Advertisement

Prediction of rock interlocking by developing two hybrid models based on GA and fuzzy system

  • Bhatawdekar Ramesh MurlidharEmail author
  • Munir Ahmed
  • Dinesh Mavaluru
  • Ahmed Faisal Siddiqi
  • Edy Tonnizam Mohamad
Original Article
  • 34 Downloads

Abstract

Rock shear strength parameters (interlocking and internal friction angel) are considered as significant factors in the designing stage of various geotechnical structures such as tunnels and foundations. Direct determination of these parameters in laboratory is time-consuming and expensive. Additionally, preparation of good quality of core samples is sometimes difficult. The objective of this paper is introducing and evaluating two hybrid artificial neural network (ANN)-based models by considering genetic algorithm (GA) and fuzzy inference system for prediction of interlocking of shale rock samples. Therefore, hybrid GA-ANN and adoptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) were developed and to show the capability of the hybrid models, the predicted results were compared to those of a pre-developed ANN model. In development of these models, the results of rock index tests, i.e., point load index, dry density, p-wave velocity, Brazilian tensile strength and Schmidt hammer were taken into account as the input parameters, whereas the interlocking of the shale samples was set as the output. The results obtained in this study confirmed the high reliability of the developed hybrid models, however, ANFIS predictive model receives slightly higher performance prediction compared to GA-ANN technique. The obtained results of the developed models were (0.865, 0.852), (0.933, 0.929) and (0.957, 0.965) for ANN, GA-ANN and ANFIS models, respectively, based on coefficient of determination (R2). ANFIS can be introduced as an innovative model to the field of rock mechanics.

Keywords

Interlocking of the rock GA ANN ANFIS Hybrid model 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Armaghani JD, Hajihassani M, Bejarbaneh BY et al (2014) Indirect measure of shale shear strength parameters by means of rock index tests through an optimized artificial neural network. Measurement.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2014.06.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alejano L, Carranza-Torres C (2011) An empirical approach for estimating shear strength of decomposed granites in Galicia, Spain. Eng Geol 120:91–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Khandelwal M, Marto A, Fatemi SA et al (2017) Implementing an ANN model optimized by genetic algorithm for estimating cohesion of limestone samples. Eng Comput 34:1–11Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yazdani Bejarbaneh B, Armaghani DJ, Mohd Amin MF (2015) Strength characterisation of shale using Mohr–Coulomb and Hoek–Brown criteria. Measurement.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2014.12.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chong K, Chen J, Dana G, Sailor S (1984) Triaxial testing of devonian oil shale. J Geotech Eng 110:1491–1497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kahraman S, Altun H, Tezekici B (2006) Sawability prediction of carbonate rocks from shear strength parameters using artificial neural networks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 43:157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu H, Kou S, Lindqvist P, Tang C (2004) Numerical studies on the failure process and associated microseismicity in rock under triaxial compression. Tectonophysics 384:149–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Asadi M, Bagheripour M (2014) Numerical and intelligent modeling of triaxial strength of anisotropic jointed rock specimens. Earth Sci Inform 7:165–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barla G, Barla M, Debernardi D (2010) New triaxial apparatus for rocks. Rock Mech Rock Eng 43:225–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Iannacchione A, Vallejo L (2000) Shear strength evaluation of clay–rock mixtures. Slope Stab 2000:209–223Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Singh M, Singh B (2012) Modified Mohr–Coulomb criterion for non-linear triaxial and polyaxial strength of jointed rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min 51:43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barton N (1976) The shear strength of rock and rock joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 13:255–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hajdarwish A, Shakoor A (2006) Predicting the shear strength parameters of mudrocks.In: Proceedings of the 10th IAEG congress, Nottingham, 6–10 September 2006, The Geological Society of London, London, p 7Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ghazvinian A, Vaneghi R, Hadei M (2013) Shear behavior of inherently anisotropic rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 61:96–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Islam M, Skalle P (2013) An experimental investigation of shale mechanical properties through drained and undrained test mechanisms. Rock Mech Rock Eng 46:1391–1413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barton N (2013) Shear strength criteria for rock, rock joints, rockfill and rock masses: problems and some solutions. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 249–261Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shahnazar A, Nikafshan Rad H, Hasanipanah M et al (2017) A new developed approach for the prediction of ground vibration using a hybrid PSO-optimized ANFIS-based model. Environ Earth Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-6864-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hasanipanah M, Jahed Armaghani D, Khamesi H et al (2016) Several non-linear models in estimating air-overpressure resulting from mine blasting. Eng Comput.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-015-0425-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Armaghani DJ, Hasanipanah M, Amnieh HB, Mohamad ET (2018) Feasibility of ICA in approximating ground vibration resulting from mine blasting. Neural Comput Appl 29:457–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hasanipanah M, Noorian-Bidgoli M, Jahed Armaghani D, Khamesi H (2016) Feasibility of PSO–ANN model for predicting surface settlement caused by tunneling. Eng Comput.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-016-0447-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mohammadhassani M, Nezamabadi-Pour H, Suhatril M, Shariati M (2013) Identification of a suitable ANN architecture in predicting strain in tie section of concrete deep beams. Struct Eng Mech 46:853–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mansouri I, Shariati M, Safa M et al (2017) Analysis of influential factors for predicting the shear strength of a V-shaped angle shear connector in composite beams using an adaptive neuro-fuzzy technique. J Intell Manuf.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-017-1306-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Safa M, Shariati M, Ibrahim Z et al (2016) Potential of adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system for evaluating the factors affecting steel-concrete composite beam’s shear strength. Steel Compos Struct 21:679–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Khandelwal M, Kankar PK, Harsha SP (2010) Evaluation and prediction of blast induced ground vibration using support vector machine. Min Sci Technol 20:64–70Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Khandelwal M, Singh TN (2009) Prediction of blast-induced ground vibration using artificial neural network. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 46:1214–1222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Singh TN, Kanchan R, Saigal K, Verma AK (2004) Prediction of p-wave velocity and anisotropic property of rock using artificial neural network technique. J Sci Ind Res (India) 63:28–32Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Singh TN, Singh V (2005) An intelligent approach to prediction and control ground vibration in mines. Geotech Geol Eng 23:249–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moayedi H, Rezaei A (2017) An artificial neural network approach for under-reamed piles subjected to uplift forces in dry sand. Neural Comput Appl.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-017-2990-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Moayedi H, Armaghani JD (2017) Optimizing an ANN model with ICA for estimating bearing capacity of driven pile in cohesionless soil. Eng Comput.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-017-0545-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Khandelwal M, Armaghani DJ, Faradonbeh RS et al (2016) A new model based on gene expression programming to estimate air flow in a single rock joint. Environ Earth Sci 75:739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Armaghani DJ, Mohamad ET, Narayanasamy MS et al (2017) Development of hybrid intelligent models for predicting TBM penetration rate in hard rock condition. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 63:29–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2016.12.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jahed Armaghani D, Mohd Amin MF, Yagiz S et al (2016) Prediction of the uniaxial compressive strength of sandstone using various modeling techniques. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 85:174–186.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2016.03.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Meulenkamp F, Grima M (1999) Application of neural networks for the prediction of the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) from Equotip hardness. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 36:29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bejarbaneh BY, Bejarbaneh EY, Amin MFM et al (2016) Intelligent modelling of sandstone deformation behaviour using fuzzy logic and neural network systems. Bull Eng Geol Environ.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-016-0983-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Armaghani DJ, Faradonbeh RS, Rezaei H et al (2016) Settlement prediction of the rock-socketed piles through a new technique based on gene expression programming. Neural Comput Appl.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-016-2618-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jahed Armaghani D, Faradonbeh RS, Momeni E et al (2017) Performance prediction of tunnel boring machine through developing a gene expression programming equation. Eng Comput.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-017-0526-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Toghroli A, Suhatril M, Ibrahim Z et al (2016) Potential of soft computing approach for evaluating the factors affecting the capacity of steel–concrete composite beam. J Intell Manuf 29:1–9Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mohammadhassani M, Nezamabadi-Pour H, Suhatril M, Shariati M (2014) An evolutionary fuzzy modelling approach and comparison of different methods for shear strength prediction of high-strength concrete beams without stirrups. Smart Struct Syst Int J 14:785–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shariat M, Shariati M, Madadi A, Wakil K (2018) Computational Lagrangian Multiplier Method by using for optimization and sensitivity analysis of rectangular reinforced concrete beams. Steel Compos Struct 29:243–256Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chahnasir ES, Zandi Y, Shariati M et al (2018) Application of support vector machine with firefly algorithm for investigation of the factors affecting the shear strength of angle shear connectors. SMART Struct Syst 22:413–424Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gordan B, Koopialipoor M, Clementking A et al (2018) Estimating and optimizing safety factors of retaining wall through neural network and bee colony techniques. Eng Comput.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-018-0642-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Koopialipoor M, Nikouei SS, Marto A et al (2018) Predicting tunnel boring machine performance through a new model based on the group method of data handling. Bull Eng Geol Environ.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-018-1349-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ghaleini EN, Koopialipoor M, Momenzadeh M et al (2018) A combination of artificial bee colony and neural network for approximating the safety factor of retaining walls. Eng Comput 1–12Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hasanipanah M, Jahed Armaghani D, Bakhshandeh Amnieh H et al (2016) Application of PSO to develop a powerful equation for prediction of flyrock due to blasting. Neural Comput Appl.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-016-2434-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Faradonbeh RS, Hasanipanah M, Amnieh HB et al (2018) Development of GP and GEP models to estimate an environmental issue induced by blasting operation. Environ Monit Assess 190:351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jiang W, Arslan CA, Tehrani MS et al (2018) Simulating the peak particle velocity in rock blasting projects using a neuro-fuzzy inference system. Eng Comput 1–9Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rad HN, Hasanipanah M, Rezaei M, Eghlim AL (2018) Developing a least squares support vector machine for estimating the blast-induced flyrock. Eng Comput 34:709–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sedghi Y, Zandi Y, Toghroli A et al (2018) Application of ANFIS technique on performance of C and L shaped angle shear connectors. SMART Struct Syst 22:335–340Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mansouri I, Safa M, Ibrahim Z et al (2016) Strength prediction of rotary brace damper using MLR and MARS. Struct Eng Mech 60:471–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Eberhart R, Simpson P, Dobbins R (1996) Computational intelligence PC tools. Acad Press Prof Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Adhikari R, Agrawal R (2011) Effectiveness of PSO based neural network for seasonal time series forecasting. IICAI 3:231–244Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hornik K, Stinchcombe M, White H (1989) Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximators. Neural Netw 2:359–366zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Mohamad ET, Armaghani DJ, Hajihassani M et al (2013) A simulation approach to predict blasting-induced flyrock and size of thrown rocks. Electron J Geotech Eng B 18:365–374Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Saghatforoush A, Monjezi M, Faradonbeh RS, Armaghani DJ (2016) Combination of neural network and ant colony optimization algorithms for prediction and optimization of flyrock and back-break induced by blasting. Eng Comput 32:255–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Swingler K (1996) Applying neural networks: a practical guide. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hecht-Nielsen R (1987) Kolmogorov’s mapping neural network existence theorem. In: Proceedings of the international conference on neural networks. New York: IEEE Press, pp 11–13Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Holland JH (1975) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: an introductory analysis with applications to biology, control, and artificial intelligence. MIT Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Koopialipoor M, Jahed Armaghani D, Haghighi M, Ghaleini EN (2017) A neuro-genetic predictive model to approximate overbreak induced by drilling and blasting operation in tunnels. Bull Eng Geol Environ.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-017-1116-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Momeni E, Nazir R, Jahed Armaghani D, Maizir H (2014) Prediction of pile bearing capacity using a hybrid genetic algorithm-based ANN. Measurement.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2014.08.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Armaghani DJ, Hasanipanah M, Mahdiyar A et al (2016) Airblast prediction through a hybrid genetic algorithm-ANN model. Neural Comput Appl.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-016-2598-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Mohamad ET, Faradonbeh RS, Armaghani DJ et al (2016) An optimized ANN model based on genetic algorithm for predicting ripping production. Neural Comput Appl 28:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Monjezi M, Khoshalan H, Razifard M (2012) A neuro-genetic network for predicting uniaxial compressive strength of rocks. Geotech Geol Eng 30:1053–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Jahed Armaghani D, Shoib RSNSBR, Faizi K, Rashid ASA (2017) Developing a hybrid PSO–ANN model for estimating the ultimate bearing capacity of rock-socketed piles. Neural Comput Appl.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-015-2072-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Alavi NK, Abad SV, Yilmaz M, Jahed Armaghani D, Tugrul A (2016) Prediction of the durability of limestone aggregates using computational techniques. Neural Comput Appl.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-016-2456-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Saemi M, Ahmadi M, Varjani A (2007) Design of neural networks using genetic algorithm for the permeability estimation of the reservoir. J Pet Sci Eng 59:97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Jahed Armaghani D, Hasanipanah M, Mahdiyar A et al (2016) Airblast prediction through a hybrid genetic algorithm-ANN model. Neural Comput Appl.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-016-2598-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Saemi M, Ahmadi M, Varjani AY (2007) Design of neural networks using genetic algorithm for the permeability estimation of the reservoir. J Pet Sci Eng 59:97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Jang J-S (1993) ANFIS: adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference system. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 23:665–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Armaghani D, Momeni E, Abad S (2015) Feasibility of ANFIS model for prediction of ground vibrations resulting from quarry blasting. Environ Earth Sci 74:2845–2860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Grima MA, Bruines PA, Verhoef PNW (2000) Modeling tunnel boring machine performance by neuro-fuzzy methods. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 15:259–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Armaghani DJ, Hajihassani M, Sohaei H et al (2015) Neuro-fuzzy technique to predict air-overpressure induced by blasting. Arabian J Geosci 8:10937–10950.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-015-1984-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Jang R, Sun C, Mizutani E (1997) Neuro-fuzzy and soft computation. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, p 614Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Ulusay R, Hudson JAISRM (2007) The complete ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization, testing and monitoring: 1974–2006. In: Comm Test methods Int Soc Rock Mech Compil arranged by ISRM Turkish Natl Group, Ankara, Turke, p 628Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C, Nefeslioglu HA, Kayabasi A (2006) Estimation of rock modulus: for intact rocks with an artificial neural network and for rock masses with a new empirical equation. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 43:224–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Momeni E, Nazir R, Armaghani D, Maizir H (2014) Prediction of pile bearing capacity using a hybrid genetic algorithm-based ANN. Measurement 57:122–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Khandelwal M, Armaghani DJ (2016) Prediction of drillability of rocks with strength properties using a hybrid GA-ANN technique. Geotech Geol Eng 34:605–620.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-015-9970-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Armaghani DJ, Momeni E, Abad SV, Khandelwal M (2015) Feasibility of ANFIS model for prediction of ground vibrations resulting from quarry blasting. Environ Earth Sci 74:2845–2860.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-4305-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Jahed Armaghani D, Hajihassani M, Monjezi M et al (2015) Application of two intelligent systems in predicting environmental impacts of quarry blasting. Arabian J Geosci.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-015-1908-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Momeni E, Armaghani DJ, Fatemi SA, Nazir R (2018) Prediction of bearing capacity of thin-walled foundation: a simulation approach. Eng Comput 34:319–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bhatawdekar Ramesh Murlidhar
    • 1
    Email author
  • Munir Ahmed
    • 2
  • Dinesh Mavaluru
    • 3
  • Ahmed Faisal Siddiqi
    • 4
  • Edy Tonnizam Mohamad
    • 1
  1. 1.Geotropik-Centre of Tropical Geoengineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MalaysiaSkudaiMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of Management SciencesCOMSATS University Islamabad, Vehari CampusIslamabadPakistan
  3. 3.College of Computing and InformaticsSaudi Electronic University RiyadhRiyadhSaudi Arabia
  4. 4.UCP Business School, University of Central PunjabLahorePakistan

Personalised recommendations