Engineering with Computers

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-019-00847-5

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

A TLBO‑optimized artificial neural network for modeling axial capacity

of pile foundations
Amel Benali1,4 · Mohammed Hachama2   · Aouda Bounif1 · Ammar Nechnech3 · Mourad Karray4

Received: 12 May 2019 / Accepted: 12 August 2019

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
Due to a considerable level of uncertainty describing the pile–soil behavior, many pile capacity prediction methods have
focused on correlation with in situ tests. In recent years, artificial neural networks (ANNs) have been applied successfully
in many problems in geotechnical engineering, especially, axial pile capacity estimation for driven and drilled shaft piles.
Training neural networks is a crucial task that needs effective optimization algorithms. The most popular algorithm is a
back-propagation method (BP), which is based on a gradient descent that can trap in local minima. The paper proposes a
new artificial neural network (ANN) in which the learning is performed using a recent teaching–learning-based optimiza-
tion algorithm (TLBO), improving axial capacity predictions. The model is trained and validated on 479 data sets for a wide
range of uncemented soils and pile configurations, obtained from the literature. Results show that the considered TLBO-ANN
model outperforms other state-of-the-art models in the prediction accuracy and the generalization capability. For instance,
we obtained a coefficient of determination R2 = 0.941 and a variance accounted for VAF = 94.09% for TLBO-ANN while
R2 = 0.871 and VAF = 87.31% for the classical BP-ANN. In addition, error investigation with log-normal approaches dem-
onstrates that the probability that predictions fall within a ± 25% accuracy level for TLBO-ANN model is 0.93 and that for
BP-ANN model is 0.75. The proposed TLBO-ANN model predicts pile capacity with more accuracy, less scatter, and higher
reliability.

Keywords  Ultimate capacity · ANN · TLBO-ANN · Pile load tests · SPT data · Failure zone

1 Introduction

* Mohammed Hachama Pile foundation is the best way to carry out the load issue
hachamam@gmail.com from the substructure. Thousands of piles are installed
Amel Benali around the world every year. The World Trade Organization
benali_amel4@yahoo.fr (OMC) reveals that the global production grew-up by 3% in
Aouda Bounif 2007 amounting to 4.7 trillion US dollars, while growth in
boun_aouda2@yahoo.fr 2015 was nearly 15%. Recent years witnessed an increas-
Ammar Nechnech ing interest in the axial pile capacity or pile settlement and
ammar.nechnech@gmail.com new computation procedures. Numerous research programs
Mourad Karray have been conducted either by the military corps (US Army
mourad.karray.benhassen@usherbrooke.ca Corps of Engineers) [1–3], or civil [4–8].
Pile behavior under axial loading is a complicated process
1
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Djilali involving inter-related movements of both the pile and the
Bounaama, Khemis Miliana, Algeria
supporting soil because the load is transferred from the pile
2
Laboratory of Pure and Applied Mathematics, University to the supporting medium. A large set of related parameters
of M’Sila, M’Sila, Algeria
are generally difficult to estimate. Thus, determining axial
3
Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Science pile capacity is still an active research problem. Many meth-
and Technology, Beb Ezzouar, Algiers, Algeria
ods have been developed, which can be divided into many
4
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sherbrooke, classes: analytical, semi-empirical, empirical, and numerical
Sherbrooke, Canada

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

methods [9]. Most of them use simplified hypotheses which
approximate the behavior of the system pile/soil. Conse-
quently, models imprecision and parameters uncertainties
may be an obstacle in the design of effective computation
methods.
Empirical methods are widely used techniques that relate
on correlations with in situ tests [10–12]. Such techniques
use simple statistical tools (e.g., regression analysis) which
cannot account for the complex interdependence of the
involved factors such as soil stratification, soil–pile interac-
tion, and distribution of soil resistance along the pile shaft.
Artificial neural networks (ANNs) are empirical mod-
eling techniques inspired by the functioning of the human
brain. Unlike most available statistical methods, ANNs do
not need a predefined model of the relationship between the
inputs and the outputs. Rather, they learn the structure and
parameters of the model from the available data [13]. In
geotechnics for instance, Momeni et al. [14] applied ANN in
predicting the bearing capacity of deep foundations. A feed-
forward back-propagation network has been implemented
using 36 PDA tests performed on various concrete piles in
different project sites. Findings indicate the feasibility of
ANN in predicting ultimate, shaft and tip bearing resist-
ances of piles.
Recently, ANNs have been improved thanks to several
modern heuristic algorithms, which fall into two groups:
evolutionary, e.g., genetic algorithms (GAs), and swarm
intelligence-based algorithms, e.g., particle swarm optimi-
zation (PSO) and artificial bee colony (ABC) [16]. Such
algorithms have been successfully applied in civil engineer-
ing [20, 21]. Momeni et al. [22] developed an PSO-ANN
model to predict unconfined compressive strength of rocks;
the obtained results improved previous approaches. Arma-
ghani et al. [23] predicted strength and elasticity modulus of
granite through an ANN enhanced with the imperialist com-
petitive algorithm (ICA). Momeni et al. [24] explored the
GA-ANN model to predict the axial pile capacity obtaining
results in close agreement with measured bearing capacities.
Armaghani et al. [25] established a hybrid model PSO-ANN
to estimate the ultimate bearing capacity of rock-socketed
piles. Their model offers a higher degree of accuracy com-
pared to conventional ANN. Moayedi et al. proposed an
adaptive neuro-fuzzy inferences system (ANFIS) optimized
with GA and PSO [26]. The results indicate higher reliability
of the optimized GA-ANFIS model in estimating friction
capacity ratio ( 𝛼 ) in driven shafts. Moayedi and Armaghani
[27] optimized an ANN with imperialism competitive algo-
rithm (ICA) to estimate bearing capacity of driven pile in
cohesionless soil. The obtained results showed high reliabil-
ity of the developed ICA-ANN model. All these probabilistic
algorithms require common controlling parameters such as
population size, number of generations, etc.; in addition to
specific parameters, such as mutation and crossover rates
13
Engineering with Computers
used by GAs. Parameter tuning is a crucial factor which
highly affects the performance of the algorithms.
Recently, Rao et al. [15–19] proposed a teaching–learn-
ing-based optimization (TLBO) algorithm which does not
require any specific parameter. Based on this algorithm,
different techniques and applications have been proposed:
Temur and Bekdas [28] for optimum design of reinforced
concrete retaining walls, Gandomi and Kashan [29] in shal-
low footing optimization, Oser and Temur [30] to optimize
the pile groups under vertical loads for a safe and economi-
cal design, and Daloglu et al. [31] for optimum design of
braced steel space frames including soil/structure.
This paper presents an TLBO-optimized artificial neural
networks for modeling axial pile capacity. The new hybrid
model is used to predict the ultimate capacity of both driven
and drilled shaft piles (the most common pile types used in
the country strategic building, industry blocks, oil platforms,
etc.) embedded in uncemented soils based on SPT data. As
far as we know, similar hybrid model TLBO-ANN has been
used in one single previous work in [32] for oil flow predic-
tion, drilling, and production.
To train our model, we collected a large database from
many sources [33]. We used corrected blows number in the
failure zone obtained using a statistical analysis of a numeri-
cal model [33]. We achieved an analysis of the parameters
(population size and iteration number) effect on the overall
result, and compared the our architecture with a classical
one using back-propagation algorithm, in addition to five
previous approaches. We derived and validated three new
simplified but accurate analytical models of the axial pile
capacity expressed in terms of parameters.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 explains
the ANN architecture and the TLBO learning algorithm
to our model of axial pile capacity. In Sect. 3, we evaluate
our model (TLBO-ANN) and compare it to an ANN trained
with the to a back-propagation BP-ANN, in addition to some
empirical models. The paper ends with a concluding section.
2 Modeling axial pile capacity
We develop here an ANN model that deals with two cases
of pile installation, namely displacement and drilled shaft
piles. This model combines a multi-layer perception (MLP)
network with the TLBO algorithm.
2.1 Data
The data used to calibrate and validate the ANN model are
obtained from the literature (different sources), including
335 and 144 static load tests on driven piles and drilled shaft
piles, respectively (Benali et al. [33]). We conducted experi-
ments at different non-cohesive sites. The displacement tests
Engineering with Computers

include compression loading of steel and concrete piles, Table 1  Ranges of the database constituents
driven statically (jacked-in) or dynamically into the ground. Pile types
Usually, data division into training and testing sets is carried
Driven piles Drilled shaft
out arbitrarily, as there is no universal. Here, 70% and 30%
of whole datasets, 335 and 144 datasets, are used for the Min Max Min Max
training and testing phases, respectively, as recommended
Bext (m) 0.10 1.00 0.45 1.53
by Swingler [34].
Bint (m) 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00
Bbase (m) 0.10 1.58 0.45 1.85
2.2 ANN architecture
Bhead (m) 0.10 1.00 0.45 1.85
D (m) 3.00 55.40 6.60 60.00
A neural network is a set of neurons interconnected with a
NShaft 3.00 64.36 5.00 78.77
each other. Connection weights can be thought of as the
Nbb 5.35 98.00 5.00 81.95
memory of the system and biases values. The disposition
Qt (MN) 0.12 11.50 0.85 17.50
of the weighted connection of these neurons is called archi-
Shaft material Steel Concrete Concrete Concrete
tecture. For instance, the multi-layer perceptron consists of
three adjacent layers: input, hidden and output [35]. How-
ever, Funahashi [36] proved that any problem can be approx-
imated using an ANN model with one hidden layer, which have failed if it experiences a settlement equal to 5% of its
is the choice we made in our model. Our MLP network has nominal dimension plus the elastic compression of the shaft
nine input neurons and one output neuron. The optimal num- ( QL∕Ep Ab ). In accordance with [41], the base failure zone
ber of neurons in the hidden layer has to be determined. is taken equal to height diameter above and four diameters
below pile tip. Nevertheless, the corrected bows number in
2.3 Inputs–outputs the failure zone Nb is taken as in Benali et al. [33]:

Nine factors affecting the pile capacity are considered as
inputs for our ANN: the embedment length (D), two cor-
rected blows numbers ( NShaft , Nb ), pile shaft material SM
(1 for steel and 2 for concrete), pile classification PC (dis-
placement or drilled shaft), and four diameters (to account
the variety of pile shapes): Bext (external or shaft diameter),
Bbase (pile base diameter), Bint (internal diameter) and Bhead
(pile head diameter). It is noted that, NShaft is defined as the
geometric mean of the values measured during the SPT test
along the shaft pile. Table 1 reports the ranges of the data-
base constituents.
The output of the ANN is the ultimate pile capacity
( Qt ) of driven piles, defined as the load corresponding to
the plunging failure for the well-defined failure cases. For
the cases where the failure load is not clearly defined, we
determine the failure load from the results of pile load tests
through a unique criterion. According to [37], Geotechnical
Design-General rules, a small-diameter pile is considered
to have failed if it experiences a settlement equal to 10%
of its nominal dimension. On the other hand, the ultimate
capacity of a large-diameter pile is accessed, following the
recommendations of [38, 39], when the pile settlement (S)
equals to
̇ ̇
S = (QL)∕(Ep Ap ) + B∕30 (12),
where Q is the test load, L is the pile length, Ap is the cross-
sectional area of the pile, B is the pile diameter, and Ep is
the modulus of elasticity of the pile material. According to
Reese and O’Neill [40], drilled shaft pile is considered to
N b = 0.6N𝛽 + 0.4N𝛼 ,
where N𝛽 is the corrected average blow counts within the
lower zone and N𝛼 is the corrected average blow counts
within the upper zone.
2.4 Training
Training a network is the adaptation of free network param-
eters using training inputs and the corresponding target val-
ues. This is achieved by minimizing the network error (or
fitness function):
1 ∑( )2
P
MSE = tj − o j , (1)
P j
where tj and oj are the target and the output values of the jth
pattern and P is the number of patterns.
The most used algorithm for training is back-propagation
(BP). This algorithm is iterative, computationally simple,
and quite efficient in performing a local search for an opti-
mum solution, but with a slow convergence speed. As in
all learning techniques, BP faces two main problems: the
possible overfitting of training data and mathematical opti-
mization on large-scale engineering problems.
Teaching–learning-based optimization (TLBO) is a popu-
lation-based algorithm which simulates the teaching–learn-
ing process of the classroom. A group of learners is consid-
ered as population and different subjects offered to learners

13
 Engineering with Computers

are considered as different design variables of the optimiza- Table 2  Some architectures performances for an MLP trained with a
tion problem. Learner’s result is analogous to the fitness back-propagation algorithm (15 iterations)
value of the optimization problem. The TLBO algorithm Architecture RTrain MSE RTest
uses two basic modes of the learning: (1) through teacher
9 − 20 − 1 0.90 0.0089 0.92
(known as teacher phase) and (2) interacting with the other
9 − 15 − 1 0.91 0.0090 0.94
learners (learner phase). The TLBO is used to minimize (or
9 − 10 − 1 0.93 0.0098 0.94
to maximize) a given function f. When applied to ANN, f
9−7−1 0.91 0.0110 0.92
will be the MSE which depends on the network weights. It is
9−6−1 0.89 0.0120 0.83
worth noting that the TLBO requires only common control
9−5−1 0.86 0.0180 0.90
parameters (population size and number of generations).

2.4.1 Teacher phase

First, the teacher tries to increase the mean result of the

class. The best result considering all subjects together
obtained on the entire population is considered as the result
of best learner. This learner is considered as the teacher who
is usually a highly qualified person. The difference between
the existing mean and the teacher result is given by,
Dj,k,i = ri (Xj,i,T − TF Mj,i ), (2)
where k is the learner index, Xj,i,T is the teacher result in sub-
ject j, Mj,i is the mean of the learners in a particular subject
j at iteration i, TF is the teaching factor randomly chosen at
each iteration i, either 1 or 2 with equal probabilities, and ri Fig. 1  Performances and population size
is a random number in [0, 1]. The solution is updated in the
teacher phase according to the following expression:

�
using trial-and-error approach. We tested 1, 2, 3, … 2I + 1
Xj,k,i = Xj,k,i + Dj,k,i , (3) hidden-layer nodes, where I is the number of input vari-
ables, because 2I + 1 is the upper limit needed to map any
where Xj,k,i
′
is the updated value of Xj,k,i which is accepted
continuous function [13]. Table 2 shows the performances of
only if the fitness function is improved, i.e., f (Xj,k,i
�
) < f (Xj,k,i ). some architectures. The best architecture corresponds to the
model with 10 hidden nodes (lowest prediction error 0.0098
2.4.2 Learner phase and largest correlation coefficient RTrain = 0.93 ; RTest = 0.94 )
(Table 1).
A learner interacts randomly with other learners for enhanc-
ing his or her knowledge. Two different learners k1 and k2 3.2 TLBO‑ANN
are randomly selected. Learner modification is expressed
as follows: We achieved an extensive study to determine the optimal
{ controlling parameters: the population size NPop and the
Xj,k1 ,i + ri (Xj,k1 ,i − Xj,k2 ,i ), if f (Xj,k1 ,i ) < f (Xj,k2 ,i ),
�
Xj,k = number of iterations Niter. A small population may fail to
,i Xj,k1 ,i + ri (Xj,k2 ,i − Xj,k1 ,i ), if f (Xj,k2 ,i ) < f (Xj,k1 ,i ). converge to a global solution, whereas a large one may cause
1

(4)
a delay in convergence and an increase in training time. The
Xj,k ,i is accepted if it gives better fitness function.
′
optimal value is typically established via a sensitivity test
1

which we performed on population sizes of 10, 20, 30, 40,

3 Results and discussion
3.1 BP‑ANN
For the sake of comparison, we first trained an MLP network
using the standard BP algorithm, giving a BP-ANN model.
The number of neurons in the hidden layer is obtained
60, 75, 150 and 200. As shown on Fig. 1, higher population
sizes produce the best results and require more time. Smaller
populations need more iterations to achieve the global opti-
mum. A population size NPop = 75 appears giving the best
global optimum (MSE = 1.210−2).
Similarly, sensitivity analysis was performed to find the
optimum value of the number of iterations. For a popula-
tion size NPop = 75 , we tested a range of different iteration

13
Engineering with Computers

Table 4  Estimated values of the different models coefficients

Empirical models Models constants
a (KPa) b (KPa) c (KPa) e (KPa)

Meyerhof [42] 32.44 – 1.5 –

Bouafia [45] 395 – 1.80 0.18
Shioi and Fukui [34] 1.0 5.0 3.0 –
Aoki and Velloso [43] 8.6 1.01 1.46 3.83
Robert [44]
Drilled shaft 115 – 1.8 –
Driven 200 – 1.9 –

Fig. 2  Performances and the number of iterations

3.4 Comparison between BP‑ANN and TLBO‑ANN

numbers: 1000, 1500, 2000, 2500, 3000, 5000, 8000, 10,000,
15,000, 20,000, 25,000 and 30,000. Figure 2 shows that the
MSE decreases when the number of iterations increases.
We choose Niter = 10000 which corresponds to and error
of 0.7% (MSE = 0.007).
3.3 Empirical models
We applied several empirical models for the estimation of
axial pile capacity: Meyehof [42], Aoki and Velloso [43],
Shioi and Fukui [34], Robert [44], and Bouafia [45] (see
Table 3). We estimated their constants a, b, c, and e by fit-
ting the empirical models to the training data. The obtained
values are given in Table 4.
We evaluated the six empirical SPT-based methods on
70 datasets, not included in the training datasets. Results are
given in Figs. 3, 4, and 5. We carry out a regression analysis
to fit a line of predicted versus measured pile capacities.
The quality of the fitting is measured using a correlation
coefficient R. We obtained R equals to 0.920, 0.857, 0.839,
0.850, 0.817 and 0.832, for Meyerhof, Shioi and Fukui, Aoki
and Velloso, Robert (driven piles), Robert (drilled shaft),
and Bouafia, respectively. All methods showed good per-
formances. Nevertheless, Meyerhof’s method shows the
best results for driven pile axial capacity estimation, where
Robert and Bouafia methods produced good performance
for drilled shaft axial capacity.
As shown on Fig. 6, the TLBO-ANN has a better conver-
gence rate. For example, the TLBO and BP algorithms con-
verge to 0.007 and 0.009 in the 15000th and 15th iteration,
respectively. In fact, the BP algorithm is trapped in a local
minimum as the energy stop decreasing over the 15th itera-
tion. The TLBO-ANN is slower than the BP algorithm, but
gives better results.
We evaluated and compared the two algorithms using R2,
MSE, and P value [46]. Results are in Table 5, Figs. 7 and 8.
3.5 Comparison between BP‑ANN, TLBO‑ANN,
and empirical methods
The TLBO-ANN model is compared with ANN model and
six SPT-based methods, using the following criteria: the
determination coefficient ( R2 ), the ratio of predicted to the
experimental bearing capacities (mean 𝜇 and standard devia-
tion 𝜎 ), and the probability of predicting the pile capacity
within ± 25% accuracy (P). The later is obtained as the area
beneath the log-normal distribution within a range equal to
0.75Qm ≤ Qp ≤ 1.25Qm . Results are summarized in Table 6.
Considering the R2 criteria, the developed TLBO-ANN
model gives the best results. On another hand, the ideal
value of the ration Qp ∕Qm is one. The TLBO-ANN tends to
overestimate the measured pile capacity by 9% on average
where this average is 17% for BP-ANN. On contrary, Rob-
ert for bored piles, Bouafia, and Shioi and Fukui methods
underestimate the pile capacity by 12% , 16.5% , and 15% on

Table 3  Some empirical models Empirical models Pile installation Equation

for the estimation of axial pile
capacity Meyerhof [42] Driven Qt = a( DB )Nb Ab + c NShaft As
Bouafia [45] Drilled shaft Qt = aBc Nb Ab + cNShaft As
( )
Shioi and Fukui [34] Driven Qt = a + b DB Nb Ab + cNShaft As

Aoki and Velloso [43] Driven Qt = ab Nb Ab + ca

N As
e Shaft
Robert [44] Drilled shaft-driven ̇
Qt = aNb Ab + cNShaft As

13
 Engineering with Computers

Fig. 3  Measured versus pre-

dicted pile capacity—Meyer-
hof’s method (left) and the Aoki
and Velloso’s method (right)

Fig. 4  Measured versus
predicted pile capacity—Shioi
and Fukui’s method (left) and
Bouafia’s method (right)

Fig. 5  Measured versus pre-

dicted pile capacity with Robert
methods: left driven pile and
right drilled shaft piles

average, respectively. Meyerhof appears to give good results
with an underestimation average of 4% . Aoki and Velloso
method underestimates the axial pile capacity by 29% . The
TLBO-ANN has the highest log-normal distribution prob-
ability values of 0.9261.
4 Conclusion
Numerous approaches have been proposed in the literature to
predict the ultimate capacities of piles, ranging from simple
empirical formulations to more sophisticated hybrid mod-
els. In this paper, we proposed a new ANNs model, where
the learning stage is achieved using the TLBO algorithm.
We applied our model to predict the ultimate capacity of
driven and drilled shaft piles embedded in uncemented soils
based on SPT data. A comparison with other state-of-the-
art techniques, including an ANNs model with standard
back-propagation algorithm, proved that our TLBO-ANN
model achieved the best predictions. Indeed, the TLBO-
ANN ranked first w.r.t. the selected performances tests
with a determination coefficient R2 = 0.94 , a ratio of the
predicted to the estimated pile capacity 𝜇 = 1.09 , and a vari-
ance accounted for VAF = 94 ; while R2 = 0.87 , 𝜇 = 1.17
and VAF = 87 for the classical BP-ANN. In addition, the
probability that predictions fall within ± 25% accuracy level
is 0.93 for TLBO-ANN and 0.75 for BP-ANN. In the future,
we would perform a comparative study of optimization

