Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Engineering Geology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enggeo
State Key Laboratory for Geomechanics and Deep Underground Engineering, Beijing, China
University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
University of Minho, Guimares, Portugal
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 13 March 2014
Received in revised form 22 September 2014
Accepted 13 December 2014
Available online 18 December 2014
Keywords:
Rockburst
Experimental tests
Data mining
Rockburst index
a b s t r a c t
Rockburst is characterized by a violent explosion of a block causing a sudden rupture in the rock and is quite common in deep tunnels. It is critical to understand the phenomenon of rockburst, focusing on the patterns of occurrence so these events can be avoided and/or managed saving costs and possibly lives. The failure mechanism of
rockburst needs to be better understood. Laboratory experiments are undergoing at the Laboratory for
Geomechanics and Deep Underground Engineering (SKLGDUE) of Beijing and the system is described. A large
number of rockburst tests were performed and their information collected, stored in a database and analyzed.
Data Mining (DM) techniques were applied to the database in order to develop predictive models for the
rockburst maximum stress (RB) and rockburst risk index (IRB) that need the results of such tests to be determined. With the developed models it is possible to predict these parameters with high accuracy levels using
data from the rock mass and specic project.
2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
A large number of accidents and other associated problems occur
during construction and exploration of underground structures, and
are very often related to uncertainties concerning ground conditions.
Many researchers have collected, analyzed and published reports on accident cases in tunnels during construction and exploration (HSE, 1996; Vlasov et al., 2001; Sousa, 2006, 2010). In the
study conducted by Sousa (2010), data on accidents were collected
from the technical literature, newspapers and correspondence
with experts in the underground domain. The data were stored in
a database and the accidents were classied into different categories, providing an evaluation on their causes and their consequences. The main goal was to determine the major undesirable
events that may occur during tunnel construction, their causes
and consequences and ultimately present mitigation measures to
avoid accidents on tunnels during the construction. Different
types of events were identied and classied (Rock Fall, Collapse
and Daylight Collapse, Rockburst, Excessive Deformation, Water
Inow, Fires and Explosions). The accidents can cause loss of
lives, equipment damage and damage to the tunnel structure that
may lead to collapse.
In deep underground structures, rockburst is a frequent type of
event caused by the overstressing of rock mass or intact brittle rock,
Corresponding author at: University of Porto, Porto, Portugal. Tel.: +351 966012385.
E-mail address: sousa-scu@hotmail.com (L.R. e Sousa).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.12.008
0013-7952/ 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
117
Table 1
Statistics of rockburst occurrence at Jinping II.
Tunnel
No rockburst
(%)
Level I
(%)
Level II
(%)
Level III
(%)
Level IV
(%)
Auxiliary A
Auxiliary B
HP no. 1
HP no. 2
HP no. 3
HP no. 4
Total HP
81.01
83.72
92.62
88.39
92.48
87.44
90.10
12.54
10.32
6.76
7.62
7.20
10.52
8.04
4.13
4.67
0.62
3.36
0.32
1.78
1.62
1.73
1.12
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.26
0.21
0.09
0.17
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.04
2. Rockburst occurrences
Rockburst is characterized by a violent explosion of a block causing a
sudden rupture in the rock mass and can be common in very deep tunnels. This phenomenon can occur in tunnels for transportation systems,
hydroelectric projects and mining operations, and has been more associated with mine excavations for a long time. Therefore it is critical to
understand rockburst, focusing on the patterns of occurrence so these
events can be avoided and/or managed saving costs and possibly lives
(Camiro, 1995; Kaiser, 2009; Tang et al., 2010).
All rockbursts produce seismic waves and seismic disturbances.
These seismic events have been recorded at seismological stations
many times hundreds of miles away from the origin (Tang et al.,
2010). Rockburst rst became a recognized problem in the Kolar Fold
Field of India in 1898 and by the end of 1903, 75 rockbursts had occurred with fatalities and serious injuries at a depth of about 450 m
below the surface. Investigations concluded that rockbursts were
caused by great pressures on the mine pillars (Blake, 1972). Rockburst
accidents were also reported in gold mines of Witwaterstrand, South
Africa, in the early 1900s at lower depths damaging pillars and other
mine workings. Rockbursts occur frequently in South Africa, therefore
long-term researches have been carried out systematically in the country on the mechanisms of rockbursts. In 1975, 680 accidents took place
in 31 gold mines which claimed a large number of fatalities and loss of
production (Tang et al., 2010).
Also in other types of underground structures rockburst have been
reported for instance during the construction of the Simplon hydraulic
tunnel in the Alpes region at depths greater than 2200 m, in the Shimizu
tunnel in Japan, for depths between 1000 m and 1300 m and in the
Kanestu tunnel, constructed mainly in quartz diorite, rockburst occurred at an overburden depth between 730 m and 1050 m (Tang
et al., 2010). Norwegian tunneling experience includes a signicant
Fig. 2. Simplied geological prole of the high pressure tunnel no. 1 of Jinping II project (Wang et al., 2012).
118
Table 2
Classication of rockburst as used at Jinping II.
Rockburst
level
Description
Type of sound
Characteristics of duration
Impact in excavation
I
II
III
IV
Light
Moderate (mild)
Intensive (strong)
Very strong (excess of loads)
Sound of cracking
Clear sound of cracking
Sound of a strong explosion
Sound of an intensive explosion
Sporadic explosion
Long duration and not progressive with time
Fast with increase of overburden
Sudden with increase of overburden
b0.5
0.5 1.0
1.02.0
N2.0
Small
A certain impact
Reasonable impact
With large impact
establishment of the Rockburst Vulnerability Index (RVI) to be calibrated with the rockburst experience (Hudson, 2009), the establishment of
a database containing information about rockburst and the description
of the events, application of DM techniques and development of
Bayesian Networks (BN) for predicting the probability of occurrence of
rockburst, its location, depth and width, and time delay for the different
types of rockburst (Sousa, 2009).
During construction different types of rockbursts were observed at
Jinping II which permitted to describe the mechanism and to settle
criteria for rockburst (Feng et al., 2012b; Wang et al., 2012; Yan et al.,
2012). According to Wang et al. (2012), the statistics of rockburst events
is represented in Table 1. The drainage tunnel was partly excavated by
the TBM until around 6 km, and after by D&B due to the occurrence of
very strong rockbursts (Liu et al., 2011). The classication of the
rockburst is presented in Table 2, corresponding level I to light
rockburst, level II to moderate, level III to intensive and level IV to
very strong (Peixoto et al., 2011).
Rockbursts along auxiliary tunnels mainly occurred in the strata T2z
and T2b (marbles). The most intensive rockbursts in T2b are very strong,
intensive in T3 (sandstones), and moderate in the other strata. Most
rockbursts occurred within 612 m from the face and 520 h after
excavation. For the high pressure tunnels, the number and intensity
increase in spite of a higher percentage of no rockburst length as it is
presented in Table 1. The fractured face was rough or dome-shaped.
Tensile and shear failure resulted in wedge or dome-shaped fracture
surfaces with a depth that sometimes reached 1.6 m. Since the start of
the high pressure tunnels, 77 rockbursts of several levels occurred at
tunnel no. 1; about 200 happened at tunnel no. 2; about 100 at tunnel
no. 3; and more than 100 at tunnel no. 4. Since the tunnels were excavated in marbles, rockburst of levels III and IV occurred with increasing
depth. The maximum ejection distance of level IV rockbursts reached 5 m
and the depth of the crater ranged from 3 m to 5 m. Most intensive
rockburst occurred within 1030 m from the working face. The majority
Fig. 3. Schematic representation of potential for rockbursts and the effect of connement
(Castro et al., 2012).
119
held for Jinping II, Hudson (2009) proposed the index RVI which can
provide an indication of the likelihood of rockburst occurrence. As in
other empirical systems, like RMR and Q systems, for the key variables
certain values are allocated and the index is established from these
values. The RVI index is calibrated with experience and can be rened
with future knowledge. For the Jinping II hydroelectric scheme the
parameters proposed were the following: height of overburden;
compressive strength of the intact rock; intact rock brittleness (brittle,
semi-brittle, semi-ductile, ductile); presence of folding; presence of
bedding plane separations or faults; and inputs from numerical models
(when available). Also, it is important for the calibration of the RVI indexes to take into consideration the scale effect since rockburst is stronger when the equivalent dimension of the tunnel increases. This fact
was also evident at Jinping II where the rockburst was stronger in the
high pressure tunnels than in the access tunnels (Hudson, 2009). The
depth of the rockburst failure and the volume of rock involved can be
correlated with the RVI value. Adoko et al. (2013) proposed accurate
predictive models for rockburst intensity (RBI) based on fuzzy inference
system and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference systems (ANFIS), and eld
measurements data. Based on a literature review a database was gathered composed by 174 rockbursts. The input parameters for the models
were: the maximum tangential stress, the uniaxial compressive
strength, the uniaxial tensile strength of the rock and the elastic strain
energy index and in some cases the stress coefcient and the rock brittleness coefcient, while the RBI was the output. The ANFIS model indicates the best performance. This work used a data-driven approach i.e.
the models were derived from real data whereas many other models
present in literature use only knowledge from experts to derive rules
and models. In the present work this data-driven approach was also
used since a database was gathered and the models were developed applying specic intelligent algorithms.
As shown, brittleness of the rock is one of the major issues
concerning rockburst. Its characterization and description is essential
for the understanding of the rockburst phenomenon. However, the definition and the measurement of brittleness are not yet standardized and
many empirical relations with different approaches can be found in literature to predict rock brittleness (Gong and Zhao, 2007). Normally, it is
measured indirectly as a function of rock strength parameters like the
uniaxial compressive and the Brazilian tensile strength (Yagiz and
Candan, 2010). Yagiz (2009) proposed a brittleness index (BI) based
on the punch penetration test. Later, Yagiz and Candan (2010) proposed
two models to predict BI based on a fuzzy inference system and nonlinear regression analysis. To develop the models, which presented a relevant accuracy level, the authors gathered a database with 48 samples
using as input parameters the uniaxial compressive strength, the
Brazilian tensile strength and the unit weight of the rock.
Rockbursts are not easy to predict. Investigations using Acoustic
Emission (AE) monitoring are sometimes recommended since they
allow one to monitor the accumulation of cracking and to evaluate the
tendency for the rock to suffer rockburst (Tang et al., 2010; Wang
et al., 2012). Rockburst is affected by several factors. The stress release
is one of the factors affecting the level of these events. Therefore, the
characteristics of blasting vibration and effects should be investigated
in detail, which happened in the case of Jinping II. By optimizing the
blasting parameters and the network used in the blasting, the risk of
rockburst can be reduced (Wang et al., 2012). It is important to develop
appropriate methodologies for the support design in the tunnel sections
characterized by potential rockburst. Special reference is made for the
Fig. 5. Laboratory experiments methods based on rockburst classication (He et al., 2012a).
120
Geometry
(Shape and equivalent
diameter)
Faults
(Folding)
Rockburst
Stress state
(Overburden & K=h/v)
Construction method
(Support & advanced
rate)
Severity
(Time delay)
Dimensions of burst
(Location)
Damage of tunnel
121
acoustic emission (AE), high speed digital recording and also infrared
(IR) thermal monitoring system (Figure 8). During the test procedure,
one surface is unloaded immediately from the triaxial condition,
which simulates in an approximate way the stress path in the excavation face during tunneling. The evolution model for a rockburst can be
translated by three phases as illustrated in Fig. 9, with cracking in a vertical plan, followed by a buckling deformation and the nal rockburst
ejection (He et al., 2010b). Fig. 10 illustrates the dropping system used
in the system for the unloading of a face which is implemented through
a change of a piston movement. The stress paths used by the testing system simulate the different types of rockburst that can occur (He et al.,
2010b, 2012c).
The development of the triaxial rock test machine makes it possible
to have a better understanding of the rockburst phenomena. To illustrate the rockburst loading path, the results of a rockburst test for a
sandstone sample is presented (Figure 11). The sample was rst loaded
with three principal stresses at the same loading rate step by step to
simulate the in situ original stress state (51.8; 39.3 and 29.5 MPa). At
each loading level, the interval of loading time was 5 min. Then the minimum horizontal stress on one surface of the sample was unloaded.
Therefore the simulation of the rockburst started. A detailed analysis
of the results of this test is presented in the publication of He et al.
122
Fig. 10. Illustration of the dropping system for load bar and loading plate (He et al., 2010b).
IRB
H
H
0:054
:
He
RB
123
for the most representative rocks were 2.4 GPa for coal, 33.8 GPa for
granite, and 24.5 GPa for sandstone. In relation to the Poisson ratio,
the average value is equal to 0.25, with a minimum average value
of 0.18 for marble and a maximum of 0.37 for mudstone and for
shale.
Regarding the depth (H) of the samples, the average value is
equivalent to 678 m, with a minimum average value of 250 m for dolomite and a maximum of 3375 m for limestone. For the critical depth He,
the average value is equal to 1529 m, with a minimum average value of
343 m for shale and a maximum of 2989 m for granite. For average
values and the most representative rocks H and He were equal,
respectively, to 507 m and 352 m for coal, 700 and 2989 m for granite,
and 854 and 1878 m for sandstone.
Fig. 14. The AE spectral on points and micro-crack structure characteristics after an instantaneous rockburst test (He et al., 2012c).
124
Topics
Characteristics of
rockburst test
Basalt
Cloud Schist
4%
4% 9%
3%
Coal
Dolomite
Granite
20%
Limestone
31%
1%
3%
Marble
Mudstone
5%
Peridotite
1%
18%
Sandstone
1%
Shale
Slate
5. Application of DM techniques
5.1. General
Nowadays, due to the advances in information and communication
technologies, there is an extraordinary expansion of data generation
that needs to be stored. The data can hold valuable information, such
as trends and patterns that can be used to improve decision making
and optimize processes. Due to the great potential of this subject
there has been an increasing interest in the Knowledge Discovery
from Databases (KDD) and DM elds that led to the fast development
of electronic data management methods (Fig. 21).
DM is a relatively new area of computer science that lies at the intersection of statistics, machine learning, data management and databases,
pattern recognition, Articial Intelligence (AI) and other areas. DM
consists in the searching and inference of patterns or models in the
data which can represent useful knowledge. There are several DM
techniques, each one with its own purposes and capabilities, namely
Decision Trees and Rule Induction, Neural Networks, Support Vector
Machines and BN, Learning Classier Systems and Instance-Based Algorithms (Berthold and Hand, 2003; Miranda et al., 2011). The increasing
interest on DM led to the necessity of dening standard procedures to
carry out this task. In this context, the two most used methodologies
in DM are the CRISP-DM (Cross-Industry Standard Process for Data Mining) and the SEMMA (Sample, Explore, Modify, Model, and Assess),
(Bulkley et al., 1999; Chapman et al., 2000; Miranda, 2007).
In the eld of geotechnics many advances have been observed, like
in constitutive models, test equipment and instruments, probabilistic
methodologies to deal with uncertainty, numerical tools and many
others. However, the tools and techniques normally used to analyze
geotechnical data did not undergo signicant development during the
last decades. The establishment of standard organization and representation methods of geotechnical data in an electronic format is a subject
whose importance was recognized by the geotechnical community,
particularly with the creation of Joint Committee JTC2 from the Societies
ISRM, ISSMGE and IAEG. In the events organized by this Committee
some developments were presented and the relevance of the application of DM techniques was emphasized.
125
Table 4
Statistical values for different relevant parameters. 1 Basalt; 2 Schist; 3 Coal; 4 Dolomite; 5 Granite; 6 Limestone; 7 Marble; 8 Mudstone; 9 Peridotite; 10 Sandstone;
11 Shale; 12 Slate.
Parameters
UCS (MPa)
E (GPa)
H (m)
He (m)
RB (MPa)
IRB
All rocks
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
65.5
22.3
0.25
678
1529
82.6
1.08
Rocks
1
10
11
12
143.9
62.2
0.21
400
2585
139.6
0.16
1000
1413
76.3
0.81
11.9
2.4
0.28
507
352
19.0
1.65
250
2315
125.0
1.11
113.8
33.8
0.24
700
2989
161.4
0.27
24.1
9.7
0.24
3375
1278
69.0
3.49
58.4
43.1
0.18
500
1561
84.3
0.36
11.5
2.0
0.37
910
306
16.5
3.02
234.1
74.1
0.20
1554
2317
125.1
0.68
83.4
24.5
0.24
854
1878
101.4
0.62
8.0
3.0
0.37
500
343
18.5
1.54
58.8
13.5
500
1587
85.7
0.34
However studies concerning the application of formal KDD processes are rare in geotechnical engineering activities. The results of KDD
processes were recently presented concerning geotechnical data gathered in two important underground works in predominantly granite
rock masses, Venda Nova II and Bemposta II hydroelectric schemes
(Miranda and Sousa, 2012). New alternative regression models were
developed using several DM techniques for the analytical calculation
of strength and deformability parameters and geomechanical indexes.
These models were built up considering different sets of input data,
allowing their application in different scenarios of data availability.
Most of the models use less information than the original formulations
but maintain a high predictive accuracy, which can be useful in the preliminary design stages in any case where geological/geotechnical information is limited. The application of DM also provided insight to the
most inuential parameters for the behavior of the rock mass of interest.
An important application was performed for the DUSEL laboratory,
located at the former Homestake gold mine (McPherson et al., 2003).
The laboratory is seen as a multi-discipline facility with particle physics
providing the lead but other disciplines being a signicant part of the
facility, including geomicrobiology, geosciences, and geoengineering.
At DUSEL, a large database of geotechnical data was already produced.
The geotechnical database was analyzed using these innovative DM
tools, including BN models, and new and useful models were developed
for the prediction of geomechanical parameters (Sousa et al., 2012).
The main issue of the DM task is building a model to represent data.
In this step of the KDD process, learning occurs by adopting a search
algorithm for training. This process occurs over a training set until a
given criteria is met. After training, the model is built and its quality is
normally evaluated over a test set not used for training. There are
several different models but there is no universal one to efciently
solve all the problems. Each one presents specic characteristics
(advantages and drawbacks) which make them better suited in a certain case. The modeling techniques applied in this study were: Multiple
Regression MR, Articial Neural Networks ANN and Support Vector
Machines SVM.
In regression problems, the goal is to estimate the model which minimizes an error measurement between real and predicted values considering N examples. In this work the used error measures were the
mean absolute error (MAE) and the root mean squared error (RMSE),
as dened by equations:
N
X
jei j
i1
v
u N
uX 2
u
ei
u
t i1
Fig. 17. Histogram with the distribution of the rockburst maximum stress RB.
Value of IRB
Classication
IRB b 0.6
0.6 b IRB 1.2
1.2 b IRB 2.0
IRB 2.0
Low
Moderate
High
Very high
126
All samples
Coal
Granite
Sandstone
Low
Moderate
High
Very high
77
17
26
18
3
10
18
12
25
0
0
0
22
3
2
1
RB / MPa
Table 6
Distribution of samples for the different classes of rockburst index.
functions known as kernels. Then, the SVM nds the best hyperplane of
linear separation within the feature space (Miranda et al., 2011; Sousa
et al., 2012).
5.2. Modeling and evaluation
0.6
1.2
2.0
Number of Samples
80
60
Coal
Others
40
20
0
<0.6
0.6-1.2
1.2-2
>2
IRB
127
best performance. In terms of importance, the main parameters are almost the same as in the previous case, namely UCS and h1, followed
by Depth, v and Q. As it can be stated, in this case the importance of
E and h2 drops and Q appears with a signicant relative importance.
The results are presented at Table 10.
Eq. (7) translates the obtained multiple regression model for IRB
group G3.
4
UCS0:009
Considering additional secondary variables (group G4) the same tendency is observed in terms of the performance of the models. Table 13
illustrates for this group the evaluation of IRB. The most important variables are also H and RB, followed by the volume of the samples, UCS
and K. Comparatively with the previous group E loses importance and
in the other hand the secondary variable volume of the sample presents
a signicant importance.
Concerning group G3 the performance of the models is quite
different. The MR model presents the worst performance with considerably high error values, between 0.458 and 0.602 for MAE and RMSE,
respectively for a parameter with a mean value of 0.954 and ranging
from 0.046 to 5.207. On the other hand, the ANN model presents
excellent results translated by very low error values and an R coefcient
very near to the unity. The SVM model also presents good results but it
is clearly outperformed by the ANN model. For group G4, that considers
also a secondary set of parameters, the results are similar in relation
to the previous case, although a slight decrease on the model's perforTable 8
Metrics for the evaluation of RB.
DM tech.
RB
G1
MR
ANN
SVM
G2
MAE
RMSE
MAE
RMSE
21.20
21.32
20.49
31.08
32.54
30.51
0.873
0.864
0.879
20.46
21.21
19.64
30.43
31.48
29.51
0.880
0.636
0.888
Table 7
Generated groups for evaluation of RB and IRB.
Parameter
Depth (m)
Uniaxial compressive strength (MPa)
Deformability modulus (GPa)
Horizontal in situ stress (loading face) (MPa)
Horizontal in situ stress (unloading face) (MPa)
Vertical stress due to overburden
Percentage of clay (%)
Percentage of quartz (%)
Percentage of feldspar (%)
Percentage of calcite (%)
Percentage of carbon (%)
Volume of the sample
Rockburst maximum stress (MPa)
Ratio between average horizontal stresses and v
Symbol
H
UCS
E
h1
h2
v
Cl
Q
F
Ca
Cb
Vol
RB
K
RB
IRB
G1
G2
G3
G4
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
128
IRB
G3
MR
ANN
SVM
mance is observed. In fact, the input parameters that were added to the
process could not improve the model's performance due to their low
importance in relation to IRB. The only exception is the input parameter
volume of the sample that replaced E in the order of importance.
6. Final considerations
G4
MAE
RMSE
MAE
RMSE
0.458
0.069
0.191
0.602
0.114
0.408
0.789
0.989
0.991
0.446
0.094
0.246
0.606
0.207
0.479
0.786
0.976
0.872
Table 9
Evaluation of RB for group G1 of variables.
Parameters
DM technique
MR
ANN
SVM
H
UCS
E
h1
h2
v
0.130
0.276
0.084
0.354
0.025
0.134
0.140
0.212
0.109
0.256
0.098
0.183
0.117
0.254
0.094
0.272
0.126
0.136
MR
ANN
SVM
0.144
0.173
0.029
0.230
0.028
0.079
0.042
0.121
0.044
0.076
0.017
0.016
0.122
0.162
0.042
0.187
0.040
0.093
0.040
0.098
0.058
0.065
0.038
0.056
0.104
0.210
0.046
0.189
0.078
0.073
0.049
0.067
0.054
0.024
0.035
0.070
Fig. 25. Experimental versus predicted IRB values for ANN model.
Table 10
Evaluation of RB for group G2 of variables.
Parameters
H
UCS
E
h1
h2
v
Cl
Q
F
Ca
Cb
Vol
DM technique
Fig. 26. Importance of variables for predicting IRB using ANN model.
Acknowledgments
Table 12
Evaluation of IRB for group G3 of variables.
Parameters
H
UCS
E
RB
K
129
DM technique
MR
ANN
SVM
0.449
0.034
0.120
0.320
0.077
0.321
0.089
0.057
0.430
0.104
0.261
0.148
0.212
0.285
0.094
The most important variables are the depth of the samples H and RB,
followed by UCS and K. The volume of the samples is also important
when considering the secondary variables which can be related with
the scale effect.
AE results obtained during laboratory rockburst tests were not yet
analyzed using these DM techniques. It is planned to perform in the future in order to bring new approaches to the study of the rockburst
phenomenon.
Due to the nature of the rock and the discontinuity nature of the rock
masses, the evaluation of the mechanical strength characteristics is inuenced by the dimensions of the tested volumes. Although rockburst
is characterized by a violent explosion of a block of rock and consequently this phenomenon depends more of the nature of the rock, a
study was already initiated with selected cases of rockburst that
occurred during the construction of several tunnels covering several hydroelectric projects and mines. A rst step is intended to complete the
database with more cases that occurred at the megaproject of Jinping
II and then DM technique will be applied to this particular project in
order to identify the more relevant parameters and establish models
for some of the parameters. Several rockburst tests were also performed
for Jinping II site particularly in marbles. In these formations a large
number of in situ rockburst events occurred. Using probabilistic approaches a method for extrapolating laboratory data to eld scale will
be evaluated.
The application of various AI techniques on existing in situ data, in
particular DM and BN, identied the importance of various parameters
involved in the rockburst phenomenon. Special attention was given to
the development of inuence diagrams and the use of BN, which
allow replacing with advantage, other techniques to better address the
uncertainties involved in the phenomenon of rockburst. With the enlarged database more complex studies will be implemented regarding
the assessment of rockburst and its consequences. The studies already
performed using laboratory rockburst tests can be correlated with the
rockbursts that occurred in situ and the scale effect can be analyzed in
detail. The particular situation that occurred at Jinping II hydroelectric
scheme will be emphasized due to the existence of important information obtained with laboratory rockburst tests and the occurrence of
rockburst in situ. The establishment of a new rockburst coefcient is
intended to be calibrated with the obtained results.
Table 13
Evaluation of IRB for group G4 of variables.
Parameters
DM technique
MR
ANN
SVM
H
UCS
E
RB
K
Cl
Cb
Vol
0.422
0.023
0.065
0.249
0.074
0.020
0.022
0.125
0.219
0.101
0.059
0.346
0.071
0.058
0.079
0.072
0.201
0.110
0.053
0.246
0.028
0.089
0.042
0.130
References
Adoko, A., Gokceoglu, C., Wu, L., Zuo, Q., 2013. Knowledge-based and data-driven fuzzy
modeling for rockburst prediction. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 61, 8695.
Berry, M., Linoff, G., 2000. Mastering data mining: the art and science of customer relationships management. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., USA.
Berthold, M., Hand, D., 2003. Intelligent data analysis: an introduction. Second edition.
Springer.
Blake, W., 1972. Rock-burst mechanics. Q. Colorado Sch. Min. 67 (1), 64.
Brown, E.T., 2012. Risk assessment and management in underground rock engineering
an overview. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 4 (3), 193204.
Bulkley, J., Gayle, S., Hicks, B., Stephens, R., 1999. Adding the where to the who. 24th
SUGI SAS Users Group International conference, paper 173, Miami, p. 3.
Camiro, 1995. Rockburst research handbook. CAMIRO mining division, Canadian
Rockburst Research Programe, 19901995 6 vol. p. 977 (Sudbury).
Castro, L.M., Bewick, R.P., Carter, T.G., 2012. An overview of numerical modelling applied
to deep mining. In: Sousa, Vargas, Fernandes, Azevedo (Eds.), Innovative Numerical
Modeling in Geomechanics. CRC Press, London, pp. 393414.
Chapman, P., Clinton, J., Kerber, R., Khabaza, T., Reinartz, T., Shearer, C., Wirth, R., 2000.
CRISP-DM 1.0. Step-by-step data mining guide. SPSS Inc., p. 73.
Cortes, C., Vapnik, V., 1995. Support vector networks. Machine Learning 20(3). Kluwer
Academic Publishers, pp. 273297.
Cortez, P., 2010. Data mining with neural networks and support vector machines using
the R/rminer tool. In: Perner, P. (Ed.), Advances in Data Mining. Applications and
theoretical aspects. Proc. of 10th Industrial Conference on Data Mining, Berlin,
Germany, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, pp. 572583.
Cortez, P., Embrechts, M., 2011. Opening black box data mining models using sensitivity
analysis. 2011 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Data Mining
(CIDM 2011), pp. 341348.
Eskesen, S., Tengborg, P., Kampmann, J., Veicherts, T., 2004. Guidelines for tunnelling risk
management: ITA, working group no. 2. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 19, 217237.
Fayyad, U., Piatesky-Shapiro, G., Smyth, P., 1996. From data mining to knowledge
discovery: an overview. In: Fayyad (Ed.), Advances in Knowledge Discovery and
Data Mining. AAAI Press, The MIT Press, Cambridge MA, pp. 471493.
Feng, X., Hudson, J., 2011. Rock engineering design. Taylor & Francis, London, p. 468.
Feng, X., Jiang, Q., Sousa, L.R., Miranda, T., 2012a. Underground hydroelectric
powerschemes. In: Sousa, Vargas, Fernandes, Azevedo (Eds.), Innovative Numerical
Modeling in Geomechanics. CRC Press, London, pp. 1350.
Feng, X., Chen, B., Li, S., Zhang, C., Xiao, Y., Feng, G., Zhou, H., Qiu, S., Zho, Z., Chen, D., Ming,
H., 2012b. Studies on the evolution process of rockbursts in deep tunnels. J. Rock
Mech. Geotech. Eng. 4 (4), 289295.
Gong, M., Zhao, J., 2007. Inuence of rock brittleness on TBM penetration rate in
Singapore granite. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 22, 317324.
Gong, W.L., Zhao, H.Y., An, L.Q., Mao, L.T., 2009. Temporal and spatial analysis of infrared
images from water jet in frequency domain based on DFT. J. Beijing Univ. Aeronaut.
Astronaut. 34 (6), 690694 (2008).
Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., Friedman, J., 2009. The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction. 2nd edition. Springer-Verlag.
Haykin, S., 1999. Neural networks a comprehensive foundation. 2nd edition. PrenticeHall, New Jersey.
He, M.C., 2009. The mechanism of rockburst and its countermeasure of support. Int. Consultation Report for the Key Technology of Safe and Rapid Construction for Jinping II
Hydropower Station High Overburden and Long Tunnels, Jinping II, pp. 2328.
He, M.C., Zhao, F., 2013. Laboratory study of unloading rate effects on rockburst. J. Disaster
Adv. 6 (9), 1118 (September).
He, M.C., Gong, W.L., Li, D.J., Zhai, H.M., 2009. Physical modeling of failure process of the
excavation in horizontal strata based on IR thermography. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci. Technol. 19 (6), 689698.
He, M.C., Jia, X., Gong, W.L., Faramarzi, L., 2010a. Physical modeling of an underground
roadway excavation in vertically stratied rock using infrared thermography. Int.
J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 47, 12121221.
He, M.C., Miao, J.L., Feng, J.L., 2010b. Rockburst process of limestone and its acoustic emission characteristics under true-triaxial unloading conditions. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci. 47, 286298.
He, M., Xia, H., Jia, X., Gong, W., Zhao, F., Liang, K., 2012a. Studies on classication, criteria
and control of rockbursts. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 4 (2), 97114.
He, M.C., Jia, X.N., Gong, G.J., Zhao, F., 2012b. A modied true triaxial test system that allows a specimen to be unloaded on one surface. In: Kwasniewski, Li, Takahashi (Eds.),
True Triaxial Testing of Rocks. CRC Press, London, pp. 251266.
130
He, M.C., Jia, X.N., Coli, M., Livi, E., Sousa, L.R., 2012c. Experimental study on rockbursts in
underground quarrying of Carrara marble. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 52, 18.
He, M.C., Gong, W., Wang, J., Qi, P., Tao, Z., Du, S., 2014. Development of a novel energyabsorbing bolt with extraordinarily large elongation and constant resistance. Int.
J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. (submitted for publication).
HSE, 1996. Safety of New Austrian Tunnelling Method (NATM) tunnels. Health & Safety
Executive, London, p. 86.
Hudson, J., 2009. Prediction rockburst occurrence and development of the rockburst vulnerability index (RVI). Int. Consultation Report for the Key Technology of Safe and
Rapid Construction for Jinping II Hydropower Station High Overburden and Long
Tunnels, Jinping II, pp. 2531.
Jia, X.N., 2013. Experimental study on acoustic emission Eigen-frequency spectrum of
strainbursts (in Chinese). PhD Thesis. China University of Mining and Technology,
Beijing, p. 208.
Kaiser, P.K., 2009. Failure mechanisms and rock support aspects. Int. Consultation Report
for the Key Technology of Safe and Rapid Construction for Jinping II Hydropower Station High Overburden and Long Tunnels, Jinping II, pp. 6271.
Kaiser, P., Cai, M., 2012. Design of rock support system under rockburst condition. J. Rock
Mech. Geotech. Eng. 4 (3), 215227.
Kewley, R., Embrechts, M., Breneman, C., 2000. Data strip mining for the virtual design of
pharmaceuticals with neural networks. IEEE Trans. Neural Networks 11 (3), 668679.
Liu, L., Wang, X., Zhang, Y., Jia, Z., Duan, Q., 2011. Tempo-spatial characteristics and inuential factors of rockburst: a case study of transportation and drainage tunnels in
Jinping II hydropower station. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 3 (2), 179185.
McPherson, B., Elsworth, D., Fairhurst, C., Kelsler, S., Onstott, T., Roggenthen, W., Wang, H.,
2003. EarthLab: A subterranean laboratory and observatory to study microbial life,
uid ow, and rock deformation. A Report the National Science Foundation. NSF,
Washington, DC, p. 60.
Miranda, T., 2007. Geomechanism parameters evaluation in underground structures:
articial intelligence, Bayesian probabilities and inverse methods. PhD thesis.
University of Minho, p. 317.
Miranda, T., Sousa, L.R., 2012. Application of data mining techniques for the development
of geomechanical characterization models for rock masses. In: Sousa, Vargas,
Fernandes, Azevedo (Eds.), Innovative Numerical Modeling in Geomechanics. CRC
Press, London, pp. 245264.
Miranda, T., Correia, A.G., Santos, M., Sousa, L.R., Cortez, P., 2011. New models for strength
and deformability parameters calculation in rock masses using data mining techniques. Int. J. Geomech. 11 (44), 4458.
Ortlepp, W.D., Stacey, T.R., 1994. Rockburst mechanisms in tunnels and shafts. Tunn.
Undergr. Space Technol. 9 (1), 5965.
Peixoto, A., Sousa, L.R., Sousa, R.L., Feng, X.T., Miranda, T., Martins, F., 2011. Prediction of
rockburst based on an accident data base. 11th ISRM Congress, Beijing, pp. 12471252.
Popielak, R., Weining, W., 2010. Engineering and design services for excavation DUSEL.
Preliminary Design, Preliminary Report #2, Contract D10-04, Lakewood, Coloradop. 104.
Qian, Q., 2009. The strategy for controlling water inow. Int. Consultation Report for the
Key Technology of Safe and Rapid Construction for Jinping II Hydropower Station
High Overburden and Long Tunnels, Jinping II, pp. 1518.
R Development Core Team, 2010. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (http://www.R-project.org).
Sousa, L.R., 2006. Learning with accidents and damage associated to underground works.
In: Matos, Sousa, Kleberger, Pinto (Eds.), Geotechnical Risks in Rock Tunnels. CRC
Press, London, pp. 739.
Sousa, L.R., 2009. Continuing site investigation and risk assessment. Int. Consultation Report for the Key Technology of Safe and Rapid Construction for Jinping II Hydropower
Station High Overburden and Long Tunnels, Jinping II, pp. 17.
Sousa, R.L., 2010. Risk analysis for tunneling projects. PhD Thesis. Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, Cambridge, p. 589.
Sousa, L.R., 2012a. Report for the State Administration of Foreign Experts Affairs.
SKLGDUE, Beijing, p. 54.
Sousa, R.L., 2012b. Risk assessment in tunnels using Bayesian Networks. In: Sousa, Vargas,
Fernandes, Azevedo (Eds.), Innovative Numerical Modelling in Geomechanics. CRS
Press, London, pp. 211244.
Sousa, R.L., Einstein, H., 2012. Risk analysis during tunnel construction using Bayesian
Networks: Porto Metro case study. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 27, 86100.
Sousa, L.R., Miranda, T., Roggenthen, W., Sousa, R.L., 2012. Models for geomechanical characterization of the rock mass formations at DUSEL using data mining techniques. US
Rock Mechanics Symposium, Chicago, ARMA 12-120, p. 14 (in CD-Rom).
Tang, S., Tong, M., Hu, J., He, X., 2010. Characteristics of acoustic emission signals in damp
cracking coal rocks. Min. Sci. Technol. 20, 143147.
Vlasov, S.N., Makovsky, L.V., Merkin, V.E., 2001. Accidents in transportation and subway
tunnels. Construction to operation. Russian Tunneling Association, Moscow, p. 198.
Wang, J., Zeng, X., Zhou, J., 2012. Practices on rockburst prevention and control in
headrace tunnels of Jinping II hydropower station. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 4
(3), 258268.
Wu, S., Feng, X., Sousa, L.R., 2010. Jinping II mega hydropower project, China. Int.
Conference on Hydroelectric Schemes in Portugal. A New Cycle, Porto, pp. 223231.
Yagiz, S., 2009. Assessment of brittleness using rock strength and density with punch penetration test. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 24 (1), 6674.
Yagiz, S., Candan, G., 2010. Application of fuzzy inference system and nonlinear regression
models for predicting rock brittleness. Expert Syst. Appl. 37 (2010), 22652272.
Yan, P., Lu, W., Chen, M., Shan, Z., Chen, X., Zhou, Y., 2012. Energy release process of surrounding rocks of deep tunnels with two excavation methods. J. Rock Mech. Geotech.
Eng. 4 (2), 160167.