Ground Prediction by Markov-ANN Hybrid Analytics Using Baseline Geotechnical Data and Observed Field Data
Authors
-
Former M.Tech Student, IIT Madras, Chennai - 600 036
Aman Sharma -
Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Madras, Chennai - 600 036
V.B. Maji
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17491/jgsi/2024/173893Keywords:
No Keywords.Abstract
Geology along the tunnel length usually differs from the anticipated data as per Geotechnical Baseline Report (GBR), sometimes quite significantly. This has always led to the disruption of the planning, resource mobilisation, cost and duration of the project. One way to minimise this uncertainty is by exhaustive investigation like probe holes and geophysical prospecting. Forecasting or prediction of Geology can also be done by soft computing and analytical methods. Using the analytical tool of the Markov Model and the learning powers of Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) has been attempted in this study. The idea is to build a hybrid model that would combine both capabilities and do a probabilistic prediction of the ground condition ahead of the tunnel face in real time to better suit the site, accommodate complexities and can capture the associated uncertainties. The Geotechnical Baseline Report (GBR) having the initial survey details of the tunnel geology is used to build the Markov Model while the deterministic borehole data in the GBR is used to build the ANN model. Bayesian joint probability theorem is used to update the model with the face observed geological parameters. This hybrid model demonstrated to be a good complement to the physical forecasting methods and the geological uncertainty of a complex and challenging Himalayan region was well captured by the present approach. The window of the prediction was for a region of approximately 250m where it showed a very good prediction of ground class. The model can help in systematic planning and resource mobilisation in a better way and subsequent key decisions for the upcoming excavation method and corresponding support measures.
Downloads
Metrics
Issue
Section
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
References
Alimoradi, A., Moradzadeh, A., Naderi, R., Salehi, M. and Eteisi, A. (2008) Prediction of geological hazardous zones in front of a tunnel face using TSP-203 and artificial neural networks. Tunnell. Underground Space Tech., v.23(6), pp.711-717.
Attoh-Okine, N., Basheer, I. and Chen, D.-H. (1999) Use of artificial neural networks in geomechanical and pavement systems. Trans. Res. Board, Circular E-C012.
Bardhan, A., Biswas, R., Kardani, N., Iqbal, M., Samui, P., Singh, M. P., and Asteris, P. G. (2022) A novel integrated approach of augmented grey wolf optimizer and ANN for estimating axial load carrying-capacity of concrete-filled steel tube columns. Construction and Building Materials, v.337, 127454.
Basheer, I. and Hajmeer, M. (2000) Artificial neural networks: fundamentals, computing, design, and application. Jour. Microbiol. Methods, v.43(1), pp.3-31.
Bru, B., Hertz, S (2001) Maurice Fréchet. In: Heyde C., Seneta E., Crépel P., Fienberg S., Gani J. (Eds.). Statisticians of the Centuries, pp.331–334.
Burden, F., Winkler, D. (2008) Bayesian Regularization of Neural Networks. IN: D. S. Livingstone (Ed.), Artificial Neural Networks: Methods and Protocols, v.458, pp.23-42.
Chan, M. (1981) A Geological Prediction and Updating Model in Tunneling. MSc. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA.
Chen, R., Zhang, P., Kang, X., Zhong, Z., Liu, Y., and Wu, H. (2019) Prediction of maximum surface settlement caused by earth pressure balance (EPB) shield tunneling with ANN methods. Soils and Foundations, v.59(2), pp.284-295.
Cornell University. (2012) Hermite Interpolation, Intro to Scientific Computing, Bindel Spring.
Das, S. K., Samui, P., and Sabat, A. K. (2011) Application of artificial intelligence to maximum dry density and unconfined compressive strength of cement stabilized soil. Geotech. Geol. Eng., v.29, pp.329-342.
Demuth, H., Beale, M. (2021) Neural Network Toolbox, For use with MATLAB®, R2021a, Mathworks
Gagniuc, A. (2017) Markov Chains: From Theory to Implementation and Experimentation. John Wiley & Sons, pp.2–8.
Guan, Z., Deng, T., Du, S., Li, B. and Jiang, Y. (2012) Markovian geology prediction approach and its application in mountain tunnels. Tunnel. Underground Space Tech., v.31, pp.61-67.
Hassan, M. and Nath, B. (2005) StockMarket Forecasting Using Hidden Markov Model: A New Approach”. Proc. 5th Internat. Conf. Intelligent Systems Design and Applications, pp.192-196.
Hassoun, M. (1996) Fundamentals of Artificial Neural Networks. Proc. IEEE, v.84(6), pp.906.
Hoek, E. (2000). Practical Rock Engineering. Unpublished lecture notes.
Jain, A.K., Jianchang, M. and Mohiuddin, K. (1996) Artificial neural networks: a tutorial. Computer IEEE Explore, v.29(3), pp.31-44.
Kendall, D.G., Batchelor, G.K., Bingham, N.H., Hayman, W.K., Hyland, J.M.E., Lorentz, G.G., Moffatt, H.K., Parry, W., Razborov, A.A., Robinson, C.A., Whittle, P. (1991) Andrei Nikolaevich Kolmogorov (1903–1987). Bull. London Mathemat. Soc., v.22(1).
Lai, J., Qiu, J., Feng, Z., Chen, J. and Fan, H. (2016) Prediction of Soil Deformation in Tunneling Using Artificial Neural Networks, Hindawi Publishing Corporation Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, 16p.
Leu, S.,and Adi, T. (2011) Probabilistic prediction of tunnel geology using a Hybrid Neural-HMM. Eng. Applicat. Artificial Intelligence, v.24(4), pp.658-665.
Loannou, P. (1987) A Geologic Prediction Model for Tunneling. Jour. Construct. Eng. Managt., v.113(4), pp.569-590.
Longini, I., Clark, W., Byers, R., Ward, J., Darrow, W., Lemp, G., and Hethcote, H. (1989) Statistical analysis of the stages of HIV infection using a Markov model. Statistics in Medicine, v.8(7), pp.831-843.
Lu, H., Kim, E. and Gutierrez, M. (2018) A Markovian rock mass quality prediction for tunnelling. 52nd US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium.
Mahdevari, S. and Torabi, S. (2012) Prediction of tunnel convergence using Artificial Neural Networks. Tunnell. Underground Space Tech., v.28, pp.218-228.
Mahmoodzadeh, A., and Zare, S. (2016) Probabilistic prediction of expected ground condition and construction time and costs in road tunnels. Jour. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng., v.8(5), pp.734-745.
Mahmoodzadeh, A., Mohammadi, M., Daraei, A., Rashid, T., Sherwani, A., Faraj, R. and Darwesh, A. (2019) Updating ground conditions and time-cost scatter-gram in tunnels during excavation. Automation in Construction, v.105, 102822.
Maji, V.B. and Theja, G.V. (2017) A New Performance Prediction Model for Rock TBMs., Indian Geotech. Jour., Springer Pubs., no47, pp.364–372.
Maji, V.B., and Sitharam, T.G. (2008) Prediction of Elastic Modulus of Jointed Rock Mass Using Artificial Neural Networks. Geotech. Geol. Eng., Springer Pubs., no,6(4), pp.443-452.
Palmström, A. (2009) Combining the RMR, Q, and RMi classification systems. Tunnel. Underground Space Tech., v.24, pp.491–492.
Pells, P., Bertuzzi, R. (2007) Limitations of rock mass classification systems for tunnel support designs. Tunnels and Tunneling Internat., pp.1–11.
Robinson, G. (2021) Global Construction Market to Grow $8 Trillion by 2030: Driven by China, US and India. Prnewswire.com, (Apr. 7, 2021).
Samui, P., and Sitharam, T.G. (2010) Site characterization model using artificial neural network and kriging. Internat. Jour. Geomech., v.10(5), pp.171-180.
Varga, A. and Moore, R. (1990) Hidden Markov model decomposition of speech and noise. Internat. Conf. Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, v.2, pp.845-848.
Yuksel Proje. (2019). Construction of tunnels, bridges, and formation work from chainage 17+647 to 32+790 (15.143km) under package-2 in Connection with new single line broad gauge rail link between Rishikesh and Karanprayag (125km) the state of Uttarakhand, India, Geotechnical Baseline Report, (RIKR-PK2-YPJ-ALG-GE-GBR-REP-101-P).
Zhang, J, Tang, W.H., Zhang, L.M. and Huang, H.W. (2012) Characterising geotechnical model uncertainty by hybrid Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation. Computers and Geotechnics, v.43, pp.26–36.
