Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 591 – 599

Symposium of the International Society for Rock Mechanics

A New Predictive Model for Rock Strength Parameters Utilizing

GEP Method
Danial Behniaa*, Mazda Behniab, Kourosh Shahriarc, Kamran Goshtasbid
a
Department of Mining Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran & 14778-93855, Iran
b
Department of civil engineering, Qaemshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qaemshahr & 47651-61964, Iran
c
Department of Mining & Metallurgy Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran & 15875-4413, Iran
d
Department of Mining Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran & 14115-111, Iran

Abstract

The present study aims to employ modern intelligent method to predict intact rock strength parameters. This method can be used
for intact rock strength parameters prediction of different extraction projects. Mechanical rock excavation projects need uniaxial
compressive strength (UCS) and static modulus of elasticity (E) of the intact rock material. Many parameters affect to strength
parameters, but some of them are applicable to empirical or analytical equations and the other difficulty, high-quality core
samples of appropriate geometry are needed to find out these parameters. In this regard, models predicting UCS and E based on
rock index tests and intact rock properties could be useful methods. This paper aims to employ Gene Expression Programming
(GEP) to predict E and UCS. Out of the 44 sets of the data, 22 sets (50% of the data) were considered for training and
the remaining 22 sets of the data (50%) were considered for testing. The intelligent method has been studied on the basis of data
obtained from 44 different excavation projects all over the world. These parameters were collected from previous research data.
The values of UCS and E are predicted by using quartz content (Q), dry density (Ȗd) and porosity (n) of the rocks. 22 datasets
(50% of the data) were utilized for modeling and the remaining 22 sets of the data (50%) were considered for evaluating theirs
performance. For this purpose, writing a code was necessary, as some of the proposed relations were complex. The obtained
results of this study are presented within a computer-based format in order to be easily accessible too every experts. With respect
to the accuracy of the GEP method, it may be recommended for predicting intact rock strength parameters for future excavation
design purpose.
©©2017
2017TheTheAuthors.
Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier
by Elsevier Ltd. is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Ltd. This
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of EUROCK 2017.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of EUROCK 2017

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +98-911-353-3904.

E-mail address: behnia.danial@gmail.com

1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of EUROCK 2017
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.05.222
592 Danial Behnia et al. / Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 591 – 599

Keywords: Excavation; Gene Expression Programming (GEP); Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS); Rock Mechanics; Static Modulus of
Elasticity (E).

1. Introduction

In many cases the geomechanical properties of rock are required to make decisions in rock engineering projects.
These properties could be unit weight, uniaxial compressive strength, tensile strength, modulus of elasticity, etc.
High-quality core samples are required for laboratory tests if reliable results are desired. Such cores are not available
always or it could be a time and money consuming procedure to prepare them. To overcome this difficulty
encountered during the core sample preparation, some intelligent predictive models could be introduced to use
the simple index parameters such as point load, block punch, Schmidt hammer and other easy accessing properties of
rock to evaluate the desired properties. Among them, the models introduced by different researchers [1, 3, 5, 7, 13,
16] could be named.
However, lots of parameters are known to describe the physical properties of the rock mass, but the strength
parameters like uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) and static modulus of elasticity (E) of intact rock materials are
from the crucial ones and the uniaxial compressive test is known as the main quantitative method for determining
them. UCS is included as a main input parameter for rock characterization assessment and classification. E is
a property of rock materials, which measures how closely they approximate to the ideal elastic material [4, 8].
Generally speaking, the results of this test could affect features of a rock engineering project deeply.
Recent progresses on artificial intelligence and other branches of soft computing, have convincing engineers that
they could be desired as the future of many procedures to estimate parameters, more accurate and more prompt than
common methods. For instance, predicting the rock mass properties by using artificial neural networks (ANN),
genetic algorithms (GA), fuzzy logic and neuro-fuzzy systems have been an attractive research topic relating to rock
engineering these days. They are young, but not naive and could be considered as robust methods. GEP stands for
Gen expression programming is a novice method that exploits the genetic algorithms to fit the best function to a data
set and find their correlation however for an intricate one. This method is applied successfully to predict lots of
engineering parameters by many researchers [6, 10, 12, 17].
In this paper, we are going to exploit GEP to introduce some practical relations that estimate the uniaxial
compressive strength and the static elasticity modulus of rock by some very easy accessing parameters such as
density and porosity which could be very helpful for rock engineering projects especially in the first steps of
the studies, when expensive tests are not advisable yet. The study has been performed based on a data base collected
around the world and some of the best fitting expressions are selected to confront in this story. The high correlation
found between the field values and the outcomes of assessments shows that the introduced relations could be viewed
as some robust and pragmatic methods.

Nomenclature

‡ത Means of Absolute Error

’ത Means of Predicted Value
”ҧ Means of Actual Value
e Absolute Error
E Static Modulus of Elasticity (GPa)
MAE Mean Absolute Error
N Number of Data Sets
n Porosity
p Predicted Value
Q Quartz Content (%)
r Actual Value
R Correlation Coefficient
 Danial Behnia et al. / Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 591 – 599 593

RMSE Root Mean Square Error

UCS Uniaxial Compressive Strength (MPa)
Ȗd Dry Density (gr/cm3)

2. Databank

2.1. Data used

In this paper, according to various previous studies, the three parameters were used as input parameters to predict
the intact rock strength parameters, especially, required for Mechanical rock excavation projects (uniaxial
compressive strength (UCS) and static modulus of elasticity (E)), such as, quartz content (Q), dry density (Ȗd), and
porosity (n) (Table 1). Figs. 1 (shows the correlation between input parameters and UCS) and 2 (shows
the correlation between input parameters and E) show the correlation of input parameters (Q, Ȗd and n) compared to
the dependent parameter (UCS and E). To make the intelligent models, the data were divided into two different
groups of training and testing. Out of the 44 sets of the data, 22 sets (50% of the data) were considered for training
and the remaining 22 sets of the data (50%) were considered for testing. In this paper, novel intelligent (GEP)
approach is used for prediction by the parameters as mentioned above.

Table 1. Range of input and output parameters.

Variable Minimum Maximum Mean Indication Type
Quartz content (%) 0 99 46.75 Q Input
Dry density (gr/cm3) 2.24 2.77 2.616 Ȗd Input
Porosity (%) 0 22.9 8.736 n Input
Uniaxial Compressive Strength (MPa) 7 192.9 81.979 UCS Output
Static modulus of elasticity (GPa) 5.6 65.7 30.009 E Output

Fig. 1. Cross plots showing the relationship between uniaxial compressive strength (UCS- MPa) and independent variables ((a) Quartz content
(Q), (b) Dry density (Ȗd), and (c) Porosity (n)).
594 Danial Behnia et al. / Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 591 – 599

Fig. 2. Cross plots showing the relationship between static modulus of elasticity (E- GPa) and independent variables ((a) Quartz content (Q),
(b) Dry density (Ȗd), and (c) Porosity (n)).

2.2. Evaluation criteria

Two statistical evaluation criteria were used to assess the performance of the intelligent method. These criteria
are mean absolute error (MAE), root mean square error (RMSE) and correlation coefficient (R), respectively, given
by the equations 1 and 2 [9].

N
1
MAE ( )
N i ¦r p ,
1
i i (1)

N
1
RMSE (
N i1 ¦
) ( a i  pi ) 2 (2)

¦ ( p  p)(a  a)
i 1
i i
R (3)
N N

¦ ( p  p) ¦ (a  a)
i 1
i
2

i 1
i
2

where r is the actual value and p is the predicted value, ”ҧ and ’ത are the means of actual and predicted values
respectively, e is the absolute error (ri–pi), ‡ത is the mean of absolute error N is the number of data sets and R is
correlation coefficient.
 Danial Behnia et al. / Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 591 – 599 595

3. GEP method

Ferreira suggested a new algorithm according to a genetic algorithm and genetic programming. This was called
as “Gene Expression Programming or GEP”, a new evolved algorithm being used to overcome on most restrictions
of GA and GP [14, 15]. Genetic algorithms are models of machine learning. Their behavior has been inspired from
nature evolution mechanism [3]. These methods are implemented by creating a population, which its individuals are
considered as chromosomes. Then, each individual is designated for evolution process. However, genetic
programming (GP) is programmed and analysis for automation. GP is a sub-field of genetic algorithms (GAs) [11].
The main difference between GA and GP is that the program evolution in GP is in the form of parse trees, while this
program is as binary fibers with constant length in GA [2]. GEP used for rendering solutions is a fiber character with
constant length. The solutions have the tree-like structure that is called “Expression Tree or ET”. Fig. 3 depicts GEP
algorithm, which selection starts with five elements such as function set, output set, fitness function, control
parameters and stop condition. This algorithm randomly builds an initial chromosome, which indicates
a mathematical function. Then, it is converted into an expression tree (ET). This method includes two major parts
known as chromosomes and expression tree (ET) [15]. GEP has four operators, including selection, mutation,
transposition and crossover.

Fig. 3. GEP algorithm [2].

4. GEP models

GeneXproTools 4.0 software was used to employ GEP method. In order to develop the intact rock strength
parameters (UCS, E) prediction models, some settings in the software were presented in Table 2.
One of the most important issues is to determine the number of genes that are selected based on the precision and
application of the model (The decrease or increase of the number of genes may lower the precision of the obtained
596 Danial Behnia et al. / Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 591 – 599

relation or prolong it); the trial-and-error method is used to select the optimum number of its genes. Considering
the circumstances mentioned in this investigation, the number of the genes were determined as three. Sum (+),
subtraction (-), multiplication (×), division (÷), radical ( n X ), nth power (Xn), natural logarithm (LnX),
trigonometric (sinX, cosX, arccosX, and tanX), absolute function (|X|), and floor functions ([X]) were selected for
model creating. At the first stage, 2 equations were offered through the GEP method using 22 data sets (50%).
According to three input parameters called Q, Ȗd, and n, Equations (4) and (5) were offered for predicting intact rock
strength parameters (UCS, E).

§ § § 10n  Q  0.93 · · ·¸
UCS J d  Ln¨¨ J d ¨¨ Ln 2 ¨ ¸ ¸¸ ¸ u
© © © 12 ¹¹¹
§ § 2§ n · § Q ·
§ § § § § § · · ·¸ ¨¨ ¨ sin ¨  2.82 ¸  cos¨ 1.31 ¸  J d (4)
¨ ¨ § § n  Q  4.73 · · · · · ¸ © ¹ © ¹
2¨
tan¨ 3 tan¨ cos¨ tan¨ cos¨ cos¨¨ tan tan Q ¨¨ cos¨ ¸ ¸¸ ¸¸ ¸ ¸ ¸¸ ¸ ¸ u ¨ J d ¨
¨ ¨ ¨ ¨© ¨© © © © 4 ¹ ¹ ¹
¸¸ ¸ ¸
¹¹¹¹ ¨ ¨ 3
© © © ¹ ¨ ¨
© ©

E >  n  Q u sin Q @u arccos sin  3.8 2J d  n  Q u tan Q  2J d  6.18 u J d  n u

(5)
2.75  sin 3 4.22  J d u 9.73J d5 u J d  2.76

Table 2. General GEP setting.

UCS E
Training Sample 22 22
Testing Sample 22 22
Number of Chromosomes 44 44
Head Size 12 12
Number of Genes 3 3
Linking Function * (×) * (×)
Mutation Rate 0.01 0.01
Constant per Gene 2 2
Numerical Constant
Floating Point (-10, 10) (-10, 10)
Fitness Function RRSE RRSE

Finally, 22 datasets (50%), which were divided for the test, were used for evaluating the achieved equations.
Table 3 demonstrates the results (Evaluation criteria: R, RMSE, and MAE) of the study of all equations obtained to
predict UCS and U.
Figs. 4 and 5 show the values predicted by GEP in both training and testing phases, for Equations (4) and (5)
respectively. It is known that Equations (4) and (5) has a good accuracy in both training and testing phases. As seen
in this figure, the predicted values are very close to the actual ones. Fig. 6 shows the values predicted by GEP in
both training and test phases for Equations (4) and (5). It is known that both equations have a good accuracy in both
training and testing phases. As seen in these figures (Figs. 4, 5, and 6), predicted values are very close to actual
ones.
Unlike the GEP, other soft computing methods do not provide a specific equation and it is applicable only in
MATLAB software as coding. It will not be used for future purposes as much as GEP equations. Since
the correlations provided by GEP method seem to be complicated, a program was designed for computation using
 Danial Behnia et al. / Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 591 – 599 597

Visual Basic (VB). A form has been prepared for entering the inputs. In fact, the purpose of designing this form is to
facilitate the computation of correlations. Fig. 7 shows the form. All in all, it can be said that the presented equations
in this paper predict the intact rock strength parameters (UCS, E) with high accuracy because they have a suitable
number of input parameters.

Fig. 4. Compression of actual and GEP predicted rock strength parameter (UCS) (Eq. (4)) in two data sets (training and testing phases).

Fig. 5. Compression of actual and GEP predicted rock strength parameter (E) (Eq. (5)) in two data sets (training and testing phases).
598 Danial Behnia et al. / Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 591 – 599

Table 3. GEP results.

Train Test

R 0.895 0.94

UCS
RMSE 24.036 16.033
MAE 16.465 12.474
R 0.908 0.927

RMSE 8.465 6.462

E MAE 7.314 5.088

Fig. 6. GEP results to predict intact rock strength parameters (UCS and E).

Fig. 7. GEP results to predict intact rock strength parameters (UCS and E).

5. Conclusion

GEP method used to predict the intact rock strength parameters (UCS and E). Parameters such as the quartz
content (Q), dry density (Ȗd) and porosity (n) were taken to be input parameters. In this method, the data were
divided into a training (50%) and testing (50%) sets. The results from soft computing method (GEP) were
satisfactory. A simulation has been done based on Visual Basic (VB) software to predict the UCS and E. Using these
models, the rock strength parameters (UCS, E) can be easily predicted employing the correlations obtained from
GEP by only the desired inputs. Finally, according to the results of the present research, it is worthy to stress that
the intelligent methods are useful tools for solving problems with complex mechanisms especially in rock
mechanics engineering. The equations can be intelligently generalized to new data. The present models can be used
for future purposes to predict the intact rock strength parameters (UCS and E).
 Danial Behnia et al. / Procedia Engineering 191 (2017) 591 – 599 599

References

[1] M.A.Grima, R. Babuska, Fuzzy model for the prediction of unconfined compressive strengthof rock samples, International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Science 36 (1999) 339̢349.
[2] D. Behnia, K. Ahangari, A. Noorzad, S.R. Moeinossadat, Predicting crest settlement in concrete face rockfill dams using adaptive neuro-
fuzzy inference system and gene expression programming intelligent methods, Journal of Zhejiang University-Science A (Applied Physics &
Engineering) 14 (8) (2013) 589–602.
[3] A. Edet, Physical properties and indirect estimation of microfractures using Nigerian carbonate rocks as examples, Engineering Geology 33
(1992) 71̢80.
[4] I.W. Farmer, Engineering Properties of Rocks. E. & F. N. Spon Limited, 1968.
[5] C. Gokceoglu, A fuzzy triangular chart to predict the uniaxial compressive strengthof Ankara agglomerates from their petrographic
composition, Engineering Geology 66 (2002) 39̢51.
[6] G. Habibagahi, Post-Construction Settlement of Rockfill Dams Analyzed via Adaptive Network-based Fuzzy Inference Systems, Computers
and Geotechnics 29 (2002) 211–233.
[7] D.F. Howarth, J.C. Rowlands, Developmentof an index to quantify rock texture for qualitative assessment of intact rock properties.
Geotechnical Testing Journal 9 (1986) 169̢179.
[8] A.R. Jumikis, Rock Mechanics, Trans. Tech. Publications, Clausthal, Germany. 1979.
[9] C. Kayadelen, Soil liquefaction modeling by Genetic Expression Programming and Neuro-Fuzzy. Expert Systems with Applications 38
(2011) 4080–4087.
[10] J. Koza, Genetic programming on the programming of computers by means of natural selection, Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 1992.
[11] A. Mollahasani, A.H. Alavi, A.H. Gandomi, Empirical modeling of plate load test moduli of soil via gene expression programming.
Computers and Geotechnics 38 (2011) 281–286.
[12] Y. Seong Kim,.B. Tak Kim, Prediction of Relative Crest Settlement of Concrete-Face Rockfill Dams Analyzed using An Artifical Neural
Network Model, Computer and Geotechnics 35 (2008) 313–322.
[13] A. Shakoor, R.E. Bonelli, Relationship between petrographic characteristics, engineering index properties and mechanical properties of
selected sandstone, Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists XXVIII (1) (1991) 55̢71.
[14] S.N. Sivanandam, S.N. Deepa, Introduction to Genetic Algorithms, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2008.
[15] L. Teodorescu, D. Sherwood, High energy physics event selection with gene expression programming, Computer Physics Communications.
178 (2008) 409–419.
[16] R. Ulusay, K. Tureli, M.H. Ider, Prediction of engineering properties of a selected litharenite sandstone from its petrographic characteristics
using correlation and multivariate statistical techniques, Engineering Geology 37 (1994) 135̢157.
[17] W. Zhou, J. Hua, X. Chang, C. Zhou, Settlement Analysis of the Shuibuya Concrete-Face Rockfill Dam, Computers and Geotechnics 38
(2011) 269–280.