Comparative evaluation of different statistical tools for the prediction of uniaxial compressive strength of rocks

被引:84
作者
Teymen, Ahmet [1 ]
Menguc, Engin Cemal [2 ]
机构
[1] Nigde Omer Halisdemir Univ, Dept Min Engn, TR-51240 Nigde, Turkey
[2] Nigde Omer Halisdemir Univ, Dept Elect & Elect Engn, TR-51240 Nigde, Turkey
关键词
Uniaxial compressive strength; Adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system; Multiple regression; Artificial neural network; Genetic expression programming; SLAKE DURABILITY INDEX; P-WAVE VELOCITY; NEURAL-NETWORKS; IMPACT STRENGTH; FUZZY MODEL; REGRESSION; MODULUS; DEFORMATION; WEAK;
D O I
10.1016/j.ijmst.2020.06.008
中图分类号
TD [矿业工程];
学科分类号
0819 ;
摘要
In this study, uniaxial compressive strength (UCS), unit weight (UW), Brazilian tensile strength (BTS), Schmidt hardness (SHH), Shore hardness (SSH), point load index (Is(50)) and P-wave velocity (V-p) properties were determined. To predict the UCS, simple regression (SRA), multiple regression (MRA), artificial neural network (ANN), adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) and genetic expression programming (GEP) have been utilized. The obtained UCS values were compared with the actual UCS values with the help of various graphs. Datasets were modeled using different methods and compared with each other. In the study where the performance indice PIat was used to determine the best performing method, MRA method is the most successful method with a small difference. It is concluded that the mean PIat equal to 2.46 for testing dataset suggests the superiority of the MRA, while these values are 2.44, 2.33, and 2.22 for GEP, ANFIS, and ANN techniques, respectively. The results pointed out that the MRA can be used for predicting UCS of rocks with higher capacity in comparison with others. According to the performance index assessment, the weakest model among the nine model is P7, while the most successful models are P2, P9, and P8, respectively. (C) 2020 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology.
引用
收藏
页码:785 / 797
页数:13
相关论文
共 55 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1994, 4 CSMR INTEGRAL APPR
[2]   Application of several non-linear prediction tools for estimating uniaxial compressive strength of granitic rocks and comparison of their performances [J].
Armaghani, Danial Jahed ;
Mohamad, Edy Tonnizam ;
Hajihassani, Mohsen ;
Yagiz, Saffet ;
Motaghedi, Hossein .
ENGINEERING WITH COMPUTERS, 2016, 32 (02) :189-206
[3]  
ASTM, 2002, D293895 ASTM
[4]   Predicting uniaxial compressive strength by point load test: Significance of cone penetration [J].
Basu, A. ;
Aydin, A. .
ROCK MECHANICS AND ROCK ENGINEERING, 2006, 39 (05) :483-490
[5]   Point load test on schistose rocks and its applicability in predicting uniaxial compressive strength [J].
Basu, A. ;
Kamran, M. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ROCK MECHANICS AND MINING SCIENCES, 2010, 47 (05) :823-828
[6]   Prediction of compressive and tensile strength of limestone via genetic programming [J].
Baykasoglu, Adil ;
Gullu, Hamza ;
Canakci, Hanifi ;
Oebakir, Lale .
EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS, 2008, 35 (1-2) :111-123
[7]   EVALUATION OF EMPIRICAL-METHODS FOR MEASURING THE UNIAXIAL COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF ROCK [J].
CARGILL, JS ;
SHAKOOR, A .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ROCK MECHANICS AND MINING SCIENCES & GEOMECHANICS ABSTRACTS, 1990, 27 (06) :495-503
[8]   Application of support vector machines and relevance vector machines in predicting uniaxial compressive strength of volcanic rocks [J].
Ceryan, Nurcihan .
JOURNAL OF AFRICAN EARTH SCIENCES, 2014, 100 :634-644
[9]   Application of Generalized Regression Neural Networks in Predicting the Unconfined Compressive Strength of Carbonate Rocks [J].
Ceryan, Nurcihan ;
Okkan, Umut ;
Kesimal, Ayhan .
ROCK MECHANICS AND ROCK ENGINEERING, 2012, 45 (06) :1055-1072
[10]   Modeling of the uniaxial compressive strength of some clay-bearing rocks using neural network [J].
Cevik, Abdulkadir ;
Sezer, Ebru Akcapinar ;
Cabalar, Ali Firat ;
Gokceoglu, Candan .
APPLIED SOFT COMPUTING, 2011, 11 (02) :2587-2594