Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Determining ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations using a genetic programming system

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Neural Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Three genetic programming models are developed for determining the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations. The proposed genetic programming system (GPS), which comprises genetic programming (GP), weighted genetic programming (WGP), and soft-computing polynomials (SCP), simultaneously provides accurate prediction and visible formulas. Some improvements are achieved for GP and WGP. The SCP is also designed to model the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations with polynomials. Laboratory experimental tests of shallow foundations on cohesionless soils are used with parameters of the angle of shearing resistance, the unit weight of the soil, and the geometry of a foundation considers depth, width, and length to determine the ultimate bearing capacity. Analytical results confirm that all GPS models perform well with acceptable prediction accuracy. Visible formulas of GPS models also facilitate parameter studies, sensitivity analysis, and application of pruning techniques. Notably, SCP gives concise representations for the ultimate bearing capacity and identifies the significant parameters. Although shear resistance angles have the largest impact on ultimate bearing capacity, foundation width and depth are also significant.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Terzaghi K (1943) Theoretical soil mechanics. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Meyerhof GG (1963) Some recent research on the bearing capacity of foundations. Can Geotech J 1(1):16–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Vesic AS (1973) Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations. J Soil Mech Found Div 99(1):45–73

    Google Scholar 

  4. Silvestri V (2003) A limit equilibrium solution for bearing capacity of strip foundations on sand. Can Geotech J 40:351–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bolton MD, Lau CK (1993) Vertical bearing capacity factors for circular and strip footings on Mohr–Coulomb. Can Geotech J 30:1024–1033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Soubra AH (1999) Upper-bound solutions for bearing capacity of foundations. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 125(1):59–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Griffiths DV (1982) Computation of bearing capacity factors using finite elements. Géotechnique 32:195–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Young-Su K, Byung-Tak KJ (2006) Use of artificial neural networks in the prediction of liquefaction resistance of sands. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132(11):1502–1504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mehrjoo M, Khaji N, Moharrami H, Bahreininejad A (2008) Damage detection of truss bridge joints using Artificial Neural Networks. Expert Syst Appl 35(3):1122–1131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Pal M, Deswal S (2008) Modeling pile capacity using support vector machines and generalized regression neural network. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 134(7):1021–1024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Behzad M, Asghari K, Eazi M, Palhang M (2009) Generalization performance of support vector machines and neural networks in runoff modeling. Expert Syst Appl 36(4):7624–7629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tsai CC, Hashash YMAJ (2009) Learning of dynamic soil behavior from downhole arrays. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 135(6):745–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Tsai HC (2009) Hybrid high order neural networks. Appl Soft Comput 9:874–881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Arditi D, Pulket T (2010) Predicting the outcome of construction litigation using an integrated artificial intelligence model. J Comput Civil Eng 24(1):73–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rezaiee-Pajand M, Akbarzadeh TMR, Nikdel A (2009) Direct adaptive neurocontrol of structures under earth vibration. J Comput Civil Eng 23(5):299–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dash NB, Panda SN, Remesan R, Sahoo N (2010) Hybrid neural modeling for groundwater level prediction. Neural Comput Appl 19(8):1251–1263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tran DH, Perera BJC, Ng AWM (2010) Hydraulic deterioration models for storm-water drainage pipes: ordered probit versus probabilistic neural network. J Comput Civil Eng 24(2):140–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tsai HC (2010) Predicting strengths of concrete-type specimens using hybrid multilayer perceptrons with center-unified particle swarm optimization. Expert Syst Appl 37:1104–1112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhang Y, Zhou GC, Xiong Y, Rafiq MY (2010) Techniques for predicting cracking pattern of masonry wallet using artificial neural networks and cellular automata. J Comput Civil Eng 24(2):161–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Nazari A, Khalaj G, Riahi S (2011) ANFIS-based prediction of the compressive strength of geopolymers with seeded fly ash and rice husk-bark ash. Neural Comput Appl 1–13

  21. Sezer A (2011) Simple models for the estimation of shearing resistance angle of uniform sands. Neural Comput Appl 1–13

  22. Yaprak H, Karaci A, Demir I (2011) Prediction of the effect of varying cure conditions and w/c ratio on the compressive strength of concrete using artificial neural networks. Neural Comput Appl 1–9

  23. Koza JR (1992) Genetic programming: on the programming of computers by means of natural selection. MIT Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Baykasoglu A, Güllü H, Çanakçi H, Ozbakir L (2008) Prediction of compressive and tensile strength of limestone via genetic programming. Expert Syst Appl 35(1–2):111–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Oltean M, Dumitrescu D (2002) Multi expression programming, technical report, UBB-01-2002. Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ferreira C (2001) Gene expression programming: a new adaptive algorithm for solving problems. Complex Syst 13(2):87–129

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Nazari A, Riahi S (2011) Prediction split tensile strength and water permeability of high strength concrete containing TiO2 nanoparticles by artificial neural network and genetic programming. Compos B Eng 42:473–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Nazari A (2012) Experimental study and computer-aided prediction of percentage of water absorption of geopolymers produced by waste fly ash and rice husk bark ash. Int J Miner Process 110–111:74–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Nazari A, Riahi A, Khalaj G, Bohlooli H, Kaykha MM (2012) Prediction of compressive strength of geopolymers with seeded fly ash and rice Husk_Bark ash by gene expression programming. Int J Damage Mech. doi:10.1177/1056789511431991

    Google Scholar 

  30. Milani AA, Nazari A (2012) Modeling ductile to brittle transition temperature of functionally graded steels by gene expression programming. Int J Damage Mech 21(4):465–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bhattacharya M, Abraham A, Nath B (2001) A linear genetic programming approach for modeling electricity demand prediction in Victoria. In: Proceedings of the hybrid information systems, first international workshop on hybrid intelligent systems, Adelaide, Australia, pp 379–393

  32. Baykasoglu A, Oztas A, Ozbay E (2009) Prediction and multi-objective optimization of high-strength concrete parameters via soft computing approaches. Expert Syst Appl 36(3):6145–6155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Yeh IC, Lien LC (2009) Knowledge discovery of concrete material using genetic operation trees. Expert Syst Appl 36(3):5807–5812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Tsai HC (2011) Using weighted genetic programming to program squat wall strengths and tune associated formulas. Eng Appl Artif Intell 24:526–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lee IM, Lee JH (1996) Prediction of pile bearing capacity using artificial neural networks. Can Geotech J 18:189–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Padmini DK, Ilamparuthi K, Sudheer KP (2007) Ultimate bearing capacity prediction of shallow foundations on cohesionless soils using neurofuzzy models. Can Geotech J 35:33–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kalinli A, Acar MC, Gündüz Z (2011) New approaches to determine the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations based on artificial neural networks and ant colony optimization. Eng Geol 117(1–2):29–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Tsai HC (2011) Weighted operation structures to program strengths of concrete-typed specimens using genetic algorithm. Expert Syst Appl 38:161–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Tsai HC, Lin YH (2011) Predicting high-strength concrete parameters using weighted genetic programming. Eng Comput 27(4):347–355

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  40. Holland JH (1975) Adaptation in neural and artificial systems. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

  41. Gen M, Cheng R (1997) Genetic algorithms and engineering design. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  42. Michalewicz Z (1996) Genetic algorithms + data structures = evolution programs, 3rd edn. Springer, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Hansen JB (1970) A revised and extended formula for bearing capacity. Dan Geotech Inst Bull 28:5–11

    Google Scholar 

  44. Foye KC, Salgado R, Scott B (2006) Assessment of variable uncertainties for reliability-based design of foundations. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132(9):1197–1207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Gandhi GN (2003) Study of bearing capacity factors developed from lab. Experiments on shallow footings on cohesionless soils. PhD thesis, Shri G.S. Institute of Technology and Science, Indore

  46. Scardi M, Harding LW (1999) Developing an empirical model of phytoplankton primary production: a neural network case study. Ecol Modell 120(2):213–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Peng CH, Yeh IC, Lien LC (2009) Modeling strength of high-performance concrete using genetic operation trees with pruning techniques source. Comput Concr 6(3):203–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Construction Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, #43, Sec. 4, Keelung Rd., Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C

    Hsing-Chih Tsai & Yong-Huang Lin

  2. Department of Civil Engineering and Hazard Mitigation Design, China University of Technology, #56, Sec. 3, Hsing-Lung Rd., Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C

    Yaw-Yauan Tyan

  3. Department of Architecture, China University of Technology, #56, Sec. 3, Hsing-Lung Rd., Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C

    Yun-Wu Wu

Authors
  1. Hsing-Chih Tsai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yaw-Yauan Tyan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yun-Wu Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yong-Huang Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hsing-Chih Tsai.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tsai, HC., Tyan, YY., Wu, YW. et al. Determining ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations using a genetic programming system. Neural Comput & Applic 23, 2073–2084 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-012-1150-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-012-1150-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation