Engineering with Computers

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 191–199 | Cite as

Evaluating unconfined compressive strength of cohesive soils stabilized with geopolymer: a computational intelligence approach

  • Hamed JavdanianEmail author
  • Saro Lee
Original Article


Soil stabilization using geopolymers is a new technique for improvement of weak cohesive soils. Evaluating behavior of improved soils requires an initial estimation of strength parameters. In this study, extensive experimental results on geopolymer-stabilized soil specimens were collected and analyzed. A model was then developed using group method of data handling (GMDH) and employing particle-swarm optimization algorithm to estimate the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of stabilized cohesive soils using geopolymers. Type of additives and their compositions as well as soil characteristics were taken as the influential parameters on the UCS of soil specimens. Subsequently, sensitivity analysis was carried out to verify the performance of the proposed UCS model. Finally, the developed GMDH-based model was compared with artificial neural network model to predict unconfined compressive strength of stabilized soils. The results clearly illustrate the reasonable accuracy of the developed computational Intelligence-based model for estimating the unconfined compressive strength of geopolymer-stabilized cohesive soils.


Soil stabilization Cohesive soil Geopolymer Unconfined compressive strength Computational intelligence 



This research was supported by the Basic Research Project of the Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM) funded by the Minister of Science, ICT and Future Planning of Korea. The support of the research deputy of Shahrekord University (grant number 95GRN1M39422) is also acknowledged.


  1. 1.
    Javdanian H, Haddad A, Mehrzad B (2012) Interference effect on bearing capacity of multiple shallow foundations supported by geosynthetic-reinforced sand. In: 5th Asian Regional Conference on Geosynthetics, 13 December, Bangkok, ThailandGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marandi SM, Javdanian H (2012) Laboratory studies on bearing capacity of strip interfering shallow foundations supported by geogrid-reinforced sand. Adv Mater Res 472:1856–1869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Latifi N, Horpibulsuk S, Meehan CL, Abd Majid MZ, Tahir MM, Mohamad ET (2016) Improvement of problematic soils with biopolymer—an environmentally friendly soil stabilizer. J Mater Civ Eng 29(2):04016204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Javdanian H, Haddad A, Mehrzad B (2012) Experimental and numerical investigation of the bearing capacity of adjacent footings on reinforced soil. Electron J Geotech Eng 17(R):2597–2617Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Javdanian H, Hamedi A, Ayoubi H (2012) Interference effect on bearing capacity of shallow foundations constructed on geosynthetic-reinforced soil. In: 9th International Congress on Civil Engineering, 8 May, IsfahanGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Javdanian H (2017) On the behaviour of shallow foundations constructed on reinforced soil slope-a numerical analysis. Int J Geotech Eng. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sukmak P, De Silva P, Horpibulsuk S, Chindaprasirt P (2014) Sulfate resistance of clay-portland cement and clay high-calcium fly ash geopolymer. J Mater Civ Eng 27(5):04014158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arulrajah A, Kua TA, Phetchuay C, Horpibulsuk S, Mahghoolpilehrood F, Disfani MM (2015) Spent coffee grounds–fly ash geopolymer used as an embankment structural fill material. J Mater Civ Eng 28(5):04015197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Javdanian H (2017) The effect of geopolymerization on the unconfined compressive strength of stabilized fine-grained soils. Int J Eng Trans B Appl 30(11):1673–1680Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mozumder RA, Laskar AI (2015) Prediction of unconfined compressive strength of geopolymer stabilized clayey soil using artificial neural network. Comput Geotech 69:291–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Santoni RL, Tingle JS, Webster SL (2003) Stabilization of silty sand with non-traditional additives, transportation research record 1787. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp 33–41Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Verdolotti L, Iannance S, Lavorgna M, Lumanaa R (2008) Geopolymerization reaction to consolidate incoherent pozzolanic soil. J Mater Sci 43:865–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cristelo N, Glendinning S, Farnandes L, Pinto AT (2011) Effect of calcium content on soil stabilization with alkaline activation. Construct Build Mater 29:167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cristelo N, Glendinning S, Pinto AT (2012) Deep soft soil improvement by alkaline activation. Proc Inst Civ Eng Ground Improve 164(2):73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Phetchuay C, Horpibulsuk S, Suksiripattanapong C, Chinkulkijniwat A, Arulrajah A, Disfani MM (2014) Calcium carbide residue: alkaline activator for clay–fly ash geopolymer. Construct Build Mater 69:285–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang M, Guo H, El-Korchi T, Zhang G, Tao M (2013) Experimental feasibility study of geopolymer as the next-generation soil stabilizer. Construct Build Mater 47:1468–1478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yaolin Y, Cheng L, Songyu L (2014) Alkali-activated ground-granulated blast furnace slag for stabilization of marine soft clay. J Mater Civ Eng. Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jafarian Y, Haddad A, Javdanian H (2014) Predictive model for normalized shear modulus of cohesive soils. Acta Geodyn Geomater 11(1):89–100Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Javdanian H, Haddad A, Jafarian A (2015) Evaluation of dynamic behavior of fine-grained soils using group method of data handling. Transp Infrastruct Eng 1(3):77–92Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Javdanian H, Jafarian Y, Haddad A (2015) Predicting damping ratio of fine grained soils using soft computing methodology. Arab J Geosci 8(6):3959–3969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Javdanian H (2017) Assessment of shear stiffness ratio of cohesionless soils using neural modeling. Model Earth Syst Environ 3(3):1045–1053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sharma LK, Singh R, Umrao RK, Sharma KM, Singh TN (2017) Evaluating the modulus of elasticity of soil using soft computing system. Eng Comput 33(3):497–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Alavi AH, Gandomi AH, Sahab MG, Gandomi M (2010) Multi expression programming: a new approach to formulation of soil classification. Eng Comput 26(2):111–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Khandelwal M, Kumar DL, Yellishetty M (2011) Application of soft computing to predict blast-induced ground vibration. Eng Comput 27(2):117–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hasanipanah M, Naderi R, Kashir J, Noorani SA, Qaleh AZA (2017) Prediction of blast-produced ground vibration using particle swarm optimization. Eng Comput 33(2):173–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Baziar MH, Jafarian Y (2007) Assessment of liquefaction triggering using strain energy concept and ANN model: capacity energy. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27(12):1056–1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Javdanian H (2017) Evaluation of soil liquefaction potential using energy approach: experimental and statistical investigation. Bull Eng Geol Environ. Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Javdanian H, Heidari A, Kamgar R (2017) Energy-based estimation of soil liquefaction potential using GMDH algorithm. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng 41(3):283–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pradhan B, Lee S (2010) Delineation of landslide hazard areas on Penang Island, Malaysia, by using frequency ratio, logistic regression, and artificial neural network models. Environ Earth Sci 60(5):1037–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pradhan B, Lee S (2010) Landslide susceptibility assessment and factor effect analysis: backpropagation artificial neural networks and their comparison with frequency ratio and bivariate logistic regression modelling. Environ Model Softw 25(6):747–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lee S, Ryu JH, Min K, Won JS (2003) Landslide susceptibility analysis using GIS and artificial neural network. Earth Surf Proc Land 28(12):1361–1376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lee S, Ryu JH, Won JS, Park HJ (2004) Determination and application of the weights for landslide susceptibility mapping using an artificial neural network. Eng Geol 71(3):289–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lee S, Ryu JH, Kim IS (2007) Landslide susceptibility analysis and its verification using likelihood ratio, logistic regression, and artificial neural network models: case study of Youngin. Korea Landslides 4(4):327–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lee S, Hong SM, Jung HS (2017) A support vector machine for landslide susceptibility mapping in Gangwon Province, Korea. Sustainability 9(1):48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gordan B, Armaghani DJ, Hajihassani M, Monjezi M (2016) Prediction of seismic slope stability through combination of particle swarm optimization and neural network. Eng Comput 32(1):85–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Armaghani DJ, Mohamad ET, Hajihassani M, Yagiz S, Motaghedi H (2016) Application of several non-linear prediction tools for estimating uniaxial compressive strength of granitic rocks and comparison of their performances. Eng Comput 32(2):189–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mousavi SM, Alavi AH, Mollahasani A, Gandomi AH, Esmaeili MA (2013) Formulation of soil angle of shearing resistance using a hybrid GP and OLS method. Eng Comput 29(1):37–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Soleimani S, Jiao P, Rajaei S, Forsati R (2017) A new approach for prediction of collapse settlement of sandy gravel soils. Eng Comput. Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sharma LK, Singh TN (2017) Regression-based models for the prediction of unconfined compressive strength of artificially structured soil. Eng Comput. Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    IS: 2720 (1991). Determination of unconfined compressive strength. (Part 10) Second RevisionGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Masters T (1993) Practical neural network recipes in C++. Academic press, San DiegozbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Najafzadeh M, Azamathulla HM (2013) Neuro-fuzzy GMDH systems to predict the scour pile groups due to waves. J Comput Civil Eng. 10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000376Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hwang HS (2006) Fuzzy GMDH-type neural network model and its application to forecasting of mobile communication. Comp Ind Eng 50:450–457MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Najafzadeh M, Lim SY (2014) Application of improved neuro-fuzzy GMDH to predict scour downstream of sluice gates. Earth Sci Inf 8(1):187–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Najafzadeh M, Barani GA, Azamathulla HM (2013) GMDH to prediction of scour depth around vertical piers in cohesive soils. Appl Ocean Res 40:35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Najafzadeh M, Barani GA, Hessami Kermani MR (2013) GMDH network based back propagation algorithm to predict abutment scour in cohesive soils. Ocean Eng 59:100–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Najafzadeh M (2014) Neuro-Fuzzy GMDH system based particle swarm optimization for prediction of scour depth at downstream of grade control structures. Eng Sci Technol Int J 18(1):42–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Schalkoff RJ (1997) Artificial neural networks. McGraw-Hill Higher Education New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringShahrekord UniversityShahrekordIran
  2. 2.Geological Research DivisionKorea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM)DaejeonSouth Korea
  3. 3.Korea University of Science and TechnologyDaejeonSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations