International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 10, Issue 3, March-2019 613

ISSN 2229-5518

Predicting (Nk) factor of (CPT) test using (GP):

Comparative Study of MEPX & GN7
Ahmed H. ELbosraty1, Ahmed M. Ebid2, Ayman L. Fayed3

Abstract— Static cone penetration test (CPT) is a broadly satisfactory and dependable geotechnical in-situ apparatus that gives brisk and
honest substantial measure of data about soil classification, stratification and properties. Un-drained shear strength of clay (cu) is one of
the principle soil parameters that could be sensibly evaluated from the (CPT) results, as it is specifically connected to the tip resistance
through the experimental cone factor (Nk). Earlier researches showed that (Nk) value depends on type of soil, nature and stress history
conditions and many other variables. Construction development in some locations with thick deposits of soft to very soft clays motivates
extensive researches to define the reasonable value of the (Nk) factor for such types of clay. The performed study concentrated on utilizing
the genetic programming technique (GP) to predict (Nk) value of clay using the consistency limits that can be easily determined in the
laboratory. A set of 102 records were gathered from the CPT site investigations and corresponding consistency limits and other physical
properties experiments, were divided into training set of 72 records and validation set of 30 records. Both (GN7) & (MEPX) software were
used to apply (GP) on the available data. Four trials for each software with different chromosome lengths were performed to correlate the
(Nk) factor with the clay consistency limits, water content (wc) and unit weight (γ) using training data set, then, the produced relations were
tested using the validation data set. The four generated formulas using (GN7) showed accuracies ranging between 93% and 97% and
coefficient of determination (R2) ranging between 0.7 and 0.9, while the other four formulas form (MEPX) showed accuracy not exceeding
95% and coefficient of determination (R2) ranging between 0.45 and 0.75.

IJSER
Index Terms— CPT, Consistency Limits, Genetic Programming (GP), Multi Expression Programming (MEP), Cone Factor (Nk).

——————————  ——————————

1 INTRODUCTION

C
Lassic static cone penetration test (CPT) is one of the well- havior of the clay which depends on many parameters such as
known site tests which carried out to characterize the soil initial stresses, pore-water pressure, penetration rate and over
formations and estimate their mechanical proprieties consolidation ratio. In addition, uncertainties in measured
based on their penetration resistance. Today, modern (CPT) values make the correlation more difficult. [4, 14].
equipment is capable to measure many more parameters than Previously suggested formulas to correlate (CPT) results with
penetration resistance such as pore water pressure, lateral soil the un-drained shear strength of clay (cu) are summarized in
pressure at rest, lateral elastic modulus of soil. Figure (1) many publications [3, 6, 9, 10, 15, and 16]. Many of those re-
shows (CPT) test overview and sample of its output. [3, 10, searches considered that (cu) proportional linearly with the
15]. corrected tip resistance of the cone as shown in equation (1)
Many theories were introduced to simulate the behavior of the qc − σ vo
soil during static penetration process such as the bearing ca- cu = ….... (1)
Nk
pacity theory (Meyerhof 1961, Durgunoglu and Mitchell 1975), Where,
cavity expansion theory (Vesic 1972 and Yu and Houlsby cu : Un-drained shear strength of clay.
1991), the strain path method proposed by Baligh (1985), cali- qc : Tip resistance of the cone.
bration chamber testing and the finite element analysis (Walk- σvo : Total overburden pressure.
er and Yu 2006). [1, 8, 9, 12, 17,19 and 20]. Nk : Empirical cone factor.
Although, many previous researches were carried out to corre-
late tip resistance from (CPT) with other soil properties spe- Accordingly, most of the previous researches were concerned
cially the un-drained shear strength of clay (cu), but none of in estimating (Nk) value which correlates (CPT) with (cu).
them derives a proper correlation due to the sophisticated be- As summarized by Zsolt Rémai (2013) [17], typical values for
———————————————— (Nk) for different soil types has been suggested by many re-
1 Graduate Student, Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engi- searchers. Lunne and Kleven (1981) [13] suggested that (Nk)
neering, Ain Shams University E-Mail: [email protected] varies between 11 and 19 for normally consolidated, Scandi-
navian marine clays. Jörss (1998) [7] suggested that (Nk)
2 Lecturer, Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering &
Tech.., Future University, Egypt. E-Mail: [email protected] equals 20 for marine clays and 15 for boulder clays. Gebre-
selassie (2003) [5] proposed that (NK) value is ranged between
3 Associate Professor, Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of 7.6 and 28.4 for different soil types. Finally, Chen (2001) [4]
Engineering, Ain Shams University E-Mail: [email protected] recommended (Nk) values varying between 5 and 12.
IJSER © 2019
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 10, Issue 3, March-2019 614
ISSN 2229-5518

(a)

IJSER

(b)
Figure (1) Cone Penetration Test (CPT): a) Test Overview, b) Output Example
(after Paul W. Mayne and Jon M. Williams (2007))

IJSER © 2019
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 10, Issue 3, March-2019 615
ISSN 2229-5518

2 (GP) & (MEP) stant values, hence variables with constant values are used to
2.1 Genetic programming (GP) present those constants. Usually, the following set of constants
(GP) is a direct application of genetic algorithm (GA) optimi- is used (1, 3, 5, 7 and 11). (GN7) uses the sum of squared errors
zation technique on a population of mathematical formulas to (SSR) method to measure the fitness.
generate the most fitting formula for certain given points in a
hyper-space. Accordingly, (GP) may be described as Multivar-
iable Regression Procedure. (Koza,1994)
(GP) is big title includes several techniques such as Linear GP,
Cartesian GP, Compacted GP and many others. [2 ,11,18].
Classic (GP) procedure starts with randomly generating a
population of mathematical formulas which are encoded in
genetic form (chromosome form) and testing each formula
using the training data set to calculate its fitness. Only the
most fitting formulas (survivors) will be selected to generate
the next cycle (or generation) using crossover and mutation
operators, then the new population to be tested again to calcu-
late their fitness and so on until accepted accuracy is achieved.

2.2 Multi Expression Programming (MEP)

(MEP) is a technique to automatic generation of computer
programs. Accordingly, it could be used to generate fitting
mathematical formulas for certain data set. MEP differentiates
from classic (GP) techniques by encoding multiple solutions in

IJSER
Figure (2) Mathematical and Genetic Representation of Binary
the same chromosome. Same as classic (GP), crossover is ap- Tree (after A. Ebid 2004)
plied in (MEP) using one Point Crossover technique, where
one crossover point is randomly chosen and the parent chro-
mosomes exchange the sequences at the right side of the
crossover point. Also, both classic (GP) and (MEP) are sharing
the same mutation technique where randomly selected gens
(or symbols) are changed. Unlike classic (GP), the output of
the (MEP) is a series of programming commands, if all these
commands are mathematical expressions, then the output
could be simplified in one mathematical expression just like
classical (GP).

3 (GN7) & (MEPX)

3.1 (GN7) software Figure (3) Random Crossover Technique (after A. Ebid 2004)
(GN7) is the 7th version of classic (GP) software which was
developed by the author in (2004) in C++[2]. Figure (2) shows 3.2 (MEPX) software
the encoding technique and the principal of tree levels to (MEPX) is free and open source software that uses (MEP)
measure the complexity of the mathematical formula. It is technique. This project started in 2001 and the first end-user
clear that complex of the formulas needs more levels to repre- for windows is released in 2015. Unlike (GN7), current version
sent it than simple ones. As shown in Figure (2). The chromo- of (MEPX) has a graphical user interface (GUI). Both source
some consists of two parts, “operators” and “variables”. The code and compiled software could be freely downloaded from
“operators” part contains the entire tree except the level 0 and http://www.mepx.org. The software is easy to learn and of-
has (2No. of levels - 1) genes. The “variables” part contains only the fers many options to control the searching process as shown in
level 0 of the tree and has (2No of levels) genes. Therefore, the total figure (4), these options could be summarized in the following
number of genes in the chromosome is (2No. of levels + 1) genes [2]. points:
(GN7) supports eight operators which are (=, +, -, x, /,Xy , e^, - Three types of problems (regression, binary classifica-
Ln) and support up to 7 levels of complexity. Regarding tion and multi-class classification)
crossover procedure, it doesn’t support the classic one-point - Two methods to measure error (mean absolute error
crossover technique, instated, it supports random crossover and mean squared error)
technique which was proposed by author, 2004 [2] to generate - 26 different mathematical, logical, statistical and trig-
the new chromosomes by randomly selecting each gene from onometrical operators.
similar surviving chromosomes as shown from figure (3). Mu- - Two methods of crossover (uniform and one point
tation is applied by replacing some randomly selected genes crossover)
with random operator (in the “operators” part) or variable (in - Two methods to generate constants (user defined and
“variables” part). Since most mathematical formula have con- automatically generated)
IJSER © 2019
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 10, Issue 3, March-2019 616
ISSN 2229-5518

- Code length, is the number of genes on each chromo-

some, it is a measurement for the complexity of the - 2nd trial had three levels of complexity (chromosome
solution which is equivalent to number of levels in length is 16 genes), Population size was 10000 chro-
(GN7). mosome, number of generations was 50 and the best
formula was equation (4)
 12 P.L 
Nk = 1.16 × Ln (PI - γ ) − 2.56 …(4)
 L.L 

- 3rd trial had four levels of complexity (chromosome

length is 32 genes), Population size was 20000 chro-
mosome, number of generations was 50 and the best
formula was equation (5)
 21 + P.L2 20 
Nk = 1.11 ×  +  − 1.79 …(5)
 L.L Ln( P.L.) 

- 4th trial had five levels of complexity (chromosome

length is 64 genes), Population size was 40000 chro-
mosome, number of generations was 50 and the best
Figure (4) screenshot of (GUI) of (MEPX) software formula was equation (6)
 P.L + (5 / γ ) + 3 
3.3 Comparison Bases Nk = 1.3 ×  − Ln( PI − 2γ )( Ln( L.L) − 5) − 5.19
 Ln ( 4 + 0 .14 PI ) 

IJSER
In order to fairly compare the results of the two programs, the
following points were considered: …(6)
- Using same set of variables, liquid limit (L.L), plastic Accuracies and coefficient of determination (R2) of training
limit (P.L), plasticity index (P.I), water content (wc) and validations sets for each one of the four trials are summa-
and unit weight of clay (γ). rized in table (1). Figure (5) represent the correlation between
- Using same constant values (1,3,5,7,11) the predicted (Nk) values using the equations (3),(4),(5),(6)
- Using the same training and validation data sets and the measured ones.
- Using the same population size
- Using same number of generations TABLE (1): SUMMARY OF ACCURACIES AND (R2) VALUES FOR
- Using same method to measure error (SSR) EQUATIONS (3),(4),(5),(6)
- Using same complexity level (code length) Accuracy % R2
No. of Levels

- Since the output should be mathematical formula, on-

Proposed
Trial No.

Formula

Validation

Validation
ly mathematical operators were used in (MEPX)
Training

Training
Total

Total
- Unaccepted too complicated expressions such as mul-
ti-power (x^(y^z)) and multi logarithms (log(log(x))
were eliminated from both programs.
- For the best fitting formula of each trial, its accuracy
1 2 Eq. (3) 93 95 94 0.72 0.71 0.71
was determine using equation (2) , the predicted val-
ues of (Nk) were plotted against the experimental 2 3 Eq. (4) 96 97 96 0.87 0.89 0.87
ones and the coefficient of determination (R2) was de-
3 4 Eq. (5) 96 96 96 0.82 0.88 0.84
termined.
Nk cal − Nk exp 4 5 Eq. (6) 96 97 97 0.91 0.88 0.87
∑
100
Accuracy (%) = 100 − × …(2)
Nk exp N rec
The following points could be noted from table (1):
- Accuracies of all proposed formulas are ranged be-
4 PREDICTION OF (NK) USING (GN7) tween 93% to 97%, while (R2) values are ranged be-
Four trials were carried out using (GN7) to predict the value tween 0.71 to 0.91 which indicates good fitting
of (Nk) factor using the training data set as follows: - The enhancement in fitting between equations
- 1st trial had only two levels of complexity (chromo- (4),(5),(6) is negligible, on other hand, the remarkable
some length is 8 genes), Population size was 5000 complexity difference between them makes equation
chromosome, number of generations was 50 and the (4) more favorable than the others.
best formula was equation (3) - None of the four proposed formulas contains water con-
3.6 × L.L tent (wc) which indicates that (Nk) doesn’t depend on
Nk = 27.3 − …(3) it.
P.L

IJSER © 2019
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 10, Issue 3, March-2019 617
ISSN 2229-5518

a) Trial(1) – Eq. 3 b) Trial(2) – Eq. 4

IJSER
c) Trial(3) – Eq. 5 d) Trial(4) – Eq. 6
Figure (5) Relation between the Predicted and Measured (Nk) values for Developed Correlations using (GN7)

5 PREDICTION OF (NK) USING (MEPX) - 3rd trial had chromosome length is 32 genes, Popula-
tion size was 20000 chromosome, number of genera-
Four equivalent trials were carried out using (MEPX) to pre- tions was 50 and the best formula was equation (9)
dict the value of (Nk) factor using the training data set as fol-
+ [(1.6 + Ln( P.I ) )(7 − ln( P.I ) )]
7 / P.I 7
Nk = + …(9)
lows: Ln(7 / P.I ) P.I
- 1st trial had chromosome length of 8 genes, Popula-
tion size was 5000 chromosome, number of genera- - 4th trial had chromosome length is 64 genes, Popula-
tions was 50 and the best formula was equation (7) tion size was 40000 chromosome, number of genera-
11L.L − 55 tions was 50 and the best formula was equation (10)
Nk = …(7)
P.I 11 L.L + 11Ln(5γ )
Nk =
(5γ ) 2 …(10)
- 2nd trial had chromosome length is 16 genes, Popula- P.I +
tion size was 10000 chromosome, number of genera- P.I − 11
tions was 50 and the best formula was equation (8) Accuracies and coefficient of determination (R2) of training
and validations sets for each one of the four trials are summa-
Nk =
11
[11 + P.L + P.I + Ln (P.I)] …(8) rized in table (2). Figure (6) represent the correlation between
11 + P.I the predicted (Nk) values using the equations (7),(8),(9),(10)
and the measured ones.

IJSER © 2019
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 10, Issue 3, March-2019 618
ISSN 2229-5518

a) Trial(1) – Eq. 7 b) Trial(2) – Eq. 8

IJSER
c) Trial(3) – Eq. 9 d) Trial(4) – Eq. 10
Figure (6) Relation between the Predicted and Measured (Nk) values for Developed Correlations using (MEPX)

TABLE (2): SUMMARY OF ACCURACIES AND (R2) VALUES FOR The following points could be noted from table (2):
EQUATIONS (7),(8),(9),(10) - Accuracies of all proposed formulas are ranged be-
tween 93% to 95%, while (R2) values are ranged be-
Accuracy % R2 tween 0.44 to 0.76 which indicates fair fitting
Code Length

- Equation (10) is the most accurate one and the only one
Proposed
Trial No.

Formula

that used unit weight (γ) variable which indicates the

Validation

Validation
Training

Training
Total

Total

importance and the impact of this variable.

- None of the four proposed formulas contains water con-
tent (wc) which indicates that (Nk) doesn’t depend on
it.
1 8 Eq. (7) 93 93 93 0.44 0.54 0.52
2 16 Eq. (8) 94 94 94 0.53 0.63 0.58 6 CCONCLUSIONS
3 32 Eq. (9) 93 94 94 0.53 0.58 0.56 By comparing the summarized results in tables (1),(2), the fol-
4 64 Eq. (10) 95 95 95 0.63 0.76 0.67 lowing points could be noted:
- Although equation (4) is not the most accurate pro-
posed formula, but considering its simplicity, it is still
the most favorable one.
IJSER © 2019
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 10, Issue 3, March-2019 619
ISSN 2229-5518

- Formulas contains unit weight (γ) variable are more ac- [15] Muduli, Pradyut Kumar, and Sarat Kumar Das. "CPT-based seismic
curate than others regardless the used software, this re- liquefaction potential evaluation using multi-gene genetic program-
flects the high correlations between (Nk) and (γ). ming approach". Indian Geotechnical Journal44, no. 1 (2014): 86-93.
- None of the proposed formulas regardless the used [16] Otoko, George R., Isoteim Fubara-Manuel, Mike Igwagu, and Clem-
software contains water content (wc) which indicates ent Edoh, "Empirical cone factor for estimation of un-drained shear
that (Nk) doesn’t depend on it. strength." Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 21 (2016):
- Although proposed formulas from (GN7) & (MEPX) 6069-6076.
almost have same accuracies for same level of com- [17] Rémai, Zsolt. "Correlation of un-drained shear strength and CPT
plexity (code length), but coefficients of determination resistance", Periodica Polytechnica Civil Engineering 57, no. 1 (2013):
(R2) of (GN7) formulas are higher than those of 39-44.
(MEPX) which indicates the random crossover tech- [18] Rezania, Mohammad, and Akbar A. Javadi, "A new genetic pro-
nique of (GN7) is more efficient than the one point gramming model for predicting settlement of shallow foundations".
crossover technique of (MEPX). Canadian Geotechnical Journal 44, no. 12 (2007): 1462-1473.
- It is also noted that (MEPX) is almost twice faster [19] Robertson, P. K., and K. L. Cabal. "Guide to Cone Penetration Testing
than (GN7), this may be because (MEPX) uses multi for Geo-Environmental Engineering." (2008).
threads. [20] Robertson, P. K. "Soil classification using the cone penetration test."
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 27, no. 1 (1990): 151-158.

REFERENCES APPENDIX: DATA SETS

[1] Aas, Gunnar, Suzanne Lacasse, Tom Lunne, and Kaare Hoeg. "Use of
Validation data set
in situ tests for foundation design on clay." In Use of In Situ Tests in L.L. P.L. P.I. wc γ
Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 1-30. ASCE, (1986). Nk
(%) (%) (%) (%) (t/m3)

IJSER
[2] Ahmed M. Ebid, Ezzat A. Fattah, Hossam E.A. Ali. "Applications of
genetic programming in geotechnical engineering. " DOI: 60 26 34 46 1.7 18.6
10.13140/RG.2.1.1967.9203 (2004). 134 33 101 69 1.6 14.8
[3] Boufrina, T., Bouafia, A., Panfilov, A. V., & Ter-Sarkisova, L. A. 95 30 65 66 1.6 16.4
"Numerical modeling of CPT in clay to evaluate bearing capacity for 83 28 54 56 1.7 16.7
shallow foundations." Проблемы и перспективы развития 109 31 78 64 1.6 15.2
сельского хозяйства и сельских территорий. (2014). 136 33 103 69 1.6 14.5
[4] Chen, C. "Evaluating un-drained shear strength of Klang clay from 40 21 19 41 1.8 17.3
Cone penetration test." In International Conference on In situ Meas- 82 34 47 60 1.6 19.7
urement of Soil Properties and Case Histories, In: Proceedings of the 86 34 52 58 1.8 18.4
International Conference on In Situ Measurement of Soil Properties 58 27 31 59 1.8 18.6
and Case Histories, Graduate Program, Parahyangan Catholic Uni- 84 34 50 59 1.6 19.6
versity, pp. 141-148. (2001). 51 26 26 57 1.7 17.9
[5] Gebreselassie, Berhane. "Experimental, Analytical and Numerical 118 40 78 68 1.5 18.8
Investigations of Excavations in Normally Consolidated Soft Soils." 53 26 27 49 1.8 18.5
(2003). 128 32 96 57 1.7 13.8
[6] Hossain, Md Imran. "Evaluation of Un-drained Shear Strength and 84 26 58 67 1.6 15.3
Soil Classification from Cone Penetration Test." (2018).
146 34 112 57 1.7 13.1
[7] Jörß, O. "Erfahrungen bei der Ermittlung von cu-Werten mit der
43 24 20 40 1.7 18.9
Hilfe von Drucksondierungen in bindigen Böden." Geotechnik 21,
49 23 26 43 1.8 17.9
no. 1 (1998): 26-27.
54 26 28 62 1.7 18.5
[8] Kim, Daehyeon, Younjin Shin, and Nayyar Siddiki. "Geotechnical
72 32 40 60 1.7 19.5
design based on CPT and PMT." (2010).
101 30 71 59 1.6 15.5
[9] Kim, Hobi, Monica Prezzi, and Rodrigo Salgado. "Use of dynamic
cone penetration and clegg hammer tests for quality control of road-
128 33 95 66 1.6 14.0
way compaction and construction." (2010). 81 33 48 56 1.6 20.1
[10] Kim, Kwang Kyun, Monica Prezzi, and Rodrigo Salgado. "Interpreta- 82 34 49 55 1.6 19.6
tion of cone penetration tests in cohesive soils." (2006). 102 30 72 74 1.6 15.1
[11] Koza, John R. Genetic programming II, automatic discovery of reus- 87 34 53 36 1.8 18.2
able subprograms. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA, (1992). 43 21 22 33 1.9 19.3
[12] Larsson, R., and M. Mulabdic. Piezocone tests in clay. Swedish Ge- 38 21 17 36 1.8 16.3
otechnical Institute, Linköping, Sweden. No. 42. Report, (1991). 126 33 93 72 1.6 14.2
[13] Lunne, Tom, and Arne Kleven. "Role of CPT in North Sea foundation 156 36 120 69 1.6 15.0
engineering". In Cone penetration testing and experience, pp. 76-
107. ASCE, (1981).
[14] Mayne, Paul W. Cone penetration testing. Vol. 368. Transportation
Research Board,(2007).
IJSER © 2019
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 10, Issue 3, March-2019 620
ISSN 2229-5518

70 28 41 66 1.6 18.8
Training data set 48 20 28 44 1.8 16.1
L.L. P.L. P.I. wc γ 65 27 39 33 1.9 17.9
Nk 87 30 57 37 1.8 18.8
(%) (%) (%) (%) (t/m3)
48 22 25 50 1.6 17.5
94 30 64 53 1.7 16.9 56 26 31 47 1.7 17.3
132 34 98 57 1.7 13.7 73 31 46 38 1.8 20.4
93 29 63 36 1.8 13.4 122 32 90 50 1.7 14.3
109 31 79 66 1.6 15.3 88 29 59 67 1.5 15.2
136 34 103 83 1.5 14.3 104 31 73 63 1.6 15.1
76 28 48 35 1.8 16.6 86 29 57 69 1.6 16.1
100 30 70 47 1.7 15.5 111 32 80 69 1.6 15.6
90 29 61 63 1.6 16.4 122 32 90 71 1.6 14.5
141 34 107 56 1.7 12.7 101 31 70 73 1.6 17.1
92 36 56 59 1.9 18.4 105 31 74 55 1.7 15.5
41 21 20 41 1.7 17.8 91 29 62 69 1.6 15.8
72 27 45 52 1.7 16.6 123 32 91 68 1.6 14.0
73 31 43 58 1.8 18.8 101 29 72 62 1.6 15.0
93 35 58 57 1.7 18.5 117 32 86 70 1.6 13.6
97 38 59 61 1.6 19.8
80 28 52 52 1.7 16.5
140 33 107 59 1.6 13.2

IJSER
142 34 108 59 1.6 12.8
95 30 66 57 1.7 16.9
120 32 88 59 1.6 14.1
53 26 27 60 1.7 18.4
72 29 43 64 1.7 18.3
112 42 71 68 1.6 20.2
41 21 20 49 1.7 17.5
53 25 28 49 1.7 18.6
72 29 42 58 1.6 18.3
53 25 28 48 1.8 17.3
48 24 24 52 1.7 18.6
68 29 40 51 1.7 18.8
49 22 28 26 1.8 17.0
51 26 26 46 1.7 19.1
65 29 35 47 1.7 20.2
72 31 41 59 1.6 21.3
131 33 98 62 1.6 14.8
41 22 20 44 1.7 17.2
48 25 24 49 1.7 18.8
117 41 77 58 1.6 18.1
77 31 46 45 1.7 18.8
97 35 62 57 1.6 18.9
93 29 64 59 1.6 16.1
111 32 79 72 1.6 15.4
104 30 74 63 1.6 14.9
91 29 62 70 1.6 16.7
92 29 63 70 1.6 16.2
107 31 76 76 1.7 15.4
57 25 32 67 1.6 17.8
78 32 46 37 1.8 18.3
157 39 118 54 1.7 13.4
72 29 43 38 1.8 17.9
75 30 45 37 1.8 18.4
85 34 50 36 1.8 18.2
56 24 31 41 1.7 17.8
IJSER © 2019
http://www.ijser.org