ORI GI NAL PAPER

Estimation of Pore Water Pressure of Soil Using Genetic

Programming
Ankit Garg

Akhil Garg

K. Tai

S. Sreedeep
Received: 27 October 2013 / Accepted: 16 April 2014
Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014
Abstract Soilwater characteristic curve (SWCC) is
one of the input components required for conducting
the transient seepage analysis in unsaturated soil for
estimating pore water pressure (PWP). SWCC is
usually dened by saturated volumetric water content
(h
s
), residual water content (RWC) and air entry value
(AEV). Mathematical model of PWP could be useful
to unearth the important SWCC components and the
physics behind it. Based on authors knowledge, rarely
any mathematical models describing the relationship
between PWP and SWCC components are found. In
the present work, an evolutionary approach, namely,
multi-gene genetic programming (MGGP) has been
applied to formulate the relationship between the PWP
prole along soil depth and input variables for SWCC
(h
s
, RWC and AEV) for a given duration of ponding.
The PWP predicted using the MGGP model has been
compared with those generated using nite element
simulations. The results indicate that the MGGP
model is able to extrapolate the PWP satisfactory
along the soil depth for a given set of boundary
conditions. Based on the given AEV and saturated
water content, the PWP along the depth can be
determined from the newly developed MGGP model,
which will be useful for design and analysis of slopes
and landll covers.
Keywords MGGP SWCC Pore water
pressure Genetic programming Evolutionary
approach Articial intelligence
1 Introduction
Transient seepage analyses in the unsaturated soil
involve the numerical solution of Richards equation
(Richards 1931), which is often used to determine the
variation of pore water pressure prole (PWPP) with
respect to the two factors: position and time. Such
modelling is useful for analysing rainfall induced
slope failures, design of landll covers, and also water
uptake by vegetation (Biddle 1998; Blight 2005). Soil
water characteristic curve (SWCC) and permeability
function (PF) are the two input components required
for the computation of PWPP using the unsaturated
seepage modeling. SWCC represents the ability of soil
to hold water which can be also dened as the variation
between soil suction and water content. Saturated
volumetric water content (h
s
), residual volumetric
water content (RWC) and air entry value (AE) are the
parameters that govern the SWCC. On the other hand,
PF is the variation between unsaturated permeability
and soil suction/water content. It is noted from the
A. Garg (&) S. Sreedeep
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam, India
e-mail: garg1988@gmail.com
A. Garg K. Tai
School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
Nanyang Technological University, 50 Nanyang Ave,
Singapore 639798, Singapore
1 3
Geotech Geol Eng
DOI 10.1007/s10706-014-9755-6
literature that SWCC is usually determined with the
help of several direct and indirect method for
measuring SWCC (Sreedeep 2006; Sreedeep and
Singh, 2011).
Owing to the difculty in estimating the PF, it is
estimated indirectly from SWCC (Van Genuchten
1980). There are different factors: range and type of
soil suction, procedure adopted for suction measure-
ment, hysteresis, experimental errors etc., which
inuences the uniqueness of SWCC (Shah et al.
2006; Sreedeep and Singh 2010; Malaya and Sreedeep
2010). Such variations in SWCC would also inuence
the estimation procedure of PF and PWPP. Therefore,
the present study rst quanties the sensitiveness of
SWCC variation on PWPP. For this purpose, the
solution of Richards equation has been performed
using commercial available numerical program
SEEP/W (Geo-Slope 2007). Apart from the numerical
solution, several novel approaches of soft computing
methods such as hybridizing differential evolution
algorithm with receptor editing property of immune
system (Yildiz 2012a, b, 2013a), articial bee colony
algorithm with Taguchis method (Yildiz 2013b, c),
differential algorithm with Taguchis method (Yildiz
2013d), cuckoo search algorithm (CS) (Yildiz 2013e)
and immune algorithm with hill climbing local search
algorithm (Yildiz 2009a, b) can also be used to
optimize the performance characteristics of the soil.
The study further demonstrates the use of an
evolutionary approach, namely, multi-gene program-
ming (MGGP) for generating PWPP in unsaturated soil
for a given boundary value problem and important
SWCCparameters such as RWC, AEV, slope of SWCC
and h
s
. The method is well known for producing models
which represents the explicit relationship between the
input and output process parameters. The advantage of
MGGP method is that it can predict PWPP directly
without the needtoperformnumerical solutionof highly
non- linear Richards equation. The PWPP obtained
using the MGGP model has been compared with those
obtained from the numerical solution.
2 Finite Element Modeling (FEM)
for the Generation of Data
A commercial nite element program, SEEP/W (Geo-
Slope 2007) is used to conduct the transient seepage
analysis by solving the Richards Equation. As shown
in Fig. 1, the problem domain consists of a cylindrical
column of homogenous sandy silt. The diameter and
height of the column are 3 and 6 m, respectively. One
dimensional transient unsaturated seepage analysis
was performed for this soil column by specifying the
following boundary conditions.
1. At the top of the column, total head causing
seepage is 15 m by considering bottom of the
column as reference datum. This corresponds to a
ponding condition of water of 9 m above the top
surface of the column.
2. At bottom of the column, pressure head is zero,
which species water table condition.
3. The sides of the column are specied as no ow
boundary condition.
4. Effect of evaporation has not been considered in
this modelling.
5. Initial condition is based on the PWP condition
which varies from the groundwater table.
The seepage modelling results are obtained in terms of
parameters such as PWP as a function of both depth.
The parametric variation with time has been obtained
for a point at 1 mdepth fromthe top surface of the soil.
This is mainly because the variations in parameter due
to unsaturated seepage will be more prominent at a
shallow depth and hence the results obtained would
clearly help to understand the sensitivity of SWCC
better.
The reference SWCC (SW) for the present soil has
been obtained from the literature (Sreedeep and Singh
2011). Further, the statistical variation of SW has been
obtained as depicted in Fig. 2a, b, c. It can be noted
Soil
Water table
9 m
6 m
3 m
Seepage
Figure not
to scale
Depth
Fig. 1 Soil column modeled in this study
Geotech Geol Eng
1 3
from the gure that varied SWCCs have been obtained
by systematically varying the parameters h
s
and AEV.
SW1 and SW2 are vertical variation of SW by
changing h
s
while AEV remaining constant. SW3
and SW4 represent horizontal variation in SW by
changing AEV, while h
s
remaining constant. SW5 and
SW6 represent combined vertical and horizontal
variation by changing both AEV and h
s
. For a
particular set of SWCC variation, the RWC and slope
change is negligible. For clarity, the important
parameters of SWCC such as h
s
, AEV, RWC and
slope are listed in Table 1. These statistically varied
SWCCs have been used to model the seepage situation
as discussed before. This would help to understand the
inuence of SWCC variation on unsaturated seepage
behaviour. It must be noted that the difference in
seepage results, if any, would be mostly attributed to
the change in AEV and h
s
of SWCC, as discussed
above. The saturated hydraulic conductivity k
sat
considered in this study is 10
-5
m/sec. The transient
seepage modelling with respect to different SWCC
variations for a homogenous unsaturated sandy silt
layer has been obtained with the help of SEEP/W
software (Geo-Slope 2007). Results of the transient
seepage analysis of unsaturated sandy silt layer in
terms of variation of parameters such as PWPP at end
of 1,000 s of duration of ponding is presented as
follows.
As shown in Figs. 3, 4 and 5, there is marginal
variation in PWP versus depth response in the seepage
zone (1 m) for SWCC variations considered in this
study. In general, PWP reduces to a negative value
close to 1 m depth indicating that the seeping water
front has just reached this depth within the prescribed
time. This observation is consistent with that of h
variation with depth. From 1 m depth, PWP further
increases and approaches to zero at the bottom of the
soil column, which is dened as water table boundary.
Such an increase in PWP with depth may be attributed
to a marginal increase in h with depth.
2.1 Observations from the FEM Analysis
The inuence of the three types of SWCCvariations of
a sandy silt (vertical, horizontal and combined vertical
and horizontal), on unsaturated seepage modeling
results were investigated. The results indicate that the
vertical variation in SWCC due to change in saturated
volumetric water content inuences seepage modeling
results considerably. For the range of variation in AEV
(horizontal variation in SWCC) considered, there is
not much inuence on the seepage modeling results.
Further investigations are required for higher varia-
tions in AEV. It is observed that maximumvariation in
seepage modeling results is obtained when there is
combined vertical and horizontal variation in SWCCs.
It is also worth noting that maximum % variation in
seepage parameters is almost proportional to the
percentage variation in SWCCs. The result indicate
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50

Suction (kPa)
SW
SW1
SW2
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
SW
SW3
SW4

Suction (Kpa)
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
SW
SW5
SW6

Suction (kPa)
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 2 a Details of SW, SW1 and SW2. b Details of SW, SW3
and SW4. c Details of SW, SW5, SW6
Geotech Geol Eng
1 3
that the experts dealing with the unsaturated soil need
to be more cautious in using the appropriate SWCCfor
the seepage modeling for obtaining the realistic
results.
2.2 Data Preparation for Training MGGP Model
168 sets of data samples are generated from FEM as
discussed. Five input variables (AEV (x
1
), RWC (x
2
),
h
s
(x
3
), slope (x
4
), depth (x
5
)) and output variables
(PWP (y)) is discussed. First 120 samples are chosen
as a set of training data with the remaining as a set of
test samples. Training samples include the measure-
ment values of PWP at RWC values of 0.04, 0.05 and
0.06, whereas, the testing samples include the
measurement values of PWP at the RWC of 0.07
and 0.09. The test data samples are used for testing the
extrapolation ability of the MGGP model while only
the training is used for formulating the model.
3 Multi-gene Genetic Programming
To have an idea about the working of the evolutionary
approach, MGGP, rstly the GP is discussed. Based on
the collected experimental data, GP evolves the
models. These models are generated automatically
without any pre-denition of the structure of the model
(Koza 1996). Mechanism of GP is same as that of
genetic algorithms (GAs). Only difference between
them is that the latter evolves solutions represented by
Table 1 Details of SWCC variations used in this study
SWCC h
s
AEV (kPa) RWC Slope (linear) % variation w.r.t to. SW
h
s
AEV RWC Slope (Linear)
SW 0.35 0.695 0.05 0.020 0 0 0 0
SW1 0.40 0.695 0.06 0.023 14 0 0 15
SW2 0.45 0.695 0.07 0.026 29 0 0 30
SW3 0.35 1.110 0.06 0.012 0 60 0 -35
SW4 0.35 1.530 0.06 0.009 0 120 0 -55
SW5 0.45 0.903 0.07 0.020 29 30 0 0
SW6 0.55 1.112 0.09 0.019 57 60 0 -5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
SW
SW1
SW2
P
W
P

(
k
P
a
)
Depth (m)
Fig. 3 Variation of PWP with depth for SW1 and SW2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
SW
SW3
SW4
P
W
P

(
k
P
a
)
Depth (m)
Fig. 4 Variation of PWP with depth for SW3 and SW4
Geotech Geol Eng
1 3
strings of xed length in real or binary form, whereas,
the former evolves models represented by tree struc-
tures of different sizes (Garg et al. 2014a, b).
In GP, the models are generated by combining the
elements randomly fromthe user-dened functional and
terminal set. Ramped half-and-half algorithmis applied
to generate the models of uniform shape and size. The
elements, specically, basic arithmetic operations
(?, -, 9, /, etc.), occupy the functional set F. The input
variables and range of constants considered in the study
denes the terminal set T. Number of models generated
is represented bya population size. One such example of
model formed is shown in Fig. 6. After the initialization
of the models, their performance is evaluated based on
the user-dened tness function. The tness function
commonly used is root means square error (RMSE)
given by
RMSE

P
N
I1
jG
i
A
i
j
z
N
s
100 1
Where G
i
is the valued predicted of ith data sample by
the MGGP model, A
i
is the actual value of the ith data
sample and N is the number of training samples.
Given the tness values of the models, models are
ranked and selected for the genetic operations such as
crossover, mutation and reproduction to form a new
population. In crossover operation, a branch of tree is
randomly selected from both the parents and swapped
between them. In mutation operation, a random node
from the tree is selected and replaced by the branch/or
the whole new generated random tree. The process of
producing new population/generation continues as
long as the termination criterion is not met. Termina-
tion criterion is set by the user and is the maximum
number of generations and the threshold error of the
model, whichever is achieved earlier.
In MGGP algorithm, each model in the evolution-
ary stage is formed from the combination of set of
genes/GP trees. There are numerous applications of
MGGP algorithm in eld of engineering and nance
(Garg and Tai 2011, 2012a, b, 2013a, b, c; Garg et al.
2013a, b, c, d, e). The step-by-step procedure of
MGGP algorithm is as follows
BEGIN
Step 1: Dene problem
Step 2: MGGP algorithm
Begin
2.a Dene parameters such as population size,
generations, terminal set, functional set, maximum
number of genes, depth, etc.
2.b Generate initial population of genes
2.c Combine genes using least square method to
form MGGP models
2.d Evaluate performance of models based on
tness function, namely, RMSE
2.e Apply genetic operations and form the new
population
2.f Cross-check the models performance against the
termination criterion, and if not satised, GOTO
Step 2.e
End;
END;
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
SW
SW5
SW6
P
W
P

(
k
P
a
)
Depth (m)
Fig. 5 Variation of PWP with depth for SW5 and SW6
tanh

3
+
x
+
4
y
F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
Terminals
Fig. 6 GP model: 3tanh (x) ? (4 ? y)
Geotech Geol Eng
1 3
3.1 Implementation of MGGP
The evolutionary search in GP for a generalised model
is highly inuenced by its parameters settings. There
are few important parameters that need to be set
properly for the evolution of model of desired
generalisation ability. In the present work, trial-and-
error route is adopted to select the parameter settings.
The parameter settings selected are shown in Table 2.
The function set F consists of few non-linear mathe-
matical functions and arithmetic operators. The func-
tion set chosen comprise of many elements since this
can assist in evolutionary search of broader variety of
nonlinear mathematical models. The parameters:
population size and number of generations represent
the number of models and number of new population
formed from genetic operations respectively. The
population size and number of generations fairly
depends on the complexity of the data. Based on
literature review by Garg and Tai (2012b), the
population size and number of generations should
not be high in-case of large number of data samples to
avoid the problem of over-tting. The parameters that
inuence the size of search space and number of
models to be searched in space is the maximum
number of genes and maximum depth of the gene.
Based on trial-and-error approach and recommenda-
tions by Garg and Tai (2012b), the maximum number
of genes and maximum depth of gene is kept at 6 and 6
respectively.
MGGP method for the prediction of pore water
pressure of soil is implemented in MATLAB
R2010b usingsoftware GPTIPS(Searson et al. 2010).
This software is a new Genetic Programming and
Symbolic Regression code written based on Multigene
GP (Hinchliffe et al. 1996) for use with MATLAB.
MGGP method is applied to the data set obtained from
FEManalysis inSect. 2. The best model is selectedbased
on minimum RMSE on training data from all runs. The
performance of the best MGGP model (see Eq. 3) on
training and testing data is discussed in Sect. 4.
MGGP 1357:0099 0737:0697
sintanhsquaretanhx5 973:9708
tanhexptanhx5 2:8049
exptanhx3 squareexptanhx5
exptanhx3
x2 x5 598:4632
ppower(ppower(x2,tanh(x5)),x5
0:0001063 ppower(x5,(cos(x5))
x5))) + (48:5523 (sin(square(exp(tanh(x5)))
2
4 Results and Discussion
The results obtained from the MGGP model is shown
in Figs. 7, 8, 9 on training and testing data respec-
tively. Square of the correlation coefcient (R
2
) and
relative error (%) between the predicted values and the
actual values of the PWP estimated are given by
R
2

P
n
i1
A
i
A
t

M
i
M
t

P
n
i1
A
i
A
t

2
P
n
i1
M
i
M
t

2
q
0
B
@
1
C
A
2
3
Relative error%
M
i
A
i
j j
A
i
100 4
where M
i
and A
i
are predicted and actual values
respectively, M
i
and A
i
are the average values of
predicted and actual respectively, and n is the number
of training samples.
Figures 7 and 8 show the performance of the
MGGP model on the training and testing data in terms
of statistical values of R
2
. The graph shown in Fig. 7
indicates that the MGGP model have impressively
well learned the non-linear relationship between the
input and output process variables with high R
2
values.
The result of the testing phase shown in Fig. 8
indicates that the MGGP model has shown very good
generalisation ability.
Table 2 Parameter settings for MGGP
Parameters Values assigned
Runs 15
Population size 400
Number of generations 100
Tournament size 2
Max depth of tree 6
Max genes 7
Functional set (F) Multiply, plus, minus, plog,
tan, tanh, sin, cos
Terminal set (T) (x
1
, x
2
, [- 10 10])
Crossover probability rate 0.85
Reproduction probability rate 0.10
Mutation probability rate 0.05
Geotech Geol Eng
1 3
The box plot of relative error (%) for the MGGP
model on the training and testing data is shown in
Fig. 9. The box plot shown in Fig. 9 indicates that the
MGGP model have lower mean relative error of 2.18
and 3.22 % on training and testing data respectively,
which explains that it is able to capture the relationship
between process variables reasonably well.
5 Conclusion and Future Work
The present work highlights the importance and need
of estimating the relationship between PWP and
SWCC components of the soil. The study conducts
FEM analysis for analysing the behaviour of PWP in
respect to various parameters of SWCC. Further, the
novel MGGP method is proposed to estimate the PWP
of the soil based on the given set of input parameters.
The performance of the MGGP model is compared
against the data obtained from the FEM. The results
discussed in Sect. 4 conclude that the performance of
the MGGP model is well in agreement with the FEM
generated data. The high generalization ability of the
MGGP model is benecial for geotechnical experts,
who are currently looking for high delity models that
predict the soil behaviour under uncertain input
process conditions, and therefore the additional cost
of measuring input parameters (SWCC, AEV, RWC,
slope and hs) can be avoided.
The MGGP method provides model that represents
explicit mathematical relationship (see Eq. 2) between
the input parameters and PWP, and, thus can be used
ofine to extrapolate the PWP. Future work to be done
include the introduction of newcomplexity measure of
the MGGP model that can gives more compact and
accurate models.
References
Biddle PG (1998) Tree root damage to buildings. Volume 1:
causes, diagnosis and remedy. Volume 2: patterns of soil
drying in proximity to trees on clay soils. Willowmead
Publishing Ltd, Wantage
Blight GE (2005) Desiccation of a clay by grass, bushes and
trees. Geotech Geol Eng 23(6):697720
Garg A, Tai K (2011) A hybrid genetic programming-articial
neural network approach for modeling of vibratory
Fig. 7 Statistical t of the MGGP model on training data
Fig. 8 Statistical t of the MGGP model on testing data
Fig. 9 Box plot showing the error distribution on training and
testing data
Geotech Geol Eng
1 3
nishing process. In: International proceedings of com-
puter science and information technology (ICIIC
2011-International Conference on Information and Intel-
ligent Computing), vol 18, pp 1419
Garg A, Tai K (2012a) Comparison of regression analysis,
Articial Neural Network and genetic programming in
Handling the multicollinearity problem. In: Proceedings of
2012 international conference on modelling, identication
and control (ICMIC2012), Wuhan, China, 2426 June
2012. IEEE
Garg A, Tai K (2012b) Review of genetic programming in
modeling of machining processes. In: Proceedings of 2012
international conference on modelling, identication and
control (ICMIC2012), Wuhan, China, 2426 June 2012.
IEEE
Garg A, Tai K (2013a) Comparison of statistical and machine
learning methods in modelling of data with multicolline-
arity. Int J Model Identif Control 18(4):295312
Garg A, Tai K (2013b) Modelling of FDM process using genetic
programming with classiers for model selection. In: Pro-
ceedings of 43rd international conference on computers and
industrial engineering (CIE 43rd), Hong Kong, pp.123-1-10
Garg A, Tai K(2013c) Selection of a robust experimental design
for the effective modeling of the nonlinear systems using
genetic programming. In: Proceedings of 2013 IEEE
symposium series on computational intelligence and data
mining (CIDM), Singapore, 1619 April 2013, pp 293298
Garg A, Bhalerao Y, Tai K (2013a) Review of empirical mod-
eling techniques for modeling of turning process. Int J
Model Identif Control 20:121129
Garg A, Rachmawati L, Tai K (2013b) Classication-driven
model selection approach of genetic programming in
modelling of turning process. Int J Adv Manuf Tech
69:11371151
Garg A, Garg A, Tai K (2013c) A multi-gene genetic pro-
gramming model for estimating stress dependent soil water
retention curves, Computational Geosciences (in press)
doi:10.1007/s10596-013-9381-z
Garg A, Sriram S, Tai K (2013d) Empirical analysis of model
selection criteria for genetic programming in modeling of
time series system. In: Proceedings of 2013 IEEe confer-
ence on computational intelligence for nancial engineer-
ing and economics (CIFEr), Singapore, 1619 April 2013,
pp 8488
Garg A, Tai K, Lee CH, Savalani MM (2013e) A hybrid M5-
genetic programming approach for ensuring greater trust-
worthiness of prediction ability in modelling of fdm process.
J Intell Manuf (in press). doi:10.1007/s10845-013-0734-1
Garg A, Savalani MM, Tai K (2014a) State-of-the-art in
empirical modelling of rapid prototyping processes. Rapid
Prototyp J 20(2):164178
Garg A, Vijayaraghavan V, Mahapatra SS, Tai K, Wong CH
(2014b) Performance evaluation of microbial fuel cell by
articial intelligencemethods. Expert Syst Appl 41:13891399
Geo-Slope, Seep/W (2007) Users guide. Geo-Slope Interna-
tional Limited, Calgary, Alberta
Hinchliffe M, Hiden H, Mckay B, Willis M, Tham M, Barton G
(1996) Modelling chemical process systems using a multi-
gene genetic programming algorithm. Late Breaking
Papers at the Genetic Programming, pp 2831
Koza JR (1996) On the programming of computers by means of
natural selection. Mit Press, USA
Malaya C, Sreedeep S (2010) A study on the inuence of
measurement procedures on suction-water content rela-
tionship of a sandy soil. Geotech Test J ASTM 38(6):1
Richards LA (1931) Capillary conduction of liquids through
porous mediums. Physics 1:318333
Searson DP, Leahy DE, Willis MJ (2010) Gptips: an open source
genetic programming toolbox for multigene symbolic
regression. Int Multiconf Eng Comp Sci 2010:7780
Shah PH, Sreedeep S, Singh DN (2006) Evaluation of meth-
odologies used for establishing soil-water characteristic
curve. J ASTM Int 3:111
Sreedeep S (2006) Modeling contaminant transport in unsatu-
rated soils. Doctoral dissertation, Ph. D. thesis submitted to
the Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India)
Sreedeep S, Singh DN (2010) A critical review of the method-
ologies employed for soil suction measurement. Int J
Geomech ASCE. Special Issue: Environmental Geotech-
nology: Contemporary Issues, 99104
Sreedeep S, Singh DN (2011) Critical review of the methodol-
ogies employed for soil suction measurement. Int J Geo-
mech ASCE 11(2):99104
Van Genuchten MT (1980) A closed-form equation for pre-
dicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil
Sci Soc of Am J 44(5):892898
Yildiz AR (2009a) A novel hybrid immune algorithm for global
optimization in design and manufacturing. Robot Comp
Integr Manuf 25(2):261270
Yildiz AR (2009b) An effective hybrid immune-hill climbing
optimization approach for solving design and manufac-
turing optimization problems in industry. J Mater Process
Technol 209(6):27732780
Yildiz AR (2012a) A comparative study of population-based
optimization algorithms for turning operations. Inf Sci
210:8188
Yildiz AR (2012b) Comparison of evolutionary based optimi-
zation algorithms for structural design optimization.
Engineering applications of articial intelligence
26(1):327333
Yildiz AR (2013a) A new hybrid differential evolution algo-
rithm for the selection of optimal machining parameters in
milling operations. Appl Soft Comput 13(3):15611566
Yildiz AR (2013b) A new hybrid articial bee colony algorithm
for robust optimal design and manufacturing. Appl Soft
Comput 13(5):29062912
Yildiz AR (2013c) Optimization of cutting parameters in multi-
pass turning using articial bee colony-based approach. Inf
Sci 220:399407
Yildiz AR (2013d) Hybrid Taguchi-differential evolution
algorithm for optimization of multi-pass turning opera-
tions. Appl Soft Comput 13(3):14331439
Yildiz AR (2013e) Cuckoo search algorithm for the selection of
optimal machining parameters in milling operations. Int J
Adv Manuf Technol 64(14):5561
Geotech Geol Eng
1 3