# Prediction of resistance to pile driving using evolutionary neural network

- 109 Downloads

## Abstract

Pile driveability assessment is immensely useful prior to installation as it serves as a basis for selecting the suitable pile and driving hammer for a given ground condition. This is particularly valuable for constructions in difficult environments such as the installation of foundations for offshore and underwater facilities. In this paper, a neural network model is proposed to estimate the blow counts of an impact driving given the information regarding the hammer characteristics, the pile properties, and the SPT profile of the soil supporting the pile. The network is optimised using a self-evolution algorithm to minimise the network complexity and to avoid over-fitting. From the results obtained, the proposed model was found to reasonably estimate the hammer blow counts under a variety of sub-surface conditions. It was also found to be superior in terms of prediction accuracy compared to the network models based on convention BPN-training algorithm. The proposed model also benefits from fewer network parameters in comparison with the BPN networks.

## Keywords

Pile driveability SPT test Neural network## 1 Introduction

Pile driving is one of the oldest and most widely used techniques of pile installation. The technique is usually considered, where the ground is soft enough to be penetrated by the pile without causing structural damage to the latter. One of the key parameters in the design of pile foundations is the depth of pile embedment. In the case of bored piles, the depth can be predetermined prior to installation. In the case of driven piles, however, the depth of penetration is difficult to estimate with certainty due to the influence of the operating conditions on pile driveability during installation. Although some information about the factors influencing the refusal depth of driven piles such as hammer characteristics, pile properties, and nature of the sub-surface can be obtained, the complex interaction between the variables is difficult to predict. For decades, the wave equation for pile-driving analysis, implemented numerically by Smith (1960), has been the most popular technique used in assessing pile driveability for a given sub-surface condition, pile and hammer. However, due to the simplistic assumptions about soil properties and some difficulty in accurately accounting for the effect of mechanical characteristics of the driving hammer, a huge disparity between the predictions of the wave equation model and the observed response is often obtained.

In this work, a neural network is used to develop an empirical model for estimating the driving resistance in terms of number of hammer blows required to drive a pile further into the ground (Blows/m). Blow count serves as a basis for assessing pile driveability and determining the refusal depth of impact driven piles. The parameters required by the model include the pile stiffness and geometry, current penetration depth, hammer characteristics as well as the standard penetration test (SPT) *N* values along the depth of penetration. Pile-driving data are used to train and test the proposed neural network model. To enhance generalisation and minimise the network size, self-evolution algorithm is used to optimise the parameters and topology. A previous study has shown that self-evolution algorithm produces less complicated networks without compromising accuracy in predictions (Jeng et al. 2013). In the next section, existing methods of pile-driving analysis are briefly discussed.

## 2 Wave equation analysis of pile driving

*R*is the soil resistance. A valid solution of Eq. 1 must take into consideration the soil variability, which can only be achieved through a numerical approach. The earliest and most convenient numerical solution is the finite difference scheme proposed by Smith (1960). This solution is based on discretising the pile into a series of lumped masses interconnected by pile springs (with stiffness equal to the stiffness of the pile segment) and idealising the soil resistance along the shaft and below the pile tip as a series of slider springs and dash pots based on a simplified rheological model. The hammer ram and the pile cap are represented by discrete masses, with the interfaces between them being modelled as compression-only springs. A pile cushion is also modelled in this manner. The pile–soil–ram arrangement according to Smith’s solution is shown in Fig. 1.

*Q*) then fail plastically at the ultimate resistance

*R*. The dash pots represent the viscous component of soil resistance, characterized by the coefficients of viscous damping,

*J*. The instantaneous soil resistance according to Smith (1960) is given by

*J*) weighs the dynamic component of soil resistance, the greater the value of damping coefficient, the greater the resistance. Typical values for quake (

*Q*) and damping constant (

*J*) recommended by Smith (1960) are 2–3 mm, and 0.1–0.2 s/m, respectively. The analysis is carried out incrementally over a number of time intervals small enough to ensure convergence of the step-by-step computation. The initial condition is defined by the ram velocity at the moment it impacts on the pile cap. In the first time step, it is assumed that the ram travels with the initial velocity for a certain small distance and compresses the spring underneath by the same amount. The resulting force in the spring acts to decelerate the downward motion of the ram and accelerate the mass just below it. The impact force is transmitted in the same manner through the remaining parts of the soil–pile system. Based on the computed accelerations during this time interval, the velocities and net displacements of the masses in the second time step are computed. This process is repeated, with velocities and displacements of all masses being evaluated in a similar manner at the end of each time increment. The analysis is terminated when the velocity of the pile base is lost. One of the disadvantages of this method is the use of quake and damping parameters, which are unconventional soil parameters and are difficult to measure (Chow et al. 1988). In addition, the soil-resistance model used tends to oversimplify the actual soil response to such complex loading (Randolph 2003). Attempts to improve the Smith soil model dated back to a few years after its introduction. One such modification includes the TTI model (Lowery et al. 1969), in which the damping resistance is regarded as a non-linear function of pile velocity, expressed in the following form:

*N*is a non-linearity exponent and the rest of parameters are the same as that of Smith’s model. Coyle and Gibson (1970) reported that the value of

*N*is 0.18 and 0.2 for clays and sands, respectively. A roughly similar value of exponent (0.2) was also suggested by Heerema (1979) and Litkouhi and Poskitt (1980) for both sands and clays.

The common problem associated with the aforementioned soil models is that they are based on parameters that are, as mentioned earlier, difficult to determine using conventional laboratory equipments. Back analysis is often used to estimate the parameters from the results of pile-loading tests, or pile-driving analyzer (PDA) measurements and case pile wave analysis program (CAPWAP) analysis. However, the study conducted by Thendean et al. (1996) indicated that the Smith soil parameters back-figured from CAPWAP analysis varied significantly within the same type of soil and even the mean values showed very little correlation with soil type.

An attempt has also been made to develop a correlation between in-situ tests and damping parameters (McVay and Kuo 1999), but was not successful due to the extremely high scatter in the data used for developing the correlations.

An improved soil-resistance model based on elasto-dynamic theory was proposed by Simons and Randolph (1985), where the radiation damping and spring stiffness are decoupled in order more rationally to account for the damping effect. This model has the advantage of being based on known soil parameters in contrast to the previously described models. It is, however, still dependent on some coefficients, whose values have to be determined empirically. Another important parameter that profoundly affects the accuracy of wave equation analysis is the amount of energy transferred from the hammer to the pile in the event of impact. Due to the chaotic nature of the pile-driving process, an efficiency factor based on the rule of thumb is used.

## 3 Neural network modelling

Considering the shortcomings of the currently used method of pile driveability analysis, it is worthwhile to study the viability of a neural network as an alternative method of analysis. In this work, a self-evolving neural network is trained to predict the blow counts during pile driving given the pile properties, the hammer characteristics, as well as the properties of the sub-surface into which the pile is driven. The aim is to develop a relatively simple but reasonably accurate means of evaluating pile driveability based on easily obtainable information regarding the properties of the pile, the supporting soil and the hammer.

### 3.1 Self-evolving neural network (SEANN)

The network developed in this study is trained using a self-evolution algorithm, which allows the network topology to be optimised alongside the network parameters. The key advantage of this training algorithm is that it aims at minimising the network size, which tends to bolster the robustness of the network predictions.

The method adopts a bottom-to-top strategy, where the initial network topology is chosen to be a simple architecture with a single hidden node, then gradually evolve in complexity as the training progresses. The network synaptic weights are optimised during the training using a combining particle-swarm optimiser and back-propagation algorithm, while the network topology is updated alongside the synaptic weights using JPSO, a discrete version of particle-swarm optimization technique. In the following section, jumping particle is briefly described.

#### 3.1.1 Jumping particle optimization (JPSO)

JPSO was successfully applied in some combinatorial optimisation problems such as the *p*-median problem (Matinez-Garcia and Moreno-Perez 2008), minimum labelling Steiner tree problem (Consoli et al. 2010), and gear train benchmark problem (Seren 2011). Both studies by Matinez-Garcia and Moreno-Perez (2008) and Seren (2011) compared JPSO and discrete version of PSO (Kennedy and Eberhart 1997), reporting in both cases that JPSO returned better results compared with DPSO results. It is, however, noteworthy that all the above-cited works focused on discrete problems. None of them considered problems to do with a mixture of discrete and continuous variables.

#### 3.1.2 Self-evolution algorithm

- 1.
Initialize a particle-swarm population of size

*N*, with each particle representing neural networks with a single hidden node and randomly generated set of synaptic weights and connection parameters. - 2.
Evaluate the fitness of each particle and update the best particle and global positions.

- 3.Use the PSO and JPSO techniques to update particle co-ordinates for certain number of iterations in the following sub-steps:
- (a)
Use PSO to update the weight vector of each particle.

- (b)
Use JPSO to update the connection parameters of each particle.

- (c)
Update the particle best position and the best swarm position.

- (a)
- 4.
If convergence is sufficient then go to 9. Else continue.

- 5.
Reset randomly the binary and continuous parameters of duplicate particles. In addition, reset in the same manner, the binary parameters of certain fraction of the swarm with poor fitness.

- 6.
Select best particles and update their continuous parameters using some steps of BP. If the training is satisfactory go to 9. Else continue.

- 7.
If number of iterations is less than the maximum number then go back to step 3. Else continue.

- 8.
Generate

*N*particles with a number of nodes which is one greater than the current number of nodes. Replace all current particles with the newly generated particles while retaining the current particle best positions (topology and synaptic weight). Then, go back to step 3. - 9.
Terminate algorithm and return result.

### 3.2 Activation function

*i*. The function of the binary number is to let the associated sub-function be part of the activation function by selecting a value of 1 and excluding the associated sub-function by selecting a value of zero. The coefficient \(\alpha _i\) throws some weight behind the sub-functions making up the activation function in accordance with their relative importance to the output of the neuron. The coefficient is adjusted in the same manner as the synaptic weights are, while the binary parameter, \(k_i\), is optimised alongside the connectivity parameter \(C_i\). Two sets of functions are used for activation function in this study. They are as follows:

where *n* is the number of inputs.

### 3.3 Pile-driving records

Number and type of piles in the database

Type of pile material | Number of piles |
---|---|

Concrete piles | 79 |

H-Steel piles | 26 |

Pipe piles | 12 |

### 3.4 Input parameters

*N*value along the shaft segment

*i*, and around the base, respectively. \(A_{\mathrm{{s}}\_i}\) and \(A_\mathrm{b}\) are, respectively, the surface area of shaft segment

*i*and the area of base. \(f_\mathrm{C}\) and \(f_\mathrm{m}\) are the fractions of silt and clay, respectively; \(f_\mathrm{P}\) is the plasticity parameter (0 for low or no plasticity and 1 for high plasticity);

*E*is the hammer energy; \(\lambda _\mathrm{OED}\), \(\lambda _\mathrm{CED}\), and \(\lambda _\mathrm{ECH}\) are binary parameters representing open-ended, closed-ended, and internal combustion hammers. \(\lambda _\mathrm{OED}\) assumes the value of 1.0 when the hammer type is OED and 0.0; otherwise; the same applies to the other types. The parameters \(\lambda _\mathrm{M1}\) and \(\lambda _\mathrm{M2}\) inform the network about the type of pile. Both parameters are set at zero when the pile is made up of concrete, and setting \(\lambda _\mathrm{M1}\) at 1.00 when the pile is H-steel. The steel pipe is represented by setting \(\lambda _\mathrm{M2}\) to a value of 1.0.

*E*is the elastic modulus of the pile and \(A_\mathrm{c}\) represents the cross-sectional area of the pile shaft. The impact hammer blow count (number of blows per m) is expressed by the following equation:

### 3.5 Model limitations

Given the complex interaction between the blow count of pile driving and the many influencing factors such as type of pile material, pile length and size, sub-surface condition, and methods of driving, it is very difficult to develop a model that is capable of accounting for all factors. Therefore, the ANN model proposed in this work can only predict the driving blow count based on the information, as described in Sect. 3.4.

It is also noteworthy that the model is based on pre-installation sub-surface condition. It, therefore, lacks the ability to account for the effect of interaction between previously driven piles and the subsequent ones, which significantly impacts on the driveability of the latter.

### 3.6 Network training

Summary of training and testing results (pile-driving analysis)

Type of activation function | Number of input links | RMSE | |
---|---|---|---|

Training | Testing | ||

SEANN model | |||

Type I | 110 | 0.04639 | 0.0532 |

Type II | 177 | 0.04832 | 0.0677 |

BPN network | |||

Sigmoid | 284 | 0.07656 | 0.08204 |

Sinusoid | 284 | 0.08001 | 0.09213 |

Wavelet | 213 | 0.06850 | 0.07656 |

Considering the number of networks that need to be developed simultaneously, it is desirable that network configurations be as simple as possible be developed to minimise the overall number of network parameters. To achieve this, a self-evolution algorithm described in Sect. 3.1 is used to optimise the networks. The ability of the algorithm to minimise the network complexity without a compromise in accuracy makes it ideally suitable for this problem. By its nature, the algorithm allows the networks to assume a single hidden node at the beginning, then gradually evolve into more complex configurations as training progresses, thus achieving a faster convergence than other methods of self-evolution.

Convergence comparisons

Parameter | SEANN model | BPN network | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Type I | Type II | Sigmoid | Sinusoid | Wavelet | |

Duration (s) | 78,859.98 | 92,970.2 | 4361.198 | 4687.917 | 3756.851 |

No. of evaluations | 540 | 810 | 1760 | 1910 | 1650 |

### 3.7 Training and testing results

The training and testing results of the networks considered in this study are summarised in Table 2. The results showed that the proposed Type I SEANN model (SEANN-I) produced the best estimate of the resistance to hammer driving, not only because it returned the least value of root mean square error with regard to testing data, but also because it surpassed the rest of the models in accuracy despite having the least number of network parameters. The SEANN model based on the combination of linear and product-unit functions (SEANN-II) is not far behind the former in terms of the prediction accuracy, but is based on a lot more constants compared with the former. The BPN network based on sigmoid function produced the worst result with respect to both training and testing data, although it has the highest number of parameters. The wavelet BPN performs much better that those based on sigmid and sinusoid, but is still far behind the SEAN-I model in terms of both the prediction error and the number of constants. Overall, The results underscore the advantages of selecting suitable activation function as well as evolving the network topology alongside the synaptic weights during the neural network training.

To further assess the prediction quality of the SEAN model, the predicted values of driving resistance are compared with training and testing data using scatter-grams, as shown Fig. 7a, b. The figures indicated that a reasonably good agreement exists between the network approximations and the duo of training and testing data (\(R^2\) = 0.8642 for training and \(R^2\) = 0.8432 for testing), thus highlighting the ability of the network to respond well to the supervised learning and to make reasonably accurate predictions when compared with the data unseen by the network. It can also be seen from Fig. 8 that the network predictions, when compared with the testing data, are mostly within ± 20% of the measured blow counts; only few data points lie outside the range. This is indicative of the good agreement between the proposed model and the observed data.

To have a closer look at the pattern of scatter, the residuals (predicted values–measured values) were plotted against the testing data, as shown in Fig. 9. The absence of a clear trend in the scatter of the residuals suggests that the network has shown a good generalisation and that the observed prediction error is more to do with noise in the data and less to do with the network model.

Training and testing results two SEANN networks (concrete piles)

Network training data | \(R^2\) | |
---|---|---|

Training | Testing | |

Result extracted from lumped data | 0.6801 | 0.7923 |

Concrete pile data alone | 0.6950 | 0.7432 |

As a means of demonstrating the ability of the network to simulate the pile-driving resistance profile, the network estimates are compared with three sets of field measurements which reflect, to some extent, the diversity of the database; the types pile material and the driving hammer, as well as the sub-surface characteristics. For the sake of comparison, results of BPN predictions are also plotted alongside the SEANN simulations. Figure 11 shows the results of SEANN-II predictions alongside the actual response of a concrete pile subject to impact driving, while in Figs. 12, 13, respectively, the results of H-steel and pipe piles are presented. It can be seen in the case of concrete pile that the model tends to over-estimate the resistance up to a depth of around 7 m, beyond which it under-predicts the driving resistance compared with the measured response. The reason for this significant departure from the observed behaviour can be attributed to the relatively low SPT *N* values (on which the model depends) around the same depth and beyond. The marked increase in the measured resistance at this depth and further downward seems to not be commensurate with the corresponding SPT values, which suggests that the soil encountered during the driving is possibly at variance with the soil profile obtained from logging data.

The predictions of SEANN model in the case of H-steel and pipe piles seem to be in a better agreement with the actual driving profile. However, the driving resistance values seem to be over-predicted by the model beyond a depth of 15 m in the case of pipe pile. While the estimated values are commensurate with the increased SPT-N counts beyond that depth, the resistance determined from the measured driving data tends to be in conflict with the soil information, possibly due to the effect of spatial variation in sub-surface characteristics as discussed previously. The figures also showed that SEANN predictions are consistently superior to that of BPN, thus corroborating the results presented in Table 2.

### 3.8 Optimised network parameters

First (top most)pile shaft segment | |||
---|---|---|---|

\(O_{\mathrm{s}_1}=C_1+C_2+C_3({\mathbf{W}}^T\mathbf{X}+C_4)\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{({{W}}^T\mathbf{X}+C_5)^2}{2}}\) | |||

\(C_1=\dfrac{11.06409}{1+\mathrm{e}^{-(0.0356 NA_\mathrm{s} + 1.8070 f_\mathrm{P} -5.1116 \lambda _\mathrm{ECH} 11.4149 \mathrm{OED} -6.3847 z/l -5.745505)}} \) | |||

\(C_2=\dfrac{105.3469}{1+\mathrm{e}^{-(-0.0438 EA + 1.3334 \lambda _\mathrm{M1} -0.97563)}} \) | |||

\(\mathbf{W}\) | \(\mathbf{X}\) | ||

− 0.9608 | \( f_\mathrm{m}\) | \(C_3\) | 0.4137 |

− 2.0311 | | \( C_4 \) | 8.6608 |

0.0732 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{ECH} \) | \( C_5 \) | − 0.6157 |

1.1434 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{OED} \) | ||

− 2.1204 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{CED} \) | ||

5.9857 |
| ||

0.0410 | \( \mathrm{EA} \) | ||

− 0.4430 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{M1} \) |

Second segment | |||
---|---|---|---|

\(O_{\mathrm{s}_2}=C_1+C_2+C_3({\mathbf{W}}^T\mathbf{X}+C_4)\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{({\mathbf{W}}^T\mathbf{X}+C_5)^2}{2}}\) | |||

\(C_1=28.4099 \sin ( -2.9876 \lambda _\mathrm{M1} + 1.6289 \lambda _\mathrm{M2} + 3.0416 )-0.0005 f_C -5.2687 \) | |||

\(C_2=\dfrac{-28.7856}{1+\mathrm{e}^{-(-3.6033 f_P 0.7316 \lambda _\mathrm{ECH} 0.8780 \lambda _\mathrm{CED} 3.7713 z/l -2.9625)}}\) | |||

\(\mathbf{W}_1\) | \(\mathbf{X}_1\) | ||

12.1885 | \( f_\mathrm{m} \) | \( C_1 \) | 1.3845 |

4.3613 | \( f_\mathrm{C} \) | \( C_2 \) | − 9.6998 |

− 0.9234 | \( f_\mathrm{P} \) | \( C_3 \) | − 0.2619 |

− 3.4748 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{OED} \) | ||

5.0074 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{CED} \) | ||

9.5662 |
| ||

− 0.1211 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{M1} \) | ||

− 4.1360 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{M2} \) |

Third segment | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

\(O_{\mathrm{s}_3}=C_1+C_2+C_3({\mathbf{W}_1}^T\mathbf{X}_1+C_4)\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{({\mathbf{W}_1}^T\mathbf{X}_1+C_5)^2}{2}}\) | |||||

\(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,+C_6({\mathbf{W}_2}^T\mathbf{X}_2+C_7)\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{({\mathbf{W}_2}^T\mathbf{X}_2+C_8)^2}{2}}\) | |||||

\( C_1= -70.0470 \mathrm{sin}( -0.5585 \lambda _\mathrm{ECH} 1.8197 z/l + 0.5481) \lambda _\mathrm{M2}+ 2.7261 \) | |||||

\(C_2=\dfrac{-113.6115}{1+\mathrm{e}^{-(-1.2780\lambda _\mathrm{CED} + 8.172023)}}\) | |||||

\(\mathbf{W}_1\) | \(\mathbf{X}_1\) | \(\mathbf{W}_2\) | \(\mathbf{X}_2\) | ||

− 0.0004 | \( NA_\mathrm{s} \) | − 0.0244 | \( NA_s \) | \( C_3 \) | − 39.2486 |

5.4456 | \( f_\mathrm{m} \) | − 3.0671 | \( f_\mathrm{m} \) | \( C_4 \) | 5.9556 |

− 0.8733 | \( f_\mathrm{C} \) | − 0.6816 | \( f_\mathrm{C} \) | \( C_5 \) | 0.3272 |

− 1.3399 | \( f_\mathrm{P} \) | − 2.4263 | \( f_\mathrm{P} \) | \( C_6 \) | -13.7852 |

5.4674 | | 9.3707 | | \( C_7 \) | 0.9976 |

− 6.3538 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{OED} \) | 1.3965 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{ECH} \) | \( C_8 \) | 7.7541 |

− 2.4244 |
| − 5.5887 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{OED} \) | ||

− 0.0058 | | − 1.5934 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{CED} \) | ||

− 2.0855 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{M2} \) | − 0.3761 |
| ||

− 0.0145 | | ||||

7.8406 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{M2} \) |

Fourth segment | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

\(O_{s_4}=C_1({\mathbf{W}_1}^T\mathbf{X}_1+C_2)\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{({\mathbf{W}_1}^T\mathbf{X}_1+C_3)^2}{2}}+C_4({\mathbf{W}_2}^T\mathbf{X}_2+C_5)\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{({\mathbf{W}_2}^T\mathbf{X}_2+C_6)^2}{2}}\) | |||||

\(\mathbf{W}_1\) | \(\mathbf{X}_1\) | \(\mathbf{W}_2\) | \(\mathbf{X}_2\) | ||

− 1.0501 | \( f_\mathrm{m} \) | − 0.0002 | \( NA_\mathrm{s} \) | \( C_1 \) | 8.3052 |

− 1.0433 | \( f_\mathrm{C} \) | − 0.9923 | \( f_\mathrm{P} \) | \( C_2 \) | 8.9672 |

3.6018 | \( f_\mathrm{P} \) | 2.2763 | | \( C_3 \) | 10.5251 |

− 6.0914 | | 1.0196 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{OED} \) | \( C_4 \) | − 0.3588 |

3.8386 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{ECH} \) | 8.1525 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{CED} \) | \( C_5 \) | 2.5160 |

2.1704 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{OED} \) | − 19.8753 |
| \( C_6 \) | − 4.3929 |

− 3.9504 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{CED} \) | 0.9121 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{M1} \) | ||

− 14.5595 |
| ||||

0.0002 | | ||||

2.4472 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{M2} \) |

Fifth segment | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

\(O_{s_5}=C_1({\mathbf{W}_1}^T\mathbf{X}_1+C_2)\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{({\mathbf{W}_1}^T\mathbf{X}_1+C_3)^2}{2}}+C_4({\mathbf{W}_2}^T\mathbf{X}_2+C_5)\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{({\mathbf{W}_2}^T\mathbf{X}_2+C_6)^2}{2}}\) | |||||

\(\mathbf{W}_1\) | \(\mathbf{X}_1\) | \(\mathbf{W}_2\) | \(\mathbf{X}_2\) | ||

− 0.0008 | \( NA_\mathrm{s} \) | 2.2164 | \( f_\mathrm{m} \) | \( C_1 \) | -4.9599 |

1.3951 | \( f_\mathrm{C} \) | − 0.1838 | \( f_\mathrm{C} \) | \( C_2 \) | 9.0728 |

− 1.7797 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{ECH} \) | 3.2162 | \( f_\mathrm{P} \) | \( C_3 \) | 10.6308 |

0.6484 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{OED} \) | 1.2929 | \( \lambda _{ECH} \) | \( C_4 \) | 2.7971 |

− 2.9763 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{CED} \) | 2.2251 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{OED} \) | \( C_5 \) | 2.5156 |

− 0.0682 | | − 1.6769 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{CED} \) | \( C_6 \) | − 4.3933 |

3.3960 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{M1} \) | − 3.0594 |
| ||

3.6285 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{M2} \) | 0.0248 | | ||

1.2629 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{M2}\) |

Pile base | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

\(O_\mathrm{b}=C_1+C_2({\mathbf{W}_1}^T\mathbf{X}_1+C_3)\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{({\mathbf{W}_1}^T\mathbf{X}_1+C_4)^2}{2}}+C_5({\mathbf{W}_2}^T\mathbf{X}_2+C_6)\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{({\mathbf{W}_2}^T\mathbf{X}_2+C_7)^2}{2}} \) | |||||||

\(\qquad \quad + \dfrac{C_8}{1+\mathrm{e}^{-{\mathbf{W}_3}^T \mathbf{X}_3-C_9}}\) | |||||||

\(C_1=\dfrac{-113.6115}{1+\mathrm{e}^{-(-1.6320 NA_b -4.219122 f_P + 8.518855 \lambda _\mathrm{OED} + 6.794539 )}}\) | |||||||

\(\mathbf{W}_1\) | \(\mathbf{X}_1\) | \(\mathbf{W}_2\) | \(\mathbf{X}_2\) | \(\mathbf{W}_3\) | \(\mathbf{X}_3\) | ||

− 0.0062 | \( NA_\mathrm{b} \) | 2.5940 | \( NA_\mathrm{b} \) | − 6.9479 | \( NA_\mathrm{b} \) | \( C_2 \) | − 32.6313 |

0.0160 | \( f_\mathrm{m} \) | 0.9087 | \( f_\mathrm{m} \) | − 17.3699 | \( f_\mathrm{m} \) | \( C_3 \) | 4.6631 |

1.0300 | \( f_\mathrm{P} \) | 3.0781 | \( f_P \) | − 12.3107 | | \( C_4 \) | − 0.5777 |

− 0.3132 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{ECH} \) | 2.4272 | | − 8.6232 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{ECH} \) | \( C_5 \) | − 2.7889 |

− 0.0587 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{OED} \) | − 6.0816 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{ECH} \) | 8.9026 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{OED} \) | \( C_6 \) | − 0.4116 |

0.0417 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{CED} \) | − 9.1764 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{OED} \) | 11.1659 |
| \( C_7 \) | − 1.3502 |

1.4960 |
| − 8.0379 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{CED} \) | \( C_8 \) | 6.2476 | ||

− 7.8970 |
| \( C_9 \) | − 11.6089 | ||||

7.0549 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{M1} \) | ||||||

− 0.1530 | \( \lambda _\mathrm{M2} \) |

## 4 Conclusion

The ability to predict the rate of advancement of a driven pile into the supporting sub-surface as well as the maximum depth of pile penetration during driving is quite important to both contractor and design engineer alike. In this paper, a neural network model self-evolution algorithm is proposed to estimate the blow counts of an impact hammer, the reciprocal of which gives an idea about how deep a pile penetrates when subjected to a blow of a certain type of hammer. The rationale for using self-evolution algorithm for the network training is to minimise network complexity and improve the quality of predictions. The information required by the model includes the type of hammer, the pile type, and the sub-surface characteristics of the soil. The proposed model was found surpass the conventional BPN networks as it produced more accurate results and fewer network parameters. The model was also found to agree well with independent test data set which was not included in the training.

## Notes

### Compliance with ethical standards

### Conflict of interest

The author hereby declares that there is no conflict of interest in this work

## References

- Consoli S, Moreno-Penrez JA, Darby-Dowman K, Mladenovic N (2010) Discrete particle swarm optimization for the minimum labelling steiner tree problem. Nat Comput 9(1):29–46MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- Coyle HM, Gibson GC (1970) Empirical damping constants for sands and clays. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE (SM3) 96:949–965Google Scholar
- Haykin S (1999) Neural Netwrok: a comprehensive foundation. Prentice Hall, New JerseyzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- Heerema EP (1979) Relationships between wall friction, displacement velocity and horizontal stress in clay and in sand for pile driveability analysis. Gr Eng 12(1):55–65Google Scholar
- Isaacs DV (1931) Reinforced concrete pile formulae. Inst Aust Eng J 12:305–324Google Scholar
- Jeng D-S, Ismail A, Zhang LL, Zhang J-S (2013) Empirical model for predicting lateral stability of un-trenched submarine pipes based on self-evolving neural network (seann). Ocean Eng 72:167–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Chow KY, Wong KY, Karunaratne GP, Lee SL (1988) Wave equation analysis of piles- a rational theoretiucal approach. In: 3rd International conference on application of stress wave theory to piles, CanadaGoogle Scholar
- Kennedy J, Eberhart RC (1997) A discrete binary version of the particle swarm algorithm. In: Proceedings of IEEE conference on systems, man, and cybernetics, Iscataway, New Jersey, USA, pp 4104–4109Google Scholar
- Litkouhi S, Poskitt TJ (1980) Damping constants for pile driveability calculations. Geotechnique 30(1):77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Looney CG (1996) Advances in feed-forward neural networks: demystifying knowledge acquiring black boxes. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 2(8):211–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lowery LL, Hirsch TJ, Coyle HM, Samson CH (1969) Pile driving analysis-state-of-the-art. Technical report, Research Report 33–13 (Final). Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A & M UnivGoogle Scholar
- Matinez-Garcia FJ, Moreno-Perez JA (2008) Jumping frogs optimization: a new swarm method for discrete optimization, technical report DEIOC 3/2008. Department of Statistics, O.R. and Computing, University of La Laguna, TenerifeGoogle Scholar
- McVay MC, Kuo CL (1999) Estimate damping and quake by using traditional soil testing. Technical Report 99700-3594-010, Florida Department of TransportationGoogle Scholar
- Nelson M, Illingworth WT (1990) A practical guide to neural nets. Addisin-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
- Randolph MF (2003) Science and empiricism in pile foundation design. Genotechnique 53(10):847–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Seren C (2011) A hybrid jumping particle swarm optimization method for high dimensional unconstrained discrete problems. In: IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (CEC), pp 1649–1656Google Scholar
- Simons HA, Randolph MF (1985) A new approach to onedimensional pile driving analysis. Proc 5th Int Conf Numer Methods Geomech Nagoya 3:1457–1464Google Scholar
- Smith EAL (1960) Pile driving analysis by the wave equation. J Soil Mech Found Eng Div ASCE 86:35–61Google Scholar
- Stalph PO, Rubinsztajn J, Sigaud O, Butz MV (2012) Function approximation with lwpr and xcsf: a comparative study. Evolut Intell 5:103–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Swingler K (1996) Applying neural networks: a practical guide. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Thendean G, Rausche F, Svinkin M, Likings G (1996) Wave equation correlation studies. In: Townsend F, Hussein M, McVay M (eds) Proceedings of fifth international conference on the application of stress-wave theory to piles, Orlando, pp 144–162Google Scholar
- Timoshenko SP, Goodier JN (1951) Theory of elasticity. McGraw-Hill, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar