journal article·2021-07-02Open access

Development of Prediction Models for Shear Strength of Rockfill Material Using Machine Learning Techniques

Mahmood Ahmad, Paweł Kamiński, Piotr Olczak, Muhammad Alam, Muhammad Junaid Iqbal, Feezan Ahmad, Sasui Sasui, Beenish Jehan Khan

Applied Sciences· Volume 11· Issue 13

Abstract

Supervised machine learning and its algorithms are a developing trend in the prediction of rockfill material (RFM) mechanical properties. This study investigates supervised learning algorithms—support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), AdaBoost, and k-nearest neighbor (KNN) for the prediction of the RFM shear strength. A total of 165 RFM case studies with 13 key material properties for rockfill characterization have been applied to construct and validate the models. The performance of the SVM, RF, AdaBoost, and KNN models are assessed using statistical parameters, including the coefficient of determination (R2), Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) coefficient, root mean square error (RMSE), and ratio of the RMSE to the standard deviation of measured data (RSR). The applications for the abovementioned models for predicting the shear strength of RFM are compared and discussed. The analysis of the R2 together with NSE, RMSE, and RSR for the RFM shear strength data set demonstrates that the SVM achieved a better prediction performance with (R2 = 0.9655, NSE = 0.9639, RMSE = 0.1135, and RSR = 0.1899) succeeded by the RF model with (R2 = 0.9545, NSE = 0.9542, RMSE = 0.1279, and RSR = 0.2140), the AdaBoost model with (R2 = 0.9390, NSE = 0.9388, RMSE = 0.1478, and RSR = 0.2474), and the KNN with (R2 = 0.6233, NSE = 0.6180, RMSE = 0.3693, and RSR = 0.6181). Furthermore, the sensitivity analysis result shows that normal stress was the key parameter affecting the shear strength of RFM.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Geotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures · Dam Engineering and Safety · Landfill Environmental Impact Studies

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology Peshawar (Bannu Campus), Bannu 28100, Pakistan

Faculty of Mining and Geoengineering, AGH University of Science and Technology, Mickiewicza 30 Av., 30-059 Kraków, Poland

Mineral and Energy Economy Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, 7A Wybickiego St., 31-261 Cracow, Poland

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology, Mardan 23200, Pakistan

State Key Laboratory of Coastal and Offshore Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China

Department of Architectural Engineering, Chungnam National University, Daejeon 34134, Korea

Department of Civil Engineering, CECOS University of IT and Emerging Sciences, Peshawar 25000, Pakistan

References (63)

Show source-provided references
1. Large-scale triaxial testing and numerical modeling of rounded and angular rockfill materials
2. Testing and modeling two rockfill materials10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:3(206) ↗
3. Large scale testing of rockfill materials10.1061/JSFEAQ.0000958 ↗
4. Marachi, N.D. (1969). Strength and Deformation. Characteristics of Rockfill Materials. [Ph.D. Thesis, University of California].
5. Venkatachalam, K. (1993). Prediction of Mechanical Behaviour of Rockfill Materials. [Ph.D. Thesis, Indian Institute of Technology].
6. Review of shearing strength of rockfill10.1061/JSFEAQ.0001433 ↗
7. Application of in situ direct shear device to shear strength measurement of rockfill materials
8. Linero, S., Palma, C., and Apablaza, R. (2007). Geotechnical characterisation of waste material in very high dumps with large scale triaxial testing. Proceedings of the 2007 International Symposium on Rock Slope Stability in Open Pit Mining and Civil Engineering, Australian Centre for Geomechanics.10.36487/ACG_repo/708_2 ↗
9. Honkanadavar, N., and Gupta, S. (2010, January 16–18). Prediction of shear strength parameters for prototype riverbed rockfill material using index properties. Proceedings of the Indian Geotechnical Conference, Mumbai, India.
10. Using data mining to assess environmental impacts of household consumption behaviors10.1021/acs.est.8b01452 ↗
11. A hybrid approach for evaluating CPT-based seismic soil liquefaction potential using Bayesian belief networks10.1007/s11771-020-4312-3 ↗
12. Ahmad, M., Tang, X.-W., Qiu, J.-N., and Ahmad, F. (2019). Evaluating Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential Using Bayesian Belief Network and C4. 5 Decision Tree Approaches. Appl. Sci., 9.10.3390/app9204226 ↗
13. Ahmad, M., Tang, X., Qiu, J., Ahmad, F., and Gu, W. (2019, January 14–16). LLDV-a Comprehensive framework for assessing the effects of liquefaction land damage potential. Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 14th International Conference on Intelligent Systems and Knowledge Engineering (ISKE), Dalian, China.10.1109/ISKE47853.2019.9170336 ↗
14. A step forward towards a comprehensive framework for assessing liquefaction land damage vulnerability: Exploration from historical data10.1007/s11709-020-0670-z ↗
15. Ahmad, M., Tang, X., and Ahmad, F. (2020). Evaluation of liquefaction-induced settlement using random forest and REP tree models: Taking Pohang earthquake as a case of illustration. Natural Hazards-Impacts, Adjustments & Resilience, IntechOpen.10.5772/intechopen.94274 ↗
16. Ahmad, M., Al-Shayea, N.A., Tang, X.-W., Jamal, A., Al-Ahmadi, H.M., and Ahmad, F. (2020). Predicting the pillar stability of underground mines with random trees and C4. 5 decision trees. Appl. Sci., 10.10.3390/app10186486 ↗
17. Pirhadi, N., Tang, X., Yang, Q., and Kang, F. (2019). A new equation to evaluate liquefaction triggering using the response surface method and parametric sensitivity analysis. Sustainability, 11.10.3390/su11010112 ↗
18. Pirhadi, N., Tang, X., and Yang, Q. (2019). Energy evaluation of triggering soil liquefaction based on the response surface method. Appl. Sci., 9.10.3390/app9040694 ↗
19. Towards an ensemble machine learning model of random subspace based functional tree classifier for snow avalanche susceptibility mapping10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3014816 ↗
20. Mosavi, A., Golshan, M., Janizadeh, S., Choubin, B., Melesse, A.M., and Dineva, A.A. (2020). Ensemble models of GLM, FDA, MARS, and RF for flood and erosion susceptibility mapping: A priority assessment of sub-basins. Geocarto Int., 1–20.10.1080/10106049.2020.1829101 ↗
21. Groundwater salinity susceptibility mapping using classifier ensemble and Bayesian machine learning models10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3014908 ↗
22. Mosavi, A., Sajedi-Hosseini, F., Choubin, B., Taromideh, F., Rahi, G., and Dineva, A.A. (2020). Susceptibility mapping of soil water erosion using machine learning models. Water, 12.10.3390/w12071995 ↗
23. Mosavi, A., Hosseini, F.S., Choubin, B., Abdolshahnejad, M., Gharechaee, H., Lahijanzadeh, A., and Dineva, A.A. (2020). Susceptibility Prediction of Groundwater Hardness Using Ensemble Machine Learning Models. Water, 12.10.3390/w12102770 ↗
24. Susceptibility mapping of groundwater salinity using machine learning models10.1007/s11356-020-11319-5 ↗
25. Ensemble boosting and bagging based machine learning models for groundwater potential prediction10.1007/s11269-020-02704-3 ↗
26. Mass wasting susceptibility assessment of snow avalanches using machine learning models10.1038/s41598-020-75476-w ↗
27. Lovrić, M., Pavlović, K., Žuvela, P., Spataru, A., Lučić, B., Kern, R., and Wong, M.W. (2021). Machine learning in prediction of intrinsic aqueous solubility of drug-like compounds: Generalization, complexity, or predictive ability?. J. Chemom., e3349.10.26434/chemrxiv.12746948 ↗
28. Parasitic resistance as a predictor of faulty anodes in electro galvanizing: A comparison of machine learning, physical and hybrid models
29. Gupta, A.K. (2000). Constitative Modelling of Rockfill Materials. [Ph.D. Thesis, Indian Institute of Technology].
30. Prediction of shear strength parameter of prototype rockfill material
31. Testing and modeling the behavior of riverbed and blasted quarried rockfill materials10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000378 ↗
32. Rockfill shear strength evaluation: A rational method based on size effects10.1680/geot.10.P.079 ↗
33. Predicting shear strengths of mine waste rock dumps and rock fill dams using artificial neural networks10.1504/IJMME.2015.070378 ↗
34. Zhou, J., Li, E., Wei, H., Li, C., Qiao, Q., and Armaghani, D.J. (2019). Random forests and cubist algorithms for predicting shear strengths of rockfill materials. Appl. Sci., 9.10.3390/app9081621 ↗
35. Stock price prediction using k-nearest neighbor (kNN) algorithm
36. Study of data mining algorithms for prediction and diagnosis of diabetes mellitus
37. Thongkam, J., Xu, G., and Zhang, Y. (2008, January 1–8). AdaBoost algorithm with random forests for predicting breast cancer survivability. Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence), Hong Kong, China.10.1109/IJCNN.2008.4634231 ↗
38. Machine learning modelling for predicting soil liquefaction susceptibility10.5194/nhess-11-1-2011 ↗
39. Support vector machines-based modelling of seismic liquefaction potential10.1002/nag.509 ↗
40. Boser, B.E., Guyon, I.M., and Vapnik, V.N. (1992, January 27–29). A training algorithm for optimal margin classifiers. Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Workshop on Computational Learning Theory, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.10.1145/130385.130401 ↗
41. Long-term prediction model of rockburst in underground openings using heuristic algorithms and support vector machines10.1016/j.ssci.2011.08.065 ↗
42. Identification of large-scale goaf instability in underground mine using particle swarm optimization and support vector machine10.1016/j.ijmst.2013.08.014 ↗
43. Random forests10.1023/A:1010933404324 ↗
44. Seo, D.K., Kim, Y.H., Eo, Y.D., Park, W.Y., and Park, H.C. (2017). Generation of radiometric, phenological normalized image based on random forest regression for change detection. Remote. Sens., 9.10.3390/rs9111163 ↗
45. kNN-IS: An iterative spark-based design of the k-nearest neighbors classifier for big data10.1016/j.knosys.2016.06.012 ↗
46. Chomboon, K., Chujai, P., Teerarassamee, P., Kerdprasop, K., and Kerdprasop, N. (2015, January 28–30). An empirical study of distance metrics for k-nearest neighbor algorithm. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Industrial Application Engineering, Kitakyushu, Japan.10.12792/iciae2015.051 ↗
47. Prasath, V., Alfeilat, H.A.A., Hassanat, A., Lasassmeh, O., Tarawneh, A.S., Alhasanat, M.B., and Salman, H.S.E. (2017). Distance and similarity measures effect on the performance of K-nearest neighbor classifier—A review. arXiv.
48. Farooq, F., Nasir Amin, M., Khan, K., Rehan Sadiq, M., Faisal Javed, M., Aslam, F., and Alyousef, R. (2020). A comparative study of random forest and genetic engineering programming for the prediction of compressive strength of High Strength Concrete (HSC). Appl. Sci., 10.10.3390/app10207330 ↗
49. Evaluating three hydrological distributed watershed models: MIKE-SHE, APEX, SWAT10.3390/hydrology1010020 ↗
50. Nhu, V.-H., Shahabi, H., Nohani, E., Shirzadi, A., Al-Ansari, N., Bahrami, S., Miraki, S., Geertsema, M., and Nguyen, H. (2020). Daily water level prediction of Zrebar Lake (Iran): A comparison between M5P, random forest, random tree and reduced error pruning trees algorithms. ISPRS Int. J. Geo. Inf., 9.10.3390/ijgi9080479 ↗
51. Novel approach to strength modeling of concrete under triaxial compression10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000494 ↗
52. River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I—A discussion of principles10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6 ↗
53. Quantifying hourly suspended sediment load using data mining models: Case study of a glacierized Andean catchment in Chile10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.10.015 ↗
54. Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations10.13031/2013.23153 ↗
55. Three hybrid intelligent models in estimating flyrock distance resulting from blasting10.1007/s00366-018-0596-4 ↗
56. Asteris, P.G., Tsaris, A.K., Cavaleri, L., Repapis, C.C., Papalou, A., Di Trapani, F., and Karypidis, D.F. (2016). Prediction of the fundamental period of infilled RC frame structures using artificial neural networks. Comput. Intell. Neurosci.10.1155/2016/5104907 ↗
57. Applying various hybrid intelligent systems to evaluate and predict slope stability under static and dynamic conditions10.1007/s00500-018-3253-3 ↗
58. Modelling of shear strength of rockfills used for the construction of rockfill dams10.1016/j.sandf.2018.04.002 ↗
59. A hierarchical analysis for rock engineering using artificial neural networks10.1007/BF01045717 ↗
60. Prediction of ground vibration due to quarry blasting based on gene expression programming: A new model for peak particle velocity prediction10.1007/s13762-016-0979-2 ↗
61. A new design of evolutionary hybrid optimization of SVR model in predicting the blast-induced ground vibration10.1007/s00366-019-00895-x ↗
62. Prediction of flyrock in mine blasting: A new computational intelligence approach10.1007/s11053-019-09464-x ↗
63. Ahmad, M., Hu, J.-L., Ahmad, F., Tang, X.-W., Amjad, M., Iqbal, M.J., Asim, M., and Farooq, A. (2021). Supervised learning methods for modeling concrete compressive strength prediction at high temperature. Materials, 14.10.3390/ma14081983 ↗