Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Comparison of dragonfly algorithm and Harris hawks optimization evolutionary data mining techniques for the assessment of bearing capacity of footings over two-layer foundation soils

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Engineering with Computers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

By assist of novel evolutionary science, the classification accuracy of neural computing is improved in analyzing the bearing capacity of footings over two-layer foundation soils. To this end, Harris hawks optimization (HHO) and dragonfly algorithm (DA) are applied to a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) predictive tool for adjusting the connecting weights and biases in predicting the failure probability using seven settlement key factors, namely unit weight, friction angle, elastic modulus, dilation angle, Poisson’s ratio, applied stress, and setback distance. As the first result, incorporating both HHO and DA metaheuristic algorithms resulted in higher efficiency of the MLP. Moreover, referring to the calculated area under the receiving operating characteristic curve (AUC), as well as the calculated mean square error, the DA-MLP (AUC = 0.942 and MSE = 0.1171) outperforms the HHO-MLP (AUC = 0.915 and MSE = 0.1350) and typical MLP (AUC = 0.890 and MSE = 0.1416). Furthermore, the DA surpassed the HHO in terms of time-effectiveness.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Banimahd M, Woodward P (2006) Load-displacement and bearing capacity of foundations on granular soils using a multi-surface kinematic constitutive soil model. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 30:865–886

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Kaya A, Bulut F, Dağ S (2018) Bearing capacity and slope stability assessment of rock masses at the Subasi viaduct site, NE, Turkey. Arab J Geosci 11:162

    Google Scholar 

  3. Terzaghi K, Peck RB, Mesri G (1996) Soil mechanics in engineering practice. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  4. Keskin MS, Laman M (2013) Model studies of bearing capacity of strip footing on sand slope. KSCE J Civ Eng 17:699–711

    Google Scholar 

  5. Zdravković L, Potts D, Jackson C (2003) Numerical study of the effect of preloading on undrained bearing capacity. Int J Geomech 3:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  6. Serrano A, Olalla C, Jimenez R (2015) Analytical bearing capacity of strip footings in weightless materials with power-law failure criteria. J Int J Geomech 16:04015010

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cascone E, Casablanca O (2016) Static and seismic bearing capacity of shallow strip footings. J Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 84:204–223

    Google Scholar 

  8. Baazouzi M, Benmeddour D, Mabrouki A, Mellas M (2016) 2D numerical analysis of shallow foundation rested near slope under inclined loading. Procedia Eng 143:623–634

    Google Scholar 

  9. Mosallanezhad M, Moayedi H (2017) Comparison analysis of bearing capacity approaches for the strip footing on layered soils. Arab J Sci Eng 42:3711–3722

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bowles JE (1996) Foundation analysis and design. McGraw-Hill, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  11. Behera RN, Patra CR, Sivakugan N, Das BM (2013) Prediction of ultimate bearing capacity of eccentrically inclined loaded strip footing by ANN, part I. Int J Geotech Eng 7:36–44

    Google Scholar 

  12. 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

    Google Scholar 

  13. Acharyya R, Dey A, Kumar B (2018) Finite element and ANN-based prediction of bearing capacity of square footing resting on the crest of c-φ soil slope. Int J Geotech Eng 13:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2018.1435022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Padmini D, Ilamparuthi K, Sudheer K (2008) Ultimate bearing capacity prediction of shallow foundations on cohesionless soils using neurofuzzy models. Comput Geotech 35:33–46

    Google Scholar 

  15. Das M, Dey AK (2018) Determination of bearing capacity of stone column with application of neuro-fuzzy system. KSCE J Civ Eng 22:1677–1683

    Google Scholar 

  16. Maizir H, Suryanita R, Jingga H (2016) Estimation of pile bearing capacity of single driven pile in sandy soil using finite element and artificial neural network methods. J Int J Appl Phys Sci 2:45–50

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ziaee SA, Sadrossadat E, Alavi AH, Mohammadzadeh Shadmehri D (2015) Explicit formulation of bearing capacity of shallow foundations on rock masses using artificial neural networks: application and supplementary studies. Environ Earth Sci 73:3417–3431

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lee I-M, Lee J-H (1996) Prediction of pile bearing capacity using artificial neural networks. Comput Geotech 18:189–200

    Google Scholar 

  19. Moayedi H, Hayati S (2018) Modelling and optimization of ultimate bearing capacity of strip footing near a slope by soft computing methods. Appl Soft Comput 66:208–219

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gao W, Dimitrov D, Abdo H (2018) Tight independent set neighborhood union condition for fractional critical deleted graphs and ID deleted graphs. Discrete Contin Dyn Syst Ser S 12:711–721

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Nguyen H, Mehrabi M, Kalantar B, Moayedi H, MaM Abdullahi (2019) Potential of hybrid evolutionary approaches for assessment of geo-hazard landslide susceptibility mapping. Geomat Nat Hazards Risk 10:1667–1693

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gao W, Guirao JLG, Basavanagoud B, Wu J (2018) Partial multi-dividing ontology learning algorithm. Inf Sci 467:35–58

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Moayedi H, Raftari M, Sharifi A, Jusoh WAW, Rashid ASA (2019) Optimization of ANFIS with GA and PSO estimating α ratio in driven piles. Eng Comput 35:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gao W, Wang W, Dimitrov D, Wang Y (2018) Nano properties analysis via fourth multiplicative ABC indicator calculating. Arab J Chem 11:793–801

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gao W, Wu H, Siddiqui MK, Baig AQ (2018) Study of biological networks using graph theory. Saudi J Biol Sci 25:1212–1219

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gao W, Guirao JLG, Abdel-Aty M, Xi W (2019) An independent set degree condition for fractional critical deleted graphs. Discrete Contin Dyn Syst Ser S 12:877–886

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Moayedi H, Moatamediyan A, Nguyen H, Bui X-N, Bui DT, Rashid ASA (2019) Prediction of ultimate bearing capacity through various novel evolutionary and neural network models. Eng Comput 35:1–17

    Google Scholar 

  28. Moayedi H, Armaghani DJ (2018) Optimizing an ANN model with ICA for estimating bearing capacity of driven pile in cohesionless soil. Eng Comput 34:347–356

    Google Scholar 

  29. McCulloch WS, Pitts W (1943) A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity. Bull Math Biophys 5:115–133

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. ASCE Task Committee (2000) Artificial neural networks in hydrology. II: hydrologic applications. J Hydrol Eng 5:124–137

    Google Scholar 

  31. Yu H, Wilamowski BM (2011) Levenberg–marquardt training. Ind Electron Handb 5:1

    Google Scholar 

  32. Moré JJ (1978) The Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm: implementation and theory, numerical analysis. Springer, Berlin, pp 105–116

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Marquardt DW (1963) An algorithm for least-squares estimation of nonlinear parameters. J Soc Ind Appl Math 11:431–441

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. El-Bakry MY (2003) Feed forward neural networks modeling for K–P interactions. Chaos, Solitons Fractals 18:995–1000

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Cigizoglu HK, Kişi Ö (2005) Flow prediction by three back propagation techniques using k-fold partitioning of neural network training data. Hydrol Res 36:49–64

    Google Scholar 

  36. Heidari AA, Mirjalili S, Faris H, Aljarah I, Mafarja M, Chen H (2019) Harris Hawks optimization: algorithm and applications. Fut Gen Comput Syst 97:849–872

    Google Scholar 

  37. Bao X, Jia H, Lang C (2019) A novel hybrid Harris hawks optimization for color image multilevel thresholding segmentation. IEEE Access 7:76529–76546

    Google Scholar 

  38. Mirjalili S (2016) Dragonfly algorithm: a new meta-heuristic optimization technique for solving single-objective, discrete, and multi-objective problems. Neural Comput Appl 27:1053–1073

    Google Scholar 

  39. Sureshkumar K, Ponnusamy V (2019) Power flow management in micro grid through renewable energy sources using a hybrid modified dragonfly algorithm with bat search algorithm. Energy 181:1166–1178

    Google Scholar 

  40. Xu L, Jia H, Lang C, Peng X, Sun K (2019) A novel method for multilevel color image segmentation based on dragonfly algorithm and differential evolution. IEEE Access 7:19502–19538

    Google Scholar 

  41. Yuan Y, Lv L, Wang X, Song X (2019) Optimization of a frame structure using the Coulomb force search strategy-based dragonfly algorithm. Eng Optim 51:1–17

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  42. Khalilpourazari S, Khalilpourazary S (2018) Optimization of time, cost and surface roughness in grinding process using a robust multi-objective dragonfly algorithm. Neural Comput Appl 31:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  43. Yasen M, Al-Madi N, Obeid N (2018) Optimizing neural networks using dragonfly algorithm for medical prediction. In: 2018 8th international conference on computer science and information technology (CSIT)

  44. Mafarja M, Heidari AA, Faris H, Mirjalili S, Aljarah I (2020) Dragonfly algorithm: theory, literature review, and application in feature selection. In: Nature-inspired optimizers. Springer, Berlin, pp 47–67

  45. Moayedi H, Mehrabi M, Mosallanezhad M, Rashid ASA, Pradhan B (2018) Modification of landslide susceptibility mapping using optimized PSO–ANN technique. Eng Comput 35:967–984

    Google Scholar 

  46. Nguyen H, Moayedi H, Foong LK, Al Najjar HAH, Jusoh WAW, Rashid ASA, Jamali J (2019) Optimizing ANN models with PSO for predicting short building seismic response. Eng Comput 35:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  47. Beguería S (2006) Validation and evaluation of predictive models in hazard assessment and risk management. Nat Hazards 37:315–329

    Google Scholar 

  48. Swets JA (1988) Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240:1285–1293

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  49. Lasko TA, Bhagwat JG, Zou KH, Ohno-Machado L (2005) The use of receiver operating characteristic curves in biomedical informatics. J Biomed Inform 38:404–415

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department for Management of Science and Technology Development, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

    Hossein Moayedi

  2. Faculty of Civil Engineering, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

    Hossein Moayedi

  3. Civil Engineering Department, University of Hafr Al-Batin, Hafr Al-Batin, Eastern Province, 39524, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

    Mu’azu Mohammed Abdullahi

  4. Institute of Research and Development, Duy Tan University, Da Nang, 550000, Vietnam

    Hoang Nguyen

  5. Centre of Tropical Geoengineering (Geotropik), School of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Malaysia

    Ahmad Safuan A. Rashid

Authors
  1. Hossein Moayedi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mu’azu Mohammed Abdullahi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hoang Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ahmad Safuan A. Rashid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hossein Moayedi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moayedi, H., Abdullahi, M.M., Nguyen, H. et al. Comparison of dragonfly algorithm and Harris hawks optimization evolutionary data mining techniques for the assessment of bearing capacity of footings over two-layer foundation soils. Engineering with Computers 37, 437–447 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-019-00834-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-019-00834-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation