Geotech Geol Eng (2023) 41:3531–3547
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-023-02472-y
ORIGINAL PAPER
New Model to Predict Bearing Capacity of Shallow
Foundations Resting on Cohesionless Soil
Saif Alzabeebee · Younis M. A. Alshkane ·
Suraparb Keawsawasvong
Received: 4 July 2022 / Accepted: 29 April 2023 / Published online: 13 May 2023
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023
Abstract Predicting the bearing capacity is one of
the tasks that geotechnical engineers do on a daily
basis, yet the accuracy of the available methods needs
to be further improved. This paper proposes a new
model to accurately predict the bearing capacity of
foundations resting on cohesionless soil. The new
model has been proposed using a data-driven method
called multi-objective genetic algorithm evolutionary
computing analysis. The database used in the model
development has been collected from previous stud-
ies, and part of this database has been used to test the
model to check its accuracy using data that did not
influence the model training. The accuracy of the
model has been assessed using mean absolute error
S. Alzabeebee (*)
Department of Roads and Transport Engineering,
University of Al-Qadisiyah, Al Diwaniyah, Iraq
e-mail: Saif.Alzabeebee@gmail.com; Saif.Alzabeebee@
qu.edu.iq
Y. M. A. Alshkane
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering,
University of Sulaimani, Sulaimani, Kurdistan Region,
Iraq
e-mail: younis.ali@univsul.edu.iq
S. Keawsawasvong
Research Unit in Sciences and Innovative Technologies
for Civil Engineering Infrastructures, Department
of Civil Engineering, Thammasat School of Engineering,
Thammasat University, Khlong Luang 12120,
Pathumthani, Thailand
e-mail: ksurapar@engr.tu.ac.th
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
(MAE), root mean square error (RMSE), mean, a20-
index, and coefficient of determination (­ R2). The new
model scored MAE, RMSE, mean, a20-index, and ­R2
of 65 kPa, 99 kPa, 0.99, 0.68, and 0.97, respectively,
for the training data and 58 kPa, 122 kPa, 0.99, 0.63,
and 0.97, respectively, for the testing data. The accu-
racy of the new model has also been compared with
the classical bearing capacity equations of Terzaghi,
Vesic, and Hansen and with other data-driven mod-
els, where it was found that the accuracy of the new
model is better as it scored better statistical indicators
and also scored better in the error level-cumulative
frequency relationship. Thus, the new model can opti-
mize future designs, as its accuracy has been demon-
strated. Also, this model can be further improved in
the future when new data becomes available.
Keywords Bearing capacity · Shallow foundations ·
EPR-MOGA · Statistical analysis · Cohesionless soil ·
Model
1 Introduction
The bearing capacity is defined as the stress that the
ground can carry without failure. The bearing capac-
ity of the foundation depends on the dimensions of
the foundation, as these will control the overall stress
that is transmitted to the ground. Predicting the bear-
ing capacity is one of the crucial requirements in the
design. However, practitioners usually calculate the
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 3532
bearing capacity using the classical solution (equa-
tion) of Terzaghi (1943) or its later enhancements by
Vesic (1973) or Hansen (1970). Nonetheless, there
are assumptions in the derivation of the original bear-
ing capacity equation that warrant the need to exam-
ine the accuracy of this equation and its enhancement,
as well as find an alternative approach. Hence, there
have been many papers in the literature that utilized
data-driven methods as an attempt to overcome
the limitations of the classical solutions, as will be
explained in the next two paragraphs.
Padmini et al. (2008) compared the performance of
artificial neural networks (ANNs), fizzy, neurofuzzy,
and classical bearing capacity solutions in predicting
the bearing capacity of shallow foundations resting
on cohesionless soils. They noticed that the neuro-
fuzzy method remarkably outperforms the ANNs and
fizzy models. In addition, they also noted that all the
data-driven methods used in the analysis provided
better estimation of the bearing capacity compared
with the classical bearing capacity equations. Zhao
and Yin (2010) compared the prediction capabilities
of the chaotic particle swarm optimization-support
vector machine (CPSO-SVM) with the classical
bearing capacity equations for the case of granular
soils and noticed that the CPSO-SVM predicted the
bearing capacity with much better accuracy. Adarsh
et al. (2012) used support vector machines (SVMs)
and genetic programming (GP) to predict the bear-
ing capacity of shallow foundations resting on cohe-
sionless soils and compared the results with classical
bearing capacity equations and other soft computing
results published in the literature (artificial neural net-
works (ANNs), and fuzzy inference system (FIS)).
They noted that the GP achieved better accuracy com-
pared to the aforementioned techniques. Shahnaz-
ari and Tutunchian (2012) developed two models to
estimate the bearing capacity of shallow foundations
using classical multiple linear regression analysis
(MLR) and GP. The accuracy of these models has
been compared with classical bearing capacity equa-
tions. Gupta et al. (2016) utilized ANNs to know the
minimum number of variables (factors) that need to
be utilized to accurately predict the bearing capacity
of shallow foundations resting on granular soil. They
found that it is only required to know the bulk unit
weight of the soil, coefficient of curvature and coef-
ficient of uniformity, footing dimensions, and settle-
ment limit to achieve an accurate prediction of the
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Geotech Geol Eng (2023) 41:3531–3547
bearing capacity using ANNs. Kohestani et al. (2017)
compared the predictions of the random forest (RF)
technique with the classical bearing capacity equa-
tions and found that RF predicted the bearing capac-
ity with better accuracy. Jabbar et al. (2018) estimated
the bearing capacity of shallow foundations using the
k-nearest neighbor approach (k-nn) and multiple lin-
ear regression analysis (MLR). They found that the
k-nn approach predicted the bearing capacity with
better accuracy than the MLR analysis.
Omar et al. (2018) utilized ANNs to predict the
bearing capacity and settlement from the number of
blows of the standard penetration test. The accuracy
of the ANNs has also been compared with the best
fit regression analysis, and the results showed that
the ANNs predicted the bearing capacity and settle-
ment better than the best fit regression correlations.
Bagińska and Srokosz (2019) examined the capabili-
ties of deep neural networks (DNNs) to provide accu-
rate predictions of the bearing capacity of shallow
foundations. Xue and Chen (2019) built a hybrid least
squares support vector machine (LSSVM) using the
improved particle swarm optimization (IPSO) algo-
rithm to predict the bearing capacity of shallow foun-
dations resting on granular soils. The results of the
developed algorithm have been compared with other
soft computing techniques (fuzzy, neurofuzzy, and
back-propagation (BP) neural network models) and
classical bearing capacity solutions. The results dem-
onstrated the superiority of the developed algorithm
over other available solutions/algorithms. However,
no symbolic model has been proposed by the authors
in this research. Khorrami et al. (2020) developed a
new model to estimate the bearing capacity of shal-
low foundations resting on cohesionless soils utiliz-
ing the M5′ model tree (M5′ MD). The results of the
developed model have also been checked against clas-
sical bearing capacity equations and the published
results of other soft computing techniques. They
found that the accuracy of the new model was better
than the classical equations. Also, they demonstrated
that the developed model provided reasonable accu-
racy compared with other soft computing results.
Based on the aforementioned discussion, it can be
concluded that although many studies have utilized
different data-driven techniques to predict the bear-
ing capacity of shallow foundations, there have been
limited attempts to propose a correlation that can be
readily used by practitioners or in future numerical
Geotech Geol Eng (2023) 41:3531–3547 3533

evaluations by other researchers. Also, the data-driven
methods used in previous studies are ANNs, CPSO-
SVM, SVMs, GP, FIS, RF, k-nn, DNNs, DNNs, and
M5′ MD. However, no study reported the perfor-
mance of the multi-objective evolutionary polynomial
regression computing (EPR-MOGA), bearing in mind
that this technique has been proven to provide simple
and robust symbolic models that can be easily used in
the future (Nassr et al. 2018; Jin et al. 2019; Du et al.
2021). Furthermore, the majority of past studies did
not comprehensively examine the performance of the
classical bearing capacity solutions. Thus, to fill these
gaps, the objectives of this work are:
1. Provide an extensive statistical examination of
the classical bearing capacity equations.
2. Examine the capabilities of the EPR-MOGA in
predicting the bearing capacity of shallow foun-
dations resting on cohesionless soils.
3. Compare the predictions of the EPR-MOGA with
classical bearing capacity equations and available
symbolic models.
2 Database
A database of real field tests is needed to address the
objectives of the current work. Thus, an extensive
search has been conducted to collect useful results
from the literature. This search results in collecting of
97 real laboratory and field tests of the ultimate bear-
ing capacity of shallow foundations resting on cohe-
sionless soils (Muhs et al. 1969; Weiß, 1970; Muhs
and Weiß, 1971, 1973; Briaud and Gibbens 1999;
Gandhi 2003). This database was originally com-
piled by Padmini et al. (2008). The database contains
the foundation width (B), foundation embedment
(D), foundation length to width ratio (L/B), angle of
internal friction of the soil (ø), effective or dry unit
weight of the soil based on the water table condition
(γ’ and γ) and the ultimate bearing capacity ­(qu). The
tests reported by Muhs et al. (1969), Weiß (1970),
Muhs and Weiß (1971), and Muhs and Weiß (1973)
were carried out in a test pit in Berlin using a uniform
sand-gravel mixture with a mean grain size ­(D50) of
0.65 mm and a coefficient of uniformity of 5.7. The
tests of Briaud and Gibbens (1999) were carried out
at an experimental site at the Texas A&M University
Riverside Campus. A silty fine silica sand density of
0.2 mm and a D ­ 50 of 0.2 mm were used in the tests.
Also, the tests reported by Gandhi (2003) were con-
ducted using a 1-g small-scale model in the Indore
Shri G.S. Institute of Technology and Science in India
using medium, medium dense, and dense sandy soil.
It is necessary to note that the ultimate bearing
capacity in the aforementioned studies was obtained
from the plate load test. Also, it is important to point
out that the effects of particle size distribution and
particle shape of soil grains are implicitly included,
as these affect the mobilized angle of internal fric-
tion, which has been used in the model development
of this study. Table 1 shows the statistics (minimum,
maximum, range, average, standard deviation, and
variance) of the collected database, while Fig. 1 illus-
trates the frequency of each variable.
3 Available Classical Equations to Predict
the Bearing Capacity
The bearing capacity can be calculated using equa-
tions that have been developed based on the failure
mechanism proposed by Prandtl (1921), the simplest
of which is Terzaghi’s (1943) bearing capacity equa-
tion, which is shown in Eq. 1. Also, there are some
improvements to this equation proposed by Vesic and
Hansen, as shown in Eqs. 2 and 3, respectively.

Table 1  Statistics of the Statistical indicator B (m) D (m) L/B γ′ or γ (kN/m3) ø (˚) qu (kPa)
database used in this study
Minimum 0.06 0.00 1.00 9.85 32.0 58.5
Maximum 3.02 0.89 6.00 17.10 44.8 2847.0
Range 2.96 0.89 5.00 7.25 12.8 2788.5
Average 0.40 0.17 3.10 14.18 38.6 439.6
Standard deviation 0.51 0.20 2.14 2.62 3.3 530.9
Variance 0.26 0.04 4.53 6.81 10.6 278,926.9

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 3534 Geotech Geol Eng (2023) 41:3531–3547

Fig. 1  Frequency histograms of the database used in the performance assessment and the evolutionary computing
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Geotech Geol Eng (2023) 41:3531–3547 3535

( )
qu = c� Nc Sc + qNq + 0.5B𝛾 or 𝛾 � N𝛾 S𝛾 (1) 4 Available Data‑Driven Models to Predict
the Bearing Capacity

qu = c� Nc Sc dc ic gc bc + qNq Sq dq iq gq bq As stated in the introduction, there are a number of

( ) (2)
+ 0.5B𝛾 or 𝛾 � N𝛾 S𝛾 d𝛾 i𝛾 g𝛾 b𝛾 data-driven (symbolic) models that have been pro-
posed in the literature to predict the bearing capacity
of shallow foundations resting on cohesionless soils.
qu = c� Nc Sc dc ic gc bc + qNq Sq dq iq gq bq
( ) (3) Equations 4 and 5 show the data-driven models that
+ 0.5B𝛾 or 𝛾 � N𝛾 S𝛾 d𝛾 i𝛾 g𝛾 b𝛾 have been proposed by Shahnazari and Tutunchian
(2012) based on MLR analysis and GP, respectively.
where c′ is the drained (cohesion
) of the soil, q is the
In addition, Eq. 6 shows the model proposed by
surcharge load = D × 𝛾 or𝛾 � , Nc , Nq , and N𝛾 are the
Khorrami et al. (2020) based on the M5′ MT method.
bearing capacity factors, Sc, Sq and S𝛾 are the shape
The predictions of these models have also been com-
factors, dc, dq and d𝛾 are the depth factors, ic, iq and i𝛾
pared in this paper with the EPR-MOGA for compari-
are the load inclination factors, gc, gq and g𝛾 are the
son purposes to see which technique provides the best
ground factors (based on a slope), and bc, bq and b𝛾
prediction, as will be discussed in Sect. 9. It is also
are the base tilt factors.
necessary to state that these models have been devel-
It is worthy to state that the bearing capacity
oped and tested using the same database adopted in
factors ( Nc , Nq , and N𝛾 ) used in the Terzaghi equa-
the current study (discussed in Sect. 2).
tion are different from those used in the Vesic and
Hansen equations. In addition, there are also modi- qu = 103 (−2.6246 + 0.0592B + 1.9714D
fied Terzaghi bearing capacity factors that con- ) (4)
L
sider the case of a local shear failure (Das 2007). −0.0135 − 0.0305𝛾 + 0.0827≇
B
Also, both Vesic and Hansen use the same Nc and
Nq factors, but different Nγ factor. All the bearing ( )2
L D2 ≇6 (B − 𝛾)2
capacity factors and other associated factors have qu = 2 × 10−12 ≇7 (B + D) + ≇ + 10−8 ( )
B L
been obtained from related references (Kumbho- B
jkar 1993; Bowles 1996; Das 2007). Thus, for the (5)
sake of comprehensive comparisons in this paper, ( )2.89 ( )3.04
B D
the four approaches have been used to calculate the qu = 0.93 × 𝛾L × +1 × +2
L B
bearing capacity for the sake of accurate analysis of
these equations (approaches) and also to compare × (tan ≇)2.45 for tan ≇ ≤ 0.86
( )3.19 ( )2.45 (6)
their accuracy with the EPR-MOGA. To avoid con- B D
qu = 2.32 × 𝛾L × +1 × +2
fusion, the considered equations are listed below: L B
× (tan ≇)3.85 for tan ≇ ≥ 0.86
1. Terzaghi bearing capacity equation with original
Terzaghi bearing capacity factors (Eq. 1).
2. Terzaghi bearing capacity equation with modi-
fied Terzaghi bearing capacity factors assuming a
local shear failure (i.e., Eq. 1 but with modified 5 Multi‑objectives Evolutionary Computing
Terzaghi bearing capacity factors).
3. Vesic equation with its associated factors (i.e., EPR-MOGA is a method of regression analysis
Vesic modifications of the original bearing that employs a multi-objective genetic algorithm
capacity equations (Eq. 2)). to determine the optimal polynomial structure for
4. Hansen equation with its associated factors (i.e., representing the connection between dependent and
Hansen modifications of the original bearing independent variables of the proposed relationship
capacity equation (Eq. 3)). (Du et al. 2021; Alzabeebee et al. 2022). The key
advantage of EPR-MOGA is that it automates the
process of finding the most accurate predictions by

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 3536 Geotech Geol Eng (2023) 41:3531–3547

combining regression analysis with a genetic algo- 6 Statistical Assessment

rithm. The model is built by creating various equa-
tions between dependent and independent variables The statistical performance of the new model, clas-
through an evolutionary method facilitated by a sical bearing capacity equations, and the available
genetic algorithm. The progress of these equations data-driven models has been checked using the
is based on the proposed range of exponents, the mean absolute error (MAE), root mean square error
number of terms, and the number of data points (RMSE), mean, a20-index, and ­ R2. These meas-
used in the search procedure. The general formula- ures have been calculated using Eqs. 8–12 (Zhang
tion of the EPR-MOGA is shown in Eq. 7. and Goh 2013, 2016; Zhang et al. 2015, 2020; Alk-
roosh et al. 2020; Alzabeebee and Chapman 2020;
∑
m
( ) Alzabeebee 2020; Luat et al. 2020a, b; Uysal 2020;
Y= F 𝐗, f (𝐗), aj + a0 (7)
j=1 Armaghani et al. 2021; Bai et al. 2021; Zhu et al.
2021; Zhu et al. 2022a, b). The MAE and RMSE
where Y is the dependent input value, aj is a con- provide the overall error in the equation under
stant value, F is a function that evolves during the assessment; the mean gives an idea regarding the
process depending on the input and output data, 𝐗 overall underestimation or overestimation of the
is the matrix of independent input variables, f (𝐗) is predictions; the a20-index provides the percentage
the type of function defined by the user, and m is the of the predictions within the 20 percent of predic-
number of terms in the model excluding the bias term tion error; and ­R2 provides the overall distribution
a0. around the no-error line (i.e., the perfect fit line).
The outcome of Eq. 7 is an overdetermined sys-
1 ∑|
n
tem that is solved using the least square fitting tech- |
MAE = |q − qup | (8)
nique as described by Giustolisi and Savic (2006). n 1 | um |
The EPR employs the genetic algorithm (GA) to
determine the most accurate predictive model based √
√ n (
on suggested exponents. This technique enhances √1 ∑ )2
RMSE = √ qum − qup (9)
the search for the optimal fit relationship, as n 1
explained by Giustolisi and Savic (2006). The GA
method uses Darwinian evolution to generate an ini- ( )
tial population of solutions, where each parameter 1∑
n q up
set represents the chromosomes of entities. Fitness Mean = (10)
n 1 q up
is allocated to each individual based on its pres-
entation in the setting (Giustolisi and Savic 2009;
m20
Alzabeebee 2022a). Crossover and mutation opera- a20−index = (11)
tions are used to develop the following generation, n
as noted by Giustolisi and Savic (2009). The itera-
2
tive process continues until the stopping criteria are ⎛ ∑n � �� � ⎞
met. The stopping criteria of the EPR-MOGA are ⎜ i=1
qup − qup qum − qum ⎟
R2 = ⎜ � ⎟
average average

formulated based on the desired number of terms ⎜ ∑ � �2 ∑ � �2 ⎟

in the final predictive model. The accuracy of each ⎜ n
qup − qup
n
qum − qum ⎟
⎝ i=1 average i=1 average ⎠
modeling round is assessed using the coefficient of (12)
determination, and the search repeats until finding
where qum is the measured bearing capacity, qup is the
the best mathematical formulation. A flow chart of
the whole process is shown in Fig. 2. Also, further predicted bearing capacity, n is the number of data
information on the methodology can be found in inputs, and m20 is the number of bearing capacity val-
Giustolisi and Savic (2009) or in other publications ues that are predicted with an error range of no more
by the author (Alzabeebee and Chapman 2020; Alz- than ± 20%.
abeebee 2022a).

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Geotech Geol Eng (2023) 41:3531–3547
Fig. 2  Flow chart of the
methodology of the multi-
objective genetic algorithm
evolutionary polynomial
regression analysis (EPR-
MOGA) (Ahangar-Asr et al.
2014; Alzabeebee 2022a)
7 Performance of Classical Equations
The bearing capacity has been calculated in this sec-
tion using classical equations first for scenarios in the
database adopted in this research. The calculations of
the classical solutions have been plotted against the
measured values in Figs. 3, 4, 5 and 6 for Terzaghi,
modified Terzaghi, Vesic, and Hansen, respectively.
Figure 3 evidently shows that most of the predictions
of the Terzaghi equation are within an error range
of ± 30%. However, Fig. 4 reveals that using modified
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
3537
Terzaghi bearing capacity factors in the Terzaghi
equation (i.e., assuming local shear failure) does not
provide useful predictions, where all of the predic-
tions are away from the perfect fit line and not even
within the error range of − 50%. Figure 5 depicts that
despite the additional factors and modification of the
bearing capacity factors used in the Vesic equation,
the prediction trend is almost similar to that of the
Terzaghi equation (Fig. 3). Finally, it appears from
Fig. 6 that the error in the Hansen equation is higher
than that of Terzaghi and Vesic, as the relationship
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 3538 Geotech Geol Eng (2023) 41:3531–3547

Fig. 3  Comparison of
the no-error line with the
measured-predicted ulti-
mate bearing capacity (pre-
dictions using the Terzaghi
equation with Terzaghi
bearing capacity factors)

Fig. 4  Comparison of
the no-error line with
the measured-predicted
ultimate bearing capac-
ity (predictions using the
Terzaghi equation with
modified Terzaghi bearing
capacity factors)

Fig. 5  Comparison of
the no-error line with
the measured-predicted
ultimate bearing capacity
(predictions using the Vesic
equation)

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Geotech Geol Eng (2023) 41:3531–3547
Fig. 6  Comparison of
the no-error line with
the measured-predicted
ultimate bearing capac-
ity (predictions using the
Hansen equation)
between the predicted and measured values has points
close to the error line of − 50%, although Hansen also
proposed additional factors that ought to enhance the
prediction of the bearing capacity.
Furthermore, Fig. 7 compares the MAE, RMSE,
mean, a20-index, and R ­ 2 of the classical bearing
capacity equations to gain better insight into the per-
formance of these equations. The results of the sta-
tistical indicators support the initial observations dis-
cussed in the previous paragraph, where the Terzaghi
and Vesic equations scored better than the other equa-
tions. Also, the Terzaghi and Vesic equations scored
very comparable performances with a slight differ-
ence in the MAE, RMSE, mean, a20-index, and R ­ 2.
However, while the Vesic equation scored slightly
higher mean and ­R2 and lower RMSE, the Terzaghi
equation scored lower MAE and a higher a20-index
(0.59 compared to 0.54 for the Vesic equation), which
means that the Terzaghi equation predicted 59% of
data with an error range of no more than 20% com-
pared with 54% of data for the Vesic equation. Fig-
ure 7 also reveals that while using the Terzaghi equa-
tion with modified Terzaghi bearing capacity factors
provides ­R2 value of 0.84, these factors scored the
highest MAE and RMSE, and the lowest mean. The
Terzaghi equation with modified Terzaghi bearing
capacity factors also scored zero a20-index, indicat-
ing that no prediction within acceptable error can be
made using these factors. Furthermore, the obtained
indicators show that the Hansen equation performed
poorly compared with Terzaghi and Vesic, although
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
3539
it scored ­R2 of 0.88, which is marginally higher than
that scored using the Terzaghi equation, as this equa-
tion scored higher MAE and RMSE and a lower
mean. The Hansen equation also scored a20-index
of 0.4 (lower than the Terzaghi and Vesic equations),
which means only 40% of the predictions were within
an error range of 20%.
In summary, the Terzaghi and Vesic equations can
be both ranked first as the difference between them is
marginal; the Hansen equation ranks second; and the
Terzaghi equation using Terzaghi modified bearing
capacity factors scores last and is not recommended
to be used in practice.
8 The Development and the Performance
of the EPR‑MOGA Model
The development and performance of the new
model are discussed in this section. The collected
database, which has been presented in Fig. 1 and
Table 1, has been subdivided into two groups: the
training group and the testing group. The random
function available in Excel has been used to ensure
random separation of the data. However, efforts
have been made (i.e., a trial and error process) to
prepare the two groups so that the minimum and
maximum values of the database can be included in
the training of the EPR-MOGA model to ensure that
there are no extrapolations when testing the model
using the testing group (Alzabeebee et al. 2018;
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 3540 Geotech Geol Eng (2023) 41:3531–3547

Fig. 7  Performance of the classical solutions using different bearing capacity factors

2019). The data preparation technique is similar to
that used in many previous studies (e.g., Alani and
Faramarzi 2014; Ahangar-Asr et al. 2014; Hussain
et al. 2015; Ahangar Asr et al. 2018; Ahangar Asr
and Javadi 2020; Alzabeebee 2022b). Tables 2 and
3 show the statistics of the training and testing data
groups.
The training and testing groups have been fed into
the EPR-MOGA, and several trials have been under-
taken to ensure the development of the most accurate

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Geotech Geol Eng (2023) 41:3531–3547 3541

√
EPR-MOGA model. Consequently, the effect of the qu = 4.11≇2 + 1309.98𝛾 − 217.87𝛾 ≇ + 0.103D2 𝛾 1.5 ≇2
selected range of the model exponents, number of �
L (13)
terms of the model, and the model structure have been − 2865.78D2
B
+ 2.159BD≇2 − 3148.4BD1.5 − 5324.65

examined using the aforementioned statistical meas-

ures (MAE, RMSE, mean, a20-index, and ­R2). Out
of all of the trials, the following model (Eq. 13) has
been found to provide the most accurate estimate of
the bearing capacity:
To demonstrate the accuracy of the developed
model, Fig. 8 presents a comparison of the pre-
dicted-measured bearing capacity relationship with
the no-error line and an error range of ± 20%. It can
be noticed from the figure that, unlike the classical
equations (Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6), most of the predictions of
the developed model for both data groups (training

Table 2  Statistics of the Statistical indicator B (m) D (m) L/B γ′ or γ (kN/m3) ø (°) qu (kPa)
training data group
Minimum 0.06 0.00 1.00 9.85 32.0 58.5
Maximum 3.02 0.89 6.00 17.10 44.8 2847.0
Range 2.96 0.89 5 7.25 12.8 2788.5
Average 0.43 0.19 3.06 14.13 38.5 479.6
Standard deviation 0.55 0.21 2.11 2.65 3.3 564.9
Variance 0.30 0.04 4.45 7.01 10.9 319,179.2

Table 3  Statistics of the Statistical indicator B (m) D (m) L/B γ′ or γ (kN/m3) ø (°) qu (kPa)
testing data group
Minimum 0.09 0.00 1.00 10.20 34.0 91.2
Maximum 0.60 0.15 6.00 17.10 44.8 860.0
Range 0.51 0.15 5.00 6.90 10.8 768.8
Average 0.27 0.05 3.30 14.52 39.0 245.5
Standard deviation 0.20 0.05 2.35 2.54 3.2 230.8
Variance 0.04 0.00 5.51 6.47 10.4 53,286.7

Fig. 8  Comparison of
the no-error line with
the measured-predicted
ultimate bearing capacity
(predictions using the EPR-
MOGA model)

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 3542 Geotech Geol Eng (2023) 41:3531–3547

and testing) are within the error range of ± 20% and an indication of the excellent performance of the
close to the no-error line. These observations give model. Furthermore, Fig. 9 depicts the statistical

Fig. 9  Performance of the evolutionary model

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Geotech Geol Eng (2023) 41:3531–3547 3543

measures (MAE, RMSE, mean, a20-index, and R ­ 2)
of the new model for both data groups. It is evident
from the figure in comparison with the performance
of classical equations presented in Fig. 7 that the
model predicts the ultimate bearing capacity with
lower error (MAE equal to 65 kPa for the training
data group and 58 for the testing data group and
RMSE equal to 99 kPa and 122 kPa for the train-
ing and testing data groups, respectively), and a
higher ­R2 (0.97 for both data groups). However, the
scored mean values are similar to those obtained
using the Vesic equation. Importantly, the superior-
ity of the model can be unarguably noticed in the
scored a20-index in Fig. 9, where the model pre-
dicted 68% of the training data group and 63% of
the testing data group with an error of prediction of
not more than ± 20%, which is much better than any
of the classical equations. Thus, it can be said based
on the obtained performance that the EPR-MOGA
learned to predict the ultimate bearing capacity suc-
cessfully and provided a robust symbolic model that
offers better prediction than the classical bearing
capacity equations.
Finally, it is important to state that the devel-
oped model is limited by the data used in its train-
ing and testing and should not be used in predictions
for scenarios outside the training and testing range
(Tables 2, 3). This is indeed one of the shortcomings
of data-driven models. However, the explicit formula-
tion of the model developed in the present study has
been provided in Eq. 13, and hence, the model could
be tested and potentially improved when additional
reliable data becomes available.
9 Comparison with Other Data‑Driven Models
In this section, the predictions of the EPR-MOGA
symbolic model (Eq. 13) have been compared with
other symbolic models available in the literature
(presented in Sect. 4). As discussed previously, these
models are the multilinear regression model (MLR)
developed by Shahnazari and Tutunchian (2012)
(Eq. 4), the GP model developed by the same afore-
mentioned authors (Eq. 5), and the M5′ model-tress
symbolic model (M5′ MT) developed by Khorrami
et al. (2020) (Eq. 6). It is important to stress that
these models (MLR, GP, and M5′ MT) have also been
developed using the same database, and thus, com-
paring the predictions of these models with the EPR-
MOGA is fair and meaningful.
The MAE, RMSE, mean, a20-index, and ­R2 have
been calculated using the predictions of these models
for both the training data group and the testing data
group and compared with the EPR-MOGA model.
Table 4 presents the results of the comparisons. It is
evident from the table that the EPR-MOGA model
beats the other models for all the statistical meas-
ures for the training data set, where the EPR-MOGA
model scored lower MAE and RMSE, and higher
a20-index and R ­ 2. The GP model of Shahnazari and
Tutunchian (2012) scored second for the training data
set as the model obtained better values for the MAE,
RMSE, a20-index, and ­R2 compared with other mod-
els. Regarding the testing data, the EPR-MOGA
model also performed better, although it did not pro-
vide the lowest MAE and RMSE, as it scored a higher
a20-index (which is more important) and ­ R2. The
EPR-MOGA model also scored a mean value closer
to the optimum compared with other models for the
testing data group.

Table 4  Performance of the EPR-MOGA model compared with other data-driven models from the literature
Model MAE (kPa) RMSE (kPa) Mean a20-index R2

EPR-MOGA—training data 65 99 0.99 0.68 0.97

EPR-MOGA—testing data 58 122 0.99 0.63 0.97
MLR—training data (Shahnazari and Tutunchian 2012) 223 309 0.83 0.20 0.70
MLR—testing data (Shahnazari and Tutunchian 2012) 90 110 0.81 0.38 0.78
GP—training data (Shahnazari and Tutunchian 2012) 81 123 0.89 0.51 0.95
GP—testing data (Shahnazari and Tutunchian 2012) 52 60 0.80 0.38 0.95
M5′ MT—training data (Khorrami et al. 2020) 153 304 0.99 0.49 0.82
M5′ MT—testing data (Khorrami et al. 2020) 56 88 1.08 0.56 0.92

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 3544
To provide additional insight into the distribution
of the error in the prediction of these models, the
relationship between the cumulative frequency and
the error level has been determined for each model
and plotted in Fig. 10. This relationship has been
obtained using Eq. 14 (Padmini et al. 2008).
mx
Cumulative frequency =
n
× 100 (14)
where mx is the number of predictions within the
error range less than or equal to x, and n is the total
number of the bearing capacity values used in the
predictions.
It is obvious from Fig. 10 that the EPR-MOGA
model provides the best predictions, as it scored
the highest cumulative frequency for a lower error
range compared with other models. For example,
the model gave 67% cumulative frequency for an
error level of 20%, compared with about 47% for
the GP model and 45% for the M5′ MT model. The
figure also shows that the GP and M5′ MT models
gave almost the same level of accuracy. However,
the predictions of the MLR model are very poor
compared with the other models, which is expected
as this model has been proposed using classical
regression analysis.
Finally, based on the information presented in
Table 4 and Fig. 10 and the aforementioned dis-
cussion, it is evident that the new model provides
better predictions and overcomes the limitations of
the classical equations and the previous data-driven
models developed in the literature.
Fig. 10  Cumulative frequency of error for the developed
model in comparison with other data-driven models from the
literature
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Geotech Geol Eng (2023) 41:3531–3547
10 Concluding Remarks
This study provided a comprehensive review of previ-
ous studies on the prediction of the bearing capacity
of shallow foundations resting on cohesionless soils,
a comprehensive examination of the classical equa-
tions of the bearing capacity for the case of cohesion-
less soils, a new robust data-driven model based on
the EPR-MOGA analysis, and evaluations of the data-
driven models available in the literature. The evalua-
tion of the classical equations and other data-driven
models and the development of the new model have
been aided by real measurements of bearing capac-
ity with known information on the dimensions and
embedment of the footings and the density and shear
strength parameters of the soil. The following sum-
marize the main findings from this comprehensive
study:
1. There are limited studies in the literature that pro-
vide data-driven models to be used in the calcu-
lation of the bearing capacity of shallow founda-
tions resting on cohesionless soils. Although this
topic has been intensively studied in the literature
using different soft computing techniques. The
soft computing techniques used in previous stud-
ies are ANNs, CPSO-SVM, SVMs, GP, FIS, RF,
k-nn, DNNs, DNNs, and M5′ MD.
2. The results of the assessment of the classical
equations revealed that the Terzaghi and Vesic
equations achieved very comparable accuracy in
predicting the bearing capacity, and their accu-
racy is much better than the Hansen equation.
3. Using the Terzaghi bearing capacity equation
with modified Terzaghi bearing capacity factors
(i.e., considering a local shear failure) does not
provide good predictions, as these factors failed
to achieve even one prediction within an error
range of ± 20%.
4. The new EPR-MOGA model scored better than
the classical equations. This model scored lower
MAE and RMSE, higher a20-index and ­R2, and a
better mean value.
5. The new EPR-MOGA model performed better
than other data-driven models proposed in the lit-
erature (MLR and GP models of Shahnazari and
Tutunchian (2012) and M5′ MT model of Khor-
rami et al. (2020)) with a higher percentage of
predictions and lower prediction error.
Geotech Geol Eng (2023) 41:3531–3547
6. Thus, the new EPR-MOGA can be considered a
robust model that can be used to predict the bear-
ing capacity of future designs, but within the data
range used to develop and examine this model.
However, users should be aware that our pro-
posed model can be used in predictions of bear-
ing capacity problems that have parameters lim-
ited by the maximum and minimum values of the
data used in its training and testing ranges.
Acknowledgements This work was supported by the Thai-
land Science Research and Innovation Fundamental Fund fiscal
year 2023.
Author contributions SA: conceptualization, methodology,
validation, formal analysis, writing—original draft. DAM:
data, experimental testing, methodology, writing—review and
editing. YMA: methodology, writing—review and editing.
Funding No funding was received for conducting this study.
Availability of Data and Materials Data used in this
research are available upon request.
Code Availability Code used in this research is available
upon request.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflict of interest
associated with this submission. In addition, the authors have no
relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
References
Adarsh S, Dhanya R, Krishna G, Merlin R, Tina J (2012) Pre-
diction of ultimate bearing capacity of cohesionless soils
using soft computing techniques. Int Sch Res Not. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​5402/​2012/​628496
Ahangar Asr A, Javadi AA (2020) Effective stress parameter in
unsaturated soils: an evolutionary-based prediction model.
Proc Inst Civ Eng Smart Infrastruct Constr 173:96–105.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1680/​jsmic.​21.​00012
Ahangar Asr A, Faramarzi A, Javadi AA (2018) An evolution-
ary modelling approach to predicting stress–strain behav-
iour of saturated granular soils. Eng Comput 35:2931–
2952. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​EC-​01-​2018-​0025
Ahangar-Asr A, Javadi AA, Johari A, Chen Y (2014) Lat-
eral load bearing capacity modelling of piles in cohesive
soils in undrained conditions: an intelligent evolutionary
approach. Appl Soft Comput 24:822–828. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​asoc.​2014.​07.​027
Alani AM, Faramarzi A (2014) An evolutionary approach to
modelling concrete degradation due to sulphuric acid
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
3545
attack. Appl Soft Comput 24:985–993. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​asoc.​2014.​08.​044
Alkroosh I, Alzabeebee S, Al-Taie AJ (2020) Evaluation of
the accuracy of commonly used empirical correlations
in predicting the compression index of Iraqi fine-grained
soils. Innov Infrastruct Solut 5:68. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s41062-​020-​00321-y
Alzabeebee S (2020) Dynamic response and design of a skirted
strip foundation subjected to vertical vibration. Geomech
Eng 20:345–358. https://​doi.​org/​10.​12989/​gae.​2020.​20.4.​
345
Alzabeebee S (2022a) Application of EPR-MOGA in comput-
ing the liquefaction-induced settlement of a building sub-
jected to seismic shake. Eng Comput 38:437–448. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00366-​020-​01159-9
Alzabeebee S (2022b) Explicit soft computing model to predict
the undrained bearing capacity of footing resting on aggre-
gate pier reinforced cohesive ground. Innov Infrastruct
Solut 7:105. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s41062-​021-​00706-7
Alzabeebee S, Chapman DN (2020) Evolutionary computing
to determine the skin friction capacity of piles embedded
in clay and evaluation of the available analytical methods.
Transport Geotech 24:100372. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
trgeo.​2020.​100372
Alzabeebee S, Chapman DN, Faramarzi A (2018) Develop-
ment of a novel model to estimate bedding factors to
ensure the economic and robust design of rigid pipes
under soil loads. Tunnel Undergr Space Techno 71:567–
578. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​tust.​2017.​11.​009
Alzabeebee S, Chapman DN, Faramarzi A (2019) Economical
design of buried concrete pipes subjected to UK standard
traffic loading. Proc Inst Civ Eng Struct Build 172:141–
156. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1680/​jstbu.​17.​00035
Alzabeebee S, Zuhaira AA, Al-Hamd RKS (2022) Develop-
ment of an optimized model to compute the undrained
shaft friction adhesion factor of bored piles. Geomech Eng
28:397–404. https://​doi.​org/​10.​12989/​gae.​2022.​28.4.​397
Armaghani DJ, Mamou A, Maraveas C, Roussis PC, Siorikis
VG, Skentou AD, Asteris PG (2021) Predicting the
unconfined compressive strength of granite using only two
non-destructive test indexes. Geomech Eng 25:317–330.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​12989/​gae.​2021.​25.4.​317
Bagińska M, Srokosz PE (2019) The optimal ANN Model for
predicting bearing capacity of shallow foundations trained
on scarce data. KSCE J Civ Eng 23:130–137. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s12205-​018-​2636-4
Bai XD, Cheng WC, Ong DE, Li G (2021) Evaluation of
geological conditions and clogging of tunneling using
machine learning. Geomech Eng 25(1):59–73. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​12989/​gae.​2021.​25.1.​059
Bowles JE (1996) Foundation analysis and design. McGraw-
Hill, New York
Briaud JL, Gibbens R (1999) Behavior of five large spread
footings in sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 125:787–796.
https:// ​ d oi. ​ o rg/ ​ 1 0. ​ 1 061/ ​ ( ASCE) ​ 1 090- ​ 0 241(1999) ​ 1 25:​
9(787)
Das BM (2007) Principles of foundation engineering. Cengage
Learning, Boston
Du Z, Shahin MA, El Naggar H (2021) Design of ram-
compacted bearing base piling foundations by simple
numerical modelling approach and artificial intelligence
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 3546
technique. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 7:41. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s40891-​021-​00287-6
Gandhi GN (2003) Study of bearing capacity factors developed
from lab. Experiments on shallow footings on cohesion-
less soils. Ph.D. thesis, Shri G.S. Institute of Technology
and Science
Giustolisi O, Savic DA (2006) A symbolic data-driven tech-
nique based on evolutionary polynomial regression. J
Hydroinform 8:207–222. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2166/​hydro.​
2006.​020b
Giustolisi O, Savic DA (2009) Advances in data-driven analy-
ses and modelling using EPR-MOGA. J Hydroinform
11:225–236. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2166/​hydro.​2009.​017
Gupta R, Goyal K, Yadav N (2016) Prediction of safe bearing
capacity of noncohesive soil in arid zone using artificial
neural networks. Int J Geomech 16:04015044. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1061/​(ASCE)​GM.​1943-​5622.​00005​14
Hansen JB (1970) A revised and extended formula for bearing
capacity. Dan Geotech Inst 28:5–11
Hussain MS, Javadi AA, Ahangar-Asr A, Farmani R (2015)
A surrogate model for simulation–optimization of aqui-
fer systems subjected to seawater intrusion. J Hydrol
523:542–554. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jhydr​ol.​2015.​01.​
079
Jabbar SF, Hamed RI, Alwan AH (2018) The potential of non-
parametric model in foundation bearing capacity predic-
tion. Neural Comput Appl 30:3235–3241
Jin YF, Yin ZY, Zhou WH, Yin JH, Shao JF (2019) A single-
objective EPR based model for creep index of soft clays
considering L2 regularization. Eng Geol 248:242–255.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​enggeo.​2018.​12.​006
Khorrami R, Derakhshani A, Moayedi H (2020) New explicit
formulation for ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foun-
dations on granular soil using M5’model tree. Measure-
ment 163:108032. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​measu​rement.​
2020.​108032
Kohestani VR, Vosoghi M, Hassanlourad M, Fallahnia M
(2017) Bearing capacity of shallow foundations on cohe-
sionless soils: a random forest based approach. Civ Eng
Infrastruct J 50:35–49. https://​doi.​org/​10.​7508/​ceij.​2017.​
01.​003
Kumbhojkar AS (1993) Numerical evaluation of Terzaghi’s N
γ. J Geotech Eng 119:598–607. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​
(ASCE)​0733-​9410(1993)​119:​3(598)
Luat NV, Lee K, Thai DK (2020a) Application of artificial neu-
ral networks in settlement prediction of shallow founda-
tions on sandy soils. Geomech Eng 20:385–397. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​12989/​gae.​2020.​20.5.​385
Luat NV, Nguyen VQ, Lee S, Woo S, Lee K (2020b) An evo-
lutionary hybrid optimization of MARS model in pre-
dicting settlement of shallow foundations on sandy soils.
Geomech Eng 21:583–598. https://​doi.​org/​10.​12989/​gae.​
2020.​21.6.​583
Muhs H, Weiß K (1971) Untersuchung von Grenztragfӓhigkeit
und Setzungsverhalten flachgegründeter Einzelfun-
damente im ungleichfӧrmigennichtbindigen Boden.
Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft für Bodenmechanik
(DEGEBO), Berlin. HEFT 69 (in German)
Muhs H, Weiß K (1973) Inclined load tests on shallow
strip footings. In: Proceedings of the 8th international
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Geotech Geol Eng (2023) 41:3531–3547
conference on soil mechanism and foundation engineer-
ing, II, pp 173–179
Muhs H, Elmiger R, Weiß K (1969) Sohlreibung und
Grenztragfӓhigkeit unter lotrecht und schrӓg belasteten
Einzelfundamenten. Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft
für Bodenmechanik (DEGEBO), Berlin. HEFT 62 (in
German)
Nassr A, Esmaeili-Falak M, Katebi H, Javadi A (2018) A
new approach to modeling the behavior of frozen soils.
Eng Geol 246:82–90. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​enggeo.​
2018.​09.​018
Omar M, Hamad K, Al Suwaidi M, Shanableh A (2018)
Developing artificial neural network models to pre-
dict allowable bearing capacity and elastic settlement
of shallow foundation in Sharjah, United Arab Emir-
ates. Arab J Geosci 11:1–11. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s12517-​018-​3828-4
Padmini D, Ilamparuthi K, Sudheer KP (2008) Ultimate bear-
ing capacity prediction of shallow foundations on cohe-
sionless soils using neurofuzzy models. Comput Geotech
35:33–46. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​compg​eo.​2007.​03.​001
Prandtl L (1921) Über die Eindringungsfestigkeit (Härte) plas-
tischer Baustoffe und die Festigkeit von Schneiden. Z
Angew Math Mech 1(1):15–20 (in German)
Shahnazari H, Tutunchian MA (2012) Prediction of ultimate
bearing capacity of shallow foundations on cohesion-
less soils: An evolutionary approach. KSCE J Civ Eng
16:950–957. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12205-​012-​1651-0
Terzaghi K (1943) Theoretical soil mechanics. Wiley, New
York
Uysal F (2020) Prediction of collapse potential of soils
using gene expression programming and parametric
study. Arab J Geosci 13:1038. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s12517-​020-​06050-x
Vesic AS (1973) Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow founda-
tions. J Soil Mech Found Div 99:45–73. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1061/​JSFEAQ.​00018​46
Weiß K (1970) Der Einfluß der Fundamentform auf die
Grenztragfӓhigkeit flachgegründeter Fundamente.
Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft für Bodenmechanik
(DEGEBO), Berlin. HEFT 65 (in German)
Xue X, Chen X (2019) Determination of ultimate bearing
capacity of shallow foundations using LSSVM algorithm.
J Civ Eng Manag 25:451–459. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3846/​
jcem.​2019.​9875
Zhang WG, Goh ATC (2013) Multivariate adaptive regression
splines for analysis of geotechnical engineering systems.
Comput Geotech 48:82–95. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
compg​eo.​2012.​09.​016
Zhang W, Goh AT (2016) Multivariate adaptive regression
splines and neural network models for prediction of pile
drivability. Geosci Front 7:45–52. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​gsf.​2014.​10.​003
Zhang W, Goh AT, Zhang Y, Chen Y, Xiao Y (2015) Assess-
ment of soil liquefaction based on capacity energy concept
and multivariate adaptive regression splines. Eng Geol
188:29–37. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​enggeo.​2015.​01.​009
Zhang W, Zhang R, Wu C, Goh ATC, Lacasse S, Liu Z, Liu H
(2020) State-of-the-art review of soft computing applica-
tions in underground excavations. Geosci Front 11:1095–
1106. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​gsf.​2019.​12.​003
Geotech Geol Eng (2023) 41:3531–3547 3547

Zhao HB, Yin S (2010) A CPSO-SVM model for ultimate steels by regression and machine learning. Multiscale
bearing capacity determination. Mar Georesour Geotech- Multidiscip Model Exp and Des 5:337–350. https://​doi.​
nol 28:64–75. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10641​19090​33590​ org/​10.​1007/​s41939-​022-​00123-y
76
Zhu W, Rad HN, Hasanipanah M (2021) A chaos recurrent Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard
ANFIS optimized by PSO to predict ground vibration gen- to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
erated in rock blasting. Appl Soft Comput 108:107434. affiliations.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​asoc.​2021.​107434
Zhu W, Huang L, Zhang Z (2022a) Novel hybrid AOA and
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner)
ALO optimized supervised machine learning approaches
holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing
to predict the compressive strength of admixed concrete
agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author
containing fly ash and micro-silica. Multiscale Multidis-
self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article
cip Model Exp Des 5:391–402. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement
s41939-​022-​00124-x
and applicable law.
Zhu XK, Zhu JB, Zhang W (2022b) Data-driven models of
dynamic strength of resistance spot welds in high strength

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”),
for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are
maintained. By accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use
(“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or
a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or
a personal subscription (to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the
Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data
internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking,
analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of
companies unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that
Users may not:

1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to
circumvent access control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil
liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by
Springer Nature in writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer
Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates
revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain.
Springer Nature journal content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal
content on a large scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any
information or content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or
without notice. Springer Nature may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature
journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express
or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or
warranties imposed by law, including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be
licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other
manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at

onlineservice@springernature.com