Prediction of shield tunneling-induced ground settlement using machine learning techniques

Abstract

Predicting the tunneling-induced maximum ground surface settlement is a complex problem since the settlement depends on plenty of intrinsic and extrinsic factors. This study investigates the efficiency and feasibility of six machine learning (ML) algorithms, namely, back-propagation neural network, wavelet neural network, general regression neural network (GRNN), extreme learning machine, support vector machine and random forest (RF), to predict tunneling-induced settlement. Field data sets including geological conditions, shield operational parameters, and tunnel geometry collected from four sections of tunnel with a total of 3.93 km are used to build models. Three indicators, mean absolute error, root mean absolute error, and coefficient of determination the (R²) are used to demonstrate the performance of each computational model. The results indicated that ML algorithms have great potential to predict tunneling-induced settlement, compared with the traditional multivariate linear regression method. GRNN and RF algorithms show the best performance among six ML algorithms, which accurately recognize the evolution of tunneling-induced settlement. The correlation between the input variables and settlement is also investigated by Pearson correlation coefficient.

Keywords

EPB shield / shield tunneling / settlement prediction / machine learning

References

[1] Chen R P, Lin X T, Kang X, Zhong Z Q, Liu Y, Zhang P, Wu H N. Deformation and stress characteristics of existing twin tunnels induced by close-distance EPBS under-crossing. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2018, 82: 468–481

[2] Zhang P, Chen R P, Wu H N. Real-time analysis and regulation of EPB shield steering using random forest. Automation in Construction, 2019, 106: 102860

[3] Wu H N, Shen S L, Yang J. Identification of tunnel settlement caused by land subsidence in soft deposit of Shanghai. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 2017, 31(6): 04017092

[4] Wu H N, Shen S L, Liao S M, Yin Z Y. Longitudinal structural modelling of shield tunnels considering shearing dislocation between segmental rings. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2015, 50: 317–323

[5] Wu H N, Shen S L, Yang J, Zhou A N. Soil-tunnel interaction modelling for shield tunnels considering shearing dislocation in longitudinal joints. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2018, 78: 168–177

[6] Zhang Z, Huang M. Geotechnical influence on existing subway tunnels induced by multiline tunneling in Shanghai soft soil. Computers and Geotechnics, 2014, 56: 121–132

[7] Shi H, Yang H, Gong G, Wang L. Determination of the cutterhead torque for EPB shield tunneling machine. Automation in Construction, 2011, 20(8): 1087–1095

[8] Zheng G, Cui T, Cheng X, Diao Y, Zhang T, Sun J, Ge L. Study of the collapse mechanism of shield tunnels due to the failure of segments in sandy ground. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2017, 79: 464–490

[9] Chen R P, Li Z C, Chen Y M, Ou C Y, Hu Q, Rao M. Failure investigation at a collapsed deep excavation in very sensitive organic soft clay. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 2015, 29(3): 04014078

[10] Huang Q, Huang H, Ye B, Zhang D, Zhang F. Evaluation of train-induced settlement for metro tunnel in saturated clay based on an elastoplastic constitutive model. Underground Space, 2018, 3(2): 109–124

[11] Shen S L, Wu H N, Cui Y J, Yin Z Y. Long-term settlement behaviour of metro tunnels in the soft deposits of Shanghai. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2014, 40: 309–323

[12] Wang Z F, Cheng W C, Wang Y Q. Investigation into geohazards during urbanization process of Xi’an, China. Natural Hazards, 2018, 92(3): 1937–1953

[13] Vorster T E, Klar A, Soga K, Mair R J. Estimating the effects of tunneling on existing pipelines. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2005, 131(11): 1399–1410

[14] Attewell P B, Hurrell M R. Settlement development caused by tunnelling in soil. Ground Engineering, 1985, 18(8): 17–20

[15] Peck R B. Deep excavations and tunneling in soft ground. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanic and Foundation Engineering. Mexico City, 1969, 225–290

[16] Sagaseta C. Analysis of undrained soil deformation due to ground loss. Geotechnique, 1987, 37(3): 301–320

[17] Verruijt A, Booker J R. Surface settlements due to deformation of a tunnel in an elastic half plane. Geotechnique, 1998, 48(5): 709–713

[18] Chen R P, Meng F Y, Li Z C, Ye Y H, Ye J N. Investigation of response of metro tunnels due to adjacent large excavation and protective measures in soft soils. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2016, 58: 224–235

[19] Huang H, Gong W, Khoshnevisan S, Juang C H, Zhang D, Wang L. Simplified procedure for finite element analysis of the longitudinal performance of shield tunnels considering spatial soil variability in longitudinal direction. Computers and Geotechnics, 2015, 64: 132–145

[20] Paternesi A, Schweiger H F, Scarpelli G. Numerical analyses of stability and deformation behavior of reinforced and unreinforced tunnel faces. Computers and Geotechnics, 2017, 88: 256–266

[21] Zhang L, Wu X, Ji W, AbouRizk S M. Intelligent approach to estimation of tunnel-induced ground settlement using wavelet packet and support vector machines. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 2017, 31(2): 04016053

[22] Pourtaghi A, Lotfollahi-Yaghin M A. Wavenet ability assessment in comparison to ANN for predicting the maximum surface settlement caused by tunneling. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2012, 28: 257–271

[23] Zhang L, Wu X, Zhu H, AbouRizk S M. Performing global uncertainty and sensitivity analysis from given data in tunnel construction. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 2017, 31(6): 04017065

[24] Chou J S, Lin C. Predicting disputes in public-private partnership projects: Classification and ensemble models. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 2013, 27(1): 51–60

[25] Zoveidavianpoor M. A comparative study of artificial neural network and adaptive neurofuzzy inference system for prediction of compressional wave velocity. Neural Computing & Applications, 2014, 25(5): 1169–1176

[26] Hamdia K M, Lahmer T, Nguyen-Thoi T, Rabczuk T. Predicting the fracture toughness of PNCs: A stochastic approach based on ANN and ANFIS. Computational Materials Science, 2015, 102: 304–313

[27] Dai H, Cao Z. A wavelet support vector machine-based neural network metamodel for structural reliability assessment. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 2017, 32(4): 344–357

[28] Bouayad D, Emeriault F. Modeling the relationship between ground surface settlements induced by shield tunneling and the operational and geological parameters based on the hybrid PCA/ANFIS method. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2017, 68: 142–152

[29] Kim C Y, Bae G J, Hong S W, Park C H, Moon H K, Shin H S. Neural network based prediction of ground surface settlements due to tunnelling. Computers and Geotechnics, 2001, 28(6–7): 517–547

[30] Santos O J Jr, Celestino T B. Artificial neural networks analysis of São Paulo subway tunnel settlement data. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2008, 23(5): 481–491

[31] Shi J, Ortigao J A R, Bai J. Modular neural networks for predicting settlements during tunneling. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 1998, 124(5): 389–395

[32] Suwansawat S, Einstein H H. Artificial neural networks for predicting the maximum surface settlement caused by EPB shield tunneling. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2006, 21(2): 133–150

[33] Hasanipanah M, Noorian-Bidgoli M, Jahed Armaghani D, Khamesi H. Feasibility of PSO-ANN model for predicting surface settlement caused by tunneling. Engineering with Computers, 2016, 32(4): 705–715

[34] Meschke G. From advance exploration to real time steering of TBMs: A review on pertinent research in the Collaborative Research Center “Interaction Modeling in Mechanized Tunneling”. Underground Space, 2018, 3(1): 1–20

[35] Ding L, Wang F, Luo H, Yu M, Wu X. Feedforward analysis for shield-ground system. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 2013, 27(3): 231–242

[36] Samui P, Sitharam T G. Least-square support vector machine applied to settlement of shallow foundations on cohesionless soils. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 2008, 32(17): 2033–2043

[37] Qi C, Tang X. Slope stability prediction using integrated metaheuristic and machine learning approaches: A comparative study. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 2018, 118: 112–122

[38] Liu W, Wu X, Zhang L, Wang Y, Teng J. Sensitivity analysis of structural health risk in operational tunnels. Automation in Construction, 2018, 94: 135–153

[39] Behzad M, Asghari K, Coppola E A Jr. Comparative study of SVMs and ANNs in aquifer water level prediction. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 2010, 24(5): 408–413

[40] Kohestani V R, Bazargan-Lari M R, Asgari-marnani J. Prediction of maximum surface settlement caused by earth pressure balance shield tunneling using random forest. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Data Mining, 2017, 5(1): 127–135

[41] Sun W, Shi M, Zhang C, Zhao J, Song X. Dynamic load prediction of tunnel boring machine (TBM) based on heterogeneous in-situ data. Automation in Construction, 2018, 92: 23–34

[42] Bendu H, Deepak B B V L, Murugan S. Application of GRNN for the prediction of performance and exhaust emissions in HCCI engine using ethanol. Energy Conversion and Management, 2016, 122: 165–173

[43] Anoop Krishnan N M, Mangalathu S, Smedskjaer M M, Tandia A, Burton H, Bauchy M. Predicting the dissolution kinetics of silicate glasses using machine learning. Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, 2018, 487: 37–45

[44] Mangalathu S, Jeon J S. Classification of failure mode and prediction of shear strength for reinforced concrete beam-column joints using machine learning techniques. Engineering Structures, 2018, 160: 85–94

[45] Zhou J, Li X, Mitri H S. Classification of rockburst in underground projects: Comparison of ten supervised learning methods. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 2016, 30(5): 04016003

[46] Dwivedi A K. Performance evaluation of different machine learning techniques for prediction of heart disease. Neural Computing & Applications, 2018, 29(10): 685–693

[47] Naghibi S A, Ahmadi K, Daneshi A. Application of support vector machine, random forest, and genetic algorithm optimized random forest models in groundwater potential mapping. Water Resources Management, 2017, 31(9): 2761–2775

[48] Zhao Y, Pan H, Wang H, Yu H. Dynamics research on grouping characteristics of a shield tunneling machine’s thrust system. Automation in Construction, 2017, 76: 97–107

[49] Huang G B, Zhu Q Y, Siew C K. Extreme learning machine: Theory and applications. Neurocomputing, 2006, 70(1–3): 489–501

[50] Breiman L. Bagging Predictors. Machine Learning, 1996, 24(2): 123–140

[51] Ho T K. The random subspace method for constructing decision forests. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 1998, 20(8): 832–844

[52] Liaw A, Wiener M, Liaw A. Classification and regression by random forest. R News, 2002, 23(23): 18–21

[53] Tseranidis S, Brown N C, Mueller C T. Data-driven approximation algorithms for rapid performance evaluation and optimization of civil structures. Automation in Construction, 2016, 72: 279–293

[54] Braga-Neto U, Hashimoto R, Dougherty E R, Nguyen D V, Carroll R J. Is cross-validation better than resubstitution for ranking genes? Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2004, 20(2): 253–258

[55] Badawy M F, Msekh M A, Hamdia K M, Steiner M K, Lahmer T, Rabczuk T. Hybrid nonlinear surrogate models for fracture behavior of polymeric nanocomposites. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 2017, 50: 64–75

[56] Stone M. Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), 1974, 36(2): 111–147

[57] Theodosiou M. Disaggregation & aggregation of time series components: A hybrid forecasting approach using generalized regression neural networks and the theta method. Neurocomputing, 2011, 74(6): 896–905

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature