ISSN 1064-2293, Eurasian Soil Science, 2009, Vol. 42, No. 13, pp. 1487–1496. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd.

, 2009.

SOIL
PHYSICS

Comparison of Artificial Neural Networks Models

with Correlative Works on Undrained Shear Strength1
O. Sivrikaya
Associate Professor Doctor, Department of Civil Engineering, Ni ğde University, 51100 Ni ğde, Turkey
e-mail: osivrikaya@nigde.edu.tr

Abstract—In recent years, the Artificial Neural Network (ANN) modelling that has been used in the solution
of the complex problems has gained an increasing interest in soil science. The ANN modelling is also getting
more popular in soil mechanics applications. It is a preferable method among the other approaching methods
because of having quick results in test phase in short time. This paper describes the ANN models for estimating
undrained shear strength (Su) of cohesive soils from SPT (Standard Penetration Test) data with index properties
in Turkey. The performance of the ANN models is investigated using different input variables such as measured
N, corrected N (N60) value, natural water content (wn), liquid limit (wL), plasticity index (Ip). In this study the
ANN models are compared to empirical methods. The results indicate the superior performance of ANN models
over the empirical methods.
DOI: 10.1134/S1064229309130092

1 1. INTRODUCTION sible that employing different types of test leads to erro-

Correlations are important to estimate engineering
properties of soils particularly for a project where there
is a financial limitation, lack of test equipment or lim-
ited time. Therefore it is useful to estimate the engi-
neering properties of soil by using other soil parameters
which can be obtained easily. The relations between the
values of various soil parameters in the field and/or lab-
oratory conditions both assist the engineer for the pre-
liminary evaluation of the project and enable to check
the consistency of the results determined by various
methods.
Statistical regression modelling is a method in
which the data corresponding to a dependent variable
are regressed against those of the independent variable.
In multiple regressions, a probabilistic model is
employed and it is assumed that it is normally distrib-
uted. All conventional regression methods have a limi-
tation. It is also known that the empirical methods are
not applicable to the complex and highly non-linear
problems [1].
The correlations with SPT-N are commonly used in
the preliminary stage of a project. However, many of
those correlations, available in literature, are not clear
enough to apply to field data. It is also unknown
whether the correlations include the corrections and
hence their use causes confusion. The other important
issue is that which type of test is used for the determi-
nation of the correlation equation. This is not clear
either. The differences in the tests used in developing
these correlations play a very important role. It is pos-
1 The article is published in the original.
neous results. Therefore, an engineer should be aware
of those facts before using correlation equations.
Unless those uncertainties are known, the used correla-
tion may lead to overestimated or underestimated
design parameters. This study covers the use of the
ANN models to estimate undrained shear strength (Su)
of cohesive soils using SPT-N value with index proper-
ties in Turkey.
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is one of the most
common in-situ tests used for geotechnical design in
Turkey and the world [2, 3]. Almost every soil explora-
tion program also covers standard penetration test as
one of the principle parts [2, 4, 5]. The SPT is per-
formed by driving a standard split-spoon sampling tube
of 30 cm into the ground at the bottom of a borehole
with a 63.5 kg hammer falling from 76 cm. SPT-N
value, which is the number of hammer blows required
to drive the sampler for last two 15 cm penetration, is
called standard penetration resistance of soil. Many
factors and variables (the drilling methods, drill rods,
borehole sizes and stabilization, sampler, blow count
rate, hammer configuration, energy corrections and test
procedure) affect the validity and usefulness of SPT
results [6, 7]. Therefore, the SPT correction must be
made in order to get useable and useful SPT-N values
in the geotechnical design and the determination of
engineering properties. In recent years, various correc-
tions have been developed for measured SPT-N values
taking into account the effect of: rod length, borehole
diameter, sampler type, type of hammer and its release
mechanism, blow count frequency, energy and the
effects of overburden pressure. While these corrections

1487
1488 SIVRIKAYA
are used, their use has led to confusion regarding the
correlations used for corrected SPT-N values and for
use uncorrected SPT-N values.
Even though the SPT was originally developed for
coarse-grained soils, it has been applied to fine-grained
soils to estimate engineering properties. However, its
applicability for fine-grained soils is still argued. SPT-
N value can be used to predict the bearing capacity and
settlement of foundations on cohesionless soils, and
determination of engineering properties of cohesion-
less soils such as the relative density (Dr), the angle of
shear strength (φ) and liquefaction potential, and engi-
neering properties of cohesive soils such as undrained
compressive strength (qu), undrained shear strength (Su)
and coefficient of volume compressibility (mV) [8, 9].
Measured blow counts (SPT-Nfield) can be normal-
ized to N60, which is the blow count corrected to 60%
of the theoretical free-fall hammer energy, and N1, 60,
which is the blow count corrected to 100 kPa of effec-
tive overburden pressure and 60% of the theoretical
free-fall hammer energy. The most general equations
for N60 and N1, 60 are as follows:
N60 = CBCCCECRCBFCSCANfield, (1)
N1, 60 = CNN60, (2)
where CN is the overburden correction factor, CBF is the
count frequency correction factor depending on soil
type and underground water level, CE is the energy cor-
rection factor, CR is the rod length correction factor, CB
is the borehole diameter correction factor, CS is the
liner correction factor, and CA is the anvil correction
factor, and CC is the hammer cushion correction factor
depending on test procedure and equipment [9].
Although all corrections are applied to non-cohesive
soils, the overburden and blow count frequency correc-
tion cannot be applied to cohesive soils in practice [9,
10]. As the overburden correction for clays is still sub-
ject to argument, and not normally made in practice3,, it
is neglected in this study. Consequently, the general
equation including corrections for cohesive soils can be
rewritten as Eq. (3):
N60 = CBCCCECRCSCANfield. (3)
1.1. Previous Correlative Works between Su and SPT-N
The undrained shear strength (Su) is a very impor-
tant parameter in order to make a geotechnical design
for structures and slopes founded on cohesive soils. Su
occurs as the cohesive soil is loaded rapidly and there is
no time for pore water pressure to dissipate. The value
Su is determined by the laboratory/field vane (FV) tests
or Unconsolidated Undrained (UU) compression tests
in the laboratory. In addition, Su can be obtained taking
the half of unconfined compressive strength determined
by the unconfined compression (UC) test (Su = qu/2).
The undrained shear strength (Su) for cohesive soils
can be estimated indirectly by using the result of SPT
[3, 11, 12]. Many studies indicate that the sensitivity of
clays may give rise to lower SPT-N values for a given
undisturbed shear strength due to strength loss during
sampler penetration [13, 14]. Many works have been
made on the relations between Su determined from UC
and UU test and SPT-N, and they are given in Table 1.
Using the results of unconsolidated undrained (UU)
compression tests, Stroud [12] and Décourt [3] propose
the relationships between SPT-N value and Su accord-
ing to the plasticity index, Ip, and corrected SPT-N
value respectively, in overconsolidated, insensitive
clays. The correlation equation proposed by Décourt
[3] gives approximately twice the result of Stroud [11].
The remaining researchers given in Table 1 have devel-
oped relations between Su and N by using the results of
UC test.
1.2. Current Correlative Work between Su and SPT-N
In this study, laboratory test results and borehole
logs obtained from many parts of Turkey have been
provided by private companies, universities and one
public institution which carried out the work. Values for
Su, which are used for the correlations, were obtained
from depths close to the depth of the SPT. Also, a ques-
tionnaire was prepared to collect information on the
SPT procedure and equipment used so that reliable cor-
rections and correlations could be attempted.
According to the results of the questionnaire, CE = 0.75
due to the type of donut hammer used with release on two
turns of the rope [15, 16], CB = 1.00 due to the change
of the borehole diameter from 65 mm to 115 mm [17],
CC = 1.00 due to no hammer cushion being used [3, 9],
CS = 1.20 due to no liners being used [17], CA = 0.85
due to using a donut hammer and small anvil [18] and
CR = 0.75, 0.85, 0.95 or 1.00 depending on the rod
length [17] are assumed. In the light of the results of the
questionnaire, Eq. (3) becomes:
N60 = 0.75CRNfield. (4)
The correction factors are assumed according to the
results of the questionnaire by taking the previous stud-
ies into consideration. How the correction factors are
determined is beyond the scope of the current paper.
To develop relations between Su and SPT-N, the
multi linear regression (MLR) analysis (Su = a · NorN60 +
b · wn + c · wL + d · Ip) by the method of least squares is
performed by taking both test types and the SPT-N cor-
rections into consideration; a, b, c and d represent the
regression coefficient. 100 data from UU test and
50 data from UC test are used for analysis respectively.
While SPT resistance (N, N60), natural water content
(wn), liquid limit (wL) and plasticity index (Ip) are taken
as the independent parameters, Su is taken as dependent
parameter. For these relations, the correlation coeffi-
EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 42 No. 13 2009
 COMPARISON OF ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORKS MODELS 1489

Table 1. Previous works on Correlations between SPT-N and Su

Author(s) Soil Type Su (kPa)
Sanglerat (1972) Clay 12.5N
Silty clay 10N
Terzaghiand Peck (1967) Fine-grained soil 6.25N
Sowers (1979) Highly plastic clay 12.5N
Medium plastic clay 7.5N
Low plastic clay and Silt 3.75N
Nixon (1982) Clay 12N
Sivrikaya and To ğrol (2002) Highly plastic clay (CH) 4.85Nfield, r = 0.83
n = 113 6.82N60, r = 0.80
Low plastic clay (CL) 3.35Nfield, r = 0.76
n = 72 4.93N60, r = 0.73
Fine-grained soil 4.32Nfield, r = 0.80
n = 226 6.18N60, r = 0.78
Stroud (1974)* Clay Medium plastic clay, (45)N
Su = f1N, f1 = f(Ip) Ip < 20 (67)N
Ip > 30 ≅4.2N
Décourt (1990)* Clay 12.5N
15N60
* Represents the correlations where Su is determined by UU test, the rest of them represent the correlations where Su is determined by UC test.