13
Engineering with Computers

Fig. 6  Performance curve—
TLBO-ANN/BP-ANN

Fig. 7  Measured versus
predicted pile capacity of the
BP-ANN: training (left) and
testing (right)

Fig. 8  Measured versus
predicted pile capacity of the
TLBO-ANN: training (left) and
testing (right)

Table 5  Architecture and Input (X) Architecture BP-ANN TLBO-ANN Output (Y)

parameters of the BP-ANN and
TLBO-ANN N.HL N.NHL 𝜇 MSE/Niter R2 P NP/Maxit MSE R2 P Ultimate
capacity
(MN)

9 1 10 0.005 0.009/15 0.86 10−4 75/20000 0.007 0.93 10−4

N.HL number of hidden layers, N.NHL number of neurons in hidden layer, 𝜇 momentum value, NP popula-
tion size, Maxit maximum number of iteration, R2 coefficient of determination, P P value

13
 Engineering with Computers

Table 6  Comparison between Methods Arithmetic calculations Accuracy ± 25%

the TLBO-ANN, BP-ANN, and
SPT-based methods R 2 𝜇(Qp ∕Qm) 𝜎(Qp ∕Qm) VAF (%) Log-normal

BP-ANN model 0.8710 1.170 0.890 87.31 75.02

TLBO-ANN model 0.9410 1.089 0.350 94.09 92.61
Meyerhof’s method (D.S.P.) 0.8557 0.960 0.330 83.81 89.00
Aoki and Velloso’s method (D.P.) 0.7040 0.710 0.358 65.88 57.10
Shioi and Fukui’s method (D.P.) 0.7360 0.850 0.310 70.00 83.50
Robert’s method (D.P.) 0.7293 0.880 0.528 63.71 70.00
Bouafia (D.S.P.) 0.6772 0.835 0.336 66.18 74.80
Robert’s method (D.S.P.) 0.6688 0.898 0.359 65.88 83.30

Qp predicted pile capacity, Qm measured pile capacity, VAF variance accounted for, D.P. driven piles, D.S.P.
drilled shaft piles

techniques for ANNs learning techniques, and tackle more

complicated problems such as wells behavior in risky soils
(e.g., liquefiable soils) or wells subject to a couple loads
(horizontal and vertical).

Weights and biases of the developed

TLBO‑ANN model
⎡− 0.916097142 3.233093526 4.999995932 − 3.410657184 1.705901358 − 0.353471811 − 1.134692603 1.424020204 − 0.798977706⎤
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 3.833845865 − 1.550185312 − 1.995298526 − 3.171750562 − 1.026155515 − 0.914674308 1.235564886 − 0.846186269 0.610652682 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0.434729196 2.007720495 1.595550235 1.149538121 − 0.861395011 4.999998664 − 4.594423533 − 0.922594389 0.690247806 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢− 1.804443544 0.02125135 4.999987105 − 4.999560407 1.514593622 4.99999991 − 0.917238335 − 3.126790594 0.666309617 ⎥
⎢ 4.728029613 − 0.295634338 1.575292152 − 2.284665291 − 1.0214764 − 1.59564312 0.807132696 4.999999999 0.322308619 ⎥
W1,1 =⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0.978652405 0.372546365 − 1.34138682 − 3.083465908 2.329963325 2.515508663 4.607963613 4.999999039 − 0.319794243⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢− 2.163205602 3.947826123 1.443402665 − 3.763317535 4.999999122 1.814411564 0.570368615 − 1.258445944 0.511208251 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢− 2.596461235 − 1.930616448 0.343200321 − 4.65663045 1.004188733 − 2.742914364 2.393936336 0.380112959 − 0.511441673⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢− 1.329387049 3.758175771 1.112905587 − 2.531075254 − 4.999996507 − 0.081859643 2.177900554 0.071164907 1.677386263 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0.14533895 − 2.2183597 2.60182057 4.999996299 1.234342306 2.084157367 2.185431415 2.725954881 − 0.566754717⎦
� �
W2,1 = − 4.99211974 4.78517808 4.96900424 − 4.99929697 4.99615628 − 4.09317538 − 3.20679187 5

⎡ 0.99950584 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 2.02640275 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 4.99996893 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 5 ⎥
⎢− 4.9964599⎥
b1 = ⎢ ⎥, b2 = [− 4.9992929].
⎢− 4.5583188⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢− 3.0332818⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢− 4.9984299⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢− 4.9999978⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ 4.65363322 ⎦

13
Engineering with Computers

References failure prediction of multistoried RC buildings. Neural Comput

Appl 28:2005–2016
21. Taheri KH, Hasanipanah M, Golzar SB, Abd Majid MZ (2016)
1. Lee Jr. Landri T, Peterson Richard W (2001) Underwater geotech-
A hybrid artificial bee colony algorithm-artificial neural network
nical foundations, Innovations for Navigation Projects Research
for forecasting the blast-produced ground vibration. Eng Comput
Program. Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory U.S. Army
33:689–700
Engineer Research and Development Center
22. Momeni E, Nazir R, Armaghani DJ, Hajihassani M, Mohd Amin
2. Department of the Army (1998) Specifications, Engineer Regula-
MF, Maizir H (2015) Prediction of uniaxial compressive strength
tion ER 1110-1-8155, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washing-
of rock samples using hybrid particle swarm optimization-based
ton, DC
artificial neural networks. Measurement 60:50–63
3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1999) Use of single-head multi-
23. Armaghani DJ, Mohamad ET, Momeni E, Monjezi M, Narayana-
beam surveying on Corps of Engineers navigation projects in the
samy MS (2016) Prediction of the strength and elasticity modulus
Los Angeles District. Eng Constr News 1(6)
of granite through an expert artificial neural network. Arabian J
4. Batten PR (1987) Quality assurance for subsea installations.
Geosci 9
Advances in Underwater Technology, Ocean Science, and Off-
24. Momeni E, Nazir R, Armaghani DJ, Maizir H (2014) Prediction
shore Engineering, 2, Underwater Construction: Development
of pile bearing capacity using a hybrid genetic algorithm-based
and Potential, Society for Underwater Technology (Graham &
ANN. Measurement 57:122–131
Trotman), 177–190
25. Armaghani DJ, Shoib RS, Faizi K, Ahmad Sufuan AR (2017)
5. Hannigan PJ, Goble GG, Thendean G, Likins GE, Rausche F
Developing a hybrid PSO-ANN model for estimating the ulti-
(1998) Design and construction of driven pile foundations. FHWA
mate bearing capacity of rock socketed piles. Neural Comput Appl
Publication No. HI-97-014, Federal highway Administration
28(2):391–405
6. Mokwa R, brooks H (2008) Axial capacity of piles supported on
26. Moayedi H, Raftari M, Sharifi A, Wan Jusoh WA, Rashid AS
intermediate geomaterials. Final project report FHWA/MT-08-
(2019) Optimization of ANFIS with GA and PSO estimating 𝛼
008/8117-32, State of Montana, Department of transportation
-ratio in driven piles. Eng Comput 1–12
7. Thompson WR, Held L, Saye S (2009) Test pile program to deter-
27. Moayedi H, Armaghani DJ (2018) Optimizing an ANN model
mine axial capacity and pile setup for the Biloxi Bay Bridge. DFI
with ICA for estimating bearing capacity of driven pile in cohe-
J 3(1)
sionless soil. Eng Comput 34(2):347–356
8. Kulesza RL, Fellenius BH (2012) Design and testing of piles on
28. Temur R, Bekdas G (2016) Teaching learning-based optimiza-
a telecommunication projects in Morocco. Full scale testing in
tion for design of cantilever retaining walls. Struct Eng Mech
foundation design
57(4):763–783
9. Iskander M (2011) Behavior of pipe piles in sand: plugging and
29. Gandomi AH, Kashani AR (2018) Construction cost minimization
pore-water pressure generation during installation and loading.
of shallow foundation using recent swarm intelligence techniques.
Geomechanics and geoengineering. Springer, Berlin
IEEE Trans Ind Inform 14(3):1099–1106
10. Bustamante M, Gianeselli L (1982) Pile bearing capacity predic-
30. Oser C, Temur R (2018) Optimization of pile groups under
tion by means of static penetration CPT. In: Proceedings of 2nd
vertical loads using metaheuristic algorithms. In: Handbook of
European symposium on penetration testing, Amsterdam vol 2,
research on predictive modeling and optimization methods in sci-
pp 493–500
ence and engineering, pp 276–298
11. Bandini P, Salgado R (1998) Methods of pile design based on CPT
31. Daloglu AT, Artar M, Ozgan K, Karakas AI (2018) Optimum
and SPT results. In: Proceeding of 1st international conference on
design of braced steel space frames including soil-structure inter-
site characterization, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 967–976
action via teaching learning based optimization and harmony
12. Shariatmadari N, Eslami A, Karimpour-Fard M (2008) A new
search algorithms. Special issue on advanced optimization tech-
method for estimation the bearing capacity of piles based on
niques and their applications in civil engineering, published in
SPT results. In: 31st DFI annual conference on deep foundations,
advances in civil engineering, vol 16
Washington, DC
32. Choubineh A, Ghorbani H, Wood DA, Moosavi SR, Khalafi E,
13. Shahin MA (2010) Intelligent computing for modeling axial
Sadatshojaei E (2017) Improved predictions of wellhead choke
capacity of pile foundations. Can Geotech J 47(2):230–243
liquid critical-flow rates: modelling based on hybrid neural net-
14. Momeni E, Nazir R, Armaghani DJ, Maizir H (2015) Application
work training learning based optimization. Fuel 207:547–560
of artificial neural network for predicting shaft and tip resistances
33. Benali A, Boukhatem B, Hussien MN, Nechnech A, Karray M
of concrete piles. Earth Sci Res J 19(1):85–93
(2017) Prediction of axial capacity of piles driven in non-cohesive
15. Rao RV (2016) Teaching-learning-based optimization algorithm.
soils based on neural approach. J Civ Eng Manag 23(3):393–408
In: Teaching learning based optimization algorithm. Springer,
34. Swingler K (1996) Applying neural networks: a practical guide.
Berlin
Morgan Kaufmann and Pap/Dsk, Burlington
16. Rao RV, Patel V (2012) An elitist teaching-learning-based opti-
35. Dreyfus G, Martinez JM, Samuelides M, Gordon MB, Badran F,
mization algorithm for solving complex constrained optimization
Thiria S, Hérault L (1994) Réseaux de neurones - Méthodologie
problems. Int J Ind Eng Comput 3:535–560
et application. Eyrolles, Paris
17. Rao RV, Savsani VJ, Vakharia DP (2011) Teaching-learning-based
36. Funahashi K (1989) On the approximate realization of continuous
optimization: a novel method for constrained mechanical design
mappings by neural neworks. J Neural Netw 2:183–192
optimization problems. Comput Aided Des 43(3):303–315
37. Eurocode 7 (2004) Geotechnical design-general rules. Thomas
18. Rao RV, Savsani VJ, Vakharia DP (2012) Teaching-learning-based
Telford, London
optimization: a novel optimization method for continuous non-
38. AASHTO (2000) LRFD bridge design specification, 2nd edn.
linear large scale problems. Inf Sci 183(1):1–15
AASHTO, Washington, D.C
19. Rao RV, Savsani VJ (2012) Mechanical design optimization using
39. FHWA (1996) Design and construction of driven pile foundations.
advanced optimization techniques. Springer, London
US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administra-
20. Chatterjee S, Sarbartha S, Hore S, Dey NAS, Balas VE (2016)
tion, Florida, Report No. FHWA-HI-97-013
Particle swarm optimization trained neural network for structural

13
 Engineering with Computers

40. Reese LC, O’Neill MW (1988) Drilled Shaft: Construction Proce- 45. Bouafia A (2004) Évaluation de la résistance en pointe des pieux
dures and Design Methods. FHWA-HI-88-042, Federal Highway dans le sable à partir de l’essai SPT. In: The international geotech-
Administration, Washington, D.C nical conference, Beyrouth, pp 19–22
41. Eslami A, Fellenius BH (1997) Pile capacity by direct CPT and 46. MacKay DJC (1992) Bayesian interpolation. Neural Comput
CPTu methods applied to 102 cases histories. Can Geotech J 4(3):415–447
34:886–904
42. Meyerhof GG (1976) Bearing capacity and settlement of pile Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
foundations. ASCE J Geotech Eng 102(3):1–19 jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
43. Aoki N, Velloso D (1975) An approximate method to estimate the
bearing capacity of piles. In: Proceedings of the 5th Pan-Amer-
ican conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering,
Buenos-Aires
44. Robert YA (1997) Few comments on pile design. Can Geotech J
34:560–567

13