sustainability
Article
Prediction of the Stability of Various Tunnel Shapes Based on
Hoek–Brown Failure Criterion Using Artificial Neural
Network (ANN)
Thira Jearsiripongkul 1 , Suraparb Keawsawasvong 2 , Chanachai Thongchom 2






Citation: Jearsiripongkul, T.;
Keawsawasvong, S.; Thongchom, C.;
Ngamkhanong, C. Prediction of the
Stability of Various Tunnel Shapes
Based on Hoek–Brown Failure
Criterion Using Artificial Neural
Network (ANN). Sustainability 2022,
14, 4533. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su14084533
Academic Editor: Domenico Mazzeo
Received: 14 March 2022
Accepted: 8 April 2022
Published: 11 April 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4533. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084533
and Chayut Ngamkhanong 3, *
1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Thammasat School of Engineering,
Thammasat University, Pathum Thani 12120, Thailand; jthira@engr.tu.ac.th
2 Department of Civil Engineering, Thammasat School of Engineering, Thammasat University,
Pathum Thani 12120, Thailand; ksurapar@engr.tu.ac.th (S.K.); tchanach@engr.tu.ac.th (C.T.)
3 Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University,
Bangkok 10330, Thailand
* Correspondence: chayut.ng@chula.ac.th
Abstract: In this paper, artificial neural network (ANN) models are presented in order to enable a
prompt assessment of the stability factor of tunnels in rock masses based on the Hoek–Brown (HB)
failure criterion. Importantly, the safety assessment is one of the serious concerns for constructing
tunnels and requires a reliable and accurate stability analysis. However, it is challenging for engineers
to construct finite element limit analysis (FELA) algorithms with the HB failure criterion for tunnel
stability solutions in rock masses. For the first time, a machine-learning-aided prediction of tunnel
stability based on the HB failure criterion is proposed in this paper. Three different shapes of tunnels,
i.e., heading tunnel, dual square tunnels, and dual circular tunnels, are considered. The inputs include
four dimensionless parameters for the heading tunnel including the cover-depth ratio, the normalized
uniaxial compressive strength, the geological strength index (GSI), and the mi parameter. Moreover,
dual square and circular tunnels include one more additional parameter namely the distance ratio.
The results present the best ANN models for each tunnel shape, providing very reliable solutions for
predicting the tunnel stability based on the HB failure criterion.
Keywords: stability factor; rock tunnel; Hoek–Brown failure criterion; artificial neural network;
machine-learning-aided prediction
1. Introduction
A tunnel in a rock mass is commonly constructed using the bored tunnel technique.
There are conventional and mechanized methods that can be utilized in the construction
depending on the dimensions of the tunnel and the characteristics of the rock mass. One
of the conventional methods is to use blasting techniques for tunnel constructions in hard
rock formations, where the issue of support is usually minor. On the other hand, tunnels
may be constructed in weak rock formations by using mechanical excavators, in which
case, heavy supports, such as shotcrete, anchors/bolts, and steel ribs, are required during
the construction. In addition to the blasting and drilling methods, a tunnel boring machine
(TBM) is an efficient technique for tunnel construction in rock masses. This TBM method
can also be designed to excavate noncircular tunnels such as tunnels with square shapes.
Commonly, an open-type TBM is used for tunnel construction in hard rock. For fractured
rocks and highly broken rocks, a single-shield or double-shield TBM is widely utilized
to ensure the safety of rock masses while constructing. To precisely evaluate the tunnel
stability in rocks during tunnel construction, an effective failure criterion for capturing rock
collapse is necessary.
The Hoek–Brown (HB) failure criterion was first created analytically in the 1980s by
curve-fitting triaxial test data of whole and jointed rocks and is known as the original HB
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4533 2 of 18

criterion 1980 (Hoek and Brown [1]). Hoek et al. [2] performed changes to the original
version in an attempt to optimize the effect of the highly fractured property. This version
from 2002 has now become the most famous HB failure criterion. Hoek gives a quick
overview of the failure criteria’s origins and progress [3,4]. The HB failure criterion has a
more intricate nonlinear expression than the linear Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion, most
notably the reliance of rock mass shear strength on the nonlinearity of the minor principal
compressive stress. In order to appropriately reflect the failure of jointed rock masses, the
HB failure criteria require extra strength factors.
Although this HB failure criterion may be employed to correctly define the failure
characteristics of diverse rock types, it has been used to examine multiple challenges in
the area of rock engineering, such as subterranean entrances and caves (e.g., Carranza-
Torres and Fairhurst [5]; Carranza-Torres [6]; Fraldi and Guarracino [7]; Martin et al. [8];
Sakurai [9]; Senent et al. [10]; Swift and Reddish [11]; Yang and Huang [12,13]), bearing
capacity and shaft resistance of foundations (e.g., AlKhafaji et al. [14]; Chakraborty and Ku-
mar [15]; Clausen [16]; Keshavarz and Kumarm [17]; Merifield, et al. [18]; Saada et al. [19];
Serrano and Olalla [20,21]; Yodsomjai et al. [22]; Keawsawasvong [23]; Keawsawasvong
et al. [24,25]; Yang and Yin [26]), and stability analysis of rock slopes (Yodsomjai et al. [27];
Deng et al. [28]; Li et al. [29,30]; Shen and Karakus, [31]; Shen et al. [32]; Yang et al. [33];
You et al. [34]).
The finite element limit analysis (FELA) technique developed by Sloan [35] is a strong
tool for obtaining the required stability results. Plastic bounds theorems, finite element
discretization, and nonlinear programming are all applied in this method. Following a
completely plastic material with an associated flow rule, the relevant upper and lower
bound theorems (UB and LB) are established. An exact solution should be able to be
bracketed from both above (UB) and below (LB). The HB model was combined with the
FELA (Kumar and Rahaman [36]) to produce tunnel stability solutions to analyze the
stability of unlined tunnels in rock masses. As a result, a number of prior studies have
lately focused on tunnel stability in HB rock masses with different shapes. Keawsawasvong
and Ukritchon [37] investigated the stability of a single circular tunnel, whereas Ukritchon
and Keawsawasvong [38] and Xiao et al. [39] investigated the stability of a single square
tunnel and a single rectangular tunnel, respectively. Ukritchon and Keawsawasvong [40]
have explored the rock stability solutions for plane strain heading tunnels. Furthermore,
Zhang et al. [41] and Xiao et al. [42] evaluated the stability of dual unlined circular and
square tunnels, respectively.
The aforementioned studies relate to the use of FELA with the HB failure criterion to
investigate the stability of tunnels that are located in rock masses. However, soft computing
emerged as a viable alternative to the traditional analytic and numerical methodologies.
An artificial neural network is a form of soft computing technology (ANN). This method
can acquire from a large enough dataset employed to generate a black-box prediction
model to utilize the results in the form of a closed simple equation. The ANN approach
has been used to determine rock properties in the field of rock engineering (e.g., Gholami
et al. [43]; Mert et al. [44]; Miah et al. [45]; Mohamad Ali Ridho et al. [46]; Ocak and
Seker [47]; Yang and Zhang [48]; Keawsawaswong et al. [49]). Alavi and Sadrossadat [50],
Millán et al. [51], and Ziaee et al. [52] applied the ANN approach to develop models for
forecasting the consequences of problems with foundation bearing capacity on rock masses.
Li et al. [53] utilized the dataset acquired from FELA with the HB failure criterion to suggest
the scheme for predicting stability solutions of rock slopes using an extreme learning neural
network and a terminal steepest descent method. Recently, Naghadehi et al. [54] have
used the ANN approach to investigate the face stability of mechanized shield tunneling
in cohesive-frictional soils. However, no prior research has used the ANN approach to
examine the stability of tunnels in rock masses using FELA with the HB failure criterion.
This research created a practical tool based on the ANN approach that can quickly evaluate
tunnel stability for varied designs.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4533 3 of 18

2. Problem Definition and Hoek–Brown Failure Criterion

The Hoek–Brown (HB) failure criteria (Hoek and Brown [1]; Hoek et al. [2]) is a well-
known rock failure model that accounts for the minor principal (compressive) stress’s
nonlinearity. The HB failure criterion is expressed mathematically as a power-law relation-
ship between the major and minor principal stresses (i.e., σ1 and σ3 ). Considering tensile
normal stresses as a positive parameter, the HB failure criterion is as follows:
 a
σ3 = σ1 − −mb σ1 (−σci )(1− a)/a + s(−σci )1/a (1)

where σci is the uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock mass while mb , s, and a are
expressed in Equations (2)–(4).

− GSI −20
    
1 1
a= + exp − exp (2)
2 6 15 3

GSI − 100
 
mb = mi exp (3)
28 − 14DF
GSI − 100
 
s = exp (4)
9 − 3DF
The geological strength index (GSI) usually ranges from 10 to 100 (from a heavily
damaged rock mass to a completely undamaged rock mass). The degree of disturbance is
denoted by DF, which normally runs between 0 and 1 (in situ rock masses that have not
been disturbed to in situ rock masses that have been severely disrupted). The value of mi is
normally between 5 and 35. This is a constant that is proportional to the frictional strength
of an entire rock mass.
Figure 1 shows three different 2D unlined tunnels under a plane strain condition,
namely the circular, the square, and the tunnel heading. In this study, since a plane strain
condition is assumed, the assumption for the circular and the square tunnels is that the
problem represents a very long unlined tunnel. The 2D tunnel heading problem is treated
as a longwall mining problem with an infinitely long flat wall. The tunnels have a diameter
(D) and a cover depth (C) above the crown. The rock mass has a unit weight of γ, and at
the surface area of rock masses, a uniform surcharge pressure at collapse (σs ) is applied
over the area. It is hypothesized that there is no disturbance in the surrounding rock mass
during tunnel excavation and the undisturbed in situ condition is applicable to the HB
model with the disturbance factor DF = 0. For the problem of dual unlined circular and
square tunnels, the center-to-center distance between the tunnels is defined as S, as shown
in Figure 2.

Figure 1. Problem definition.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 4533 4 of 18

Figure 2. The center-to-center distance.

According to the above-mentioned parameters, seven design parameters were consid-

ered in this study (i.e., C, D, S, σci , GSI, mi , γ). Using the dimensionless output parameter
(σs /σci ), where σs is the uniform surcharge at collapse. Equation (5) represents the stability
factor (σs /σci ) as a function of five dimensionless parameters.

σs C γD S
= f( , , mi , GSI, ) (5)
σci D σci D

where S/D is the distance ratio; C/D is the cover-depth ratio; γD/σci is the normalized unit
weight ratio; GSI is the geological strength index; mi is the frictional strength of intact rock;
and σs /σci is the stability factor. It should be noted that, for the tunnel heading problem,
the distance ratio S/D was not taken into account. It is noted that the training datasets
were collected from the FELA solutions derived from previously published works. The
aim of this study is to develop a nonlinear input–output mapping employing an extreme
machine learning approach to develop a neural network model for a system of tunnels in
rock masses.

3. Method
3.1. Artificial Neural Network (ANN)
An artificial neural network (ANN) is a data prediction framework that is based
on pre-existing elements taken from the human mind’s structure. When dealing with
intricate information, it simulates the nervous system’s processing technique in the human
brain. The applications of the ANN have been proved to be a very efficient soft-computing
approach in the civil engineering field [55–64]. A neural network is a computer model made
up of many interconnected nodes (or neurons). This network is made up of neurons that
are in the form of functional blocks. Weights are used to link neurons, which are typically
chosen randomly at the beginning. As the learning process progresses, the weights in the
network are gradually raised or lowered until they reach the required level that can be
used to predict the target with reasonable accuracy (Park and Lek [65]). This method is
particularly well suited for addressing nonlinear problems.
As shown in Figure 3, the required output may be achieved in a trained neural network
by accepting inputs while taking into consideration the updated weights. The network
improves over time by comparing the intended input and output and identifying the
mistake. The accuracy of the prediction model and the projected results are revealed by the
machine learning model’s periodic improvement.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4533 5 of 18

Figure 3. Artificial neural network model.

The general ANN architecture consists of three main layers: input layer, hidden layer,
and output layer, as shown in Figure 4. Nonlinear input–output relationships may be
accommodated by the feed-forward neural network. The datasets provide various types
of data to the input layer. These are the data that the neural network is supposed to learn
or process. Data from the input layer goes via hidden layers, which are made up of the
number of hidden neurons in the hidden layer, which may be selected by trial and error.
Generally, adding more neurons to a model can improve its performance until it overfits.
The performance evaluation methods will be discussed later in the next section. The input
information is converted by the hidden layers into content that the output layer may utilize.

Figure 4. ANN architecture.

3.2. Data Collection

The datasets were gathered from FELA solutions from prior studies (Keawsawasvong and
Ukritchon [37]; Ukritchon and Keawsawasvong [38,40]; Xiao et al. [42]; Zhang et al. [41]). As
indicated in Table 1, all imported datasets were randomly separated into three portions for
training (70%), validation (15%), and testing (15%), respectively. By altering the weights
that are used to suit the training set, the datasets for training are utilized for learning. The
validation sets are required to modify the model selection to conduct the final optimization
and determination of models, such as picking the number of hidden neurons and hidden
layers, whereas the testing set is solely used to demonstrate the generalization of the
trained models.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4533 6 of 18

Table 1. Number of datasets.

Types Training (70%) Testing (15%) Validation (15%)

Heading tunnel 756 162 162
Dual square tunnels 1386 297 297
Dual circular tunnels 292 62 62

Tables 2–4 illustrate the input parameters affecting the stability factor (σs /σci ) consid-
ered in this study including C, D, S, σci , GSI, mi , and γ. It is notable that these parameters
were normalized before being applied to the ANN model. The input parameters for the
heading tunnel included four dimensionless parameters: γD/σci , C/D, GSI, and mi , whilst
the input dimensionless parameters for dual square and dual circular tunnels included
five parameters since they used S/D as an additional factor. Note that in the works by
Keawsawasvong and Ukritchon [37] for a single circular tunnel and by Ukritchon and
Keawsawasvong [38] for a single square tunnel, the value of S/D is set to be 100 by assuming
that tunnels are far away from each other. Note that all datasets were directly taken from
other previous articles [37,38,40–42].

Table 2. Input parameters for heading tunnel (Ukritchon and Keawsawasvong [40]).

Parameters Minimum Maximum

γD/σci 0 0.01
C/D 1 5
GSI 20 100
mi 5 30

Table 3. Input parameters for dual square tunnels (Ukritchon and Keawsawasvong [38] and Xiao
et al. [42]).

Parameters Minimum Maximum

S/D 1.25 100
γD/σci 0 0.01
C/D 1 5
GSI 50 100
mi 5 30

Table 4. Input parameters for dual circular tunnels (Keawsawasvong and Ukritchon [38] and Zhang
et al. [41]).

Parameters Minimum Maximum

S/D 1.25 100
γD/σci 0 0.02
C/D 1 5
GSI 40 100
mi 5 35

3.3. Performance Evaluation of ANN Architecture

The mean squared error (MSE) and the coefficient of determination (R2 ) are two
statistical techniques employed in this work to examine the efficiency of the developed
models. The average value of the cost function used to minimize the sum of squared errors
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4533 7 of 18

(SSE) while fitting a regression model is known as the MSE. This is the difference between
the expected and actual value’s mean square error. The MSE may be determined by the
expression in Equation (6) (Atici [66]). It is important to note that a model with a lower
MSE value implies a model that is more accurate.

n
1
∑y 0

2
MSE = i − yi (6)
n
i =1

where n denotes the number of samples and (y0 i − yi ) is the difference between the actual
and predicted values on the testing datasets. In addition, the R2 value was also employed to
aid in determining the efficiency of the trained models, which is expressed in Equation (7).
The percentage of real-value variations that can be impacted by the modification of the
anticipated value is represented by the R2 value. The R2 number might be somewhere
between 0 and 1. The numerator element of Equation (7) reflects the total of the squared
difference between the real and predicted values, similar to the MSE. The sum of the
squared difference between the true value and the mean is the denominator component
(Bilim et al. [67]). If the result is close to zero, the model does not reflect the data adequately.
If the outcome is 1, the model is regarded to be error-free. Therefore, the greater the model
fitting effect, the higher the R2 value.
2
∑in=1 (y0 i − yi )
R2 = 1 − 2
(7)
∑in=1 (yi − y)

3.4. ANN Architecture

To determine the output parameters, this research used the Levenberg–Marquardt (LM)
back-propagation algorithm. LM is a numerical nonlinear minimization method that adjusts
weight and bias values according to its algorithm. The LM technique aims to achieve second-
order training speeds without requiring the Hessian matrix to be computed. The importance
of the LM algorithm is that it may attain the benefits of both the Gauss–Newton technique
and the gradient descent algorithm concurrently by adjusting parameters. Importantly, the
LM algorithm can address the shortcomings of other algorithms. It should be noted that
the LM algorithm is an improved Newton approach, as seen in Equation (8).
h i −1
xk+1 = xk − J T J + uI JT e (8)

where I stands for identity matrix, e for vector, J for Jacobian matrix, xk for weight at epoch
k, and u for damping factor. To enhance accuracy, u can be increased or reduced in response
to the final result of the steps, hence increasing the performance function. Even though
it requires more storage than some other approaches, it is strongly suggested that this
technique should be adopted as a first-choice supervised algorithm.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Optimal ANN Architecture
The present work considers and compares several distinct ANN architectural models
by optimizing the number of hidden layers and neurons to determine the optimum ANN
model for estimating the stability factor of three different kinds of tunnels. According to
the preliminary analysis, just one hidden layer is capable of accurately predicting values in
comparison to the target values as measured by MSE and R2 . This is also advantageous
in terms of the time consumed. The model is described as “input parameters–number of
neurons–output parameters.” In this section, the MSE and R2 values are calculated to give
a sense of how well the model does. The model starts with one hidden neuron in a single
hidden layer. If the performance of the model is unsatisfactory, the further training of a
new ANN model with a higher number of hidden neurons should be performed until the
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4533 8 of 18

neural network fits the target and tends to be stabilized even after a further increase in the
number of neurons.

4.1.1. Heading Tunnel

The performance of ANN models for heading tunnels is shown in Table 5. Notably, as
the number of hidden neurons increases, the performance of the ANN model improves.
However, the number of neurons should not be excessive, since overfitting might damage
the model’s performance. The MSE and R2 values are shown versus the number of hidden
neurons in Figure 5. When the number of hidden neurons in the hidden layer exceeds 5,
the performance of the ANN models appears to stabilize. Model 4 with the architecture of
4-7-1 was chosen as the best ANN model in this situation since it had the lowest MSE value
among the models.

Table 5. Performance of ANN models for heading tunnel.

Training Testing Validation All

Model Architecture
MSE R2 MSE R2 MSE R2 MSE R2
1 4-1-1 5.519 0.980 4.612 0.981 5.475 0.978 2.385 0.980
2 4-3-1 2.001 0.992 1.957 0.994 2.374 0.991 0.912 0.992
3 4-5-1 0.086 1.000 0.097 1.000 0.100 1.000 0.042 1.000
4 4-7-1 0.016 1.000 0.012 1.000 0.017 1.000 0.007 1.000
5 4-9-1 0.025 1.000 0.036 1.000 0.038 1.000 0.012 1.000
6 4-11-1 0.068 1.000 0.064 1.000 0.090 1.000 0.032 1.000

Figure 5. Performance evaluation of heading tunnel versus the number of hidden neurons.

Figure 6 presents the predicted value derived by the optimal model (Model 4 with
seven hidden neurons) against the target value of the stability factor. This figure includes the
comparison in training, validation, testing, and complete sets of the heading tunnel model,
respectively. It was found that the predicted values in all the cases completely matched the
target values, with an R2 value of 0.9999. It can be concluded that the suggested optimal
model can be used to accurately predict the stability factor of the heading tunnel.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4533 9 of 18

Figure 6. Predicted value versus formula for the optimal ANN architecture (Model 4: 4-7-1) for
heading tunnel: (a) training set; (b) testing set; (c) validation set; (d) complete set.

4.1.2. Dual Square Tunnels

Table 6 presents the performance of ANN models for dual square tunnels considering
different ANN models. Figure 7 presents the MSE and R2 values against the number of
hidden neurons for predicting the stability factor for dual square tunnels. It was discovered
that the performance of the ANN models tended to stabilize when the number of hidden
neurons in the hidden layer exceeded 9. In this case, Model 8 with the architecture of 5-15-1
was selected as an ANN model for dual square tunnels as it showed the lowest MSE value
among the models. This indicates that the more input parameters, the greater number of
hidden neurons required to improve the model.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4533 10 of 18

Table 6. Performance of ANN models for dual square tunnels.

Training Testing Validation All

Model Architecture
MSE R2 MSE R2 MSE R2 MSE R2
1 5-1-1 3.262 0.919 3.329 0.918 3.535 0.915 3.313 0.918
2 5-3-1 1.248 0.969 1.390 0.967 1.332 0.966 1.282 0.968
3 5-5-1 0.515 0.987 0.491 0.989 0.481 0.988 0.507 0.987
4 5-7-1 0.316 0.992 0.303 0.993 0.389 0.991 0.325 0.992
5 5-9-1 0.085 0.998 0.095 0.998 0.120 0.997 0.092 0.998
6 5-11-1 0.049 0.999 0.096 0.998 0.075 0.998 0.060 0.999
7 5-13-1 0.016 1.000 0.020 1.000 0.027 0.999 0.018 1.000
8 5-15-1 0.010 1.000 0.011 1.000 0.017 0.999 0.011 1.000
9 5-17-1 0.027 0.999 0.032 0.999 0.038 0.999 0.040 0.999
10 5-19-1 0.039 0.999 0.042 0.999 0.043 0.999 0.030 0.999

Figure 7. Performance evaluation of dual square tunnels versus the number of hidden neurons.

Figure 8 presents the predicted value derived by the optimal model (Model 8 with
15 hidden neurons) against the target value of the stability factor. This figure includes the
comparison in training, validation, testing, and complete sets of the square tunnel model,
respectively. It was found that the predicted values in all the cases completely matched the
target values, with an R2 value of 0.9998. It can be concluded that the suggested optimal
model can be used to accurately predict the stability factor of the square tunnel.

4.1.3. Dual Circular Tunnels

Table 7 depicts the performance of the ANN models for dual circular tunnels consider-
ing different ANN models. Figure 9 presents the MSE and R2 values versus the number of
hidden neurons for predicting the stability factor for dual square tunnels. It was discovered
that when the number of hidden neurons in an ANN model exceeded 9, the performance
tended to stabilize. In this case, Model 6 with the architecture of 5-11-1 was chosen to
be the best ANN model for dual circular tunnels, even though Model 8 seemed to have
similar results. This is because the lesser number of neurons, the lesser the time consumed
for computation.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4533 11 of 18

Figure 8. Predicted value versus formula for the optimal ANN architecture (Model 8: 5-15-1) for dual
square tunnels: (a) training set; (b) testing set; (c) validation set; (d) complete set.

Table 7. Performance of ANN models for dual circular tunnels.

Training Testing Validation All

Model Architecture
MSE R2 MSE R2 MSE R2 MSE R2
1 5-1-1 2.495 0.972 1.259 0.969 2.514 0.974 2.313 0.972
2 5-3-1 1.442 0.983 1.155 0.983 1.375 0.984 1.389 0.983
3 5-5-1 0.502 0.993 0.574 0.993 0.434 0.996 0.503 0.994
4 5-7-1 0.320 0.996 0.340 0.995 0.252 0.996 0.313 0.996
5 5-9-1 0.020 1.000 0.017 1.000 0.204 0.997 0.047 0.999
6 5-11-1 0.035 1.000 0.022 1.000 0.004 1.000 0.029 1.000
7 5-13-1 0.037 0.999 0.036 0.999 0.055 1.000 0.039 1.000
8 5-15-1 0.035 1.000 0.018 1.000 0.014 1.000 0.029 1.000
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4533 12 of 18

Figure 9. Performance evaluation of dual circular tunnels versus the number of hidden neurons.

Figure 10 presents the predicted value derived by the optimal model (Model 6 with
11 hidden neurons) against the target value of the stability factor. This figure includes
the comparison in training, validation, testing, and complete sets of the circular tunnel
model, respectively. It was found that the predicted values in all the cases completely
matched the target values, with an R2 value of 0.99986. It can be concluded that this model
can be reliably used for further prediction or investigation of the stability factor of the
circular tunnel.

Figure 10. Predicted value versus formula for the optimal ANN architecture (Model 6: 5-11-1) for
dual square tunnels: (a) training set; (b) testing set; (c) validation set; (d) complete set.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4533 13 of 18

4.2. Neural Network Constants

After achieving the best networks for each tunnel shape, the estimated general func-
tions may be used to obtain the stability factor, taking into account the weighted inputs and
the transfer function. Figure 11 presents the multiple-layer networks that specify the proper
notation and superscript on the weight matrix. This network is beneficial for computing
approximate values of generic functions. It may arbitrarily estimate any function with a
limited number of discontinuities reliably if the hidden layer has enough neurons. The
final weights for each parameter are employed in this section to examine their effect on the
stability factor. The size of the weight matrix and bias of the proposed network for heading
tunnel is shown in Figure 11 as an example. Using the tansig function, weights, and bias, a
predictive Equation (9) may be built.

Figure 11. Multilayer networks with weight matrix.

 
N J
Predicted value = 

∑ IW2 tansig(∑ IW1 x + b
i ij j 1i ) + b2 

(9)
i =1 j =1

where x is the input variables;

J is the number of input variables;
N is the number of hidden neurons.
IW1 and IW2 represent the weight matrices in the hidden and output layers, respec-
tively. b1i and b2 are the bias in the hidden and output layers, respectively, associated
with the proposed ANN models. Hidden weight (IW1) is employed based on the number
of hidden neurons (N) and input parameters (J). The output matrices comprise just one
column in this situation. Tables 8–10 present the neural network constants of the optimal
models for the stability factor estimation of heading tunnel, dual square tunnels, and dual
circular tunnels, respectively. These values obtained from the proposed networks were
utilized to construct the prediction equations presented in Equation (9). Note that different
tunnels have different sets of matrices or constants used for constructing the prediction
models. The proposed networks can be used to perform the test on new sets of parameters
within specified limits to obtain the stability of the tunnels.
Sensitivity analysis was performed based on the optimal neural networks with weight
matrix and bias as shown in Tables 8–10 for each case. In order to compare the results with
a similar physical arrangement of the tunnel, for dual tunnels, S/D was set as 100 since it
can be assumed as a single tunnel by using the ANN model of the dual tunnels. Figure 12
shows the influence of GSI on σs /σci of different shapes of a single tunnel. The results show
that the stability factor of the plane strain heading was the largest, and it was then followed
by the circular tunnel and the square tunnel. This comparison figure is useful and is of
great value to design practitioners in making engineering decisions.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4533 14 of 18

Table 8. Neural network constants of the proposed ANN model for heading tunnel.

Hidden Layer Hidden Layer Hidden Weight IW1

Neurons (i) Bias (b1 ) γD/σ ci (j = 1) C/D (j = 2) GSI (j = 3) mi (j = 4)
1 −6.6006 0.0044 −3.6682 0.9791 −0.6572
2 −2.2644 0.0012 0.2124 0.8287 −0.1974
3 −0.3934 0.2193 −0.8773 1.0044 −2.2201
4 −3.1256 3.7232 −3.3539 2.7255 −3.1364
5 −2.5595 0.0001 −0.5057 0.8168 0.2294
6 −2.3733 0.0007 0.2690 0.8005 0.0179
7 2.2609 −0.00003 0.0912 −0.8024 −0.1974

Output Layer Output Layer Output Weight IW2

Node (k) Bias (b2 ) i=1 i=2 i=3 i=4 i=5 i=6 i=7
1 8.5287 0.5869 −7.2605 −0.0051 0.0007 −6.3671 11.2289 −11.3472

Table 9. Neural network constants of the proposed ANN model for dual square tunnels.

Hidden
Hidden Layer Hidden Weight IW1
Layer
Neurons (i) Bias (b1 )
S/D (j = 1) γD/σ ci (j = 2) C/D (j = 3) GSI (j = 4) mi (j = 5)
1 2.4379 −0.2416 −0.0091 −0.1464 −0.6384 −0.2425
2 −4.2297 3.8146 0.0955 −0.0966 −0.4654 0.4160
3 1.3445 −1.7602 0.0965 −0.0945 −0.4694 0.4143
4 5.0660 −4.3580 −0.0124 −0.4627 0.0757 0.7761
5 1.0157 0.3386 −0.0015 0.2077 −0.4817 −0.3714
6 1.7050 −0.1247 0.0073 −0.3758 −0.3033 −0.6080
7 1.8469 −0.1513 0.0061 −0.4596 −0.2935 −0.7058
8 5.0470 14.2061 4.4309 −1.7025 0.5633 0.4359
9 1.0834 −0.2655 0.0328 −1.2894 0.1153 −1.8314
10 1.1395 −3.4332 0.0112 0.4669 0.7544 −0.6869
11 12.2357 20.5959 10.9042 −0.0861 −0.4985 −0.3001
12 2.7924 0.4231 −0.0030 0.4398 −0.6737 −0.3982
13 4.5605 8.7790 0.3688 −1.3073 0.5646 0.4172
14 −1.9455 −3.4347 0.5262 0.3817 −0.5231 −0.1917
15 −3.6556 −4.7245 0.9739 0.5158 −0.5399 −0.1780
Output layer Output layer Output Weight IW2
node (k) bias (b2 ) i=1 i=2 i=3 i=4 i=5 i=6 i=7 i=8
−8.0197 −9.2751 9.1938 0.0720 0.6552 −7.6816 5.9656 −15.7521
1 −3.2750 i=9 i = 10 i = 11 i = 12 i = 13 i = 14 i = 15
0.0232 −0.4771 −6.6730 8.6847 16.5999 −15.9647 8.0483
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4533 15 of 18

Table 10. Neural network constants of the proposed ANN model for dual circular tunnels.

Hidden Hidden Layer Bias Hidden Weight IW1

Layer (b1 )
Neurons (i) S/D (j = 1) γD/σ ci (j = 2) C/D (j = 3) GSI (j = 4) mi (j = 5)
1 −1.9695 −0.4999 −0.0064 0.3351 1.4876 0.3391
2 −1.0864 0.7704 −0.1202 −0.0143 0.1572 2.9596
3 0.4330 1.7916 0.2866 0.5773 2.6658 −0.5473
4 −3.7899 −5.5248 0.0186 −2.8903 4.0735 0.6479
5 0.0192 1.0106 −0.0076 −0.1760 −0.6407 −0.0494
6 −0.0706 −0.8518 0.0109 0.2271 0.7667 −0.1224
7 −0.0546 −1.9809 0.0056 −0.6316 0.6451 0.0941
8 −0.5649 −1.6641 0.0045 −0.7337 0.6484 −0.1013
9 8.3738 5.5248 0.0144 1.9306 −0.4999 −0.4814
10 −6.2733 −1.8782 −0.0098 2.3852 2.5095 −1.8722
11 −1.6581 −1.9002 0.0218 0.7413 2.3692 −0.6422
Output Output Output weight IW2
layer node layer bias
(k) (b2 ) i = 1 i = 2 i = 3 i = 4 i = 5 i=6 i=7 i=8 i=9 i = 10 i = 11
1 −1.1673 1.1268 0.0081 −0.0179 −0.5102 −4.7683 −2.3401 −3.6506 2.3998 1.3073 −0.2156 −0.3798

Figure 12. Influence of GSI on σs /σci with γD/σci = 0.01, C/D = 100: (a) mi = 10; (b) mi = 20; (c) mi = 30.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4533 16 of 18

5. Conclusions
This paper aims to develop a machine-learning-aided prediction model for the stability
factor of the tunnels located in a rock mass considering three different types of tunnels:
heading tunnel, dual square tunnels, and dual circular tunnels. The stability factor is
investigated in terms of five dimensionless parameters including the cover-depth ratio, the
distance ratio, the geological strength index, the normalized uniaxial compressive strength,
and the mi parameter. The best ANN models for estimating the stability factor of heading,
dual square, and dual circular tunnels are presented in this article. Notably, just one hidden
layer is required to construct a high-performance neural network model, since the R2 is
high and the MSE is very low, indicating that the proposed model may be used to reliably
determine the stability factor. The neural network constants namely, weight and bias, are
obtained in this study for each tunnel. The neural network models are constructed and
recommended to be used to efficiently estimate the stability factor of a tunnel placed inside
a rock mass. However, the suggested neural network models are not recommended to be
used if the parameter values fall beyond the specified ranges in this research. It should
be noted that the proposed scheme can be extended to apply to the problems of tunnel
stability in soils with the Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion by using similar ANN models.
However, the input strength parameters of rocks (e.g., GSI, mi , and σci ) must be changed to
those of soils (e.g., cohesion, c, and friction angle, φ). The problems of tunnel stability in
soils with the use of ANN models will be the subject of future studies.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, T.J., S.K. and C.N.; methodology, S.K. and C.N.; software,
S.K. and C.N.; validation, T.J., S.K., C.T. and C.N.; formal analysis, T.J. and S.K.; investigation, S.K.
and C.N.; resources, S.K. and C.N.; data curation, S.K. and C.N.; writing—original draft preparation,
T.J., S.K. and C.N.; writing—review and editing, C.T. and C.N.; visualization, S.K.; supervision, C.N.;
project administration, T.J., C.T. and C.N.; funding acquisition, T.J. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research is supported by Thammasat University Research Unit in Structural and
Foundation Engineering, Thammasat University. This research project is also supported by grants for
development of new faculty staff, Ratchadaphiseksomphot Fund, Chulalongkorn University.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data and materials in this paper are available.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Hoek, E.; Brown, E.T. Empirical strength criterion for rock masses. J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 1980, 106, 1013–1035. [CrossRef]
2. Hoek, E.; Carranza-Torres, C.; Corkum, B. Hoek–Brown failure criterion—2002 edition. In Proceedings of the North American
Rock Mechanics Society Meeting, Toronto, ON, Canada, 7–10 July 2002.
3. Hoek, E. A Brief History of the Development of the Hoek–Brown Failure Criterion. 2004. Available online: https://www.
rocscience.com/assets/resources/learning/hoek/2007-The-Development-of-the-Hoek-Brown-Failure-Criterion.pdf (accessed
on 10 January 2021).
4. Hoek, E. Practical Rock Engineering. 2007. Available online: https://www.rocscience.com/assets/resources/learning/hoek/
Practical-Rock-Engineering-Full-Text.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2021).
5. Carranza-Torres, C.; Fairhurst, C. The elasto-plastic response of underground excavations in rock masses that satisfy the
Hoek–Brown failure criterion. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 1999, 36, 777–809. [CrossRef]
6. Carranza-Torres, C. Elasto-plastic solution of tunnel problems using the generalized form of the Hoek-Brown failure crite-rion.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2004, 41, 480–481. [CrossRef]
7. Fraldi, M.; Guarracino, F. Limit analysis of collapse mechanisms in cavities and tunnels according to the Hoek–Brown failure
criterion. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2009, 46, 665–673. [CrossRef]
8. Martin, C.D.; Maybee, W.G. The strength of hard-rock pillars. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2000, 37, 1239–1246. [CrossRef]
9. Sakurai, S. Back analysis in rock engineering. In Comprehensive Rock Engineering-Excavation, Support and Monitoring; Hudson, J.A.,
Ed.; Pergamon Press: Oxford, UK, 1993; Volume 4, pp. 543–569.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4533 17 of 18

10. Senent, S.; Mollon, G.; Jimenez, R. Tunnel face stability in heavily fractured rock masses that follow the Hoek–Brown failure
criterion. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2013, 60, 440–451. [CrossRef]
11. Swift, G.M.; Reddish, D.J. Underground excavations in rock salt. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2005, 23, 17–42. [CrossRef]
12. Yang, X.L.; Huang, F. Collapse mechanism of shallow tunnel based on nonlinear Hoek–Brown failure criterion. Tunn. Undergr.
Space Technol. 2011, 26, 686–691. [CrossRef]
13. Yang, X.L.; Huang, F. Three-dimensional failure mechanism of a rectangular cavity in a Hoek–Brown rock medium. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. 2013, 61, 189–195. [CrossRef]
14. AlKhafaji, H.; Imani, M.; Fahimifar, A. Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Rock Mass Foundations Subjected to Seepage Forces Us-ing
Modified Hoek–Brown Criterion. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2020, 53, 251–268. [CrossRef]
15. Chakraborty, M.; Kumar, J. Bearing capacity of circular footings over rock mass by using axisymmetric quasi lower bound finite
element limit analysis. Comput. Geotech. 2015, 70, 138–149. [CrossRef]
16. Clausen, J. Bearing capacity of circular footings on a Hoek–Brown material. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2013, 57, 34–41. [CrossRef]
17. Keshavarz, A.; Kumar, J. Bearing capacity of foundations on rock mass using the method of characteristics. Int. J. Numer. Anal.
Methods Géoméch. 2017, 42, 542–557. [CrossRef]
18. Merifield, R.S.; Lyamin, A.V.; Sloan, W. Limit analysis solutions for the bearing capacity of rock masses using the generalized
Hoek-Brown yield criterion. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2006, 43, 920–937. [CrossRef]
19. Saada, Z.; Maghous, S.; Garnier, D. Bearing capacity of shallow foundations on rocks obeying a modified Hoek–Brown failure
criterion. Comput. Geotech. 2008, 35, 144–154. [CrossRef]
20. Serrano, A.; Olalla, C. Ultimate bearing capacity of an anisotropic discontinuous rock mass. Part I: Basic modes of failure. Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 1998, 35, 301–324. [CrossRef]
21. Serrano, A.; Olalla, C. Ultimate bearing capacity of an anisotropic discontinuous rock mass. Part II: Determination procedure. Int.
J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 1998, 35, 325–348. [CrossRef]
22. Yodsomjai, W.; Keawsawasvong, S.; Lai, V.Q. Limit analysis solutions for bearing capacity of ring foundations on rocks using
Hoek-Brown failure criterion. Int. J. Geosynth. Ground Eng. 2021, 7, 29.
23. Keawsawasvong, S. Bearing capacity of conical footings on Hoek–Brown rock masses using finite element limit analysis. Int. J.
Comput. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2021, 10, 2150015. [CrossRef]
24. Keawsawasvong, S.; Shiau, J.; Limpanawannakul, K.; Panomchaivath, S. Stability Charts for Closely Spaced Strip Footings on
Hoek–Brown Rock Mass. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2022, 1–16. [CrossRef]
25. Keawsawasvong, S.; Thongchom, C.; Likitlersuang, S. Bearing Capacity of Strip Footing on Hoek-Brown Rock Mass Subjected to
Eccentric and Inclined Loading. Transp. Infrastruct. Geotechnol. 2020, 8, 189–202. [CrossRef]
26. Yang, X.-L.; Yin, J.-H. Upper bound solution for ultimate bearing capacity with a modified Hoek–Brown failure criterion. Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2005, 42, 550–560. [CrossRef]
27. Yodsomjai, W.; Keawsawasvong, S.; Likitlersuang, S. Stability of Unsupported Conical Slopes in Hoek-Brown Rock Masses.
Transp. Infrastruct. Geotechnol. 2020, 8, 279–295. [CrossRef]
28. Deng, D.; Li, L.; Wang, J.; Zhao, L. Limit equilibrium method for rock slope stability analysis by using the Generalized Hoek–
Brown criterion. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2016, 89, 176–184.
29. Li, A.J.; Merifield, R.; Lyamin, A. Stability charts for rock slopes based on the Hoek–Brown failure criterion. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci. 2007, 45, 689–700. [CrossRef]
30. Li, A.; Merifield, R.; Lyamin, A. Effect of rock mass disturbance on the stability of rock slopes using the Hoek–Brown failure
criterion. Comput. Geotech. 2011, 38, 546–558. [CrossRef]
31. Shen, J.Y.; Karakus, M. Three-dimensional numerical analysis for rock slope stability using shear strength reduction method. Can.
Geotech. J. 2014, 51, 164–172. [CrossRef]
32. Shen, J.Y.; Karakus, M.; Xu, C. Chart-based slope stability assessment using the Generalized Hoek–Brown criterion. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. 2013, 64, 210–219. [CrossRef]
33. Yang, X.L.; Li, L.; Yin, J.-H. Stability analysis of rock slopes with a modified Hoek–Brown failure criterion. Int. J. Numer. Anal.
Methods Géoméch. 2003, 28, 181–190. [CrossRef]
34. You, K.H.; Park, Y.-J.; Dawson, E.M. Stability Analysis of Jointed/Weathered Rock Slopes Using the Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion.
Geosyst. Eng. 2000, 3, 90–97. [CrossRef]
35. Sloan, S.W. Geotechnical stability analysis. Géotechnique 2013, 63, 531–572. [CrossRef]
36. Kumar, J.; Rahaman, O. Lower Bound Limit Analysis Using Power Cone Programming for Solving Stability Problems in Rock
Mechanics for Generalized Hoek–Brown Criterion. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2020, 53, 3237–3252. [CrossRef]
37. Keawsawasvong, S.; Ukritchon, B. Design equation for stability of shallow unlined circular tunnels in Hoek-Brown rock masses.
Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2020, 79, 4167–4190. [CrossRef]
38. Ukritchon, B.; Keawsawasvong, S. Stability of unlined square tunnels in Hoek-Brown rock masses based on lower bound analysis.
Comput. Geotech. 2018, 105, 249–264. [CrossRef]
39. Xiao, Y.; Zhang, R.; Zhao, M.; Jiang, J. Stability of Unlined Rectangular Tunnels in Rock Masses Subjected to Surcharge Loading.
Int. J. Géoméch. 2021, 21, 04020233. [CrossRef]
40. Ukritchon, B.; Keawsawasvong, S. Lower bound stability analysis of plane strain headings in Hoek-Brown rock masses. Tunn.
Undergr. Space Technol. 2018, 84, 99–112. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4533 18 of 18

41. Zhang, R.; Xiao, Y.; Zhao, M.; Zhao, H. Stability of dual circular tunnels in a rock mass subjected to surcharge loading. Comput.
Geotech. 2019, 108, 257–268. [CrossRef]
42. Xiao, Y.; Zhao, M.; Zhang, R.; Zhao, H.; Wu, G. Stability of dual square tunnels in rock masses subjected to surcharge loading.
Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2019, 92, 103037. [CrossRef]
43. Gholami, R.; Rasouli, V.; Alimoradi, A. Improved RMR rock mass classification using artificial intelligence algorithms. Rock Mech.
Rock Eng. 2013, 46, 1199–1209. [CrossRef]
44. Mert, E.; Yilmaz, S.; Inal, M. An assessment of total RMR classification system using unified simulation model based on artificial
neural networks. Neural Comput. Appl. 2011, 20, 603–610. [CrossRef]
45. Miah, M.I.; Ahmed, S.; Zendehboudi, S.; Butt, S. Machine Learning Approach to Model Rock Strength: Prediction and Varia-ble
Selection with Aid of Log Data. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2020, 53, 4691–4715. [CrossRef]
46. BKA, M.A.R.; Ngamkhanong, C.; Wu, Y.; Kaewunruen, S. Recycled Aggregates Concrete Compressive Strength Prediction Using
Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs). Infrastructures 2021, 6, 17. [CrossRef]
47. Ocak, I.; Seker, S.E. Estimation of elastic modulus of intact rocks by artificial neural network. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2012, 45,
1047–1054. [CrossRef]
48. Yang, Y.; Zhang, Q. A hierarchical analysis for rock engineering using artificial neural networks. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 1997, 30,
207–222. [CrossRef]
49. Keawsawasvong, S.; Seehavong, S.; Ngamkhanong, C. Application of Artificial Neural Networks for Predicting the Stability of
Rectangular Tunnels in Hoek–Brown Rock Masses. Front. Built Environ. 2022, 8, 837745. [CrossRef]
50. Alavi, A.H.; Sadrossadat, E. New design equations for estimation of ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations resting on
rock masses. Geosci. Front. 2016, 7, 91–99. [CrossRef]
51. Millán, M.A.; Galindo, R.; Alencar, A. Application of Artificial Neural Networks for Predicting the Bearing Capacity of Shallow
Foundations on Rock Masses. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2021, 54, 5071–5094. [CrossRef]
52. Ziaee, S.A.; Sadrossadat, E.; Alavi, A.H.; Shadmehri, D.M. Explicit formulation of bearing capacity of shallow foundations on
rock masses using artificial neural networks: Application and supplementary studies. Environ. Earth Sci. 2015, 73, 3417–3431.
[CrossRef]
53. Li, A.; Khoo, S.; Lyamin, A.; Wang, Y. Rock slope stability analyses using extreme learning neural network and terminal steepest
descent algorithm. Autom. Constr. 2016, 65, 42–50. [CrossRef]
54. Naghadehi, M.Z.; Thewes, M.; Lavasan, A.A. Face stability analysis of mechanized shiel tunnelling: An objective systems
approach to the problem. Eng. Geol. 2019, 262, 105307.
55. Kaewunruen, S.; Sresakoolchai, J.; Thamba, A. Machine Learning-Aided Identification of Train Weights from Railway Sleeper Vibration
Insight: Non-Destructive Testing and Condition Monitoring; The British Institute of Non-Destructive Testing: Northampton, UK,
2021; Volume 63, pp. 151–159.
56. Sun, L.; Zhang, Q.; Ma, G.; Zhang, T. Analysis of ship collision damage by combining Monte Carlo simulation and the arti-ficial
neural network approach. Ships Offshore Struct. 2017, 12 (Suppl. S1), S21–S30. [CrossRef]
57. Zhang, W. MARS Applications in Geotechnical Engineering Systems; Springer: Beijing, China, 2020. [CrossRef]
58. Jebur, A.A.; Atherton, W.; Al Khaddar, R.M. Feasibility of an evolutionary artificial intelligence (AI) scheme for modelling of load
settlement response of concrete piles embedded in cohesionless soil. Ships Offshore Struct. 2018, 13, 705–718. [CrossRef]
59. Ngamkhanong, C.; Kaewunruen, S. Prediction of Thermal-Induced Buckling Failures of Ballasted Railway Tracks Using Artificial
Neural Network (ANN). Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn. 2021, 2250049. [CrossRef]
60. Khajehzadeh, M.; Taha, M.R.; Keawsawasvong, S.; Mirzaei, H.; Jebeli, M. An Effective Artificial Intelligence Approach for Slope
Stability Evaluation. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 5660–5671. [CrossRef]
61. Khajehzadeh, M.; Keawsawasvong, S.; Nehdi, M.L. Effective hybrid soft computing approach for optimum design of shal-low
foundations. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1847. [CrossRef]
62. Sirimontree, S.; Jearsiripongkul, T.; Lai, V.Q.; Eskandarinejad, A.; Lawongkerd, J.; Seehavong, S.; Thongchom, C.; Nuaklong,
P.; Keawsawasvong, S. Prediction of Penetration Resistance of a Spherical Penetrometer in Clay Using Multivariate Adaptive
Regression Splines Model. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3222. [CrossRef]
63. Arabali, A.; Khajehzadeh, M.; Keawsawasvong, S.; Mohammed, A.H.; Khan, B. An Adaptive Tunicate Swarm Algorithm for
Optimization of Shallow Foundation. IEEE Access 2022. [CrossRef]
64. Lai, V.Q.; Shiau, J.; Keawsawasvong, S.; Tran, D.T. Bearing capacity of ring foundations on anisotropic and heterogenous clays
~FEA, NGI-ADP, and MARS. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2022. [CrossRef]
65. Park, Y.S.; Lek, S. Chapter 7—Artificial Neural Networks: Multilayer Perceptron for Ecological Modeling. In Developments in
Environmental Modelling; Jørgensen, S.E., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016.
66. Atici, U. Prediction of the strength of mineral admixture concrete using multivariable regression analysis and an artificial neural
network. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 9609–9618. [CrossRef]
67. Bilim, C.; Atis, C.D.; Tanyildizi, H.; Karahan, O. Predicting the compressive strength of ground granulated blast furnace slag
concrete using artificial neural network. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2008, 40, 334–340. [CrossRef]