Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 25 (2012) 618–627

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engappai

Predicting axial capacity of driven piles in cohesive soils using

intelligent computing
Iyad Alkroosh n, Hamid Nikraz
Department of Civil Engi1neering, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Western Australia, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: An accurate prediction of pile capacity under axial loads is necessary for the design. This paper presents
Received 12 February 2011 the development of a new model to predict axial capacity of pile foundations driven into cohesive soils.
Received in revised form Gene expression programming technique (GEP) has been utilized for this purpose. The data used for
23 June 2011
development of the GEP model is collected from the literature and comprise a series of in-situ driven
Accepted 27 August 2011
Available online 14 September 2011
piles load tests as well as cone penetration test (CPT) results. The data are divided into two subsets:
training set for model calibration and independent validation set for model verification. Predictions
Keywords: from the GEP model are compared with experimental data and with predictions of number of currently
Pile adopted CPT-based methods. The results have demonstrated that the GEP model performs well with
Capacity
coefficient of correlation, mean and probability density at 50% equivalent to 0.94, 0.96 and 1.01,
Gene expression programming
respectively, indicating that the proposed model predicts pile capacity accurately.
Training
Validation & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
CPT

1. Introduction
Bearing capacity is considered to be one of the significant
factors that govern the design of pile foundations. Consequently,
many researchers have attempted several procedures to predict
pile capacity. However, as the pile–soil interaction is ambiguous
and not entirely understood, most of the proposed procedures have
achieved limited success in terms of providing accurate prediction
of pile capacity. This can be attributed to the assumptions and
simplifications on which the procedures have based their inter-
pretation of pile behavior. In this respect, the methods that do not
require prior assumptions such as artificial intelligence techniques
may provide better solution. Several researchers (e.g. Chan et al.,
1995; Teh et al., 1997; Abu-Kiefa, 1998; Das and Basudhar, 2006;
Ardalan et al., 2009; Shahin, 2010) have attempted artificial neural
networks (ANNs) for predicting bearing capacity of pile founda-
tions. The modeling advantage of ANNs is the ability to capture the
nonlinear and complex relationship between the bearing capacity
and the factors affecting it without having to assume a priori
formula of what could be this relationship. However, the main
shortcoming of ANNs is the large complexities of the network
structure, as it represent the knowledge in terms of weight
matrices together with biases that are not accessible to the users
(Rezania and Javadi, 2007). In this regard, the genetic programming
(GP) may represent better alternative. The main advantage of the
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: iyad.alkroosh@postgrad.curtin.edu.au (I. Alkroosh),
H.Nikraz@curtin.edu.au (H. Nikraz).
GP over the ANNs is the ability to provide the relationship between
a set of inputs and the corresponding outputs in a simple
mathematical form accessible to the users. Recently, the GP has
been found successful in solving several problems in the field of
engineering (e.g. Ashour et al., 2003; Hong and Bhamidimarri,
2003; Javadi et al., 2006; Rezania and Javadi, 2007). In this paper,
the axial capacity of driven piles in cohesive soils has been
correlated with CPT data using a developed version of genetic
programming that is gene expression programming (GEP).
Recently, GEP has been applied with success in solving engineering
problems (e.g. Bayksoglu et al., 2008; Civic and Cabalar, 2009).
The objectives of this paper are as follows:
 Investigate the feasibility of using gene expression program-
ming to correlate CPT data and pile capacity.
 Evaluate the performance of the developed GEP model in
training and validation sets and via sensitivity analysis.
 Compare the accuracy of the GEP model with accuracies of
number of currently adopted CPT-based methods
2. Overview of gene expression programming
Evolutionary algorithms (EAs) are computing search techniques
that are based on the principles of genetics and natural selection. In
these techniques, the computer implements some of the natural
evolutionary mechanisms (such as selection, crossover and mutation)
to solve a function identification problem. The first version of
the evolutionary techniques is the genetic algorithms (GAs), which

0952-1976/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2011.08.009
 I. Alkroosh, H. Nikraz / Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 25 (2012) 618–627
was introduced by Holland (1975) and developed by Goldberg (1989).
GAs are generally used in parameters’ optimizations in which
solutions to a problem are encoded in linear symbolic strings usually
(0 s and 1 s) and candidate population of these solutions is left to
evolve so that the best solution to the problem at hand is reached.
Genetic programming (GP) is an extension of the GAs and was
invented by Cramer (1985) and further developed by Koza (1992).
GP utilizes the same concept adapted by the GAs in developing a
problem solution using the same tools of selection and genetic
modification to evolve randomly created computer programs (also
called individuals or chromosomes) proposed to solve a certain
problem. However, the fundamental difference between the two
algorithms resides in the nature of individuals. In GAs, individuals
are linear strings of fixed length while in GP individuals are
nonlinear entities of different sizes and shapes (Ferreira, 2001).
The gene expression programming (GEP) that is used in the
present work is a further development in genetic programming (GP)
and was developed by Ferreira (2001). The main strength of the GEP
over the GP is the ability to deal with very complex problems and
develop solutions much quicker. For instance, the most complex
problem presented to the GEP is the evolution of cellular automata
rules for the density-classification task. The GEP was found to
surpass the GP by more than four orders of magnitude.
The GEP utilizes evolution of computer programs (individuals or
chromosomes) that are encoded linearly in chromosomes of fixed
length, and are expressed nonlinearly in the form of expression
trees (ETs) of different sizes and shapes. The chromosomes are
composed of a gene or multiple genes; each gene is encoded in a
smaller sub-program. Every gene has a constant length and
includes a head that contains functions and terminals, and a tail
that composes of terminals only. The genetic code represents a
one-to-one relationship between the symbols of the chromosome,
the functions or terminals. The process of information decoding
from chromosomes to expression trees is called translation, which
is based on sets of rules that determine the spatial organization of
the function and terminals in the ETs and the type of interaction
(link) between the sub-ETs (Ferreira, 2002).
As illustrated in Fig. 1, the process that the GEP implements for
developing problem’s solution begins with creating an initial popula-
tion of computer programs randomly chosen from sets of functions
and terminals. The functions can contain basic mathematical opera-
tors (e.g. þ, ,  , /) or any other user defined functions, whereas
the terminals can consist of numerical constants, logical constants or
variables. Each program (chromosome) is executed and its fitness is
Create chromosomes of initial population
Express chromosomes & evaluate their fitness
Yes
Stopping criterion is satisfied Designate results
No
End
Select chromosomes & keep the
fittest for next generation
Perform genetic modifications via genetic
operators and gene recombination
New generation of chromosomes
Fig. 1. Flow chart of gene expression algorithm.
619
evaluated through the fitness function, which measures how good
the chromosome is at competition with the rest of population. Then,
chromosomes are selected for further development based on their
fitness. The ones that have higher fitness are given more chance for
being reselected, the low fitness chromosomes, on the other hand,
are deleted or given a slim chance for reselection. The selected
programs are then subjected to further developments, which are
performed through the genetic variations such as mutation and
recombination. New offspring of chromosomes with new traits are
generated and used to replace the existing population. The chromo-
somes of the new generation are then subjected to the same
developmental process, which is repeated until stopping criteria
are satisfied. The principal terms of GEP are described as follows:
Initial population: In GEP, function finding begins when a
number of computer programs (individuals or chromosomes)
referred to as initial population are randomly created from the
set of functions and terminals defined by the user. Each program
is expressed, evaluated and assigned fitness according to how
well it performs towards the desired objective.
Genes and expression trees: Gene is a sub-programs encoded
in the chromosome that has a fixed length and composed of a head
and a tail. The length of the head is usually predefined by the user
during data setting, while the length of the tail is determined from
t ¼ hðn1Þ þ 1 ð1Þ
where t is the tail length; h is the head length and n is the number
of function arguments. A typical GEP gene is written as follows:
þ.sqrt.c1.þ.  ./.d0.d1.d2.d0.d1.d1.d2, where; ‘‘.’’ is the separation
mark between the symbols; sqrt is the square root function; c1 is a
constant; and d0, d1, and d2 are variables known as terminals. The
symbols (þ.sqrt.c1.þ.  ./.) represent the gene’s head, while the
symbols (d0.d1.d2.d0.d1.d1.d2) represent the gene’s tail. This
written format is named K-expression or Karva notation (Ferreira,
2002), which can be converted into the expression tree, ET, as
shown in Fig. 2. The tree represents a spatial illustration that
illustrates the interactions among the gene’s components on the
map of solution.
Mutation: In GEP, mutation means randomly selecting any
component of the gene’s head or tail and replacing it with any
other randomly selected component from the function or terminal
set. In the heads, any component can change into another (function
or terminal), whereas in the tails terminals can only change into
terminals. The mutation may take place at one or two points
within the chromosome and there are no constraints, neither in the
kind of mutation nor the number of mutations. In all cases, the
newly created individuals are syntactically correct programs.
Recombination: The last significant step during each cycle of
programs evolution includes introducing genetic variations by
recombination. The variations take place when two chromosomes
are paired and split exactly at the same point to exchange their
ingredients downward to the merging point. The following steps
explain how recombination is performed:
 Two chromosomes are selected randomly from the population;
 one part of each chromosome is selected randomly;
 the two chromosomes pair and trade in the selected parts and
 two offspring belonging to the new population are obtained.
3. Development of GEP model
The GEP model developed in this work is based on results of a
number of 25 pile load tests and cone penetration test (CPT) data.
The CPT-based pile capacity prediction methods have become
desirable worldwide and preferred over other methods, as the
CPT provides more reliable soil properties. For instance, the CPT
620 I. Alkroosh, H. Nikraz / Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 25 (2012) 618–627

Root
+

Sqrt c1

Functional nodes

* / Terminal nodes

d0 d1 d2 d0

Fig. 2. Typical example of expression tree.

can be carried out on soils e.g. cohesionless soils from which it is underneath a weak soil layer, the failure zone extend from 4
difficult to obtain undisturbed samples. Deq below and 8 Deq above the pile tip. On the other hand,
In this work, the GEP model is developed using the commercial when the pile tip is located in a weak soil layer beneath strong
available software package GeneXproTools 4.0 (Gepsoft, 2001). The soil layer, the failure zone extends from 4 Deq below to 2 Deq
data used to develop the model were collected from the literature, above the pile tip. For large-diameter piles, however, the
mainly in-situ compression and tension pile load tests and CPT data, failure zone is taken in accordance with Alsamman (1995) to
reported by Eslami (1996). The piles are loaded incrementally in slow be 1 Deq below the pile tip.
or quick maintained loads. In total 22 piles (88%) of the available  As several pile case records include mechanical rather than
piles are loaded in slow maintained loads and 3 piles (12%) of the electric CPT data, it was necessary to transform the mechanical
piles are loaded in quick maintained loads. The tests were performed CPT readings into equivalent electric CPT values. This was
on driven piles, made of concrete or steel, embedded in cohesive carried out using the correlation proposed by Kulhawy and
soils. The piles have different sizes and shapes with diameters Mayne (1990), as follows:
ranging from 273 to 800 mm, and lengths from 5.5 to 37.5 m. As    1:19
the piles considered in the current study have a wide diameters’ qc qc
¼ 0:47 ð2Þ
range and because the large-diameter piles may behave differently in pa Electric pa Mechanical

comparison to small-diameter piles, they were classified into two where; pa is the atmospheric pressure and qc is the cone point
categories: small-diameter piles (for pile diametero600 mm) and resistance; both of pa and qc are in kPa.
large-diameter piles (for pile diameter4600 mm). This classification For fs values, the mechanical cones give higher readings than the
is in accordance with Ng et al. (2004). electric cones in all soils. Kulhawy and Mayne (1990) suggested a
ratio of 2.5–3.5 for clay. In the present study, a ratio of 3 is adopted.
3.1. Model input and output
3.2. Data division
The most significant factors that influence pile capacity prediction
were presented to the GEP model as potential model inputs. These
The next step in development of the GEP model is the data
include the equivalent pile diameter, Deq, which was calculated as
division. In this work, the data were randomly divided into two
perimeter/p, pile embedment length, L, weighted average cone point
statistically consistent sets, as recommended by Masters (1993) and
resistance over pile tip failure zone, qctip , weighted average sleeve
detailed by Shahin et al. (2004). This includes a training set for model
friction along shaft, f s , weighted average cone point resistance over
calibration and an independent validation set for model verification.
shaft length, qcshaft , pile elastic modulus, E, and pile Material, Mat.
In total, 21 case records (84%) of the available 25 cases were used for
The pile material was translated from text to numerical format by
training and 4 cases (16%) for validation. The statistics of the data
representing the steel by 1 and the concrete by 2. The GEP is capable
used for the training and validation sets are given in Table 1, which
to deal with such kind of variable representation. The interpreted
include the mean, standard deviation, minimum, maximum and
failure load (pile capacity), Qu, is the single model output. The
range. It should be noted that, like all empirical models, GEP performs
following conditions were applied to the input and output.
best in interpretation rather than extrapolation, thus, the extreme
values of the data used are included in the training set.
 The interpreted failure load (pile capacity), Qu was taken in
accordance with Eslami (1996) as plunging load in well
defined failure cases or the 80% Criterion of Hansen (1963) 3.3. Determination of GEP setting parameters and model selection
for the cases that failure load is not clearly defined. Figs. 3 and
4 present the definition of the failure load for two case records The search for the GEP settings parameters and the selection of
selected from the database. the model is carried out in three stages as follows:
 For small-diameter piles, the failure zone over which qc is
averaged was taken in accordance with Eslami (1996), in 3.3.1. Determination the values of setting parameters
which when the pile tip is located in a homogenous soil, the In GEP, values of setting parameters have significant influence
failure zone extends 4 Deq below and above the pile tip, on the fitness of the output model. These include the number of
whereas when the pile tip is located in a strong soil layer chromosomes, number of genes and gene’s head size, functions
 I. Alkroosh, H. Nikraz / Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 25 (2012) 618–627 621

Pile
Geometry CPT Profile
0 0 0

2 2

Depth (m)

Depth (m)
stiff clay 4 4

6 6

8 8
8.2 m
800 mm 10 10
0 10 20 30 40 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Cone point resistance (MPa) Sleeve friction (MPa)
Load settlement
4000

3200
Axial load (kN)
2400 Failure load = 3250 kN
1600 taken according to 80%-Criterion

800

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Head deflection (mm)

Fig. 3. Summary sheet for driven steel pile case record 3, (a) pile geometry and soil profile, (b) cone tip resistance profile and sleeve friction profile, (c) load-
settlement plot.

Pile
CPT Profile
Geometry
0 0 0
clay (CL)
2.5
6 6
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

12 12
clay (CH)
18 18
21 m
400 mm
24 24
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1
Cone point resistance (MPa) Sleeve friction (MPa)
Load settlement
1500

1200
Axial load (kN)

900 Failure load = 1330 kN

taken as plunging load
600

300

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Head deflection (mm)

Fig. 4. Summary sheet for case driven steel pile record 16, (a) pile geometry and soil profile, (b) cone tip resistance profile and sleeve friction profile, and (c) load-
settlement plot.

set, linking function and the rate of genetic operators. In this function¼mean squared error (MSE), linking function¼ þ,
work, the trial-and-error approach was used to determine the mutation¼0.04, and gene recombination¼0.1). The runs were
values of setting parameters. This approach involved using stopped after thirty thousand generations, which were found
different settings and conducting runs in steps. During each step, sufficient to evaluate the fitness of the output. At the end of each
runs were carried out and the values of one of the above run, the MSE for both training and validation sets were recorded
mentioned parameters (with its optimal value being searched) in order to identify the values that give the least MSE.
were varied, whereas the values of the other parameters were set In the first step, the number of chromosomes was determined.
constant (i.e. number of chromosomes ¼30, number of genes ¼3, Several runs were conducted varying the number of chromo-
gene’s head size¼8, functions set¼ þ,  ,  , and /, fitness somes (i.e. 15, 16, 17, y, 25), whereas the other parameters were
622 I. Alkroosh, H. Nikraz / Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 25 (2012) 618–627

Table 1 1.4 14

Mean squared error ×105

Mean squared error ×104

GEP input and output statistics.
1.2 12
Model variables and Statistical parameters 1 10
data sets
Mean Standard Minimum Maximum Range
0.8 8
deviation 0.6 6

Pile diameter, Deq (mm)

0.4 4
Training Set
Training set 403 140 273 800 527 0.2 Selected number 2
Validation Set
Validation set 418 141 300 600 300
0 0
Pile embedment length, L (m) 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Training set 13 7 5.5 37.5 32.0 Number of chromosomes
Validation set 12 6 6.5 19.8 13.3

Weighted average cone point resistance along pile tip failure zone, qctip (MPa) Fig. 5. Effect of number of chromosomes on the performance of the GEP model.
Training set 6 5 0.0 19.5 19.5
Validation set 4 2 1.3 5.3 4.0

Weighted average sleeve friction, f s , (kPa) 2 12

Mean squared error ×105

Mean squared error ×104

46 22 10.0 83.0 73.0
45 8 35.0 53.3 18.3 1.6
9
Weighted average cone point resistance along shaft length, qcshaft (MPa)
1.2
Training set 4 5 0.5 24.8 24.3
6
Validation set 2 1 1.6 3.4 1.8
0.8
Pile elastic modulus, E, (GPa)
Training Set 3
Training set 125 89 24.7 200 175 0.4
Validation set 69 88 24.7 200 175 Validation Set Selected number
0 0
Pile Material, Mat
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Training set 1 1 1 2 1
Validation set 2 1 1 2 1 Number of genes per chromosome

Pile capacity, Qu (kN) Fig. 6. Effect of number of genes per chromosome on the performance of the
Training set 1439 789 290 3250 2960 GEP model.
Validation set 1169 586 780 2025 1245

1 18
Mean squared error ×105

Mean squared error ×104

set constants. The number of chromosomes that was found to 0.8 15
correspond to the least MSE in both of the training and the
12
validation sets was selected. 0.6
In the same way, the chromosome architecture, i.e. the head 9
size and number of genes per chromosome, were determined. 0.4
6
Several runs were carried out using the gene’s head size¼ 6, 7, 8,
0.2 Training Set
y, 14, and number of genes per chromosome¼1, 2, 3, y 5. The Selected head size 3
Validation Set
fitness of the output of the runs was then compared to determine
0 0
the optimum chromosome’s architecture. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
In the following step the best set of functions was determined. Gene head size
The initial run began with the use of the four basic arithmetic
operators ( þ,  ,  , /). Then in the subsequent run an additional Fig. 7. Effect of gene’s head size on the performance of the GEP model.
function such as root square was added to the set and so on. Then
the addition and the multiplication linking functions were used in
1.5 8
different runs to determine which of these functions best suits
Mean squared error ×104
Mean squared error ×105

this problem. The last step was to search for the best rates of each 1.2
of the genetic operators. The focus was more on mutation and 6
gene recombination, as they are the main gene modifiers. 0.9
The results of the search for model setting parameters are shown 4
in Figs. 5–9. Fig. 5 shows that the model performs best when the 0.6
number of chromosomes is 22, indicating that this number of Training Set 2
0.3
chromosomes is the optimal. It can also be seen that, in Figs. 6 and Selected rate
Validation Set
7, the optimum chromosome structure consists of 3 genes of head 0 0
size¼10. Above these values the fitness of the model decreases. This 0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0.125
can be because of using too long gene; the genetic variations may Mutation rate
take place in regions where they have minor effect on the evolution
Fig. 8. Effect of mutation rate on the performance of the GEP model.
process. The functions group that produced the best output fitness
includes functions (þ,  , /,  , x2, x3, O, p ffi
3 , Ln). The presence of a

function such as the Ln (natural logarithm) among the functions
group is recognizable in the models of the evolutionary algorithms.
During evolution process, this function is selected randomly by the
program to improve the fitness of the solution. The results also
showed that the model performs better when the addition (þ ) is
used as a linking function. Figs. 8 and 9 present the influence of the
rates of the genetic operators – mutation and gene recombination –
on the performance of the GEP model. It can be seen that the GEP
model performs best when mutation and gene recombination rates
are 0.05 and 0.3, respectively.
 I. Alkroosh, H. Nikraz / Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 25 (2012) 618–627 623

1.2 12 3.3.2. Selection of the GEP model

Mean squared error ×105

Mean squared error ×104

1 10 After finding the best setting parameters, the GEP model was
determined by conducting several runs using these parameters.
0.8 8
The outputs of the runs were several chromosomes (models) which
0.6 6 represent potential solutions to the problem. The best model was
0.4 4 determined by screening these solutions through selection criteria
Training Set which are defined as follows: first, the model has to have correla-
0.2 Selected rate 2
Validation Set tion coefficient, rZ0.80, for both of the training and validation sets.
0 0 Second, it has to have mean values within 10%. Third, it must give
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
results that agree with what is expected in the sensitivity analysis,
Gene recombination rate
which is explained later. The desirable criteria of the model are to
Fig. 9. Effect of the gene recombination rate on the performance of the GEP model. provide short and simple expressions.

3.3.3. Optimization and simplification of the GEP model

Table 2
The third stage was to develop the model that is selected from
Input parameters used for the GEP models.
the previous stage. The model that satisfied selection criteria was
Parameter Attempted values, functions and rates
Table 3
Number of chromosomes 22 Performance of the GEP model in the training and validation sets.
Number of genes 3
Head size 10 Performance measure Data set
Function set þ ,  ,  , /, O,p ffi
3 , Power, Ln (natural logarithm)

Fitness function Mean squared error Training Validation

Linking function þ
Mutation rate 0.05 Correlation coefficient, r 0.95 0.94
Recombination rate 0.3 Mean, m 0.94 1.09

Fig. 10. Expression trees of the developed GEP model d0¼ Deq; d1 ¼L; d2 ¼qctip ; d3 ¼f s ; d4 ¼ qcshaft ; d5 ¼ E; d6¼ Mat; 3Rt¼ p ffi
3 ; X2 ¼to power 2; X3 ¼to power 3;

Ln¼ natural logarithm; Sub-ET 2, c1¼ 52; Sub-ET 3, c1¼ 4.74.

624 I. Alkroosh, H. Nikraz / Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 25 (2012) 618–627

further developed with the optimization and simplification pro- 4. Results and evaluation performance of the GEP model
cedures, which are available in the program. The best model
settings are presented in Table 2. 4.1. GEP output and model formulation

As mentioned earlier, one of the advantages of the GEP

4000
technique is that the relationship between the model inputs and
the corresponding outputs is automatically constructed in the
expression trees as presented in Fig. 10. The trees are easily
Predicted pile capacity (kN)

3000 formulated into mathematical equation as follows:

!1=3 !
fs 52ð3Þ
Qp ¼ f s ð2þ Mat ð2Þ Þ þ Deq þLðLþ 4:74qctip Þ
2000 Mat Deq

Eð1 þMatÞ þqcshaft ð1 þ LnðDeq ÞÞ ð3Þ

1000
Training set where Qp is the predicted pile capacity; Deq is the equivalent pile
Validation set diameter; L is the pile embedment length; qctip is the weighted
average cone point resistance over pile tip failure zone; f s is the
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 weighted average sleeve friction along shaft; qcshaft is the
weighted average cone point resistance over shaft length; E is
Measured pile capacity (kN)
the pile elastic modulus and Mat, is the pile Material (for steel ¼1
Fig. 11. Performance of the GEP model in the training and validation sets. and for concrete ¼2).

3500 4000
Predicted capacity (kN)

Predicted capacity (kN)

3000 3500

2500 3000

2000 2500

1500 2000

1000 Steel piles 1500 Steel piles

Concrete piles Concrete piles
500 1000
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0 7 14 21 28 35 42
Pile diameter (mm) Embedment length (m)
3100 2500
Predicted capacity (kN)

Predicted capacity (kN)

2800 2250

2500 2000

2200 1750

1900 1500

1600 Steel piles 1250 Steel piles

Concrete piles Concrete piles
1300 1000
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Average cone point resistance Average sleeve friction along
within tip influence zone (MPa) shaft (kPa)
2000
Predicted capacity (kN)

1950

1900

1850

1800

1750 Steel piles

Concrete piles
1700
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Average cone point resistance
along shaft (MPa)

Fig. 12. Sensitivity analysis to verify the performance of the GEP model.
 I. Alkroosh, H. Nikraz / Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 25 (2012) 618–627 625

4.2. Evaluation the performance of the model in training and
validation sets
The performance of the optimum GEP model is shown
numerically in Table 3 and is depicted graphically in Fig. 11.
Table 3 indicates that the model performs well with high
coefficients of correlation, r, of 0.95 and 0.94 for the training
and validation sets, respectively. It can also be seen that the
model has good mean values, of 0.95 and 1.09 for the training and
validation sets, respectively.
The mean is calculated according to Long and Wysockey
(1999) as follows:
m ¼ emLn
and
 
1Xn
Qp
mLn ¼ Ln
ni¼1 Qm
where n is the number of observation; Qp is the predicted
capacity; and Qm is the measured capacity.
Fig. 11 also indicates that the model has minimum scatter
around the line of equality between the measured and predicted
pile capacities for the training and validation sets. The above
results demonstrate that the developed GEP model performs well.
4.3. Sensitivity analysis
To examine the generalization ability (robustness) of the GEP
model further, sensitivity analysis was carried out. A set of a
hypothetical input that lies within the range of the training data,
was used to verify the response of the GEP model to the variations of
the input variables. For example, the effect of one input variable,
such as pile diameter, Deq, was investigated by allowing it to change
while all other input variables were set to selected constant values.
The inputs were then accommodated in the GEP model, and the
predicted pile capacity was calculated. This process was repeated for
the next input variable and so on, until the model response had been
examined for all inputs. The robustness of the GEP model was
determined by examining how well the predictions compare with
available geotechnical knowledge and experimental data. The
results of the sensitivity analysis are shown in Fig. 12. It can be
seen that predictions of pile capacity from the GEP model agree well
with what one would expect and with published experimental
results in sense that the pile capacity increases with the increase
of the pile diameter, embedment length, average of sleeve friction
and average of cone point resistance within pile tip influence
zone and along shaft. It can also be seen that concrete piles are
higher capacity than steel piles. This can be attributed to the
roughness of the pile surface, which is higher in the concrete
ð4Þ
than in the steel piles. The results of the sensitivity analysis pro-
vide an additional confirmation that the developed GEP model
perform well.
ð5Þ
4.4. Comparison of the GEP model with number of CPT-based methods
To examine the accuracy of the GEP model further, the
predictions of the model were compared with those obtained
from three of currently adopted CPT-based methods including De
Ruiter and Beringen (1979), Bustamante and Gianeselli (1982)
and Esalmi, Fellenius (1997). The predictions of the GEP model are
also compared with predictions of artificial neural network model
developed by Shahin (2010). A brief description of the compared
methods is provided in Table 4.
Statistical analyses including the coefficient of correlation, the
mean and the cumulative probability at 50% (P50) from the GEP
model and the CPT methods, in relation to the available 25 case
records, were carried out and the results are presented graphi-
cally in Fig. 13 and numerically in Table 5. The cumulative
probability, P50, is calculated from Eq. (6) by sorting the values
of predicted capacity by measured capacity (Qp/Qm) in an ascend-
ing order for each method. The smallest Qp/Qm is given number
i¼1 and the largest is given i¼n. The value of Qp/Qm that

Table 4
A brief description of the CPT methods compared with the GEP model.

Method Pile capacity calculation procedure

De Ruiter and Beringen Pile capacity is the sum of unit end resistance, qp, and the unit shaft friction, fp. In clay: qp ¼ NcSu r15 MPa, Su ¼qc/Nk, Nc ¼ 9, Nk ¼ 15–20.
(1979) fp ¼ aSu r 120 kPa, a ¼ 1 for NC clay and 0.5 for OC clay
Bustamante and Gianeselli Pile capacity is the sum of unit end resistance, qp and unit shaft friction, fp. qp ¼kb1qeq(tip), kb1 ¼ 0.15–0.60 depending on soil type and
(1982) installation procedure; qeq:equivalent average of qc values of zone ranging from 1.5D below pile tip to 1.5D above pile tip. fp ¼qeq(side)/ks1,
ks1 ¼30–150 depending on soil type, pile type and installation procedure
Eslami and Fellenius (1997) The first step is determining qE by subtracting pore water pressure, u2, from total qc; qE ¼ qc  u2. Then pile capacity equal to the sum of
unit end resistance, rt, and unit shaft resistance, rs. rt ¼ CtqEg, Ct: tip correlation coefficient assumed equal to 1, qEg: geometric average of qE
values of a zone ranging from 4D below to 4D above pile tip in homogenous soil, 4D below to 2D above pile tip if pile tip is situated in
strong soil layer beneath weak soil layer otherwise from 4D to 8D. rs ¼CsqE, Cs: shaft correlation coefficient ranging 0.4–8 depending on
soil type
Shahin (2010) In this method pile capacity is correlated with CPT data using artificial neural network. The proposed model for driven piles:

QuðANNÞ ¼ 290 þ ½4210=1 þ eð1:6994:193tanhH1 þ 2:242tanhH2 Þ 

for steel piles,

H1 ¼ 5:1 þ 103 ð3:59Deq þ 45:51L þ 112:23qctip 21:39qcshaft þ 6:86f s Þ

H2 ¼ 1:164103 ð2:47Deq þ 33:96L8:37qctip þ 1:58qcshaft 0:24f s Þ

for concrete piles,

H1 ¼ 5:158 þ 103 ð3:59Deq þ 45:51L þ 112:23qctip 21:39qcshaft þ 6:86f s Þ

H2 ¼ 0:816103 ð2:47Deq þ 33:96L8:37qctip þ 1:58qcshaft 0:24f s Þ

Deq ¼ perimeter/p; L, embedded length; qctip , weighted average cone point resistance within pile tip influence zone calculated as in Eslami
and Fellenius method; qcshaft , weighted average cone point resistance along pile shaft; f s , weighted average sleeve friction along pile
shaft
626 I. Alkroosh, H. Nikraz / Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 25 (2012) 618–627

5000 The size of the solution increases with the increase of fitness.
GEP Significant number of runs may be required to obtain a
De Ruiter & Beringen
Bustamante & Gianeeselli suitable answer for complex problem.
4000 Eslami & Fellenius
Predicted pile capacity (kN)

Shahin
5. Conclusion
3000
The results of this study indicate that the GEP model possess a
good capability in predicting the capacity of driven piles in
2000 cohesive soils; the model has achieved high coefficients of
correlation, r, of 0.95 for the data used in model calibration, and
0.94 for the data used in model validation. The model has also low
1000 mean, m, values of 0.94 and 1.09 for the data used in model
calibration and validation, respectively. Sensitivity analysis has
revealed that pile capacity increase with increase of the input
0 variables, which also have different levels of influence on capa-
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
city. The results also demonstrate that GEP model performs well
Measured pile capacity (kN) in comparison with the CPT-based methods. Overall, the output of
Fig. 13. Comparison of GEP model performance and CPT-based methods. this study has demonstrated that while the GEP approach
involves some insignificant setbacks, resulting model is compe-
tent in correlating between pile capacity and CPT data.

Table 5
Numerical results of statistical analysis. References

Method Coefficient of Mean, m P50

n
Abu-Kiefa, M., 1998. General regression neural networks for driven piles in
correlation, r cohesionless soils. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 124 (12), 1177–1185.
Alsamman, O., 1995. The Use of the CPT for Calculating Axial Capacity of Drilled
All Validation All Validation All Validation Shafts. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Illinois, Urbana.
data set data set data set Ardalan, H., Eslami, A., Nariman-Zadeh, N., 2009. Piles shaft capacity from CPT and
CPTu data by polynomial neural networks and genetic algorithms. Comput.
GEP 0.95 0.94 0.96 1.09 1.01 1.02 Geotech. 36, 616–625.
De Ruiter and 0.73 0.73 1.15 1.14 1.05 1.01 Ashour, A.F., Alvarez, L.F., Toropov, V.V., 2003. Empirical modelling of shear
Beringen (1979) strength of RC deep beams by genetic programming. Comput. Struct. 81,
Bustamante and 0.80 0.97 0.70 0.68 0.74 0.68 331–338.
Gianeselli (1982) Bayksoglu, A., Gullu, H., Canakci, H., Ozbakir, L., 2008. Prediction of compressive
Eslami and Fellenius 0.85 0.91 0.98 0.97 1.02 0.95 and tensile strength of limestone via genetic programming. Expert Syst. Appl.
35 (1-2), 111–123.
(1997)
Bustamante, M., Gianeselli, L., 1982. Pile Bearing Capacity Prediction by Means of
Shahin (2010) 0.76 0.99 0.83 0.96 0.86 1.05
Static Penetrometer Cpt. In: Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on
Penetration Testing, ESOPT-II, vol. 2, Amsterdam, The Netherland, pp. 493–
P50
n
¼probability at 50%. 500.
Cevic, A., Cabalar, A.F., 2009. Modelling damping ratio and shear modulus of
sandmica mixtures using genetic programming. Expert Syst. Appl. 36 (4),
7749–7757.
corresponds to P ¼50% is considered as P50 Chan, W., Chow, Y., Liu, L., 1995. Neural network: an alternative to pile driving
formulas. Comput. Geotech. 17, 135–156.
i Cramer, N., 1985. A Representation for the Adaptive Generation of Simple
P¼ ð6Þ Sequential Programs. Academic press, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh,
ðn þ 1Þ
PA.
Fig. 13 illustrates that the GEP model has the minimum scatter Das, S.K., Basudhar, P.K., 2006. Undrained lateral capacity of piles in clay using
artificial neural network. Comput. Geotech. 33 (8), 454–459.
around the line of equality between measured and predicted pile De Ruiter, J., Beringen, F.L., 1979. Pile foundation for large North Sea structures.
capacity. The numerical values as presented in Table 5 indicate Mar. Geotechnol. 3 (3), 267–314.
that the model performs well in comparison with the other Eslami, A., 1996. Bearing Capacity of Piles from Cone Penetration Data. Ph.D.
Thesis. University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
methods. It can be seen that for the all data set and validation
Esalmi, A., Fellenius, B., 1997. Pile capacity by direct CPT and CPTu methods
set the performance of the GEP model is high and consistent. This applied to 102 case histories. Can. Geotech. J. 34 (6), 886–904.
indicates that the GEP model is accurate and has a good capability Ferreira, C., 2002. Gene Expression Programming: Mathematical Modeling by
Artificial Intelligence. Angra do Heroismo, Portugal.
to generalize. Moreover Table 5 also shows that the overall results
Ferreira, C., 2001. Gene Expression Programming Tool.
of performance measurements may suggest that the GEP model Gepsoft, 2001. Genexprotools 4.0. Standard Edition.
may tends to under-predict the measured pile capacity. The Goldberg, D., 1989. Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine
comparison gives additional confirmation to the ability of the Learning. Addison–Wesley, MA.
Hansen, B.J., 1963. Discussion on hyperbolic stress–strain response, cohesive soils.
GEP model to perform well and suggests that it can be used as J. Soil Mech. Found. Eng. 89 (4), 241–242.
additional alternative to predict pile capacity. Holland, J., 1975. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. University of
Michigan, USA.
Hong, Y.S., Bhamidimarri, R., 2003. Evolutionary self-organising modelling of a
4.5. Some setbacks of GEP municipal wastewater treatment plant. Water Res. 37, 1199–1212.
Javadi, A., Rezania, M., Nezhad, M., 2006. Evaluation of liquefaction induced lateral
displacements using genetic programming. Comput. Geotech. 33 (4-5),
Although the above results demonstrate that the developed
222–233.
model performs well, GEP involve some deficiencies. Koza, J., 1992. Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by
The GEP approach is data driven. The accuracy of the GEP Natural Selection.
model depends on the accuracy of the data input. In addition, the Kulhawy, F., Mayne, P., 1990. Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation
Design. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
GEP models cannot extrapolate the answer (i.e. can only provide Long, J., Wysockey, M., 1999. Accuracy of methods for predicting axial capacity of
predictions within the range of the training data). deep foundations. Geotech. Spec. Publ. 88, 181–195.
 I. Alkroosh, H. Nikraz / Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 25 (2012) 618–627 627

Master, T., 1993. Practical Neural Network Recipes in Cþþ. Academic Press, San
Diego, California.
Ng, C., Simon, W., Menzies, B., 2004. Soil-Structure Engineering of Deep Founda-
tions Excavations and Tunnels. Thomas Telford Ltd., London.
Rezania, M., Javadi, A., 2007. A new genetic programming model for predicting
settlement of shallow foundations. Can. Geotech. J. 44, 1462–1473.
Shahin, M., 2010. Intelligent computing for modeling axial capacity of pile
foundations. Can. Geotech. J. 47, 230–243.
Shahin, M., Maier, H., Jaksa, M., 2004. Data division for developing neural networks
applied to geotechnical engineering. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 18 (2), 105–114.
Teh, C.I., Wong, K.S., Goh, A.T., Jaritngam, S., 1997. Prediction of pile capacity using
neural networks. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 11 (2), 129–138.