Engineering with Computers

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 37–53 | Cite as

Formulation of soil angle of shearing resistance using a hybrid GP and OLS method

  • Seyyed Mohammad Mousavi
  • Amir Hossein Alavi
  • Ali Mollahasani
  • Amir Hossein Gandomi
  • Milad Arab EsmaeiliEmail author
Original Article


In the present study, a prediction model was derived for the effective angle of shearing resistance (ϕ′) of soils using a novel hybrid method coupling genetic programming (GP) and orthogonal least squares algorithm (OLS). The proposed nonlinear model relates ϕ′ to the basic soil physical properties. A comprehensive experimental database of consolidated-drained triaxial tests was used to develop the model. Traditional GP and least square regression analyses were performed to benchmark the GP/OLS model against classical approaches. Validity of the model was verified using a part of laboratory data that were not involved in the calibration process. The statistical measures of correlation coefficient, root mean squared error, and mean absolute percent error were used to evaluate the performance of the models. Sensitivity and parametric analyses were conducted and discussed. The GP/OLS-based formula precisely estimates the ϕ′ values for a number of soil samples. The proposed model provides a better prediction performance than the traditional GP and regression models.


Effective angle of shearing resistance Soil physical properties Genetic programming Orthogonal least squares Hybridization 


  1. 1.
    Mollahasani A, Alavi AH, Gandomi AH, Rashed A (2011) Nonlinear neural-based modeling of soil cohesion intercept. KSCE J Civil Eng 15(5):831–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arora KR (1988) Introductory soil engineering. text book, 322, pub.: Nem Chand Jane (Prop.), Standard Publishers Distributors, 1705-NaiSarak, DelhiGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Murthy S (2008) Geotechnical engineering: principles and practices of soil mechanics, 2008, 2nd edn. CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, UKGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    ASTM WK3821 New test method for consolidated drained triaxial compression test for soilsGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ASTM D 6528 Consolidated undrained direct simple shear testing of cohesive soilsGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    El-Maksoud MAF (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, vol 9, Rousse, BulgariaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bowles JE (1992) Engineering properties of soils and their measurement, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Korayem AY, Ismail KM, Sehari SQ (1996) Prediction of soil shear strength and penetration resistance using some soil properties. Missouri J Agric Res 13(4):119–140Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Panwar JS, Seimens JC (1972) Shear strength and energy of soil failure related to density and moisture. T ASAE 15:423–427Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Terzaghi K, Peck RB, Mesri G (1996) Soil mechanics in engineering practice, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shahin MA, Maier HR, Jaksa MB (2001) Artificial neural network applications in geotechnical engineering. Aust Geomech 36(1):49–62Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alavi AH, Gandomi AH, Mollahasani A, Heshmati AAR (2010) Modeling of maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of stabilized soil using artificial neural networks. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 173(3):368–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heshmati AAR, Alavi AH, Keramati M, Gandomi AH (2009) A radial basis function neural network approach for compressive strength prediction of stabilized soil. Geotech Spec Pub ASCE 191:147–153Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Alavi AH, Ameri M, Gandomi AH, Mirzahosseini MR (2011) Formulation of flow number of asphalt mixes using a hybrid computational method. Constr Build Mater 25(3):1338–1355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koza J (1992) Genetic programming, on the programming of computers by means of natural selection. MIT Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Banzhaf W, Nordin P, Keller R, Francone F (1998) Genetic programming—an introduction: on the automatic evolution of computer programs and its application. dpunkt/Morgan Kaufmann, Heidelberg/San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johari A, Habibagahi G, Ghahramani (2006) A prediction of soil–water characteristic curve using genetic programming. J Geotech Geoenviron ASCE 132(5):661–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gandomi AH, Alavi AH, Sahab MG, Arjmandi P (2010) Formulation of elastic modulus of concrete using linear genetic programming. J Mech Sci Tech 24(6):1011–1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gandomi AH, Alavi AH, Sahab MG (2009) New formulation for compressive strength of CFRP confined concrete cylinders using linear genetic programming. Mater Struct 43(7):963–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Alavi AH, Gandomi AH, Sahab MG, Gandomi M (2010) Multi expression programming: a new approach to formulation of soil classification. Eng Comput 26(2):111–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kayadelen C, Günaydın O, Fener M, Demir A, Özvan A (2009) A modeling of the angle of shearing resistance of soils using soft computing systems. Expert Syst Appl 36:11814–11826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Billings S, Korenberg M, Chen S (1988) Identification of nonlinear output-affine systems using an orthogonal least-squares algorithm. Int J Syst Sci 19(8):1559–1568MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chen S, Billings S, Luo W (1989) Orthogonal least squares methods and their application to non-linear system identification. Int J Control 50(5):1873–1896MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gandomi AH, Alavi AH, Mousavi M, Tabatabaei SM (2011) A hybrid computational approach to derive new ground-motion attenuation models. Eng Appl Artif Int 24(4):717–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gandomi AH, Alavi AH, Arjmandi P, Aghaeifar A, Seyednoor M (2010) Genetic programming and orthogonal least squares: a hybrid approach to modeling the compressive strength of CFRP-confined concrete cylinders. J Mech Mater Struct 5(5):735–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Madar J, Abonyi J, Szeifert F (2005) Genetic programming for the identification of nonlinear input-output models. Ind Eng Chem Res 44(9):3178–3186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pearson R (2003) Selecting nonlinear model structures for computer control. J Process Control 13(1):1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Reeves CR (1997) Genetic algorithm for the operations research. INFORMS J Comput 9:231–250zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Madár J, Abonyi J, Szeifert F (2004) Genetic programming for system identification. In: Proceedings of Intelligent Systems Design and Applications (ISDA 2004) Conference, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cao H, Yu J, Kang L, Chen Y (1999) The kinetic evolutionary modelling of complex systems of chemical reactions. Comput Chem Eng 23(1):143–151Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Barends FBJ, Lindenberg JL, DeQuelerij L, Verruijt A, Luger HJ (1999) Geotechnical engineering for transportation infrastructure: theory and practice, planning and design, construction and maintenance. AA Balkema Publishers, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    ASTM D 1587 Standard practice for thin-walled tube sampling of soils for geotechnical purposesGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kayadelen C (2008) Estimation of effective stress parameter of unsaturated soils by using artificial neural networks. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 32:1087–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dunlop P, Smith S (2003) Estimating key characteristics of the concrete delivery and placement process using linear regression analysis. Civil Eng Environ Syst 20:273–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Swingler K (1996) Applying neural networks a practical guide. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rafiq MY, Bugmann G, Easterbrook DJ (2001) Neural network design for engineering applications. Comput Struct 79(17):1541–1552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Madár J, Abonyi J, Szeifert F (2005b) Genetic programming for the identification of nonlinear input-output models, white paper. Retrieved September 05, 2009, from
  38. 38.
    Silva S (2007) GPLAB, a genetic programming toolbox for MATLAB, ITQB/UNL[M].
  39. 39.
    Ryan TP (1997) Modern regression methods. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Maravall A, Gomez V (2004) EViews Software, Ver. 5. Quantitative Micro Software, LLC, IrvineGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Smith GN (1986) Probability and statistics in civil engineering. Collins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mollahasani A, Alavi AH, Gandomi AH (2011) Empirical modeling of plate load test moduli of soil via gene expression programming. Comput Geotech 38(2):281–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Frank IE, Todeschini R (1994) The data analysis handbook. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Golbraikh A, Tropsha A (2002) Beware of q2. J Mol Graph Model 20:269–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Roy PP, Roy K (2008) On some aspects of variable selection for partial least squares regression models. QSAR Comb Sci 27:302–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Francone F (2001) Discipulus owner’s manual, Version 4.0. Register Machine Learning Technologies, LittletonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seyyed Mohammad Mousavi
    • 1
  • Amir Hossein Alavi
    • 2
  • Ali Mollahasani
    • 4
  • Amir Hossein Gandomi
    • 3
  • Milad Arab Esmaeili
    • 5
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringSharif University of TechnologyTehranIran
  2. 2.School of Civil EngineeringIran University of Science and TechnologyTehranIran
  3. 3.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of AkronAkronUSA
  4. 4.Department of Civil, Environmental and Material Engineering (DICAM)University of BolognaBolognaItaly
  5. 5.Department of Civil EngineeringIslamic Azad University, Shahrood BranchShahroodIran

Personalised recommendations