12

th
ICSGE
10-12 Dec. 2007
Cairo - Egypt


Ain Shams University
Faculty of Engineering
Department of Structural Engineering
Twelfth International Colloquium on Structural and Geotechnical Engineering


NON-DETERMINISTIC TUNNELING ANALYSIS
USING A.I. BASED TECHNIQUES
GENETIC PROGRAMMING VS ANNs

A. A. Ahmed
Professor of Geotechnical and Structural Engineering
Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
Email: ali_abdelfattah@yahoo.com
H. A. Ali
Assistant Professor of Geotechnical and Structural Engineering
Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University
S. M. ElAraby
Assistant Professor of Geotechnical and Structural Engineering
Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University
T. M. ElKateb
Assistant Professor of Geotechnical and Structural Engineering
Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University
S. M. Noureldin
Ph.D. Candidate, Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University
Business Development Manager/ Projects Engineer,
ECG Engineering Consultants Group S.A.
P.O. Box 1167 Cairo 11511 Egypt
Email: shady_nour@ecgsa.com/ noreldin@gmail.com


ABSTRACT
The term Non-Deterministic Analysis refers to a collection of analyses that include
reliability analysis, risk-based analysis, and probabilistic analysis. Such techniques have
been undergoing development since the last decade. Application to structural
engineering problems has generally preceded applications in geotechnical engineering.
Geotechnical problems, especially underground/ tunnel structures, often involve certain
complexities that are not found in structural problems.
Despite the significant body of literature that has been published, proposing and
detailing various methodologies and applications; developments in non-deterministic
analyses approaches mostly focus on analytical methods. Shortcomings of these

methods and their implications on tunneling reliability analysis implementation shall be
investigated. Previous publications of the author(s) have introduced alternative AI based
approaches using Evolutionary Generalized Feedforward Networks to overcome
shortcomings/ limitations associated with the currently used analytical non-
deterministic approaches.
In this study, Genetic Programming (GP) AI-based approach is introduced. GP is a type
of programming that imitates genetic algorithms and helps develop computer programs
to solve specific problems. The performance of the GP approach shall be assessed and
compared to the ANN based approach as well as traditional non-deterministic
techniques. The advantages and limitations of the introduced three (3) approaches are
investigated.
KEYWORDS
tunneling, reliability-based design, Artificial Intelligence (A.I), ANN, uncertainty,
probability, geostatistics, decision making.
1 NON-DETERMINISTIC DESIGN APPROACH
The term Non-Deterministic Analysis refers to a collection of analyses that include
reliability analysis, risk-based analysis, and probabilistic analysis. Such techniques have
been undergoing development since the last decade. Application to structural
engineering problems has generally preceded applications in geotechnical engineering.
Geotechnical problems, especially underground/ tunnel structures, often involve certain
complexities that are not found in structural problems.
The Reliability/ Probabilistic approach extends the traditional safety factor concept to
incorporate uncertainty in the design parameters. This uncertainty can be quantified
through statistical analysis of existing data or judgmentally assigned. Even if
judgmentally assigned, the probabilistic results will be more meaningful than the
deterministic approach because the engineer provides a measure of the judgment
uncertainty in each parameter. Baecher [1] briefly summarized the steps of performing
reliability analysis as follows:
a) Establish an explicit analytical model to compute the factor of safety, or any other
measure of performance.
b) Estimate statistical descriptions of the parameters which include the properties of the
geotechnical materials, loads and geometry. Usually, the parameters are described by
their means, variances, and covariances.
c) Calculate the statistical moments of the performance function by means of simulation
methods. The most widely used technique is the Mote Carlo Simulation (MCS)
algorithm. MCS model mainly requires a random number generator based on the
probability distribution function of the input design parameter. This iterative process
continues until the simulation reaches a definite stopping criterion.
d) Compute the probability of failure/ performance measure on condition that the
performance function has a well defined probabilistic description, such as the normal
distribution. Otherwise, where the distribution is not known or the intersection of the
performance function with the probabilistic description of the parameters is not

simple, the calculation of the probability of failure is likely to involve further
approximations.
2 CURRENTLY USED RELIABILITY APPROACHES
Application of reliability principles was primarily developed to perform probabilistic
slope stability analysis using different approaches, such as analytical approaches and
MCS. Analytical approaches were primarily apprehensive, obtaining closed form
solutions for the statistical properties of the factors of safety which do not provide
information about the output probability distribution. Besides, it becomes highly
complicated when taking into account different sources of uncertainty. Some of these
approaches shall be described hereinafter.
The First Order Second Moment (FOSM) method is a relatively straightforward method
of considering the effects of uncertainty of input parameters on a resulting dependent
variable. The FOSM algorithm uses the Taylor series expansion of the function to be
evaluated. This expansion is reduced after the linear term or the first order term. The
modified expansion is then used, along with the first two moments of the random
variable(s), to establish the values of the first two moments of the dependent variable
(second moment). Limitations of FOSM are obvious when the limit sate function is
nonlinear and the random variables are inherently normally distributed. Therefore, it is
necessary to linearize the limit state function to compute the second moment
parameters. However, in the case that some variables follow other non-normal types of
known probability distributions, it is a must to incorporate the additional information by
transforming these non-normal distributions locally to equivalent normal variables. This
procedure is called the extended FOSM method [1].
The Response Surface Method (RSM) is a technique that adopts a polynomial
expansion (the response surface) to describe the dependency of the output variable on
the independent variables. In spite of the highly nonlinear nature of a problem, linear
expressions for the corresponding failure surfaces in the transformed space are usually
interpolated by means of Minimum Squares procedure [8]. Bottom line is that a
predefined distribution, normal distribution in most cases, is being assigned to the
distribution of the unknown limit state function to cope with the previously mentioned
assumptions.
The Statistical Finite Element Methods (SFEMs) incorporate, in most cases, big number
of deterministic Finite Element (FE) calculations to represent the case adequately.
However, in most cases the number of deterministic FE calculations that should be
carried out is impractical to be implemented. To overcome the previous point, most
studies concentrate on a maximum of three (3) uncertain parameters. While in highly
sophisticated studies, like those associated with tunneling, more parameters should be
considered in the analyses.
Shortcomings of the currently used reliability and probabilistic techniques may be
summarized as follows:
a) In many complicated and nonlinear problems, where the analyses involve the use of
numerical procedures such as the finite element method, it is difficult to express the
problem explicitly in terms of the random variables. Therefore, the limit state and the
performance functions can only be expressed implicitly rather than in a closed-form
solution [4].

b) The currently used techniques are considered difficult to implement; as to achieve
accurate results thousands of finite element analysis runs are needed.
c) The variation of the input parameters undergoes mathematically defined parameter
combinations which should be randomly set.
3 SOURCES OF UNCERTAINTY IN GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
Baecher [1] discussed the uncertainties that evolve with geotechnical applications and
categorized them into three (3) main categories:
a) Natural variability. Associated with the inherent randomness of natural processes,
the natural variability is modeled as variability over time for a phenomena that take
place at a single location (temporal variability); variability over space for
phenomena that take place at different locations at a single time (spatial variability);
or as variability over both time and space. Such natural variability is approximated
using mathematical simplifications or models.
b) Knowledge uncertainty. Attributed to lack of data, information about events,
processes, or understanding of physical laws that limit the ability to model the real
world, and can be considered as a more common description of epistemic
uncertainty.
Knowledge uncertainty divides into three major sub-categories for geotechnical
applications:
i. Site characterization uncertainty. Which deals with the adequacy of
interpretations of the subsurface geology resulting from data and exploration
uncertainties, including measurement errors, inconsistency or inhomogeneity of
data, data handling, transcription errors, and inadequate representativeness of data
samples due to time and space limitations.
ii. Model uncertainty. Has to do with the degree to which a chosen mathematical
model perfectly mimics reality incorporating two or three dimensional FEA.
iii. Parameter uncertainty. Involved with the precision to which model parameters
can be estimated which results from inaccuracy in evaluating parameter values
from test or calibration data and is aggravated by limited observations and
resulting statistical imprecision.
c) Decision and operational uncertainies. Concerned with the implementation of
designs in practice, incorporating the economic issues related to benefit-cost
calculations. Operational uncertainties are involved with construction, manufacture,
deterioration, maintenance, human factors, and the impact of tuunneling
technologioes. Decision uncertainties describe the incapability to know social
objectives, the length of a planning horizon, desirable temporal consumption-
investment trade-offs or the social aversion to risk.
As a result, tunneling is subject to a diversity of uncertainties compared to other areas of
geotechnical engineering (Table 1). These uncertainties comprise geologic conditions
(natural variability and knowledge uncertainty), the parameters which affect excavation
and tunnel support system (knowledge and parameter uncertainty), the advance rates
which vary due to effects of human and equipment performance, construction material
properties and unforeseen construction events, even while encountering constant

geologic and geotechnical conditions (decision and operation uncertainties).
Consequently, it is never possible to unerringly predict tunneling conditions. However,
it is possible to determine the range over which those parameters may vary. Such
deliverable can in turn serve as a basis for risk analysis and decision making under
uncertainty. In this paper, it is proposed to judge the variability of the following design
parameters:
a) shear strength,
b) friction angle,
c) soil modulus of elasticity, and
d) the stress release corresponding to confinement loss.
Table 1: Uncertainties Associated with Tunneling
Uncertainty Natural
Variability
Knowledge
Uncertainty
Decision/
Operational
Uncertainty
Geologic/ Geotechnical Conditions
Excavation Modeling
Tunnel Support Modeling
Construction Material Properties/
Unforeseen Conditions

4 SIMULATION OF TUNNELING USING THE CONVERGENCE-
CONFINEMENT METHOD
The convergence-confinement method (CCM), which is a simplified method of
analyzing the interaction between the ground and support, shall be used in the tunnel
excavation simulation. Actually, the stress development generated by a tunnel
excavation is a three-dimensional problem because it depends on the distance to the
working face. However, a simplification is applied using the CCM by considering a
plane strain calculation in the plane perpendicular to the shield advance through two (2)
construction simulated phases:
a) The first phase incorporates simulation of tunneling by applying a stress boundary
condition at the periphery of the tunnel. The principle counts on removing the soil
inside the excavation boundary and to replace it by conjured stress supporting
vectors which equilibrate the initial state.
b) The second step is to model the complete interaction between the soil and the
structure.
The process is idealized using Plaxis Code by generating the initial stress field and
applying the eventual external loads that are present before the tunnel construction. The
first construction phase is simulated by deactivating the tunnel cluster(s) without
activation of the tunnel lining and applying an ultimate level of Mstage equal to (1-)
"Stress Release Factor". The final phase is accomplished by activating the tunnel lining.

5 GEOSTATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF LOT 42, GREATER CAIRO METRO,
LINE NO. 2
Geostatistics studies were developed to assist in the estimation of changes in ore grade
within a mine; however, since its development in the early 1960s, geostatistics has
been applied to many disciplines including: groundwater hydrology and hydrogeology;
surface hydrology; earthquake engineering and seismology; pollution control;
geochemical exploration; and geotechnical engineering. Geostatistics can be applied to
any natural phenomena that are spatially or temporally associated. Excellent review is
conducted by Jaksa [6], El-Ramly [2], and ElKateb [3].
Lot 42 (part of Phase 2A, Greater Cairo Metro Line No. 2) extending from ElDokki to
ElGezira, shall be this papers case study. Previously recorded laboratory measures for
the soil strength/ elasticity parameters are used whenever possible beside the SPT N-
value recorded during the geotechnical investigation of the case study. SPT is used for
cross correlation with strength and elasticity parameters due to its abundance in nearly
all the geotechnical investigations of tunneling projects due to its simplicity, financial
viability, and strong-positive correlation to strength and elasticity parameters. Results of
the Geostatsistical soil parameters study is summarized in Figure (1) and Table (2).

Fig. (1): Soil Log at Lot 42 Location
Table 2: Soil Geotechnical Parameters at Lot 42
Clay Sand Layer (1) Sand Layer (2) Property
Distribution Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
Mod. Of Elasticity,
E
ref
(kPa)
Variable
min. 9E+03
max 20E+03
1.25E+04 5.52E+03 6.49E+04 5.52E+03
Angle of Friction, Normal N/A N/A 36
0
2
0
41
0
2
0
Cohesion, C (kPa) Normal 60 20 N/A N/A N/A N/A


6 OVERVIEW OF NEURAL NETWORKS
An Artificial Neural Network (ANN) is an information processing paradigm that is
inspired by the biological nervous systems information processing. The key element of
this paradigm is the novel structure of the information processing system. It is
composed of a large number of highly interconnected processing elements (neurons)
working in harmony to solve specific problems. The ANN system learns by example
and so configured for a specific application, such as pattern recognition or data
classification, through a learning process.
A neuron is the fundamental cellular unit of this complex nervous system. It is a simple
processing element that receives and combines signals from other neurons throughout
input paths called dendrites.
Figure (2) represents the various components of a biological neuron. Each signal
coming into the neuron along a dendrite passes through a synapse or a synaptic junction.
This junction is an infinitesimal gap in the dendrite that is filled with neurotransmitter
fluid produces electrical signals that go to the nucleus or soma of the neuron. The
adjustment of the impedance or the conductance of the synaptic gap is a critically
important process. Indeed, these adjustments lead to memory and learning. As the
synaptic strengths of the neurons are adjusted, the brain learns and stores information.


Fig. 2: Structure of Biological Neuron
6.1 Artificial Neural Networks
Artificial neural networks (ANN) are highly distributed interconnections of adaptive
nonlinear Processing Elements (PEs), Figure (3). The PE is a simple sum of products
followed by nonlinearity (McCulloch-Pitts neuron). The network weights can be
adapted such that the networks output matches a desired response.

Distributed processing, adaptation and nonlinearity, are considered the hallmark of
ANN processing systems. Distributed computation has the advantages of reliability,
fault tolerance and high throughput (division of computation tasks). Adaptation is the
ability to change the system parameters according to some rule, normally, minimization
of an error function and enables the system to search for optimal performance.
Nonlinearity produces more powerful computation schemes when compared to linear
processing.
6.2 Artificial Neural Network (ANN)/ Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) Hybrid
System
The use of Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) in geomechanics has significantly
increased in the last decade [9 and 10]. Moreover, their successful applications in other
fields of decision-making and in computer and electrical engineering is expected to lead
to further interest and confidence in their applications in all fields of civil engineering.


Fig. 3: Structure of ANN
The expert judgments that must routinely be made in geotechnical engineering make it
an excellent field for ANN application. The objective of this paper is to utilize the ANN
technique in obtaining an A.I. based expression that approximately represents the
performance function. A Hybrid Model Using ANN/ MCS shall be developed to
calculate the statistical moments of the performance function (the mean and variance of
the performance function).
The Hybrid ANN/ MCS technique was innovated by virtue of generating and compiling
a Dynamic Link Library file (DLL) for the ANN and embedding it to a macro
application written in Microsoft Visual Basic Language, Figure (4). This linkage,
as illustrated in Figure (4), overcame a major shortcoming of ANNs. This shortcoming
is related to information storage. The information acquired during training is stored in
the connection weights in a complex manner that is often difficult to interpret. In

general, the rules governing the relationships between the network input/output
variables are difficult to quantify, and thus ANNs are often criticized for being black
boxes. The technique presented in this paper is considered a utility to overcome this
black box limitation. Other techniques used to overcome the shortcomings of ANNs
using neuro-fuzzy techniques have been tackled by Shahin et al. [11].
The technique utilized for reaching the optimal neural network for the study conducted
in this paper is the Evolutionary Generalized Feedforward Network "EGFFN" which is
a generalization of the Multilayer Perceptron (MLP), such that connections can jump
over one or more layers. In theory, a MLP can solve any problem that a Generalized
Feedforward Network can solve. In practice, however, EGFFNs often solve the problem
much more efficiently. A standard MLP requires hundreds of times more training
epochs than the EGFFNs containing the same number of processing elements.

Fig. 4: Simulation Cycle using Hybrid ANN/ MCS System
7 BACK-ANALYSIS USING NON-DETERMINISTIC APPROACH TO
DEMONSTRATE THE STRESS RELEASE CORRESPONDING TO
CONFINEMENT LOSS
The monitored settlement profiles for Cairo Metro Line No. 2 revealed the following
[9]:
a) The back-calculated distance for the point of inflection i varied at different Lots
and different locations between 5.8 m and 8.3 m. Some of the observed relationships
for i/a versus z/2a (a is the tunnel radius) varied between 1.0 and 2.0 for Phase 1 and
between 1.3 and 1.85 for Lots 40, 42 and 46 (Phase 2A).
b) The back-calculated volume losses at the Cairo Metro Line No. 2 at the beginning of
tunneling for Phase 1 at Lots 12, 14 and 16 averaged at 0.5% and exceeded 0.8% at
some locations. On the other hand, the back-calculated volume loss for Phase 2A was
estimated at 0.3% average and 0.5% maximum.
In order to determine the stress release corresponding to the confinement loss occurred,
an ANN/MCS Hybrid System Back-Analysis Framework HSBAF was used to
express the probabilistic parameters of the stress release under the uncertainty of the soil

parameters including shear strength parameters and the modulus of deformation
following two aspects:
a) Measured surface settlement at the lot under study: HSBAF-1
b) Values of volume loss mentioned in literature: HSBAF-2.
The test section is analyzed through approximately 300 runs using the geotechnical
finite element code Plaxis version 7.2. The main goal of the FEA is to carry out a
non-deterministic parametric study for the stress release factor at Lot 42, and to
facilitate a source of input data that can represent the performance of tunneling in the
section under study. The soil was modeled by 127 fifteen-node elements. The Mohr-
Coulomb elastic perfectly plastic model was used to represent the nonlinear, stress-
strain behavior of the soil. The angle of friction (), the cohesion (C), and the modulus
of elasticity (E) were introduced to the analysis as random variables with Probability
Distribution Functions (PDFs) as mentioned in Table (2).
Sixty percent (60%) of the FEA runs were used for training, while the rest were divided
equally between the cross validation and testing data sets. The neural network algorithm
was then used to determine the Stress Release Z (, C, E, Smax) & Z (, C, E, Vs),
which represent the stress release occurred as a function of the random variables , C,
Esand, Eclay and the maximum surface settlement at the centerline of the tunnel
Smax or the volume of the settlement profile at the ground surface Vs.
The optimal neural network constituted of six (6) input neurons representing the input
variables, one hidden layer containing four (4) neurons, and one (1) output neuron
representing the Stress Release factor (1-). EGFFN Model configuration and results
are illustrated in Figure (4) and the evaluation of the ANN model performance is
demonstrated in Tables (3) and (4).
Table (3): HSBAF-1: Data Sets Performance
Performance Training Cross Validation Testing
MSE (Mean Square Error) 0.001 0.001 0.001
NMSE (Normalized MSE) 0.022 0.041 0.036
MAE (Mean Average Error) 0.021 0.025 0.025
Max Absolute Error 0.067 0.141 0.109
r (correlation) 0.990 0.985 0.982
Table (4): HSBAF-2: Data Sets Performance
Performance Training Cross Validation Testing
MSE (Mean Square Error) 0.001 0.001 0.003
NMSE (Normalized MSE) 0.035 0.023 0.089
MAE (Mean Average Error) 0.023 0.021 0.028
Max Absolute Error 0.098 0.072 0.368
r (correlation) 0.989 0.990 0.957
The final forecast charts (Figures 5 and 6) reflect the combined uncertainty of the
assumption on the models output. The analysis of both the first and the second
approaches revealed that the stress release occurred has a mean value of 16% and 19%
with a Standard Deviation of 6% and 7% respectively having a best fit of Gamma
Probability Distribution Function.

8 GENETIC PROGRAMMING (GP) BASED NON-DETERMINISTIC BACK-
ANALYSIS APPROACH
Genetic programming (GP) is a domain-independent, problem-solving approach in
which computer programs are evolved to find problems solutions. The solution
technique is based on the Darwinian principle of survival of the fittest [7]. GP is
closely related to the field of Genetic Algorithms (GA); however, three (3) important
differences exist between GA and GP [12]:
a) Structure: GP usually evolves tree structures while GA evolves binary or real number
strings.
b) Active vs. Passive: Because GP usually evolves computer programs, the solutions
can be executed without post processing (active structures), while GA typically
operate on coded binary strings (passive structures), which require post-processing.
c) Variable vs. fixed length: Traditionally, GA, the length of the binary string is fixed
before the solution procedure begins. However, GP parse tree can vary in length
throughout the run. Although it is recognized that in more advanced GA work,
variable length strings are used.



Fig. 5: Configuration of ANN for Predicting Stress Release Factor




Fig. 6: HSBAF-1, PDF of (1-) corresponding to Max. Surface Settlement of 10
mm, Gamma Distribution, Loc.=.09, Scale=0.05, Shape=1.50

Fig. 7: HSBAF-2, PDF of (1-) corresponding to Vs=0.30%, Gamma Distribution,
Loc.=0.10, Scale=0.05, Shape=1.93

Every solution evolved by GP is constituted of two (2) sets of principal nodes; terminals
and functions. The terminal set contains nodes that provide an input to the GP system
while the function set contains nodes that process values already in the system.

Constants can be used in GP by including them in the terminal set. Once the
evolutionary process is started, the GP system randomly selects nodes from either set
and thus may not utilize all of the available nodes. However, increasing the size of each
node set enlarges the search space. Therefore, only a relatively simple node set is
initially provided and nodes are usually added only if required.
In order to solve a problem using GP, Koza [7] specified the following requirements:
a) The terminal set: set of input variables.
b) The function set: set of domain specific functions used in conjunction with the
terminal set to construct potential solutions to a given problem. For symbolic
regression this could consist of a set of basic mathematical functions, while Boolean
and conditional operators could be included for classification problems.
c) The fitness function: Fitness is a numeric value assigned to each member of a
population to provide a measure of the appropriateness of a solution to the problem
in question.
d) The algorithm control parameters: This includes the population size and the
crossover and mutation probabilities.
e) The termination criterion (stopping criterion): This is a predefined number of
generations or a fitness error tolerance.
The first three (3) components determine the algorithm search space, while the last two
(2) components affect the quality and speed of search.
The above mentioned GP approach, as illustrated in Figure (8), was utilized to find an
explicit closed-form-solution for the stress release factor (1-) using the optimization
parameters described in Table (5). The terminal set constituted of the 300 FEA runs.
Results are illustrated in Table (6). After approximately 18,300 iterations, the following
Genetic Regression model was concluded:


(1-) = 1/P
a
(A
1
.C + A
2
E
C
+ A
3
.E
S
) + A
4
.tan
1
+ A
5
.tan
2
+ A
6
.V
s
(1)
where A
n
is constant
P
a
is the atmospheric Pressure
C is the Cohesion
E
C
is the elasticity modulus of Clay
E
S
is the elasticity modulus of Sand

1
is the friction angle for Sand Layer 1

2
is the friction angle for Sand Layer 2
V
S
Volume loss

Table (5): Genetic Programming Optimization Parameters
Mode Real value mode "no encoding"
Population size 20
Mutation Rate 0.01
Crossover rate 0.85
Crossover type Random

Mode Real value mode "no encoding"
Selection type Absolute top mate
Stop criteria Tolerance/ iteration
Convergence tolerance 1E-10
Table (6): Genetic Programming Approach Performance Results for Equation (1)
A
1
4.186E-6
A
2
9.58E-6
A
3
0.11
A
4
0.0004
A
5
2.36E-6
A
6
0.31
Root of Mean Square Error (RMSE): 0.072
Sum of Square Error (SSE): 1.654
Correlation Coef. (R): 0.907
r (correlation) 0.822
Chi-Square: 6.891
Applying the same aspects of the back analysis technique discussed in the previous
section, MCS was carried out using Equation (1). The volume loss was preset to 0.3%
in order to determine the probabilistic values of the unloading factor; results are
illustrated in Figure (8).


Fig. 8: Genetic Programming Cycle





Fig. 9: GP Approach, Forecasting (1-)
Triangular Distribution, Min. = 0.18, Likeliest = 0.22, Max. = 0.28
9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
In this study, Genetic Programming (GP) AI-based approach is introduced, assessed and
compared to an ANN based approach as well as traditional non-deterministic
techniques. The advantages and limitations of the introduced three (3) approaches are
investigated.
The evolutionary neural network algorithm is introduced to develop an approximate
limit state surface expression overcoming most of the shortcomings of the currently
used techniques. By implementing a hybrid system using ANN/ MCS, it is possible to
estimate the probabilistic value of soil unloading/ deformation parameters associated
with soft ground tunneling conditions by using a practical technique and an easy to
implement number of FEA runs, Figure (10) . The proposed Hybrid System
Backanalysis Framework (HSBAF) has proven to be a promising technique in
probabilistic assessment of non-deterministic factors. Besides, coupling both neural
networks and Genetic Algorithm (Evolutionary Generalized Feedforward Network,
EGFFN) technique has proven to be reliable, effective and efficient in refining and
improving the performance of neural network architectures.
The Genetic Programming is capable of developing an explicit closed-form-solution for
the performance function. However, it has been shown that in spite of using the whole
300 FEA runs for the GP terminal set (set of input variables), less accuracy has been
achieved compared to the results obtained by the EGFFN. The following table, Table
(7) illustrates a comparison between the results achieved by using both approaches.
Both A.I based approaches managed to produce accurate Reliability Analysis
Frameworks with a significantly reduced number of FEA runs.




Table 7: Summary of Results for Forecasting of (1-) corresponding to 0.3% Volume
Loss using EGFFN and GP
Unloading Factor (1-) EGFFN GP
Distribution Gamma Triangular
Mean S.D. 0.190.07 0.220.02
Min. 0.10 0.18
Max. 0.18 0.28
Model Correlation (r) 0.96 0.82


Fig. 10: Decrease in the Overall Number of FEA Runs Required by the Proposed
Hybrid Model
10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We, the authors, would like to express our gratitude to all those who gave us the
possibility to complete this work. We are deeply indebted to Prof. Dr. Fathalla
ElNahhas, Ain Shams University, whose help, stimulating suggestions and
encouragement helped us floating the boat.
We would also like to express our sincere gratitude and appreciation to Gen. Eng.
ElHosseiny Abdel-Salamm and Dr. Ashraf AbuKreisha, Egyptian Tunneling Society/
National Authority of Tunnels NAT, for providing us with their support at all levels.
11 REFERENCES
[1] Baecher, G.B. And Chritian, J.T., 2003. Reliability and Statistics in Geotechnical
Engineering, John Wiley and Sons.
[2] Elkateb, T., 2003, "Quantification of Soil Heterogeneity", Ph.D. Thesis,
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

[3] El-Ramly, H., 2001. Probabilistic Analyses of Landslide Hazards and Risks:
Bridging Theory and Practice. Ph.D. Thesis, the Faculty of Graduate Studies and
Research, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
[4] Goh, Anthony T. C. and Kulhawy, F. H., 2003. Neural Network Approach To
Model The Limit State Surface For Reliability Analysis. Can. J. Geotech., Rev.
Can. Geotech. 40(6): 1235-1244
[5] Hamza Associates, 1997. Greater Cairo Metro Line 2 Phase 2, Phase 3 Tunnel
Monitoring, Lot 42 (El-Dokki/ El-Gezira). Monitoring Report.
[6] Jaksa, M. B., 1995, "The Influence of Spatial Variability on the Geotechnical
Design Properties of A Stiff, Overconsolidated Clay", Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of
Engineering, University of Adelaide.
[7] Koza, J. R., 1992, Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means
of Natural Selection, Cambridge MA: MIT Press, ISBN 0-262-11170-5.
[8] Laso, E., Sagrario, M., Lera, G., and Alarcon, E., 1995. A Level II Reliability
Approach to Tunnel Support Design. Appl. Math. Modeling 1995, Vol. 19.
[9] Noureldin, S.M. 2003. Neuronet Prediction of Settlement Associated with Soft
Ground Tunneling. M.Sc. Thesis, Ain Shams University, Faculty of Engineering,
Cairo, Egypt.
[10] Noureldin, S.M. 2006. Reliability-Based Tunneling Design: An Overview.
International Symposium on Utilization of Underground Space in Urban Areas,
November 2006, Sharm El Sheikh Egypt.
[11] Shahin, M.A., Jaksa, M.B. & Maier, H.R., 2003. Neurofuzzy Networks Applied
To Settlement Of Shallow Foundations on Granular Soils. Applications of
Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering, Der Kiureghian, Madanat &
Pestana (EDS), Millpress, Rotterdam, ISBN 90-5966- 004-8.
[12] Shaw, D., Miles, J., and Gray, A., 2004, Genetic Programming Within Civil
Engineering, Organization of the Adaptive Computing in Design and
Manufacture 2004 Conference, Engineers House, Clifton, Bristol, UK.