Advertisement

Site Characterization Using GP, MARS and GPR

  • Pijush SamuiEmail author
  • Yıldırım Dalkiliç
  • J Jagan

Abstract

This article examines the capability of Genetic Programming (GP), Multivariate Adaptive Regression Spline (MARS) and Gaussian Process Regression (GPR) for developing site characterization model of Bangalore (India) based on corrected Standard Penetration Test (SPT) value (Nc). GP, MARS and GPR have been used as regression techniques. GP is developed based on genetic algorithm. MARS does not assume any functional relationship between input and output variables. GPR is a probabilistic, non-parametric model. In GPR, different kinds of prior knowledge can be applied. In three dimensional analysis, the function\( {\mathrm{N}}_{\mathrm{c}}=\mathrm{f}\left(\mathrm{X},\mathrm{Y},\mathrm{Z}\right) \) where X, Y and Z are the coordinates of a point corresponding to N value, is to be approximated with which N value at any half space point in Bangalore can be determined. A comparative study between the developed GP, MARS and GPR has been carried out in the proposed book chapter. The developed GP, MARS and GPR give the spatial variability of Nc values at Bangalore.

Keywords

Basis Function Genetic Programming Multivariate Adaptive Regression Spline Standard Penetration Test Site Characterization 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgement

Authors thank to T.G. Sitharam for providing the dataset.

References

  1. Yaglom AM (1962) Theory of stationary random functions. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Lumb P (1975) Spatial variability of soil properties. In: Proc. Second Int. Conf. on Application of Statistics and Probability in Soil and struct. Engrg, Aachen, Germany, p 397–421.Google Scholar
  3. Vanmarcke EH (1977) Probabilistic Modeling of soil profiles. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 102(11):1247–1265Google Scholar
  4. Tang WH (1979) Probabilistic evaluation of penetration resistance. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 105(GT10):1173–1191Google Scholar
  5. Wu TH, Wong K (1981) Probabilistic soil exploration: a case history. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 107(GT12):1693–1711Google Scholar
  6. Asaoka A, Grivas DA (1982) Spatial variability of the undrained strength of clays. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 108(5):743–745Google Scholar
  7. Vanmarcke EH (1983) Random fields: Analysis and synthesis. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MasszbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Baecher GB (1984) On estimating auto-covariance of soil properties. Specialty Conference on Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural Reliability, ASCE 110:214–218Google Scholar
  9. Kulatilake PHSW, Miller KM (1987) A scheme for estimating the spatial variation of soil properties in three dimensions. In: Proc. Of the Fifth Int. Conf. On Application of Statistics and Probabilities in Soil and Struct Engineering, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, p 669–677Google Scholar
  10. Kulatilake PHSW (1989) Probabilistic Potentiometric surface mapping. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ASCE 115(11):1569–1587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fenton GA (1998) Random field characterization NGES data. Paper presented at the workshop on Probabilistic Site Characterization at NGES, Seattle, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  12. Phoon KK, Kulhawy FH (1999) Characterization of geotechnical variability. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 36(4):612–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Uzielli M, Vannucchi G, Phoon KK (2005) Random filed characterization of stress-normalised cone penetration testing parameters. Géotechnique 55(1):3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kulatilake PHSW, Ghosh A (1988) An investigation into accuracy of spatial variation estimation using static cone penetrometer data. In: Proc. Of the First Int. Symp. On Penetration Testing, Orlando, Fla., p 815–821Google Scholar
  15. Soulie M, Montes P, Sivestri V (1990) Modelling spatial variability of soil parameters. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 27:617–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chiasson P, Lafleur J, Soulie M et al (1995). Characterizing spatial variability of clay by geostatistics. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 32:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Degroot DJ (1996) Analyzing spatial variability of in situ soil properties. In: ASCE proceedings of uncertainty ’96, uncertainty in the geologic environment: from theory to practice, vol 58, ASCE, geotechnical special publications, p 210–238Google Scholar
  18. Juang CH, Jiang T, Christopher RA (2001) Three-dimensional site characterisation: neural network approach. Géotechnique 51(9):799–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Samui P, Sitharam TG (2010) Site characterization model using artificial neural network and kriging. Int. J. Geomech 10(5):171–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Park D, Rilett LR (1999) Forecasting freeway link travel times with a multi-layer feed forward neural network. Computer Aided Civil and Infra Structure Engineering 14:358–367Google Scholar
  21. Kecman V (2001) Learning and Soft Computing: Support Vector Machines, Neural Networks, and Fuzzy Logic Models. MIT press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  22. Samui P, Das S (2011) Site Characterization Model Using Support Vector Machine and Ordinary Kriging. Journal of Intelligent Systems 20(3):261–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tipping ME (2001) Sparse Bayesian learning and the relevance vector machine. J. Mach. Learn 1:211–244zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. Koza JR (1992) Genetic programming: on the programming of computers by means of natural selection. MIT Press, Cambridge.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Londhe S, Charhate S (2010) Comparison of data-driven modelling techniques for river flow forecasting. Hydrological Sciences Journal 55(7):1163–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Guven A, Kişi O (2011) Estimation of Suspended Sediment Yield in Natural Rivers Using Machine-coded Linear Genetic Programming. Water Resources Management 25(2):691–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Alavi AH, Gandomi AH (2011) A Robust Data Mining Approach for Formulation of Geotechnical Engineering Systems.” International Journal for Computer-Aided Engineering-Engineering Computations, Emerald, 28(3): 242–274Google Scholar
  28. Alavi AH, Gandomi AH (2012) Energy-based numerical models for assessment of soil liquefaction. Geoscience Frontiers 3(4):541–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Danandeh Mehr A, Kahya E, Olyaie E (2013) Streamflow prediction using linear genetic programming in comparison with a neuro-wavelet technique. Journal of Hydrology 505: 240–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zahiri A, Azamathulla HM (2014) Comparison between linear genetic programming and M5 tree models to predict flow discharge in compound channels. Neural Computing and Applications 24(2):413–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Friedman JH (1991) Multivariate adaptive regression splines. The Annals of Statistics 19(1):1–67zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harb R, Su X, Radwan E (2010) Empirical analysis of toll-lane processing times using proportional odds augmented MARS. Journal of Transportation Engineering 136(11):1039–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mao HP, Wu YZ, Chen LP (2011) Multivariate adaptive regression splines based simulation optimization using move-limit strategy. Journal of Shanghai University 15(6):542–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhan X, Yao D, Zhan X (2012) Exploring a novel method among data mining methods and statistical methods to analyse risk factors of peripheral arterial disease in type 2 diabetes mellitus. International Journal of Digital Content Technology and its Applications 6(23): 243–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kumar P, Singh Y (2013) Comparative analysis of software reliability predictions using statistical and machine learning methods. International Journal of Intelligent Systems Technologies and Applications 12(3-4):230–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. García Nieto PJ, Álvarez Antón JC (2014) Nonlinear air quality modeling using multivariate adaptive regression splines in Gijón urban area (Northern Spain) at local scale. Applied Mathematics and Computation 235(25):50–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shen Q, Sun Z (2010) Online learning algorithm of gaussian process based on adaptive natural gradient for regression. Advanced Materials Research 139-141:1847–1851Google Scholar
  38. Xu Y, Choi J, Oh S (2011) Mobile sensor network navigation using Gaussian processes with truncated observations. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 27(6):1118–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kongkaew W, Pichitlamken J (2012) A Gaussian process regression model for the traveling salesman problem. Journal of Computer Science 8(10):1749–1758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Fairchild G, Hickmann KS, Mniszewski SM et al (2013) Optimizing human activity patterns using global sensitivity analysis. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory 1–23Google Scholar
  41. Holman D, Sridharan M, Gowda P et al (2014) Gaussian process models for reference ET estimation from alternative meteorological data sources. Journal of Hydrology 517:28–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sekulic S, Kowalski BR (1992) MARS: A tutorial. Journal of Chemometrics 6(4):199–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yang XS, Gandomi AH, Talatahari S et al (2013) Metaheuristis in Water, Geotechnical and Transportation Engineering. Elsevier, Waltham, MAGoogle Scholar
  44. Fister I, Gandomi AH, Fister IJ et al (2014) Soft Computing in Earthquake engineering: A short overview. International Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Hazard Mitigation 2(2):42–48Google Scholar
  45. Gandomi AH, Alavi AH (2012) A New Multi-Gene Genetic Programming Approach to Nonlinear System Modeling. Part II: Geotechnical and Earthquake Engineering Problems. Neural Computing and Applications 21(1):189–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Gandomi AH, Alavi AH (2011) A robust data mining approach for formulation of geotechnical engineering systems. Engineering Computations 28(3):242–274zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Langdon W (2013) Hybridizing Genetic Programming with Orthogonal Least Squares for Modeling of Soil Liquefaction. International Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Hazard Mitigation 1(1):2–8Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Disaster Mitigation and ManagementVIT UniversityVelloreIndia
  2. 2.Faculty of Engineering, Civil Engineering DepartmentErzincan UniversityErzincanTurkey

Personalised recommendations