Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multi-level Machine Learning-Driven Tunnel Squeezing Prediction: Review and New Insights

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 27 June 2022

This article has been updated

Abstract

Tunnel squeezing is a time-dependent phenomenon that often happens in weak or over-stressed rock masses, considerably impacting tunnel construction costs and timelines. This paper addresses the severity of potential squeezing problems based on the predicted squeezing levels. To answer this problem, a multi-level data mining decision making assessment methodology is developed based on four commonly available parameters at the early design stage, that is, diameter (D), buried depth (H), support stiffness (K), and rock tunneling quality index (Q) to predict squeezing conditions in rock tunnels. Six different types of machine learning classifier groups viz., decision tree (19 algorithms), rule (11 algorithms), miscellaneous (4 algorithms), function (3 algorithms), Bayesian (2 algorithms), and lazy (2 algorithms) classifiers are comparatively included in the proposed method to assist users in determining which method should be utilized to achieve the required degree of accuracy. The proposed models are trained and tested on a dataset collected from published literature comprising 117 tunnel squeezing inventories. The model is validated using tenfold cross-validation on the training set (containing 80% of data) and also using a 20% test dataset of case histories (24 cases) that had not been originally utilized to train the model. The results show that the proposed multi-level decision-making models can effectively be utilized to analyze tunnel squeezing problems and yield the promised results. The prediction accuracy of developed multi-level models can reach above 90%, which is a very encouraging result for squeezing risk mitigation and prevention. Moreover, based on the well-established confusion matrix, predictive capabilities of the taken tunnel squeezing models is calculated in term of precision, recall, and F-measure. These robust data-centric methods can be extended to various geoengineering classification challenges. By measuring the variable importance based on the best-performed classifiers, i.e., RandomForest, CSForest, and SimpleCart algorithms, in general, it can be concluded that K is the most sensitive predictor to squeezing severity development, followed by Q, H, and D parameters, each with a different degree of significance. However, different methods demonstrate different degrees of importance for these input variables. The results of this study provide beneficial insights for squeezing severity strategies and minimizing potential risks and costs via early-stage four supplied attributes. Moreover, this study leverages various state-of-the-art machine learning classification algorithms, which highlight their application as a tool of data mining technology in geoengineering.

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

Modified from Hoek and Marinos [4] and Sun et al. [13]

Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

  1. Aydan Ö, Akagi T, Kawamoto T (1993) The squeezing potential of rocks around tunnels; theory and prediction. Rock Mech Rock Eng 26(2):137–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01023620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Barla G (1995) Squeezing rocks in tunnels. ISRM News J 2(3):44–49

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hoek E, Marinos P (2009) Tunnelling in overstressed rock. In: Proceedings of the Regional Symposium of the International Society for Rock Mechanics, EUROCK, pp 49–60

  4. Hoek E, Marinos P (2000) Predicting tunnel squeezing problems in weak heterogeneous rock masses. Tunn Tunn Int 32(11):45–51

    Google Scholar 

  5. Shrestha GL, Broch E (2008) Influences of the valley morphology and rock mass strength on tunnel convergence: with a case study of Khimti 1 headrace tunnel in Nepal. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 23(6):638–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2007.12.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Zhang J, Li D, Wang Y (2020) Predicting tunnel squeezing using a hybrid classifier ensemble with incomplete data. Bull Eng Geol Env 79(6):3245–3256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-020-01747-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhang W, Zhang R, Wu C, Goh ATC, Lacasse S, Liu Z, Liu H (2020) State-of-the-art review of soft computing applications in underground excavations. Geosci Front 11(4):1095–1106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2019.12.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Feng X, Jimenez R (2015) Predicting tunnel squeezing with incomplete data using Bayesian networks. Eng Geol 195:214–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.06.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hoek E (2001) Big tunnels in bad rock. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127:726–740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jimenez R, Recio D (2011) A linear classifier for probabilistic prediction of squeezing conditions in Himalayan tunnels. Eng Geol 121:101–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Singh M, Singh B, Choudhari J (2007) Critical strain and squeezing of rock mass in tunnels. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 22:343–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2006.06.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Shafiei A, Parsaei H, Dusseault MB (2012) Rock squeezing prediction by a support vector machine classifier. In: 46th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, pp 489–503

  13. Sun Y, Feng X, Yang L (2018) Predicting tunnel squeezing using multiclass support vector machines. Adv Civil Eng. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4543984

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ghasemi E, Gholizadeh H (2019) Prediction of squeezing potential in tunneling projects using data mining-based techniques. Geotech Geol Eng 37(3):1523–1532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-018-0705-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Farhadian H, Nikvar-Hassani A (2020) Development of a new empirical method for Tunnel Squeezing Classification (TSC). Q J Eng GeolHydrogeol 53(4):655–660. https://doi.org/10.1144/qjegh2019-108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chen Y, Li T, Zeng P, Ma J, Patelli E, Edwards B (2020) Dynamic and probabilistic multi-class prediction of tunnel squeezing intensity. Rock Mech Rock Eng 53:3521–3542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-020-02138-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Huang Z, Liao M, Zhang H, Zhang J, Ma S, Zhu Q (2021) Predicting tunnel squeezing using the SVM-BP combination model. Geotech Geol Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-021-01970-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Zhou J, Zhu S, Qiu YJ, Armaghani D, Zhou A, Yong W (2022) Predicting tunnel squeezing using support vector machine optimized by whale optimization algorithm. Acta Geotechca. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-022-01450-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Huang X, Yin X, Liu B, Ding Z, Zhang C, Jing B, Guo X (2022) A Gray Wolf optimization-based improved probabilistic neural network algorithm for surrounding rock squeezing classification in tunnel engineering. Front Earth Sci 10:857463. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2022.857463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hall M, Frank E, Holmes G, Pfahringer B, Reutemann P, Witten IH (2009) The WEKA data mining software: an update. ACM SIGKDD Explor Newsl 11(1):10–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fathipour-Azar H, Saksala T, Jalali SME (2017) Artificial neural networks models for rate of penetration prediction in rock drilling. J Struct Mech 50(3):252–255. https://doi.org/10.23998/rm.64969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhang W, Phoon KK (2022) Editorial for advances and applications of deep learning and soft computing in geotechnical underground engineering. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2022.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Fathipour-Azar H (2022) Machine learning assisted distinct element models calibration: ANFIS, SVM, GPR, and MARS approaches. Acta Geotech 17(4):1207–1217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-021-01303-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fathipour-Azar H, Wang J, Jalali SME, Torabi SR (2020) Numerical modeling of geomaterial fracture using a cohesive crack model in grain-based DEM. Comput Particle Mech 7:645–654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40571-019-00295-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fathipour-Azar H (2021) Data-driven estimation of joint roughness coefficient (JRC). J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 13(6):1428–1437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2021.09.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fathipour-Azar H (2022) New interpretable shear strength criterion for rock joints. Acta Geotech. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-021-01442-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Fathipour-Azar H (2022) Stacking ensemble machine learning-based shear strength model for rock discontinuity. Geotech Geol Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-022-02081-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Fathipour-Azar H (2022) Polyaxial rock failure criteria: Insights from explainable and interpretable data driven models. Rock Mech Rock Eng 55(4):2071-2089. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-021-02758-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fathipour-Azar H (2022) Hybrid machine learning-based triaxial jointed rock mass strength. Environ Earth Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-022-10253-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Fathipour-Azar H (2022) Data-oriented prediction of rocks’ Mohr-Coulomb parameters. Arch Appl Mech. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00419-022-02190-6

  31. Jiménez R, Recio D (2012) Probabilistic prediction of squeezing in tunneling under high-stress conditions. In: Proceedings of the 12th ISRM Congress, Beijing

  32. Jethwa JL, Singh B, Singh B (1984) Estimation of ultimate rock pressure for tunnel linings under squeezing rock conditions—a new approach. In: Brown ET, Hudson JA (eds) Proceedings of ISRM Symposium on Design and Performance of Underground Excavations. British Geotechnical Society, Cambridge, pp 231–238

  33. Singh B, Jethwa JL, Dube AK, Singh B (1992) Correlation between observed support pressure and rock mass quality. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 7(1):59–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/0886-7798(92)90114-W

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Goel RK, Jethwa JL, Paithankar AG (1995) Indian experiences with Q and RMR systems. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 10(1):97–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/0886-7798(94)00069-W

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Bhasin R, Grimstad E (1996) The use of stress-strength relationships in the assessment of tunnel stability. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 11(1):93–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/0886-7798(95)00047-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Dwivedi RD, Singh M, Viladkar MN, Goel RK (2013) Prediction of tunnel deformation in squeezing grounds. Eng Geol 161:55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2013.04.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Friedman J, Hastie T, Tibshirani R (2000) Additive logistic regression: a statistical view of boosting (with discussion and a rejoinder by the authors). Ann Stat 28(2):337–407

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Kohavi R (1996) Scaling up the accuracy of naive-bayes classifiers: a decision-tree hybrid. In: 2nd International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, vol 96, pp 202–207

  39. Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45(1):5–32

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Holmes G, Pfahringer B, Kirkby R, Frank E, Hall M (2002) Multiclass alternating decision trees. In: European Conference on Machine Learning, pp 161–172. Springer, Berlin

  41. Landwehr N, Hall M, Frank E (2005) Logistic model trees. Mach Learn 59(1–2):161–205

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  42. Gama J (2004) Functional trees. Mach Learn 55(3):219–250

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Aldous D (1991) The continuum random tree. I. Ann Probab 19(1):1–28

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Geurts P, Wehenkel L (2005) Closed-form dual perturb and combine for tree-based models. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Machine Learning, pp 233–240

  45. Geurts P, Ernst D, Wehenkel L (2006) Extremely randomized trees. Mach Learn 63(1):3–42

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. Abellán J, Moral S (2003) Building classification trees using the total uncertainty criterion. Int J Intell Syst 18(12):1215–1225

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. Siers MJ, Islam MZ (2015) Software defect prediction using a cost sensitive decision forest and voting, and a potential solution to the class imbalance problem. Inf Syst 51:62–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Adnan MN, Islam MZ (2017) Forest PA: Constructing a decision forest by penalizing attributes used in previous trees. Expert Syst Appl 89:389–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Witten IH, Frank E (2005) Data mining: practical machine learning tools and techniques. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. Kass GV (1980) An exploratory technique for investigating large quantities of categorical data. J R Stat Soc Ser C 29(2):119–127

    Google Scholar 

  51. Ibarguren I, Lasarguren A, Pérez JM, Muguerza J, Gurrutxaga I, Arbelaitz O (2016) BFPART: Best-first PART. Inf Sci 367:927–952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2016.07.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Breiman L, Friedman J, Stone CJ, Olshen RA (1984) Classification and regression trees. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  53. Yates D, Islam MZ, Gao J (2018) SPAARC: a fast decision tree algorithm. In: Australasian Conference on Data Mining, pp 43–55. Springer, Singapore

  54. Islam Z, Giggins H (2011) Knowledge discovery through SysFor: a systematically developed forest of multiple decision trees. In: Proceedings of the Ninth Australasian Data Mining Conference, vol 121, pp 195–204

  55. Hulten G, Spencer L, Domingos P (2001) Mining time-changing data streams. In: Proceedings of the Seventh ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp 97–106

  56. Webb GI (1999) Decision tree grafting from the all-tests-but-one partition. In: Proceedings Sixteenth International Joint conference on Artificial Intelligence (Ijcai), vol 2, pp 702–707

  57. Martin B (1995) Instance-based learning: nearest neighbor with generalization. Hamilton

  58. Hall MA, Frank E (2008) Combining naive bayes and decision tables. In: Proceedings of the 21st Florida Artificial Intelligence Society Conference (FLAIRS), vol 2118, pp 318–319

  59. Kohavi R (1995) The power of decision tables. In: 8th European Conference on Machine Learning, pp 174–189. Springer, Berlin

  60. Stefanowski J (1998) The rough set based rule induction technique for classification problems. In: Proceedings of 6th European Conference on Intelligent Techniques and Soft Computing EUFIT, vol 98, pp 109–113

  61. Holte RC (1993) Very simple classification rules perform well on most commonly used datasets. Mach Learn 11(1):63–90

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  62. Gaines BR, Compton P (1995) Induction of ripple-down rules applied to modeling large databases. J Intell Inf Syst 5(3):211–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Hühn J, Hüllermeier E (2009) FURIA: an algorithm for unordered fuzzy rule induction. Data Min Knowl Disc 19(3):293–319

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  64. Cohen WW (1995) Fast effective rule induction. In: Twelfth International Conference on Machine Learning, pp 115–123. Morgan Kaufmann.

  65. Wojna A, Latkowski R, Kowalski Ł (2009) RSESLIB: user guide. http://rseslib.mimuw.edu.pl/rseslib.pdf

  66. Kuncheva LI (2000) ‘Fuzzy if-then classifiers. In: Fuzzy Classifier Design’, Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Physica, Heidelberg, Vol. 49.

  67. Jiménez F, Sánchez G, Juárez JM (2014) Multi-objective evolutionary algorithms for fuzzy classification in survival prediction. Artif Intell Med 60(3):197–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Demiröz G, Güvenir HA (1997) Classification by voting feature intervals. In: 9th European Conference on Machine Learning, pp 85–92. Springer, Berlin

  69. Wilkinson L, Anand A, Tuan DN (2011) CHIRP: a new classifier based on composite hypercubes on iterated random projections. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pp 6–14.

  70. Athanasiadis IN, Kaburlasos VG, Mitkas PA, Petridis V (2003) Applying machine learning techniques on air quality data for real-time decision support. In: First International NAISO Symposium on Information Technologies in Environmental Engineering (ITEE'2003), Gdansk

  71. Kaburlasos VG, Athanasiadis IN, Mitkas PA (2007) Fuzzy lattice reasoning (FLR) classifier and its application for ambient ozone estimation. Int J Approx Reason 45(1):152–188

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  72. Deeb ZA, Devine T, Geng Z (2010). Randomized decimation hyperpipes. Citeseer.

  73. Friedman J, Hastie T, Tibshirani R (2001) The elements of statistical learning. Springer series in statistics. Springer, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  74. Bishop CM (2006) Pattern recognition and machine learning. Springer, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  75. Sumner M, Frank E, Hall M (2005) Speeding up logistic model tree induction. In: 9th European Conference on Principles of Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, pp 675–683. Springer, Berlin

  76. John GH, Langley P (1995) Estimating continuous distributions in Bayesian classifiers. In: Eleventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, San Mateo, pp 338–345

  77. Friedman N, Geiger D, Goldszmidt M (1997) Bayesian network classifiers. Mach Learn 29(2):131–163

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  78. Cleary JG, Trigg LE (1995) K*: an instance-based learner using an entropic distance measure. In: Machine Learning Proceedings, pp 108–114. Morgan Kaufmann

  79. Aha D, Kibler D (1991) Instance-based learning algorithms. Mach Learn 6:37–66

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  80. Fathipour-Azar H, Torabi SR (2014). Estimating fracture toughness of rock (KIC) using artificial neural networks (ANNS) and linear multivariable regression (LMR) models. In: 5th Iranian Rock Mechanics Conference

  81. Frank E, Witten IH (1998) Generating accurate rule sets without global optimization. In: Fifteenth International Conference on Machine Learning, pp 144–151.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Mining Engineering, Petroleum and Geophysics, Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood, Iran

    Hadi Fathipour-Azar

Authors
  1. Hadi Fathipour-Azar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hadi Fathipour-Azar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares there is no conflict of interest.

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

Fathipour-Azar, H. Multi-level Machine Learning-Driven Tunnel Squeezing Prediction: Review and New Insights. Arch Computat Methods Eng 29, 5493–5509 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-022-09774-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-022-09774-z

Search

Navigation