ANN prediction of some geotechnical

properties of soil from their index

parameters

Parichehr Tizpa, Reza Jamshidi Chenari,

Mehran Karimpour Fard & Sandro
Lemos Machado

Arabian Journal of Geosciences

ISSN 1866-7511

Arab J Geosci
DOI 10.1007/s12517-014-1304-3

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Saudi
Society for Geosciences. This e-offprint is
for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Arab J Geosci
DOI 10.1007/s12517-014-1304-3
ORIGINAL PAPER
ANN prediction of some geotechnical properties of soil
from their index parameters
Parichehr Tizpa & Reza Jamshidi Chenari &
Mehran Karimpour Fard & Sandro Lemos Machado
Received: 30 September 2013 / Accepted: 22 January 2014
# Saudi Society for Geosciences 2014
Abstract This paper presents artificial neural network pre-
diction models which relate compaction characteristics, per-
meability, and soil shear strength to soil index properties. In
this study, a database including a total number of 580 data sets
was compiled. The database contains the results of grain size
distribution, Atterberg limits, compaction, permeability mea-
sured at different levels of compaction degree (90–100 %) and
consolidated–drained triaxial compression tests. Comparison
between the results of the developed models and experimental
data indicates that predictions are within a confidence interval
of 95 %. To evaluate the effect of each factor on these
geotechnical parameters, sensitivity analysis was performed
and discussed. According to the performed sensitivity analy-
sis, Atterbeg limits and the soil fine content (silt+clay) are the
most important variables in predicting the maximum dry
density and optimum moisture content. Another aspect that
is coherent from the sensitivity analysis is the considerable
importance of the compaction degree in the prediction of the
permeability coefficient. However, it can be seen that effective
friction angle of shearing is highly dependent on the bulk
density of soil.
Keywords Artificial neural network . Compaction
characteristics . Permeability . Soil shear strength . Sensitivity
analysis
P. Tizpa : R. Jamshidi Chenari : M. Karimpour Fard (*)
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
University of Guilan, P.O. Box 1841, Rasht, Iran
e-mail: mehran.karimpour@guilan.ac.ir
R. Jamshidi Chenari
e-mail: jamshidi_reza@guilan.ac.ir
S. Lemos Machado
Department of Materials Science and Technology, Federal University
of Bahia, 02 Aristides Novis St., Salvador 40210-630, BA, Brazil
e-mail: smachado@ufba.br
Introduction
Permeability and shear strength are two vital parameters need-
ed for almost all geotechnical designs. These two parameters
are governed by the degree of compaction. During the com-
paction process, the shear strength of soil increases and per-
meability decreases due to the reduction in the void ratio.
Moreover, the shear strength of soils decreases with increasing
water content. In some cases, shear strength and hydraulic
conductivity requirements should be addressed simultaneous-
ly, which means they should be achieved at the peak point of
compaction curve of soil. Thus, both the maximum dry den-
sity (MDD) and optimum moisture content (OMC) are essen-
tial data for earthwork projects. Since laboratory tests for
determining permeability, maximum dry density, optimum
moisture content, and shear strength are time-consuming, it
is desirable to develop models to predict compacted soil
characteristics based on the classification properties soils.
Many attempts have been made to relate these key parameters
to the physical properties of soils. The physical properties
used generally include grain size distribution, specific gravity,
and plasticity characteristics (liquid limit, plastic limit, shrink-
age limit, and plasticity index).
Rowan and Graham (1948), Davidson and Gardiner
(1949), Turnball (1948), Jumikis (1946), Ring et al. (1962),
Ramiah et al. (1970), Nagaraj (1994), etc., are among the
researchers who tried to relate the compaction characteristics
of soils to their index properties.
The permeability of soils depends greatly on soil structure,
void ratio, soil density, water content, degree of saturation, and
the type of permeant which the soil is exposed to. Various
relationships between the permeability and grain size distri-
bution of the soil have been reported, such as those of Hazen
(1911), Zunker (1930), Carman (1937), Burmister (1954),
Michaels and Lin (1954), Olsen (1962), and Mitchell et al.
(1965). Wang and Huang (1984), using a data bank including
 Author's personal copy
Arab J Geosci

Fig. 1 Data sources used to compile the database
57 synthetic soils, developed several regression equations to
correlate the compaction characteristics and permeability with
the soil’s index properties. Koltermann and Gorelick (1995),
Boadu (2000), Chapuis (2004), Sinha and Wang (2008), and,
more recently, Cote et al. (2011) developed different numeri-
cal and analytical models to estimate the hydraulic conductiv-
ity of soils based on their index parameters.
In recent years, some efforts have been made to develop a
correlation between the effective friction angle and the basic
properties of soil. Kayadelen et al. (2009) used artificial neural
network (ANN), genetic programming (GP), and adaptive
neuro-fuzzy methods to predict the φ′ value of soils.
Mousavi et al. (2011) used GP and orthogonal least squares
algorithm to present a correlation between the internal friction
angle and the physical properties of soils such as the fine and
coarse content, density, and liquid limit. Sezer (2013)
employed nonlinear multiple regression, neuro-fuzzy, and
ANN methods to predict this soil parameter.
Materials and methods
Database
A database including a total number of 580 data sets was
compiled, in which 155 data sets were used for modeling the
permeability, 320 data sets for modeling MDD and OMC, and
105 cases for modeling effective friction angle of shearing.
Different types of soils were used in these tests; therefore, the
results of this research could be valid for all types of soils.
As presented in Fig. 1, the database is obtained from
different sources, mainly from the geotechnical engineering
laboratory of the Federal University of Bahia (UFBA), Brazil.
Also, other cases from Wang and Huang (1984) and Mousavi
et al (2011) were added to the former source.
For each data set, the values of permeability, OMC, MDD,
compaction degree, friction angle, and soil index properties
(grain size curve, Atterbeg limits, and specific density) were
available. Table 1 gives the descriptive statistics of the vari-
ables used for the compaction characteristics and permeability
model developments. The variation ranges of the parameters
used for effective friction angle model are summarized in
Table 2. It is noteworthy that the gravel content (Gc) was a
coarse aggregate having a particle size coarser than 4.75 mm,
and the grain size of sand content (Sc) ranged from 4.75 to
0.075 mm. As well, particles smaller than 0.075 mm were
named as fine content (Fc). In addition, a quantity called
fineness modulus (FM) is also computed. The value of fine-
ness modulus multiplied by 100 is equal to the sum of the
percentages of particles coarser than 3/4 in., 3/8 in., no. 4, and
no. 100 mm. Note that the friction angle values in the database
were determined by consolidated–drained triaxial tests.
Modeling method
Artificial neural networks were employed to develop predic-
tion models. To evaluate the importance of each factor on the
prediction models, a set of sensitivity analyses have been
performed.
Artificial neural networks are information-processing sys-
tems whose architectures essentially mimic the biological
system of the brain (Goh 1994). ANNs have been successfully
applied to link independent variables to a series of dependent
ones, mainly where it is diverse to establish numerical equa-
tions. The use of ANNs has increased during the last decades
in various fields of geotechnical engineering, such as lique-
faction (Ural and Saka 1998; Najjar and Ali 1998), foundation
settlements (Sivakugan et al. 1998), reinforced soil (Ghiassian
et al. 2006), and compaction characteristics of soils (Sinha and

Table 1 Descriptive statistics of the variables used for MDD, OMC, and permeability model

Parameter Gc (%) Sc (%) Fc (%) FM LL (%) PL (%) Gs Cd (%) MDD (kN/m3) OMC (%) Ka (cm/s)

Minimum 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 2.42 90 12.43 5.81 2.50E−11

Maximum 67 100 100 4.22 495 47 3.02 100 27.35 37.13 1.70E−03
Mean 7.39 40.05 52.31 1.71 77.58 24.60 2.70 95 17.31 17.44 3.49E−05
Standard deviation 10.15 21.13 22.83 1.17 104.48 10.47 0.06 4.04 1.97 5.67 1.91E−04
a
Permeability
 Author's personal copy
Arab J Geosci

Table 2 Descriptive statistics of the variables used for effective friction

angle model

Parameter Cc Fc γ LL Shearing rate φ (deg)

(%) (%) (kN/m3) (%) (mm/min)

Minimum 1 15 14.11 1 0.024 19

Maximum 85 99 21.54 105 0.350 35.27
Mean 38.37 63.16 17.64 45.34 0.240 27.49
Standard 21.54 21.08 1.52 18.75 0.142 3.26
deviation

