Printer Friendly

PNN-based Rock burst Prediction Model and Its Applications.

1. Introduction

A rock burst is a sudden and violent expulsion of rock from the surrounding rock mass. Rock burst is considered a dynamic instability phenomenon of surrounding rock mass of un-derground space in high geostatic stress and caused by the violent release of strain energy stored in the rock mass. Rock burst occurs during excavating underground space in the form of a stripe of rock slices or rock fall or throwing of rock fragments, sometimes accompanied by crack sound. Rock bursts are related to the fracture of rock in place and require two conditions for their occurrence: stress in the rock mass sufficiently high to exceed its strength, and physical characteristics of the rock which enable it to store energy up to the threshold value for sudden rupture. Rocks which yield gradually in plastic strain under load usually do not generate rock bursts. The likelihood of rock bursts occurring increases as the depth of the mine increases. Rock bursts are also affected by the size of excavation, becoming more likely if the excavation size is around 180m and above. Induced seismicity such as faulty methods of mining can trigger rock bursts. Other causes of rock bursts are the presence of faults, dikes, or joints (Dong et al., 2013).

Because rock burst occurs suddenly and intensely, it usually causes injury including death to workers, damage to equipment, and even substantial disruption and economic loss of under-ground space excavation. Therefore, there is a need for the development of suitable computa-tional methods for the prediction and control of rock bursts particularly for a safe and economic underground excavation for construction or mining in the burst-prone ground. For this case, numerous related research works, concerning about the mechanism, characteristics or type, the cause of formation, the critical conditions and preventive methods of rock burst have been con-ducted by many researchers. Many researchers have suggested various theories, many predic-tion methods, and empirical correlation, such as fuzzy-base evaluation method (Wang et al., 1998; Amoussou et al., 2013), distance discriminant analysis (Wang et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2017), support vector machine (SVM) (Zhao, 2005; Zhou et al., 2012, extension-theory-based method (Xiong et al., 2007), rough-set-based method (Yang, 2010), unascertained measurement method(Shi et al., 2010), numerical simulation (Zhen & Gao, 2017; Zhu et al., 2010) and case study (Mansurov, 2001).

These studies offered new ideas and approaches for rock burst prediction. However, each method discussed above has its advantages and disadvantages, and understanding, predicting and controlling the rock bursts still pose a considerable challenge for underground engineering.

As an important means, the ANN-based method for prediction of rock burst has been adopted by many researchers gradually in recent years (Bai et al., 2002; Zhang et al., 2012). Ar-tificial neural network technique is considered the most effective and reliable artificial intelli-gence methods for solving classification, prediction and recognition problems.

Currently, back propagation (BP) and radial basis function (RBF) networks are used in the field of prediction of robust classification. However, for network training, they are all easily trapped in local minimum values. Probabilistic neural network (PNN), on the other hand, is a feedforward neural network. It is derived from the Bayesian network and a statistical algorithm called kernel Fisher discriminant analysis. It was introduced by Specht and Donald(1990). Be-cause PNN has the advantages of low training complexity, high stability, quick convergence, and simple construction, it has a wide range of application in model classification, identification, prediction, as well as fault diagnosis and other fields(Adeli and Panakkat, 2009; Song et al., 2007; Ataa et al., 2017; Rutkowski, 2004 ). In this work, according to the practice of complicat-ed problems of the rock burst prediction, the PNN is applied to predicting rock burst classifica-tion.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Criteria and indexes of rock burst and rock burst classification

2.1.1. Criteria considering stress in surrounding rock

The criteria listed in Table 1 were proposed early, and only considered the stress level in surrounding rock. Furthermore, different scholars chose different parameters as an evaluation index of criterion for rock burst, and the classification of rock burst intensity also differed from each other. So it is difficult to use these criteria in the construction of underground engineering.

2.1.2. Comprehension criteria considering stress, properties of surrounding rock and energy

1) The following criterion is presented with rock burst tendency index and energy condition of surrounding rock (Dong et al, 2013).

[W.sub.qx] [greater than or equal to] 1.5 (1)

[mathematical expression not reproducible] (2)

[alpha] = 1+ [[zeta].sup.2] - 2[mu][zeta] (3)

[zeta] = [[sigma].sub.2] / [[sigma].sub.1] (4)

where [W.sub.qx] is the rock burst tendency index; [[sigma].sub.1] and [[sigma].sub.2] are the major and middle principal stress in surrounding rock, respectively; [mu] is the Poisson ratio.

2) It is stipulated that rock burst could occur if [[sigma].sub.e] / [[sigma].sub.c] [less than or equal to] [K.sub.s] in which the value of [K.sub.s] related to [[sigma].sub.t]/ [[sigma].sub.c] criterion.

3) Kidybinski (1981) proposed an elastic energy index [W.sub.et]. No rock burst activity, moderate rock burst activity and strong rock burst activity, meet the conditions [W.sub.et] <2.0, 2.0[less than or equal to] [W.sub.et] [less than or equal to]5.0, and [W.sub.et] >5.0, respectively.

2.1.3 Input characteristic vector for PNN

The indexes of criterion should reflect the main factors of rock burst - the properties and stress of surrounding rock. At the same time, they should be obtained easily and can be compared with each other for different cases. In this work, the compressive rock strength [[sigma].sub.c], tensile strength [[sigma].sub.t], elastic energy index [W.sub.et] and the maximum tangential stress [[sigma].sub.[theta]] are chosen as the indexes of criterion. Compressive rock strength [[sigma].sub.c], tensile strength [[sigma].sub.t], and elastic energy index [W.sub.et] can indicate the properties of surrounding rock, and the tangential stress [[sigma].sub.[theta]] can reflect the virgin geostatic stress condition and the influence of the shape and dimension of the underground space on rock burst. In this work, [[sigma].sub.[theta]], [[sigma].sub.c], [[sigma].sub.t] and [W.sub.et] are selected as the input index for PNN model to predict the degree of rock burst activity. Hence, the input characteristic vector for PNN is [[[sigma].sub.[theta]], [[sigma].sub.c], [[sigma].sub.t], [W.sub.et]].

2.1.4 Classification for intensities of rock burst

According to the extent and intensity of the characteristics of the rock burst phenomenon in the underground openings, the grade of rock burst is divided into four degrees, namely none rock burst, light rock burst, moderate rock burst, strong rock burst, respectively. So the PNN model output is rock burst degree, output = [none rock burst, light rock burst, moderate rock burst, strong rock burst]. Also, the division of rock burst degree can be described in Table 2 (Wang et al., 1998; Zhou et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2004)

2.2. PNN-based Rock burst Prediction Model

2.2.1 Outline of PNN

Probability neural networks are a tool for handling uncertainty for improving learning per-formance. Probability uncertainty and fuzziness uncertainty processing play a key role in boost-ing classification systems including extreme learning machines and decision trees (Wang et al., 2015; Lu et al., 2015). PNN is essentially a classifier that places the Bayes estimate in a feed-forward neural network. The central concept of Bayes criterion classification is the minimal "predictable risk" of the Bayes decision. The Bayes decision is based on the non-parametric estimation of the probability density function; accordingly, it obtains the classification results. Based on its advantages, such as rapid training time, a stable and simple neural structure, and good convergence, it is suitable for use in defect recognition.

For a multi-class problem with [[sigma].sub.1], [[sigma].sub.2], [[sigma].sub.q], [[sigma].sub.s], we apply to the above issues two types of classification problems in Bayes decision classification. For p-dimensional vector X = {[x.sub.1], [x.sub.2], [x.sub.p]} based on the Bayes decision rule, we determine the status of [theta][member of][[theta].sub.q] with its measurement set

d(x) [member of] [[theta].sub.q] [[h.sub.q][l.sub.q][f.sub.q] (x) > [h.sub.k][l.sub.k][f.sub.k] (x), k [not equal to] q] (5)

In the Equation (5), [h.sub.q] represents the priori probability of [theta] = [[theta].sub.q], d(x) as the Bayes decision of test vector X , [h.sub.k] is the priori probability of [theta] = [[theta].sub.k], and [l.sub.q] and [l.sub.k] are incorrectly classified into other categories of losses. The latter should belong to [[theta].sub.q] and [[theta].sub.k]. Besides, [f.sub.q] (x) and [f.sub.q] (x) are probability density function of [[theta].sub.q] and [[theta].sub.k], respectively.

[mathematical expression not reproducible] (6)

where X is a sample of the input vector to be classified, p is the dimension of sample vectors, [x.sub.qj] is the j-th sample of the category [[theta].sub.q], and [m.sup.q] is the sample number of category [[theta].sub.q]. Additionally, [sigma] is the smoothing parameter.

Figure 1 depicts a schematic diagram of the multi-class classification PNN. X is a vector to be classified as the neurons in the input layer. It is passed to the corresponding neurons in the hidden layer with no change. The hidden layer then transmits each neuron in the accumulated layers. At this point, the output obtained by the accumulation layer is the estimation of the probability density function of each pattern for the test vectors. Accordingly, the category of the occurrence of the maximum probability of the current test vector is the one that corresponds to the largest probability density function. This function is the output of the accumulation layer. The neuron output with the probability density maximum is 1; the corresponding category is the one to which h belongs.

2.2.2 PNN modeling for prediction of rock burst

The number of input layer neurons of PNN is the same as the dimensionality of the input characteristic vector. Based on discussed above, [[sigma].sub.[theta]], [[sigma].sub.c], [[sigma].sub.t], and [W.sub.et] are selected as the input characteristic vector for PNN model and the input vector of PNN = [[[sigma].sub.[theta]], [[sigma].sub.c], [[sigma].sub.t], [W.sub.et]]. Hence, the number of input layer neurons of PNN is 4.

The number of output neurons of PNN is the same as the number of classification of rock burst activity. According to the section 2.4, the grade of rock burst is divided into four degrees, and the PNN model output is rock burst degree and the output vector = [none rock burst, light rock burst, moderate rock burst, strong rock burst]. So the number of output layer neurons is 4.

The number of hidden layer neurons is determined by the training data set. The number of hidden layer neurons is equal to the sum of the number of each category of training sample

The number of accumulation layer neurons is the same as the number of classification of rock burst activity. Here, the number of accumulation layer neurons is 4.

The design of PNN modeling for prediction of rock burst includes the following aspects: a collection of data sets, data preprocessing, build a PNN, network model, training PNN, testing PNN etc. The design process is shown in Figure 2.

3. Results

Rock burst samples which come from underground rock projects in domestic and abroad are collected as training data set (Show in Table 3) and testing data set (Show in Table 4) to verify the rationality of our posed method.

The relationship among the indexes of criteria, the occurrence of rock burst and its intensity is very complicated. For the sake of the capability of PNN for pattern recognition, we attempt to predict the rock burst activity by using PNN.

Four degrees of rock burst activity, including none rock burst, light rock burst, moderate rock burst and strong rock burst are indicated by 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively.

PNN model and criterion are obtained through training data sets of rock burst samples which come from underground rock projects in domestic and abroad. The training effect and the training error are shown in Figure 3. It is noted from Figure 3 that the misjudgment ratios of training samples using PNN model is 0, which prove that the PNN has a good learning performance. Figure 4 is the perdition results of testing samples. From the Figure 4, we can find that the prediction accuracy of PNN model is 100%. The results show that the prediction results agree well with the practical records, which prove the PNN-based rock burst model is useful and available and can be applied to the prediction for the possibility and classification of rock burst in underground engineering.

The results of the PNN-based method are compared with that SVM-based method, BP-based method, and LVQ-based method. The calculated results of PNN, SVM, BP and LVQ are listed in Table 3. From Table 3, we can find that the misjudgment ratios of tested samples using SVM, BP, LVQ, and PNN are 10%, 20%, 20% and 0, respectively. The compared predicted results show that it is feasible and appropriate to use PNN model for rock burst prediction.

To study the effectiveness and feasibility in engineering practice applications, two real-world examples are analyzed by using our posed PNN-based rock burst prediction method.

Case 1: Tongyu tunnel engineering

Tongyu Tunnel is currently one of the most deep-lying and longest tunnels in Chongqing, China. Its geological conditions are incredibly complex. The measured data of rock burst in depth 900m at a cross section of K21+680 of Tongyu tunnel are listed in Table 6 (He et al., 2008). Applying our proposed prediction model to rock burst prediction of this engineering, the result of prediction is light rock burst activity. The results agree well with the practical records.

Case 2: Qinnling tunnel engineering

The QingLing tunnel is the longest railway tunnel in China and takes the third place in the world at present. Reference (Thaldiri et al., 2017; Li and Wang, 2009) provides rock burst measured data for of QingLing tunnel engineering. Some measured data listed in Table 7. Table 7 compared the performance of the proposed method with existing BP-based method (Bai et al., 2002) and unascertained measurement method(Shi et al., 2010). From the Table 7, the result of prediction is same as the results of existing BP-based method and unascertained measurement method, just same as what happened in the scene. This case further confirms that the PNN-based method is effective and practical in the application of prediction of rock burst. On the other hand, PNN-based method has the advantages of low training complexity, high stability, quick convergence, and simple construction.

4. Discussion

In this paper, a novel PNN-based rock burst prediction model is proposed to determine whether rock burst will happen in the underground rock projects and how much the intensity of rock burst is. PNN model is obtained through training data sets of rock burst samples which come from underground rock project in domestic and abroad. Other samples are tested with the model. The testing results agree with the practical records. At the same time, two real-world applications are used to verify the proposed method. The results of prediction are same as the results of existing methods, just same as what happened in the scene, which verifies the effectiveness and applicability of our proposed work.

5. Conclusions

Because PNN has the advantages of low training complexity, high stability, quick convergence, and simple construction, it can be well applied in the prediction of rock burst. In this work, a PNN-based prediction model of rock burst is presented. According to the mechanism of rock burst, rocks' maximum tangential stress [[sigma].sub.[theta]], rocks' uniaxial compressive strength [[sigma].sub.c], rocks' uniaxial tensile strength [[sigma].sub.t] and elastic energy index [W.sub.et] are defined as the criterion indices for rock burst prediction in the proposed PNN-model. Some collected rock burst samples which come from underground rock projects in domestic and abroad and two real-world engineering in China are used to verify the new model. The prediction results demonstrated that the developed PNN-based prediction model is effective and efficient approach to predict rock burst potential grade.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the project supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant No. U1504622, the project supported by the Scientific Research Foundation of Henan Province for Returned Chinese Scholars, China. The authors are grateful for the anonymous reviewers who made constructive comments.

References

Adeli, H. & Panakkat, A. (2009). A probabilistic neural network for earthquake magnitude prediction, Neural Network, 22, 1018-1024.

Adoko, A. C., Gokceoglu, C., Wu, L., & Zuo, Q. J. (2013). Knowledge-based and data-driven fuzzy modeling for rockburst prediction. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 61, 86-95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2013.02.010

Ataa, S., Hazmi, I. R., & Samsudin, S. F. (2017). Insect's visitation on melastoma malabathricum in UKM Bangi forest reserve. Environment Ecosystem Science, 1, 20-22.

Cai, S. J. Zhang, L. H., & Zhou, W. L. (2005). Research on prediction of rock burst in deep hard-rock mines. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 1, 17-20.

Du, Z. J., Xu, M. G., & Liu, Z. P. (2006). Laboratory integrated evaluation method for engineering wall rock rock-burst. Gold, 11, 26-30.

He, Z., Li, X. H., Lu, Y. Y. (2008). Application of BP neural network to the prediction of rockburst in Tongyu Tunning. Chinese Journal of Underground Space and Engineering, 4, 494-498.

Hoek, E., & Brown, E. T. (1997). Practical estimates of rock mass strength, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 34, 1165-1186.

Hou, F. L., Liu, X. M., & Wang, M. C. (1992). Re-analysis of rockburst mechanism and discussion on the gradation of the rockburst intensity. Proceedings of the Third National Conference on Rock Dynamics. Wuhan: Wuhan University of Mapping Technology Press, 448-457.

Jian, Z., Xibing, L., & Xiuzhi, S. (2012). Long-term prediction model of rockburst in underground openings using heuristic algorithms and support vector machines. Safety science, 50, 629-644.

Kidybinski, A. (1981). Bursting liability indices of coal. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 18, 295-304.

Li, D. Q., & Wang, L. G. (2009). Theory and technology of the large-scale mining in hard-rock and deep mine-A case study of Dongguashan copper mine. Beijing: Metallurgical Industry Press.

Mansurov, V. A. (2001). Prediction of rockbursts by analysis of induced seismicity data. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 38, 893-901.

Rutkowski L, "Adaptive probabilistic neural networks for pattern classification in time-varying environment", IEEE Trans Neural Netw, 15 (2004): 811-827.

Specht, D. F. (1990). Probabilistic neural networks. Neural networks, 3, 109-118.

Song, T., Jamshidi, M. M., Lee, R. R. & Huang, M. (2007). A modified probabilistic neural network for partial volume segmentation in brain MR image. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 18, 1424-1432.

Tang, B. Y. (2000). Rockburst Control using Distress Blasting. Ph.D. Dissertation. McGill University.

Tao, Z. Y. (1988). Support design of tunnels subjected to rockbursting. In: Romana (Ed.), ISRM International Symposium, Rock Mechanics and Power Plants, 407-411.

Thaldiri, N. H., Hanafah, M. H., & Halim, A. A. (2017). Effect of modified micro-sand, poly-aluminium chloride and cationic polymer on coagulation-focculation process of landfll leachate. Environment Ecosystem Science, 1, 17-19.

Turchaninov, I. A., Markov, G. A., Gzovsky, M.V., Kazikayev, D. M., Frenze, U. K., Batugin, S. A., & Chabdarova, U. I. (1972). State of stress in the upper part of the Earth's crust based on direct measurements in mines and on tectonophysical and seismological studies. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 6, 229-234. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9201(72)90005-2

Wang, X. Z., Aamir, R. & Ai-Min, F. (2015). Fuzziness based sample categorization for classifier performance improvement. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 29, 1185-1196.

Wang, J., Zeng, Y. , Xu, Y. , & Feng, K. (2017). Analysis of the influence of tunnel portal section construction on slope stability. Geology, Ecology, and Landscapes, 1, 56-65.

Wang, Y. H., Li, W.D., & Li, Q. G., (1998). Method of fuzzy comprehensive evaluations for rockburst prediction. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 15, 493-501.

Wu, D. X. & Yang, J. (2005). Prediction and countermeasure for rockburst in Cangling mountain highway tunnel. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 24, 3965-3971.

Yang, T., Li, G. W. W. (2000). Study on rockburst prediction method based on the prior knowledge. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 19, 429-431.

Zhang, X. Z. (2005). Prediction of rock burst at underground works based on artificial neural network. Yangtze River, 36, 17-18.

Zhang, Z. Y. , Song, J. B., & Li, P. F. "Rock burst comprehensive forecasting method for the chamber group of underground power house", Advance in Earth Sciences, 19 (2004): 451-456 .

Zhen, S., & Gao, W. (2017). Geological tourist route planning of Henan province based on geological relics zoning. Geology, Ecology, and Landscapes, 1, 66-69.

Yu Zhou (*), Tingling Wang

School of Electric Power, North China University of Water Resources and Electric Power, Zhengzhou 450045, China

zhouyumobile@163.com

Record

Manuscript received: 24/05/2017

Accepted for publication: 23/08/2017

How to cite item

Zhou, Y., & Wang, T. (2017). PNN-based Rock burst Prediction Model and Its Applications. Earth Sciences Research Journal, 21(3). 141-146.
Table 1. Criteria only considering stress in surrounding rock.

Scholar      Criteria of rock burst

RUSENSES     [[sigma].sub.[??]]/[[sigma].sub.[??]] < 0.20 (No rock
             burst activity)
             0.20 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sub.[??]], /
             [[sigma].sub.[??]] < 0.30 (light rock burst activity)
             0.30 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sub.[??]] /
             [[sigma].sub.[??]] < 0.55 (Moderate rock burst activity)
             [[sigma].sub.[??]] / [[sigma].sub.[??]] [greater than or
             equal to] 0.55 (Strong rock burst activity)
TANG         [[sigma].sub.[??]] / [[sigma].sub.[??]] > 0.33 (light
             rock burst activity)
             0.16 < [[sigma].sub.[??]] / [[sigma].sub.[??]] < 0.25
             (Moderate rock burst activity)
             [[sigma].sub.[??]]/[[sigma].sub.[??]] < 0.16 (Strong
             rock burst activity)
WANG et al   [[sigma].sub.[??]] / [[sigma].sub.[??]] < 0.30 (No rock
             burst activity)
             0.30 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sub.[??]] /
             [[sigma].sub.[??]] < 0.50 (light rock burst activity)
             0.50 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sub.[??]] /
             [[sigma].sub.[??]] [less than or equal to] 0.70 (Moderate
             rock burst activity)
             [[sigma].sub.[??]]/[[sigma].sub.[??]] > 0.70 (Strong rock
             burst activity)
HOKE and     [[sigma].sub.[??]] /[[sigma].sub.[??]] = 0.34 (Light
             stripping)
BROWN        [[sigma].sub.[??]] / [[sigma].sub.[??]] =0.42 (Strong
             stripping)
             [[sigma].sub.[??]] / [[sigma].sub.[??]] = 0.56 (More
             lining)
             [[sigma].sub.[??]] / [[sigma].sub.[??]] = 0.70 (Strong
             rock burst)
Tao          [[sigma].sub.[??]] / [[sigma].sub.[??]] > 14,5 (No rock
             burst activity)
             5.5 < [[sigma].sub.[??]] / [[sigma].sub.[??]] [less than
             or equal to] 14.5 (light rock burst , with light sound)
             2.5 [less than or equal to] [[sigma].sub.[??]] /
             [[sigma].sub.[??]] < 5.5 (Moderate rock burst, with crack
             sound)
             [[sigma].sub.[??]]/ [[sigma].sub.[??]] < 2.5 (Strong rock
             burst, with strong crack
             sound)
TURCHANINOV  ([[sigma].sub.[??]] +[[sigma].sub.[??]])/
             [[sigma].sub.[??]] < 0.30 (No rock burst activity)
             0.30 < ([[sigma].sub.[??]] + [[sigma].sub.[??]]) /
             [[sigma].sub.[??]] [less than or equal to] 0.50 (Rock
             burst probably)          al., 1972)
             0.50 < ([[sigma].sub.[??]] + [[sigma].sub.[??]])/
             [[sigma].sub.[??]] [less than or equal to] 0.80 (Rockburst
             surely)
             ([[sigma].sub.[??]] + [[sigma].sub.[??]])/
             [[sigma].sub.[??]] > 0.8 (Strong rock burst activity)

Scholar      Source

RUSENSES     (Rusenses,
             1974)

TANG         (Tang, 2000)

WANG et al   (Wang et al.,
             1998)

HOKE and     (Hoek and
BROWN        Brown, 1997)

Tao          (Tao, 1988)

TURCHANINOV  (Turchaninov et

Note: [[sigma].sub.[??]] is the maximum tangential stress of
surrounding rock, MPa; [[sigma].sub.[??]], is the axial stress of
surrounding rock, MPa; [[sigma].sub.[??]] is the maximum in si-tu.
stress of engineering area, MPa; [[sigma].sub.[??]] is the uniaxial
compressive strength of rack, MPa;

Table 2. Standard of classification for intensities of rock burst.

Rock burst
classification  Failure characteristics

Strong
Rock burst      The surrounding rock is burst severely, and suddenly
                thrown out or ejected into the tunnel, accompanied by a
                strong burst and the roaring sound, air spray, storms
                phenomena with continuity, and rapidly expand to the
                deep surrounding rock.
Moderate
Rock burst      The surrounding rock is deformed and fractured, there
                is a considerable number of rock chip ejection, loose
                and sudden destruction, accompanied by crisp crackling,
                and often presented in the local cavern of surrounding
                rock.
Light
Rock burst      The surrounding rock is deformed, cracked or rib
                spilled, there is a weak sound and no ejection
                phenomenon.
None
Rock burst      No sound of rock burst and rock burst activities.

Table 3. Collected samples of rock burst.

No.  [[sigma].sub.[theta]](MPa)  [[sigma].sub.c](MPa)


 1              18.8             178
 2              11               115
 3              12.3             237.1
 4              21.8             160
 5              20.9             160
 6              12.1             160
 7              30.9              82.56
 8              61               171.5
 9              34.15             54.2
10              69.8             198
11              25.49             54.2
12              48.75            180
13              62.5             175
14              75               180
15              57               180
16              89               236
17              50               130
IS              55.4             176
19              48               120
20              63               115
21              49.5             110
22              55.6             256.5
23              72.07            147.09
24              89.56            190.3
25              89.56            170.28
26              89.56            187.17
27              54.2             133.99
28             108               140
29              89               128.6
30              91.3             225.6
31             108.4             138.4
32             105               171.3
33             105               237.16
34             105               304.21

No.  [[sigma].sub.t](MPa)  [W.sub.et]  Actual      Source
                                       conditions

 1    5.7                   7.4        1           (Wang et al., 1998)
 2    5                     5.7        1           (Wang et al., 1998)
 3   17.66                  6.9        1           (Du et al., 2006 )
 4    5.2                   2.22       1           (Wu and Yang, 2005)
 5    5.2                   2.22       1           (Wu and Yang, 2005)
 6    5.2                   2.22       1           (Wu and Yang, 2005)
 7    6.5                   3.2        2           (Du et al.,2006 )
 8   22.6                   7.5        2           (Wang et al., 1998)
 9   12.1                   3.17       2           (Cai et al, 2005)
10   22.4                   4.68       2           (Cai et al., 2005)
11    2.49                  3.17       2           (Zhang 2005)
12    8.3                   5          3           (Wang et al, 2009)
13    7.25                  5          3           (Wang et al, 2009)
14    8.3                   5          3           (Wang et al, 2009)
15    8.3                   5          3           (Wang et al, 2009)
16    8.3                   5          3           (Wang et al, 2009)
17    6                     5          3           (Wang et al, 2009)
IS    7.3                   9.3        3           (Wang et al, 2009)
19    1.5                   5.8        3           (Zhao 2005)
20    1.5                   5.7        3           (Zhao 2005)
21    1.5                   5.7        3           (Zhao 2005)
22   18.9                   9.1        3           (Du et al.,2006 )
23   10.98                  6.53       3           (Zhang 2005)
24   17.13                  3.97       3           (Li and Wang, 2009)
25   12.07                  5.76       3           (Li and Wang, 2009)
26   19.17                  7.27       3           (Li and Wang, 2009)
27    9.09                  7.08       3           (Li and Wang, 2009)
28    8                     5.5        4           (Wang et al, 2009)
29   13.2                   4.9        4           (Duet al.,2006)
30   17.2                   7.3        4           (Du et al.,2006)
31    7.7                   1.9        4           (Cad et al., 2005)
32   22.6                   7.27       4           (Cai et al., 2005)
33   17.66                  6.38       4           (Cai et al., 2005)
34   20.9                  10.57       4           (Cai et al., 2005)

Table 4. Testing samples.

No.  [[sigma].sub.[theta]](MPa)  [[sigma].sub.c] (MPa)


 1    75                         170
 2    43.40                      123
 3    62.60                      165
 4   105                         128.61
 5   105                         306.58
 b     7.50                       52
 7    24.93                       99.70
 8    14.96                       99.70
 9    34.15                       54.20
10    54.20                      134

No.  [[sigma].sub.t](MPa)  [W.sub.et]  Actual      Source
                                       conditions

 1   11.30                 9           3           (Hou et al., 1992)
 2    6                    5           3           (Hou et al., 1992)
 3    9.40                 9           3           (Hou et al., 1992)
 4   13                    5.76        4           (Cat et al., 2005)
 5   13.90                 6.38        4           (Cadet al., 2005)
 b    3.70                 1.30        1           (Yang and Li, 2000)
 7    4.80                 3.50        1           (Yang and Li, 2000)
 8    4.80                 3.50        1           (Yang and Li, 2000)
 9   12.10                 3.17        2           (Cai et al., 2005)
10    9.10                 7.10        3           (Cai et al., 2005)

Table 5. Comparison of calculation results by different methods.

No.  Actual conditions  SVM  BP  LVQ  PNN

 1   3                  3    3   3    3
 2   3                  3    3   3    3
 3   3                  3    3   3    3
 4   4                  4    4   4    4
 S   4                  4    3   3    4
 6   1                  2    1   1    1
 7   1                  1    2   1    1
 8   1                  1    1   1    1
 9   2                  2    2   3    2
10   3                  3    3   3    3

Table 6. Prediction of rock burst in depth of 900 m at the cross
section of K21+680 of Tangyu tunnel.

[[sigma].sub.[theta]](MPa)  [[sigma].sub.c](MPa)  [[sigma].sub.t](MPa)

47.56                       58.5                  3.5

[[sigma].sub.[theta]](MPa)  [W.sub.et]  Prediction result

47.56                       5           light

[[sigma].sub.[theta]](MPa)  Actual conditions

47.56                       light

Table 7. A case of Qinling tunnel is analyzed by using our proposed
method.

Location            [[sigma].sub.[theta]](MPa)  [[sigma].sub.c](MPa)


Qmling Tunnel
of Xikatig Railway  56.1                        131.99
Dyk77+176
Qinling Tunnel
of Xikatig Railway  70.3                        128.3
T2

Location            [[sigma].sub.t](MPa)  [W.sub.et]  PNN


Qmling Tunnel
of Xikatig Railway  9.44                  7.44        Moderate
Dyk77+176
Qinling Tunnel
of Xikatig Railway  8.7                   6.4         Moderate
T2

Location            BP        UMM       Actual
                                        condition

Qmling Tunnel
of Xikatig Railway  Moderate  Moderate  Moderate
Dyk77+176
Qinling Tunnel
of Xikatig Railway  Moderate  Moderate  Moderate
T2
COPYRIGHT 2017 Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Departamento de Geociencias
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2017 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:probabilistic neural network
Author:Zhou, Yu; Wang, Tingling
Publication:Earth Sciences Research Journal
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:9CHIN
Date:Sep 1, 2017
Words:4996
Previous Article:Online Outlier Detection for Time-varying Time Series on Improved ARHMM in Geological Mineral Grade Analysis Process.
Next Article:Analysis of October 23 (Mw 7.2) and November 9 (Mw 5.6), 2011 Van Earthquakes Using Long-Term GNSS Time Series.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters