Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 637647

www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Settlement prediction of shallow foundations on granular soils

using B-spline neurofuzzy models
M.A. Shahin, H.R. Maier, M.B. Jaksa*
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia

Received 28 February 2003; received in revised form 6 August 2003; accepted 1 September 2003

Abstract
The design of shallow foundations on granular soils is generally controlled by settlement rather than bearing capacity. As a
consequence, settlement prediction is a major concern and is an essential criterion in the design process of shallow foundations. At
present, consistent accurate prediction of settlement of shallow foundations on granular soils has yet to be achieved using many
numerical modelling techniques. Recently, multi-layer perceptrons (MLPs) trained with the back-propagation algorithm have been
applied successfully to settlement prediction of shallow foundations on granular soils. However, a shortcoming of MLPs is that the
knowledge that is acquired during training is distributed across their connection weights in a complex manner that is often dicult
to interpret. Consequently, the rules governing the relationships between the network input/output variables are dicult to quan-
tify. One way to overcome this problem is to use neurofuzzy networks in which the acquired knowledge can be translated into a set
of fuzzy rules that describe the relationships between the network inputs and the corresponding outputs in a transparent fashion. In
the present paper, the ability of neurofuzzy networks to predict settlement of shallow foundations on granular soils and to assist
with providing a better understanding regarding the relationships between settlement and the factors aecting settlement is asses-
sed. The sensitivity of neurofuzzy models to a number of stopping criteria is investigated and the models obtained are compared in
terms of prediction accuracy, model parsimony and model transparency. The impact of incorporating existing engineering knowl-
edge on neurofuzzy model performance and interpretation is also investigated. The type of neurofuzzy networks used in this
research are B-spline networks that are trained with the adaptive spline modelling of observation data (ASMOD) algorithm. The
results indicate that B-spline neurofuzzy networks are capable of predicting well the settlement of shallow foundations on granular
soils and are able to provide a transparent understanding of the relationships between settlement and the factors aecting it. It is
found from this research that neurofuzzy models that use the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) are able to strike a balance
between model accuracy, parsimony and transparency. The results also indicate that modifying neurofuzzy networks by incorpor-
ating existing engineering knowledge can improve model performance and enhance the interpretation of the constructed model.
# 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Settlement prediction; Shallow foundations; Granular soils; Neurofuzzy networks

1. Introduction propagation multi-layer perceptrons (MLPs) [2,3] have

Settlement prediction is an essential criterion in the
design of shallow foundations on granular soils since
settlement, rather than bearing capacity, generally con-
trols the design process. Over the years, consistent and
accurate prediction of settlement of shallow foundations
on granular soils has yet to be achieved by the use of a
variety of methods ranging from purely empirical to
complex non-linear nite elements [1]. Recently, back-
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61-8-8303-4317; fax: +61-8-8303-
4359.
E-mail address: mjaksa@civeng.adelaide.edu.au (M.B. Jaksa).
0266-352X/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2003.09.004
been applied successfully by Shahin et al. [4] to settle-
ment prediction of shallow foundations on granular
soils and have been found to outperform the most
commonly used traditional methods. Despite the high
capability of data mapping of MLPs, the knowledge
acquired in the trained network is stored in the connec-
tion weights in a complex manner that is often dicult
to interpret. This makes it dicult to extract the
knowledge that has been learnt by the trained network
regarding the relationships between the model inputs
and the corresponding outputs and, thus, MLPs trained
with the back-propagation algorithm are often criticised
for being black boxes. One way to overcome this
638 M.A. Shahin et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 637647
problem is by the use of neurofuzzy networks. Neuro-
fuzzy networks combine the explicit linguistic knowl-
edge representation of fuzzy systems with the learning
power of MLPs [5,6]. One advantage of neurofuzzy
networks is that they can be trained by processing data
samples to perform input/output data mappings, similar
to the way MLPs do, with the additional benet of
being able to provide a set of fuzzy rules that can
describe the model input/output relationships in a
transparent fashion [7,8]. One additional advantage of
neurofuzzy networks is that available engineering
knowledge can be incorporated into the trained network
to optimise model performance and to enhance the
interpretation of a constructed model. In geotechnical
engineering, Ni et al. [9] have already applied a neuro-
fuzzy network approach to the evaluation of slope fail-
ure potential. However, a review of the literature
indicates that neurofuzzy networks are new tools in the
eld of geotechnical engineering. More recently, Shahin
et al. [10] carried out a preliminary investigation regard-
ing the feasibility of using B-spline neurofuzzy networks
for settlement prediction of shallow foundations on
granular soils.
The work presented in this paper is an extension of
the research conducted by Shahin et al. [10]. The objec-
tives of the paper are: (i) to assess the feasibility of
adopting B-spline neurofuzzy networks for predicting
settlement of shallow foundations on granular soils; (ii)
to investigate the impact of some of the parameters
controlling the development of B-spline neurofuzzy
networks; and (iii) to investigate the impact of incor-
porating engineering knowledge on model performance
and model interpretation.
2. B-spline neurofuzzy networks
Neurofuzzy networks are modelling techniques that
combine the explicit linguistic knowledge representation
of fuzzy systems with the learning power of multi-layer
perceptrons (MLPs) [5,6]. There are many neurofuzzy
construction algorithms, including [11]: the adaptive
spline modelling of observation data (ASMOD) [12];
adaptive neurofuzzy inference systems (ANFIS) [13]
Fig. 1. B-Spline fuzzy membership functions of dierent order.
and local linear model trees (LOLIMOT) [14], among
others. In this research, B-spline neurofuzzy networks
that are trained with the ASMOD algorithm will be
used. B-spline neurofuzzy networks use the fuzzy logic
system [15] to store the knowledge acquired between a
set of input variables (x1, x2, . . ., xn) and the corre-
sponding output variable (y) in a set of linguistic fuzzy
rules that can be easily interpreted, such as:
IFx1 is high AND x2 is lowTHENy is high;
c 0:9
where (c=0.9) is the rule condence which indicates
the degree to which the above rule has contributed to
the output. As part of any fuzzy logic system, two
main components need to be determined (i.e. fuzzy sets
and fuzzy rules). In order to determine the fuzzy sets,
linguistic terms (e.g. small, medium and large) can be
interpreted mathematically in the form of membership
functions, and model variables are fuzzied to be partial
members of these membership functions in the interval
grade (0,1). This means that, for a fuzzy set A, an input
variable x is fuzzied to be a partial member of the
fuzzy set A by transforming it into a degree of mem-
bership of function uA(x) of interval (0,1). There are
many forms of membership functions including B-spline
and Gaussian functions [7]. Fig. 1 gives an example of
B-spline basis functions of dierent order, which are the
type of basis functions that will be used in the present
research. For each input variable, the fuzzy sets overlap
and cover the necessary range of variation for that
variable in the process called fuzzication. It should be
noted that the model output of a fuzzy set is also fuzzy
and, in order to obtain a real-valued output, defuzzic-
ation is needed. The mean of maxima and centre of grav-
ity are the most popular defuzzication algorithms [7].
A typical structure of a B-spline neurofuzzy network
contains three layers: an input layer; a single hidden
layer and an output layer [7]. The input layer normalises
the input space in a p-dimensional lattice (Fig. 2). Each
cell of the lattice represents a similar region of the input
space. The hidden layer consists of basis functions (i.e.
B-spline functions) which are dened on the lattice
formed by normalising the input space. The size, shape
 M.A. Shahin et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 637647
Fig. 2. Typical structure of a neurofuzzy network [6].
and overlap of the basis functions determine the struc-
ture and complexity of the network. The output layer
sums the weighted outputs from the basis functions to
produce the network output using Eq. (1).
X
p i1
y ai w i
i1
where: y=model output; ai=output from the pth basis
function; and wi=connection weight associated with ai.
This output is compared with the actual measured
output and a correction error (the mean squared error,
MSE, is usually used) is calculated. Using this error and
implementing a learning rule, the neurofuzzy network
adjusts its weights and determines its fuzzy parameters
(i.e. fuzzy sets and fuzzy rules). The Least Mean
Squared (LMS) and the Normalised Least Mean Squared
(NLMS) learning algorithms are generally used to
update the weights [7]. At time t and as part of these
algorithms, Eqs. (2) and (3), respectively, are used to
adjust the weights for the LMS and NLMS algorithms
[6]:
wi t wi t  1 y^ t  ytai t 2 the rst, second and third subnetwork, respectively.
! instead of 3125 for the non-decomposed network.
y^ t  yt
wi t wi t  1    ai t 3 The adaptive spline modelling of observation data
ai t2
2
where: =learning rate; and y^=desired output.
It should be noted that, when the output error is zero,
the weights are not updated, whereas if it is not zero, the
weights are adjusted so as to reduce the output error. If
the basis functions have non-zero outputs in only a
small part of the input space, then only the numbers of
weights that are contributing to the network output are
updated during training. Consequently, similar network
inputs result in similar sets of non-zero basis functions
and therefore, the knowledge is stored locally in the
network without interfering with the knowledge that is
stored in other regions of the network.
639
One major disadvantage of B-spline networks is that
the number of basis functions (i.e. fuzzy sets or mem-
bership functions) is exponentially dependent on the
dimension of the input space [6]. Consequently, the num-
ber of rules is also exponentially dependent on the
dimension of the input space, resulting in impractical
model representation. This problem has been termed the
curse of dimensionality [6]. To illustrate this problem,
consider a fuzzy logic system that has ve input vari-
ables and that each input variable is presented over ve-
valued membership functions. This fuzzy system will
contain as many as (55=3125) rules. One useful
approach for overcoming this problem is to use the
analysis of variance (ANOVA) representation [6].
ANOVA decomposes an n-dimensional function to a
linear combination of a number of separate functions,
as follows [6]:
X
n n1 X
X n  
fx f0 fi xi fi;j xi ; xj . . .
i1 ji1
1 f1;2;...;n x 4
where f0 represents a constant (the function bias);
and the other terms represent the univariate, bivariate and
high-order subfunctions. In many situations, the major-
ity of high-order terms are zero or negligible, resulting
in a limited number of subfunctions (often called sub-
networks) of much lower dimensions that approximate
the network input/output mapping. It should be noted
that each subnetwork in the ANOVA description
represents a neurofuzzy system of its own and the over-
all model output is produced by summing outputs of all
subnetworks. An example of ANOVA decomposition
for the problem of ve input variables and ve mem-
bership functions for each of these is shown in Fig. 3.
The 5D function is decomposed into one 1D and two
2D subnetworks, resulting in 5, 25 and 25 fuzzy rules for
Consequently, the network with ANOVA decomposi-
tion will produce an overall number of rules equal to 55,
(ASMOD) proposed by Kavli [12] is an automatic
Fig. 3. ANOVA decomposition of a neurofuzzy rule base [6].
640 M.A. Shahin et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 637647
algorithm for obtaining the optimal structure of B-
spline neurofuzzy networks. ASMOD has been found to
perform well in a wide variety of modelling problems
[7]. The algorithm starts with a simple model (e.g. only
one variable with two membership functions) and itera-
tively renes the model structure during training so as
to gradually increase model capability until some stop-
ping criterion is met. Possible renements include add-
ing or deleting input variables, increasing the number
and dimension of an individual subnetwork by linking it
to an existing input, forming multi-variate subnetworks
using ANOVA and changing the number and spacing of
the basis functions (i.e. the optimum partitioning of the
input space). Changing the order of B-spline functions
for an individual input variable is also a possible
renement; however, the order of B-spline functions has
to be chosen manually in advance. It should be noted
that higher order B-spline basis functions result in
smoother model outputs; however, it is likely to lead to
data overtting [7]. Consequently, lower order basis
functions are more desirable if they are able to model
the desired relationship with a satised accuracy [16]. In
the present study, second order (triangular) B-spline
functions will be used for all neurofuzzy models devel-
oped, as it was found by Maier et al. [16] that second
order B-spline functions generally produce more trans-
parent models. For every renement, the impact of net-
work pruning is evaluated and the network that has the
simplest structure with the best performance is chosen.
As part of ASMOD, stopping/selection criteria have to
strike a balance between model performance and model
complexity. Examples of such criteria are given by
Brown and Harris [7], which include:
Bayesian Information Criterion
5 and Burbidge [17], the values of N used in this research
BIC nlnMSE plnn
Akaikes Information Criterion
6
AIC nlnMSE p;  > 0
Final Prediction Error FPE
 
