Advertisement

Journal of Earth System Science

, Volume 120, Issue 6, pp 1001–1022 | Cite as

Nonlinear genetic-based simulation of soil shear strength parameters

  • SEYYED MOHAMMAD MOUSAVI
  • AMIR HOSSEIN ALAVIEmail author
  • AMIR HOSSEIN GANDOMI
  • ALI MOLLAHASANI
Article

New nonlinear solutions were developed to estimate the soil shear strength parameters utilizing linear genetic programming (LGP). The soil cohesion intercept (c) and angle of shearing resistance (ϕ) were formulated in terms of the basic soil physical properties. The best models were selected after developing and controlling several models with different combinations of influencing parameters. Comprehensive experimental database used for developing the models was established upon a series of unconsolidated, undrained, and unsaturated triaxial tests conducted in this study. Further, sensitivity and parametric analyses were carried out. c and ϕ were found to be mostly influenced by the soil unit weight and liquid limit. In order to benchmark the proposed models, a multiple least squares regression (MLSR) analysis was performed. The validity of the models was proved on portions of laboratory results that were not included in the modelling process. The developed models are able to effectively learn the complex relationship between the soil strength parameters and their contributing factors. The LGP models provide a significantly better prediction performance than the regression models.

Keywords

Soil shear strength parameters soil physical properties linear-based genetic programming  prediction 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alavi A H and Gandomi A H 2011a Prediction of principal ground-motion parameters using a hybrid method coupling artificial neural networks and simulated annealing; Comput. Struct., doi: 10.1016/j.compstruc. 2011.08.019.Google Scholar
  2. Alavi A H and Gandomi A H 2011b A robust data mining approach for formulation of geotechnical engineering systems; Int. J. Comput. Aided Meth. Eng.-Eng. Computations 28(3) 242–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alavi A H, Gandomi A H, Gandomi M and Sadat Hosseini S S 2009 Prediction of maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of stabilized soil using RBF neural networks; The IES J Part A: Civil. Struct. Eng. 2 98–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alavi A H, Gandomi A H, Sahab M G and Gandomi M 2010 Multi expression programming: A new approach to formulation of soil classification; Eng. Comput. 26(2) 111–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alavi A H, Ameri M, Gandomi A H and Mirzahosseini M R 2011 Formulation of flow number of asphalt mixes using a hybrid computational method; Constr. Build. Mater. 25(3) 1338–1355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arora K R 1988 Introductory soil engineering; text book. Nem Chand Jane (Prop), Standard Publishers Distributors, Nai Sarak, Delhi.Google Scholar
  7. ASTM D 6528 Consolidated undrained direct simple shear testing of cohesive soils.Google Scholar
  8. ASTM D2850-87 Standard Test Method for Unconsolidated, Undrained Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soils in Triaxial Compression.Google Scholar
  9. ASTM WK3821 New test method for consolidated drained triaxial compression test for soils.Google Scholar
  10. Aytek A and Alp M 2008 An application of artificial intelligence for rainfall-runoff modeling; J. Earth Syst. Sci. 117(2) 145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Banzhaf W, Nordin P, Keller R and Francone F 1998 Genetic programming – An introduction on the automatic evolution of computer programs and its application; dpunkt/Morgan Kaufmann, Heidelberg/San Francisco.Google Scholar
  12. Barends F B J, Lindenberg J L, De Quelerij L, Verruijt A and Luger H J 1999 Geotechnical Engineering for Transportation Infrastructure: Theory and Practice, Planning and Design, Construction and Maintenance; Balkema Publishers, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  13. Baykasoglu A, Gullub H, Canakcı H and Ozbakır L 2008 Prediction of compressive and tensile strength of limestone via genetic programming; Expert. Syst. Appl. 35(1–2) 111–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bowles J E 1992 Engineering properties of soils and their measurement; McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Brameier M and Banzhaf W 2001 A comparison of linear genetic programming and neural networks in medical data mining; IEEE Trans. Evol. Com. 5(1) 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brameier M and Banzhaf W 2007 Linear Genetic Programming; Springer Science + Business Media, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Cevik A and Cabalar A F 2009 Modelling damping ratio and shear modulus of sand–mica mixtures using genetic programming; Expert. Syst. Appl. 36(4) 7749–7757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Conrads M, Dolezal O, Francone F D and Nordin P 2004 Discipulus – fast genetic programming based on AIM learning technology; Register Machine Learning Technologies Inc, Littleton, CO.Google Scholar
  19. Deschaine L M 2000 Using Genetic Programming to Develop a C/C+ + Simulation Model of a Waste Incinerator Science Applications; International Corp, Draft Technical Report.Google Scholar
  20. El-Maksoud M A F 2006 Laboratory determining of soil strength parameters in calcareous soils and their effect on chiseling draft prediction; In: Proceedings of Energy Efficiency and Agricultural Engineering International Conference, Rousse, Bulgaria.Google Scholar
  21. Feldt R and Nordin P 2000 Using Factorial Experiments to Evaluate the Effect of Genetic Programming Parameters; In: Proceedings of EuroGP 2000 LNCS 1802 pp. 271–282.Google Scholar
  22. Francone F D 2001 Discipulus ProTM Software Owner’s Manual; Register Machine Learning Technologies Inc: Littleton, CO.Google Scholar
  23. Francone F D 2004 Discipulus LiteTM Software Owner’s Manual, Littleton, CO, USA, Machine Learning Technologies Inc.Google Scholar
  24. Frank I E and Todeschini R 1994 The data analysis handbook; Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherland.Google Scholar
  25. Gandomi A H and Alavi A H 2011 Multi-stage genetic programming: A new strategy to nonlinear system modeling; Inf. Sci. 181(23) 5227–5239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gandomi A H, Alavi A H and Sadathosseini S S 2008 A discussion on genetic programming for retrieving missing information in wave records along the west coast of India; Appl. Ocean Res. 30 338–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gandomi A H, Alavi A H and Sahab M G 2010 New formulation for compressive strength of CFRP confined concrete cylinders using linear genetic programming; Mater. Struct. 43(7) 963–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gandomi A H, Alavi A H, Mirzahosseini R and Moqaddas Nezhad F 2011a Nonlinear genetic-based models for prediction of flow number of asphalt mixtures; J. Mater. Civil Eng. ASCE 23(3) 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gandomi A H, Alavi A H and Yun G J 2011b Nonlinear modeling of shear strength of sfrcb beams using linear genetic programming; Struct. Eng. Mech. 38(1) 1–25.Google Scholar
  30. Guven A 2009 Linear Genetic Programming for time-series modelling of daily flow rate; J. Earth Syst. Sci. 118(2) 137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Guven A, Gunal M and Cevik A 2006 Prediction of pressure fluctuations on stilling basins; Can. J. Civ. Eng. 33(11) 1379–1388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Guven A, Aytek A, Yuce M I and Aksoy H 2007 Genetic programming-based empirical model for daily reference evapotranspiration estimation; CLEAN–Soil Air Water J. 36(10–11) 905–912.Google Scholar
  33. Guven A, Azamathullab H M and Zakaria N A 2009 Linear Genetic Programming for prediction of circular pile scour; Ocean Eng. 36(12–13) 985–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Heshmati A A R, Alavi A H, Keramati M and Gandomi A H 2009 A radial basis function Neural Network Approach for compressive strength prediction of stabilized soil; Geotech. Spec. Publ. ASCE 191 147–153.Google Scholar
  35. Javadi A A and Rezania M 2009 Applications of artificial intelligence and data mining techniques in soil modelling; Geomech. Eng. 1(1) 53–74.Google Scholar
  36. Kasabov N K 1998 Foundations of neural networks fuzzy systems and knowledge engineering; Cambridge, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Kayadelen C, Günaydın O, Fener M, Demir A and Özvan A 2009 A modeling of the angle of shearing resistance of soils using soft computing systems; Expert. Syst. Appl. 36 11,814–11,826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Korayem A Y, Ismail K M and Sehari S Q 1996 Prediction of soil shear strength and penetration resistance using some soil properties; Mis. J. Agr. Res. 13(4) 119–140.Google Scholar
  39. Koza J 1992 Genetic programming, on the programming of computers by means of natural selection; Cambridge (MA), MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Kraslawski A, Pedrycz W and Nyström L 1999 Fuzzy Neural Network as instance generator for case-based reasoning system: An example of selection of heat exchange equipment in mixing; Neu. Comput. Appl. 8(2) 106–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Maravall A and Gomez V 2004 Eviews Software; Version 5. Quantitative Micro Software, LLC, Irvine CA.Google Scholar
  42. Mesbahi E 2000 Application of artificial neural networks in modelling and control of diesel engines; PhD Thesis, University of Newcastle, UK.Google Scholar
  43. Mollahasani A, Alavi A H, Gandomi A H and Rashed A 2011 Nonlinear neural-based modeling of soil cohesion intercept; KSCE J. Civil. Eng. 15(5) 831–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mousavi S M, Alavi A H, Gandomi A H and Mollahasani A 2011 Formulation of soil angle of shearing resistance using a hybrid GP and OLS Mehod; Eng. Comput. in press. doi: 10.1007/s00366-011-0242-xGoogle Scholar
  45. Murthy S 2008 Geotechnical Engineering: Principles and Practices of Soil Mechanics; 2nd edn, Taylor & Francis, CRC Press, UK.Google Scholar
  46. Oltean M and Grosan C 2003 A comparison of several linear genetic programming techniques; Complex Syst. 14(4) 1–29.Google Scholar
  47. Panwar J S and Seimens J C 1972 Shear strength and energy of soil failure related to density and moisture; T. ASAE 15 423–427.Google Scholar
  48. Poli R, Langdon W B, McPhee N F and Koza J R 2007 Genetic programming: An introductory tutorial and a survey of techniques and applications; Technical report [CES-475], University of Essex, UK.Google Scholar
  49. Ryan T P 1997 Modern Regression Methods; Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  50. Shahin M A, Jaksa M B and Maier H R 2009 Recent advances and future challenges for artificial neural systems in geotechnical engineering applications; Adv. Artif. Neur. Syst., Article ID 308239.Google Scholar
  51. Shahin M A, Maier H R and Jaksa M B 2001 Artificial neural network applications in geotechnical engineering; Aus. Geomech. 36(1) 49–62.Google Scholar
  52. Smith G N 1986 Probability and statistics in civil engineering; Collins, London.Google Scholar
  53. Swingler K 1996 Applying neural networks: A practical guide; Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  54. Terzaghi K, Peck R B and Mesri G 1996 Soil mechanics in engineering practice, 3rd edn, Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Sciences 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • SEYYED MOHAMMAD MOUSAVI
    • 1
  • AMIR HOSSEIN ALAVI
    • 2
    Email author
  • AMIR HOSSEIN GANDOMI
    • 3
  • ALI MOLLAHASANI
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Geography and Urban Planning, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Science and Research BranchIslamic Azad UniversityTehranIran
  2. 2.Young Researchers Club, Mashhad BranchIslamic Azad UniversityMashhadIran
  3. 3.Department of Civil, Environmental and Material Engineering (DICAM)University of BolognaBolognaItaly
  4. 4.Young Researchers Club, Central Tehran BranchIslamic Azad UniversityTehranIran

Personalised recommendations