See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240032782

Analysis of Behaviour of Soils Under Cyclic

Loading Using EPR-based Finite Element
Method
ARTICLE in FINITE ELEMENTS IN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OCTOBER 2012
Impact Factor: 2.02 DOI: 10.1016/j.finel.2012.04.005

CITATIONS

READS

179

3 AUTHORS:
Akbar Javadi

Asaad Faramarzi

University of Exeter

University of Birmingham

102 PUBLICATIONS 696 CITATIONS

30 PUBLICATIONS 133 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Alireza Ahangar-Asr
University of Salford
25 PUBLICATIONS 81 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Asaad Faramarzi

Retrieved on: 31 March 2016

Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 58 (2012) 5365

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Finite Elements in Analysis and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/finel

Analysis of behaviour of soils under cyclic loading using EPR-based nite

element method
Akbar A. Javadi a,n, Asaad Faramarzi b,1, Alireza Ahangar-Asr a,2
a
b

Computational Geomechanics Group, College of Engineering Mathematics and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Harrison Building, North Park Road, Exeter EX4 4QF, UK
Department of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, University of Greenwich, Central Avenue, Chatham Maritime, Kent ME4 4TB, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o

abstract

Article history:
Received 9 April 2011
Received in revised form
17 April 2012
Accepted 18 April 2012
Available online 16 May 2012

In this paper, a new approach is presented for modelling of behaviour of soils in nite element analysis
under cyclic loading. This involves development of a unied approach to modelling of complex
materials using evolutionary polynomial regression (EPR) and its implementation in the nite element
method. EPR is a data mining technique that generates a clear and structured representation of
the system being studied. The main advantage of an EPR-based constitutive model (EPRCM) over
conventional models is that it provides the optimum structure and parameters of the material model
directly from raw experimental (or eld) data. The development and validation of the method will be
presented followed by the application to study of behaviour of soils under cyclic loading. The results of
the analyses will be compared with those obtained from standard nite element analysis using
conventional constitutive models. It will be shown that the EPR-based models offer an effective
and unied approach to modelling of materials with complex behaviour in nite element analysis of
boundary value problems.
& 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Finite element
Evolutionary computation
Material modelling
Cyclic loading
EPR

1. Introduction
Finite element method has, in recent decades, been widely
used as a powerful tool in the analysis of engineering problems. In
this numerical analysis, the behaviour of the actual material is
approximated with that of an idealised material that deforms
in accordance with some constitutive relationships. Therefore, the
choice of an appropriate constitutive model that adequately
describes the behaviour of the material plays an important role
in the accuracy and reliability of the numerical predictions. During
the past few decades several constitutive models have been
developed for various materials including soils. Among these
models there are simple elastic models [1], plastic models (e.g.,
[2]), models based on critical state theory [3], and single or double
hardening models [4,5], etc. Most of these models involve determination of material parameters, many of which have little or no
physical meaning [6]. In conventional constitutive material modelling, an appropriate mathematical model is initially selected and
the parameters of the model (material parameters) are identied
from appropriate physical tests on representative samples to
capture the material behaviour. When these constitutive models

Corresponding author. Tel.: 44 1392 723640; fax: 44 1392 217965.

E-mail addresses: A.A.Javadi@ex.ac.uk (A.A. Javadi),
A.Faramarzi@gre.ac.uk (A. Faramarzi), aa375@ex.ac.uk (A. Ahangar-Asr).
1
Tel.: 44 1634 883126.
2
Tel.: 44 1392 723909.
0168-874X/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nel.2012.04.005

are used in nite element analysis, the accuracy with which the
selected material model represents the various aspects of the
actual material behaviour and also the accuracy of the identied
material parameters affect the accuracy of the nite element
predictions.
In the past few years, the use of articial neural networks
(ANN) has been introduced as an alternative approach to constitutive modelling of materials. The application of ANN for
modelling of the behaviour of concrete was rst proposed by
Ghaboussi et al. 1991 [7]. Ghaboussi and Sidarta [8] presented an
improved technique of ANN approximation for learning the
mechanical behaviour of drained and undrained sand. Ghaboussi
et al. 1998 and Sidarta and Ghaboussi [9,10] presented a new
autoprogressive approach to train ANN constitutive model
(autoprogressive ANN). In this approach initially, a nite element
model of an available experimental test (with the measured
boundary forces and displacements) is created using a pre-trained
ANN model as the constitutive material model. Then the measured forces and displacements data are applied incrementally to
the FE model and through the increments the ANN model is
updated with more data. The data for training ANN come from the
stresses and strains at gauss points of all elements. In this method
the main idea is that the FE model of the experimental tests
usually contain a large number of stresses and strains with a wide
range of different values that can be used for training of the ANN
model. Hashash et al. [11] continued and extended the autoprogressive training methodology in a new framework, self learning

54

A.A. Javadi et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 58 (2012) 5365

simulation (SelfSim), to extract soil constitutive behaviour from a

sequence of construction stages of a braced excavation using
measurements of lateral wall deection and surface settlements.
The role of autoprogressive and self-learning simulation was also
studied by other researchers [1219]. These works indicated that
neural network based constitutive models can capture nonlinear
material behaviour with a high accuracy. The developed ANN
models are versatile and have the capacity to continuously learn
as additional material response data become available.
On the subject of studying material behaviour under cyclic and
hysteric loading using ANNs, a few works have been reported so
far. Furukawa and Hoffman [20] proposed an approach to material modelling using neural networks, which can describe monotonic and cyclic plastic deformation and its implementation in a
FEA system. They developed two neural networks, each of which
was used separately to represent the back stress and the drag
stress. After training and validation stages of neural networks
(NNs), the neural network constitutive models (NNCMs) were
implemented in FEA to update the stiffness matrix (D). In this
approach D is made of an elastic matrix De, and a plastic matrix
Dp. In the proposed approach the elastic matrix was derived from
Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio and only the plastic matrix
was updated using the developed ANNs.
Tsai and Hashash [21] showed the application of SelfSim
method in dynamic soil behaviour. They described the implementation of SelfSim to integrate data from eld measurements
and numerical simulations of seismic site response to obtain the
underlying cyclic soil response. They applied the SelfSim to study
1D seismic site response.
Yun et al. [22] introduced an approach for ANN-based modelling of the cyclic behaviour of materials. They focused on the issue
in the hysteric behaviour of material where one strain value may
correspond to multiple stresses and this can be a major reason
that stops NNs from learning hysteretic and cyclic behaviour. To
overcome this issue, they introduced two new internal variables
in addition to the other ordinary inputs of ANN-based constitutive
material models to help the learning of the hysteretic and cyclic
behaviour of materials. The ANN models trained in this way were
implemented in a FE model to analyse a boundary value problem
(steel beamcolumn connection) under cyclic loading.
Yun et al. [23] extended the ANN-based cyclic material model
developed by [22] to beamcolumn connections by adding the
mechanical and design parameters as inputs of the ANN model.
Moreover Yun et al. [24] used self-learning simulation to characterize cyclic behaviour of beamcolumn connections in steel
frames.
Ghaboussi et al. [25] developed a hybrid modelling framework
to analyse engineering systems. The hybrid method combines the
mathematical models of engineered systems (derived based on
physics and mechanical laws) with articial neural network
models using autoprogressive and self-learning simulation. They
applied this hybrid method to model and analyse a steel joint
under cyclic load.
The implementation of the ANN based constitutive models in FE
codes has been the interest of many researchers. Shin and Pande
[26] used a self learning code to identify elastic constants for
orthotropic materials from a structural test. Hashash et al. [27]
described some of the issues related to the numerical implementation of NNCM in nite element analysis and derived a closed-form
solution for material stiffness matrix for the neural network-based
constitutive model. Jung and Ghaboussi 2006 [28] presented a rate
dependant ANN material model for creep behaviour of concrete
and its implementation in nite element software (ABAQUS),
through its user material subroutine (UMAT). Kessler et al. [29]
demonstrated the implementation of an ANN material model in
ABAQUS, through user subroutine VUMAT. Haj-Ali and Kim [30]

presented a neural network based constitutive model for bre

reinforced polymeric (FRP) composites. The developed ANN model
was implemented in ABAQUS user material subroutine to analyse
a notched composite plate with an open hole. Yun et al. [22,23]
also implemented the developed ANN models for materials under
cyclic load in ABAQUS.
The authors have also carried out extensive research on application of neural networks in constitutive modelling of complex
materials in general and soils in particular. They have developed
an intelligent nite element method (NeuroFE code) based on the
incorporation of a back propagation neural network (BPNN) in nite
element analysis (e.g., [31,32]). The intelligent nite element model
has been applied to a wide range of boundary value problems
including cyclic loading and has shown that ANNs can be very
efcient in learning and generalising the constitutive behaviour of
complex materials [33].
In this paper a fundamentally different approach is presented
for constitutive modelling using Evolutionary Polynomial Regression (EPR). In the proposed EPR approach the optimum structure
for the material constitutive model representation and its parameters are determined directly from raw data. Furthermore, it
provides a transparent and structured representation of the
constitutive relationships that can be readily incorporated in a
nite element code. Javadi and Rezania [34] and Javadi et al. [35]
presented the application of the EPR-based constitutive models in
material modelling under monotonic loading conditions. However, this paper focuses on the application of the EPR-based
constitutive models, to the simulation of behaviour of soils under
cyclic loading and its integration in a FE model. The development
and validation of the EPRCM and its integration in FEA are
presented and the efciency of the methodology is examined by
application to the complex problem of cyclic loading of soils. It is
shown that the proposed methodology can simulate the real
behaviour of complex materials under cyclic loading with very
high accuracy. The main advantages of using an EPR approach are
highlighted.
In what follows, the main principles of EPR will be outlined. The
application of EPR in modelling of nonlinear constitutive relationships and the implementation of developed EPRCMs in FE analysis
will be illustrated with two examples. An EPR will be trained with
data from results of a synthetic triaxial cyclic loading tests. The
trained EPR will then be incorporated into a nite element model
which will in turn be used to analyse the behaviour of the soil
under cyclic loading. The training and generalisation capabilities of
the EPR in extending the learning to cases of multiple, variable and
irregular cycles will be investigated.

2. Evolutionary polynomial regression

Evolutionary polynomial regression (EPR) is a data-driven
method based on evolutionary computing, aimed to search for
polynomial structures representing a system. A general EPR
expression can be presented as [36]
y

n
X

FX,f X,aj a0

j1

where y is the estimated vector of output of the process; aj is a

constant; F is a function constructed by the process; X is the
matrix of input variables; f is a function dened by the user;
n is the number of terms of the target expression. The general
functional structure represented by F is constructed from elementary functions by EPR using a genetic algorithm (GA) strategy.
The GA is employed to select the useful input vectors from X to be
combined. The building blocks (elements) of the structure of F can
be dened by the user based on understanding of the physical

A.A. Javadi et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 58 (2012) 5365

processes. While the selection of feasible structures to be combined is done through an evolutionary process the parameters aj
are estimated by the least square method.
EPR is a technique for data-driven modelling. In this technique,
the combination of the genetic algorithm to nd feasible structures and the least square method to nd the appropriate
constants for those structures implies some advantages. In particular, the GA allows a global exploration of the error surface
relevant to specically dened objective functions. By using such
objective functions some criteria can be set in order to (i) avoid
overtting of models, (ii) push the models towards simpler
structures, and (iii) avoid unnecessary terms representative of
the noise in data [36]. Selecting an appropriate objective function,
assuming pre-selected elements in Eq. (1) based on engineering
judgment, and working with dimensional information enable
renement of nal models. Application and capability of EPR in
modelling and analysing different civil and geotechnical engineering problems have been investigated by the authors, [3739].
Detailed explanation of the method is out of the scope of this
paper and can be found in [36,40].

3. Application of EPR for modelling of material behaviour

In modelling using EPR, the raw experimental or in-situ test
data are directly used for training the EPR model. In this approach,
there are no mathematical models to select and as the EPR learns
the constitutive relationships directly from the raw data it is the
shortest route from experimental research to numerical modelling. In this approach there are no material parameters to be
identied and as more data become available, the material model
can be improved by re-training of the EPR using the additional
data. Furthermore, the incorporation of an EPR in a nite element
procedure avoids the need for complex yield/failure functions,
ow rules, etc. An EPR equation can be incorporated in a nite
element code/procedure in the same way as a conventional
constitutive model. It can be incorporated either as incremental
or total stressstrain strategy [35]. In this study the incremental
strategy has been successfully implemented in the EPR-based
nite element model.
3.1. Input and output parameters
The choice of input and output quantities is determined by both
the source of the data and the way the trained EPR model is to be
used. A typical scheme to train most of the neural network based
material models includes an input set providing the network with
the information relating to the current state units (e.g., current
stresses and current strains) and then a forward pass through the
neural network yields the prediction of the next expected state of
stress and/or strain relevant to an input strain or stress increment [9].
The same idea has been utilised in this work. Thus depending on the
problem and the available data, typically the mean stress p0i ,
deviatoric stress qi , volumetric strain eiv and shear strain eiq are used
as the input parameters representing the current state of stress and
strain in a load increment i, and the devatoric stress qi 1 and/or
volumetric strain eiv 1 corresponding to the input incremental
deviatoric strain Deiq are used as the output parameters.
The database is divided into two separate sets. One set is used
for training to obtain the EPR model and the other one is used for
validation to appraise the applicability of the trained model.

of length of equations, type of functions used, number of terms,

range of exponents, number of generations etc. Therefore, there is
a potential to achieve different models for a particular problem
which enables the user to gain additional information for different scenarios [40]. Applying the EPR procedure, the evolutionary
constitutive material modelling starts from a constant mean of
output values. By increasing the number of evolutions it gradually
picks up the different participating parameters in order to form
equations representing the constitutive relationship. Each proposed model is trained using the training data and tested using
the testing data. The level of accuracy at each stage is evaluated
based on the coefcient of determination (COD), i.e., the tness
function as
P
2
N Y a Y p
COD 1 P
2
P
2
N Y a 1=N
N Y a
where Y a is the actual target value; Y p is the EPR predicted value;
N is the number of data points on which the COD is computed. If
the model tness is not acceptable or the other termination
criteria (in terms of maximum number of generations and maximum number of terms) are not satised, the current model
should go through another evolution in order to obtain a new
model [40,34].

4. Incorporating of EPRCM in FEA

The developed EPRCMs are implemented in the widely used
general-purpose nite element code ABAQUS through its user
dened material module (UMAT). UMAT updates the stresses and
provide the material Jacobian matrix for every increment in every
integration point [41]. The manner, in which EPRCM is incorporated in UMAT is shown in Fig. 1. In the developed methodology,
the EPRCM replaces the role of a conventional constitutive model.
The source of knowledge for EPR is a set of raw experimental (or
in situ) data representing the mechanical response of the material
to applied load. When EPR is used for constitutive description, the
physical nature of the inputoutput data for the EPR is determined by the measured quantities, e.g., stresses, strains, etc.
The constitutive relationships are generally given in the
following form [42]

Dr DDe

where D is material stiffness matrix, also known as the Jacobian.

For an isotropic and elastic material, matrix D is given in terms of
Youngs modulus, E, and Poissons ratio, n.
Therefore the function of an EPR-based constitutive model in a
FE model (at every elements integration point) is as follows:
(i) For the i 1th load increment, the input pattern for the
EPRCM contains (1) the values of (p0i ,qi , eiv , eiq ) which have
already been calculated in the previous load increment and
(2) an arbitrary value of Deiq . The new value of qi 1 and eiv 1
are then calculated for the next step.
(ii) For each load increment the material Youngs modulus, EEPR ,
and the Poissons ratio, nEPR can be calculated from the
relationship between the relevant stresses and strains. For
example for axisymetric condition:
EEPR

Dqi
Dei1

4
!

3.2. EPR procedure and developed EPRCMs

nEPR 1
Before starting the training procedure, a number of constraints
can be implemented to control the evolutionary process in terms

55

Deiv
=2
Dei1

where e1 is the axial strain.

56

A.A. Javadi et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 58 (2012) 5365

EPR

FEA

Start

Start

Input Data (Geometry,

Applied Load, Initial and
Boundary Condition)

Input Data (Experimental

Data, Physical Insight)

Increase the Applied Load

Incrementally

Current state of
stresses and strains
Load Increment
Loop

Genetic
Algorithm

UMAT
EPRCM(s)

Mathematical
Structure

1- Next state of
Stresses
2- Jacobian Matrix

EPR
Constitutive
equation
Symbolic
Function

Iteration Loop

Least Square

Solve the Main

Equation

NO
Convergence

YES

Fitness

NO

Output Result

Whole load
applied?

YES

NO

Check based on fitness criteria

and or generation number
YES

STOP
Fig. 1. The incorporation of EPR-based material model in ABAQUS nite element software.

Therefore with D being recalculated in the FE procedure, the

element stiffness matrix for every single element is updated at
each load increment as
Z

BT DBdO

accurately represents (as will be shown in the examples) the

constitutive behaviour of the material directly from data.

5. Numerical examples

where B is the strain matrix and O is the elemental area.

Consequently the global stiffness matrix for a particular problem
is rened for each load increment. The whole procedure ensures
that the constitutive model follows the actual behaviour of
the material, both at the element level and at the global level.
This is primarily because EPRCM avoids the errors associated
with idealisation of the material behaviour and captures and

To illustrate the developed computational methodology,

three numerical examples of application of the developed
EPR-based nite element method to engineering problems are
presented. In the rst example, the application of the methodology to a simple case of linear elastic material behaviour is
examined. In the second example, the method is applied to a
boundary value problem involving the analysis of stresses and
strains around a tunnel considering nonlinear and elasto-plastic

A.A. Javadi et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 58 (2012) 5365

material behaviour. In the third example, the application of

the method to the analysis of the behaviour of soil under cyclic
loading is presented.

5.1. Example 1
This example involves a thick circular cylinder conforming to
plane strain conditions. Fig. 2 shows the geometric dimensions
and the element discretization employed in the solution where 12
eight-node isoparametric elements have been used. The cylinder
is made of linear elastic material with a Youngs modulus of
E2.1  105 N/mm2 and a Poissons ratio of 0.3 [42]. This example
was deliberately kept simple in order to verify the computational
methodology by comparing the results with those of a linear
elastic nite element model. The compressibility of the material
is assumed to be negligible and hence the EPR model for
volumetric strain is not considered in this example. The loading
case considered involves an internal pressure of 8.0  104 kPa as
shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 3a shows a linear elastic stressstrain relationship with a
gradient of 2.1  105 MPa. The slope of this line represents the
elastic modulus, E, for the material. The data from this gure were
used to train the EPR model in order to capture the linear stress
strain relationship for the material.
After training, the selected EPR model to represent the stress
strain:
qi 1 

100 mm

Deq

3:4662  106

q
qi 2:4231  1011 Deq
q
qi 0:01197

Fig. 3(b) shows the stressstrain relationship predicted by the

EPR model, together with the original one. It is seen that after
training, the EPR model has successfully captured the stress
strain relationship with a precise accuracy.

Fig. 2. FE Mesh in symmetric quadrant of a thick cylinder.

200
Radial Stress (MPa)

250
200
Stress (MPa)

1:5  108

2:4231  1011 eq 0:00504eq

200 mm

150
100
50

160
Standard FEM
IFEM (EPRCM)

120
80
40
0

0
0

0.0002

0.0004

0.0006

0.0008

0.001

40

80

120

160

200

radius (mm)

Strain

0.08
Radial Displacement (mm)

250
200
Stress (MPa)

57

150
100
50

0.06
Standard FEM

0.04

IFE (EPRCM)

0.02

0
0

0.0002

0.0004
0.0006
Strain

0.0008

0.001

Fig. 3. (a) Linear stressstrain relationship used for training and (b) the results of
EPR predictions for stressstrain values.

40

80

120

160

200

radius (mm)
Fig. 4. Comparison of the results of the EPR-FEM and standard FEM solution in
terms of (a) radial stress and (b) radial displacement.

58

A.A. Javadi et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 58 (2012) 5365

The EPR-based nite element model incorporating the trained

EPR model was used to analyse the behaviour of the cylinder
under applied internal pressure. The results are compared with
those obtained using a standard linear elastic nite element
method. Fig. 4 shows the radial displacements and radial stresses
along a radius of the cylinder, predicted by the two methods.
Comparison of the results shows that the results obtained using
the EPR-based FEM are in excellent agreement with those
attained from the standard nite element analysis. This shows
the potential of the developed EPR-based nite element method
in deriving constitutive relationships from raw data using EPR
and using these relationships to solve boundary value problems.

Output parameter

p0i , qi , eiv , eiq , Deiq

qi 1

p0i , qi , eiv , eiq , Deiq

eiv 1

700
Deviatoric Stress (kPa)

This example involves the analysis of deformations around a

tunnel subjected to excavation and gravity loadings. The geometry of
the tunnel and the nite element mesh are shown in Fig. 5. The nite
element mesh includes 142 eight-node isoparametric elements and
451 nodes. The depth of the tunnel crown from the ground surface is
12 m. The analysis is done in two steps. The rst step includes a
geostatic analysis where all the elements are subjected to gravity
loading. In the second step 46 elements representing the tunnel
elements, are removed to simulate the excavation process.
The results from a series of drained triaxial tests from
literature [43], containing information on both shear and volumetric behaviour, were used for the training of the EPR based
constitutive model with an incremental stressstrain (tangential
stiffness) strategy. It was assumed that the soil tested was
representative of the soil material around the tunnel. The test

Input parameters

800

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

Deviatoric Strain %
700
600
Deviatoric Stress (kPa)

5.2. Example 2

Table 1
Input and output parameters used for training the
EPR constitutive model for the tunnel example.

500
400
300
200
100
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

Deviatoric Strain %
Fig. 6. (a) Results of training of the ANN and (b) stressstrain relationship
predicted by the trained EPR.

data were arranged as shown in Table 1 and used to train an

EPRCM to model the stressstrain relationship for the soil.
The results from ve tests conducted at conning pressures
of 50, 100, 300, 400, 600 kPa were used for training of the
EPR models while those for the sixth and seventh tests at the
conning pressure of 200, 500 kPa were used for validation of
the trained EPR models. At the end of the training and testing
procedure, the selected best EPR models representing the behaviour of the soil are:
qi 1 

7:3384  107 p03 ev 5:077eiv 0:416p0 eq

 i

qi
q Deq
qi

0:47537eq 0:90403qi 0:09154qi Deq

0:00011719qi 2 0:06081p0 0:12364p0 Deq
0:0025518p0 eq Deq 0:00006795p02 4:4456

Fig. 5. Geometry of the tunnel and the FE mesh.

eiv 1 1:0005eiv 0:0010163qi Deq 0:000016185qi eq Deq

0:001178p0 Deq 0:0017108

8a

8b

A.A. Javadi et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 58 (2012) 5365

Figs. 6(a) and 7(a) shows the stressstrain curves predicted by

Eqs. (8a) and (8b) against those expected and used as training
data. It is clearly seen that, the EPR was able to capture the
constitutive (nonlinear) stressstrain relationship for the soil with
very good accuracy. The generalisation capability of the EPRCMs
is shown in Fig. 6(b) and Fig. 7(b). The data from the test
conducted at the conning pressures of 200 and 500 kPa (which
did not form a part of the training data) were used to test the
trained EPRCMs. The predicted output values of the EPR models
are compared with the experimentally measured values in
Fig. 6(b) and Fig. 7(b). It is seen that the generalisation capability
of the trained EPRCM is excellent.
In addition, the EPR models (Eqs. (8a) and (8b)) are used to
predict the entire stress paths, incrementally, point by point, in

qi qi 1

eiv eiv 1

10

0
-1

10

15

20

25

30

-2

p0i p0i

qi 1 qi
3


11

eiq eiq Deq

-3
-4
-5
-6
-7

Deviatoric Strain %
Deviatoric Strain %

0
0
Volumetric Strain %

the q : eq and ev : eq spaces. This is used to evaluate the capability

of the incremental EPR models to predict the behaviour of the soil
during the entire stress paths. Fig. 8 illustrates the procedure
followed for updating of the input parameters and building the
entire stress path for a shearing stage of a triaxial test. At the start
of the shearing stage in a conventional triaxial experiment, the
values of all parameters are known. For example in a test on a
sample of a saturated soil, the values of effective mean stress, p0i ,
deviator stress qi , deviatoric strain eiq and volumetric strain, eiv are
known from values of applied cell pressure, pore water pressure
and volume change at the end of the previous stage (e.g., at the start
of shearing stage eiq 0, eiv 0 and qi 0). Then, for a given
increment of deviatoric strain, Deq , the values of qi 1 and eiv 1 are
calculated from the EPR models (Eqs. (8a) and (8b), respectively). For
the next increment, the values of p0i , eiq , eiv qi and are updated as

10

15

20

25

30

12

and the next points on the curves are predicted using the EPR
models. The incremental procedure is continued until all the points
on the curves are predicted. Fig. 9(a) and (b) show the comparison
between two complete curves predicted using the EPR models
following the above incremental procedure and the experimental
results. The predicted results are in good agreement with the
experimental results and the facts that (i) the entire curves have
been predicted point by point; (ii) the errors of prediction of the
individual points are accumulated in this process, and still the EPR

-1
800

-2

700

-3
-4

EPR Prediction (200 kPa)

EPR Prediction (500 kPa)

-5

Actual Data (200 kPa)

Actual Data (500 kPa)

-6

Deviatoric Stress (kPa)

Volumetric Strain %

59

600
500
400
300
200
100

Fig. 7. (a) Results of training of the EPR and (b) volumetric strain predicted by the
trained EPR.

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

25

30

Deviatoric Strain (%)

2

Volumetric Strain (%)

1
0
-1

10

15

20

-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8

Fig. 8. procedure followed for updating of the input parameters and building the
entire stress path for a shearing stage of a triaxial test.

Deviatoric Strain (%)

Fig. 9. Comparison of EPR incremental simulation with the actual data

(a) simulation of deviatoric stress and (b) simulation of volumetric strain.

60

A.A. Javadi et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 58 (2012) 5365

models are able to predict the complete stress paths with a good
degree of accuracy are testaments to the robustness of the
developed EPR framework for modelling of soils.
These gures show that the EPR has been able to capture the
general trend of the nonlinear relationship of stress and strain
with a good accuracy. It also shows that the EPR model was
trained sufciently to adequately model the stressstrain behaviour of the soil. The trained EPRCMs were incorporated in the
EPR-based nite element (EPR-FEM) using UMAT in ABAQUS. The
FE incorporating the EPR models was then used to simulate the
behaviour of the tunnel under gravity and excavation loadings.
For the conventional nite element analyses, the results of the
triaxial tests were used to derive the material parameters for the
Modied Cam Clay (MCC) and MohrCoulomb (MC) models for
the soil (see Table 2).
Fig. 10 shows the comparison between the displacements in the
tunnel predicted using standard nite element analyses using the
MCC and MC models as well as the EPR-based nite element
method where the raw data from the triaxial tests were directly
used in deriving the EPR-based constitutive model. Deformations of
tunnel is magnied by a factor of 5. The patterns of deformation are
similar in all three analyses. Despite the relatively small difference
between the results from the different analyses, it can be argued

that the EPR-based FE results are more reliable, as this method used
the original raw experimental data to learn the constitutive
relationships for the material and it did not assume a priori any
particular constitutive relationships, yield conditions, etc.
From the results obtained, it is shown that the developed
intelligent nite element method is also capable of capturing
more complex constitutive relationships of materials and can
offer very realistic prediction of the behaviour of structures.
5.3. Example 3: behaviour of soil under cyclic loading
In this example, the behaviour of a soil is studied in triaxial
tests under cyclic axial loading. The test data for this example
were generated by numerical simulation of triaxial experiments.
In general, generating data by numerical simulation has advantages including: (i) it is more economic (ii) it is far less time
demanding, (iii) it can simulate loading paths and test conditions
that cannot be easily achieved in physical testing due to physical
constraints of the testing equipment. The data for training and
validation of the EPR were created by nite element simulation of
triaxial cyclic loading tests at constant cell pressures using the
Modied Cam Clay model. The material parameters assumed for
the soil are:

l 0.174 (slope of the virgin consolidation line),

Table 2
Material parameters for Modied Cam Clay and MohrCoulomb models.
C 0 (kPa)

f0 deg:

e0

11.7

21

0.8

0.00715

0.921

0.3

g (kN/m3)
17

k 0.026 (slope of the unloading/reloading lines in the v:Lnp0

space),
M 1 (slope of the critical state line in the q:p0 space),
P1100.0 kPa (isotropic preconsolidation pressure),

l
0.091

250
250 kPa

200 kPa

Deviator Stress (kPa)

300 kPa

200

150 kPa

150

100 kPa

100

50

0
0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

Strain
0.08

Volumetric Strain

0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

Axial Strain
Fig. 10. Comparison of the results of the intelligent FEA and conventional FE
analyses using MohrCoulomb and DuncanChang models.

Fig. 11. Typical cyclic loading test data used for training and validation of EPR.
(a) Shear stress and (b) volumetric strain.

A.A. Javadi et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 58 (2012) 5365

The generated data were used to train and test EPRCMs. The
EPRCMs were then incorporated in the intelligent EPR-based
nite element model to represent the soil behaviour under cyclic
loading. The results of the EPR-based nite element analyses were
compared with those attained using conventional nite element
method. The performance of the model was evaluated for two
separate cases of loading where the soil was subjected to:

The selected EPR models for q and ev are:

qi 1 

1:0525qi 0:71525

4 increments
8 increments
20 increments
40 increments

13a

0:02369qi De1 0:4217qi De1 9:3  106 e1



p0 e1
p0
qi
0:45727De1 0:99eiv 0:000041535

13b

Fig. 13(a) and (b) show the results predicted by Eqs. (13a)
and (13b), respectively, for the training data set together with the
actual training data. Fig. 13(a) shows the results of the devitoric
stress model for different conning pressures. Typical results of
the volumetric strain model (Eq. (13b)) at conning pressure of
100 kPa are presented in Fig. 13(b) together with the actual data.
It is seen from the gures that the EPR models were capable of
learning, with very good accuracy, the constitutive relationship of
the soil under cyclic loading paths. The trained EPRCMs were
validated using a data set corresponding to the conning pressure
of 250 kPa. The results of the validation tests are shown in
Fig. 14(a) and (b). It is shown that the trained EPR models were
able to generalise the training to loading cases that were not
introduced to the EPR during training. Moreover the incremental
prediction capability (described in Example 2) of the developed
300
Actual Data (100 kPa)

250
Deviatoric Stress (kPa)

Deviator Stress (kPa)

40

1:8866ev De1 1:9676qi De1 888:4qi 2 De1 3



qi
eiv
eiv

104:4964p0 De1 1:4  105 p02 0:018826p02 qi eiv De1

eiv 1

50

0:0084qi 3 2667:247qi 2 De1 2 0:060714qi 3 De1



p0 e 1
p02 eiv
p0 eiv

1- Multiple and regular cycles of loading and unloading; and

2- Multiple and irregular cycles of loading and unloading.

The data generated by numerical simulation of the cyclic

loading tests at conning pressures of 100, 150, 200, 250 and
300 kPa are shown in Fig. 11(a) and Fig. 11(b). In order to
introduce a level of noise that inevitably exists in real triaxial
test data, numerical simulation for each conning pressure was
repeated by changing the total number of load increments in
the simulation and the obtained data were combined and used
in training of the EPR models. Fig. 12 shows typical results of
the tests conducted at conning pressure of 150 kPa with four
different load increments.
The data from the tests at conning pressures of 100, 150, 200
and 300 kPa were used for the training of the two EPR models.
The rst model was developed to predict the deviator stress qi 1
and the second one to predict the volumetric strain eiv 1 . The
trained EPR models were validated using the data from the test at
the conning pressure of 250 kPa. The input and output parameters used for training of the EPR models are presented in
Table 3. In the table p0 is net mean stress, q is deviator stress, ev is
volumetric strain and e1 is axial strain. The indices i and i1
represent the state of stress or strain at current (incremental)
step, and the next step, respectively.

61

Actual Data (150 kPa)

Actual Data (200 kPa)

Actual Data (300 kPa)

EPR prediction (100 kPa)

EPR prediction (150 kPa)

EPR prediction (200 kPa)

EPR prediction (300 kPa)

200
150
100
50

30

0
0.00

20

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

Axial Strain
10

0.07
0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012

0.014

Strain
Fig. 12. Typical cyclic loading test results with different load increments at
conning pressure of 150 kPa.

Table 3
Input and output parameters used for training and
testing of the EPR models for shear stress and
volumetric strain cyclic models.
Input parameters

Output parameter

0.06
Volumetric Strain

0
0.000

0.08

0.05
0.04
Actual Data
EPR prediction

0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

Axial Strain
p0i , qi , eiv , ei1 , Dei1

qi 1

p0i , qi , eiv , ei1 , Dei1

eiv 1

Fig. 13. Results of training of the EPR: (a) prediction of shear stress and
(b) prediction of volumetric strain.

62

A.A. Javadi et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 58 (2012) 5365

250

250

Deviatoric Stress (kPa)

Deviatoric Stress (kPa)

Actual Data (250 kPa)

200
EPR prediction (250 kPa)
150

100

50

0
0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

200

150

100

50

0
0.00

0.08

EPR
CAM_CLAY

0.01

0.02

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.06
Volumetric Strain (kPa)

Actual Data (250 kPa)

0.05
Volumetric Strain

0.04

0.07

0.06

EPR prediction (250 kPa)

0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.00

0.03

Axial Strain

Axial Strain

0.05

EPR
CAM_CLAY

0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

Axial Strain

0
0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

Axial Strain

Fig. 14. Results of the validation of the trained EPR models: comparison between
the actual (numerically simulated) data and the EPR predictions for conning
pressure of 250 kPa. (a) Shear stress relationship and (b) volumetric strain
relationship.

Fig. 15. Comparison of EPR incremental simulation with the actual data for
conning pressure 250 kPa in cyclic load problem (a) simulation of deviatoric
stress and (b) simulation of volumetric strain.

EPRCMs is examined in Fig. 15(a) and (b) where the model results
are compared to the actual data.
After training and validation, the EPRCMs were incorporated in
the EPR-based nite element model. The model was then used to
simulate the behaviour of the soil in triaxial cyclic loading tests at
a conning pressure of 250 kPa. Two different cases were simulated using the EPR-FEM and the results were compared with
those obtained from a conventional FE simulation using the
Modied Cam Clay model.

trained with regular cyclic loading data, would be able to generalise the training to predict the behaviour of the soil for irregular
loading patterns that are different from those used for training of
the EPR model. Although the loading pattern was different from
that used for training of the EPR, the imposed strains (and loads)
used in the simulation were kept within the ranges of values used
for training so as to avoid extrapolation.
In this case, the EPR-based FE model was used to simulate the
behaviour of the soil with an irregular cyclic loading pattern as
shown in Fig. 17. The test was simulated at conning pressure of
250 kPa that was not introduced to the EPR during training. The
test involved the application (and removal) of total axial strains of
2.4% and 6% in the rst and second cycles, respectively.
In Fig. 18, the results of the EPR-FEM are compared with those
attained using the conventional FE simulation of the same
irregular pattern. From the gure, it can be seen that the results
of the EPR-based FE simulation are in a very good agreement with
those obtained using the conventional FEM. The results are also
compared with those obtained for a regular 5-cycle pattern
with imposed strains of 1.2, 2.4, 3.6, 4.8, 6.0% in cycles 1 to 5,
respectively. Comparison of the results shows that, although the
EPR was only trained with data from regular cyclic loading tests,
the EPR-FEM was able to predict the behaviour of the soil under
irregular loading patterns. It can be concluded that the EPR-FEM
is also capable of generalising the behaviour of the soil for cyclic
loading with different loading and unloading patterns. This
further illustrates the robustness of the proposed EPR-FEM and
shows the excellent capability of the method in capturing
the underlying constitutive relationships for the material from

5.3.1. Multiple regular cycles

In the rst case, the EPR-based FE model was used to simulate
a triaxial test on a sample of the soil subjected to multiple and
regular cycles at a conning pressure of 250 kPa. The loading
cycles involved the application of a total axial strain of 8% in ten
loading and unloading cycles.
The results of the EPR-FEM are compared with those attained
using the conventional FE simulation in Fig. 16. It is seen that the
results of the EPR-FEM are in close agreement with those of the
conventional FE simulation. It can be seen from the gure that,
the EPR-based FE model is capable of solving boundary value
problems involving cyclic loading with a good accuracy.
5.3.2. Irregular loading cycles
In the rst case, all the simulations (including those used for
training and testing of the EPR) were performed with a regular
loading pattern involving regular induced displacements in the
cycles. This case is set out to examine if the EPR-based FE model,

A.A. Javadi et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 58 (2012) 5365

180

250

160
EPR-FEM
FE (CAM_CLAY)

EPR-FEM
FE (CAM_CLAY)

140
Deviatoric Stress

Deviatoric Stress

200

63

150

100

120
100
80
60
40

50

20
0.045

0.05
0.045

0.06
EPR-FEM
FE (CAM_CLAY)

0.04
Volumetric Strain

Volumetric Strain

0.040

Axial Strain

0.07

0.05

0.035

0.070

0.030

0.060

Axial Strain

0.025

0.050

0.020

0.040

0.015

0.030

0.010

0.020

0.005

0.010

0.000

0
0.000

0.04
0.03
0.02

EPR-FEM
FE (CAM_CLAY)

0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01

0.01

0.005

Fig. 16. Comparison between the results of the intelligent FEA and a conventional
FEA for multiple regular loading cycles.

raw data and generalising it to predict different conditions not

introduced to the EPR during training.

6. Discussion and conclusion

This paper presented a fundamentally different approach to
constitutive modelling of materials in nite element analysis. An
EPR-based nite element method was presented for modelling
engineering problems. The method is based on the integration of
an EPR based constitutive model in the nite element procedure.
In the developed methodology, the EPRCM is used as a unied
framework for constitutive modelling of materials in nite element analysis.
The efciency of the EPR-based FE method was illustrated by
successful application to a number of boundary value problems.
The results of the analysis were compared with those attained
from conventional FE analyses using some of the commonly used
constitutive models. The model was also used to study the
behaviour of soils under cyclic loading. It was shown that EPR
can learn the complex behaviour of soils under cyclic loading
taking into account the loading history of the soil. It was also
shown that the nite element model, incorporating an EPRCM
trained with certain patterns of loading and unloading, can be
used to predict the behaviour of the soil under different (regular
or irregular) loading patterns with a very high accuracy.
The main benets of using an EPRCM approach are that it
provides a unied approach to constitutive modelling of all

0.045

0.040

0.035

0.030

0.025

0.020

0.015

0.010

0.005

Axial Strain

0
0.000

0
0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.070

Axial Strain
Fig. 17. Comparison between the results of the intelligent FEM and a conventional
FEM for two irregular loading cycles.

materials (i.e., all aspects of material behaviour can be implemented within a unied environment of an EPR model); it does
not require any arbitrary choice of the constitutive (mathematical) models; the incorporation of an EPR based constitutive model
in a nite element procedure avoids the need for complex
yielding/plastic potential/failure functions, ow rules, etc.; there
is no need to check yielding, to compute the gradients of the
plastic potential curve or to update the yield surface; there are no
material parameters to be identied and the model is trained
directly from experimental data.
The EPR is capable of learning the material behaviour directly
from raw experimental data, therefore, EPRCM is the shortest
route from experimental research (data) to numerical modelling.
The EPR model is simple and effective if appropriate experimental
data are available. Another advantage of EPR based constitutive
model is that as more experimental data become available, the
quality of the EPR prediction can be improved by learning from
the additional data, and therefore, the EPRCM can become more
effective and robust.
A trained EPRCM can be incorporated in a FE code/procedure in
the same way as a conventional constitutive model. It can be
incorporated either as incremental or total stressstrain strategies.
An EPR-based FE method can be used for solving boundary value
problems in the same way as a conventional FEM. In this study
two EPR models were implemented in the FE analysis. Currently,
undergoing research in CGG in University of Exeter is investigating
the computing of the entire stiffness (Jacobian) matrix elements,

64

A.A. Javadi et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 58 (2012) 5365

180
160
EPR-FEM
FE (CAM_CLAY)

Deviatoric Stress

140
120
100
80
60
40
20

0.045

0.040

0.035

0.030

0.025

0.020

0.015

0.010

0.005

0.000

Axial Strain
0.05
0.045

Volumetric Strain

0.04

EPR-FEM
FE (CAM_CLAY)

0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005

0.045

0.040

0.035

0.030

0.025

0.020

0.015

0.010

0.005

0.000

Axial Strain
Fig. 18. Comparison between the results of the intelligent FEM for 2 irregular
loading cycles and the original cycle loading data used for training.

based on derived EPR constitutive models, to be implemented in a

FE model to analyse the boundary value problems.
It should be noted that, for practical problems, the data used
for training of EPRCM should cover the range of stresses and
strains that are likely to be encountered in practice. This is due to
the fact that EPR models are good at interpolation but not so good
at extrapolation. Therefore, any attempt to use intelligent nite
element method for loading conditions that may lead to stresses
or strains outside the range of the stresses and strains used in
training of the EPR may lead to unacceptable errors.
It should be noted that the approach presented in this paper is
generic and can be applied to any type of material.

References
[1] R. Hooke, A description of helicopes, and some other instruments, 1675;
London.
[2] D.C. Drucker, W. Prager, Soil mechanics and plastic analysis or limit design,
Q. Appl. Math. 10 (2) (1952) 157175.
[3] A. Schoeld, C.P. Wroth, Critical State Soil Mechanics, McGraw-Hill, London,
1968.
[4] P.V. Lade, Elasto-plastic stressstrain theory for cohesionless soil with curved
yield surfaces, Int. J. Solids Struct. 13 (11) (1977) 10191035.
[5] P.V. Lade, K.P. Jakobsen, Incrementalization of a single hardening constitutive
model for frictional materials, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 26
(2002) 647659.
[6] H.S. Shin, G.N. Pande, On self-learning nite element codes based on response
of structures, Comput. Geotech. 27 (3) (2000) 161171.

[7] J. Ghaboussi, J.H. Garret, X. Wu, Knowledge-based modelling of material

behaviour with neural networks, J. Eng. Mech. Div. (ASCE) 117 (1991)
132153.
[8] J. Ghaboussi, D. Sidarta, A new nested adaptive neural network for modelling
of constitutive behaviour of materials, Comput. Geotech. 22 (1) (1998) 2952.
[9] J. Ghaboussi, D.A. Pecknold, M. Zhang, R.M. Haj-Ali, Autoprogressive training
of neural network constitutive models, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 42 (1)
(1998) 105126.
[10] D.E. Sidarta, J. Ghaboussi, Constitutive modelling of geomaterials from
nonuniform material tests, Comput. Geotech. 22 (1) (1998) 5371.
[11] Y.M.A. Hashash, C. Marulanda, J. Ghaboussi, S. Jung, Systematic update of a
deep excavation model using eld performance data, Comput. Geotech. 20
(2003) 477488.
[12] H.S. Shin, G.N. Pande, Intelligent nite elements, in: S. Valliappan, N. Khalili
(Eds.), Proceedings of Asian Pacic Computational MechanicsNew Frontiers
for New Millennium, Elsevier Science Ltd, 2001, pp. 12011310.
[13] Hashash Y.M.A., Ghaboussi J., Fu Q., and Marulanda C. Constitutive soil
behaviour representation via articial neural networks; A shift from soil
models to soil behaviour data, GeoCongress 2006: Geotechnical Engineering
in the Information Technology Age.
[14] S. Jung, J. Ghaboussi, Characterizing rate-dependent material behaviours in selflearning simulation, Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 196 (2006) 608619.
[15] W. Aquino, J.C. Brigham, Self-learning nite elements for inverse estimation of
thermal constitutive models, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 49 (2006) 24662478.
[16] A. Jung, J. Ghaboussi, C. Marulanda, Field calibration of time-dependent
behaviour in segmental bridges using self-learning simulation, Eng. Struct. 29
(2007) 26922700.
[17] Y.M.A. Hashash, Q. Fu, J. Ghaboussi, P.V. Lade, C. Saucier, Inverse analysisbased interpretation of sand behaviour from triaxial compression tests
subjected to full end restraint, Can. Geotech. 46 (2009) 768791.
[18] Y.M.A. Hashash, S. Levasseur, A. Osouli, R. Finno, Y. Malecot, Comparison of
two inverse analysis techniques for learning deep excavation response,
Comput. Geotech. 37 (2010) 323333.
[19] A. Osouli, Y.M.A. Hashash, H. Song, Interplay between eld measurements
and soil behaviour for capturing supported excavation response, J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 136 (1) (2010) 6984.
[20] T. Furukawa, M. Hoffman, Accurate cyclic plastic analysis using a neural
network material model, Eng. Anal. Boundary Elem. 28 (2004) 195204.
[21] C. Tsai, Y.M.A. Hashash, A novel framework integrating downhole array data
and site response analysis to extract dynamic soil behaviour, Soil Dyn.
Earthquake Eng. 28 (2008) 181197.
[22] G.J. Yun, J. Ghaboussi, A.S. Elnashai, A new neural network-based model for
hysteretic behaviour of materials, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 73 (2008)
447469.
[23] G.J. Yun, J. Ghaboussi, A.S. Elnashai, A design-variable-based inelastic hysteretic model for beamcolumn connections, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 37
(2008) 535555.
[24] G.J. Yun, J. Ghaboussi, A.S. Elnashai, Self-learning simulation method for
inverse nonlinear modelling of cyclic behaviour of connections, Comput.
Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 197 (2008) 28362857.
[25] J. Ghaboussi, J. Kim, A. Elnashai, Hybrid modelling framework by using
mathematics-based and information-based methods, IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater.
Sci. Eng. 10 (1) (2010) 19.
[26] H.S. Shin, G.N. Pande, Identication of elastic constants for orthotropic
materials from a structural test, Comput. Geotech. 30 (2003) 571577.
[27] Y.M. Hashash, S. Jung, J. Ghaboussi, Numerical implementation of a neural
network based material model in nite element analysis, Int, J. Numer.
Methods Eng. 5 (2004) 9891005.
[28] S. Jung, J. Ghaboussi, Neural network constitutive mode for rate-dependant
materials, Comput. Struct. 84 (2006) 955963.
[29] B.S. Kessler, A.S. El-Gizawy, D.E. Smith, Incorporating neural network material models within nite element analysis for rheological behaviour prediction, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology 129 (1) (2007) 5865.
[30] R. Haj-Ali, H.K. Kim, Nonlinear constitutive models for FRP composites using
articial neural networks, Mech. Mater. 39 (2007) 10351042.
[31] A.A. Javadi, T.P. Tan, M. Zhang, Neural network for constitutive modelling in
nite element analysis, J Comput. Assisted Mech. Eng. Sci. 10 (2003)
523529.
[32] Javadi A.A., Tan T.P., Elkassas A.S.I., Zhang M. An Intelligent Finite Element
Method: Development of the Algorithm, Proceedings of the 6th World
Congress on Computational Mechanics, Tsinghua University Press and
Springer-Verlag, 2004, Beijing, China.
[33] A.A. Javadi, T.P. Tan, A.S.I. Elkassas, Intelligent snite element method and
application to simulation of behavior of soils under cyclic loading, Found
Comput. Intell. 5 (2009) 317338.
[34] A.A. Javadi, M. Rezania, Intelligent nite element method: an evolutionary
approach to constitutive modelling, Adv. Eng. Inf. 23 (4) (2009) 442451.
[35] A. Javadi, M. Mehravar, A. Faramarzi, A. Ahangar-Asr, An Articial Intelligence
based nite element method, Trans. Comput. Intell. Syst. 1 (2) (2009) 17.
[36] O. Giustolisi, D.A. Savic, A symbolic data-driven technique based on evolutionary polynomial regression, J. Hydroinf. 8 (3) (2006) 207222.
[37] A. Ahangar-Asr, A. Faramarzi, A.A. Javadi, A new approach for prediction of
the stability of soil and rock slopes, Eng. Comput. 27 (7) (2010) 878893.
[38] M. Rezania, A. Faramarzi, A.A. Javadi, An evolutionary based approach for
assessment of earthquake-induced soil liquefaction and lateral displacement,
Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 24 (1) (2011) 142153.

A.A. Javadi et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 58 (2012) 5365

[39] A. Ahangar-Asr, A. Faramarzi, A.A. Javadi, O. Giustolisi, Modelling mechanical

behaviour of rubber concrete using Evolutionary Polynomial Regression,
Engineering Computations 28 (4) (2011) 492507.
[40] A. Doglioni, O. Giustolisi, D.A. Savic, B.W. Webb, An investigation on stream
temperature analysis based on evolutionary computing, Hydrol. Processes 22
(3) (2008) 315326.
[41] ABAQUS User Subroutines Reference Manual (2007): (version 6.8-3) Dassault
Systems.

65

[42] D.R.J. Owen, E. Hinton, Finite Elements in Plasticity: Theory and Practice,
Pineridge Press, Swansea, 1980.
[43] C. Cekerevac, L. Laloui, Experimental study of thermal effects on the
mechanical behaviour of a clay, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 28
(2004) 209228.