Table 2. Correlations between SPT-N and Su in cohesive soils

UU Test Su = 3.33N – 0.75wn + 0.20wL + 1.67Ip r = 0.82 s = ±34 kPa
n = 100 Su = 4.43N60 – 1.29wn + 1.06wL + 1.02Ip r = 0.81 s = ±34 kPa
UC Test Su = 2.41N – 0.82wn + 0.14wL + 1.44Ip r = 0.86 s = ±28 kPa
n = 50 Su = 3.24N60 – 0.53wn – 0.43wL + 2.14Ip r = 0.87 s = ±27 kPa

cient (r) has been established, and the standard errors
(s) are determined for each regression equation
obtained. The obtained regression equations with n, r
and s are given in Table 2.
1.3. Modelling with Artificial Neural Networks
Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) are data pro-
cessing paradigms made up of highly interconnected
nodes, called neurons. A neuron in ANN maps an input
pattern into an output pattern. Even though there are
various types of neural networks which differ in the
architecture and the rules of learning it is indicated in
the literature that a multilayer feedforward neural net-
work model is the most commonly used network for its
efficient generalization capabilities [19, 20, 21]. The
typical multi-layer feed-forward neural networks used
in the current application are shown in Fig. 1. This type
of neural network consists of an input layer, one or
more hidden layer(s) and an output layer. Layers con-
sist of a number of processing units, called neurons as
shown in Fig. 2. The strength of connections between
neurons is represented by numerical values, called
weights. Each neuron has an activation value that is a
function of the sum of inputs received from other neu-
rons through the weighted connections [20, 21]. ANNs
have ability in performing a good amount of generali-
zation from the patterns on which they are trained.
Training consists of exposing the neural network to a
set of known input-output patterns. The data are passed
through the multi-layered (MLP) feed forward neural
network in a forward direction only. As the data moves
forward, it is subjected to simple processing within the
neuron and along the links connecting neurons. The
network performs successive iterations to adjust the
weights of each neuron in order to obtain the target out-
puts according to a specific level of accuracy. The
adjusting process of neuron weights is carried out to
minimize the network error, which is defined as a
mean-squared error between the computed and target
output patterns. After the neural network is satisfacto-
rily trained and tested, it is able to generalize rules and

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 42 No. 13 2009

1490
N
Wn
WL
Ip
Input Hidden Output
Layer Layer Layer
Fig. 1. The Architecture of Feed-forward Artificial Neural
Networks.
will be able to deal with unseen input data to predict
output within the domain covered by the training pat-
terns [20]. Several methods exist to train a network.
One of the most successful and widely used training
algorithms for MLP is the back propagation. In this
method, the input is propagated from the input layer
through the hidden layers to the output layer. The cal-
culated network error is then back propagated from the
output layer to the input layer. The aim of this process
is to adjust weights so that the mean squared error is
minimized. This process is repeated until the error is
minimized to a preference level [20, 21].
In the current study, the sigmoid function is used as
an activation function, which is given as follows:
log -sig ( x ) = 1/ ( 1 + e ).
– ax
The input layer feeds the network with input from
outside. The hidden layers link the input layer to the
output layer, extract and remember useful features from
the input data to estimate the output of the network.
Trial and error should be carried out in order to deter-
mine an adequate number of hidden layers and the
number of neurons in each hidden layer [19, 20, 21].
ANN modelling is getting more popular, and has
been used commonly in engineering tasks [22]. The
success has been achieved on geotechnical engineering
applications such as the site characterization [23, 24],
the soil classification [25], the engineering properties of
clays [26], the stress-strain behaviours of soils [27], the
bearing capacity of piles [28, 29], the liquefaction
potential of coarse-grained soils [30, 31], the compac-
tion of soils [32, 33] and the permeability of clayey
soils [32, 34] and permeability of fine-grained soils
[35] in geotechnical engineering.
SIVRIKAYA
I1
W1
W2 Single Neuron
I2
A = ΣIiWi + C f = 1/(1 + e–A) Output of Neuron
I3 W3
I4 W4
Su
Fig. 2. The Functional Representation of Single Neuron in
the Hidden Layer.
2. ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK MODELS
FOR ESTIMATING SU
In this study, a feed-forward neural network which
consists of multilayer perceptrons trained by back-
propagation algorithms is used. For this purpose a com-
puter program written in C language has been devel-
oped. The training process is terminated when the num-
ber of iteration reaches its maximum value of 1000000
or as the cross-validation indicates that there is a dete-
rioration in learning.
Cross-validation is performed as follows: Training
set used for training artificial neural networks is divided
into two parts as an estimation subset and a validation
subset. Firstly, the network is trained using the estima-
tion subset. Then the validation subset is given as input
to the trained neural network and finally the mean
squared error is obtained. The error on the validation set
is monitored during the training process. If the error on
the validation set decreases in comparison with the
error obtained in the previous epoch, the processes is
continued. However, if it increases, the program is
stopped and then the obtained weights are used in test
process. The programme is stopped either at the end of
the cross-validation process or when the number of
(5) maximum iteration is exceed. The weight values deter-
mined from the outcome of the cross-validation process
are obtained as an optimum values. In this study, initial
values of weight matrices are taken randomly in inter-
val of [–0.5, +0.5] in the program. As the momentum
term is used, adaptive learning rate is not considered
and learning rate is kept constant. The momentum term
and learning rate are taken as 0.4 and 0.5 respectively.
The proposed architecture of ANN models consist-
ing of an input layer, a hidden layer and an output layer
are shown in Fig. 1. Wi, Ii and C represent weight val-
ues of input, input values and weight values of bias
respectively.
Measured SPT-N value (Nfield) or corrected SPT-N
value (N60), natural water content (wn), liquid limit (wL)
and plasticity index (Ip), are used as input to the neural
network models. Hence, the input layer has four neu-
rons. The only output is undrained shear strength (Su),
and therefore the output layer has only one neuron. The
optimum numbers of neurons in the hidden layer are
EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 42 No. 13 2009
 COMPARISON OF ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORKS MODELS 1491

Table 3. Information on ANN models

Output Variable, Su
Model Number Input Varibles
Neuron Number of Hidden Layer Number of Epoch Mean-square error, (kPa)2
UU Test 1 N-wn-wL-Ip 4 77 0.006015
n = 100 2 N60-wn-wL-Ip 2 44 0.006711
UC Test 3 N-wn-wL-Ip 7 3055 0.002041
n = 50 4 N60-wn-wL-Ip 6 735 0.003746

determined by training several networks with different The normalized data are then used to train neural
numbers of hidden neurons. For Models 1–4, two, four, network. The data from the output neuron have to be
six and seven hidden neurons are obtained respectively postprocessed to convert the data back into unnormal-
and given in Table 3. The performances of ANN models ized units according to
are measured in terms of desired output and error crite-
rion. The output obtained at the end of each trail is com- o = o min + ( o n – o min ) ( o max – o min )/ ( o max – o min ). (8)
pared with the target output to calculate the mean-
square error. The backpropagation is performed to The values of imin, imax, omin, and omax for ANN mod-
adjust the weights and biases until a mean-square error els are given in Table 4.
is minimized. The mean-square errors, which vary from
0.0020 to 0.0067, are achieved with different number of
epochs for all the models (Table 3).
2.1. Procedure for Estimating Su
The data sets used for training and testing the neural using Artificial Neural Network
networks were obtained from the database covering
cohesive soils from distinct geotechnical test sites in The Artificial Neural Network models described in
Turkey. They are non-sensitive clays with wL in the this study can be used to predict undrained shear
range of 22 to 110 and wp in the range of 14 to 44. The strength (Su) of a new site and the procedure can be eas-
SPTs were performed to the depth of 30 m. The training ily programmed into a computer, or conducted with a
data sets included data from each site that were selected calculator that enables to perform simple matrix opera-
randomly. The data sets consist of 100 data from UU tions. The input data are first normalized using Eq. (6).
test and 50 data from UC tests respectively. While The normalized output on is then obtained by propagat-
70 data were used for training for UU tests, 30 data ing the normalized input vector through the network as
were used for testing. In addition, 35 data from UC test follows:
for training and 15 data for testing were used.
o n = log sig [ W 2 × log sig ( W 1 × i n + C ) + D ], (9)
Normalizing of the training data is carried out so
that the processed data is in the range between 0 and 1. where W1 is weight matrix representing connection
The training data sets (input and target outputs) are nor- weights between the input layer neurons and hidden
malized as shown below:
i n = i min + ( i – i min ) ( i max – i min )/ ( i max – i min ), (6) Table 4. Normalized and unormalized parameters for ANN
models
o n = o min + ( o – o min ) ( o max – o min )/ ( o max – o min ), (7)
Input and Output
imin imax omin omax
where i is matrix of input vectors; o is matrix of target Variables
output vectors; in is matrix of normalized input vectors; UU Test N (N60) 4.0 (2.55) 46.0 (27.0)
on is matrix of normalized target output vectors; imin is
wn 15.0 66.0
vector containing the minimum values of the original
input; imax is vector containing the maximum values of wL 23.0 118.0
the original input; omin is vector containing the mini- Ip 2.0 84.0
mum value of the target output; omax is vector contain- Su – – 17.0 260.0
ing the maximum value of the target output. While con- UC Test N (N60) 4.0 (3.375) 44.0 (33.0)
stant values of i min and o min were considered as 0.1, wn 29.0 59.0
i max and o max are considered as 0.9. The preprocessing wL 50.0 118.0
of the training data is performed so that the processed Ip 27.0 84.0
data is in the range of 0.1 to 0.9. qu/2 = Su – – 11.0 232.0

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 42 No. 13 2009

1492 SIVRIKAYA

5 5
ANN/ measured ANN S.D. = 0.299 Avg = 0.908
ANN S.D. = 0.316 Avg = 0.950
Normalized Su,

4 MLR S.D. = 0.352 Avg. = 0.965 4

ANN/ measured
ANN ANN

Normalized Su,
MLR S.D. = 0.341 Avg. = 0.978
3 MLR MLR
3
2
2
1
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Data points 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
400 Data points
350 400
MLR
Predicted Su, kPa

300 350

Predicted Su, kPa

ANN MLR
250 300
ANN
200 250
150 200
100 150
50 100
50
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Observed Su, kPa 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Observed Su, kPa

Fig. 3. Comparison of results from Regression and ANN for Fig. 4. Comparison of results from Regression and ANN for
Model 1. Model 2.

layer; W2 is weight matrix representing connection
weights between the hidden layer neurons and the out-
put neuron; C is bias vector for the hidden layer neu-
rons; and D is bias for output neuron. The logical sig-
moid function is defined in Eq. (5). The normalized out-
put on is then unnormalized using Eq. (8) to obtain the
actual undrained shear strength values.
3. COMPARISON OF ANN PREDICTIONS
WITH RESULTS OF CORRELATION
EQUATIONS
In performing the analyses of MLR and ANN, SPT-
N value (N/N60) and consistency indexes (wn, wL and Ip)
are used to predict Su by taking SPT corrections and test
type (UU and UC tets) into consideration. The predic-
tions of the ANN models for testing are also compared
with those calculated using the empirical methods.
The multi linear regression (MLR) analyses are per-
formed by using the data sets which consist of 100 data
of Su from UU test, N/N60, wn, wL and Ip and 50 data of
Su from UC tets, N/N60, wn, wL and Ip. The results of the
regression analyses are given in Table 2. In general, the
correlations obtained from regression analysis give
quite satisfactory results in terms of correlation coeffi-
cient and standard error. It is found that the best corre-
lation equation is obtained from data of Su from UC
tets, N, wn, wL and Ip in terms of the correlation coeffi-
cient (r = 0.86) and standard error (s = ±28 kPa). In all
regression analysis it is seen that the regression coeffi-
cients are at the order of a for N/N60, d for Ip, b for wn
and c for wL from high to low.
The undrained shear strengths (Su) predicted by the
ANN in test phase are shown in Figs. 3–6. The ANN
models are found to be able to learn the relation
between undreaned shear strength and SPT-N value
with index properties of cohesive soils. They show a
relatively good agreement between the ANN predic-
tions and the actual data. The undreaned shear
strengths predicted by the ANN models for SPT-Nfieid
and SPT-N60 are compared with the measured Su values
in Figs. 3b–6b.
In general the undreaned shear strengths predicted
by ANN models give reasonable results. In order to see
how accurate the results of the ANN models are, the
data estimated by the ANN models are normalized with
the measured Su and the results are plotted in a normal-
ized form (Su(ANN)/Su(measured)) as illustrated in
Figs. 3a–6a. The average values and the standard devi-
ations of the normalized undreaned shear strengths for
SPT-Nfield and SPT-N60 are given in Table 5.
The average values and the standard deviations of
normalized undreaned shear strengths for SPT-Nfield are
in the range of 0.908 – 1.046 and 0.287 – 0.299, respec-
tively. However, they are in the range of 0.950 – 1.127
and 0.316 – 0.331 respectively for SPT-N60. It is found
that Model 4 including SPT-N60, wn, wL and Ip data give

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 42 No. 13 2009

 COMPARISON OF ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORKS MODELS 1493

5 5
ANN S.D. = 0.287 Avg = 1.046 ANN S.D. = 0.331 Avg = 1.127
ANN/ measured
4 MLR S.D. = 0.608 Avg. = 1.157 4
Normalized Su,

ANN/ measured
MLR S.D. = 0.414 Avg. = 1.102

Normalized Su,
ANN ANN
3 MLR 3 MLR
2 2
1 1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Data points 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Data points
400
400
350
Predicted Su, kPa

MLR 350
300 MLR

Predicted Su, kPa

ANN 300
250 ANN
250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Observed Su, kPa 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Observed Su, kPa
Fig. 5. Comparison of results from Regression and ANN for Fig. 6. Comparison of results from Regression and ANN for
Model 3. Model 4.

poor predictions in comparisons with the other ANN
models. The minimum value of 0.002041 (kPa)2 of
mean-square error is found in Model 3. From the stan-
dard deviation point of view, compared with the MLR,
the ANN models have given more reliable predictions
in terms of estimating Su, and also Model 3 has a mini-
mum standard deviation (0.287) of normalized Su.
Average value of normalized Su is found to be 1.046 in
Model 3. The ANN models including input data of N,
wn, wL, Ip (Model 1 and 3) for the different test types are
observed to give the best results, and are shown in
Figs. 3 and 5, respectively.
The undrained shear strengths predicted by the
ANN models with SPT-Nfield and SPT-N60 are com-
pared with those predicted by the regression analyses
for using UU and UC test results. The comparisons are
plotted and illustrated in Figs. 3–6. It is seen that the
undrained shear strengths predicted by the ANN mod-
els and the correlation equations are compatible with
each other and their trends are similar. However, all
ANN models give closer results than the correlation
equations (Figs. 3a–6a). It is shown that the ANN mod-
els developed in the current study give more reliable
predictions than the correlation equations. Model 3 and
Model 4 have given the best prediction in terms of both
MLR and ANN.
The trained weights (W1, W2) and biases (C, D)
obtained from the ANN models in this study are given
in Appendix. Thus, using Eqs. (6)–(9) with W1, W2, C,
D and Table 4 it will be possible to obtain the actual

Table 5. Comparison of ANN models with measured test results

ANN Regression
Normalized Su, Normalized Su,
Model
Su(ANN)/Su(measured) Su(regression)/Su(measured)
number Mean-square
error (kPa)2 Standard deviation, Corelation Standard Average, Standard
Average, Avg.
S.D. coefficient, r error, s (kPa) Avg. deviation, S.D.
1 0.006015 0.908 0.299 0.82 34 0.965 0.352
2 0.006711 0.950 0.316 0.81 34 0.978 0.341
3 0.002041 1.046 0.287 0.86 28 1.157 0.608
4 0.003746 1.127 0.331 0.87 27 1.102 0.414

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 42 No. 13 2009

1494 SIVRIKAYA

undrained shear strength values for any input values in r : Correlation coefficient
each model. s : Standard error value for Su
S.D. : Standard deviation
4. CONCLUSIONS σv0 : Effective overburden pressure
This study deals with the comparison between the φ : Angle of shear strength
multi linear regression (MLR) and Artificial Neural
Network (ANN) analyses. The ANN models with a
feed forward, back-propapagation are developed to pre- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
dict undrained shear strength (Su) of cohesive soils The authors are grateful to the companies of Yüksel,
from SPT data with index properties in Turkey. For this Toker, STFA, Istanbul Technical University and Gen-
purpose, a computer program is written in C language eral Directorate of Highways of Turkey for providing
using feed-forward back-propagation algorithm. In the borehole logs and laboratory test data.
terms of SPT correction and test type, four different
ANN models are constructed by using the input param-
eters of N/N60, wn, wL, Ip. The ideal network architec- APPENDIX
tures, for which network response compared to desired
ones is best, are determined for each ANN models. The
performance of the developed ANN models is investi- Weight Matrices and Biases Vectors for ANN Models
gated. The undrained shear strengths estimated by the Trained weigh matrices and biases vectors for
ANN models are also compared with empirical correla- Model 1.
tions. It is found that the ANN models give quite reli-
able predictions of the undrained shear strength in com-
parison with the correlation equations. They indicate – 1.641337 0.020699 0.114314 – 1.151760
that the ANN models have the superior performance
over the empirical methods. W 1 = 1.186435 – 0.967583 0.715441 1.484889
– 0.767256 – 0.743987 – 0.870100 – 0.409642
– 2.116101 0.361025 – 1.066565 – 1.384910
Nomenclature
SPT-N, N : SPT blow count 0.046065
SPT-N60, N60 : Blow count corrected to 60% of the
theoretical free-fall hammer energy; C = – 0.727639
– 0.137237
SPT-N60, N1, 60 : Blow count corrected to 100 kPa of
effective overburden pressure and 60% of the theoreti- 1.215493
cal free-fall hammer energy.
CN : Overburden correction factor
CE : Energy correction factor W 2 = – 1.830777 2.491047 – 0.565619 – 2.754919
CR : Rod length correction factor
D = – 0.226426
CB : Borehole diameter correction factor
CS : Liner correction factor Trained weight matrices and biases vectors for
CA : Anvil correction factor Model 2.
CBF : Blow count frequency correction factor
CC : Hammer cushion correction factor
ER : Hammer energy ratio W1 = 0.681193 – 1.590745 1.206406 0.926811
vs : Shear wave velocity – 2.156853 0.508218 – 2.013736 – 0.692355
mv : Coefficient of volume change
qu : Unconfined compressive strength C = 0.009636
Su : Undrained shear strength 1.424131
Dr : Relative density
wn : Water content W 2 = 2.012356 – 3.628955
wL : Liquid limit
D = – 0.332096
Ip : Plasticity index
a, b, c, d : Regression coefficients Trained weight matrices and biases vectors for
n : Data number Model 3.

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 42 No. 13 2009

 COMPARISON OF ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORKS MODELS 1495

– 0.028020 – 0.668899 – 0.784396 1.426922 – 0.475710

– 8.365220 – 0.923563 0.286794 2.301130 – 0.353806
– 1.118238 – 0.522389 – 0.471086 – 1.041396 0.734285
W 1 = – 0.134636 – 1.649379 – 0.470940 2.931011 C = – 1.528042
– 1.334828 – 0.222841 0.803687 – 1.144850 0.031970
2.058268 1.983643 – 1.062060 – 4.009289 2.039184
– 0.512270 0.593175 – 1.149971 – 0.293065 – 0.198409

W 2 = 1.294322 – 5.417977 – 0.596980 2.614359 – 1.367820 – 3.389836 0.278718 ; D = 2.398733

Trained weight matrices and biases vectors for Model 4.

0.305404 – 2.625917 1.482484 3.136755 – 3.063223

– 2.890808 0.044873 0.261528 – 0.197483 – 0.294324
W 1 = – 1.146895 – 0.080578 – 0.594889 0.535454 C = – 1.049339
– 2.080694 1.159951 – 0.045858 – 0.865012 0.241180
0.229003 – 1.094909 0.607204 0.583468 – 1.396263
– 0.502698 – 0.583852 0.120863 – 0.581868 – 0.951017

W 2 = 3.662750 – 1.877834 – 1.013901 – 1.559210 0.936132 0.008299 ; D = 0.011605

REFERENCES 9. J. McGregor and J. M. Duncan, Performance and Use of

1. M. W. Gardner and S. R. Dorling, “Artificial Neural Net-
works (the Multilayer Perception)—A Review of Appli-
cations in the Atmospheric Sciences,” Atm. Environ. 32
(14/15), 2627–2636 (1998).
2. H. T. Durgunoglu and E. Togrol, “Penetration Testing in
Turkey: State-of-the-Art Report,” Proc. of the 1st Euro-
pean Symp. on Penetration Testing (Stockholm, Sweden,
1974) p. 137.
3. L. Décourt, “The Standard Penetration Test: State-of-
the-Art-Report,” Norwegian Geotechnical Institute Pub-
lication No. 179, (Oslo, Norway, 1990), p. 1–12.
4. H. M. Horn, “North American Experience in Sampling
and Laboratory Dynamic Testing,” ASTM Geotechn.
Testing J. 2 (2), 84–97 (1979).
5. H. Mori, “Review of Japanese Subsurface Investigation
Techniques,” J. South East Asian Soc. Geotechn. Engin.
10, 219–242 (1979).
6. I. K. Nixon, “Standard Penetration Test: State of the Art
Report,” Proc. of the 2nd Eur. Symp. on Penetration Test-
ing (Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 1982), pp. 3–21.
7. D. P. Coduto, Foundation Design: Principles and Prac-
tice (Prentice-Hall, USA, 1994).
8. B. B. Broms and N. Flodin, “History of Soil Penetration
Testing,” Proc. of 1st Intern. Symp. on Penetration Test-
ing (Orlando, Norway, 1988), pp. 157–220.
the Standard Penetration Test in Geotechnical Engineer-
ing Practice Report of CGPR (Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, Virginia, 1998).
10. S. Saran, Analysis and Design of Substructure (Balkema,
Rotterdam, 1996).
11. M. A. Stroud, “The Standard Penetration Test in Insensi-
tive Clays and Soft Rock,” Proc. of the 1st European
Symp. on Penetration Testing (Stockholm, Sweden,
1974).
12. O. Sivrikaya and E. Toğrol, “Relations between SPT-N
and qu,” 5th Intern. Congress on Advances in Civil Engi-
neering (Istanbul, Turkey, 2002), pp. 943–952.
13. V. De Mello, “The Standard Penetration Test - A State-
of-the-Art Report,” Proc. of the 4th Pan-American Conf.
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (San
Juan, Puerto Rico, 1971).
14. J. K. Mitchell, F. Guzikowski, and W. C. B. Villet, “The
Measurement of Soil Properties in Situ: Present Meth-
ods, Their Applicability and Potential,” Lawrence Berke-
ley Lab. Rep. No. 6363 (Univ. of California, Berkeley,
1978).
15. C. R. I. Clayton, “SPT Energy Transmission: Theory,
Measurement and Significance,” Ground Engin. 23 (10),
35–43 (1990).
16. H. B. Seed, K. Tokimatsu, L. F. Harder, and R. M. Chung,
“Influence of SPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 42 No. 13 2009

1496 SIVRIKAYA
Resistance Evaluations,” ASCE J. Geotech. Engin. 111
(12), 1425–1445 (1985).
17. A. W. Skempton, “Standard Penetration Test Procedures
and the Effects in Sands of Overburden Pressure, Rela-
tive Density, Particle Size, Aging and Overconsolida-
tion,” Geotechnique 36 (3), 425–447 (1986).
18. K. Tokimatsu, “Penetration Tests for Dynamic Prob-
lems,” Proc. of the 1st Intern. Symp. on Penetration Test-
ing (Orlando, Norway, 1988).
19. N. Kartam, I. Flood, and J. H. Garrett, Artificial Neural
Networks for Civil Engineers: Fundamentals and Appli-
cations (ASCE, New York, 1997).
20. I. Flood and N. Kartam, “Neural Network in Civil Engi-
neering I: Principles and Understandings,” ASCE J.
Comput. Civil Eng. 8 (2), 131—148 (1994).
21. I. Flood and N. Kartam, “Neural Network in Civil engi-
neering II: Systems and Applications,” ASCE J. Comput.
Civil Eng. 8 (2), 149—162 (1994).
22. M. A. Shahin, M. B. Jaksa, and H. R. Maier, “Artificial
Neural Network Applications in Geotechnical Engineer-
ing,” Austr. Geomech., 49–62 (2001).
23. Y. Zhou and X. Wu, “Use of Neural Networks in the
Analysis and Interpretation of Site Investigation Data,”
Computer and Geotechnics 16, 105–122 (1994).
24. D. M. Rizzo and D. E. Dougherty, “Application of Arti-
ficial Neural Network for Site Characterization Using
Hard and Soft Information,” Proc. of 10th Intern. Conf.
on Computational Methods in Water Resources (Kluwer
Academic, Dordrecht, 1994), Part 12, pp. 793–799.
25. V. Cal, “Neural Network—Alternative to Pile Driving
Formulas,” Adv. Engin. Software 22 (2), 95–97 (1995).
26. P. U. Kurup, N. K. Dudani, “Neural Networks for Profil-
ing Stress History of Clays from PCPT Data,” ASCE J.
Geotechn. Geoenviron. Engin. 128 (7), 569–579 (2002).
27. D. Penumadu, L. Jin-Nan, J. L. Chameau, and S. Aru-
mugam, “Rate Dependant Behavior of Clays Using Neu-
ral Networks,” Proc. of the 13th Intern. Conf. on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (New Delhi,
India, 1994).
28. W. T. Chan, Y. K. Chow, and L. F. Liu, “Neural Net-
work—Alternative to Pile Driving Formulas,” Comp.
Geotechn. 17 (2), 135–156 (1995).
29. I. M. Lee and J. H. Lee, “Prediction of Pile Bearing
Capacity Using Artificial Neural Networks,” Comp.
Geotechn. 18 (3), 189–200 (1996).
30. A. T. C. Goh, “Neural Network Modeling of CPT Seis-
mic Liquefaction Data,” ASCE J. Geotechn. Engin. 122
(1), 70–73 (1996).
31. D. Ural and H. Saka, “Liquefaction Prediction by Neural
Networks,” Electr. J. Geotechn. Engin., 1089–3032
(1998).
32. Y. M. Najjar, I. A. Basheer, and W. A. Naouss, “On the
Identification of Compaction Characteristics by Neuro-
nets,” Comp. Geotechn. 18 (3), 167–187 (1996).
33. I. A. Basheer, “Empirical Modeling of the Compaction
Curve of Cohesive Soils,” Can. Geotechn. J. 38 29–45
(2001).
34. M. M. Gribb and G. W. Gribb, “Use of Neural Networks
for Hydraulic Conductivity Determination in Unsatur-
ated Soil,” Proc. 2nd Intern. Conf. on Ground Water
Ecology (Atlanta, USA, 1994), pp. 155–163.
35. S. Akbulut, “Artificial Neural Networks for Predicting
the Hydraulic Conductivity of Coarse-Grained Soils,”
Eur. Soil Sci. 38 (4), 392–398 (2005).
EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 42 No. 13 2009