Wang 2008; Gunaydın 2009). In this study, a multilayer

perceptron network has been utilized to present the prediction
models.
A multilayer perceptron (MLP) is a feed-forward artificial
neural network model that maps sets of input data onto a set of
appropriate outputs. MLP utilizes a supervised learning tech-
nique called back-propagation for training the network. In the
application of MLP, data are categorized as input layer, output
layer, and one or more hidden layers. The input patterns are
fed to the network for feed-forward computations to calculate
output patterns. The output patterns are compared with corre-
sponding output patterns and the summation of the square of
the errors is calculated. The errors are then back-propagated
through the network using the gradient-descent rule to modify
the weights and minimize the summed squared errors.
Figure 2 illustrates the typical ANN structure and the relation
between the input and output parameters.
In this study, a MLP network consisting of three hid-
den layers with nine, ten, and one neurons for the first,
second, and third hidden layers, respectively, has been
used. The number of neurons in the hidden layer was deter-
mined by training several networks with different numbers of
hidden neurons and comparing the predicted results with the
desired output.
Fig. 3 Comparison between the predicted values of MDD and the actual
data
Since the manner in which the database is used in the
training and testing sets has a significant effect on the results,
the database was divided into several combinations of training
and testing sets until a robust representation of the whole
population was achieved. To select an optimal combination
of training and testing sets, a statistical analysis considering
the maximum, minimum, mean, and standard deviation was
performed on the input and output parameters. The aim of the
analysis was to ensure that the statistical properties of the data
in each of the subsets were as close to each other as possible
and therefore represented the same statistical population
(Rezania et al. 2008).
Sensitivity analysis concerns the mathematical model rep-
resentation of a physical system and attempts to evaluate the

Fig. 2 Typical structure of ANN

 Author's personal copy
Arab J Geosci

sensitivity of the output patterns to variations of input

Fig. 4 Comparison between the predicted values of OMC and the actual
data
patterns. The main issues in designing methods for regres-
sion sensitivity analysis are the choice of perturbation
scheme and the way to assess and measure any influence.
An appropriate method for perturbation is to delete obser-
vations individually or in groups. This approach is known
as case deletion and aims to assess the influence of an obser-
vation on the final results.
In this research, the type of sensitivity analysis was ANN-
based. At the first step, a MLP network was trained in the case
of each parameter with all data. In the trained network, each
neuron in a specific layer is connected to other neurons via
weighted connections in which scalar weights show the
strength of the connections. In the second step, one of the
inputs is removed from the ANN model by setting its scalar
weight to zero and then an output is achieved. In this way, all
the weighted connections between this variable and other
variables will be dropped from the model; therefore, the effect
of the removed input on the prediction of outputs could be
pictured.

Fig. 5 Comparison of the ANN results on MDD model by excluding each parameter
 Author's personal copy
Arab J Geosci

Fig. 6 Comparison of the ANN results on OMC model by excluding each parameter

Xn
Evaluation method ðM i −Pi Þ
COD ¼ 1 − Xi¼1
n
ð1Þ
Different statistical approaches were used to evaluate the perfor- i¼1
M 1 −M
mance of the prediction model. These parameters were coeffi-
cient of determination (COD), root mean squared error (RMSE), sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Xn
and coefficient of residual mass (CRM). The following equa- i¼1
ðPi −M i Þ2
RMSE ¼  100 ð2Þ
tions are the mathematical expressions of these parameters. n

Table 3 Summary of the ANN’s performance

Outputs Statistics Total Ex. w1a (Gc) Ex. w2 (Sc) Ex. w3 (Fc) Ex. w4 (Gs) Ex. w5 (LL) Ex. w6 (PL)

MDD COD 0.92 0.57 0.57 0.67 0.64 0.74 0.42

RMSE 54.42 128.23 184.29 390.94 162.58 387.32 235.57
CRM 1.50E−04 3.30E−02 8.40E−02 2.1E−01 −1.40E−02 2.10E−01 −8.70E−02
OMC COD 0.92 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.85 0.61 0.65
RMSE 199.11 236.89 245.06 246.76 223.39 373.11 355.93
CRM 4.92E−05 1.40E−04 6.80E−05 1.30E−03 −8.70E−05 4.50E−04 5.90E−04

Ex. excluding
a
Scalar weights
 Author's personal copy
Arab J Geosci

Fig. 7 Comparison between the predicted values of permeability coeffi-
cient and the actual data
Xn
ðPi Þ
CRM ¼ 1 − Xni¼1 ð3Þ
i¼1
ðM i Þ
where Mi and Pi are the measured and predicted values,
respectively, M is the mean of the measured values, and n
is the number of samples. The RMSE is the variance of the
residual error and should be minimized when the outputs fit a
set of data. In the case of a perfect fitting, the RMSE is zero.
The lower the RMSE, the higher is the accuracy of the model
predictions. The coefficient of residual mass, CRM, is an
analysis of the difference between the measured and predicted
values. The optimum value of CRM is zero. Positive values of
CRM indicate underestimation and vice versa.
(PL). The only output was MDD. Hence, the input layer has
six neurons and the output layer has one neuron. Among 320
measured data sets, 290 sets (90 %) have been used for training
and 30 sets (10 %) have been used for testing the model.
Figure 3 shows the predicted values of MDD versus the
experimental data. As is clear from the graphs, the MLP model
gives very reliable estimates of the maximum dry density.
A similar ANN structure with the same input parameters
(Gc, Sc, Fc, Gs, LL, PL) has been used to estimate OMC.
Figure 4 shows a comparison between the results of the
developed ANN model and the experimental data. The ob-
tained values of COD and RMSE demonstrate the accuracy of
the developed model.
The results of the sensitivity analysis performed on the
MDD prediction model is presented in Fig. 5. In each graph,
one input variable is excluded (by setting its scalar weight to
zero) and the ANN model is trained for the five remaining
input parameters. As is obvious from the graphs, excluding
each parameter causes some extra scatter in the prediction
model for MDD.
The results of the sensitivity analysis performed on the OMC
prediction model are also presented in Fig. 6. The graphs
illustrate that LL and PL are the most important variables in
the prediction of OMC. Moreover, it can be seen easily that
removing Fc leads to perturbation in the results.
Table 3 also presents a summary of ANN performance.
Based on the results, in the case of MDD, excluding Fc from
ANN increases the RMSE to 390.9, indicating the significant
role of this parameter on the ANN predictions. Also, a CRM
of 0.21 shows an underestimation of the MDD. LL and PL are
the other important parameters in the prediction of MDD.
Moreover, it is clear from the results that excluding Gs and
PL causes an overestimation of the ANN prediction.
Considering the OMC results, Fc, LL, and PL are the most
important variables in the ANN prediction.
ANN prediction model for permeability

Results and discussions
ANN prediction model for MDD and OMC
Six input variables were used for the ANN model for MDD,
including gravel content (Gc), sand content (Sc), fine content
(Fc), specific density (Gs), liquid limit (LL), and plastic limit
Six input variables were used for the ANN model for perme-
ability coefficient, including FM, LL, gravel content (Gc), sand
content (Sc), fine content (Fc), and compaction degree (Cd). The
only output was LogK. Thus, the input layer has six neurons
and the output layer has one neuron. Among 155 measured data
sets, 140 sets (90 %) have been used for training and 15 sets
(10 %) have been used for testing the model. Figure 6 shows the

Table 4 Summary of the permeability model performance

Output Statistics Total Ex. w1 (Gc) Ex. w2 (Sc) Ex. w3 (Fc) Ex. w4 (FM) Ex. w5 (LL) Ex. w6 (Cd)

LogK COD 0.99 0.51 0.54 0.78 0.88 0.33 0.48

RMSE 17.69 152.86 125.42 95.57 119.11 214.17 431.38
CRM 1.27E−05 1.01E−01 4.90E−02 −2.80E−02 −1.35E−01 2.20E−01 5.73E−01
 Author's personal copy
Arab J Geosci
Fig. 8 Comparison of the ANN results on permeability model by excluding each parameter
predicted values of LogK versus the experimental data. Figure 7
shows an almost perfect prediction of hydraulic conductivity
based on the employed index parameters; however, in the
testing cases, the predictions exhibit a higher scatter.
Table 4 and Fig. 8 illustrate the results of the sensitivity
analysis performed on the permeability prediction model. In
accordance with Table 4, removing Cd increases the RMSE to
431.4, which indicates that the compaction degree is of great
importance in predicting the permeability of soils. In this case,
the obtained value for CRM shows an overestimation of
permeability. As is clear from the results, Gc, Sc, and LL are
the other important variables in the ANN prediction model.
Another aspect that is obvious from the results is that exclud-
ing Fc and FM causes an underestimation of the ANN model.
As mentioned above, the degree of compaction has the
highest effect on the prediction of permeability coefficient. It
is well known that the volume of voids decreases due to an
increase in the degree of compaction, which causes the per-
meability of a soil to decrease. Boynton and Daniel (1985)
conducted hydraulic conductivity tests on compacted clays.
They plotted the variation of permeability at different densities
(Fig. 9). As could be seen, for the same soil, permeability
could be changed almost in one order of magnitude. Ahangar-
Asr et al. (2011) have presented the same results for the effects
of compaction degree on the permeability of soils. The results
of their parametric analysis show a decreasing trend for per-
meability by increasing the degree of compaction. In addition,
Mesri and Olson (1971), by comparing the permeability of
different type of clays, stated that the size and arrangement of
particles have a significant effect on the permeability coeffi-
cient. According to their studies, decreasing the void ratio,
which is a result of increasing the compaction degree, will
cause the permeability of soils to decline.
ANN prediction model for effective friction angle
Five input variables were used for the ANN model for effec-
tive friction angle of shearing, including coarse content (Cc),
 Author's personal copy
Arab J Geosci

Fig. 9 Variation of the

permeability at different dry
densities (Boynton and Daniel
1985)

fine content (Fc), liquid limit (LL), soil bulk density (γ), and
shearing rate (Sr). The only output was φ′. Thus, the input
layer has six neurons and the output layer has one neuron.
Among 105 measured data sets, 95 sets (90 %) have been used
for training and 10 sets (10 %) have been used for testing the
model. Figure 10 shows the predicted values of φ′ versus the
experimental data.
Table 5 and Fig. 11 also present the results of the sensitivity
analysis performed on the ANN model of effective friction
angle. It can be concluded from the results that the soil bulk
density has the highest influence on the prediction of the
effective friction angle. Another aspect that is coherent from

Table 5 Summary of the effective friction angle model performance

Output Statistics Total Ex. w1 Ex. w2 Ex. w3 Ex. w4 Ex. w5

(Cc) (Fc) (γ) (LL) (Sr)

φ COD 0.97 0.27 0.06 0.01 0.18 0.67

RMSE 51.63 517.71 723.03 3600.2 452.82 340.93
Fig. 10 Comparison between the predicted values of effective friction CRM 0.0018 −0.06 −0.08 4.61 0.01 0.1
angle and the actual data
 Author's personal copy
Arab J Geosci
Fig. 11 Comparison of the ANN results on friction angle model by excluding each parameter
the result is that excluding the soil bulk density increases
the value of CRM significantly and leads to an underes-
timation of effective friction angle. Also, the sensitivity
analysis conducted by Mousavi et al. (2011) indicates the
importance of the bulk density on the friction angle of
soils.
Summary and conclusion
This paper presents a set of ANN models for predicting the
compaction characteristics, permeability, and effective fric-
tion angle of shearing based on the soil index properties.
Since laboratory tests to determine these key parameters are
laborious and time-consuming, it is desirable to develop
prediction models to estimate these parameters based on
index parameters which are easy to measure. To do this,
the databank of geotechnical laboratory of the Federal
University of Bahia (UFBA), Brazil was utilized; however
some other experimental data cases from the literature were
added to this data bank.
The results of the prediction models have been compared
with the experimental data. Comparison of the results demon-
strates that the developed ANN models provide highly accu-
rate predictions and that the existing models can be improved
with increasing the database. A major strength of the ANN
prediction models is their ability to improve as more data
become available without repeating the development proce-
dures from the beginning.
Furthermore, a set of sensitivity analyses have been
performed to illustrate the influence of each parameter
on the ANN’s performance. To evaluate the performance
of the prediction models, three statistical approaches have
been utilized: coefficient of determination (COD), root
mean squared error (RMSE), and coefficient of residual
mass (CRM).
 Author's personal copy
References
Ahangar-Asr A, Faramarzi A, Mottaghifard N, Javadi AA (2011)
Modeling of permeability and compaction characteristics of soils
using evolutionary polynomial regression. Comput Geosci 37(11):
1860–1869
Boadu FK (2000) Hydraulic conductivity of soils from grain-size distri-
bution. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 126(8):739–746
Boynton SS, Daniel ED (1985) Hydraulic conductivity of compacted
clay. J Geotech Eng 111(4):465–478
Burmister DM (1954) Principles of permeability testing of soils, sympo-
sium on permeability of soils. ASTM Spec Tech Publ 163:3–26
Carman PC (1937) Fluid flow through granular beds. Trans Inst Chem
Eng 15:150
Chapuis RP (2004) Predicting the saturated hydraulic conductivity of
sand and gravel using effective diameter and void ratio. Can
Geotech J 41(5):787–795
Cote J, Fillion MH, Konrad JM (2011) Estimating hydraulic and
thermal conductivity of crushed granite using porosity and
equivalent particle size. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE
137(9):834–842
Davidson DT, Gardiner WF (1949) Calculation of standard proctor
density andnoptimum moisture content from mechanical analysis,
shrinkage factors, and plasticity index. Proceedings of the HRB29,
pp 447–481
Ghiassian H, Jamshidi R, Poorebrahim G (2006) Neural network analysis
of silty sand reinforced by carpet wastes. Kuwait J Sci Eng 33(1):
119–139
Goh ATC (1994) Nonlinear modeling in geotechnical engineering using
neural networks. Aust Civ Eng Trans CE36(4):293–297
Gunaydın O (2009) Estimation of soil compaction parameters by using
statistical analyses and artificial neural networks. J Environ Geol 57:
203–215
Hazen A (1911) Discussion of ‘Dams on sand foundations’ by A. C.
Koenig. Trans ASCE 73:199–203
Jumikis AR (1946) Geology and soils of the Newark metropolitan area.
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE
93(SM2), pp 71–95
Kayadelen C, Gu¨naydın O, Fener M, Demir A, O¨ zvan A (2009) A
modeling of the angle of shearing resistance of soils using soft
computing systems. Expert Syst Appl 36:11814–11826
Koltermann CE, Gorelick SM (1995) Fractional packing model for
hydraulic conductivity derived from sediment mixtures. Water
Resour Res 31:3283–3297
Arab J Geosci
Mesri G, Olson RE (1971) Mechanism controlling the permeability of
clays. Clay Clay Miner 19:151–158
Michaels AS, Lin CS (1954) The permeability of kaolinite. Ind Engng
Chem 46:1239–1246
Mitchell JK, Hopper DR, Campanella RC (1965) Permeability of
compacted clay. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 91(No. SM4):41–66
Mousavi SM, Alavi AH, Mollahasani A, Gandomi AH, Arab Esmaeili M
(2011) Formulation of soil angle of shearing resistance using a
hybrid GP and OLS method. Eng Comput. doi:10.1007/s00366-
011-0242-x
Nagaraj TS (1994) Analysis and prediction of compaction characteristics
of soils. Unpublished
Najjar YM, Ali HE (1998) CPT-based liquefaction potential assessment:
a neuronet approach. ASCE Geotech Spec Publ 1:542–553
Olsen HW (1962) Hydraulic flow through saturated clays. Clay Clay
Miner 9:131–161
Ramiah BK, Viswanath V, Krishnamurthy HV (1970) Interrelationship of
compaction and index properties. Proceedings of the Second
South East Asian Conference on Soil Engineering, Singapore,
pp 577–587
Rezania M, Javadi AA, Giustolisi O (2008) An evolutionary-based data
mining technique for assessment of civil engineering systems. J Eng
Comput 25(6):500–517
Ring GW, Sallgerb JR, Collins WH (1962) Correlation of compaction
and classification test data. HRB Bull 325:55–75
Rowan HW, Graham WW (1948) Proper compaction eliminates curing
period in construction fills. Civ Eng 18:450–451
Sezer A (2013) Simple models for the estimation of shearing resistance
angle of uniform sands. Neural Comput & Applic 22(1):111–123
Sinha SK, Wang MC (2008) Artificial neural network prediction models
for soil compaction and permeability. Geotech Geol Eng J 26(1):
47–64
Sivakugan N, Eckersley JD, Li H (1998) Settlement predictions using
neural networks. Aust Civ Eng Trans CE40:49–52
Turnbull JM (1948) Computation of the optimum moisture content in the
moisture density relationship of soils. Proceedings of the Second
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Rotterdam, Holland, pp 256–262
Ural DN, Saka H (1998) Liquefaction assessment by neural networks.
Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. http://www.ejge.
com/Ppr9803/Ppr9803.htm
Wang MC, Huang CC (1984) Soil compaction and permeability predic-
tion models. J Environ Eng ASCE 110(6):1063–1083
Zunker F (1930) Das verhalten des bodens zum wasser. Handbuch der
bodenlehre 6:66–220