International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

ISSN: 1938-6362 (Print) 1939-7879 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjge20

Prediction of standard penetration test N-value

from dynamic probing light N-value using ANFIS
and multiple regression models

Mohammadjavad Arabpour Roghabadi, Mehdi Momeni & Zahra

Zangenehmadar

To cite this article: Mohammadjavad Arabpour Roghabadi, Mehdi Momeni & Zahra
Zangenehmadar (2018): Prediction of standard penetration test N-value from dynamic probing
light N-value using ANFIS and multiple regression models, International Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/19386362.2018.1498578

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2018.1498578

Published online: 20 Jul 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjge20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2018.1498578

Prediction of standard penetration test N-value from dynamic probing light N-value
using ANFIS and multiple regression models
a
Mohammadjavad Arabpour Roghabadi , Mehdi Momenib and Zahra Zangenehmadarc
a
Department of Building, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada; bCivil Engineering Department, Islamic
Azad University of Kerman Branch, Kerman, Iran; cDepartment of Building, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Iran University of Science and
Technology, Tehran, Iran

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Standard penetration test (SPT) is one of the most widely used tools to predict the soil properties. In Received 17 January 2018
recent years, the dynamic probing light (DPL) test has been performed more frequently for geotechnical Accepted 28 June 2018
applications because it is more cost-effective and fast. Since the majority of empirical equations of soil KEYWORDS
properties are related to SPT N-value, it is beneficial to find the best correlation between SPT and Adaptive neuro-fuzzy
DPL N-values. In this study, the adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) and multiple regression inference system (ANFIS);
(MR) are used to predict the correlation between SPT and DPL N-values. To achieve this goal, the soil multiple regression (MR);
properties of 64 sample specimens of silty clay were calculated at various depths. Three parameters dynamic probing light (DPL);
including depth, total density, and DPL N-value were chosen as the input of the models. Results show standard penetration test
that both methods estimate the correlation between SPT and DPL N-values precisely. However, ANFIS (SPT); correlation; silty clay;
predicts more accurately than multiple regression. in situ tests; soft computing

Introduction individually and results in smaller errors (Ching, Phoon, and

Yu 2013; Müller, Larsson, and Spross 2013).
There are various in situ testing methods for geotechnical inves-
Within recent decades, soft computing approaches such as
tigation such as standard penetration test (SPT), cone penetration
artificial neural network (ANN), fuzzy inference system (FIS),
test (CPT), and dynamic probing light (DPL). In spite of contin-
adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS), and genetic
uous developments in the SPT, DPL is utilized extensively in field
algorithm have been used frequently for modelling in civil
investigations. DPL is believed to be one of the most prominent
engineering applications.
penetration tests and has been used in different parts of the world.
In recent years, many researchers have reported using
This high-speed gadget has numerous advantages and is not
ANFIS in the field of geotechnical investigation, analysis,
expensive (Lingwanda, Larsson, and Nyaoro 2015). Therefore,
and design and find itrelatively successful in prediction of
knowing the correlation between SPT and DPL N-values leads
permeability through utilizing the grain size distribution
to identifying soil parameters because they are mostly related to
and particle shape information in comparison to non-
SPT N-value. Such correlations are considered significant espe-
linear multiple regression (Cabalar et al. 2012).
cially in low-to-moderate risk projects (Robertson 2012).
Tarawneh (2017) employed ANFIS to anticipate SPT
Although DPL is more practical and functional, there is no
N-value from CPT data using ANN. Yilmaz and Kaynar
comprehensive literature review on DPL and its application.
(2011) used multiple regression, ANN, and ANFIS to
There are a few studies on determining local interrelations
predict the swell potential of clayey soils. Cabalar et al.
between SPT N-values and DPL N10-values since DPL is less
(2012) developed a rule-based model for prediction of
well known in comparison to SPT and CPT.
damping ratio and shear modulus of various sand–mica
The primary drawback of DPL is that it is not applicable in
mixtures as a function of stress, mica content, and strain
depths greater than 8 m (Stefanoff et al. 1990), making it
using the neuro-fuzzy approach. Ching, Phoon, and Chen
reliable merely for shallow and superficial investigations.
(2010) established a precise ANFIS approach for predict-
Lingwanda, Larsson, and Nyaoro (2015) evaluated the corre-
ing the sand permeability. It has been revealed that in
lation between SPT, CPT, and DPL for sandy soil in Tanzania
comparison to nonlinear multiple regression analyses
and they believe that there is no perfectly performing soil
results, the ANFIS structure is relatively successful to
testing method since a trade-off always exists between one
predict permeability utilizing grain size distribution and
attribute and another.
particle shape information.
Rogers (2006) reported that the combination of testing
In this research, ANFIS and multiple regression methods
methods with different parameters in a single investigation
were used to predict SPT N-value from DPL results. The
leads to a better conclusion in comparison to each method
methods were applied to actual data of SPT and DPL tests

CONTACT MohammadJavad Arabpour Roghabadi mohammadjavad.arabpour@concordia.ca Department of Building, Civil & Environmental Engineering
(BCEE), Concordia University, Office: H3G 2W1
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 M. ARABPOUR ROGHABADI ET AL.
collected from the field in different areas of the city of
Kerman in Iran. The actual and estimated SPT data are
compared to identify the best method for predicting the
SPT values. Results are discussed and conclusions are made.
Research methodology
Data collection
In this study, six sets of data were collected during the field
investigations in selected locations at the City of Kerman,
which is illustrated in Figure 1. The city of Kerman is located
Figure 1. Locations of datasets in City of Kerman.
DPL
SPT
Figure 2. Performing the SPT and DPL tests simultaneously.
in the southeast of Iran on a thick fine-grained soil mass. The
upper soil layers in the city are classified as lean clay (CL) and
silt (ML) in the unified soil classification system. In some
locations, particularly in the western parts of the city, recent
sand dunes are also found. The existing clay is a moist and
collapsible soil with a thickness of 15–20 m (Momeni et al.
2012). These layers extend from the ground level down to
more than 100 m in depth. As shown in Figure 2, SPT and
DPL tests were performed simultaneously in all of the bore-
holes at depth intervals of 1–1.5 m up to 8 m. The ground-
water level is at a depth of 25 m. Laboratory tests (e.g. soil
gradation and Atterberge limits) were carried out to
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 3

determine the properties of soil, which were used after, in Table 2. Description of the input and output parameters in ANFIS.
order to determine the input data of ANFIS. Sets of SPT and Parameter Description Symbols (unit) Range
DPL tests were carried out in the boreholes based on Input Dynamic probing test DPL (N-value) 7–194
Depth D (m) 0.80–8
American Society for Testing and Materials and Stenzel and Actual density Γ (gr/cm3) 1.41–1.99
Melzer (1978) at the same depth intervals simultaneously. As Output Standard penetration test SPT (N-value) 5.95–64.7
a sample, the site condition and the variations in soil proper-
ties relative to depths for three investigated sites are dipected
in Table 1. As can be seen from Table 1, for some depths the determination (R2) between each input variable and output
Plasticity Index (PI) is equal to zero because for non-plastic variable was investigated. The coefficient of determination for
soil, there is no water content interval in which the soil PI, liquid limit (LL), relative humidity (w%), DPL N-value,
behaves like plastic. total density (ɣ), and depth (D) are calculated as 37.4%,
42.8%, 10.6%, 90%, 60%, and 51%, respectively. Among
these five parameters, DPL N-value, total density, and depth
SPT and DPL data collection were chosen as the inputs of system due to highest R2.
The SPT equipment consisted of a standard sampler and a Therefore, the basic equation for SPT N-value in silty clay
63.5 kg automatic trip hammer with a drop height of 760 mm in the city of Kerman can be expressed as a function of those
capable of averagely delivering 70% of the theoretical energy three parameters. All parameters were considered to have a
as measured during equipment calibration by the manufac- linear relationship with SPT N-value. The specifications of
turer. The DPL equipment consisted of a 10 kg hammer with inputs and output parameters are shown in Table 2.
a falling height of 500 mm. The rods are 22 mm in diameter
and are fitted to a 25.2 mm diameter cone of 90° apex angle. Adaptive network-based fuzzy inference system (ANFIS)
For six test locations, SPT was performed at 1.5 m discrete
intervals to a depth of 8 m below the ground level, and results The ANFIS which was started by Jang, Sun, and Mizutani
were recorded as a standard number of blows per 300 mm (1997) is classified as one of the best modelling systems
penetration denoted by Nm. Simultaneously, undisturbed and which permits the fuzzy systems to acquire the variables by
disturbed samples were collected from the boreholes for adaptive back propagation learning algorithm. ANFIS is a
further laboratory tests. DPL tests were performed, while multilayer feed-forward network where each node performs
recording measurements in the number of blows per a particular function on incoming signals as well as a set of
100 mm penetration denoted by N10. Other input parameters parameters relating to this node (Jang 1993). In fact, ANFIS
such as depth and total density were determined by site is known as a network that is capable of mapping unknown
investigations and laboratory tests, respectively. input parameters to their outputs by obtaining the rules
from previously seen data. A simple structure of ANFIS
with inputs of x and y and output of f is illustrated in
Multiple regression model Figure 3 which shows first the fuzzification layer (the pro-
Regression analysis is one of the popular methods in geotech- cess of changing the ‘crisp’ inputs into fuzzy inputs by
nical engineering. In this study, multi-variable regression assigning membership functions that represent fuzzy sets
method was used in SPSS V.20 to find the relationships of input values), and then the input is processed sequen-
between different parameters including independent and tially to the product layer, normalization layer, defuzzifica-
dependent ones and was applied to analyse data and to gen- tion layer (the process of producing a quantifiable result in
erate a model (Jalalifar, Mojedifar, and Sahebi 2014). In this crisp value), and finally the total output layer.
research, in order to determine the dependency between After both the multiple regression and ANFIS models are
different soil parameters and SPT N-value, the coefficient of implemented, their behaviours are assessed through perfor-
mance indices of variance accounted for (VAF), root mean
square error (RMSE), the coefficient of determination (R2),
Table 1. Sample of variation in soil properties with depth for three sites. and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE). The coefficient
Depth SPT DPL of determination is utilized in statistical analysis repeatedly
Site number (m) N-value N-value %W St LL PI γ
since it is simple to calculate and easy to understand and it
1 1 4 13 8.6 CL 28.34 9.72 1.55
1.65 15 26 12.42 CL 26.84 9.41 1.72 evaluates the percentage of total differences between pre-
2.65 14 31 11.09 CL 35.54 14.89 1.61 dicted and measured values with respect to the average. The
3.65 18 21 15.8 CL 29.61 11.45 1.7 VAF value fluctuates between [0, 1] where VAF of 1 denotes
4.56 13 26 15.81 CL 24.84 7.02 1.75
5.65 26 31 13.33 CL 35.14 14.24 1.76 that the predicted output has been estimated exactly the same
2 1.5 9 26 10.03 CL 18.19 1.57 1.41 as measured one. In recent research works, MAPE has been
2.35 6 18 10.38 CL 25.66 7.79 1.49 used mostly to evaluate the accuracy of a model due to its
3.1 21 69 8.5 ML 19.73 - 1.52
4.75 25 72 16.22 CL 21.72 2.3 1.61 simplicity. It identifies error as the proportion of actual data
6 16 37 16.81 ML 16.94 13.34 1.49 and higher accuracy comes with lower MAPE. This index can
3 0.85 14 53 7.71 CL 27.77 8.83 1.55 be divided into four indicators: high accuracy forecast (MAPE
1.85 17 48 14.1 CL 30.58 11.97 1.74
3.95 24 72 6.55 CL 24.64 5.93 1.55 < 10%), sound forecast (10% < MAPE < 20%), feasible fore-
5.35 43 114 13.79 CL 36.54 14 1.92 cast (20% < MAPE < 50%), and error forecast (MAPE > 50%)
6.55 65 207 15.09 CL 42.29 18.16 1.99 (Jia et al. 2015).
4 M. ARABPOUR ROGHABADI ET AL.

Figure 3. Sample architecture of ANFIS with two inputs and one output.

Results and discussion Table 5. Different parameter types and their values used for training ANFIS.
ANFIS parameter type ANFIS
In this study, 64 data points were used to develop the ANFIS MF type Gbellmf
and multiple regression models. Datasets were randomly Number of MFs 6
divided into 70% and 30% for training and testing purposes, Output MF Constant
Number of nodes 34
with 45 and 19 samples, respectively. The specifications of Number of linear parameters 8
these samples are shown in Tables 3 and 4. The ANFIS model Number of nonlinear parameters 18
was implemented using the fuzzy logic toolbox available in Total number of parameters 26
Number of training data pairs 45
MATLAB R2014. The model is fully automated in network Number of checking data pairs 0
generation and parameter tuning. The different membership Number of fuzzy rules 8
functions of triangular, trapezoidal, sigmoid, generalized bell,
Gaussian and S-shaped, were used as various trial runs to find
the best membership function. The existing data show the prediction of SPT N-value for silty clay is suggested as the
least error while using generalized bell membership function summation of input variables each of which multiplied by
(Gbellmf). The output membership function can be either a corresponding coefficients added by a constant number. The
constant membership function or a linear membership func- coefficients are determined by multiple regression. In other
tion. For the available data, constant output membership words, the input variables DPL N-value, total density, and
function results in the minimum error. The specifications of depth are multiplied by 0.225, 21.926, and 0.936, respectively,
the ANFIS model are demonstrated in Table 5. and the constant number is defined as −31.423.
The available data were inserted into SPSS V.20 software Figures 4 and 5 show the comparison between predicted and
in order to find the relationship between input variables and measured SPT N-values in multiple regression and ANFIS mod-
output. By performing the multiple regression method, the els, respectively. As can be seen from the graphs, the coefficient
of determination of the ANFIS model is 95.7% while it is 94.5%
in the multiple regression model. Since R2 is more than 90%,
Table 3. Sample dataset used for training ANFIS.
No. DPL γ D SPT
70
1 13 1.55 1 4
2 26 1.72 1.65 15
60
3 21 1.7 3.65 18 y = 0.9835x
4 26 1.75 4.56 13 R² = 0.9434
Predicted SPT N-value

5 18 1.49 2.35 6 50
6 69 1.52 3.1 21
7 72 1.61 4.75 26 40
8 37 1.49 6 16
9 53 1.55 0.85 14 30
10 48 1.74 1.85 17
20

Table 4. Sample dataset used for testing ANFIS. 10

No. DPL γ D SPT
0
1 29 1.69 3 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
2 38 1.7 4.5 17
3 29 1.63 2 11 Measured SPT N-value
4 35 1.71 3.7 16 Figure 4. Predicted SPT N-values with respect to measured ones using multiple
5 33 1.59 3.7 10 regression.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 5

70 method. Both methods are considered reliable and accurate.

However, ANFIS predicted more precise SPT N-value. The
60
y = 1.0017x relationships between inputs and the output of the models,
R² = 0.9552 which are SPT N-value, DPL N-value, depth, and total density,
Predicted SPT N-value

50
are shown as 3D fuzzy surfaces in Figure 6. The DPL N-value
40 escalates with an increase in SPT N-value on a depth less than
30
10 m. In deeper depths, DPL N-value starts to decrease while
SPT N-value increases. This is because the soil type is different at
20 a deeper depth and it shows the effect of density and type of soils
on the SPT and DPL N-values. The SPT N-value declines when γ
10
is increased regardless of the depth.
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Measured SPT N-value Conclusions
Figure 5. Predicted SPT N-values with respect to measured ones using ANFIS. There are several empirical equations to predict the SPT
N-value through the literature; however, the majority of
these equations consider solely one variable while several
Table 6. Comparison of errors in the proposed models.
factors are influencing SPT N-value in reality. In this paper,
Method RMSE MAPE VAF R2
ANFIS and multiple regression methods were used to predict
Multiple regression 3.09 16.30 95.3 94.5
ANFIS 2.76 13.13 97.8 95.7 SPT N-value from DPL N-value, depth, and total density. The
proposed models were developed and assessed with 64 data
points in which 70% and 30% were randomly chosen as
both models are accurate enough for practical applications. The training and testing datasets, respectively. Results show that
MAPE, VAF, and RMSE are calculated and results are shown in both models are able to predict SPT N-value close to the
Table 6. As can be seen from Table 6, the RMSE of the ANFIS expected results with the coefficient of determination (R2)
model is 2.76% while it is 3.09% in multiple regression calcula- more than 94%. Since R2 of multiple regression model was
tions. Furthermore, the MAPE of both models is between 10% less than that of the ANFIS model, the ANFIS model is
and 20%, which shows that the prediction models have a sound chosen as the more accurate one. Based on the results, the
forecast. The VAF of 97.8% and 95.3% for ANFIS and multiple ANFIS shows robustness in the prediction of SPT N-value.
regression models, which fall near 100%, indicate that the mod- Forecasting the SPT N-value from DPL N-value and other soil
els are good for the prediction of SPT N-value. Although the properties is beneficial since it eliminates the necessary efforts
comparison of results implies that the ANFIS model predicts the for obtaining SPT N-value and consequently reduces the cost.
SPT N-value more precisely than the multiple regression model, The results will be used for future preliminary evaluations
the black box nature of ANFIS is the main limitation of this and prediction of SPT N-value for geotechnical applications.

Figure 6. 3D fuzzy surfaces of depth, actual density, and SPT and DPL N-value.
6 M. ARABPOUR ROGHABADI ET AL.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Mohammadjavad Arabpour Roghabadi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-
3924-8375
References
Cabalar, A. F., A. Cevik, and C. Gokceoglu. 2012. “Some Applications of
Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) in Geotechnical
Engineering.” Computers and Geotechnics 40: 14–33. doi:10.1016/j.
compgeo.2011.09.008.
Ching, J., -K.-K. Phoon, and Y.-C. Chen. 2010. “Reducing Shear Strength
Uncertainties in Clays by Multivariate Correlations.” Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 47: 16–33. doi:10.1139/T09-074.
Ching, J., -K.-K. Phoon, and J.-W. Yu. 2013. “Linking Site
Investigation Efforts to Final Design Savings with Simplified
Reliability-Based Design Methods.” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 140: 04013032. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
GT.1943-5606.0001049.
Jalalifar, H., S. Mojedifar, and A. Sahebi. 2014. “Prediction of Rock Mass
Rating Using Fuzzy Logic and Multi-Variable RMR Regression
Model.” International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 24:
237–244. doi:10.1016/j.ijmst.2014.01.015.
Jang, J.-S. 1993. “ANFIS: Adaptive-Network-Based Fuzzy Inference
System.” IEEE transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics 23:
665–685. doi:10.1109/21.256541.
Jang, J. S. R., C. T. Sun, and E. Mizutani. 1997. “Neuro-Fuzzy and Soft
Computing-a Computational Approach to Learning and Machine
Intelligence [Book Review].” IEEE Transactions on automatic control
42 (10): 1482–1484. doi:10.1109/TAC.1997.633847.
Jia, C., L. Wei, H. Wang, and J. Yang. 2015. “A Hybrid Model Based on
Wavelet Decomposition-Reconstruction in Track Irregularity State
Forecasting.” Mathematical Problems in Engineering. doi:10.1155/
2015/548720.
Lingwanda, M. I., S. Larsson, and D. L. Nyaoro. 2015. “Correlations of
SPT, CPT and DPL Data for Sandy Soil in Tanzania.” Geotechnical
and Geological Engineering 33: 1221–1233. doi:10.1007/s10706-015-
9897-1.
Momeni, M., A. Shafiee, M. Heidari, M. K. Jafari, and M. R.
Mahdavifar. 2012. “Evaluation of Soil Collapse Potential in
Regional Scale.” Natural hazards 64: 459–479. doi:10.1007/s11069-
012-0252-z.
Müller, R., S. Larsson, and J. Spross. 2013. “Extended Multivariate
Approach for Uncertainty Reduction in The Assessment of
Undrained Shear Strength in Clays.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal
51: 231–245. doi:10.1139/cgj-2012-0176.
Robertson, P. (2012). “Interpretation of In-situ Tests-Some Insights, 5th
JK Mitchell Lecture”, 4th International Conference on Site
Characterization ISC-4, Porto de Galinhas, Pernambuco, Brazil.
Rogers, J. D. 2006. “Subsurface Exploration Using the Standard
Penetration Test and the Cone Penetrometer Test.” Environmental
& Engineering Geoscience 12: 161–179. doi:10.2113/12.2.161.
Stefanoff, G., G. Sanglerat, U. Bergdahl, and K. J. Melzer (1990).
Dynamic Probing: International Reference Test Procedure: Proc 1st
International Symposium on Penetration Testing, ISOPT-1, Orlando,
USA. DOI: 10.1099/00221287-136-2-327
Stenzel, G., and K. Melzer. 1978. “Soil Investigations With Penetration
Tests According to Din 4094.” Tiefbau 20: 3.
Tarawneh, B. 2017. “Predicting Standard Penetration Test N-Value
From Cone Penetration Test Data Using Artificial Neural
Networks.” Geoscience Frontiers 8 (1): 199–204. doi:10.1016/j.
gsf.2016.02.003.
Yilmaz, I., and O. Kaynar. 2011. “Multiple Regression, ANN (RBF, MLP)
and ANFIS Models for Prediction of The Swell Potential of Clayey
Soils.” Expert Systems with Applications 38: 5958–5966. doi:10.1016/j.
eswa.2010.11.027.