Estimating dynamic compressive strength of rock subjected to freeze-thaw weathering by data-driven models and non-destructive rock properties
Source abstract
Abstract
The dynamic compressive strength (DCS) of frozen-thawed rock influences the stability of rock mass in cold regions, especially when rock masses are possibly disturbed by dynamic loads. Laboratory freeze-thaw weathering treatment is usually time-consuming, and the dynamic strength test is destructive. Therefore, this paper attempts to quickly predict the DCS of frozen-thawed sandstones using data-driven methods, non-destructive rock properties, and basic environmental parameters. The sparrow search algorithm (SSA), gorilla troops optimiser, and dung beetle optimiser were chosen to develop two hyperparameters in the random forest (RF). The classic RF, back propagation neural network, and support vector regression models were taken as the control group. These six models were developed to predict the DCS. Their prediction results were compared. Finally, the sensitivity analysis was carried out to assess the significance of all input variables. The results indicate that the SSA – RF model yields the best prediction result, and three optimised models have better performance than single machine-learning models. Strain rate, dry density, and wave velocity are found to be the three most important parameters in DCS prediction, which further indicates that there is also a strong correlation between the characteristic impedance of the rock and the DCS.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Rock Mechanics and Modeling · Landslides and related hazards · Drilling and Well Engineering
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Faculty of Engineering, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, China
Oulu Mining School, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
Funding
National Natural Science Foundation of China · Fundamental Research Funds for National University, China University of Geosciences · Hubei Key Laboratory of Blasting Engineering Foundation · Knowledge Innovation Program of Wuhan-Basic Research
References (86)
Show source-provided references
1. Zhang ZX. Rock fracture and blasting: theory and applications. Kidlington, Oxford: Elsevier; 2016.
2. 10.1007/s10064-019-01490-610.1007/s10064-019-01490-6 ↗
3. 10.1007/s10064-015-0787-910.1007/s10064-015-0787-9 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.earscirev.2020.10314310.1016/j.earscirev.2020.103143 ↗
5. 10.3311/PPci.1531310.3311/PPci.15313 ↗
6. 10.1155/2017/972863010.1155/2017/9728630 ↗
7. 10.1155/2021/612884310.1155/2021/6128843 ↗
8. Arosio D, Longoni L, Mazza F, et al. Freeze-thaw cycle and rockfall monitoring. In: Margottini C, Canuti P, Sassa K, editors. Landslide Science And Practice. Springer; 2013. p. 385–390.
9. 10.1080/1385514050014027510.1080/13855140500140275 ↗
10. 10.1007/s10064-021-02479-w10.1007/s10064-021-02479-w ↗
11. 10.1007/s10064-022-03002-510.1007/s10064-022-03002-5 ↗
12. 10.1007/s00603-023-03223-410.1007/s00603-023-03223-4 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.enggeo.2017.02.02510.1016/j.enggeo.2017.02.025 ↗
14. 10.1007/s00603-023-03216-310.1007/s00603-023-03216-3 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.10641110.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106411 ↗
16. 10.1016/S1003-6326(15)63723-210.1016/S1003-6326(15)63723-2 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2022.10657710.1016/j.engfailanal.2022.106577 ↗
18. 10.1007/s10064-022-02774-010.1007/s10064-022-02774-0 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.enggeo.2016.06.01710.1016/j.enggeo.2016.06.017 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.coldregions.2019.01.00710.1016/j.coldregions.2019.01.007 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.coldregions.2018.06.01510.1016/j.coldregions.2018.06.015 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.enggeo.2021.10608810.1016/j.enggeo.2021.106088 ↗
23. 10.1007/s10064-021-02133-510.1007/s10064-021-02133-5 ↗
24. 10.3390/min1210133110.3390/min12101331 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.10609410.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106094 ↗
26. 10.1007/s00603-021-02497-w10.1007/s00603-021-02497-w ↗
27. 10.1016/j.jrmge.2014.07.00810.1016/j.jrmge.2014.07.008 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.10592710.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105927 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2023.10557510.1016/j.ijrmms.2023.105575 ↗
30. 10.1109/TCSII.2023.324045810.1109/TCSII.2023.3240458 ↗
31. 10.1007/s00366-020-01014-x10.1007/s00366-020-01014-x ↗
32. 10.1016/j.measurement.2015.07.01910.1016/j.measurement.2015.07.019 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.measurement.2019.10687410.1016/j.measurement.2019.106874 ↗
34. 10.1007/s11053-019-09470-z10.1007/s11053-019-09470-z ↗
35. 10.3390/app1218918910.3390/app12189189 ↗
36. 10.1080/17480930.2022.213113710.1080/17480930.2022.2131137 ↗
37. 10.1007/s00366-021-01393-910.1007/s00366-021-01393-9 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.ijmst.2019.06.00910.1016/j.ijmst.2019.06.009 ↗
39. 10.1016/j.tust.2021.10413310.1016/j.tust.2021.104133 ↗
40. 10.3390/math1005078710.3390/math10050787 ↗
41. 10.1016/j.jrmge.2021.07.01310.1016/j.jrmge.2021.07.013 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.gsf.2020.11.00510.1016/j.gsf.2020.11.005 ↗
43. 10.1007/s00521-016-2434-110.1007/s00521-016-2434-1 ↗
44. 10.1007/s10064-020-01834-710.1007/s10064-020-01834-7 ↗
45. 10.1007/s11053-019-09593-310.1007/s11053-019-09593-3 ↗
46. 10.1007/s11053-020-09710-710.1007/s11053-020-09710-7 ↗
47. 10.1016/j.gsf.2020.09.02010.1016/j.gsf.2020.09.020 ↗
48. 10.1016/j.eswa.2022.11830310.1016/j.eswa.2022.118303 ↗
49. 10.1016/j.tust.2022.10472810.1016/j.tust.2022.104728 ↗
50. 10.1007/s11440-022-01651-010.1007/s11440-022-01651-0 ↗
51. 10.1016/j.jrmge.2019.08.00110.1016/j.jrmge.2019.08.001 ↗
52. 10.3389/feart.2022.93013010.3389/feart.2022.930130 ↗
53. 10.1007/s00603-022-03091-410.1007/s00603-022-03091-4 ↗
54. 10.1016/j.jrmge.2022.01.00810.1016/j.jrmge.2022.01.008 ↗
55. 10.3390/min1206073110.3390/min12060731 ↗
56. 10.1080/10589759.2014.97778910.1080/10589759.2014.977789 ↗
57. 10.1080/10589759.2013.82360610.1080/10589759.2013.823606 ↗
58. 10.1080/10589759.2014.100283810.1080/10589759.2014.1002838 ↗
59. 10.1080/10589759.2023.224337310.1080/10589759.2023.2243373 ↗
60. 10.1007/s00603-022-03172-410.1007/s00603-022-03172-4 ↗
61. 10.1016/S1365-1609(00)00008-310.1016/S1365-1609(00)00008-3 ↗
62. 10.1080/00031305.1998.1048055910.1080/00031305.1998.10480559 ↗
63. 10.1023/A:101093340432410.1023/A:1010933404324 ↗
64. 10.1016/j.trgeo.2022.10075610.1016/j.trgeo.2022.100756 ↗
65. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2023.10808510.1016/j.soildyn.2023.108085 ↗
66. 10.1007/s11053-019-09611-410.1007/s11053-019-09611-4 ↗
67. 10.1080/21642583.2019.170883010.1080/21642583.2019.1708830 ↗
68. 10.1007/s11053-022-10082-310.1007/s11053-022-10082-3 ↗
69. 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.000258910.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0002589 ↗
70. 10.1002/int.2253510.1002/int.22535 ↗
71. 10.1007/s11227-022-04959-610.1007/s11227-022-04959-6 ↗
72. 10.1214/09-SS05410.1214/09-SS054 ↗
73. Kohavi R. A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. Montreal, Canada: Ijcai; 1995. pp. 1137–1145.
74. 10.1007/978-0-387-21606-510.1007/978-0-387-21606-5 ↗
75. 10.3390/rs1411270710.3390/rs14112707 ↗
76. 10.1016/j.tust.2021.10428510.1016/j.tust.2021.104285 ↗
77. 10.1016/j.jrmge.2021.07.00710.1016/j.jrmge.2021.07.007 ↗
78. 10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2022.10613910.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2022.106139 ↗
79. 10.1016/j.asoc.2022.10972910.1016/j.asoc.2022.109729 ↗
80. 10.1007/s10064-016-0924-010.1007/s10064-016-0924-0 ↗
81. 10.1016/j.enggeo.2007.10.00910.1016/j.enggeo.2007.10.009 ↗
82. 10.1016/S1365-1609(02)00112-010.1016/S1365-1609(02)00112-0 ↗
83. 10.1016/j.jrmge.2020.05.00610.1016/j.jrmge.2020.05.006 ↗
84. Zhang ZX, Hou DF A preliminary investigation of relation between characteristic impedance of rock and penetration rate. 13th International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting; Hangzhou, Oct 17–19, 2022.
85. 10.1016/j.coldregions.2018.04.01410.1016/j.coldregions.2018.04.014 ↗
86. 10.1155/2021/751146710.1155/2021/7511467 ↗