Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prediction of frictional characteristics of bituminous mixes using group method of data handling and multigene symbolic genetic programming

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Engineering with Computers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A safe road transport requires adequate friction between vehicle tires and pavement surface for safe travels. Adequate friction is essential for a vehicle to safely maneuver. Inadequate friction is directly correlated to the accident hazard, particularly in wet weather conditions. Quality of pavement materials has a prodigious effect on skid resistance and high-quality materials allow adequate pavement frictional resistance for an extended period. Science evaluation of frictional characteristics depends on physical, chemical, and mineralogical properties of the aggregate, type of mix, binder/bitumen content, water film thickness, etc., and it necessities a costly and time-consuming test protocol. In the present research, a model is developed for the evaluation of skid resistance in terms of the British pendulum number (BPN), using experimental observations, with the aid of machine learning tools. In the present work, group method of data handling (GMDH) and multigene symbolic genetic programming (MSGP) have been used to model the BPN. Developed model is capable to simplify extremely nonlinear deviations in data as well as forecast the frictional performance from experimental data. It is also found that the performance of the MSGP (R2 = 0.99) is more encouraging and better than that of the GMDH model (R2 = 0.98) for the prediction of BPN. The analytical expression obtained through MSGP in the present study has been also subjected to sensitivity analysis to assess the effect of individual parameters in prediction of BPN.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Al-Mistarehi B (2014) Superpave system versus marshall design procedure for asphalt paving mixtures (comparative study). Glob J Res Eng 14(5):45–52

    Google Scholar 

  2. Asi IM (2007) Evaluating skid resistance of different asphalt concrete mixes. Build Environ 42(1):325–329

    Google Scholar 

  3. ASTM D 7064 (2008) Standard practice for open graded friction course (OGFC) mix design, West Conshohocken, PA

  4. ASTM (2013) Standard test method for measuring surface frictional properties using the British pendulum tester. ASTM E303-2013, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  5. Baig ZA, Sait SM, Shaheen A (2013) GMDH-based networks for intelligent intrusion detection. Eng Appl Artif Intell 26(7):1731–1740

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brameier M, Banzhaf W (2001) A comparison of linear genetic programming and neural networks in medical data mining. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 5(1):17–26

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Cerezo V, Do MT, Prevost D, Bouteldja M (2014) Friction/water depth relationship—in situ observations and its integration in tire/road friction models. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part J J Eng Tribol 228(11):1285–1297

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chen HM, Kao WK, Tsai HC (2012) Genetic programming for predicting aseismic abilities of school buildings. Eng Appl Artif Intell 25(6):1103–1113

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dahir SH, Henry JJ, (1978) Alternatives for the optimization of aggregate and pavement properties related to friction and wear resistance report no. FHWA-RD-78-209, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, DC

  10. David S, John M, Alex G (2004) Genetic programming within civil engineering. In: Proceedings of organisation of the adaptive computing in design and manufacture 2004 conference April 20–22 Engineers House Clifton Bristol UK

  11. Do MT, Cerezo V, Beautru Y, Kane M (2013) Modeling of the connection road surface microtexture/water depth/friction. Wear 302(1–2):1426–1435

    Google Scholar 

  12. Farlow ST (1981) The GMDH Algorithm of Ivakhnenko. J Am Stat 35(4):210–215

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ferreira C (2001) Gene expression programming: a new adaptive algorithm for solving problems. Complex Syst 13(2001):87–129

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Haddock JE, O’Brien JP (2013) Hot-mix asphalt pavement frictional resistance as a function of aggregate physical properties. Road Mater Pavement Design 14(sup2):35–56

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hadi MNS, Arfiadi Y (2001) Optimum rigid pavement design by genetic algorithms. Comput Struct 79(17):1617–1624

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hadiwardoyo SP, Sinaga ES, Fikri H (2013) The influence of Buton asphalt additive on skid resistance based on penetration index and temperature. Constr Build Mater 42:5–10

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hall JW, Smith KL, Titus-Glover L, Wambold JC, Yager TJ, Rado Z (2009) Guide for pavement friction. Final report for NCHRP project. Transp Res Board Natl Acad 1:43

    Google Scholar 

  18. Henry JJ (2000) Evaluation of pavement friction characteristics. NCHRP Synthesis 291, National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Washington, DC

  19. IRC (Indian Roads Congress) (2009) Specifications for dense graded bituminous mixes. IRC No. 111, New Delhi, India

  20. IS 15462 (2004) Polymer and rubber modified bitumen. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  21. Institute Asphalt (1997) Mix design methods for asphalt concrete and other hot mix types MS-2, 6th edn. Lexington, KY

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ivakhnenko AG (1966) Group method of data handling–a rival of the method of stochastic approximation. Sov Autom Control 13:43–71

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ivakhnenko AG (1971) Polynomial theory of complex systems. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 4:364–378

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Ivakhnenko AG, Ivakhnenko GA (1995) The review of problems solvable by algorithms of the group method of data handling (GMDH). Pattern Recognit Image Anal C/C Raspoznavaniye Obrazov I Analiz Izobrazhenii 5:527–535

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kalantary F, Ardalan H, Nariman-Zadeh N (2009) An investigation on the Su–NSPT correlation using GMDH type neural networks and genetic algorithms. Eng Geol 104(1–2):144–155

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kalogiron SA (2007) Artificial intelligence in energy and renewable energy systems. Nova Science Publisher, New York

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kogbara RB, Masad EA, Kassem E, Scarpas AT, Anupam K (2016) A state-of-the-art review of parameters influencing measurement and modeling of skid resistance of asphalt pavements. Constr Build Mater 114:602–617

    Google Scholar 

  28. Koza JR (1992) Genetic programming: on the programming of computers by means of natural selection. MIT Press, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Liang Y, Zhang M, Browne WN (2017) Image feature selection using genetic programming for figure-ground segmentation. Eng Appl Artif Intell 62:96–108

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lu X, Isacsson U (2000) Modification of road bitumens with thermoplastic polymers. Polym Testing 20(1):77–86

    Google Scholar 

  31. Madala HR, Ivakhnenko AG (1994) Inductive learning algorithms for complex systems modeling, vol 368. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Mehrara M, Moeini A, Ahrari M, Erfanifard A (2009) RETRACTED: Investigating the efficiency in oil futures market based on GMDH approach. Exp Syst Appl 36(4):7479

    Google Scholar 

  33. Miller AJ, Cluer BL (1998) Modeling considerations for simulation of flow in bedrock channels. Geophys Monogr Am Geophys Union 107:61–104

    Google Scholar 

  34. Moore Desmond F (1975) The friction of pneumatic tyres. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam (The Netherlands)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Morias DN, Arnold JG, Van Liew MW, Bigner RL, Harmel RD, Veith TL (2007) Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. J Am Soc Agric Biol Eng 50(3):885–900

    Google Scholar 

  36. Najafzadeh M (2015) Neurofuzzy-based GMDH-PSO to predict maximum scour depth at equilibrium at culvert outlets. J Pipeline Syst Eng Pract 7(1):06015001

    Google Scholar 

  37. Najafzadeh M, Azamathulla HM (2013) Group method of data handling to predict scour depth around bridge piers. Neural Comput Appl 23(7–8):2107–2112

    Google Scholar 

  38. Najafzadeh M, Balf MR, Rashedi E (2016) Prediction of maximum scour depth around piers with debris accumulation using EPR, MT, and GEP models. J Hydroinf 18(5):867–884

    Google Scholar 

  39. Najafzadeh M, Barani GA (2011) Comparison of group method of data handling based genetic programming and back propagation systems to predict scour depth around bridge piers. Sci Iran 18(6):1207–1213

    Google Scholar 

  40. Najafzadeh M, Barani GA (2013) Discussion of “genetic programming to predict river pipeline scour” by H. Md. Azamathulla and Aminuddin Ab Ghani. J Pipeline Syst Eng Pract 4(4):07013001

    Google Scholar 

  41. Najafzadeh M, Barani GA, Azamathulla HM (2014) Prediction of pipeline scour depth in clear-water and live-bed conditions using group method of data handling. Neural Comput Appl 24(3–4):629–635

    Google Scholar 

  42. Najafzadeh M, Barani GA, Hessami-Kermani MR (2013) Group method of data handling to predict scour depth around vertical piles under regular waves. Sci Iran 20(3):406–413

    Google Scholar 

  43. Najafzadeh M, Barani GA, Hessami-Kermani MR (2015) Evaluation of GMDH networks for prediction of local scour depth at bridge abutments in coarse sediments with thinly armored beds. Ocean Eng 104:387–396

    Google Scholar 

  44. Najafzadeh M, Bonakdari H (2016) Application of a neuro-fuzzy GMDH model for predicting the velocity at limit of deposition in storm sewers. J Pipeline Syst Eng Pract 8(1):06016003

    Google Scholar 

  45. Najafzadeh M, Saberi-Movahed F (2018) GMDH-GEP to predict free span expansion rates below pipelines under waves. Mar Georesour Geotechnol 37(3):1–18

    Google Scholar 

  46. Najafzadeh M, Tafarojnoruz A (2016) Evaluation of neuro-fuzzy GMDH-based particle swarm optimization to predict longitudinal dispersion coefficient in rivers. Environ Earth Sci 75(2):157

    Google Scholar 

  47. Najafzadeh M, Zahiri A (2015) Neuro-fuzzy GMDH-based evolutionary algorithms to predict flow discharge in straight compound channels. J Hydrol Eng 20(12):04015035

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ongel A, Lu Q, Harvey J (2009) Frictional properties of asphalt concrete mixes. Proc Inst Civil Eng Transp Thomas Telford Ltd 162(1):19–26

    Google Scholar 

  49. Park SW, Park HM, Hwang JJ (2010) Application of genetic algorithm and finite element method for backcalculating layer moduli of flexible pavements. KSCE J Civil Eng 14(2):183–190

    Google Scholar 

  50. Pattanaik ML, Choudhary R, Kumar B (2017) Evaluation of frictional pavement resistance as a function of aggregate physical properties. J Transp Eng Part B Pavements 143(2):04017003 (1–8)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Prowell BD, Zhang J, Brown ER (2005) Aggregate properties and the performance of superpave-designed hot mix asphalt, vol 539. Transportation Research Board National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Washington

    Google Scholar 

  52. Puig V, Witczak M, Nejjari F, Quevedo J, Korbicz J (2007) A GMDH neural network-based approach to passive robust fault detection using a constraint satisfaction backward test. Eng Appl Artif Intell 20(7):886–897

    Google Scholar 

  53. Reddy MA, Reddy KS, Pandey BB (2004) Selection of genetic algorithm parameters for backcalculation of pavement moduli. Int J Pavement Eng 5(2):81–90

    Google Scholar 

  54. Rezaei A, Masad E (2013) Experimental-based model for predicting the skid resistance of asphalt pavements. Int J Pavement Eng 14(1):24–35

    Google Scholar 

  55. Rezaei A (2010) Development of a prediction model for skid resistance of asphalt pavements. Ph.D. dissertation, Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX

  56. Sabey BE, Williams T, Lupton GN (1970) Factors affecting the friction of tires on wet roads. SAE Trans 76-A:1203–1218

    Google Scholar 

  57. Sadid H, Wabrek R, Dongare S, Coryell B, Ebrahimpour A (2010) Material acceptance risk analysis: superpave hot mix asphalt (No. FHWA-ID-10-182B). Idaho. Transportation Dept, Boise, ID

  58. Searson D (2009) GPTIPS: Genetic programming and symbolic regression for MATLAB. http://gptips.sourceforge.net. Accessed 15 Jul 2016

  59. Shahnazari H, Tutunchian MA, Mashayekhi M, Amini AA (2012) Application of soft computing for prediction of pavement condition index. J Transp Eng 138(12):1495–1506

    Google Scholar 

  60. Swami BL, Mehta YA, Bose S (2004) A comparison of the Marshall and Superpave design procedure for materials sourced in India. Int J Pavement Eng 5(3):163–173

    Google Scholar 

  61. Tamura H, Kondo T (1980) Heuristics free group method of data handling algorithm of generating optimal partial polynomials with application to air pollution prediction. Int J Syst Sci 11(9):1095–1111

    Google Scholar 

  62. Wilson DJ (2013) The effect of rainfall and contaminants on road pavement skid resistance New Zealand Transport Agency research report 515

  63. Witczak M, Korbicz J, Mrugalski M, Patton RJ (2006) A GMDH neural network-based approach to robust fault diagnosis: application to the DAMADICS benchmark problem. Control Eng Pract 14(6):671–683

    Google Scholar 

  64. Xiao F, Putman BJ, Amirkhanian SN (2011) Viscosity prediction of CRM binders using artificial neural network approach. Int J Pavement Eng 12(5):485–495

    Google Scholar 

  65. Yonaba H, Anctil F, Fortin V (2010) Comparing sigmoid transfer functions for neural network multistep ahead stream flow forecasting. J Hydrol Eng 15(4):275–283

    Google Scholar 

  66. Ziari H, Sobhani J, Ayoubinejad J, Hartmann T (2016) Prediction of IRI in short and long terms for flexible pavements: aNN and GMDH methods. Int J Pavement Eng 17(9):776–788

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of Department of Science and Technology (DST), Govt. of India under the grant DST/TSG/WM/2015/525-G.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam, 781039, India

    Madhu Lisha Pattanaik, Rajan Choudhary & Bimlesh Kumar

Authors
  1. Madhu Lisha Pattanaik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rajan Choudhary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bimlesh Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bimlesh Kumar.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pattanaik, M.L., Choudhary, R. & Kumar, B. Prediction of frictional characteristics of bituminous mixes using group method of data handling and multigene symbolic genetic programming. Engineering with Computers 36, 1875–1888 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-019-00802-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-019-00802-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation