Skip to main content
Log in

A Bayesian-based approach for inversion of earth pressures on in-service underground structures

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Acta Geotechnica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents a Bayesian inversion approach to identify earth pressures on in-service underground structures based on structural deformations. Ill-conditioning and non-uniqueness of solutions are major issues for load inversion problems. Traditional approaches are mostly based on an optimization framework where a smooth solution is uniquely determined using regularization techniques. However, these approaches require tuning of regularization factors that may be subjective and difficult to implement for pressure inversion on in-service underground structures. By contrast, the presented approach is based on a Bayesian framework. Instead of regularization techniques and corresponding tuning procedure, only physically plausible bounds are required for specifying constraints. The complete posterior distribution of feasible solutions is obtained based on Bayes' rules. By inferring the potential pressures with the complete posterior distribution, a natural regularization advantage can be shown. Specifically, this advantage is demonstrated in detail by a series of comparative tests: (1) the Bayesian posterior mean exhibits an inherent quality to smooth out ill-conditioned features of inversion solutions; (2) satisfactory inference of the pressures can be made even in the presence of non-uniqueness. These properties are valuable when observed data is noisy or limited. A recorded field example is also presented to show effectiveness of this approach in practical engineering. Finally, deficiencies and potential extensions are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data generated or used during the study are included in this paper. Code that supports the findings are available from tianzy@tongji.edu.cn upon reasonable request, including MATLAB script for FEM forward model and DE-MC sampling algorithm.

References

  1. Aucejo M, Smet OD (2018) On a full Bayesian inference for force reconstruction problems. Mech Syst Signal Process 104:36–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Aucejo M, Smet OD (2019) An optimal Bayesian regularization for force reconstruction problems. Mech Syst Signal Process 126:98–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bodin T, Sambridge M, Gallagher K (2009) A self-parametrizing partition model approach to tomographic inverse problems. Inverse Prob 25(5):55009–55030

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Braak CJFT (2006) A Markov Chain Monte Carlo version of the genetic algorithm differential evolution: easy Bayesian computing for real parameter spaces. Stat Comput 16(3):239–249

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Draper NR, Smith H (1981) Applied regression analysis, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gelman A, Rubin DB (1992) Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Stat Sci 7(4):457–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gioda G, Jurina L (1981) Numerical identification of soil-structure interaction pressures. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 5(1):33–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Griffiths DV (1989) Advantages of consistent over lumped methods for analysis of beams on elastic foundations. Commun Appl Numer Methods 5(1):53–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Han L, Wang L, Zhang W, Chen Z (2021) Quantification of statistical uncertainties of unconfined compressive strength of rock using Bayesian learning method. Georisk 16(1):37–52

    Google Scholar 

  10. Han L, Ye GL, Li YH, Xia XH, Wang JH (2016) In-situ monitoring of frost heave pressure during cross passage construction using ground freezing method. Can Geotech J 53:530–539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Karagiannis G, Andrieu C (2013) Annealed importance sampling reversible jump MCMC algorithms. J Comput Graph Stat 22(3):623–648

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Li Q, Lu Q (2018) A hierarchical Bayesian method for vibration-based time domain force reconstruction problems. J Sound Vib 421:190–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Li Q, Lu Q (2019) A revised time domain force identification method based on Bayesian formulation. Int J Numer Methods Eng 118:411–431

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Li X, Zhou S, Di H (2020) Observed ground pressure acting on the lining of a large-diameter shield tunnel in sandy stratum under high water pressure. Adv Civ Eng. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3091528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Liu R, Dobriban E, Hou Z, Qian K (2021) Dynamic load identification for mechanical systems: a review. Arch Comput Methods Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-021-09594-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Liu Q, Liu H, Huang X, Pan Y, Luo C, Sang H (2019) Inverse analysis approach to identify the loads on the external TBM shield surface and its application. Rock Mech Rock Eng 52:3241–3260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Liu H, Liu Q, Liu B, Tang X, Ma H, Pan Y, Fish J (2021) An efficient and robust method for structural distributed load identification based on mesh superposition approach. Mech Syst Signal Process 151:107383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mashimo H, Ishimura T (2003) Evaluation of the load on shield tunnel lining in gravel. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 18:233–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Massarsch KR (1975) New method for measurement of lateral earth pressure in cohesive soils. Can Geotech J 12:142–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Metropolis N, Rosenbluth AW, Rosenbluth MN, Teller AH, Teller E (1953) Equations of state calculations by fast computing machines. J Chem Phys 21:1087–1091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Parker RL (1977) Understanding inverse theory. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 5:53–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Qin H, Vrugt JA, Xie X, Zhou Y (2018) Improved characterization of underground structure defects from two-stage Bayesian inversion using crosshole GPR data. Autom Constr 95:233–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Robert CP (2007) The Bayesian choice: from decision-theoretic foundations to computational implementation, 2nd edn. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sanchez J, Benaroya H (2014) Review of force reconstruction techniques. J Sound Vib 333(14):2999–3018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Smethurst JA, Powrie W (2007) Monitoring and analysis of the bending behaviour of discrete piles used to stabilise a railway embankment. Géotechnique 57(8):663–677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tian Z, Xu P, Gong Q, Zhao Y, Zhou S (2023) Health-degree model for stagger-joint-assembled shield tunnel linings based on diametral deformation in soft-soil areas. J Perform Constr Facil 37(3):04023019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Wang L, Xiao T, Liu S, Zhang W, Yang B, Chen L (2023) Quantification of model uncertainty and variability for landslide displacement prediction based on Monte Carlo simulation. Gondwana Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2023.03.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Wei Y, Xie P, Zhang L (2016) Tikhonov regularization and randomized GSVD. SIAM J Matrix Anal Appl 37(2):649–675

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. Xu SY, Lawal AI, Shamsabadi A, Taciroglu E (2019) Estimation of static earth pressures for a sloping cohesive backfill using extended Rankine theory with a composite log-spiral failure surface. Acta Geotech 14:579–594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Yan Q, Zhang W, Zhang C, Chen H, Dai Y, Zhou H (2018) Back analysis of water and earth loads on shield tunnel and structure ultimate limit state assessment: a case study. Arab J Sci Eng 44:4839–4853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Yang H, Zhang L, Li D (2018) Efficient method for probabilistic estimation of spatially varied hydraulic properties in a soil slope based on field responses: a Bayesian approach. Comput Geotech 102:262–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Zhang E, Antoni J, Feissel P (2012) Bayesian force reconstruction with an uncertain model. J Sound Vib 331(4):798–814

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Zhang D, Liu Z, Wang R, Zhang D (2019) Influence of grouting on rehabilitation of an over-deformed operating shield tunnel lining in soft clay. Acta Geotech 14:1227–1247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Zhang W, Wu C, Zhong H, Li Y, Wang L (2021) Prediction of undrained shear strength using extreme gradient boosting and random forest based on Bayesian optimization. Geosci Front 12(1):469–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Zhao Y, Zhu Z, Liu W, Zhan J, Wu D (2022) Application of 3D laser scanning on NATM tunnel deformation measurement during construction. Acta Geotech. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-022-01546-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51978523). A.L. acknowledges support from Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council under the CoSInES (EP/R034710/1). Z.T. acknowledges support from China Scholarship Council.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Quanmei Gong.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A: Linear interpolating vector

This “Appendix” presents the commonly-used linear interpolating vector Iz(z):

$$ q(z) = {\mathbf{I}}_{{\mathbf{Z}}} (z){\mathbf{x}} $$
(A1)

where q contains n − 1 pieces of the linear functions on intervals [zi, zi+1] (i = 1,…,n − 1), and vector x contains n unknown nodal values (x1,x2,…,xn)T. Coordinate of the nodes is denoted by z = (z1,z2,…,zn)T, and spacing between the nodes by Δsi = zi+1 − zi.

The linear interpolant for q at z can be written as:

$$ q(z) = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n - 1} {a_{i} x_{i} + b_{i} x_{i + 1} } $$
(A2)

where,

$$ a_{i} = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\frac{{z_{i + 1} - z}}{{\Delta s_{i} }}} & {z_{i} \le z \le z_{i + 1} } \\ 0 & {else} \\ \end{array} } \right., $$
(A3)
$$ b_{i} { = }\left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\frac{{z - z_{i} }}{{\Delta s_{i} }}} & {z_{i} \le z \le z_{i + 1} } \\ 0 & {else} \\ \end{array} } \right., $$
(A4)

For mathematical convenience, matrix is adopted, and thus:

$$ {\mathbf{I}}_{{\mathbf{Z}}} (z) = (1, \ldots ,1)_{1 \times (n - 1)} \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}l} {a_{1} } \hfill & {b_{1} } \hfill & {} \hfill & {} \hfill & {} \hfill \\ {} \hfill & {a_{2} } \hfill & {b_{2} } \hfill & {} \hfill & {} \hfill \\ {} \hfill & {} \hfill & \ddots \hfill & {} \hfill & {} \hfill \\ {} \hfill & {} \hfill & {} \hfill & {a_{n - 1} } \hfill & {b_{n - 1} } \hfill \\ \end{array} } \right]_{(n - 1) \times n} $$
(A5)

Appendix B: “Beam on elastic foundation” model

The partial differential governing functions of “beam on elastic foundation” model can be described as

$$ EI(z)\frac{{d^{4} y}}{{d{\kern 1pt} z^{4} }} + k(z)y = q(z) $$
(B1)

where EI is the flexural rigidity of the beam that may vary with depth z, y represents the deflection function of the beam. k(z)y is the reaction of the foundation, and k is the foundation stiffness. q is the pressure field determined by load parameters x (Eq. A1).

Discretization of (B1) using finite element method:

$$ {\mathbf{d}}^{\prime} = {\mathbf{K}}^{ - 1} {\mathbf{f}}\left( {{\mathbf{I}}_{{\mathbf{z}}} (z){\mathbf{x}}} \right) $$
(B2)

where d′ is the predicted deformation vector under pressure field q. f is a vector-valued function where f (Iz(z)x) is equivalent to q (i.e., Iz(z)x) with the transformation rules of virtual work. K is the global stiffness matrix that is assembled by element stiffness matrix ke, consisting two parts:

$$ {\mathbf{k}}^{e} {\kern 1pt} = {\mathbf{k}}_{b} + {\mathbf{k}}_{f} $$

where kb represents beam stiffness matrix. kf is closely resembles the beam mass matrix due to the term k(z)y in (B1). Derivation of them has been presented in Griffiths [8]:

$$ \left. {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {k_{b(ij)} = \int_{{z_{e} }}^{{z_{e} + L}} {EI(z)\frac{{d^{2} {\kern 1pt} N_{i} }}{{d{\kern 1pt} z^{2} }}\frac{{d^{2} {\kern 1pt} N_{j} }}{{d{\kern 1pt} z^{2} }}} dz} \\ {k_{f(ij)} = \int_{{z_{e} }}^{{z_{e} + L}} {k(z)N_{i} N_{j} } dz} \\ \end{array} } \right\}i,j = 1,2,3,4 $$
(B3)

where L is the length of an individual beam element, ze is the coordinate of element e, ξ = zze, and

$$ \begin{array}{*{20}c} {N_{1} = \frac{2}{{L^{3} }}\xi^{3} - \frac{3}{{L^{2} }}\xi^{2} + 1,} & {N_{2} = \frac{1}{{L^{2} }}\xi^{3} - \frac{2}{L}\xi^{2} + \xi } \\ {N_{3} = - \frac{2}{{L^{3} }}\xi^{3} + \frac{3}{{L^{2} }}\xi^{2} ,} & {N_{4} = \frac{1}{{L^{2} }}\xi^{3} - \frac{1}{L}\xi^{2} ,} \\ \end{array} $$
(B4)

f is also assembled by element forces fe(Iz(z)x) that is equivalent to the pressures q with the transformation of virtual work equation:

$$ {\mathbf{f}}^{e} \left( {{\mathbf{I}}_{{\mathbf{z}}} (z){\mathbf{x}}} \right) = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} 1 & 0 & { - \frac{3}{{L^{2} }}} & {\frac{2}{{L^{3} }}} \\ 0 & 1 & { - \frac{2}{L}} & {\frac{1}{{L^{2} }}} \\ 0 & 0 & {\frac{3}{{L^{2} }}} & { - \frac{2}{{L^{2} }}} \\ 0 & 0 & { - \frac{1}{L}} & {\frac{1}{{L^{2} }}} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {F_{p0} } \\ {F_{p1} } \\ {F_{p2} } \\ {F_{p3} } \\ \end{array} } \right\} $$
(B5)

where,

$$ \begin{array}{*{20}c} {F_{p0} = \int_{{z_{e} }}^{{z_{e} + L}} {q(z)} dz = \int_{{z_{e} }}^{{z_{e} + L}} {{\mathbf{I}}_{{\mathbf{z}}} (z)} {\mathbf{x}}dz} & {F_{p1} = \int_{{z_{e} }}^{{z_{e} + L}} {q(z)\xi } dz = \int_{{z_{e} }}^{{z_{e} + L}} {{\mathbf{I}}_{{\mathbf{z}}} (z){\mathbf{x}}\xi } dz} \\ {F_{p2} = \int_{{z_{e} }}^{{z_{e} + L}} {q(z)\xi^{2} } dz = \int_{{z_{e} }}^{{z_{e} + L}} {{\mathbf{I}}_{{\mathbf{z}}} (z){\mathbf{x}}} \xi^{2} dz} & {F_{p3} = \int_{{z_{e} }}^{{z_{e} + L}} {q(z)\xi^{3} } dz = \int_{{z_{e} }}^{{z_{e} + L}} {{\mathbf{I}}_{{\mathbf{z}}} (z){\mathbf{x}}\xi^{3} } dz} \\ \end{array} $$
(B6)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tian, Z., Zhou, S., Lee, A. et al. A Bayesian-based approach for inversion of earth pressures on in-service underground structures. Acta Geotech. 19, 1911–1928 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-023-01970-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-023-01970-w

Keywords

Navigation