Geotech Geol Eng (2009) 27:281–288
DOI 10.1007/s10706-008-9228-x
ORIGINAL PAPER
Residual and Fully Softened Strength Evaluation of Soils
using Artificial Neural Networks
Abidin Kaya
Received: 13 March 2008 / Accepted: 14 May 2008 / Published online: 11 June 2008
Ó US Government 2008
Abstract A backpropagation artificial neural net-
work (ANN) model is developed to predict the secant
friction angle of residual and fully softened soils,
using data reported by Stark et al. (J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng ASCE 131:575–588, 2005). In the
ANN model, index properties such as liquid limit,
plastic limit, activity, clay fraction and effective
normal stress are used as input variables while secant
residual friction angle is used as output variable. The
model is verified using data that were not used for
model training and testing. The results also indicate
that the secant residual friction angle of cohesive
soils can be predicted quite accurately using liquid
limit, clay fraction and effective normal stress as
input variables with R2 = 0.93. The sensitivity anal-
ysis results indicate that plastic limit and activity
have no appreciable effect on ANN predicted secant
friction angles. The secant friction angle predictions
of the ANN model were also compared with those
of Stark’s et al. (2005) curves and the empirical
formulas suggested for the same data sets by Wright
(Evaluation of soil shear strengths for slope and
retaining wall stability with emphasis on high plas-
ticity clays, 2005). The comparison shows that the
ANN model predictions are very close to those
suggested by the Stark et al. (2005) curves but much
A. Kaya (&)
Kaya and Associates, 3033 Woolsey Place, Honolulu,
HI 96822, USA
e-mail: abidinkaya@yahoo.com
better than the prediction of Wright’s (2005) empir-
ical equations. The results also show that ANN is an
alternative powerful tool to predict the secant friction
angle of soils.
Keywords ANN
Residual shear strength

Fully softened shear strength
Slope stability

Shale
Clay
Atterberg limits
Clay fraction

Normal effective stress
1 Introduction
The residual shear strength of cohesive soils has been
correlated with their index properties including liquid
limit (LL), plastic index (PI), and clay fraction (CF).
The primary reason for correlating the residual shear
strength of cohesive soils with these indices is that,
unlike peak shear strength, the soil structure has no
effect on the residual shear strength of soils. In this
respect, researchers produced charts correlating the
shear strength of cohesive soils with a soil index,
which is commonly used by engineers for preliminary
designs. For example, Skempton (1985) proposed a
chart correlating the residual friction angle of cohe-
sive soils to clay fraction based on the data published
by Lupini et al. (1981) and Kenney (1967).
Even though only a limited number of cohesive
soils was used in developing the aforementioned
charts, researchers and engineers attempted to define
the index properties that correlate best with shear
123
282
strength. As more data became available, the pro-
posed charts were refined and evolved. For example,
Mesri and Cepeda-Diaz (1986) published test results
of shales and overconsolidated clays to complement
Skempton’s data. The data provided by Mesri and
Cepeda-Diaz (1986) showed that Skempton’s clay
fraction chart was unable to predict the residual
friction angle of the newly tested data. Then Mesri
and Cepeda-Diaz (1986) proposed a chart relating the
residual friction angle of cohesive soils to their liquid
limit. Mesri and Cepeda-Diaz (1986) noted that no
meaningful correlation should be expected between
CF and the residual friction angle since CF refers to
particles less than 2 lm. In other words, CF does not
necessarily reflect the true composition of clay
minerals, especially when one considers that non-
clay particles can also have sizes smaller than 2 lm.
In contrast to Skempton (1985), they indicated that
clay mineralogy is reflected in LL, which provides a
better correlation with residual friction angle.
After noting that the residual shear strength of
cohesive soils is stress dependent, Stark and Eid
(1994) proposed a new chart correlating the secant
residual friction angle as a function of LL coupling
with CF and effective normal stress. Stark et al.
(2005) revised the original 1994 chart as more data
became available. Figure 1 shows Stark’s et al.
(2005) revised chart relating secant residual friction
angle with LL as a function of CF and normal
effective stress. They indicated that although clay
mineralogy manifested itself in LL, CF still remained
Fig. 1 The secant residual
friction angle relationship
with liquid limit, clay size
fraction and effective
normal stress (after Stark
et al. 2005)
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2009) 27:281–288
an important factor controlling shear stress. Stark and
Eid (1994) and Stark et al (2005) divided CF into
three major ranges: (i) CF C 20%, (ii) 25% B CF B
45%, and CF C 50%. Figure 1 shows that the secant
friction angle of soils decreases almost linearly up to
LL = 80%; then, the slope of the relation decreases
steeply reaching asymptotic values. In general, the
secant friction angle shows distinct differences for
each CF group at the same LL and with effective
normal stress. The data shows a large scattering up to
LL of 100%. Thus, it becomes problematic to
determine the secant friction angle of cohesive soils
with LL less than 100%, i.e. to choose the secant
friction of the tested soil or that of the suggested one
on the chart.
Similar to the secant residual friction angle of
cohesive soils, Stark et al. (2005) proposed the chart,
presented in Fig. 2, to estimate the secant friction
angle of fully softened cohesive soils, which is
necessary for evaluating the shear strength of first
time slides. This figure shows that secant friction
angle of fully softened cohesive soils decreases
almost linearly even though the slope decreases only
slightly after an LL of 100%. Note that both Figs. 1
and 2 indicate that the Mohr-failure envelope is non-
linear and the secant friction angle is dependent on
effective stress. Thus, when these charts are used to
estimate the shear strength of soils, the effective
stress on the failure plane must be known.
Wright (2005) re-evaluated the data provided by
Stark et al. (2005) for the secant friction angle of
Geotech Geol Eng (2009) 27:281–288 283

Fig. 2 The secant fully

softened angle relationships
with liquid limit, clay-size,
and effective normal stress
(after Stark et al. 2005)

residual and fully softened soils and proposed the Table 1 Compares the statistical significances for training,
following relationships. testing and validation for secant residual friction angle of soils
listed in Table 1 of Stark et al. (2005)
For the secant residual friction angle of soils with
CF C 50% and LL B 100%: Testing Training Validation

0 R2
rf 0.97 0.96 0.94
/0secant ¼ 52:5  21:3 log10 ðLLÞ  3 log10 ERMSE 1.56 2.1 1.7
pa
RMSPE 0.12 0.16 0.12
ð1Þ
MAPE 0.11 0.18 0.12
For fully softened soils with CF C 50%:

0
rf
/0secant   
¼ 55:3  16:7 log10 ðLLÞ  6 log10 Table 2 The statistical significance of sensitivity analysis
pa
Variables R2 RMSE RMSPE MAPE
ð2Þ
LL, PL, A, CF, r0v 0.95 1.7 0.13 0.11
where LL is liquid limit (%), CF is clay fraction
LL, CF, r0v 0.93 1.9 0.14 0.12
(%), r0f is effective normal stress on the failure plan,
LL, r0v 0.87 2.5 0.18 0.15
and pa is atmospheric pressure.
Note that the empirical equations proposed by
Wright (2005) for the secant residual and friction soils presented in Figs. 1 and 2. The original data sets
angle of fully softened cohesive soils have limited are listed in Tables 1 and 2 of Stark et al. (2005).
application since they only allow soils with CF C
50%. Recognizing the limitations of predictions using
empirical Eqs. 1 and 2, the need for alternative tools 2 Artificial Neural Networks (ANN)
to evaluate the shear strength data and to make
predictions for a full range of soils remains to be ANN is a powerful method employing adaptive
fulfilled. Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) is an learning techniques to detect and extract patterns
alternative tool that can be utilized for non-linear and trends that are too complex to be identified
soil behaviors. In this study, the ANN model was otherwise. In other words, artificial neural networks
developed to account for the influence of the effective can identify hidden patterns between input and output
normal stress as well as the soil index properties in variables in linear and non-linear forms, which makes
predicting the secant residual friction angle of the it superior to standard computational programs when a

123
284
relationship is not known. This is accomplished by
introducing a data set to ‘‘train’’ the neurons to
recognize the patterns and trends between input and
output. Thus, the structure of ANN consists of an
input layer, which accepts patterns from the input
variables, and an output layer, which shows the
response of the system to the input variables and
hidden layers relating the input variables to the output
via ‘‘neurons.’’ The hidden layers consist of input
weights, biases and transfer functions. Figure 3 shows
a general set up of an ANN model. In the figure, xi
represents input variables such as liquid limit, clay
fraction and effective normal stress, zi represents
neurons in hidden layers and y represents the output
variable (the estimate for the measured secant friction
angle). The neural network training process simply
modifies the weights until the predicted output is in
close agreement with the actual (observed) output. A
detailed description of ANN can be found in several
papers and books, including Zurada (1992).
The ANN model used in this study is based on the
Levenberg-Marquardt back-propagation algorithm.
A three-layer, feed-forward type of configuration
including an input layer and output layer was
developed. MATLAB’s Neural Network Toolbox
Fig. 3 Schematic
illustration of ANN model, x1
zi
where xi represents input
variables such as LL, PI,
and CF, zi represents hidden
layers and y represents x2
output variable
x3
x4
x5
x6
x7
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2009) 27:281–288
was used in developing the ANN model. A MATLAB
normalization function was used to normalize the
input and output values. The statistical analysis of the
model is determined by computing Root Mean
Square Error (RMSE), Root Mean Square Percentage
Error (RMSPE), and Mean Absolute Percentage Error
(MAPE). Definitions of these parameters are given in
Appendix A.
In the ANN model training process, the training
continued until the sum of squared errors and sum
weights in the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm reached
a steady level. After a steady level was reached, the
training stopped, and the model was tested with the
test set. After the model was established, its prediction
capabilities are evaluated by inputting a second dataset,
which is called the validation data set, and comparing
the model’s output with the measured friction angle.
For the developed ANN model, soil index input
variables were liquid limit, plastic limit, clay fraction,
and effective normal stress on the failure plane whereas
the secant residual friction angle was the output
variable. Each data set was divided into two subset
groups: testing and training, and validation. Three
quarters of the data for testing and training and one
quarter of the data for validating the ANN model were
z1
z2
z3
y
z4
z5
z6
Geotech Geol Eng (2009) 27:281–288 285

used. Two-thirds of the data set in testing-training was 35

Predicted Secant Residual Friction Angle (degree)

used for training, and one-third of the data for testing.
30
R2 = 0.93
1:1
25
3 Results
20
3.1 Secant Residual Angle of Soils
15

As a first approach, we used liquid limit, plastic limit,

10
activity, clay fraction and effective normal stress as
input variables, and secant residual friction angles as 5
the output variable. Figure 4 compares the measured
and predicted secant friction angle for the validation 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
data set. Table 1 compares the errors associated with Measured Secant Residual Friction Angle (degree)
training, testing and validation results. As noted in
Table 1, the coefficient of determination, R2, is signif- Fig. 5 Comparison of measured and ANN predicted secant
icantly high for all three. Furthermore, the computed residual friction angle when liquid limit, clay fraction and
effective normal stress are used as input variables
RMSE, RMSPE, and MAPE values are significant
for any statistical consideration. This is because when
the value of RMSE, RMSPE, and MAPE is close to residual friction angle of soils listed in Table 1 of
zero, and the value of R2 is close to 1.0. In other words, Stark et al. (2005). To do so, we decreased the
the results suggest that the developed ANN model is a number of variables and performed the ANN analy-
powerful alternative tool for predicting the secant sis. Table 2 tabulates the values obtained for R2,
residual friction angle of soils. This is especially true RMSE, RMSPE, and MAPE for each case. This table
when one considers that the coefficient of determina- reveals that when plastic limit and activity are
tion, R2, is 0.94 for the validation data set. omitted as variables, the coefficient of determination,
As indicated above, five variables, namely liquid R2, changes from 0.95 to 0.93, indicating that these
limit, plastic limit, activity, clay fraction and effec- index properties have little influence on the estima-
tive normal stress were used as input variables. We tion of secant residual friction angle (Figure 5). Thus,
performed sensitivity analyses to determine the effect as pointed out by Stark et al. (2005), determination of
of each variable on the ANN predicted secant plastic limit is not necessary for a reliable estimate of
the residual friction angle of cohesive soils.
35 Figure 6 shows the ANN predictions of secant
Predicted Secant Residual Friction Angle (degree)

friction angle using only liquid limit and effective

30 normal stress as input variables. Note that the coeffi-
1:1
cient of determination, R2, is 0.87, which is
25
significantly high considering the typical variations
of natural materials. Figure 6 suggests that when liquid
20
R2 = 0.95 limit is known, the shear strength of soils can be
15 predicted using the ANN model at any given effective
normal stress value and with reasonable confidence.
10 However, the determining clay fraction will signifi-
cantly enhance the predictions of secant residual
5 friction angle of soils.
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 3.2 Secant Friction Angle of Fully Softened Soils
Measured Secant Residual Friction Angle (degree)

Fig. 4 Comparison of ANN predictions for validation data set The procedure described above was used to estimate
for the residual friction angle of soils the secant friction angle of fully softened soils that

123
286 Geotech Geol Eng (2009) 27:281–288

35 35
Predicted Secant Residual Friction Angle (degree)

Predicted Secant Friction Angle (degree)

30 30
R2 = 0.87 1:1 R2 = 0.88

25 25

20 20

15 15

10 1:1
10

5
5

0
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Measured Secant Friction Angle (degree)
Measured Secant Residual Friction Angle (degree)

Fig. 8 Comparison of ANN predictions with measured secant

Fig. 6 Comparison of measured and ANN predicted secant
friction angles when liquid limit, clay fraction and effective
residual friction angle when liquid limit and effective normal
normal stress are used as input variables and the secant friction
stress are used as input variables
angles as output variable

were presented by Stark et al. (2005). Figure 7 shows

change for practical purposes, indicating that plastic
predictions of the ANN model using liquid limit,
limit and activity have almost no influence on the
plastic limit, clay fraction, activity and effective
secant friction angle of fully softened soils.
normal stress as input variables, and secant friction
angle as output variables. Note that the coefficient of
3.3 Comparison of ANN Estimates
determination is 0.82, which is slightly smaller
than that obtained for the secant residual friction of
3.3.1 Residual Shear Strength
cohesive soils. Figure 8 shows the predictions of the
ANN model when only liquid limit, clay fraction and
So far, it was demonstrated that ANN is a powerful
effective normal stress are used as input variables.
method to estimate the residual and friction angle of
Note that the coefficient of determination does not
fully softened soils using soil index properties as
variables. However, it is necessary to compare the
35
secant friction angles of the ANN model with those
Predicted Secant Friction Angle (degree)

30 R2 = 0.87 of Stark et al’s. (2005) curves and with those of

Wright’s (2005) empirical equations.
25 Figure 9 compares the ANN predictions with those
of Stark et al. (2005) curves when liquid limit, clay
20
fraction and effective stress are used as input
variables and secant residual friction angle is used
15
as output variable. Note that both estimates are very
10 1:1
close to each other, which is significant considering
that the Stark’s et al. (2005) curves are drawn using
5 some of the measured data points to pass the lines.
Thus, it can be seen that ANN is a powerful tool
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 for predicting the secant friction angle of soils when
Measured Secant Friction Angle (degree) both coefficients of determination are compared for
the ANN model predictions and those of Stark’s et al.
Fig. 7 Comparison of ANN prediction of the secant friction
(2005). Further, we compared the predictions of
angle of soils when liquid limit, plastic limit, clay fraction,
activity and effective normal stress were used as input Stark’s et al. curves (2005), ANN and Wright (2005)
variables and the secant friction angle as output variable for the soils with CF C 50% and LL B 100% via

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2009) 27:281–288 287

35 20
Predicted Secant Residual Friction Angle (degree)

Predicted Secant Residual Frictiion Angle (degree)

R2=0.93 for ANN Stark et. al (2005)'s curves
30
R2= 0.94 for Stark's suggested curves 1:1 ANN predictions
16
25 Wright (2005)

20 12

15

ANN 8
10
Stark et al (2005) curves
R2= 0.84 for Stark et al curves (2005)
5 4 R2=0.79 for ANN predictions

1:1 R2=0.46 for Wright (2005)

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0
Measured Secant Residual Friction Angle (degree)
0 4 8 12 16 20
Measured Secant Residual Friction Angle (degree)
Fig. 9 Compares the ANN prediction of the secant friction
angle with those of Stark et al. (2005) curves using liquid limit,
Fig. 10 Comparison of ANN predictions of the secant residual
clay fraction and effective normal stress as input variable
friction angle with those of Stark et al curves and with those of
empirical equations of Wright (2005)
Eq. 1. As seen in Fig. 10, Stark’s et al. (2005),
Wright (2005) and ANN slightly over-predict the
include the effective normal stress to predict residual
measured data. However, the results reveal that the
and fully softened soils using index properties. The
predictions made by the ANN model are better than
results indicate that ANN predictions using soil index
the predictions using Eq. 1 proposed by Wright
properties and effective normal stress are very
(2005) even though they were developed for limited
comparable with the measured secant residual and
and well defined soil conditions. Also, note that all
friction angle of cohesive soils. Results also show
prediction tools slightly overestimate the measured
that liquid limit, clay fraction and effective normal
secant residual friction angle.
stress are variables controlling the secant residual and
friction angle of cohesive soils, whereas plastic limit
3.4 Fully Softened Soils
and activity of soils has no appreciable affect on the
ANN predicted secant residual and friction angle of
Similar to secant residual friction angle comparisons,
fully softened soils.
we compared predictions of the secant friction angle
for fully softened soils produced by the ANN model 35
with those of Stark’s et al. (2005) curves and with Stark's et al (2005) curves
ANN
those obtained by the empirical formula proposed by 30
Wright (2005)
Linear (Stark's et al (2005) curves)
Predicted Sceant Friction Angle (degree)

Wright (2005) using liquid limit, clay fraction and Linear (ANN)
Linear (Wright (2005))
effective normal stress as input variables. Figure 11 25

reveals that both the ANN model and the Stark et al.
(2005) curves predict the measured data reasonably 20

well (R2 = 0.80). However, even though presented for

15
well- defined conditions, the prediction of the
empirical formula proposed by Wright (2005) is very 2
10 R =0.45 for Wright (2005)
weak and should be avoided for estimating shear 2
R =0.81 for ANN
strength of fully softened soils. 5
1:1 2
R =0.80 for Stark's et al (2005) curves

0
4 Summary and Conclusions 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Measured Sceant Friction Angle (degree)

In this study, a developed ANN model for predicting Fig. 11 Comparison of ANN predictions of the secant friction
the residual friction angle of soils was extended to angle with those of Stark et al. (2005) and Wright (2005)

123
288
These ANN predictions are further compared with
those of the Stark et al. (2005) curves and with those
of empirical formulas suggested by Wright (2005).
Comparison shows that the ANN predictions and
those of Stark et al. (2005) are very comparable with
almost the same coefficient of determination, which
is over 0.9 for the secant residual friction angle of
soils. However, the coefficient of determination
slightly weakens for prediction of fully softened soils
(R2 = 0.8). The empirical formulas, suggested by
Wright (2005) using the same original data set
provided by Stark et al. (2005), yields very poor
estimates of the secant residual and friction angle of
cohesive soils. Thus, caution should be exercised
when these empirical formulas are used.
Further, the results indicate that ANN is a
powerful tool for predicting the secant residual and
friction angle of soils using the index properties. The
success of the ANN prediction lies in its ability to
identify hidden patterns between input and output
variables in linear and non-linear forms. Once the
hidden patterns between input and output are recog-
nized or established, predictions with ANN become
straightforward, which is not the case with traditional
empirical relationships. However, one should be
careful with any direct application of the developed
ANN model since the accuracy of the ANN predic-
tions is valid within the trained and tested data range.
As is true for any model, the accuracy of the ANN
model will show variations with soils whose proper-
ties are outside those presented in Stark et al. (2005).
Appendix A: Definition of Statistical Parameters
The following error measuring parameters were used
in evaluating the performance of the developed ANN
model:
1X n
RMSE ¼ yi  x2i ðA1Þ
n i¼1
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2009) 27:281–288
1
P
n
n yi  x2i
i¼1
RMSPE ¼ ðA2Þ
y
1X n
yi  xi
MAPE ¼ ðA3Þ
n i¼1 xi
In the above equation, RMSE is Root Mean Square
Error, RMSPE is Root Mean Square Percentage
Error, and MAPE is Mean Absolute Percentage Error.
The parameters in the error functions, xi is measured
data, yi is ANN model prediction, n is number of data
points, x is mean value of measured data, and y is the
mean valued of ANN model prediction.
References
Kenney TC (1967) Influence of mineralogical composition on
the residual strength of natural soils. Proceedings of the
Oslo Geotechnical Conference. Shear Strength Nat Soils
Rocks Oslo 1:123–129
Lupini JF, Skinner AE, Vaughan PR (1981) The drained
residual strength of cohesive soils. Geotechnique 31:
181–213
Mesri G, Cepeda-Diaz AF (1986) Residual strength of clays
and shales. Geotechnique 36:269–274
Skempton AW (1985) Residual strength of clays in landslides,
folded strata and the laboratory. Geotechnique 35:3–18
Stark TD, Eid HT (1994) Drained residual strength of cohesive
soils. J Geotech Eng 120:856–871. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9410(1994)120:5(856)
Stark TD, Choi H, McCone S (2005) Drained shear strength
parameters for analysis of landslides. J Geotech Geoen-
viron Eng ASCE 131:575–588
Wright SG (2005) Evaluation of soil shear strengths for slope
and retaining wall stability with emphasis on high plas-
ticity clays, Research Report FHW/TX-06/51874-01-1.
Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas
at Austin, TX, 100 pp
Zurada JM (1992) Introduction to Artifical neural systems.
West Publishing Company, New York