np
nlnMSE nln 7 Ncorrected 1:25N
np
where p is the number of parameters in the model, MSE
is the mean square error and n is the number of data
pairs used to train the network. For each of the above
criteria, the model that has the smallest selection criter-
ion is preferred. It can be seen from the above criteria
that each of them has two terms. The rst term concerns
the prediction errors computed on the data set used,
whereas the second term penalises larger models with
the same prediction errors. In case of two models having
the same number of model parameters, the selection is
based only on the prediction errors. It can also be seen
from the above equations that the BIC penalises com-
plex models more than the AIC and FPE. The eect of
using the aforementioned selection criteria on the per-
formance of neurofuzzy networks will be investigated
later in this paper.
3. Development of neurofuzzy models
It is generally accepted that ve parameters have the
most signicant impact on the settlement of shallow
foundations on granular soils [4,17]. These include the
footing width (B), footing net applied pressure (q), soil
compressibility (or density) which can be represented by
the average blow count (N) obtained from the standard
penetration test (SPT) over the depth of inuence of the
foundation, footing geometry
 L=B and footing
embedment ratio Df =B . The data used to calibrate and
validate B-spline neurofuzzy networks in this research
were collated from the literature and comprise a total of
189 individual cases that include eld measurements
of shallow foundations, as well as the corresponding
information regarding footings and soils. Of the 189
data cases, 125 cases were reported by Burland and
Burbidge [17], 22 cases by Burbidge [18], ve cases by
Bazaraa [19] and 30 cases by Wahls [20]. Another four
cases were given by Briaud and Gibbens [21], one case
by Picornell and Del Monte [22] and two cases by
Maugeri et al. [23]. The statistical properties of the data
used are summarised in Table 1 and their histograms
are shown in Fig. 4.
It should be noted that, as recommended by Burland
have not been corrected for overburden pressure nor
submergence. However, for very ne and silty sand
below the water table, the submergence correction pro-
posed by Terzaghi and Peck [24], when N > 15 is used,
as follows:
Ncorrected 15 0:5N  15 8
For gravel or sandy gravel, the correction proposed
by Burland and Burbidge [17] is used, as follows:
9
It should also be noted that the depth of inuence
over which N is measured is that proposed by Burland
and Burbidge [17], as follows. When N is decreasing
with depth, the depth of inuence is taken to be equal to
the lesser of 2B or the depth from the bottom of the
footing to bedrock. On the other hand, when N is con-
stant or increasing with depth, the depth of inuence is
taken to be equal to B0.75. Circular footings are also
considered to be equivalent to square footings
L=B 1, as it was found by Burbidge [18] that there is
 M.A. Shahin et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 637647 641

Table 1
Statistical properties of the available data

Model variable Minimum value Maximum value Mean Standard deviation

Footing width, B (m) 0.8 60.0 8.8 10.2

Net applied pressure, q (kPa) 18.3 697.0 187.1 123.3
Average SPT blow count, N 4.0 60.0 24.6 13.5
Footing geometry, L=B 1.0 10.5 2.2 1.8
Footing embedment, Df =B 0.0 3.4 0.53 0.58
Measured settlement, Sm (mm) 0.6 121.0 20.4 26.6

Fig. 4. Histograms of the data used for the neurofuzzy models.

no signicant dierence between the settlement of cir-
cular or square footings having the same width (B) on
the same soil.
The B-spline neurofuzzy network trained with the
adaptive spline modelling of observation data
(ASMOD) algorithm, described in Section 2, is imple-
mented using the personal computer-based commercial
software Neuframe Version 4.0 [25]. The factors aect-
ing settlement [i.e. footing width (B), footing net applied
pressure (q), average SPT blow count (N), footing
  geo-
metry (L/B) and footing embedment ratio Df =B ] are
presented to the neurofuzzy model as potential model
input variables. The measured value of settlement (Sm)
is the single output variable. It should be noted that, as
mentioned earlier, the ASMOD algorithm auto-
matically optimises model architecture and selects the
input variables that have the most signicant impact on
model output. It should also be noted that, as mentioned
642 M.A. Shahin et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 637647
Table 2
Summary of the neurofuzzy models developed
Model No. Stopping No. of signicant
criteria inputs
1 BIC 3 B, q, N
2 AIC 3 B, q, N
3 FPE 3 B, q, N
Table 3
Performance of the neurofuzzy models developed
Model No. Performance measures
Correlation coecient, r
Training Validation
1 0.889 0.881
2 0.879 0.863
3 0.910 0.875
previously, the ASMOD algorithm uses stopping cri-
teria [e.g. Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC),
Akaikes Information Criterion (AIC) and Final Pre-
diction Error (FPE)] that require the data to be divided
into two sets; a training set to build the model and an
independent validation set to test the predictive ability
of the model in real-world situations. In total, 80% of
the data (i.e. 152 case records) are used for training and
20% (i.e. 37) are used for validation. In this research,
the available data are randomly divided into training
and validation sets in such a way that they are repre-
sentative of the same statistical population [26]. In
order to achieve this in the present study, several ran-
dom combinations of the training and validation sets
are tried until two statistically consistent data sets are
obtained. The statistical parameters considered include
the mean, standard deviation, maximum, minimum and
range. A detailed discussion regarding data division for
ANN models is beyond the scope of this paper and can
be found in Shahin et al. [27]. Once training has been
successfully accomplished, the performance of the
model is tested on the validation data set using three
dierent measures, including the coecient of corre-
lation (r); the root mean square error (RMSE) and the
mean absolute error (MAE).
4. Results and discussion
A summary of the structure of the neurofuzzy models
developed in this work, and the number of fuzzy rules
produced for each model, is given in Table 2. The per-
formance of the models obtained is given in Table 3. It
should be noted that the models obtained are developed
using the same procedures described in Section 3, except
Signicant No. of connection No. of fuzzy
inputs weights rules extracted
8 10
7 8
8 16
RMSE (mm) MAE (mm)
Training Validation Training Validation
12.33 12.36 8.08 9.36
12.82 13.37 8.29 10.10
11.16 13.00 6.82 9.49
that the models are trained using dierent stopping
criteria (i.e. BIC, AIC and FPE). It can be seen from
Table 2 that all models select only three input variables
(i.e. B, q and N) as the most signicant inputs, whereas
the footing
  geometry L=B and footing embedment
ratio Df =B are not selected in any model. This is in
agreement with the results of the sensitivity analysis
carried out by Shahin et al. [4] on a multi-layer percep-
trons (MLPs) model. The sensitivity analysis by Shahin
et al. [4] indicated that B, q and N have the most sig-
nicant impact on settlement, Df =B has a moderate
impact on settlement and L=B has the smallest impact
on settlement. The neurofuzzy models obtained in the
present work are compared in terms of prediction accu-
racy, model parsimony and model transparency and the
optimum model is described in more detail in Section 5.
The following conclusions can be drawn:
 In terms of prediction accuracy, all models are
comparable, although Model 1 performs slightly
better than the other models with respect to the
validation set (Table 3).
 In terms of model parsimony, all models are
comparable, even though Model 2 is found to be
slightly more parsimonious than the other mod-
els, as it has the lowest number of connection
weights (Table 2).
 In terms of model transparency, Models 1 and 2
are comparable, even though Model 2 is found to
be more transparent, as it describes the rela-
tionship between model inputs and outputs using
a smaller number of fuzzy rules (Table 2). On the
other hand, Model 3 is found to be the worst
model in terms of transparency as it has the
highest number of fuzzy rules (Table 2), which is
 M.A. Shahin et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 637647
almost twice that obtained for Models 1 and 2.
This is probably because the FPE stopping
criterion does not penalise larger models as much
as the BIC and AIC.
It can be seen from Tables 2 and 3 that Model 1 is
able to strike a balance between model accuracy, parsi-
mony and transparency. In terms of model accuracy,
the performance of Model 1 is slightly better than the
other models with respect to the validation set (Table 3).
In terms of model parsimony and transparency, Model
1 has as the same number of input variables as Models 2
and 3, combined with a number of connection weights
and fuzzy rules that are approximately equal to the
average of those obtained for Models 2 and 3 (Table 2).
The results in Table 3 also show that the predictive
ability of Model 1 on the validation set is generally
consistent with that of the training set, indicating that
the model is able to generalise within the range of the
data used for training. Overall, Model 1 can be con-
sidered to be optimal.
Fig. 5. Schematic representation of the neurofuzzy model.
Fig. 6. Membership functions of input variables used by the neurofuzzy model.
643
5. Description of the optimum neurofuzzy model
A schematic view of the optimum neurofuzzy model
(i.e. Model 1) is given in Fig. 5. It can be seen that, as
mentioned previously, the model uses only 3 input vari-
ables (i.e. B, q and N) as the most signicant inputs. It
can also be seen that the model has one 1D and one 2D
subnetwork. In each of the subnetworks obtained, tri-
angular membership functions of order 2 are used, as
mentioned previously, for all input variables, as shown
in Fig. 6. It can be seen from this gure that the mem-
bership functions of B, q and Sm are presented over a
two-valued linguistic universe (i.e. small and large for B,
light and heavy for q, and low and high for Sm). On the
other hand, the membership functions of the soil den-
sity, which is represented herein by the average SPT
blow count, N, is presented over a four-valued linguistic
universe (i.e. loose, medium, dense and very dense). As
a result, the rst subnetwork contains 8 rules while the
second subnetwork contains 2 rules, resulting in a
model with 10 fuzzy rules, as listed in Table 4. It should
be noted that the number between brackets in Table 4
represents the rule condence, which, as mentioned
previously, indicates the condence level that is given to
a certain fuzzy rule.
The fuzzy rules in Table 4 are considered to be a
valuable source of information from which knowledge
about the relationships between settlement and the fac-
tors aecting settlement can be extracted. It should be
noted that the range of applicability of the fuzzy rules in
Table 4 is a function of the quality of the data used
in the model calibration phase. Consequently, it is unli-
kely that these fuzzy rules provide a general representa-
tion of the relationship between settlement and the
644 M.A. Shahin et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 637647

Table 4
Fuzzy rules extracted by the neurofuzzy model

Subnetwork No. Rule No. Rule

1 1 IF Footing width, B is Small AND Soil is Loose

THEN Settlement, Sm is Low (0.84) OR Settlement, Sm is High (0.16)
2 IF Footing width, B is Large AND Soil is Loose
THEN Settlement, Sm is High (1.00)
3 IF Footing width, B is Small AND Soil is Medium density
THEN Settlement, Sm is Low (0.99) OR Settlement, Sm is High (0.01)
4 IF Footing width, B is Large AND Soil is Medium density
THEN Settlement, Sm is Low (0.44) OR Settlement, Sm is High (0.56)
5 IF Footing width, B is Small AND Soil is Dense
THEN Settlement, Sm is Low (0.96) OR Settlement, Sm is High (0.04)
6 IF Footing width, B is Large AND Soil is Dense
THEN Settlement, Sm is Low (0.86) OR Settlement, Sm is High (0.14)
7 IF Footing width, B is Small AND Soil is Very dense
THEN Settlement, Sm is Low (1.00)
8 IF Footing width, B is Large AND Soil is Very dense
THEN Settlement, Sm is Low (0.87) OR Settlement, Sm is High (0.13)
2 9 IF Footing net applied pressure, q is Light
THEN Settlement, Sm is Low (0.96) OR Settlement, Sm is High (0.04)
10 IF Footing net applied pressure, q is Heavy
THEN Settlement, Sm is Low (0.87) OR Settlement, Sm is High (0.13)

footings contained in the database used were designed

factors aecting it. It can be seen from Table 4 that
some of the fuzzy rules obtained are in agreement with
what one would expect based on the underlying physical
meaning of the settlement problem. On the other hand,
some of the fuzzy rules obtained seem to contradict
existing physical knowledge.
The knowledge that can be derived from Table 4 that
is in agreement with existing physical knowledge is as
follows:
 Small footings are most likely to result in low
settlement regardless of the density of the soil
they are founded on (Rules 1, 3, 5 and 7);
 Large footings are most likely to be susceptible to
high settlement when they are founded on loose
soils (Rule 2), and they are most likely to result in
low settlement when they are founded on dense or
very dense soils (Rules 6 and 8); and
 Large footings are equally likely to be susceptible
to either low or high settlement when they are
founded on soils of medium density (Rule 4).
The above results indicate that neurofuzzy networks
have the ability to extract rules from data that make
physical sense, which may be used to gain under-
standing in situations where data are available, but
physical relationships are not well understood.
It can also be seen from Table 4 that Rules 9 and 10
seem to contradict with what one would expect based
on the underlying physical meaning of the settlement
problem. Rules 9 and 10 indicate that settlement is most
likely to be low regardless of whether the applied load is
light or heavy. The most likely reason for this is that the
so that the applied load does not result in high settle-
ment or bearing capacity failure. Another reason is that
there were insucient training data to cover the full
range of possible high settlement conditions. A review
of the data used indicates that almost 90% of the data
records have settlement that may be considered to be
low, as categorised by the settlement membership func-
tions of the neurofuzzy model. In order to calibrate
models to cater for extreme settlement situations, data
on footings that produce excessive settlements need to
be included in the model.
One advantage of neurofuzzy networks is that existing
engineering knowledge can be incorporated into the
trained network to optimise model performance and to
enhance the interpretation of a constructed model. In
this work, this is done by optimising the membership
functions of B and N so as to include available geo-
technical engineering knowledge. The membership
functions of B are optimised to be presented over a
three-valued linguistic universe (i.e. small, medium
and large) so that small footings are limited to footings
of maximum width of 5 m (see Fig. 7). The denition of
footing width using the three-valued linguistic universe
shown in Fig. 7 is considered to be more rational than
that of the two-valued linguistic universe given by
Model 1 based on the available data. This is because it
does not make sense, from a geotechnical engineering
point of view, that small footings can include widths up
to 60.0 m, as dened by Model 1 and shown in Fig. 6.
On the other hand, the membership functions of N are
optimised to be presented over a four-valued linguistic
universe (i.e. loose, medium, dense and very dense) so
that the classication of soil density given by Terzaghi
 M.A. Shahin et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 637647 645

Fig. 7. Optimised membership functions of the neurofuzzy model.

and Peck [24] can be incorporated, as shown in Fig. 7 carrying out this procedure, Model 1 is retrained. The
and given in Table 5. It should be noted that the most performance of the optimised model is given in Table 6
probable values of N that are incorporated in the mem- together with the performance of Model 1. The fuzzy
bership functions for medium and dense soils are taken rules of the optimised neurofuzzy model are listed in
to be equal to the average of the range given by Terza- Table 7. It should be noted that this model again has
ghi and Peck [24]. On the other hand, the most probable three inputs (i.e. B, q and N) and the number of con-
values of N that are incorporated in the membership nection weights is equal to 9.
functions for loose and very dense soils are taken to be It can be seen from Table 6 that the performance of
equal to the minimum and maximum values of N, the optimised neurofuzzy model is slightly better than
respectively, that are found in the database used. By that of the model developed previously (i.e. Model 1),
with respect to the training and validation sets. The
predictive ability of this model is found to be similar to
Table 5
that of the MLP model developed by Shahin et al. [4],
Optimisation of membership functions of N to incorporate the classi-
cation of soil density of Terzaghi and Peck [24] which was found to outperform the most commonly
used traditional methods examined [4]. These results
Terzaghi and Peck [24] Most probable value of N indicate that neurofuzzy networks have the ability to
incorporated in the
membership functions of
predict well the settlement of shallow foundations on
the neurofuzzy model granular soils. It can be seen from Table 7 that the
Soil density Possible model has 14 fuzzy rules. As with Model 1, some of
values of N the fuzzy rules obtained from the optimised model are
Loose <10 4 in agreement with existing physical knowledge of the
Medium 1030 20 settlement problem, while others seem to contradict this
Dense 3050 40 existing knowledge. The knowledge that can be extrac-
Very dense >50 60 ted from the optimised model and make physical sense
is as follows (Table 7):

Table 6
Performance of model 1 and optimised neurofuzzy model

Model No. Performance measure

Correlation coecient., r RMSE (mm) MAE (mm)

Training Validation Training Validation Training Validation

1 0.889 0.881 12.33 12.36 8.08 9.36

Optimised 0.893 0.892 12.11 11.74 7.87 8.93
646 M.A. Shahin et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 637647

Table 7
Fuzzy rules extracted by the optimised neurofuzzy model

Subnetwork No. Rule No. Rule

1 1 IF Footing width, B is Small AND Soil is Loose

THEN Settlement, Sm is Low (0.86) OR Settlement, Sm is High (0.14)
2 IF Footing width, B is Medium AND Soil is Loose
THEN Settlement, Sm is Low (0.64) OR Settlement, Sm is High (0.36)
3 IF Footing width, B is Large AND Soil is Loose
THEN Settlement, Sm is High (1.00)
4 IF Footing width, B is Small AND Soil is Medium density
THEN Settlement, Sm is Low (0.91) OR Settlement, Sm is High (0.09)
5 IF Footing width, B is Medium AND Soil is Medium density
THEN Settlement, Sm is Low (0.90) OR Settlement, Sm is High (0.10)
6 IF Footing width, B is Large AND Soil is Medium density
THEN Settlement, Sm is Low (0.46) OR Settlement, Sm is High (0.54)
7 IF Footing width, B is Small AND Soil is Dense
THEN Settlement, Sm is Low (0.94) OR Settlement, Sm is High (0.06)
8 IF Footing width, B is Medium AND Soil is Dense
THEN Settlement, Sm is Low (0.89) OR Settlement, Sm is High (0.11)
9 IF Footing width, B is Large AND Soil is Dense
THEN Settlement, Sm is Low (0.84) OR Settlement, Sm is High (0.16)
10 IF Footing width, B is Small AND Soil is Very Dense
THEN Settlement, Sm is Low (1.00)
11 IF Footing width, B is Medium AND Soil is Very Dense
THEN Settlement, Sm is Low (0.90) OR Settlement, Sm is High (0.10)
12 IF Footing width, B is Large AND Soil is Very Dense
THEN Settlement, Sm is Low (0.81) OR Settlement, Sm is High (0.19)
2 13 IF Footing net applied pressure, q is Light
THEN Settlement, Sm is Low (0.89) OR Settlement, Sm is High (0.11)
14 IF Footing net applied pressure, q is Heavy
THEN Settlement, Sm is Low (0.78) OR Settlement, Sm is High (0.22)

 Small footings are most likely to result in low
settlement regardless of the density of the soil
they are founded on (Rules 1, 4, 7 and 10);
 Medium size footings are approximately equally
likely to be susceptible to either low or high set-
tlement when they are founded on loose soils
(Rule 2), and they are most likely to result in low
settlement when they are founded on medium,
dense or very dense soils (Rules 5, 8 and 11);
 Large footings are most likely to be susceptible to
high settlement when they are founded on loose
soils (Rule 3), and they are most likely to result in
low settlement when they are founded on dense or
very dense soils (Rules 9 and 12); and
 Large footings are equally likely to be susceptible
to either low or high settlement when they are
founded on soils of medium density (Rule 6).
It should be noted that, in general, the knowledge
acquired from the above fuzzy rules is in agreement with
the knowledge obtained previously from model 1
(Table 4). However, the fuzzy rules in Table 7 describe
the relationship between settlement and the factors
aecting settlement in a more rational fashion. The
above results suggest that it is benecial to add available
expertise to neurofuzzy models, as it can improve model
performance and enhance the interpretation of the
constructed models. Also, Rules 13 and 14 again indi-
cate that settlement is most likely to be low regardless of
whether the applied load is light or heavy, which con-
tradicts what one would expect. As mentioned pre-
viously, the most likely reason for this is that the
footings contained in the data set were designed so that
the applied load does not result in high settlement and
that there were insucient training data to cover the full
range of possible high settlement conditions.
6. Summary and conclusions
B-spline neurofuzzy networks trained with the
ASMOD algorithm were used to assess the feasibility of
neurofuzzy models for predicting the settlement of
shallow foundations on granular soils and to investigate
the impact of incorporating engineering knowledge on
neurofuzzy model performance and interpretation. The
sensitivity of the B-spline neurofuzzy models to a num-
ber of stopping criteria [i.e. Bayesian Information Cri-
terion (BIC), Akaikes Information Criterion (AIC) and
Final Prediction Error (FPE)], was also investigated.
The models were compared in terms of prediction accu-
racy, model parsimony and model transparency. Five
potential input variables (i.e. B, q, N, L=B and Df =B)
were presented to the neurofuzzy models and settlement
 M.A. Shahin et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 637647
was the single output. This paper has yielded the fol-
lowing results and conclusions:
1. Neurofuzzy models have the ability to predict
well the settlement of shallow foundations on
granular soils and are able to extract rules from
the data that make physical sense, which may be
used to gain a better understanding in situations
where data are available but physical relation-
ships are not well understood. In addition, neu-
rofuzzy networks can be modied by
incorporating available engineering knowledge to
improve model performance and enhance the
interpretation of the constructed model.
2. The footing width (B), footing net applied pres-
sure (q) and average SPT blow count (N) were
found to be the most signicant factors aecting
settlement. This is in agreement with the results
of the sensitivity analysis carried out by Shahin et
al. [4] on a multi-layer perceptron model.
3. All neurofuzzy models were found to be com-
parable in terms of prediction accuracy, even
though the model that uses the BIC stopping
criterion was found to perform marginally better
than the other models on an independent valid-
ation set.
4. All neurofuzzy models were found to be com-
parable in terms of model parsimony, even
though the model that uses the AIC stopping
criterion was found to be slightly more parsi-
monious than the other models, as it has the
lowest number of connection weights.
5. The neurofuzzy models that use the BIC and AIC
stopping criteria were found to be more trans-
parent than the model that uses the FPE stopping
criterion, as they have fewer fuzzy rules. This was
attributed to the fact that the BIC and AIC
penalise complex models more.
6. Neurofuzzy model that uses the BIC stopping
criterion was found to be able to strike a balance
between model accuracy, parsimony and trans-
parency and consequently, was considered to be
optimal.
References
[1] Poulos HG. Common procedures for foundation settlement ana-
lysisare they adequate? In: Proc. 8th Australia New Zealand
Conf. on Geomechanics, Hobart, 1999. p. 325.
[2] Fausett LV. Fundamentals neural networks: architecture, algo-
rithms, and applications. Englewood Clis (NJ): Prentice-Hall;
1994.
[3] Zurada JM. Introduction to articial neural systems. St. Paul:
West Publishing Company; 1992.
647
[4] Shahin MA, Maier HR, Jaksa MB. Predicting settlement of
shallow foundations using neural networks. J Geotech Geoenv
Eng 2002;128(9):78593.
[5] Altrock CV. Fuzzy logic and neurofuzzy applications explained.
Englewood Clis (NJ): Prentice-Hall; 1995.
[6] Brown M, Harris CJ. A perspective and critique of adaptive
neurofuzzy systems used for modelling and control applications.
Int J Neural Systems 1995;6(2):197220.
[7] Brown M, Harris CJ. Neurofuzzy adaptive modelling and con-
trol. Englewood Clis (NJ): Prentice-Hall; 1994.
[8] Sayed T, Razavi A. Comparison of neural and conventional
approaches to mode choice analysis. J Computing Civil Eng
2000;14(1):2330.
[9] Ni SH, Lu PC, Juang CH. A fuzzy neural network approach to
evaluation of slope failure potential. J Microcomputers Civil Eng
1996;11:5966.
[10] Shahin MA, Jaksa MB, Maier HR. Neurofuzzy networks applied
to settlement of shallow foundations on granular soils. In: 9th int.
conf. on applications of statistics and probability in civil eng.,
ICASP9, San Francisco. Rotterdam: Millpress; 2003. p. 137983.
[11] Harris C, Brown M, Gunn S. Neurofuzzy systems modelling: a
transparent approach. In: Karny M, Warwick K, Kurkova V,
editors. Dealing with complexity: a neural networks approach.
Springer-Verlag; 1998. p. 11025.
[12] Kavli T. ASMODan algorithm for adaptive spline modelling of
observation data. Int J Control 1993;58(4):94767.
[13] Jang J. ANFIS: adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference system.
IEEE Trans Sys, Man and Cybernetics 1993;23:66585.
[14] Nelles O, Sinsel S, Isermann R. Local basis function networks for
identication of a turbocharger. IEE UKACC Control96, UK
1996. p. 712.
[15] Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 1965;8:33853.
[16] Maier HR, Sayed T, Lence BJ. Forecasting cyanobacterium
Anabaena spp. in River Murray, South Australia, using B-spline
neurofuzzy models. Ecological Modelling 2001;146:8596.
[17] Burland JB, Burbidge MC. Settlement of foundations on sand
and gravel. Proc Institution of Civil Engineers, London 1985:
132581.
[18] Burbidge MC. A case study review of settlements on granular
soil. MSc thesis, Imperial College of Science and Technology,
University of London, London; 1982.
[19] Bazaraa ARSS. Use of the standard penetration test for estimat-
ing settlements of shallow foundations on sand. PhD thesis,
University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois; 1967.
[20] Wahls HE. Settlement analysis for shallow foundations on sand.
In: Proc. 3rd int. geotech. eng. conf., Cairo, Egypt; 1997. p. 728.
[21] Briaud JL, Gibbens R. Behaviour of ve large spread footings in
sand. J Geotech Geoenv Eng 1999;125(9):78796.
[22] Picornell M, Del Monte E. Prediction of settlement of cohesive
granular soils. In: Proc. measured performance of shallow found,
Nashville, Tennessee; 1988. p. 5572.
[23] Maugeri M, Castelli F, Massimino MR, Verona G. Observed and
computed settlements of two shallow foundations on sand. J
Geotech Geoenv Eng 1998;124(7):595605.
[24] Terzaghi K, Peck RB. Soil mechanics in engineering practice.
New York: John Wiley; 1948.
[25] Neusciences. Neuframe Version 4.0. Southampton, Hampshire:
Neusciences Corp., 2000.
[26] Masters T. Practical neural network recipes in C++. San Diego
(CA): Academic Press; 1993.
[27] Shahin MA, Maier HR, Jaksa MB. Data division for developing
neural networks applied to geotechnical engineering. J Comput-
ing Civil Eng ASCE, [in press].