Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing cohesion of the rocks proposing a new intelligent technique namely group method of data handling

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

Abstract

In this study, evaluation and prediction of rock cohesion is assessed using multiple regression as well as group method of data handling (GMDH). It is a well-known fact that cohesion is the most crucial rock shear strength parameter, which is a key parameter for the stability evaluation of some geotechnical structures such as rock slope. To fulfill the aim of this study, a database of three model input parameters, i.e., p wave velocity, uniaxial compressive strength and Brazilian tensile strength and one model output, which is cohesion of limestone samples was prepared and utilized by GMDH. Different GMDH models with neurons and layers and selection pressure were tested and assessed. It was found that GMDH model number 4 (with 8 layers) shows the best performance among all of tested models between the input and output parameters for the prediction and assessment of rock cohesion with coefficient of determination (R2) values of 0.928 and 0.929, root mean square error values of 0.3545 and 0.3154 for training and testing datasets, respectively. Multiple regression analysis was also performed on the same database and R2 values were obtained as 0.8173 and 0.8313 between input and output parameters for the training and testing of the models, respectively. The GMDH technique developed in this study is introduced as a new model in field of rock shear strength parameters.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Armaghani D, Hajihassani M, Bejarbaneh B, Marto A (2014) Indirect measure of shale shear strength parameters by means of rock index tests through an optimized artificial neural network. Measurement 55:487–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alejano LR, Carranza-Torres C (2011) An empirical approach for estimating shear strength of decomposed granites in Galicia, Spain. Eng Geol 120:91–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Zorlu K, Gokceoglu C, Ocakoglu F et al (2008) Prediction of uniaxial compressive strength of sandstones using petrography-based models. Eng Geol 96:141–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Mohamad ET, Armaghani DJ, Momeni E et al (2016) Rock strength estimation: a PSO-based BP approach. Neural Comput Appl. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-016-2728-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Armaghani DJ, Safari V, Fahimifar A et al (2017) Uniaxial compressive strength prediction through a new technique based on gene expression programming. Neural Comput Appl 30:3523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-017-2939-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bejarbaneh BY, Bejarbaneh EY, Fahimifar A et al (2018) Intelligent modelling of sandstone deformation behaviour using fuzzy logic and neural network systems. Bull Eng Geol Environ 77:345–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Monjezi M, Khoshalan H, Razifard M (2012) A neuro-genetic network for predicting uniaxial compressive strength of rocks. Geotech Geol Eng 30:1053–1062

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Liu H, Kou S, Lindqvist P, Tang C (2004) Numerical studies on the failure process and associated microseismicity in rock under triaxial compression. Tectonophysics 384:149–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Barla G, Barla M, Debernardi D (2010) New triaxial apparatus for rocks. Rock Mech Rock Eng 43:225–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sarout J, Molez L, Guéguen Y, Hoteit N (2007) Shale dynamic properties and anisotropy under triaxial loading: experimental and theoretical investigations. Phys Chem Earth Parts A/B/C 32:896–906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kahraman S, Altun H, Tezekici BS, Fener M (2006) Sawability prediction of carbonate rocks from shear strength parameters using artificial neural networks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 43:157–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Amann F, Kaiser P, Button EA (2012) Experimental study of brittle behavior of clay shale in rapid triaxial compression. Rock Mech Rock Eng 45:21–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chong KP, Chen J-L, Dana G, Sailor S (1984) Triaxial testing of devonian oil shale. J Geotech Eng 110:1491–1497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Asadi M, Bagheripour MH (2014) Numerical and intelligent modeling of triaxial strength of anisotropic jointed rock specimens. Earth Sci Inform 7:165–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Li D, Xiao P, Han Z, Zhu Q (2018) Mechanical and failure properties of rocks with a cavity under coupled static and dynamic loads. Eng Fract Mech. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2018.10.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhu Q, Li D, Han Z et al (2019) Mechanical properties and fracture evolution of sandstone specimens containing different inclusions under uniaxial compression. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 115:33–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Iannacchione AT, Vallejo LE (2000) Shear strength evaluation of clay–rock mixtures. In: Proceedings of the slope stability 2000, Denver, 3–6 August 2000, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp 209–223

  19. Singh M, Raj A, Singh B (2011) Modified Mohr–Coulomb criterion for non-linear triaxial and polyaxial strength of intact rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 48:546–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Barton N (1976) The shear strength of rock and rock joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abs 13:255–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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 7

  22. Hoek E, Carranza-Torres C, Corkum B (2002) Hoek-Brown failure criterion-2002 edition. Proc NARMS Tac 1:267–273

    Google Scholar 

  23. Yazdani B (2012) Shear strength parameters of shale based on triaxial compression test. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ghazvinian A, Vaneghi RG, Hadei MR, Azinfar MJ (2013) Shear behavior of inherently anisotropic rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 61:96–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Islam MA, Skalle P (2013) An experimental investigation of shale mechanical properties through drained and undrained test mechanisms. Rock Mech Rock Eng 46:1391–1413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Barton N (2013) Shear strength criteria for rock, rock joints, rockfill and rock masses: problems and some solutions. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 5:249–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Koopialipoor M, Armaghani DJ, 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Liao X, Khandelwal M, Yang H et al (2019) Effects of a proper feature selection on prediction and optimization of drilling rate using intelligent techniques. Eng Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-019-00711-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Koopialipoor M, Fallah A, Armaghani DJ et al (2018) Three hybrid intelligent models in estimating flyrock distance resulting from blasting. Eng Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-018-0596-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hasanipanah M, Armaghani DJ, Amnieh HB et al A risk-based technique to analyze flyrock results through rock engineering system. Geotech Geol Eng 36:2247–2260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Armaghani DJ, Mohamad ET, Momeni E, Monjezi M, Narayanasamy MS (2016) Prediction of the strength and elasticity modulus of granite through an expert artificial neural network. Arab J Geosci 1:48–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Koopialipoor M, Armaghani DJ, Hedayat A et al (2018) Applying various hybrid intelligent systems to evaluate and predict slope stability under static and dynamic conditions. Soft Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3253-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Zhao Y, Noorbakhsh A, Koopialipoor M et al (2019) A new methodology for optimization and prediction of rate of penetration during drilling operations. Eng Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-019-00715-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Koopialipoor M, Fahimifar A, Ghaleini EN et al (2019) Development of a new hybrid ANN for solving a geotechnical problem related to tunnel boring machine performance. Eng Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-019-00701-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Koopialipoor M, Murlidhar BR, Hedayat A et al (2019) The use of new intelligent techniques in designing retaining walls. Eng Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-018-00700-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ivakhnenko AG (1971) Polynomial theory of complex systems. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 1:364–378

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  37. Haykin S (1999) Neural networks: a comprehensive foundation. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. 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 104:144–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kordnaeij A, Kalantary F, Kordtabar B, Mola-Abasi H (2015) Prediction of recompression index using GMDH-type neural network based on geotechnical soil properties. Soils Found 55:1335–1345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Najafzadeh M, Barani G-A, Kermani MRH (2013) GMDH based back propagation algorithm to predict abutment scour in cohesive soils. Ocean Eng 59:100–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Ulusay R, Hudson JA, ISRM (2007) The complete ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization, testing and monitoring: 1974–2006. In: Ulusay R, Hudson JA (eds) Suggested methods prepared by the commission on testing methods. International Society for Rock Mechanics. ISRM Turkish National Group, Ankara, Turkey

    Google Scholar 

  43. Hatheway AW (2009) The complete ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization, testing and monitoring; 1974–2006. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  44. Bieniawski ZT, Bernede MJ (2007) Suggested methods for determining the uniaxial compressive strength and deformability of rock materials: part 1. Suggested method for determining deformability of rock materials in uniaxial compression. In: Ulusay R, Hudson JA (eds) The complete ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization, testing and monitoring: 1974–2006. Pergamon

  45. Jaeger JC (1967) Failure of rocks under tensile conditions. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abs 4(2):219–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Khandelwal M, Singh TN (2007) Evaluation of blast-induced ground vibration predictors. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27:116–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-018-0625-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kato T, Otsubo T, Shimazaki K et al (2018) Tool wear estimation method in milling process using air turbine spindle rotation-control system equipped with disturbance force observer. Int J Hydromechatron 1:384–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Johnson JL (2018) Design of experiments and progressively sequenced regression are combined to achieve minimum data sample size. Int J Hydromechatron 1:308–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Zhang S, Iwashita H, Sanada K (2018) Thermal performance difference of ideal gas model and van der Waals gas model in gas-loaded accumulator. Int J Hydromechatron 1:293–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Koopialipoor M, Ghaleini EN, Haghighi M et al (2018) Overbreak prediction and optimization in tunnel using neural network and bee colony techniques. Eng Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-018-0658-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Jahed Armaghani D, Hajihassani M, Monjezi M et al (2015) Application of two intelligent systems in predicting environmental impacts of quarry blasting. Arab J Geosci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-015-1908-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Hasanipanah M, Jahed Armaghani D, Monjezi M, Shams S (2016) Risk assessment and prediction of rock fragmentation produced by blasting operation: a rock engineering system. Environ Earth Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-5503-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their sincere appreciation to reviewers because of their valuable comments that increased the quality of our paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chongqing Jianzhu College, Chongqing, 400072, China

    Wusi Chen

  2. School of Science, Engineering and Information Technology, Federation University Australia, PO Box 663, Ballarat, VIC, 3353, Australia

    Manoj Khandelwal

  3. Geotropik-Centre of Tropical Geoengineering, School of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia

    Bhatawdekar Ramesh Murlidhar

  4. Geographic Information Science Research Group, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

    Dieu Tien Bui

  5. Faculty of Environment and Labour Safety, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

    Dieu Tien Bui

  6. Faculty of Civil Engineering, UTM Construction Research Centre, Institute for Smart Infrastructure and Innovative Construction (ISIIC), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310, Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia

    M. M. Tahir

  7. Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

    Javad Katebi

Authors
  1. Wusi Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manoj Khandelwal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bhatawdekar Ramesh Murlidhar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dieu Tien Bui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. M. Tahir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Javad Katebi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dieu Tien Bui.

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

Chen, W., Khandelwal, M., Murlidhar, B.R. et al. Assessing cohesion of the rocks proposing a new intelligent technique namely group method of data handling. Engineering with Computers 36, 783–793 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-019-00731-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-019-00731-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation