Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Various Methodologies to Detect Anomalies in a Time Series Data Taken from a Tunnelling Project

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Advances in Information Technology in Civil and Building Engineering (ICCCBE 2022)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering ((LNCE,volume 357))

Abstract

A major concern in urban mechanised tunnelling projects is avoiding damage to the existing buildings and the tunnel boring machine (TBM), which may be adjusted by an advanced precise excavation simulation. Because a realistic simulation must account for multiple interactions between the boring machine and the subsurface, an exact representation of the ground’s geological profile must be created beforehand. Due to the limited monitoring and sampling, several geologic anomalies may have been overlooked when sketching the geologic profile. As a result, the geological profile should be updated alongside the construction phases when new information becomes available. To accomplish this, one can use the boring machine’s recorded data to detect any irregularities in the drilling process caused by changes in geological conditions. This research compares various cutting-edge anomaly detection approaches on time series. Due to a large amount of sensor data, the visualization of multiple sensors/features over time was first performed, and the critical features with the highest impact on the detection process for identifying anomalies were selected. Anomaly detection techniques include isolation forest, k-Means, k-Means Sequential Time Series Cluster, Auto-Regression Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA), and Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) Auto-encoders are among the main aspects. The methods presented here were applied to a given data set from an actual tunnelling operation in Germany to locate the location of some concrete slabs in a relatively homogeneous ground. The obtained results agree well with the exact location of anomalies. The performance of various methods is evaluated through error quantification measures.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ahmad S, Lavin A, Purdy S, Agha Z (2017) Unsupervised real-time anomaly detection for streaming data. Neurocomputing 262:134–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2017.04.070. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925231217309864

  2. Armaghani DJ, Koopialipoor M, Marto A, Yagiz S (2019) Application of several optimization techniques for estimating TBM advance rate in granitic rocks. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 11(4):779–789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2019.01.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bai X-D, Cheng W, Ong DE, Li G (2021) Evaluation of geological conditions and clogging of tunneling using machine learning. Geomech Eng 25(1):59–73

    Google Scholar 

  4. Braei M, Wagner S (2020) Anomaly detection in univariate time-series: a survey on the state-of-the-art

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cao BT, Saadallah A, Egorov A, Freitag S, Meschke G, Morik K (2021) Online geological anomaly detection using machine learning in mechanized tunneling. In: Barla M, Di Donna A, Sterpi D (eds) Challenges and innovations in geomechanics. Springer, Cham, pp 323–330

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Chen J, Zhou M, Zhang D, Huang H, Zhang F (2021) Quantification of water inflow in rock tunnel faces via convolutional neural network approach. Autom Constr 123:103526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Erharter GH, Marcher T, Reinhold C (2019) Application of artificial neural networks for underground construction - chances and challenges - insights from the BBT exploratory tunnel ahrental pfons. Geomech Tunn 12(5):472–477. https://doi.org/10.1002/geot.201900027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Erharter GH, Marcher T, Reinhold C (2019) Artificial neural network based online rockmass behavior classification of TBM data. In: Information technology in geo-engineering. Springer, Cham, pp 178–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32029-4_16

  9. Fu X, Feng L, Zhang L (2022) Data-driven estimation of TBM performance in soft soils using density-based spatial clustering and random forest. Appl Soft Comput 120:108686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2022.108686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ghaleini EN, Koopialipoor M, Momenzadeh M, Sarafraz ME, Mohamad ET, Gordan B (2018) A combination of artificial bee colony and neural network for approximating the safety factor of retaining walls. Eng Comput 35(2):647–658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-018-0625-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hyndman R, Athanasopoulos G (2018) Forecasting: Principles and Practice, 2nd edn. OTexts, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  12. Krishnan A (2019) Anomaly-detection-with-time-series-forecasting. Towards Data Science

    Google Scholar 

  13. Maes K, Salens W, Feremans G, Segher K, François S (2022) Anomaly detection in long-term tunnel deformation monitoring. Eng Struct 250:113383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mahmoudi E, Hölter R, Zhao C (2020) A pattern recognition approach to evaluate the uncertain soil stratum in front of the tunnel face. In: Takada T, Yoshida I, Itoi T (ed) Proceedings of the seventh asian-pacific symposium on structural reliability and its applications (APSSRA 2020), pp 351–355

    Google Scholar 

  15. Marcher T, Erharter G, Unterlass P (2021) Capabilities and challenges using machine learning in tunnelling. In: Theory and practice on tunnel engineering. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97695

  16. Marcher T, Erharter GH, Winkler M (2020) Machine learning in tunnelling - capabilities and challenges. Geomech Tunn 13(2):191–198. https://doi.org/10.1002/geot.202000001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Meschke G, Cao BT, Freitag S, Egorov A, Saadallah A, Morik K (2019) Big data and simulation - a new approach for real-time TBM steering, pp 2681–2690. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429424441-284

  18. Riedel C, et al (2022) A hybrid exploration approach for the prediction of geological changes ahead of mechanized tunnel excavation. J Appl Geophys 203:104684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2022.104684. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0926985122001550

  19. Schmidl S, Wenig P, Papenbrock T (2022) Anomaly detection in time series: a comprehensive evaluation. Proc VLDB Endow 15(9):1779–1797. https://doi.org/10.14778/3538598.3538602

  20. Sheil BB, Suryasentana SK, Cheng WC (2020) Assessment of anomaly detection methods applied to microtunneling. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 146(9):04020094. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0002326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Tang L, Na S (2021) Comparison of machine learning methods for ground settlement prediction with different tunneling datasets. J Rock Mecha Geotech Eng 13(6):1274–1289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2021.08.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Vijay P (2020) Timeseries anomaly detection using an autoencoder. Keras.io

    Google Scholar 

  23. Wu Z, Wei R, Chu Z, Liu Q (2021) Real-time rock mass condition prediction with TBM tunneling big data using a novel rock-machine mutual feedback perception method. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 13(6):1311–1325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2021.07.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Yang H, Song K, Zhou J (2022) Automated recognition model of geomechanical information based on operational data of tunneling boring machines. Rock Mech Rock Eng 55(3):1499–1516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-021-02723-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhang Q, Yang K, Wang L, Zhou S (2020) Geological type recognition by machine learning on in-situ data of EPB tunnel boring machines. Math Prob Eng 2020:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3057893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Zhang Q, Yang B, Zhu Y, Guo C, Jiao C, Cai A (2022) Prediction method of TBM tunneling parameters based on bi-GRU-ATT model. Adv Civil Eng 2022:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3743472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Zheng S, Zhu YX, Li DQ, Cao ZJ, Deng QX, Phoon KK (2021) Probabilistic outlier detection for sparse multivariate geotechnical site investigation data using Bayesian learning. Geosci Front 12(1):425–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2020.03.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Zhou C, Kong T, Zhou Y, Zhang H, Ding L (2019) Unsupervised spectral clustering for shield tunneling machine monitoring data with complex network theory. Autom Constr 107:102924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.102924

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Zou T, Liu X, Liu J, Yuan H, Lu Y, Zhang W (2022) Outlier detection method for geotechnical engineering based on metaod model selection (2022). https://doi.org/10.19509/j.cnki.dzkq.2022.0041. http://dzkjtb.xml-journal.net/en/article/doi/10.19509/j.cnki.dzkq.2022.0041

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors sincerely thank Dr. Ba Trung Cao for his advice in preprocessing the sensor data. We are also grateful for the funding provided by the German Research Foundation (DFG) [grant number SFB837/3-2018] within the Collaborative Research Center SFB 837 “Interaction modelling in mechanized tunnelling” within the subproject C2 “System and parameter identification methods for ground models in mechanized tunnelling”.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Computing in Engineering, Ruhr Universität Bochum, Universitätsstraße 150, 44801, Bochum, Germany

    Keyur Joshi & Elham Mahmoudi

Authors
  1. Keyur Joshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elham Mahmoudi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elham Mahmoudi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa

    Sebastian Skatulla

  2. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa

    Hans Beushausen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Joshi, K., Mahmoudi, E. (2024). Comparison of Various Methodologies to Detect Anomalies in a Time Series Data Taken from a Tunnelling Project. In: Skatulla, S., Beushausen, H. (eds) Advances in Information Technology in Civil and Building Engineering. ICCCBE 2022. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol 357. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35399-4_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35399-4_17

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-35398-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-35399-4

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation