Boosting Model Interpretability for Transparent ML in TBM Tunneling
Source abstract
Abstract
Tunnel boring machines (TBMs) are essential for excavating metro tunnels, reducing disruptions to surrounding rock, and ensuring efficient progress. This study examines how machine learning (ML) models can predict key tunneling outcomes, focusing on making these predictions clearer. Specifically, the models aim to predict surface settlements (ground sinking) and the TBM’s penetration rate (PR) during the Athens Metro Line 2 extension to Hellinikon. For surface settlements, four artificial neural networks (ANNs) were developed, achieving an accuracy of over 79%, on average. For the TBM’s PR, both an XGBoost Regressor (XGBR) and ANNs performed consistently well, offering reliable predictions. This study emphasizes model transparency mostly. Using the SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) library, it is possible to explain how models make decisions, highlighting key factors like geological conditions and TBM operating data. With SHAP’s Tree Explainer and Deep Explainer techniques, the study reveals which parameters matter most, making ML models less of a “black box” and more practical for real-world metro tunnel projects. By showing how decisions are made, these tools give decision-makers confidence to rely on ML in complex tunneling operations.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Tunneling and Rock Mechanics · Drilling and Well Engineering · Geotechnical Engineering and Analysis
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, 157 72 Athens, Greece
References (25)
Show source-provided references
1. Prediction of TBM penetration rate from brittleness indexes using multiple regression analysis10.1007/s40808-018-0432-2 ↗
2. Modelling TBM performance with artificial neural networks10.1016/j.tust.2004.02.128 ↗
3. Predicting penetration rate of hard rock tunnel boring machine using fuzzy logic10.1007/s10064-013-0497-0 ↗
4. Tunnel boring machines (TBM) performance prediction: A case study using big data and deep learning10.1016/j.tust.2020.103636 ↗
5. Benardos, A. (2008, January 8–10). Artificial intelligence in underground development: A study of TBM performance. Proceedings of the WIT Transactions on the Built Environment, The New Forest, UK.10.2495/US080031 ↗
6. Modeling tunnel boring machine performance by neuro-fuzzy methods10.1016/S0886-7798(00)00055-9 ↗
7. Prediction of hard rock TBM penetration rate using particle swarm optimization10.1016/j.ijrmms.2011.02.013 ↗
8. Development of hybrid intelligent models for predicting TBM penetration rate in hard rock condition10.1016/j.tust.2016.12.009 ↗
9. Chen, T., and Guestrin, C. (2016, January 13–17). XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System. Proceedings of the KDD ’16: The 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Francisco, CA, USA.10.1145/2939672.2939785 ↗
10. Estimation of the TBM advance rate under hard rock conditions using XGBoost and Bayesian optimization10.1016/j.undsp.2020.05.008 ↗
11. Ninic, J., Bui, H.-G., Koch, C., and Meschke, G. (2019). Computationally Efficient Simulation in Urban Mechanized Tunneling Based on Multilevel BIM Models. J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 33.10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000822 ↗
12. Prediction model of tunnel boring machine performance by ensemble neural networks10.1080/17486020701377140 ↗
13. Investigation of feature contribution to shield tunneling-induced settlement using Shapley additive explanations method10.1016/j.jrmge.2022.01.002 ↗
14. Hu, M., Zhang, H., Wu, B., Li, G., and Zhou, L. (2022). Interpretable predictive model for shield attitude control performance based on XGboost and SHAP. Sci. Rep., 12.10.1038/s41598-022-22948-w ↗
15. Machine learning-based framework for predicting the fire-induced spalling in concrete tunnel linings10.1016/j.tust.2024.106000 ↗
16. Artificial intelligence for tunnel boring machine penetration rate prediction10.1016/j.tust.2023.105249 ↗
17. Ralph Peck, B. (2024, December 02). Deep Excavations and Tunneling in Soft Ground. In 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (Mexico), Mexico: International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. Available online: https://www.issmge.org/publications/publication/deep-excavations-and-tunneling-in-soft-ground.
18. Guglielmetti, V., Grasso, P., Mahtab, A., and Xu, S. (2008). Mechanized Tunnelling in Urban Areas: Design Methodology and Construction Control, CRC Press. [1st ed.].10.1201/9780203938515 ↗
19. Lundberg, S., and Lee, S.-I. (2017). A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions. arXiv.
20. Analysis of Regression in Game Theory Approach10.1002/asmb.446 ↗
21. Explaining prediction models and individual predictions with feature contributions10.1007/s10115-013-0679-x ↗
22. Settlements Due to Single and Twin Tube Urban EPB Shield Tunnelling10.1007/s10706-014-9835-7 ↗
23. Attiko Metro, S.A. (2024, December 02). AGHIOS DIMITRIOS—ELLINIKO Extension. Available online: https://www.emetro.gr/?page_id=4179&lang=en.
24. (2024, January 09). Settlements Above Tunnels in the United Kingdom—Their Magnitude and Prediction—Tunnels & Tunnelling International. Available online: https://www.tunnelsonline.info/news/settlements-above-tunnels-in-the-united-kingdom-their-magnitude-and-prediction-6733559.
25. On a Space of Totally Additive Functions