Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

ISSN 2095-2430

ISSN 2095-2449(Online)

CN 10-1023/X

邮发代号 80-968

2019 Impact Factor: 1.68

Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering  2023, Vol. 17 Issue (12): 1777-1795   https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-023-0044-4
  本期目录
Real-time prediction of tunnel face conditions using XGBoost Random Forest algorithm
Lei-jie WU1, Xu LI1(), Ji-dong YUAN2, Shuang-jing WANG1
1. Key Laboratory of Urban Underground Engineering of Ministry of Education, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China
2. School of Computer and Information Technology, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China
 全文: PDF(10156 KB)   HTML
Abstract

Real-time perception of rock conditions based on continuously collected data to meet the requirements of continuous Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) construction presents a critical challenge that warrants increased attention. To achieve this goal, this paper establishes real-time prediction models for fractured and weak rock mass by comparing 6 different algorithms using real-time data collected by the TBM. The models are optimized in terms of selecting metric, selecting input features, and processing imbalanced data. The results demonstrate the following points. (1) The Youden’s index and area under the ROC curve (AUC) are the most appropriate performance metrics, and the XGBoost Random Forest (XGBRF) algorithm exhibits superior prediction and generalization performance. (2) The duration of the TBM loading phase is short, usually within a few minutes after the disc cutter contacts the tunnel face. A model based on the features during the loading phase has a miss rate of 21.8%, indicating that it can meet the early warning needs of TBM construction well. As the TBM continues to operate, the inclusion of features calculated from subsequent data collection can continuously correct the results of the real-time prediction model, ultimately reducing the miss rate to 16.1%. (3) Resampling the imbalanced data set can effectively improve the prediction by the model, while the XGBRF algorithm has certain advantages in dealing with the imbalanced data issue. When the model gives an alarm, the TBM operator and on-site engineer can be reminded and take some necessary measures for avoiding potential tunnel collapse. The real-time predication model can be a useful tool to increase the safety of TBM excavation.

Key wordsTunnel Boring Machine    fractured and weak rock mass    machine learning model    real-time early warming    tunnel face rock condition
收稿日期: 2023-03-24      出版日期: 2024-02-05
Corresponding Author(s): Xu LI   
 引用本文:   
. [J]. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2023, 17(12): 1777-1795.
Lei-jie WU, Xu LI, Ji-dong YUAN, Shuang-jing WANG. Real-time prediction of tunnel face conditions using XGBoost Random Forest algorithm. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2023, 17(12): 1777-1795.
 链接本文:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/CN/10.1007/s11709-023-0044-4
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/CN/Y2023/V17/I12/1777
Fig.1  
Fig.2  
Fig.3  
input variablescalculation methodfeature No.featureFWMnon-FWM
meanstd.meanstd.
basic rock fracture parameterscalculate from stable boring phase dataX1Mean (T)1482.2757.82338.1689.1
X2C.V (T)0.0520.0320.0360.021
X3Mean (F)8601.02986.311318.83343.4
X4C.V (F)0.040.020.0440.021
X5Mean (v)63.712.165.211.5
X6C.V (v)0.0750.0190.0860.019
X7Mean (n)5.30.96.30.9
X8C.V (n)0.0100.0210.0080.017
key rock fracture indicescalculate from stable boring phase dataX9Mean (TPIs)130.378.7236.189.4
X10C.V (TPIs)0.0920.0260.0930.021
X11Mean (FPIs)760.5374.11267.1525.2
X12C.V (FPIs)0.0920.0240.1040.024
X13Mean (WRs)90.032.9117.823.6
X14C.V (WRs)0.0940.0250.0960.020
calculate from loading phase dataX15Mean (TPIu)116.665.8207.678.8
X16C.V (TPIu)0.2340.1530.2290.097
X17Mean (FPIu)1033.3533.51697.6714.2
X18C.V (FPIu)0.3240.1390.3250.120
X19Mean (WRu)90.534.1121.527.2
X20C.V (WRu)0.2500.1740.2240.108
X21AF223.2218.7510.3317.0
X22BF5999.11260.57021.01838.8
X23R2(A)0.520.290.610.24
X24Ic88.988.1171.0102.4
X25If0.0380.0760.0250.055
X26R2(B)0.690.250.780.16
Tab.1  
Fig.4  
No.modelinput features
scheme 1data-driven modelX1X8
knowledge-driven modelX9X26
scheme 2real-time perception modelX15X26
dual-driven modelX1X26
Tab.2  
Fig.5  
Fig.6  
algorithmparametersvalue rangealgorithmparametersvalue range
XGBoostn_estimators[10, 400], step = 2XGBRFn_estimators[10, 400], step = 2
learning_rate[10?3, 10?1], step = 10?1learning_rate[10?3, 10?1], step = 10?1
max_depth[5, 100], step = 1max_depth[5, 100], step = 1
gamma[0, 1], step = 0.1gamma[0, 1], step = 0.1
reg_alpha[0, 1], step = 0.01reg_alpha[0, 1], step = 0.01
reg_lambda[0, 1], step = 0.01reg_lambda[0, 1], step = 0.01
DTmax_depth[5, 100], step = 1RFn_estimators[10, 400], step = 2
max_features[‘sqrt’, ’log2’, ‘auto’]max_depth[5, 100], step = 1
class_weight[None, ‘balanced’]max_features[‘sqrt’, ’log2’, ‘auto’]
ANNepochs50class_weight[None, ‘balanced’]
lr[10?5, 10?1], log-uniform samplingResNet18epochs50
batch_size[16, 32, 64]lr[10?5, 10?1], log-uniform sampling
optimizer[‘Adam’, ‘SGD’]batch_size[16, 32, 64]
momentum[0, 1], step = 0.1optimizer[‘Adam’, ‘SGD’]
activation functionReLUmomentum[0, 1], step = 0.1
loss functioncross entropy lossactivation functionReLU
number of hidden layers[1, 5], step = 1loss functioncross entropy loss
number of nodes per hidden layer[32, 64, 128]
Tab.3  
metricsdefinitionEq. No.
TPRTPR=TPTP+FN(6)
FPRFPR=FPFP+TN(7)
FNRFNR=FNTP+FN=1?Recall(8)
MCCMCC=TP×TN?FP×FN(TP+FP)(TP+FN)(TN+FP)(TN+FN)(9)
AUCarea under the ROC curve
Youden’s indexJ=TPR?FPR=1?FNR?FPR(10)
Tab.4  
algorithmhyperparameter combinationevaluation metric score
AUCoptimal thresholdJMCCFPRFNR
DTHPC (J)0.7910.4540.4760.27821.930.5
HPC (AUC)0.8140.5470.5050.32715.633.9
HPC (MCC)0.8300.7300.5060.33115.034.5
RFHPC (J)0.8740.3160.5990.34222.917.2
HPC (AUC)0.8730.2820.5960.32826.613.8
HPC (MCC)0.8750.2900.6070.33725.613.8
XGBoostHPC (J)0.8730.0800.5900.33423.817.2
HPC (AUC)0.8680.1560.5820.35218.823.0
HPC (MCC)0.8660.3290.5720.35317.525.3
XGBRFHPC (J)0.8650.4840.5840.31130.710.9
HPC (AUC)0.8670.4930.6010.34023.816.1
HPC (MCC)0.8660.4890.5900.33024.916.1
ANNHPC (J)0.8120.6080.5040.33314.535.1
HPC (AUC)0.8160.7050.5210.31319.728.2
HPC (MCC)0.8090.7000.5040.28723.825.9
ResNet18HPC (J)0.8260.7150.5420.35914.231.6
HPC (AUC)0.8260.6360.5410.33118.327.6
HPC (MCC)0.8320.4710.5320.29725.521.3
Tab.5  
Fig.7  
Fig.8  
Fig.9  
Fig.10  
Fig.11  
Fig.12  
Fig.13  
modelinput featuressum of feature importance (%)JFPR (%)FNR (%)
data-drivenX1X8 23.50.53828.417.8
knowledge-drivenX9X26 76.50.58022.519.5
dual-drivenX1X26100.00.60123.816.1
Tab.6  
modelinput featuressum of feature importance (%)JFPR (%)FNR (%)
dual-drivenX1X26100.00.60123.816.1
real-timeX15X26 22.80.53624.621.8
Tab.7  
1 Q M Gong, L J Yin, H S Ma, J Zhao. TBM tunnelling under adverse geological conditions: An overview. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2016, 57: 4–17
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2016.04.002
2 J Rostami. Performance prediction of hard rock Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs) in difficult ground. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2016, 57: 173–182
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2016.01.009
3 Y L Zheng, Q B Zhang, J Zhao. Challenges and opportunities of using tunnel boring machines in mining. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2016, 57: 287–299
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2016.01.023
4 Y Yokota, T Yamamoto, S Shirasagi, Y Koizumi, J Descour, M Kohlhaas. Evaluation of geological conditions ahead of TBM tunnel using wireless seismic reflector tracing system. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2016, 57: 85–90
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2016.01.020
5 S C Li, B Liu, X J Xu, L C Nie, Z Y Liu, J Song, H F Sun, L Chen, K R Fan. An overview of ahead geological prospecting in tunneling. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2017, 63: 69–94
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2016.12.011
6 S C Li, L C Nie, B Liu. The practice of forward prospecting of adverse geology applied to hard rock tbm tunnel construction: The case of the Songhua river water conveyance project in the middle of Jilin province. Engineering, 2018, 4(1): 131–137
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2017.12.010
7 S L Yang, Z F Wang, J Wang, A G Cohn, J Q Zhang, P Jiang, L C Nie, Q M Sui. Defect segmentation: Mapping tunnel lining internal defects with ground penetrating radar data using a convolutional neural network. Construction & Building Materials, 2022, 319: 125658
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125658
8 J S Wang, S L Yang, X J Xu, P X Jiang, Y X Ren, C X Du, S L Du. 3C–3D tunnel seismic reverse time migration imaging: A case study of Pearl River Delta Water Resources Allocation Project. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 2023, 210: 104954
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2023.104954
9 J B Li, L J Jing, X F Zheng, P Y Li, C Yang. Application and outlook of information and intelligence technology for safe and efficient TBM construction. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2019, 93: 103097
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2019.103097
10 J Hassanpour, J Rostami, J Zhao. A new hard rock TBM performance prediction model for project planning. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2011, 26(5): 595–603
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2011.04.004
11 E Farrokh, J Rostami, C Laughton. Study of various models for estimation of penetration rate of hard rock TBMs. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2012, 30: 110–123
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2012.02.012
12 J Rostami. Study of pressure distribution within the crushed zone in the contact area between rock and disc cutters. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 2013, 57: 172–186
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2012.07.031
13 Q S Liu, Y C Pan, J P Liu, X X Kong, K Shi. Comparison and discussion on fragmentation behavior of soft rock in multi-indentation tests by a single TBM disc cutter. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2016, 57: 151–161
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2016.02.021
14 H S Ma, Q M Gong, J Wang, L J Yin, X B Zhao. Study on the influence of confining stress on TBM performance in granite rock by linear cutting test. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2016, 57: 145–150
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2016.02.020
15 J V Smith. Assessing the ability of rock masses to support block breakage at the TBM cutter face. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2016, 57: 91–98
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2016.01.012
16 L J Yin, C T Miao, G W He, F C Dai, Q M Gong. Study on the influence of joint spacing on rock fragmentation under TBM cutter by linear cutting test. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2016, 57: 137–144
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2016.02.018
17 Y C Pan, Q S Liu, J P Liu, X Huang, Q Liu, X X Peng. Comparison between experimental and semi-theoretical disc cutter cutting forces: Implications for frame stiffness of the linear cutting machine. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 2018, 11(11): 1–20
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-018-3593-4
18 J K Hamidi, K Shahriar, B Rezai, J Rostami. Performance prediction of hard rock TBM using Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2010, 25(4): 333–345
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2010.01.008
19 J Hassanpour, J Rostami, M Khamehchiyan, A Bruland, H R Tavakoli. TBM performance analysis in pyroclastic rocks: A case history of Karaj Water conveyance tunnel. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 2010, 43(4): 427–445
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-009-0060-2
20 J Hassanpour, A G Vanani, J Rostami, A Cheshomi. Evaluation of common TBM performance prediction models based on field data from the second lot of Zagros water conveyance tunnel (ZWCT2). Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2016, 52: 147–156
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2015.12.006
21 A Delisio, J Zhao, H H Einstein. Analysis and prediction of TBM performance in blocky rock conditions at the Lötschberg Base Tunnel. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2013, 33: 131–142
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2012.06.015
22 J P Dudt, A Delisio. The “penalty factors” method for the prediction of TBM performances in changing grounds. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2016, 57: 195–200
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2016.01.006
23 Y C Pan, Q S Liu, Q Liu, Y Bo, J P Liu, X X Peng, T Cai. Comparison and correlation between the laboratory, semi-theoretical and empirical methods in predicting the field excavation performance of tunnel boring machine (TBM). Acta Geotechnica, 2022, 17(2): 653–676
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-021-01228-3
24 X Yin, Q S Liu, X Huang, Y C Pan. Perception model of surrounding rock geological conditions based on TBM operational big data and combined unsupervised-supervised learning. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2022, 120: 104285
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2021.104285
25 Q L Zhang, Y W Zhu, R Ma, C X Du, S L Du, K Shao, Q B Li. Prediction method of TBM tunneling parameters based on PSO-Bi-LSTM model. Frontiers in Earth Science, 2022, 10: 854807
https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2022.854807
26 D H Qiu, K Fu, Y G Xue, Y F Tao, F M Kong, C H Bai. TBM tunnel surrounding rock classification method and real-time identification model based on tunneling performance. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2022, 22(6): 04022070
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0002379
27 J B LiZ Y ChenX LiL J JingY P ZhangH H XiaoS J WangW K YangL J WuP Y LiH B LiM YaoL T Fan. Feedback on a shared big dataset for intelligent TBM Part I: Feature extraction and machine learning methods. Underground Space, 2023, 11: 1−25
28 J B LiZ Y ChenX LiL J JingY P ZhangH H XiaoS J WangW K YangL J WuP Y LiH B LiM YaoL T Fan. Feedback on a shared big dataset for intelligent TBM Part II: Application and forward look. Underground Space, 2023, 11: 26−45
29 Q L Zhang, Z Y Liu, J R Tan. Prediction of geological conditions for a tunnel boring machine using big operational data. Automation in Construction, 2019, 100: 73–83
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.12.022
30 M Q Zhu, M Gutierrez, H H Zhu, J W Ju, S Sarna. Performance Evaluation Indicator (PEI): A new paradigm to evaluate the competence of machine learning classifiers in predicting rockmass conditions. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 2021, 47: 101232
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2020.101232
31 S K HouY R LiuC Y LiP X Qin. Dynamic prediction of rock mass classification in the tunnel construction process based on random forest algorithm and TBM in situ operation parameters. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. Beijing: IOP Publishing Ltd., 2020, 052056
32 S K Hou, Y R Liu. Early warning of tunnel collapse based on Adam-optimised long short-term memory network and TBM operation parameters. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 2022, 112: 104842
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2022.104842
33 J H Li, P X Li, D Guo, X Li, Z Y Chen. Advanced prediction of tunnel boring machine performance based on Big Data. Geoscience Frontiers, 2021, 12(1): 331–338
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2020.02.011
34 B Liu, R Wang, G Zhao, X Guo, Y Wang, J Li, S Wang. Prediction of rock mass parameters in the TBM tunnel based on BP neural network integrated simulated annealing algorithm. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2020, 95: 103103
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2019.103103
35 S X Feng, Z Y Chen, H Luo, S Y Wang, Y F Zhao, L P Liu, D S Ling, L J Jing. Tunnel boring machines (TBM) performance prediction: A case study using big data and deep learning. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2021, 110: 103636
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2020.103636
36 Q M Gong, J Zhao, Y S Jiang. In situ TBM penetration tests and rock mass boreability analysis in hard rock tunnels. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2007, 22(3): 303–316
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2006.07.003
37 Z Y Chen, Y P Zhang, J B Li, X Li, L J Jing. Diagnosing tunnel collapse sections based on TBM tunneling Big Data and deep learning: A case study on the YinSong Project, China. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2021, 108: 103700
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2020.103700
38 L J Jing, J B Li, C Yang, S Chen, N Zhang, X X Peng. A case study of TBM performance prediction using field tunnelling tests in limestone strata. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2019, 83: 364–372
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.10.001
39 L Breiman. Random Forests. Machine Learning, 2001, 45(1): 5–32
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324
40 T Q ChenC Guestrin. XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. New York, NY: ACM, 2016, 785–794
41 K M HeX Y ZhangS Q RenJ Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 2016. Las Vegas, NV: IEEE, 2016, 770–778
42 T AkibaS SanoT YanaseT OhtaM Koyama. Optuna: A Next-generation Hyperparameter Optimization Framework. In: Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. New York, NY: ACM, 2019, 2623–2631
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed