ARTICLE IN PRESS

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 892–905

www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Artificial neural network application to estimate kinematic soil pile

interaction response parameters
Irshad Ahmada, M. Hesham El Naggarb,, Akhtar Naeem Khana
a
Department of Civil Engineering, N-W.F.P. University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar, Pakistan
b
Geotechnical Research Center, Faculty of Engineering Science, University of Western Ont., London, Canada ON N6A 5B9
Received 23 November 2006; accepted 22 December 2006

Abstract

Six artificial neural network (ANN) models are developed to predict various response parameters of kinematic soil pile interaction.
These responses include (1) kinematic response factors for free and fixed head piles in homogenous soil layer to derive foundation input
motion (2) normalized bending moment at fixed head of pile in homogenous soil layer (3) normalized kinematic pile moment at the
interface of two soil layers of sharply different soil stiffnesses. These ANN models represent simple solutions that can be implemented in
a simple calculator capable of matrix operation and bypass the site response analysis and the complex wave diffraction analysis. The data
required for ANN training is generated using beam on dynamic Winkler formulation (BDWF). Fifty percent of the data is used to train
the ANN models while remaining 50% is used to test the ANN models. The trained ANN models show good agreement with BDWF
results.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Artificial neural network; Pile; Kinematic moment; Winkler model

1. Introduction phenomenon is termed as ‘‘inertial interaction’’. To

The seismic behavior of a structure is strongly affected
by the interactive nature between the soil, piles and the
supported structure. Away from the structure and its
foundation, the response of the soil medium to the seismic
excitation is influenced by the characteristics of the soil
profile, and is denoted as free field motion. The piles
embedded in the soil are subjected to this free field motion
and the ensuing interplay between soil and piles is termed
‘‘kinematic interaction’’, and the resulting motion at the
base of the structure is denoted as foundation input
motion. The structure undergoes dynamic displacements
and accelerations due to the foundation input motion,
creating inertial forces that are transmitted back to the
piles, affecting the wave field in the adjacent soil. This last
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 519 661 4219; fax: +1 519 6613942.
E-mail addresses: irspk@yahoo.com (I. Ahmad),
helnaggar@eng.uwo.ca (M. Hesham El Naggar),
drakhtarnaeemkhan@yahoo.com (A.N. Khan).
accurately evaluate the seismic performance of a structure,
these three phenomena should be accounted for.
The free field motion at a given site is usually obtained
through ground response analysis. The kinematic interac-
tion between the piles and soil results in a foundation input
motion at the base of the structure that is different from the
free field motion and generally includes translational and
rotational components. To approximately account for the
kinematic interaction effects, kinematic response factors
are used to convert the free field motion into foundation
input motion. The ordinates of the free field design
response spectrum are simply multiplied by the corre-
sponding kinematic response factors to derive the design
response spectrum at the base of the structure to be used in
the inertial interaction analysis.
The passage of seismic waves in soil imposes curvatures,
and thereby bending moments in the pile along its length.
For fixed head piles embedded in homogenous soils, the
kinematic bending moment could be large at the fixed end
of the pile, particularly at frequencies near the fundamental

0267-7261/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2006.12.009
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
I. Ahmad et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 892–905 893

frequency of the soil deposit. A situation of particular

importance occurs when the predominant frequency of the
seismic excitation matches the natural frequency of the soil
deposit. In such cases, the kinematic bending moment at
the pile fixed head may be larger than the inertial bending
moment.
For piles passing through soil layers of sharply different
stiffnesses, large soil strains are imposed at the layers’
interfaces, resulting in high pile bending moments [1]
Mizuno [2] has investigated pile failures during recent
earthquakes in Japan and documented many cases where
pile failures were too deep to be caused by inertial loading.
These failures were attributed to the presence of sharp
stiffness discontinuities in the soil profile [2].
While pile inertial interaction has been studied exten- Fig. 2. Pile in two-layer soil profile.
sively, kinematic interaction has received relatively less
attention. Practicing engineers are therefore well equipped
to deal with inertial effects and abundance of simplified
procedures is available at hand. Kinematic interaction, on ANNMNFIX1 , ANNMNFIX , and ANNMNINT1 which are
the other hand, is a difficult-to-conduct analysis because it described below:
involves site response analysis and soil–pile interaction ANNKDFix: To predict the kinematic displacement
analysis, and is lacking in reliable simplified equations. In factor, KDFix ¼ U ppo =U ffo , for fixed head pile in homo-
the quest of simplifying the determination of kinematic pile genous soil, where U ppo is the amplitude of pile head
bending moment, several simplified approaches and displacement, and U ffo is the amplitude of free field surface
equations are developed [3–8]. However, some of these displacement.
methods do not take into account the kinematic interac- ANNKDFree: To predict the kinematic displacement
tion, have large prediction errors, or are still complicated factor KDFree ¼ U ppo =U ffo , for free head pile in homo-
with requirements of either site response analysis and/or genous soil.
significant computational effort. ANNKRFree: To predict the kinematic rotation factor,
KDFree ¼ ðd  fppo Þ=U ffo , for free head pile in homo-
genous soil, where fppo is the rotation amplitude of the pile
2. Objective and scope of work
head.
ANNM NFIX 1 : To estimate the normalized pile bending
The objective of this paper is to present simple
moment, M NFIX1 ¼ M FIX1 =ðrp arock d 4 Þ, for rotationally
calculation schemes based on an ANN technique of
fixed head pile in homogenous soil excited with the soil
function approximation, which do not require performing
fundamental frequency, where arock is the bedrock accel-
separate site response and soil–pile interaction analyses.
eration and M FIX1 is the fixed head moment.
The data for training the ANN models is based on beam on
ANNM NFIX : To predict the normalized pile bending
dynamic Winkler foundation (BDWF) formulation. Two
moment, M NFIX ¼ M FIX =ðrp arock d 4 Þ, for rotationally fixed
soil profiles are considered in this study, a homogenous soil
head pile embedded in homogenous soil excited with
profile (Fig. 1) and a two-layer profile (Fig. 2).
frequency (o), where M FIX is the fixed head moment.
Six ANN models are developed to estimate various
ANNM NINT1 : To find the normalized pile bending
kinematic response parameters. These ANN models are
moment, M NINT1 ¼ M INT1 =ðrp arock d 4 Þ, at the interface of
named as ANNKDFix, ANNKDFree, ANNKRFree,
two soil layers excited by a fundamental frequency of soil
deposit, where M INT1 is the moment at the interface of two
soil layers when excitation frequency is the first natural
frequency of the soil deposit.

3. Parameters of seismic soil pile interaction

The layout of the pile–soil systems considered for ANN

Fig. 1. Pile in homogenous soil profile.
models developed in this study are given in Figs. 1 and 2
for homogenous and two-layer soil profiles, respectively.
The pile that rests on bedrock is considered to be hinged at
base while the pile head may be rotationally fixed or free.
The bedrock is excited by vertically propagating S-waves
characterized by a harmonic displacement of ug ðtÞ ¼ U g eiot ,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
894 I. Ahmad et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 892–905

where U g is the ground displacement amplitude and The pile–soil interaction involves seismic energy dissipation
o is the excitation circular frequency. The pile group through hysteretic (material damping) and radiation
effect is not considered as it is negligible in kinematic (geometric damping). The former represents the energy
interaction [9]. dissipation through the soil inelastic behavior, and is
Parametric study on free head piles in homogenous soil related to soil damping ratio, bs . The latter represents the
reveals that the kinematic interaction factors depend on the radiation of energy by waves spreading geometrically away
ratio of E p =E s , L=d, soil Poisson’s ratio n, soil damping from the pile–soil interface. Hence, the distributed dashpot
ratio bs , and rp =rs . Out of these parameters, E p =E s and coefficient is cx ¼ cr þ cm , where cr is the distributed
L=d are the most governing parameters [10]. For a two- radiation dashpot coefficient and cm the distributed
layer soil profile, the parameters that govern the pile material dashpot coefficient. In this study, these coefficients
bending moment at the interface of the two layers are are adopted from Gazetas and Dobry [12,13], i.e.
E p =E s1 , L=d, V s2 =V s1 , and h1 =L [6].
2kx bs
The BDWF approach is adopted in this paper to cm ¼ , (2)
o
generate data for the training of ANN models. In all cases,
soil damping ratio (bs Þ is considered to be 10%, which is  5=4 !
Vc 1=4
compatible with the design level of strain in soil, n is cr ¼ 2drs V s 1þ a0 , (3)
considered to be 0.4 and rp /rs of 1.6. The ranges of Vs
input parameters selected to generate data for the ANN where V s is the shear wave velocity of soil. The apparent
models and the corresponding output range are given in velocity of the compression waves, V c is taken as the
Tables 1–3. The considered ranges cover most of the Lysmer’s analog velocity V La at z42:5d, where
practical situations.
3:4V s
V c ¼ V La ¼ . (4)
pð1  uÞ
4. Beam-on-dynamic-Winkler-foundation (BDWF) model
Near the ground surface (zp2:5d), three-dimensional
The data for the ANN models was generated by effects arising from the stress-free boundary are better
analyzing the pile–soil system using BDWF formulation. reproduced using V c ffi V s .
The pile is connected to free field soil along its length
through continuously distributed interface elements. The 4.2. Solution of differential equation governing kinematic
end of the interface element connected to the free field soil is response of piles
excited by the corresponding free field displacement uff ðz; tÞ.
The steady state pile displacement in response to the
4.1. Interface element bedrock harmonic excitation ug ðtÞ is governed by the
following differential equation:
Each interface element consists of a spring and a dashpot U 0000 4
pp ðzÞ  l U pp ðzÞ ¼ aU ff ðzÞ, (5)
arranged in parallel. The spring stiffness (kx ) is adopted
from Kavvadas and Gazetas [11], i.e. kx ¼ dE s , where where
  1=8  1=12  1=15
2 E s1 d 4 L h1 V s1 mp o2  Sx Sx
d¼ . (1) l4 ¼ ; a¼ ; Sx ¼ K x þ icx o. (6)
2
1  n EpI p d h2 V s2 EpI p EpI p

Table 1
Ranges of parameters used for data generation for ANNKDFix, Table 3
ANNKDFree, and ANNKRFree Ranges of parameters used for data generation for ANNMNINT1

E p =E s L=d o=o1 KDFix KDFree KRFree E p =E s1 L=d V s2 =V s1 h1 =L M NINT1

Minimum 100 10 0.0637 0.0062 0.1962 0 Minimum 100 10 2 0.25 788.8

Maximum 10 000 40 12.7 1.0047 1.2743 0.4349 Maximum 10 000 40 10 0.75 2680.5 e6

Table 2
Ranges of parameters used for data generation for ANNMNFIX and ANNMNFIX1 shown in parenthesis

E p =E s L=d a0 ¼ od=V s o=o1 M NFIX (M NFIX1 )

Minimum 100 (100) 10 (10) 0.01 0.0637 0.6641 (63.92)

Maximum 10 000 (10 000) 40 (40) 0.80 20.4 6083.2 (6133.9)
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
I. Ahmad et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 892–905
In Eqs. (5) and (6), Sx is complex impedance function, mp
is the pile mass per unit length, I p is pile second moment of
inertia, and U ff ðzÞ and U pp ðzÞ are displacement amplitudes
of free field and pile at depth z. The differential equation
has the general solution:
8 9
> D1 >
>
> >
< D2 >=
lz lz ilz ilz
U pp ðzÞ ¼ ½e e e e  þ sU ff ðzÞ, (7)
>
> D3 >>
>
: >
;
D4
where
p s ¼ a=ðq4  l4 Þ and q is complex wave number ¼
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
o=V s þ ibs .
For a homogenous soil profile, there are four arbitrary
constants to be evaluated through four boundary condi-
tions, and there are eight constants for the two-layer soil
profile, which requires four compatibility equations in
addition to four boundary conditions.
4.3. Boundary conditions
4.3.1. Boundary conditions for piles in homogenous soil
layer
The moment at pile base is zero, MðL; tÞ ¼ 0; and
displacement at pile base is equal to ground displacement
at bedrock, i.e. up ðL; tÞ ¼ ug ðtÞ. The shear force and
moment at the pile head are zero, i.e. V ð0; tÞ ¼ 0, Mð0; tÞ ¼
0 for free head piles, whereas for rotationally fixed head
piles the shear force and rotation at pile head are zero
i.e. V ð0; tÞ ¼ 0, yð0; tÞ ¼ 0.
4.3.2. Boundary conditions for piles in two-layer soil profile
The boundary conditions for the pile in Fig. 2 suggest
that moment and shear at the top and base of the pile are
zero, i.e. Mð0; tÞ ¼ 0, V ð0; tÞ ¼ 0, MðL; tÞ ¼ 0, V ðL; tÞ ¼ 0.
4.4. Compatibility conditions for piles in two-layer soil
profile
Four compatibility equations are obtained by satisfying
continuity of the pile moment, shear, displacement and
rotation at the interface of the two soil layers, i.e.
Pile rotation amplitude : fpp ðzÞ ¼ U 0pp ðzÞ.
Pile moment amplitude : MðzÞ ¼ E p I p U 00pp ðzÞ.
Pile shear amplitude : V ðzÞ ¼ E p I p U 000
pp ðzÞ.
Fig. 3. Architecture of ANNMNFIX1 .
895
The solution of the differential equation is coded in
MATLAB as a general case for a two-layer soil system
overlying rigid rock formation. The free field displacements
are evaluated as a function of the depth and their first,
second, and third derivatives. Eight arbitrary constants are
determined through four boundary conditions and four
continuity conditions and then the maximum pile displace-
ment at different depths are calculated.
5. Artificial neural network models
5.1. Architecture of ANN models
The ANN is a computational procedure able to acquire,
represent, and compute a mapping from one multivariate
space of information to another, given a set of data
representing that mapping [14]. One of the most common
engineering applications of ANN is to use inputs to predict
certain outputs. About 80% of neural network applications
utilize back-propagation neural network for prediction.
Back-propagation ANN has been applied to various
problems of civil engineering like predicting concrete shear
capacity [15–18], seismic liquefaction potential [19], friction
capacity of driven piles [20] and overturning response of
rigid block under near-fault type excitation [21].
A Levenberg–Marquardt back-propagation algorithm
was used in this research. It is one of the fastest methods
available for training moderate-sized feed-forward neural
networks [22]. The architecture of ANNMNFIX1 model
consisting of an input layer of two input neurons, a hidden
layer of two neurons, and an output layer consisting of one
output neuron is shown in Fig. 3. The symbols w and b in
Fig. 3 represent connection and bias weights with sub-
scripts representing the corresponding neurons between
two layers.
The first step in the design of a neural network is to select
an appropriate architecture. In this study, each ANN
model consists of an input layer, a hidden layer, and an
output layer. The input and output layers consist of nodes
(neurons) equal in number to the input and output
parameters, respectively. No processing on the inputs is
done in the input layer. Sandwiched between the input and
output layers is the hidden layer, consisting of neurons
called hidden neurons. The hidden neurons, or sometime
the output neurons, have a nonlinear transfer function.
The effectiveness of an ANN model to simulate highly
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
896 I. Ahmad et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 892–905

Table 4
ANN models architecture

ANN models Input parameters No. of input No. of hidden neurons/ Output No. of output neurons/
neurons transfer function parameters transfer function

ANNKDFix E p =E s , L=d, o=o1 3 4/logistic sigmoid (logsig) KDFix 1/tangent hyperbolic (tanh)

ANNKDFree E p =E s , L=d, o=o1 3 5/logistic sigmoid (logsig) KDFree 1/tangent hyperbolic (tanh)

ANNKRFree E p =E s , L=d, o=o1 3 5/logistic sigmoid (logsig) KRFree 1/tangent hyperbolic (tanh)

ANNMNFIX1 E p =E s , L=d 2 2/tangent hyperbolic (tanh) M NFIX1 1/linear

ANNMNFIX E p =E s , L=d, a0 , o=o1 4 5/tangent hyperbolic (tanh) M NFIX 1/linear

ANNMNINT1 E p =E s1 , L=d, V s1 =V s2 , 4 5/tangent hyperbolic (tanh) M NINT1 1/linear

h1 =L

nonlinear problems is attributed to the nonlinear transfer min P the vector containing minimum values of the original
function. The number of hidden neurons plays a crucial input; max P the vector containing maximum values of the
role in the performance of an ANN. In this study, the original input; min T the vector containing the minimum
number of hidden neurons was optimized, using trial and value of the target output; max T the vector containing the
error, to avoid underfitting (i.e large training and testing maximum value of the target output.
errors) and prevent overfitting (i.e. low training error but The scaled data was then used to train the neural
high testing error). network. The data from the output neurons have to be
A subset of the data points is used to train the ANN with postprocessed to convert the data back into unscaled units
the help of a suitable algorithm. In this study, the network to get the actual target value according to
is supplied with 50% of the total data for training, and the
T ¼ 0:5  ðT n þ 1Þðmax T  min TÞ þ min T. (10)
remaining 50% is reserved for testing the performance of
the trained ANN. The network adjusts the connection Tables 1–3 give the minimum and maximum values of the
weights and bias such as to reduce the error between the data scaling parameters.
target and the corresponding network output, using the The training continued until the average sum squared
Levenberg–Marquardt back-propagation algorithm. error over all the training patterns was minimized. This
After the training process is completed, the prediction occurred after about 1500 cycles of training. The connec-
performance of the trained network is tested with data not tion and bias weights obtained after ANN training can be
seen before (50% of the total data in this study). The used to estimate the corresponding kinematic response
network predicts the output using the connection weights parameter. The weight and bias matrices obtained after the
and biases established in the training phase. The details of training phase of the ANN models are W 1 is the weight
ANN models design are given in Table 4. matrix representing connection weights between the input
The data generated to train ANN models are first layer and hidden layer neurons; W 2 the weight matrix
randomized and then divided into two sets namely the representing connection weights between the hidden
training data set and the testing data set. The data was so layer and output layer neurons; B1 the bias vector for the
divided to give comparable statistical properties for hidden layer neurons; B2 the bias vector for the output
training and testing data. layer neuron. These weight matrices for ANN models are
given below.
5.2. Scaling of training data Weight and bias matrices for ANNKDFix:
2 3
0:1575 0:6526 0:1622
Preprocessing of the training data is performed so that 6 0:1462 0:6481 0:1342 7
the processed data is scaled in the range of 1 to +1. The 6 7
W1 ¼ 6 7,
training data sets were scaled (preprocessed) according to 4 0:0119 0:1868 3:1880 5
4:0713 0:0556 0:0599
ðP  min PÞ
Pn ¼ 2   1, (8) 2 3
ðmax P  min PÞ 0:1908
6 0:2222 7
ðT  min TÞ 6 7
Tn ¼ 2   1, (9) B1 ¼ 6 7,
ðmax T  min TÞ 4 8:8738 5
where P is the matrix of the input vectors; T the matrix of 10:3919
the target output vectors; Pn the matrix of scaled input
vectors; T n the matrix of scaled target output vectors; W 2 ¼ ½ 275:3 285:7 1165:1 860:8 ,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
I. Ahmad et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 892–905 897

1.50 BDWF (Ep/Es=1000, L/d=40)

1.50
BDWF (Ep/Es=1000, L/d=20)
1.25 ANN (Ep/Es=1000, L/d=40)
1.25 ANN (Ep/Es=1000, L/d=20)

1.00 1.00

KDFix
KDFix

0.75 0.75

0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25

0.00 0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
ao ao

Fig. 4. Kinematic displacement factors for fixed head piles (E p =E s ¼ 1000; L=d ¼ 20, 40).

1.50
1.50 BDWF (Ep/Es=10000, L/d=40)
BDWF (Ep/Es=10000, L/d=20) 1.25
ANN (Ep/Es=10000, L/d=40)
1.25 ANN (Ep/Es=10000, L/d=20)
1.00
1.00

KDFix
KDFix

0.75
0.75

0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25

0.00 0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
ao ao

Fig. 5. Kinematic displacement factors for fixed head piles (E p =E s ¼ 10 000; L=d ¼ 20, 40).

1.60 BDWF (Ep/Es=1000, L/d=20)

1.40 ANN (Ep/Es=1000, L/d=20) 1.60

1.20 1.40
1.00 1.20
KDFree

KDFree

1.00
0.80
0.80
0.60 BDWF (Ep/Es=1000, L/d=40)
0.60
0.40 0.40 ANN (Ep/Es=1000, L/d=40)
0.20 0.20
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
ao ao

Fig. 6. Kinematic displacement factors for free head piles (E p =E s ¼ 1000; L=d ¼ 20, 40).

1.60 1.60
1.40 1.40
1.20 1.20
1.00 1.00
KDFree

KDFree

0.80 0.80
0.60 0.60
0.40 BDWF (Ep/Es=10000, L/d=20) 0.40 BDWF (Ep/Es=10000, L/d=40)
0.20 ANN (Ep/Es=10000, L/d=20) 0.20 ANN (Ep/Es=10000, L/d=40)
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
ao ao

Fig. 7. Kinematic displacement factors for free head piles (E p =E s ¼ 10 000; L=d ¼ 20, 40).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
898 I. Ahmad et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 892–905

0.50 BDWF (Ep/Es=1000, L/d=40)

0.50
BDWF (Ep/Es=1000, L/d=20) 0.45
0.45 ANN (Ep/Es=1000, L/d=40)
ANN (Ep/Es=1000, L/d=20) 0.40
0.40
0.35 0.35
0.30
KRFree

0.30

KRFree
0.25 0.25
0.20 0.20
0.15 0.15
0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
ao ao

Fig. 8. Kinematic rotation factors for free head piles (E p =E s ¼ 1000; L=d ¼ 20, 40).

0.50 0.50
BDWF (Ep/Es=10000, L/d=40)
0.45 BDWF (Ep/Es=10000, L/d=20) 0.45
0.40 0.40 ANN (Ep/Es=10000, L/d=40)
ANN (Ep/Es=10000, L/d=20)
0.35 0.35
0.30
KRFree
0.30
KRFree

0.25 0.25
0.20 0.20
0.15 0.15
0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
ao ao

Fig. 9. Kinematic rotation factors for free head piles (E p =E s ¼ 10 000; L=d ¼ 20, 40).

7000 7000
R2 = 1.0
2
6000 R = 1.0 6000
ANNMNFIX Prediction
ANNMNFIX1 Prediction

5000 5000
MNFIX1(ω1)

MNFIX(ω)

4000 4000

3000
3000
2000
2000
1000
1000
0
0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 MNFIX(ω)
MNFIX1(ω1) BDWF Prediction
BDWF Prediction
Fig. 11. ANNMNFIX model prediction.
Fig. 10. ANNMNFIX1 model prediction.

B2 ¼ ½ 852:3121 .
Table 5
Weight and bias matrices for ANNKDFree: Soil–pile system
2 3 Soil–pile system Soil–pile parameters
0:7951 3:2456 6:9741
6 1:7072 3:6850 14:9470 7 L (m) d (m) V s (m/s) E p ðN=m2 Þ
6 7
6 7
W1 ¼ 6
6 0:8041 3:2436 6:9865 77, SP1 20 1.0 100 30  109
6 7
4 1:2705 2:3714 6:4716 5 SP2 40 1.5 80 200  109
4:9902 2:3568 5:2564 SP3 10 1.0 150 200  109
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
I. Ahmad et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 892–905 899

0.15
Tabas Earthquake

ground acceleration (g)

0.1

0.05

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-0.05
time (sec)
-0.1

0.04
Friuli Earthquake
0.03
ground acceleration (g)

0.02
0.01
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-0.01
time (sec)
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04

0.4
Northridge Earthquake
ground acceleration (g)

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-0.2 time (sec)
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5

0.5
Loma Prieta Earthquake
0.4
ground acceleration (g)

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.2 time (sec)
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5

Fig. 12. Earthquakes acceleration time histories.

2 3
0:6999 B2 ¼ ½ 335:4918 .
6 9:3396 7
6 7
6 7
B1 ¼ 6 0:7018 7
6
7, Weight and bias matrices for ANNKRFree:
6 7 2 3
4 1:5968 5 0:0466 0:6654 8:0697
5:5271 6 1:0610 1:7342 2:6758 7
6 7
6 7
W1 ¼ 6
6 0:8282 1:9736 5:9451 77,
6 7
4 1:1908 1:7099 2:6744 5
W 2 ¼ ½ 338:083 1:6118 336:9977 2:1119 2:2238 , 1:1245 1:7225 2:6786
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
900 I. Ahmad et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 892–905

35
Friuli earthquake
Tabas earthquake
30
Northridge earthquake
Loma Prieta earthquake

25
Fourier Amplitude (g-sec)

20

15

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 13. Frequency contents of earthquakes considered.

2 3 2 3
13:0827 1:5515
6 1:2521 7 6 51:2817 7
6 7 6 7
6 7 6 7
B1 ¼ 6
6 0:4956 7,
7 B1 ¼ 6
6 1:5508 7,
7
6 7 6 7
4 1:2072 5 4 2:0229 5
1:2315 51:3134

W 2 ¼ ½ 470:7 765 1:5 755:8 1522:3 , W 2 ¼ ½ 36:4954 168:1853 36:8649 0:4751 168:1417 ,

B2 ¼ ½ 758:05 .
B2 ¼ ½ 1:0615 .

Weight and bias matrices for ANNM NFIX 1 :

Weight and bias matrices for ANNM NINT1 :
   
0:7452 0:0054 0:5887 2 3
W1 ¼ ; B1 ¼ , 0:5837 0:0707 5:9358 0:1786
1:0848 0:0825 0:9930 6 0:1170
6 0:1031 4:1483 4:6593 7
7
6 7
W1 ¼ 6
6 3:0844 0:1253 0:0658 0:0831 7
7,
6 7
W 2 ¼ ½ 1:2477 0:6479 ; B2 ¼ ½ 0:1755 . 4 0:0875 1:7283 0:0326 0:1609 5
0:5204 0:5648 0:0511 0:4248

Weight and bias matrices for ANNM NFIX :

2 3 2 3
0:2413 0:3073 1:1426 1:7999 7:7957
6 0:0161 0:0014 0:0043 56:48 7 6 5:9533 7
6 7 6 7
6 7 6 7
W1 ¼ 6
6 0:2391 0:3046 1:145 1:7919 7,
7 B1 ¼ 6
6 8:2486 7,
7
6 7 6 7
4 0:3743 0:0176 1:3451 0:8834 5 4 6:2984 5
0:0118 0:0015 0:0012 56:5128 6:1185
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
I. Ahmad et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 892–905 901

300
SP1 (Tabas Earthquake) BDWF
ANN
200

moment (KN-m)
100

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-100

time (sec)
-200

-300

7500 BDWF
SP2 (Tabas Earthquake)
ANN
5000

2500
moment (KN-m)

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-2500

-5000
time (sec)
-7500

-10000

1000
SP3 (Tabas Earthquake) BDWF
750 ANN
500
moment (KN-m)

250

0
10 15 20 25 30 35
-250

-500

-750
time (sec)
-1000

Fig. 14. Comparison of bending moment time history of ANNMNFIX with BDWF for Tabas earthquake.

W 2 ¼ ½ 2:5119 0:6068 175:1881 88:4036 210:5579 , or conducted using a calculator capable of performing
simple matrix operations. The input data is first prepro-
cessed according to Eq. (8) to get a scaled input vector Pn .
The scaled target T n for kinematic response factors is
B2 ¼ ½ 56:2951 .
calculated as follows:

5.3. Procedure for estimating kinematic response parameter T n ¼ tanh½W 2 flogsigðW 1  Pn þ B1 Þg þ B2 , (11)

The ANN models described in this paper can be used to

predict the corresponding kinematic response parameters. 1
logsigðxÞ ¼ .
The procedure can easily be programmed into a computer, 1 þ expðxÞ
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
902 I. Ahmad et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 892–905

60 BDWF
SP1 (Friuli Earthquake)
ANN5
40

moment (KN-m)
20

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-20 time (sec)
-40

-60

1000 BDWF
SP2 (Friuli Earthquake)
750 ANN

500
moment (KN-m)

250
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-250
-500 time (sec)
-750
-1000

200
SP3 (Friuli Earthquake) BDWF
150 ANN
100
moment (KN-m)

50
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
-50
time (sec)
-100
-150
-200

Fig. 15. Comparison of bending moment time history of ANNMNFIX with BDWF for Friuli earthquake.

The scaled target T n for kinematic moment is obtained
as follows:
T n ¼ W 2 ftanhðW 1  Pn þ B1 Þg þ B2 .
The scaled output T n is then unscaled using Eq. (10) to
obtain the corresponding actual target.
5.4. ANN model prediction
5.4.1. ANNKDFix, ANNKDFree, and ANNKRFree prediction
The ANN models were used to predict the kinematic
response factors for four cases of pile–soil properties and
for a range of frequencies. As shown in Figs. 4–9, the
predictions of the ANN models are reasonable from
engineering point of view. It is evident from the figures
that as the rigidity of the pile relative to the soil increases,
the free field motion is strongly altered. Figs. 4 and 5 show
that the kinematic interaction effect is more pronounced in
fixed head piles than for free head piles (Figs. 6 and 7). The
kinematic displacement factor for free head piles may be
(12) greater than 1.0 for certain frequency ranges (Figs. 6 and
7), and are also accompanied with kinematic rotation
factors (Figs. 8 and 9), which should not be neglected in
the design.
The kinematic interaction factors can be applied to
either Fourier spectra or response of free field motion to
derive the foundation input motion.
5.4.2. Prediction performance of ANNM NFIX 1 and
ANNM NFIX
In order to evaluate the capability of the ANN models,
they were presented with new data that was not part of the
training data set, and the corresponding normalized
moments calculated. Figs. 10 and 11 show the prediction
of M NFIX1 and M NFIX plotted against the corresponding
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
I. Ahmad et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 892–905 903

1000
SP1 (Northridge Earthquake)
BDWF
750
ANN5
500

moment (KN-m) 250

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-250 time (sec)
-500

-750

8000
SP2 (Northridge Earthquake)
6000 BDWF
ANN
4000
moment (KN-m)

2000

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
-2000 time (sec)
-4000

-6000

4500
SP3 (Northridge Earthquake)
BDWF
3000 ANN
moment (KN-m)

1500

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-1500 time (sec)

-3000

-4500

Fig. 16. Comparison of bending moment time history of ANNMNFIX with BDWF for Northridge earthquake.

normalized moments calculated using the BDWF model.
The correlation coefficient ðRÞ for both ANN models was
1.0 for testing and training data set.
To evaluate the performance of ANNMNFIX model for
the full time history range of an earthquake signal, three
soil pile systems are subjected to four earthquake time
histories. The parameters of pile–soil systems considered
are given in Table 5. The four time histories selected are the
Tabas earthquake (Iran 1978-09-16) station 70 Bosh-
rooyeh, Fuiuli earthquake (Italy 1976-05-06) Station:
8002 Barcis, Northridge (1994-01-17) Station: CDMG
24207 Pacoima Dam (downstream), and Loma Prieta
(1989-10-18) Station: CDMG 47379 Gilroy Array #1
earthquake. The acceleration time histories are shown in
Fig. 12, while Fig. 13 shows Fourier spectra of acceleration
time histories which imply a range of frequencies present in
the earthquake signals. The bending moments at the fixed
head of the pile is compared with the corresponding
BDWF solution in Figs. 14–17, which show close agree-
ment between the two solutions.
5.4.3. ANNM NINT1 prediction
To check the ability of the ANNMNINT1 model to predict
M NINT1 , it was presented with new data that was not part
of the training data set and M NINT1 was calculated. The
normalized moment M NINT1 was then converted into
M INT1 using d ¼ 1 m, rp ¼ 1:8 KNs2 =m, and ag ¼
1 m=s2 . Fig. 18 compares M INT1 calculated using the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
904 I. Ahmad et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 892–905

1000
SP1 (Loma Prieta Earthquake)
800

600 BDWF
moment (KN-m) ANN5
400

200

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
-200
time (sec)
-400

-600

15000
SP2 (Loma Prieta Earthquake)
BDWF
10000 ANN
moment (KN-m)

5000

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-5000 time (sec)

-10000

-15000

4500 BDWF
SP3 (Loma Prieta Earthquake)
ANN
3000
moment (KN-m)

1500

0 ????
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-1500
time (sec)
-3000

-4500

Fig. 17. Comparison of bending moment time history of ANNMNFIX with BDWF for Loma Prieta earthquake.

5000 BDWF and the ANN models. The agreement between the
two sets is satisfactory, with a correlation coefficient
4000 R2=1.0 of 1.0.
ANNMNINT1 Prediction

The peak bending moment of a pile under transient

MINT1− MN-m

3000 loading is always less than the steady state amplitude.

Nikolauo et al. [6] determined a reduction factor (Z) that
2000
relates the maximum steady state bending moment M INT1
to the corresponding maximum transient bending moment
M INT ðtÞ, i.e.
1000
M INT ðtÞ ¼ Z  M INT1 ðoÞ. (13)
0 In which, the reduction factor Z ffi 0:04N c þ 0:23, for
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 resonant conditions (natural frequency of the soil profile is
MINT1− MN-m
within the signal’s dominant frequency); and Z ffi 0:015N c
BDWF Prediction
þ0:17, for non-resonant conditions, and N c is the number
Fig. 18. Comparison of ANNMNINT1 prediction with BDWF results. of effective cycles.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
I. Ahmad et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (2007) 892–905
6. Conclusions
The ANN models developed in this study can be used to
estimate various kinematic response parameters including
the kinematic response factors for: free and fixed head piles
embedded in homogenous soil; the fixed head moment of
piles in homogenous soils; and pile bending moment at the
interface of two-layer soil deposit of sharply contrasting
stiffnesses. The prediction of kinematic response para-
meters by ANN models was found to be in close agreement
with the BDWF formulation. The ANN-based solutions
offer simple scheme of calculation and avoid site response
and wave diffraction analyses to find kinematic response
parameters and can easily be implemented in a simple
calculator capable of carrying out matrix operation.
References
[1] Ahmad I, Akhtar NK. Kinematic seismic response of piles—
importance and modeling. GeoCongress 2006: geotechnical engineer-
ing in the information technology age 2006.
[2] Mizuno H. Pile damage during earthquakes in Japan. In: Nogami T,
editor. Dynamic response of pile foundations. New York: American
Society of Civil Engineers; 1987. p. 53–78.
[3] Margason E. Pile bending during earthquakes. Lecture, 6 March
1975; ASCE-UC/Berkeley seminar on design construction and
performance of deep foundations (unpublished).
[4] Dobry R, O’Rourke MJ. In: Flores-Berrones R, Whitman RV,
editors. Discussion on seismic response of end-bearing piles, vol. 109.
ASCE, New York. J Geotech Eng Div 1983.
[5] NEHERP. Recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new
buildings and other structures. Parts 1 and 2, Building Seismic Safety
Council, Washington, DC; 1987.
[6] Nikolauo A, Mylonakis G, Gazetas G. Kinematic bending moments
in seismically stressed piles. NCEER technical report, Buffalo, NY;
1995.
[7] Nikolaou A, Gazetas G. Seismic design procedure for kinematically
stressed piles. In: Seco e Pinto, editor. Seismic behavior of ground
and geotechnical structures, Balkema, Rotterdam; 1997.
905
[8] Mylonakis G. Simplified model for seismic pile bending at soil layer
interfaces. Soils Found 2001;41(4):47–58.
[9] Gazetas G, Fan K, Tazoh T, Shimizu K, Kavvadas M, Makris N.
Seismic pile-group—structure interaction. Piles under dynamic loads,
Geotechnical special publication no. 34, 1992. p. 56–93.
[10] Pender MJ. Aseimic pile foundation design and analysis. Bulletin of
the New Zealand national society for earthquake engineering 1993;
26(1):49–159.
[11] Kavvadas M, Gazetas G. Kinematic seismic response and bending of
free-head piles in layered soil. Geotechnique 1993;43(2):207–22.
[12] Gazetas G, Dobry R. Horizontal response of piles in layered soils.
J Geotech Eng Div Am Soc Civ Eng 1984;110(1):20–40.
[13] Gazetas G, Dobry R. Simple radiation damping model for piles and
footings. Horizontal response of piles in layered soils. J Geotech Eng
Div Am Soc Civ Eng 1984;110(6):937–56.
[14] Garrett Jr JH. Where and why artificial neural networks are
applicable in civil engineering. J Comput Civ Eng ASCE 1994;8(2):
129–30.
[15] Ahmad I, Khan AN, El Naggar MH. Neural network for evaluating
shear capacity of concrete in RC beams. Third international
conference on construction materials: performance, innovations and
structural implications, Vancouver, BC, Canada, August 22–24,
2005.
[16] Bohigas AC, Mari AR. Shear design procedure for reinforced normal
and high-strength concrete beams using artificial neural networks.
Part-I beams without stirrups. Eng Struct 2004;26(7):917–26.
[17] Seleemah AA. A neural network model for predicting maximum
shear capacity of concrete beams without transverse reinforcement.
Can J Civil Eng 2005;32(4):644–57.
[18] El-Chabib H, Nehdi M, Said A. Predicting shear capacity of NSC
and HSC slender beams without stirrups using artificial intelligence.
Comput Concr 2005;2(1).
[19] Najjar YM, Ali HE. CPT-based liquefaction potential assessment: a
neuronet approach. Geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil
dynamics III, Geotechnical special publication no. 75, vol. 2, 1998.
p. 552–3.
[20] Goh ATC. Empirical design in geotechnics using neural networks.
Geotechnique 1995;45(4):709–14.
[21] Gerolymos N, Apostolou M, Gazetas G. Neural network analysis of
overturning response under near-fault type excitation. Earthquake
Eng Eng Vib 2005;4(2):213–28.
[22] Hagan MT, Demuth HB, Beale M. Neural network design. Boston:
PWS; 1996.