## 5 Results Using Test Data Obtained with FEM Model  
Using the FEM model presented in Section 3.3, [PERSON]'s measuring method was simulated for lines A, B, C, D, E, and F, as presented in Figure 4b. The values of the apparent resistivity are shown in Table 3 (the measurement simulation was performed according to Step 2 in Section 3.2). Figure 7: Algorithm of the soil parameters’ calculation procedure. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{_d_ **(m)**} & **Line A** & **Line B** & **Line C** & **Line D** & **Line E** & **Line F** \\  & **\(\rho\) (\(\Omega\)m)** & **\(\rho\) (\(\Omega\)m)** & **\(\rho\) (\(\Omega\)m)** & **\(\rho\) (\(\Omega\)m)** & **\(\rho\) (\(\Omega\)m)** & **\(\rho\) (\(\Omega\)m)** \\ \hline  
\end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Calculated apparent resistivity for lines A, B, C, D, E, and F are shown in Figure 4b. According to Step 3 in Section 3.2., the average apparent resistivity was calculated for measurements which were crossing in some subarea. The average values for the nine subareas presented in Figure 4c are shown in Table 4.  
Tables 5-13 present the calculation results for each subarea (AD, AE, AF, BD, BE, BF, CD, CE, and CF) separately. Each table contains the OF's best value (B), worst value (W), mean value (M), and Standard Deviation (SD) for all five optimization methods used. The calculated parameters of the best solution are also presented in the tables for each optimization method used. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**OF and** & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Method**} \\ \cline{3-7}
**Parameters** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**DE/rand/l/exp**} & **DE/rand/2/exp** & **DE/best/l/bin** & **TLBO** & **ABC** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{OF (\%)} & B & 1.2165 & 1.2167 & 1.0296 & 1.0304 & 1.0326 \\  & W & 1.3779 & 1.3593 & 1.3660 & 1.3535 & 1.3074 \\  & M & 1.2898 & 1.2384 & 1.3162 & 1.3024 & 1.1256 \\  & SD & \(6.0563\times 10^{-2}\) & \(4.7049\times 10^{-2}\) & \(7.4706\times 10^{-2}\) & \(6.1949\times 10^{-2}\) & \(8.1256\times 10^{-2}\) \\ \hline \(\rho_{1}\) (\(\Omega\)m) & B & 203.73 & 203.73 & 61.82 & 61.81 & 84.33 \\ \hline \(h_{1}\) (m) & B & 55.93 & 54.54 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 0.14 \\ \hline \(\rho_{2}\) (\(\Omega\)m) & B & 3457.34 & 655.78 & 205.77 & 205.77 & 205.82 \\ \hline \(h_{2}\) (m) & B & 2.50 & 13.60 & 100.00 & 100.00 & 100.00 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: OF and best value of the calculated parameters for 50 independent runs for the AE subarea. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**OF and** & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Method**} \\ \cline{3-7}
**Parameters** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**DE/rand/l/exp**} & **DE/rand/2/exp** & **DE/best/l/bin** & **TLBO** & **ABC** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{OF (\%)} & B & 1.2560 & 1.1947 & 1.1947 & 1.2560 & 1.1974 \\  & W & 1.4450 & 1.4408 & 1.4332 & 1.4211 & 1.3651 \\  & M & 1.3788 & 1.2972 & 1.3826 & 1.3769 & 1.2462 \\  & SD & \(6.6917\times 10^{-2}\) & \(7.2750\times 10^{-2}\) & \(6.7640\times 10^{-2}\) & \(5.6695\times 10^{-2}\) & \(4.0584\times 10^{-2}\) \\ \hline \(\rho_{1}\) (\(\Omega\)m) & B & 199.77 & 67.62 & 67.62 & 199.77 & 67.76 \\ \hline \(h_{1}\) (m) & B & 60.17 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 60.17 & 0.10 \\ \hline \(\rho_{2}\) (\(\Omega\)m) & B & 2940.90 & 201.76 & 201.76 & 3494.85 & 201.86 \\ \hline \(h_{2}\) (m) & B & 2.76 & 100.00 & 100.00 & 2.32 & 100.00 \\ \hline \(\rho_{3}\) (\(\Omega\)m) & B & 5.00 & 23.21 & 23.21 & 5.00 & 22.84 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: OF and best value of the calculated parameters for 50 independent runs for the AF subarea.