3.4 3.49 3.4 14.09 10.69 7.27 1240
dataset
3
between
400
inputs
4.35
could8
be minimized.
1.2 2.05
In the3.4
present5.8study, the
15.6
range [−1; 1] 7.74
13.55
was selected
1297.8
to
better
. capture
. the non-Gaussian
. . distribution
. . of input. variables.
. A scaling
. process
. of parameters,
. . such
as .the minimum
. and . maximum . .
values of the. training. data were. also used
. .
to scale .
the testing .
dataset.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
The
2312 scaling
400 procedure
5.72 of input8 and
1.67output0.68variables
4.13 was 1.06
applied 16.07
using Equation
15.39 (1).
7.50 Besides,
1344 the
histograms
2313 400of all the
4.1 data, 2.19
including0 10 inputs2.7 and 1 output2.73
3.72 are presented
8.99 in6.29
Figure 3.4.94 480
2314 400 4.05 8 0.7 2.35 3.5 2.4 15.1 12.75 7.58 1318
−1.60 2( x - α ) −1.60
Min 300 3.00 1.47 0.00
xscaled = 2.05
-1 8.27 5.57 4.35 384
(1)
Average
Max
393.3
400
4.02
8.40
7.27
8.00
0.49
3.95
2.53
3.40
β3.52
- x 2.70
4.13 8.40
14.30
18.35
11.78
19.20
7.24
8.47
1164.5
1860
SD
where α and β represented the minimum and maximum values of the corresponding variables,
24.85 0.55 1.53 0.50 0.63 0.09 0.75 1.68 2.02 0.71 268.63
SD = Standard deviation.
and x denoted the value of the selected input variable to be scaled.
Table 2. Statistical values of the normalization process of the training dataset
Table 2. Statistical values of the normalization process of the training dataset
D L1 L2 L3 Eg Ep Et Zm Ns Nt
D L1 L2 L3 Eg Ep Et Zm Ns Nt
Min −1.0 −1.0 −1.0 −1.0 −1.0 −1.0 −1.0 −1.0 −1.0 −1.0
Min
Average 0.868 −1.0 −1.0
0.845 −1.0
−0.983 −1.0
−0.999 −1.0
0.651 0.410−1.0 −1.0
−0.139 0.197 −1.0 −1.0
0.401 −1.0
0.284
Average 1.0 0.868 1.00.845 1.0−0.983 1.0
Max −0.999 1.00.651 1.0 0.410 1.0−0.139 1.0 0.197 1.00.401 1.00.284
SDMax 0.497 1.0 0.4131.0 0.1721.0 0.0421.0 0.2531.0 0.084 1.0 0.150 1.0 0.333 1.0 0.3421.0 0.959
1.0
SD 0.497 0.413 = Standard
0.172 SD0.042 0.253
deviation.0.084 0.150 0.333 0.342 0.959
SD = Standard deviation.

Figure 3. Cont.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1871 7 of 21
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 21

Figure
Figure 3.3.Histograms
Histograms ofof the
the dataset
dataset in in this
this study:
study: (a)(a)
D; D;
(b)(b)
L1 ;L(c)
1; (c) L2; (d) L3; (e) Eg; (f) Ep; (g) Et; (h)Zm;
L2 ; (d) L3 ; (e) Eg ; (f) Ep ; (g) Et ; (h)Zm ;
(i) N s; (j) Nt; (k) Pu.
(i) Ns ; (j) Nt ; (k) Pu .
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1871 8 of 21

4. Machine Learning Methods

4.1. Random Forest (RF)

Random Forests (RF) designate a family of ML methods, composed of different algorithms for
inducing a set of decision trees, such as the Breiman Forest algorithm presented by Breiman [48] and
often used in the literature as a benchmark model. In this algorithm, two principles of ‘randomization’
are used, namely the bagging and random feature selection. The learning step, therefore, consists
in building a set of decision trees, each driven from a ‘bootstrap’ subset from the original learning
set, i.e., using the bagging principle, and using a tree induction method called random tree. Such an
induction algorithm, usually based on the classification and regression trees (CART) algorithm [49],
modifies the partitioning procedure of the nodes of the tree so that the selection of the characteristic
used as criterion of partitioning is partially random. In other words, for each node of the tree, a subset
of characteristics is generated randomly, from which the best partitioning is achieved. To summarize,
the RF method, a decision tree is constructed according to the following steps:
Step 1: For N data from the learning set, randomly draw N individuals with a discount. The
resulting assembly will be the one used for the induction of the tree;
Step 2: For M characteristics, a number K << M is specified so that at each node of the tree, a
subset of K characteristics is drawn randomly, among which the best is then selected for partitioning;
Step 3: The tree is constructed until it reaches its maximum size. No pruning is done. In this
process, the induction of the tree is mainly directed by a hyperparameter, i.e., the number K. This
number makes it possible to introduce more or less randomness into the induction.
In this way, except in the case of K = M, the induction of the tree is not at all ‘randomized’. Each
tree in the forest has a structure and properties, which cannot be grasped. The randomness in RF
induction could take advantage of the complementarity of trees, but there is no guarantee that adding
a tree to the forest will actually improve the performance. Only a few research studies in the literature
have looked at the number of decision trees to be built within a forest. When Breiman introduced the
RF formalism in [48], the author also demonstrated that beyond a certain number of trees, adding
others did not systematically improve the performance of RF. This result indicates that the number of
trees in an RF does not necessarily have to be as large as possible to produce an efficient regressor. The
results of [50,51] have experimentally confirmed this assertion.

4.2. Artificial Neural Network (ANN)

Artificial neural network (ANN) has emerged over the past four decades as a powerful and
versatile computational tool for organizing and correlating knowledge [52]. ANN has been proved a
useful prediction tool in solving many types of problems, usually difficult to address using conventional
numerical and statistical approaches [53]. MeCulloch, the mathematician, and Pitts, the neuroscientist,
are the first two scientists who developed the idea of ANN-based on the structure of the human
brain [54]. The ANN has been proved to exhibit a strong ability to handle complex problems in which
the relationships between input(s) and output(s) are complex or nonlinear [55]. This computational
technique is capable of recognizing, capturing, and mapping features, the so-called ‘patterns’ in a set
of data, primarily due to high neuronal interconnections that process much information in parallel [53].
The structure of ANN consists of several layers (input, hidden, and output layers) connected together
by different link weights through hidden nodes [55]. In each node, the activation function is applied.
The node net input is obtained by summing the weights of the connection as well as a bias [44]. The
back-propagation is the most popular manner to train ANN among different learning algorithms [56].
In addition, many other rules of study have been introduced and extended to this day [57,58].
This fact shows that ANN has many advantages and is widely used in different fields, especially in
the field of construction engineering [59,60]. Moreover, numerous investigations on the determination
of bearing capacity using ANN have been conducted [53,55,57,58,60]. In the work of Pal and Deswal [61],
the author predicted the total capacity of concrete spun pipe piles by using stress–wave data to build
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 21

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1871 9 of 21

stress–wave data to build the ANN-based predictive model. Based on the conclusion, the predictive
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 21
performance given by ANN was more reliable compared to supporting vector machines (SVM).
Benaliand
the ANN-based
stress–wave and
data Nechnech
predictive
to build the [62]ANN-based
model. proposed
Based onan ANN-based
the conclusion,
predictive model.predictive
theBased onmodel
predictive of cohesionless
theperformance
conclusion, given soilANN
by
the predictivepile
bearing
was more efficiency.
reliable A number
compared toof 80 cases
supporting of axial
vector load were
machines used,
performance given by ANN was more reliable compared to supporting vector machines (SVM).(SVM). and the
Benaliandresults
and showed
Nechnech that the
[62]
correlation
proposed
Benaliandan coefficient
ANN-based
and (R) equaled
Nechnechpredictive to
[62] proposed 0.92,
modelan showing
of ANN-basedthe reliability
cohesionless predictive of the
soil pile bearing ANN-based
modelefficiency. predictive
A number
of cohesionless model.
soilofpile
80
Besides,
cases of numerous
axial load investigations
were used, and on the
the behavior
results of
showed pile bearing
that the using ANN
correlation
bearing efficiency. A number of 80 cases of axial load were used, and the results showed that the also pointed
coefficient (R) out a
equaled better
to
prediction
0.92, showing performance
the reliabilitycompared
of the with
ANN-based analytical and
predictive empirical
model. methods
Besides,
correlation coefficient (R) equaled to 0.92, showing the reliability of the ANN-based predictive model. [53,60–62].
numerous A schematic
investigations on
diagram
the behavior
Besides, of neural
numerous network
of pileinvestigationscouldon
bearing using bethe
ANN illustrated in
also pointed
behavior of Figure a 4.
outbearing
pile In the
better ANN
prediction
using ANN algorithm, the out
performance
also pointed multi-layer
compared
a better
network
with is
analyticalgenerally
and shown
empirical to operate
methods most effectively,
[53,60–62]. A because
schematic it can
diagram
prediction performance compared with analytical and empirical methods [53,60–62]. A schematic simulate
of nonlinear
neural network processes.
could be
Neural
diagram computing's
illustratedofinneural main
Figurenetwork principle
4. In thecould
ANNbe is the
algorithm, decomposition
illustrated theinmulti-layer
Figure 4. Inof the
network relationship
the ANN between
is generally
algorithm,shown inputs and
to operate
the multi-layer
output
most
network into a series
effectively, ofshown
because
is generally linearly
it can separable
tosimulate
operate most stepseffectively,
nonlinear using hidden
processes. layers.
Neural
because Three distinctnonlinear
computing’s
it can simulate stepsprinciple
main in developing
is the
processes.
an ANN-based
decomposition solution
of the could
relationship be summarized
between as
inputs [63]:
Neural computing's main principle is the decomposition of the relationship between inputssteps
and output into a series of linearly separable and
usingStep
output into1:aTransformation
hidden layers.ofThree
series linearly orseparable
scaling
distinct stepsofsteps
data;
in developing
using hidden an ANN-based
layers. Three solution could
distinct stepsbeinsummarized
developing
Step 2: Definition
as [63]:
an ANN-based solutionofcouldnetwork architecture,aswhere
be summarized [63]: the number of hidden layers, the number of
neurons
Step 1:in Transformation
each layer, and
Transformation the connectivity
or scaling of data; between neurons are determined. The network
architecture selection
Definition of
Step 2: Definition could be
of network depicted
network architecture,from Figure
architecture, where
where 4; the
the number
number of hidden layers, the number of
Stepinin
neurons 3:each
Train the
layer, network
and the to respond
connectivity correctly
between
each layer, and the connectivity between neurons a given
neurons set
areof inputs,
are this
determined. stepnetwork
The is considered
determined. The as the
architecture
network
development
selection could
architecture of neural
be depicted
selection network
could from (Figure
Figure 4;
be depicted 5);
from Figure 4;
Train the network to respond correctly a given set of inputs, this step is considered as the
Step 3: Train
development of neural network (Figure 5);

Figure 4.
Figure 4. (Left) Schematic diagram of neural network and (Right) network
network architecture
architecture selection.
selection.

Figure 4. (Left) Schematic diagram of neural network and (Right) network architecture selection.

Figure 5.
Figure 5. Typical
Typical neural
neural network
network development
development steps.
steps.

4.3.
4.3. Performance
Performance Evaluation
Evaluation
Figure 5. Typical neural network development steps.
In
In this
this paper,
paper, three
three indicators
indicators accounting
accounting forfor the
the error
error between
between the the actual
actual and
and predicted
predicted values
values
of P
4.3. were used,
Performance
u namely
Evaluation the mean absolute error (MAE), root mean square
of Pu were used, namely the mean absolute error (MAE), root mean square error (RMSE), squared error (RMSE), squared
correlation
correlation coefficient,
coefficient,or or
the the
coefficient of determination
coefficient of for (R2 ). The
determination (RR
2
2). measured
The the squared
R2 measured correlation
the squared
In this paper, three indicators accounting the error between the actual and predicted values
between
correlation the predicted
between and
the actual
predicted P values, having values in the range of [0, 1]. Low
u and actual Pu values, having values in the range of [0, RMSE and
1].MAE
Low
of Pu were used, namely the mean absolute error (MAE), root mean square error (RMSE), squared
values showed
RMSE and MAE better accuracy
values or showed of the proposed
better accuracy ML algorithms.
of the proposed On the other hand, RMSE calculated
correlation coefficient, the coefficient of determination (R2ML
). Thealgorithms.
R2 measuredOn thethe
other hand,
squared
the
RMSE squared root average
calculated the difference,
squared rootwhereas
averageMAE calculatedwhereas
difference, the difference
MAE between the the
calculated predicted and
difference
correlation between the predicted and actual Pu values, having values in the range of [0, 1]. Low
actual
between P u values. These values could be calculated using the following equations [64–68]:
RMSE andtheMAEpredicted
values and
showedactual Pu values.
better accuracyThese values
of the couldML
proposed be algorithms.
calculated using
On thethe following
other hand,
equations [64–68]:
RMSE calculated the squared root average difference, whereas MAE calculated the difference
between the predicted and actual Pu values. These values could be calculated using the following
equations [64–68]:
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1871 10 of 21

k
1X
MAE = ( vi − vi ) (2)
k
i=1
v
u
k
t
1X
RMSE = (vi − vi )2 (3)
k
i=1

k
(vi − vi )2
P
i=1
R2 = 1 − (4)
k
P 2
( vi − v )
i=1

where k inferred the number of the samples, vi and vi were the actual and predicted outputs, respectively,
and v was the average value of the vi .

5. Results and Discussion

5.1. Comparison of RF and ANN

The effectiveness of RF and ANN models is evaluated in this section. The parameters of ANN
and RF used in this study are given in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. The prediction performance in a
regression form is shown in Figures 6 and 7 for the training and testing datasets, respectively, whereas
a summary of the corresponding information is indicated in Table 5. It is worth mentioning that the
results presented herein were transformed into the normal range.

Table 3. ANN parameters used in this study

Parameters Value and Description

Number of neurons in the input layer 10
Number of hidden layers 1
Number of neurons in the hidden layer 7
Number of neurons in the output layer 1
Activation function for the hidden layer Logistic
Activation function for the output layer Linear
Training algorithm Quasi-Newton methods
Cost function Mean Square Error (MSE)

Table 4. RF parameters used in this study

Parameters Value and Description

Number of trees 15
Number of features to consider when looking for the best split 10
Minimum number of samples required to split an internal node 2
Minimum number of samples required to be at a leaf node 1e-7
Cost function Mean Square Error (MSE)
Maximum depth of the tree None

With respect to the training part, the RF model demonstrated a better performance, yielding a
correlation of R2 = 0.969, RMSE = 47.333, and MAE = 2.178. The ANN model produced an intermediate
accuracy (R2 = 0.818, RMSE = 114.882, and MAE = 1.050) for the training data. This was also confirmed
by the values of the standard deviation of error (denoted as StDerror in Table 5). For the training part,
RF yielded a lower value of StDerror compared to ANN (i.e., StDerror = 10.605% and 4.223% for ANN
and RF, respectively).
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1871 11 of 21
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 21

Figure 6. Graphs of regression results between measured Pu versus predicted Pu for the training
part
Figureusing (a) ANN,
6. Graphs (b) RF, (c)results
of regression mean between
error ANN, (d) mean
measured error RF,
Pu versus (e) standard
predicted deviation
Pu for the ANN,
training part
and (f) standard deviation RF.
using (a) ANN, (b) RF, (c) mean error ANN, (d) mean error RF, (e) standard deviation ANN, and (f)
standard deviation RF.
Considering the testing dataset, the RF model yielded the best prediction results with respect
2
to R Considering
, RMSE, MAE, 2 = 0.866, 0.809; RMSE = 98.161,
thethe mean
testing of error
dataset, themRF error , and yielded
model StDerrorthe (i.e.,
bestRprediction results with respect to
116.366;
R2, RMSE, MAEMAE,= 2.924, 3.190;
the mean ofm = error
error m
error 0.573%,
, and 1.202%;
StDerrorStD Rr2 =9.461%,
erro
(i.e., 10.786%
= 0.866, 0.809; RMSE using RF and
= 98.161, ANN,
116.366;
respectively). The MAE value of RF was slightly higher in the training
MAE = 2.924, 3.190; merror = 0.573%, 1.202%; StDerror =9.461%, 10.786% using RF and ANN, part but much lower in the
testing one compared
respectively). The MAE to ANN
valuebecause
of RF was the slightly
performance of in
higher such
thea training
model might
part be
butinfluenced
much lowerby choice
in the
of the selected index of the training data.
testing one compared to ANN because the performance of such a model might be influenced by
choice of the selected index of the training data.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1871 12 of 21
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 21

Figure 7. Graphs of regression results between measured Pu versus predicted Pu for the testing
part
Figureusing (a) ANN,
7. Graphs (b) RF, (c) results
of regression mean error ANN,
between (d) mean
measured Pu error
versusRF, (e) standard
predicted Pu fordeviation ANN,
the testing part
and
using(f)(a)
standard deviation
ANN, (b) RF, (c) RF.
mean error ANN, (d) mean error RF, (e) standard deviation ANN, and (f)
standard deviation RF.
Table 5. Summary of prediction capability

Part Method Table

R2 5. Summary
MAE of (kN)
prediction capability
RMSE (kN) merror (%) StDerror (%)
ANN 0.818 1.050
MAE RMSE 114.882merror 0.884%
StDerror 10.605%
Training PartRF Method0.969 R2 2.178 47.333 0.069% 4.223%
(kN) (kN) (%) (%)
ANN 0.809 3.190 116.366 1.202% 10.786%
Testing ANN 0.8660.818 1.050 114.882
RF
Training 2.924 98.1610.884% 0.573%10.605% 9.461%
RF 0.969 2.178 47.333 0.069% 4.223%
ANN 0.809 3.190 116.366 1.202% 10.786%
Testingpoint of view, the performance of ANN and RF algorithms needs to be fully
From a statistical
RF 0.866 2.924 98.161 0.573% 9.461%
evaluated. The above results showed that the RF model was better than ANN in predicting the bearing
capacity
From ofapiles. As mentioned
statistical in the
point of view, thesimulation
performance procedure,
of ANN and70% RF of the experimental
algorithms needs data
to bewere
fully
randomly selected in order to construct and train the ANN and RF black boxes.
evaluated. The above results showed that the RF model was better than ANN in predicting the The performance
of such acapacity
bearing model might be As
of piles. influenced
mentioned by in
thethe
choice of the sample
simulation procedure,indexes
70% to
of construct the training
the experimental data
dataset.
were randomly selected in order to construct and train the ANN and RF black taking
Therefore, a total number of 1000 numerical simulations were next carried out, boxes. into
The
account the random splitting effect in the dataset. The repetition of a simulation taking
performance of such a model might be influenced by the choice of the sample indexes to construct into account
the training dataset. Therefore, a total number of 1000 numerical simulations were next carried out,
taking into account the random splitting effect in the dataset. The repetition of a simulation taking
gave satisfactory R values within the range of 0.83 to 0.87. The most frequent R obtained over 1000
simulations was R2 = 0.855 with a frequency of about 170. Besides, ANN algorithm showed a lower
accuracy when R2 values ranged from 0.78 to 0.84 with the most frequent values of R2 = 0.82
(frequency of about 260). Summarized values of the accuracy corresponded to the two models for the
testing part is presented in Table 6.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1871 13 of 21
It could thus be concluded that RF and ANN algorithms had high potential to predict the bearing
capacity of driven piles. However, RF technique yielded better results with average R2 = 0.861
compare
the random to effect
ANN of (average R2 = also
input could 0.811). In conclusion,
be called the MontefromCarlothe statistical analysis
simulations, which is and prediction
well-known in
errors,
the RF algorithm
literature [69]. Thewas 2
R the better
values model
of these to predict are
simulations the plotted
bearingincapacity of pile.
Figure 8a,c, and the corresponding
histograms are plotted in Figure 8b,d. It was observed that the proposed RF model gave satisfactory
R2 values within the range ofTable 0.83 6.
to Summary
0.87. Theof the Monte
most frequentCarlo
R2 simulations
obtained over 1000 simulations was R2
= 0.855 with a frequency of about Part170. Besides,
MethodANN algorithm
Avr. R2 showed
StD. R2 a lower accuracy when R
2

values ranged from 0.78 to 0.84 with the most ANNfrequent R = 0.82 (frequency of about 260).
2
values of0.318
0.811
Summarized values of the accuracy Testingcorresponded to the two models for the testing part is presented in
RF 0.861 0.277
Table 6.

Figure 8. Scatter plot of R2 values for 1.000 simulations for (a) RF, (c) ANN and the corresponding
histograms of R2 values, (b) RF, (d) ANN.
Figure 8. Scatter plot of R2 values for 1.000 simulations for (a) RF, (c) ANN and the corresponding
histograms of R2 values, (b) RF,6.(d)Summary
Table ANN. of the Monte Carlo simulations

Part Method Avr.Regression

R 2 StD. R2
5.2. Comparison with Empirical Equations and Multi-Variable
ANN 0.811 0.318
Testing
In this section, comparisons of the RF
RFmodel on the prediction
0.861 of bearing
0.277capacity of driven piles
are conducted with traditional formulas. These formulas used SPT value to estimate the bearing
capacity of driven pile, as in the works of Meyerhof (1976) [4], Shioi and Fukui (1982) [7], Decourt
It could thus be concluded that RF and ANN algorithms had high potential to predict the bearing
capacity of driven piles. However, RF technique yielded better results with average R2 = 0.861 compare
to ANN (average R2 = 0.811). In conclusion, from the statistical analysis and prediction errors, RF
algorithm was the better model to predict the bearing capacity of pile.

5.2. Comparison with Empirical Equations and Multi-Variable Regression

In this section, comparisons of the RF model on the prediction of bearing capacity of driven piles
are conducted with traditional formulas. These formulas used SPT value to estimate the bearing
capacity of driven pile, as in the works of Meyerhof (1976) [4], Shioi and Fukui (1982) [7], Decourt
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1871 14 of 21

(1995) [10], Shariatmadari et al. (2008) [8], and AIJ (2004) [11]. The values for unit base (Qb ) and unit
shaft (Qs ) resistance are summarized in Table 7.

Table 7. Comparison of SPT methods for predicting the pile bearing capacity

Ground Type Sandy Ground Clayey Ground

   
L
Qb kN/m2 = 40Nt D ≤ 400Nt
Meyerhof (1976) [4]
Qs (kN/m2 ) = 2Ns
 
Qb kN/m2 = 300Nt
Shioi and Fukui (1982) [7]
Qs (kN/m2 ) = 2Ns
Qb (kN/m2 ) = 325Nt Qb (kN/m2 ) = 100Nt
Decourt (1995) [10]
Qs (kN/m2 ) = (0.5 ÷ 0.6)(2.8Ns + 10) Qs (kN/m2 ) = 2.8Ns + 10
 
Qb kN/m2 = 385Nt
Shariatmadari (2008) [8]
Qs (kN/m2 ) = 3.65Ns
Qb (kN/m2 ) = 300Nt Qb (kN/m2 ) = 8Cu = 50.Nt
AIJ (2004) [11]
Qs (kN/m2 ) = 2Ns Qb (kN/m2 ) = Cu = 6.25Ns

The value of the bearing capacity could be then estimated in function of Qb and Qs , following the
well-known formula
X n
2
Pu = D Qb + 4DLi Qs (i) (5)
i=1

where n refers to the number of soil layers, Li denotes the thickness and Qs(i) indicates the value for
unit shaft resistance of the ith soil layer which piles penetrated through. In addition, the use of classical
MVR to predict the bearing capacity of pile was also applied. Multi-variable regression technique is
commonly used in several studies, such as Egbe et al. [70] and Silva et al. [71] to predict the properties
and chemical composition of soil. The regression coefficient results are shown in Table 8.

Table 8. MVR coefficients

Variable Intercept D L1 L2 L3 Zp Zg Et Zm Ns Nt
Coefficients −611.39 2.33 86.29 142.11 0 0 −54.05 62.09 31.85 23.16 −169.43

Figure 9 and Table 9 show several results and detail information of measured pile bearing capacity
of the testing part, along with the bearing capacity predicted by RF model and MVR, Meyerhof (1976),
Shioi and Fukui (1982), Decourt (1995), Shariatmadari (2008), and AIJ (2004). The RF was found the
best model in predicting the experimental pile bearing capacity. Indeed, RF significantly outperformed
traditional approaches with respect to R2 , RMSE, MAE (i.e., R2 = 0.866, 0.702, 0.467, 0.485, 0.334, 0.391,
0.611; MAE = 2.924, 94.267, 77.830, 280.727, 312.297, 340.668, 205.72; RMSE = 98.161, 183.046, 224.5,
340.606, 483.335, 400.470, 265.53 using RF and Meyerhof (1976), Shioi and Fukui (1982), Decourt (1995),
Shariatmadari (2008), and AIJ (2004), respectively). The results also showed that the MVR was less
accurate than the RF model, but both models gave better accuracy than traditional formulas. It is
worth noticing that these formulas were developed for granular soil. However, the effect of soil type in
estimating the bearing capacity of piles was neglected in this study, knowing that such bearing capacity
depends on soil types. The main purpose of this section was to demonstrate the higher prediction
capacity of ML approach compared with empirical equations even without information related to
soil types.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1871 15 of 21
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 21

Figure 9. Comparisons of pile bearing capacity prediction methods.

Figure 9. Comparisons of pile bearing capacity prediction methods.
Table 9. Summary of different pile bearing capacity prediction methods
Table 9. Summary of different pile bearing capacity prediction methods
Shioi and
Meyerhof Decourt Shariatmadari
RF Model MVR Fukui AIJ (2004)
Meyerhof(1976) Shioi and Fukui (1995)
Decourt (2008)
Shariatmadari AIJ
RF Model MVR (1982)
(1976) (1982) (1995) (2008) (2004)
RR2 2 0.866
0.866 0.702
0.702 0.4670.467 0.485
0.485 0.334
0.334 0.3910.391 0.6110.611
MAE (kN) 2.924 94.267 77.830 280.727 312.297 340.668 205.721
MAE (kN) 2.924 94.267 77.830 280.727 312.297 340.668 205.721
RMSE(kN) 98.161 183.046 224.500 340.606 483.335 400.470 265.531
RMSE(kN) 98.161 183.046 224.500 340.606 483.335 400.470 265.531

5.3.
5.3. Feature
Feature Importance
Importance Analysis
Analysis Using
Using RF
RF
Basically,
Basically,the RF RF
the algorithm allows
algorithm evaluating
allows the importance
evaluating of input parameters.
the importance The importance
of input parameters. The
of each predictor variable was measured as the change in the prediction accuracy (by an increase
importance of each predictor variable was measured as the change in the prediction accuracy (by an in mean
square error—MSE),
increase computed
in mean square by permuting
error—MSE), (value randomly
computed shuffled)
by permuting the variable
(value randomly with out-of-bag
shuffled) the
data in the random forests validation approach [72]. A more significant percentage of increase
variable with out-of-bag data in the random forests validation approach [72]. A more significant in mean
percentage of increase in mean square error indicates higher importance of a given variable in the
prediction process [73]. The total sum percentage of the increase in the MSE of all variables is equal
to 100%.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1871 16 of 21

Appl.
squareSci. 2020,
error10,indicates
x FOR PEER REVIEW
higher importance of a given variable in the prediction process [73]. The 16 of 21
total
sum percentage of the increase in the MSE of all variables is equal to 100%.
Amongst
Amongstthe the10 10variables
variablesused
usedto topredict
predictthethebearing
bearingcapacity
capacityof ofpile
pilewith
withRF, RF,the
theaverage
averageSPT SPT
blow along the embedded length of the pile (N s) was the most important variable, as an increase in
blow along the embedded length of the pile (Ns ) was the most important variable, as an increase in
MSE
MSEof of33%
33% was
was noticed
noticed (Figure
(Figure 10).
10). Indeed,
Indeed,N Nssisisan
animportant
importantindicator
indicatorofofpredicting
predicting pile-bearing
pile-bearing
capacity,
capacity, and it is related to the ultimate friction along the pile shaft. The pile tip elevation Zm Zwas
and it is related to the ultimate friction along the pile shaft. The pile tip elevation m was
the
the second important variable, confirmed by an increase in MSE of 25%.
second important variable, confirmed by an increase in MSE of 25%. From a soil mechanic point From a soil mechanic point of
of view, it meant that with a little change in the soil properties, the pile tip elevation
view, it meant that with a little change in the soil properties, the pile tip elevation played an important played an
important
role in the role in the
bearing bearing
capacity of capacity
pile; suchofa pile; suchisainvolved
variable variablein is the
involved
pile tipinresistance.
the pile tipTheresistance.
variables
The variables L 2, L1, and Et were ranked as the third to the fifth important predictors, with an increase
L2 , L1 , and Et were ranked as the third to the fifth important predictors, with an increase in MSE,
in MSE, ranging
ranging from 5% from 5% to
to 19% 19% (Figure
(Figure 10). Other
10). Other predictor
predictor variables
variables included
included in the inmodel
the model
(Zg ,(Z
Ngt,, N
Ztp, ,
ZLp,,Land
3, and D) had lower than 5% of the increase in MSE. This observation was also in good agreement
D) had lower than 5% of the increase in MSE. This observation was also in good agreement
3
with
with MVR
MVR results,
results, where
where the
the coefficients
coefficients ofof input
input variables
variables L
L33 and
and ZZppwere
wereequal
equalto to0,0,while
whileD Dhad
hadaa
relatively
relatively small
small coefficient
coefficient of
of 2.33
2.33 (see
(see Table
Table 8).
8).

Figure 10. Feature importance of 10 variables used in this study.

Figure 10. Feature importance of 10 variables used in this study.
6. Conclusions
6. Conclusions
In this study, the RF and ANN algorithms were used to examine the capability in predicting
the bearing capacity
In this study, the of
RFpiles.
and ANNAn unprecedented
algorithms were database
used to containing
examine the2314 instances
capability from on-field
in predicting the
measurements
bearing capacityofof pile loadAn
piles. testunprecedented
was used to develop database andcontaining
evaluate the 2314two proposed
instances fromMLon-field
models.
The results showed
measurements of pilethat
loadRF outperformed
test ANN with
was used to develop andaevaluate
satisfactory accuracy
the two proposed(R2 = ML 0.866, RMSE
models. The=
98.161 kN, MAE = 2.924 kN using RF compared with R 2 = 0.809, RMSE = 116.366
results showed that RF outperformed ANN with a satisfactory accuracy (R = 0.866, RMSE = 98.161 2 kN, MAE =3.190 kN
using
kN, MAE ANN). Moreover,
= 2.924 kN using theRF
results
comparedof thiswith
studyR =indicated
2 0.809, RMSEthat the RF algorithm
= 116.366 kN, MAE was morekN
=3.190 accurate
using
in predicting
ANN). the pile
Moreover, the bearing
results capacity
of this studythan indicated
those obtained from
that the RFtraditional
algorithmapproaches, namely the
was more accurate in
formulas or empirical equations from the work of Meyerhof (1976), Shioi
predicting the pile bearing capacity than those obtained from traditional approaches, namely the and Fukui (1982), Decourt
(1995), Shariatmadari
formulas or empirical (2008),
equationsAIJfrom(2004),
theand a classical
work MVR.(1976),
of Meyerhof In addition, a sensitivity
Shioi and analysis
Fukui (1982), using
Decourt
RF indicated
(1995), that the (2008),
Shariatmadari averageAIJ SPT valueand
(2004), along pile shaft
a classical Ns , pile
MVR. tip elevation,
In addition, and L2 ,analysis
a sensitivity L1 , Et had the
using
most
RF significant
indicated thateffect on the predicted
the average SPT valuebearing capacity
along pile shaft of
Nspiles.
, pile tip elevation, and L2, L1, Et had the
most Overall,
significant the RF algorithm,
effect on the predictedlike many
bearingother machine
capacity learning algorithms, has an additional
of piles.
advantage
Overall, over
theconventional
RF algorithm, methods,
like many which is, once
other the model
machine learningis constructed,
algorithms, ithas canan be additional
used as an
accurate, quick
advantage numerical tool
over conventional for estimating
methods, which is,theonce
bearing capacity
the model of piles. Thus,
is constructed, thebe
it can performance
used as an
of such aquick
accurate, numerical tool istool
numerical crucial in foundation
for estimating engineering.
the bearing capacity Therefore, improving
of piles. Thus, the prediction
the performance of
accuracy is one perspective of the present work, for instance, using hybrid
such a numerical tool is crucial in foundation engineering. Therefore, improving the prediction ML algorithms or deep
neural network
accuracy to predict the
is one perspective ofbearing capacity
the present work,of for
piles.
instance, using hybrid ML algorithms or deep
neural network to predict the bearing capacity of piles.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.-B.L. and T.A.P.; Methodology, T.A.P., V.Q.T. and H.-L.V.T.;
Software, T.A.P. and H.-B.L.; Validation, T.A.P.; Formal Analysis, T.A.P. and H.-B.L.; Investigation, T.A.P. and
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1871
Appl. x FOR PEER REVIEW 17
17 of 21
21

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 21

H.-B.L; Resources, L.V.G., H.-A.T.D.; Data Curation, T.A.P. and L.V.G.; Writing-Original Draft Preparation,
T.A.P., H.-B.L.,
Author V.Q.T. and
Contributions: H.-L.V.T.; Writing-Review
Conceptualization, & Editing,
H.-B.L. and T.A.P.; H.-B.L. and
Methodology, T.A.P.;
T.A.P., Visualization,
V.Q.T. and H.-L.T.V.;T.A.P. and
Software,
H.-B.L;and
T.A.P. Resources,
H.-B.L.; L.V.G., H.-A.T.D.; Data
Validation, Curation, T.A.P. andandL.V.G.; Writing-Original Draft Preparation,
H.-B.L.; Supervision, T.A.P., T.A.P.;
H.-B.L. Formal Analysis,
and V.Q.T.; T.A.P.
Project H.-B.L.;
Administration, Investigation,
T.A.P. and T.A.P. andFunding
H.-B.L.; H.-B.L.;
T.A.P., H.-B.L.,
Resources, V.Q.T. and H.-L.V.T.; Writing-Review & Editing, H.-B.L. and T.A.P.; Visualization, T.A.P. and
L.V.G.,
Acquisition, T.A.P.H.-A.T.D.; Data Curation, T.A.P. and L.V.G.; Writing-Original Draft Preparation, T.A.P., H.-B.L.,
V.Q.T.
H.-B.L.;andSupervision,
H.-L.T.V.; Writing-Review
T.A.P., H.-B.L.& Editing, H.-B.L.Project
and V.Q.T.; and T.A.P.; Visualization, T.A.P.
Administration, T.A.P.andandH.-B.L.; Supervision,
H.-B.L.; Funding
T.A.P.,
Funding:H.-B.L.
Acquisition,Thisand V.Q.T.;received
research
T.A.P. Project Administration, T.A.P. and H.-B.L.; Funding Acquisition, T.A.P. All authors have
no external funding.
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Conflicts This
Funding: of Interest:
researchThe authorsnodeclare
received nofunding.
external conflict of interest.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts ofof Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix AInterest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Conflicts

Appendix AA
Appendix

Figure A1. Load–settlement relationship for pile number P_511.

Figure A1. Load–settlement relationship for pile number P_511.
Figure A1. Load–settlement relationship for pile number P_511.

Figure A2. Load–settlement relationship for pile number P_140.

Figure A2. Load–settlement relationship for pile number P_140.

Figure A2. Load–settlement relationship for pile number P_140.

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1871 18 of 21
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 21

Figure A3. Log–log load–settlement relationship for pile number P_140.

Figure A3. Log–log load–settlement relationship for pile number P_140.
References
References
1. Shooshpasha, I.; Hasanzadeh, A.; Taghavi, A. Prediction of the axial bearing capacity of piles by SPT-based
1. Shooshpasha,
and numericalI.;design
Hasanzadeh,
methods. A.;Int.
Taghavi, A. Prediction
J. GEOMATE 2013, 4, of560–564.
the axial [CrossRef]
bearing capacity of piles by SPT-based
2. and numerical design methods. Int. J. GEOMATE 2013, 4, 560–564.
Bond, A.J.; Schuppener, B.; Scarpelli, G.; Orr, T.L.L.; Dimova, S.; Nikolova, B.; Pinto, A.V.; European
2. Bond, A.J.; Schuppener,
Commission; Joint Research B.; Centre;
Scarpelli, G.; Orr,
Institute forT.L.L.; Dimova,and
the Protection S.; the
Nikolova,
SecurityB.;of Pinto, A.V.; Eurocode
the Citizen. European 7:
Commission; Joint Research
Geotechnical Design Centre; Institute
Worked Examples; for the
Publications Protection
Office: and the 2013;
Luxembourg, Security
ISBN of 978-92-79-33759-8.
the Citizen. Eurocode 7:
3. Geotechnical
Bouafia, A.;Design
Derbala, Worked Examples; Publications
A. Assessment of SPT-basedOffice:
method Luxembourg,
of pile bearing2013; ISBN 978-92-79-33759-8.
capacity–analysis of a database.
3. Bouafia, A.; Derbala, A. Assessment of SPT-based method of pile bearing
In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Foundation Design Codes and Soil Investigation capacity–analysis of a database.
in View
In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Foundation Design
of International Harmonization and Performance-Based Design, IWS Kamakura 2002, Tokyo, Japan, Codes and Soil Investigation in 10–12
View
of International
April Harmonization and Performance-Based Design, IWS Kamakura 2002, Tokyo, Japan, 10–12
2002; pp. 369–374.
4. April; pp. 369–374.
Meyerhof, G.G. Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Pile Foundations. J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 1976, 102, 197–228.
4.
5. Meyerhof, G.G.Kurkur,
Bazaraa, A.R.; BearingM.M.Capacity and Settlement
N-values of Pile
used to predict Foundations.
settlements J. Geotech.
of piles in Egypt. Eng. Div. 1976, 102,
In Proceedings of In197–
Situ
228.
’86; New York, American Society of Civil Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 1986; pp. 462–474.
5.
6. Bazaraa,
Robert, Y.A.R.;
A few Kurkur,
comments M.M.onN-values
pile design.usedCan.
to predict
Geotech.settlements
J. 1997, 34,of piles in[CrossRef]
560–567. Egypt. In Proceedings of In
7. Situ ’86,
Shioi, Y.;New
Fukui, York, 1986; pp. 462–474.
J. Application of N-value to design of foundations in Japan. In Proceedings of the Second
6. Robert,
European Y. A few comments
Symposium on pile design.
on Penetration Can. ESOPT
Testing, Geotech.II, J. Amsterdam,
1997, 34, 560–567.The Netherlands, 24–27 May 1982;
7. Shioi, Y.; Fukui,
pp. 159–164. J. Application of N-value to design of foundations in Japan. In Proceedings of the Second
8. European Symposium
Shariatmadari, on Penetration
N.; Eslami, A.A.; Karim,Testing, ESOPT capacity
P.F.M. Bearing II, Amsterdam,
of driven 24–27
pilesMay 1982;from
in sands pp. 159–164.
SPT–applied to
8. Shariatmadari,
60 case histories. N.;Iran.
Eslami, A.A.;
J. Sci. Karim,
Technol. P.F.M.
Trans. Bearing
B Eng. 2008,capacity of driven piles in sands from SPT–applied
32, 125–140.
9. to 60 case
Lopes, histories.
R.F.; Iran. H.
Laprovitera, J. Sci.
On Technol. Trans.of
the prediction B the
Eng.bearing
2008, 32, 125–140.
capacity of bored piles from dynamic penetration
9. Lopes, R.F.; Laprovitera, H. On the prediction of the
tests. In Proceedings of the Deep Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles BAP bearing capacity of bored piles Belgium,
III, Ghent, from dynamic19–21
penetration
October 1998; tests.
A.A.InBalkema:
Proceedings of Deep The
Rotterdam, Foundations
Netherlands; on Bored and Auger Piles BAP III, Ghent, Belgium,
pp. 537–540.
10. 19–21 October
Decourt, 1998; A.A.
L. Prediction of Balkema, Rotterdam,
load-settlement Netherlands;
relationships pp. 537–540.on the basis of the SPT. In Ciclo de
for foundations
10. Decourt, L. Prediction
Conferencias of load-settlement
Internationale “Leonardo Zeevaert”; relationships
UNAM: Mexicofor foundations on the
City, Mexico, basis
1995; pp.of85–104.
the SPT. In Ciclo de
11. Conferencias
Architectural Internationale “Leonardo
Institute of Japan. Zeevaert”; UNAM:
Recommendations Mexico
for Design City, Mexico,
of Building 1995; Architectural
Foundation; pp. 85–104. Institute of
11. Architectural
Japan: Tokyo,Institute of Japan. Recommendations for Design of Building Foundation; Architectural Institute of
Japan, 2004.
12. Japan:
Asteris,Tokyo, Japan, 2004.
P.G.; Ashrafian, A.; Rezaie-Balf, M. Prediction of the compressive strength of self-compacting concrete
12. Asteris, P.G.; Ashrafian,
using surrogate A.; Rezaie-Balf,
models. Computers M. Prediction
and Concrete. 2019, 24,of the compressive strength of self-compacting
137–150.
concrete using surrogate models. Computers and Concrete. 2019, 24, 137–150.
13. Asteris, P.G.; Moropoulou, A.; Skentou, A.D.; Apostolopoulou, M.; Mohebkhah, A.; Cavaleri, L.; Rodrigues,
H.; Varum, H. Stochastic Vulnerability Assessment of Masonry Structures: Concepts, Modeling and
Restoration Aspects. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 243.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1871 19 of 21

13. Asteris, P.G.; Moropoulou, A.; Skentou, A.D.; Apostolopoulou, M.; Mohebkhah, A.; Cavaleri, L.; Rodrigues, H.;
Varum, H. Stochastic Vulnerability Assessment of Masonry Structures: Concepts, Modeling and Restoration
Aspects. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 243. [CrossRef]
14. Hajihassani, M.; Abdullah, S.S.; Asteris, P.G.; Armaghani, D.J. A gene expression programming model for
predicting tunnel convergence. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4650. [CrossRef]
15. Huang, L.; Asteris, P.G.; Koopialipoor, M.; Armaghani, D.J.; Tahir, M.M. Invasive Weed Optimization
Technique-Based ANN to the Prediction of Rock Tensile Strength. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 5372. [CrossRef]
16. Le, L.M.; Ly, H.-B.; Pham, B.T.; Le, V.M.; Pham, T.A.; Nguyen, D.-H.; Tran, X.-T.; Le, T.-T. Hybrid Artificial
Intelligence Approaches for Predicting Buckling Damage of Steel Columns Under Axial Compression.
Materials 2019, 12, 1670. [CrossRef]
17. Ly, H.-B.; Pham, B.T.; Dao, D.V.; Le, V.M.; Le, L.M.; Le, T.-T. Improvement of ANFIS Model for Prediction of
Compressive Strength of Manufactured Sand Concrete. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3841. [CrossRef]
18. Ly, H.-B.; Le, L.M.; Duong, H.T.; Nguyen, T.C.; Pham, T.A.; Le, T.-T.; Le, V.M.; Nguyen-Ngoc, L.; Pham, B.T.
Hybrid Artificial Intelligence Approaches for Predicting Critical Buckling Load of Structural Members
under Compression Considering the Influence of Initial Geometric Imperfections. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2258.
[CrossRef]
19. Ly, H.-B.; Le, T.-T.; Le, L.M.; Tran, V.Q.; Le, V.M.; Vu, H.-L.T.; Nguyen, Q.H.; Pham, B.T. Development of
Hybrid Machine Learning Models for Predicting the Critical Buckling Load of I-Shaped Cellular Beams.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 5458. [CrossRef]
20. Ly, H.-B.; Le, L.M.; Phi, L.V.; Phan, V.-H.; Tran, V.Q.; Pham, B.T.; Le, T.-T.; Derrible, S. Development of
an AI Model to Measure Traffic Air Pollution from Multisensor and Weather Data. Sensors 2019, 19, 4941.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Xu, H.; Zhou, J.; Asteris, P.G.; Jahed Armaghani, D.; Tahir, M.M. Supervised Machine Learning Techniques to
the Prediction of Tunnel Boring Machine Penetration Rate. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3715. [CrossRef]
22. Ly, H.-B.; Monteiro, E.; Le, T.-T.; Le, V.M.; Dal, M.; Regnier, G.; Pham, B.T. Prediction and Sensitivity Analysis
of Bubble Dissolution Time in 3D Selective Laser Sintering Using Ensemble Decision Trees. Materials 2019,
12, 1544. [CrossRef]
23. Chen, H.; Asteris, P.G.; Jahed Armaghani, D.; Gordan, B.; Pham, B.T. Assessing Dynamic Conditions of the
Retaining Wall: Developing Two Hybrid Intelligent Models. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1042. [CrossRef]
24. Nguyen, H.-L.; Le, T.-H.; Pham, C.-T.; Le, T.-T.; Ho, L.S.; Le, V.M.; Pham, B.T.; Ly, H.-B. Development
of Hybrid Artificial Intelligence Approaches and a Support Vector Machine Algorithm for Predicting the
Marshall Parameters of Stone Matrix Asphalt. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3172. [CrossRef]
25. Nguyen, H.-L.; Pham, B.T.; Son, L.H.; Thang, N.T.; Ly, H.-B.; Le, T.-T.; Ho, L.S.; Le, T.-H.; Tien Bui, D. Adaptive
Network Based Fuzzy Inference System with Meta-Heuristic Optimizations for International Roughness
Index Prediction. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4715. [CrossRef]
26. Asteris, P.G.; Nozhati, S.; Nikoo, M.; Cavaleri, L.; Nikoo, M. Krill herd algorithm-based neural network in
structural seismic reliability evaluation. Mech. Adv. Mater. Struct. 2019, 26, 1146–1153. [CrossRef]
27. Asteris, P.G.; Armaghani, D.J.; Hatzigeorgiou, G.D.; Karayannis, C.G.; Pilakoutas, K. Predicting the shear
strength of reinforced concrete beams using Artificial Neural Networks. Comput. Concr. 2019, 24, 469–488.
28. Asteris, P.G.; Apostolopoulou, M.; Skentou, A.D.; Moropoulou, A. Application of artificial neural networks
for the prediction of the compressive strength of cement-based mortars. Comput. Concr. 2019, 24, 329–345.
29. Asteris, P.G.; Kolovos, K.G. Self-compacting concrete strength prediction using surrogate models. Neural
Comput. Appl. 2019, 31, 409–424. [CrossRef]
30. Asteris, P.G.; Mokos, V.G. Concrete compressive strength using artificial neural networks. Neural Comput.
Appl. 2019. [CrossRef]
31. Dao, D.V.; Ly, H.-B.; Trinh, S.H.; Le, T.-T.; Pham, B.T. Artificial Intelligence Approaches for Prediction of
Compressive Strength of Geopolymer Concrete. Materials 2019, 12, 983. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Dao, D.V.; Trinh, S.H.; Ly, H.-B.; Pham, B.T. Prediction of Compressive Strength of Geopolymer Concrete
Using Entirely Steel Slag Aggregates: Novel Hybrid Artificial Intelligence Approaches. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9,
1113. [CrossRef]
33. Qi, C.; Ly, H.-B.; Chen, Q.; Le, T.-T.; Le, V.M.; Pham, B.T. Flocculation-dewatering prediction of fine mineral
tailings using a hybrid machine learning approach. Chemosphere 2020, 244, 125450. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1871 20 of 21

34. Pham, B.T.; Nguyen, M.D.; Dao, D.V.; Prakash, I.; Ly, H.-B.; Le, T.-T.; Ho, L.S.; Nguyen, K.T.; Ngo, T.Q.;
Hoang, V.; et al. Development of artificial intelligence models for the prediction of Compression Coefficient
of soil: An application of Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 679, 172–184. [CrossRef]
35. Kumar, B.M.; Kumar, K.A.; Bharathi, A. Improved Soil Data Prediction Model Base Bioinspired K-Nearest
Neighbor Techniques for Spatial Data Analysis in Coimbatore Region. Int. J. Future Revolut. Comput. Sci.
Commun. Eng. 2017, 3, 345–349.
36. Goh, A.T.C. Back-propagation neural networks for modeling complex systems. Artif. Intell. Eng. 1995, 9,
143–151. [CrossRef]
37. Goh, A.T.C.; Kulhawy, F.H.; Chua, C.G. Bayesian Neural Network Analysis of Undrained Side Resistance of
Drilled Shafts. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005, 131, 84–93. [CrossRef]
38. Shahin, M.A.; Jaksa, M.B. Neural network prediction of pullout capacity of marquee ground anchors. Comput.
Geotech. 2005, 32, 153–163. [CrossRef]
39. Shahin, M.A. Load–settlement modeling of axially loaded steel driven piles using CPT-based recurrent
neural networks. Soils Found. 2014, 54, 515–522. [CrossRef]
40. Shahin, M.A. State-of-the-art review of some artificial intelligence applications in pile foundations. Geosci.
Front. 2016, 7, 33–44. [CrossRef]
41. Shahin, M.A. Intelligent computing for modeling axial capacity of pile foundations. Can. Geotech. J. 2010, 47,
230–243. [CrossRef]
42. Nawari, N.O.; Liang, R.; Nusairat, J. Artificial intelligence techniques for the design and analysis of deep
foundations. Electr. J. Geotech. Eng. 1999, 4, 1–21.
43. Pooya Nejad, F.; Jaksa, M.B.; Kakhi, M.; McCabe, B.A. Prediction of pile settlement using artificial neural
networks based on standard penetration test data. Comput. Geotech. 2009, 36, 1125–1133. [CrossRef]
44. Momeni, E.; Nazir, R.; Armaghani, D.J.; Maizir, H. Application of Artificial Neural Network for Predicting
Shaft and Tip Resistances of Concrete Piles. Earth Sci. Res. J. 2015, 19, 85–93. [CrossRef]
45. Bagińska, M.; Srokosz, P.E. The Optimal ANN Model for Predicting Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations
trained on Scarce Data. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2019, 23, 130–137. [CrossRef]
46. Teh, C.I.; Wong, K.S.; Goh, A.T.C.; Jaritngam, S. Prediction of Pile Capacity Using Neural Networks. J.
Comput. Civil Eng. 1997, 11, 129–138. [CrossRef]
47. De Beer, E.E. Proefondervindlijkebijdrage tot de studie van het grensdraagvermogen van zandonderfunderingen op
staal; Tijdshift der OpenbarVerken van Belgie, No.6; NICI: Gent, Belgium, 1968.
48. Breiman, L. Random Forests. Mach. Learn. 2001, 45, 5–32. [CrossRef]
49. Breiman, L.; Friedman, J.; Stone, C.J.; Olshen, R.A. Classification and Regression Trees; Taylor & Francis:
Oxfordshire, UK, 1984; ISBN 978-0-412-04841-8.
50. Latinne, P.; Debeir, O.; Decaestecker, C. Limiting the Number of Trees in Random Forests. In Proceedings
of the Second International Workshop on Multiple Classifier Systems, Cambridge, UK, 2–4 July 2001;
pp. 178–187.
51. Bernard, S.; Adam, S.; Heutte, L. Using Random Forests for Handwritten Digit Recognition. In Proceedings
of the Ninth International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR 2007), Curitiba,
Parana, Brazil, 23–26 September 2007; pp. 1043–1047.
52. Adeli, H. Neural Networks in Civil Engineering: 1989–2000. Comput. Aided Civil Infrastruct. Eng. 2001, 16,
126–142. [CrossRef]
53. Tarawneh, B. Pipe pile setup: Database and prediction model using artificial neural network. Soils Found.
2013, 53, 607–615. [CrossRef]
54. McCulloch, W.S.; Pitts, W. A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity. Bull. Math. Biophys.
1943, 5, 115–133. [CrossRef]
55. Momeni, E.; Nazir, R.; Armaghani, D.J.; Maizir, H. Prediction of pile bearing capacity using a hybrid genetic
algorithm-based ANN. Measurement 2014, 57, 122–131. [CrossRef]
56. Zaabab, A.H.; Zhang, Q.-J.; Nakhla, M. A neural network modeling approach to circuit optimization and
statistical design. IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech. 1995, 43, 1349–1358. [CrossRef]
57. Das, S.K.; Basudhar, P.K. Undrained lateral load capacity of piles in clay using artificial neural network.
Comput. Geotech. 2006, 33, 454–459. [CrossRef]
58. Moayedi, H.; Armaghani, D.J. Optimizing an ANN model with ICA for estimating bearing capacity of driven
pile in cohesionless soil. Eng. Comput. 2018, 34, 347–356. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1871 21 of 21

59. Dao, D.V.; Adeli, H.; Ly, H.-B.; Le, L.M.; Le, V.M.; Le, T.-T.; Pham, B.T. A Sensitivity and Robustness Analysis
of GPR and ANN for High-Performance Concrete Compressive Strength Prediction Using a Monte Carlo
Simulation. Sustainability 2020, 12, 830. [CrossRef]
60. Maizir, H.; Kassim, K.A. Neural network application in prediction of axial bearing capacity of driven piles.
In Proceedings of the International Multiconference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, Hong Kong,
China, 14–16 March 2013; Volume 2202, pp. 51–55.
61. Pal, M.; Deswal, S. Modeling pile capacity using support vector machines and generalized regression neural
network. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008, 134, 1021–1024. [CrossRef]
62. Benali, A.; Nechnech, A. Prediction of the pile capacity in purely coherent soils using the approach of the
artificial neural networks. In Proceedings of the International Seminar, Innovation and Valorization in Civil
Engineering and Construction Materials, Rabat, Morocco, 23–25 November 2011; pp. 23–25.
63. Nehdi, M.; Djebbar, Y.; Khan, A. Neural network model for preformed-foam cellular concrete. Mater. J. 2001,
98, 402–409.
64. Dao, D.V.; Jaafari, A.; Bayat, M.; Mafi-Gholami, D.; Qi, C.; Moayedi, H.; Phong, T.V.; Ly, H.-B.; Le, T.-T.;
Trinh, P.T.; et al. A spatially explicit deep learning neural network model for the prediction of landslide
susceptibility. CATENA 2020, 188, 104451. [CrossRef]
65. Le, T.-T.; Pham, B.T.; Ly, H.-B.; Shirzadi, A.; Le, L.M. Development of 48-h Precipitation Forecasting Model
using Nonlinear Autoregressive Neural Network. In CIGOS 2019, Innovation for Sustainable Infrastructure:
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Geotechnics, Civil Engineering Works and Structures; Springer:
Singapore, 2020; pp. 1191–1196.
66. Pham, B.T.; Nguyen, M.D.; Ly, H.-B.; Pham, T.A.; Hoang, V.; Van Le, H.; Le, T.-T.; Nguyen, H.Q.; Bui, G.L.
Development of Artificial Neural Networks for Prediction of Compression Coefficient of Soft Soil. In CIGOS
2019, Innovation for Sustainable Infrastructure: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Geotechnics, Civil
Engineering Works and Structures; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 1167–1172.
67. Pham, B.T.; Le, L.M.; Le, T.-T.; Bui, K.-T.T.; Le, V.M.; Ly, H.-B.; Prakash, I. Development of advanced artificial
intelligence models for daily rainfall prediction. Atmos. Res. 2020, 237, 104845. [CrossRef]
68. Thanh, T.T.M.; Ly, H.-B.; Pham, B.T. A Possibility of AI Application on Mode-choice Prediction of Transport
Users in Hanoi. In CIGOS 2019, Innovation for Sustainable Infrastructure: Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Geotechnics, Civil Engineering Works and Structures; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 1179–1184.
69. Ly, H.-B.; Desceliers, C.; Le, L.M.; Le, T.-T.; Pham, B.T.; Nguyen-Ngoc, L.; Doan, V.T.; Le, M. Quantification of
Uncertainties on the Critical Buckling Load of Columns under Axial Compression with Uncertain Random
Materials. Materials 2019, 12, 1828. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
70. Egbe, J.G.; Ewa, D.E.; Ubi, S.E.; Ikwa, G.B.; Tumenayo, O.O. Application of multilinear regression analysis in
modeling of soil properties for geotechnical civil engineering works in Calabar South. Nig. J. Tech. 2018, 36,
1059. [CrossRef]
71. Silva, S.H.G.; Teixeira, A.F.D.S.; Menezes, M.D.D.; Guilherme, L.R.G.; Moreira, F.M.D.S.; Curi, N. Multiple
linear regression and random forest to predict and map soil properties using data from portable X-ray
fluorescence spectrometer (pXRF). Ciênc. Agrotec. 2017, 41, 648–664. [CrossRef]
72. Liaw, A.; Wiener, M. Classification and Regression by randomForest. R. News 2002, 2, 18–22.
73. Zhang, B.; MacLean, D.; Johns, R.; Eveleigh, E. Effects of Hardwood Content on Balsam Fir Defoliation
during the Building Phase of a Spruce Budworm Outbreak. Forests 2018, 9, 530. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).