journal article·2026-01-27Open access

Input Variable Effects on TBM Penetration Rate: Parametric and Machine Learning Models

Halil Karahan, Devrim Alkaya

Applied Sciences· Volume 16· Issue 3

Abstract

In this study, linear and nonlinear parametric models (M1–M6) were jointly evaluated alongside machine learning (ML)-based approaches to achieve reliable and interpretable prediction of the penetration rate (ROP) of tunnel boring machines (TBMs). The analyses incorporate key geomechanical and structural variables, including the brittleness index (BI), uniaxial compressive strength (UCS), mean spacing of weakness planes (DPW), the angle between the tunnel axis and weakness planes (α), and Brazilian tensile strength (BTS). The coefficients of the parametric models were optimized using the Differential Evolution (DE) algorithm. Variable effects were systematically examined through Jacobian-based elasticity analysis under both original and standardized data scenarios. The results indicate that the M6 model, which explicitly incorporates interaction terms, delivers superior predictive accuracy and a more balanced, physically meaningful representation of variable contributions compared to widely used parametric formulations reported in the literature. While the dominant influence of BI and UCS on ROP is consistently preserved across all models, the indirect contributions of variables such as DPW and BTS are more clearly revealed in M6 owing to its interaction-based structure. Model performance improves systematically with increasing complexity, with the coefficient of determination (R2) rising from 0.62 for M1 to 0.69 for M6. Relative to the linear model, M6 achieves a 9.07% reduction in RMSE and a 10.48% increase in R2, while providing additional improvements of 2.47% in RMSE and 2.37% in R2 compared with the closest competing model. ML-based variable importance analyses are largely consistent with the parametric findings, highlighting BI and α in tree-based models, and UCS and α in SVM and GAM frameworks. Notably, the GAM exhibits the highest predictive performance under both data scenarios. Overall, the integrated use of parametric and ML approaches establishes a robust hybrid modeling framework that enables highly accurate and engineering-interpretable prediction of TBM penetration rate.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Tunneling and Rock Mechanics · Geotechnical Engineering and Analysis · Rock Mechanics and Modeling

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

Affiliations

Department of Civil Engineering, Pamukkale University, Denizli 20160, Turkey

References (67)

Show source-provided references
1. Tarkoy, P.J. (1975). Rock Hardness Index Properties and Geotechnical Parameters for Predicting Tunnel Boring Machine Performance, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
2. Nelson, P. (1983). Tunnel Boring Machine Performance in Sedimentary Rocks, Cornell University.
3. Correlation of TBM and drilling machine performances with rock brittleness10.1016/S0013-7952(01)00137-5 ↗
4. Utilizing Rock Mass Properties to Predict TBM Performance in Hard Rock Conditions10.1016/j.tust.2007.04.011 ↗
5. Prediction of Hard Rock TBM Penetration Rate Using Particle Swarm Optimization10.1016/j.ijrmms.2011.02.013 ↗
6. Application of Various Optimization Techniques to Predict TBM Penetration Rate in Rock Mass and Comparison of Their Performance10.1016/j.ijrmms.2015.09.019 ↗
7. The prediction of EPB-TBM performance using firefly algorithms and particle swarm optimization10.17794/rgn.2023.5.7 ↗
8. Modelling TBM performance with artificial neural networks10.1016/j.tust.2004.02.128 ↗
9. Artificial intelligence in underground development: A study of TBM performance10.2495/US080031 ↗
10. Application of artificial neural networks to the prediction of tunnel boring machine penetration rate
11. Study of the influence of geotechnical parameters on the TBM performance in Tehran–Shomal highway project using ANN and SPSS10.1007/s12517-011-0415-3 ↗
12. Applying optimized support vector regression models for prediction of tunnel boring machine performance10.1007/s10706-017-0238-4 ↗
13. Prediction of replacement period of shield TBM disc cutter using SVM
14. Improved support vector regression models for predicting rock mass parameters using tunnel boring machine driving data10.1016/j.tust.2019.04.014 ↗
15. Development of a new hybrid ANN for solving a geotechnical problem related to tunnel boring machine performance10.1007/s00366-019-00701-8 ↗
16. Prediction of TBM penetration rate using support vector machine10.26895/geosaberes.v11i0.1048 ↗
17. Improved SVR method for predicting the cutting force of a TBM cutter using linear cutting machine test data10.1007/s12205-021-2339-0 ↗
18. Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) selection using fuzzy multicriteria decision making methods10.1016/j.tust.2012.02.021 ↗
19. Predicting penetration rate of hard rock tunnel boring machine using fuzzy logic10.1007/s10064-013-0497-0 ↗
20. Regression models and fuzzy logic prediction of TBM penetration rate10.1515/eng-2017-0012 ↗
21. Prediction of TBM penetration rate using fuzzy logic, particle swarm optimization and harmony search algorithm10.1007/s10706-021-01982-x ↗
22. Development of hybrid intelligent models for predicting TBM penetration rate in hard rock condition10.1016/j.tust.2016.12.009 ↗
23. Data-driven multi-step robust prediction of TBM attitude using a hybrid deep learning approach10.1016/j.aei.2022.101854 ↗
24. A performance-based hybrid deep learning model for predicting TBM advance rate using attention-ResNet-LSTM10.1016/j.jrmge.2023.06.010 ↗
25. Prediction model of TBM response parameters based on a hybrid drive of knowledge and data10.1016/j.tust.2025.106598 ↗
26. A support vector regression model for predicting tunnel boring machine penetration rates10.1016/j.ijrmms.2014.09.012 ↗
27. A review and case study of Artificial intelligence and Machine learning methods used for ground condition prediction ahead of tunnel boring Machines10.1016/j.tust.2022.104497 ↗
28. Prediction of tunnel boring machine operating parameters using various machine learning algorithms10.1016/j.tust.2020.103699 ↗
29. Deep learning characterization of rock conditions based on tunnel boring machine data10.1016/j.undsp.2022.10.010 ↗
30. Several models for tunnel boring machine performance prediction based on machine learning
31. Use of soft computing techniques for tunneling optimization of tunnel boring machines10.1016/j.undsp.2019.12.001 ↗
32. Price, K.V. (1996, January 19–22). Differential evolution: A fast and simple numerical optimizer. Proceedings of the North American Fuzzy Information Processing, Berkeley, CA, USA.
33. Differential evolution–a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces10.1023/A:1008202821328 ↗
34. Random forests10.1023/A:1010933404324 ↗
35. Classification and regression by randomForest
36. Bagging predictors10.1023/A:1018054314350 ↗
37. Hastie, T. (2009). The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction, Springer.10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7 ↗
38. Support-vector networks10.1023/A:1022627411411 ↗
39. Vapnik, V. (1998). Statistical Learning Theory, Wiley-Interscience.
40. Generalized additive models
41. Wood, S.N. (2017). Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R, Chapman and Hall/CRC.10.1201/9781315370279 ↗
42. The Queens Tunnel Complex–a granulite facies orthogneiss terrane exposed in NYC Water Tunnel# 3 (abs.)
43. Kwiatkowski, T.P., Bhore, J.S., Velez, J., Orlandi, C.D., Traylor, M.T., and Townsend, J.W. (2007). Succesful Tunneling for Water Tunnel No. 3 New York City, New York. Proceedings Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference, SME.
44. Karahan, H., and Alkaya, D. (2025). Integrating SVR Optimization and Machine Learning-Based Feature Importance for TBM Penetration Rate Prediction. Appl. Sci., 16.10.3390/app16010355 ↗
45. Montgomery, D.C., Peck, E.A., and Vining, G.G. (2021). Introduction to Linear Regression Analysis, John Wiley & Sons.
46. Kutner, M. (1996). Applied Linear Regression Models, McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
47. Ridge regression: Biased estimation for nonorthogonal problems10.1080/00401706.1970.10488634 ↗
48. Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., and Friedman, J. (2009). The Elements of Statistical Learning, Springer.10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7 ↗
49. Prediction of TBM penetration rate from brittleness indexes using multiple regression analysis10.1007/s40808-018-0432-2 ↗
51. Utilising of linear and non-linear prediction tools for evaluation of penetration rate of tunnel boring machine in hard rock condition10.1504/IJMME.2013.053172 ↗
52. Application of non-linear regression analysis and artificial intelligence algorithms for performance prediction of hard rock TBMs10.1016/j.tust.2016.05.009 ↗
53. Arbor, A., and Holland, J.H. (1975). Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems, The MIT Press.
54. Messy genetic algorithms: Motivation, analysis, and first results
55. Particle swarm optimization10.1109/ICNN.1995.488968 ↗
56. Eberhart, R.C., and Shi, Y. (1998, January 25–27). Comparison between genetic algorithms and particle swarm optimization. Proceedings of the International Conference on Evolutionary Programming, Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany.10.1007/BFb0040812 ↗
57. Yang, X.S. (2008). Nature-Inspired Metaheuristic Algorithms, Luniver Press.
58. Yang, X.S. (2009). Firefly algorithms for multimodal optimization. International Symposium on Stochastic Algorithms, Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-04944-6_14 ↗
59. Application of differential evolution algorithm and comparing its performance with literature to predict rock brittleness for excavatability10.1080/17480930.2019.1709012 ↗
60. Discussion of “Estimation of nonlinear muskingum model parameter using differential evolution” by Dong-Mei Xu, Lin Qiu, and Shou-Yu Chen10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000641 ↗
61. Advantages of the mean absolute error (MAE) over the root mean square error (RMSE) in assessing average model performance10.3354/cr030079 ↗
62. Karahan, H., and Erkan Can, M. (2025). A Novel Method to Forecast Nitrate Concentration Levels in Irrigation Areas for Sustainable Agriculture. Agriculture, 15.10.3390/agriculture15020161 ↗
63. Karahan, H., Cetin, M., Can, M.E., and Alsenjar, O. (2024). Developing a new ANN model to estimate daily actual evapotranspiration using limited climatic data and remote sensing techniques for sustainable water management. Sustainability, 16.10.20944/preprints202402.0617.v1 ↗
64. River flow estimation from upstream flow records using support vector machines10.1155/2014/714213 ↗
65. Kincaid, D., and Cheney, W. (1991). Numerical Analysis, Brooks, Cole Publishing Company.
66. Numerical modelling of shallow water using an iterative solution algorithm
67. Characterization and use of feature-jacobian matrix for visual servoing10.1142/9789814503709_0011 ↗