Previous Article in Journal
Experimental Verification of Anchor Tip Angles Suitable for Vibratory Penetration into Underwater Saturated Soft Soil
Previous Article in Special Issue
Investigating Ageing Effects on Bored Pile Shaft Resistance in Cohesionless Soil Through Field Testing
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
This is an early access version, the complete PDF, HTML, and XML versions will be available soon.
Article

Interpretable AI-Driven Modelling of Soil–Structure Interface Shear Strength Using Genetic Programming with SHAP and Fourier Feature Augmentation

Department of Engineering, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Melbourne, VIC 3086, Australia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Geotechnics 2025, 5(4), 69; https://doi.org/10.3390/geotechnics5040069
Submission received: 14 August 2025 / Revised: 26 September 2025 / Accepted: 29 September 2025 / Published: 1 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances in Soil–Structure Interaction)

Abstract

Accurate prediction of soil–structure interface shear strength (τmax) is critical for reliable geotechnical design. This study combines experimental testing with interpretable machine learning to overcome the limitations of traditional empirical models and black-box approaches. Ninety large-displacement ring shear tests were performed on five sands and three interface materials (steel, PVC, and stone) under normal stresses of 25–100 kPa. The results showed that particle morphology, quantified by the regularity index (RI), and surface roughness (Rt) are dominant factors. Irregular grains and rougher interfaces mobilised higher τmax through enhanced interlocking, while smoother particles reduced this benefit. Harder surfaces resisted asperity crushing and maintained higher shear strength, whereas softer materials such as PVC showed localised deformation and lower resistance. These experimental findings formed the basis for a hybrid symbolic regression framework integrating Genetic Programming (GP) with Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP), Fourier feature augmentation, and physics-informed constraints. Compared with multiple linear regression and other hybrid GP variants, the Physics-Informed Neural Fourier GP (PIN-FGP) model achieved the best performance (R2 = 0.9866, RMSE = 2.0 kPa). The outcome is a set of five interpretable and physics-consistent formulas linking measurable soil and interface properties to τmax. The study provides both new experimental insights and transparent predictive tools, supporting safer and more defensible geotechnical design and analysis.
Keywords: soil–structure interface; shear strength; hybrid genetic programming; symbolic regression; explainable artificial intelligence; physics-informed machine learning soil–structure interface; shear strength; hybrid genetic programming; symbolic regression; explainable artificial intelligence; physics-informed machine learning

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Almasoudi, R.; Baghbani, A.; Abuel-Naga, H. Interpretable AI-Driven Modelling of Soil–Structure Interface Shear Strength Using Genetic Programming with SHAP and Fourier Feature Augmentation. Geotechnics 2025, 5, 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/geotechnics5040069

AMA Style

Almasoudi R, Baghbani A, Abuel-Naga H. Interpretable AI-Driven Modelling of Soil–Structure Interface Shear Strength Using Genetic Programming with SHAP and Fourier Feature Augmentation. Geotechnics. 2025; 5(4):69. https://doi.org/10.3390/geotechnics5040069

Chicago/Turabian Style

Almasoudi, Rayed, Abolfazl Baghbani, and Hossam Abuel-Naga. 2025. "Interpretable AI-Driven Modelling of Soil–Structure Interface Shear Strength Using Genetic Programming with SHAP and Fourier Feature Augmentation" Geotechnics 5, no. 4: 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/geotechnics5040069

APA Style

Almasoudi, R., Baghbani, A., & Abuel-Naga, H. (2025). Interpretable AI-Driven Modelling of Soil–Structure Interface Shear Strength Using Genetic Programming with SHAP and Fourier Feature Augmentation. Geotechnics, 5(4), 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/geotechnics5040069

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop