Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 15 (2023) 2508e2520

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rock Mechanics and

Geotechnical Engineering
journal homepage: www.jrmge.cn

Full Length Article

A true triaxial strength criterion for rocks by gene expression

programming
Jian Zhou a, *, Rui Zhang a, Yingui Qiu a, Manoj Khandelwal b
a
School of Resources and Safety Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, 410083, China
b
Institute of Innovation, Science and Sustainability, Federation University Australia, Ballarat, VIC, 3350, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Rock strength is a crucial factor to consider when designing and constructing underground projects. This
Received 5 September 2022 study utilizes a gene expression programming (GEP) algorithm-based model to predict the true triaxial
Received in revised form strength of rocks, taking into account the influence of rock genesis on their mechanical behavior during
15 January 2023
the model building process. A true triaxial strength criterion based on the GEP model for igneous,
Accepted 12 March 2023
Available online 30 March 2023
metamorphic and magmatic rocks was obtained by training the model using collected data. Compared to
the modified Weibols-Cook criterion, the modified Mohr-Coulomb criterion, and the modified Lade
criterion, the strength criterion based on the GEP model exhibits superior prediction accuracy perfor-
Keywords:
Gene expression programming (GEP)
mance. The strength criterion based on the GEP model has better performance in R2, RMSE and MAPE for
True triaxial strength the data set used in this study. Furthermore, the strength criterion based on the GEP model shows
Rock failure criteria greater stability in predicting the true triaxial strength of rocks across different types. Compared to the
Intermediate principal stress existing strength criterion based on the genetic programming (GP) model, the proposed criterion based
on GEP model achieves more accurate predictions of the variation of true triaxial strength (s1) with
intermediate principal stress (s2). Finally, based on the Sobol sensitivity analysis technique, the effects of
the parameters of the three obtained strength criteria on the true triaxial strength of the rock are
analysed. In general, the proposed strength criterion exhibits superior performance in terms of both
accuracy and stability of prediction results.
Ó 2023 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by
Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
During the design process of underground works such as tun-
nels and shafts, rock strength is a crucial factor that requires sig-
nificant consideration, particularly in deeper areas (Hoek and
Brown, 1980; Haimson, 2006; Li et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2021;
Du et al., 2022a, 2022b; Xie et al., 2022). As the depth of the un-
derground excavation increases, the stress in the surrounding rock
gradually increases. When the stress in the surrounding rock ap-
proaches or exceeds the rock strength, the rock is susceptible to
failure if appropriate support or pressure relief measures are not
implemented (Zhang et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020). Therefore, an
effective means of rock strength prediction is an important guar-
antee for the rational design of underground engineering.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: j.zhou@csu.edu.cn, csujzhou@hotmail.com (J. Zhou).
Peer review under responsibility of Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chi-
nese Academy of Sciences.
The most conventional and widely used means for rock strength
prediction are various types of theoretical and empirical rock
strength criteria. With the development of geomechanics, many
researchers have conducted in-depth studies on the damage
behaviour of rocks. Through various theoretical analyses and
experimental practices, a wide variety of rock strength criteria have
been proposed, such as the Mohr-Coulomb criterion (Jiang and Xie,
2011), Drucker-Prager damage criterion (Drucker and Prager, 1952),
unified strength criterion (Yu et al., 2002), Mogi empirical strength
criterion (Mogi, 1967, 1971), Griffith damage criterion (Griffith,
1921), extended Griffith damage criterion (McClintock and Walsh,
1962), Bieniawski-Yudbir criterion (Bieniawski, 1974), Hoek-
Brown criterion (Hoek and Brown, 1980), the Wiebols-Cook crite-
rion (Wiebols and Cook, 1968), the modified Weibols-Cook (MWC)
criterion (Zhou, 1994), the Lade-Duncan criterion (Lade and
Duncan, 1975), the modified Lade (ML) criterion (Ewy, 1999), the
Mogi-Coulomb criterion (Singh et al., 2011), the three-dimensional
(3D) version of the Hoek-Brown criterion (Zhang and Zhu, 2007),
the modified Mohr-Coulomb (MMC) criterion (Zhang et al., 2010),
the Rafiai criterion (Rafiai, 2011), the modified Hoek-Brown

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2023.03.004
1674-7755 Ó 2023 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-
NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 J. Zhou et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 15 (2023) 2508e2520
criterion (Zhang et al., 2013), and the true-triaxial exponent crite-
rion (Zhang et al., 2018).
The conventional rock strength criterion has several limitations.
Firstly, they are often not applicable to all types of rocks and stress
states. Secondly, determination of the parameters for these criteria
is complicated, and the methods of obtaining them are not well
established, leading to subjective parameter values. If the param-
eters are obtained by fitting true triaxial test data of the same types
of rocks, an additional true triaxial test is required, which is not
conducive to practical applications due to the numerous processes
involved. However, to overcome these limitations, researchers have
explored alternative means for rock strength prediction, which are
various machine learning algorithm-based rock strength prediction
models.
With the continuous development of computing technology,
various machine learning algorithms provide new means to analyse
complex engineering problems (Faradonbeh et al., 2016;
Armaghani et al., 2018; Xie et al., 2021; Li et al., 2021; Yong et al.,
2021; Chen et al., 2023), and also provide a new way of thinking
for rock strength prediction. For example, Moshrefi et al. (2018)
developed a strength prediction model for shale based on artifi-
cial neural network (ANN) with intermediate and minimum prin-
cipal stresses at shale failure as input and maximum principal stress
as output. The developed ANN model showed a better accuracy
compared to other models such as the support vector machine
(SVM), multiple linear regression (MLR), and various rock strength
criteria such as the Drucker-Prager and Mogi-Coulomb criteria.
Moreover, the model was applied to determining the shale for-
mation breakpoints in the Gachsaran oil field in southwestern Iran.
Yu et al. (2022) developed an optimized genetic programming (GP)
model for predicting the true triaxial strength of rocks. Through
training data on sandstone, shale, granite, limestone and trachyte,
the corresponding strength model for each rock type was obtained.
By comparing the statistical evaluation indices such as the sum of
absolute errors, the mean value, the a10 index and the regression
coefficient of determination, the results indicated that the predic-
tion results of the established optimized GP model were more ac-
curate than those of the multiple regression analysis. Fathipour-
Azar (2022) developed nine different machine learning models
based on six machine learning algorithms, including MLR, SVM,
random forest (RF), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), K-near-
est neighbours, and multivariate adaptive regression splines
(MARS) methods, for predicting true triaxial rock strength. The
training data set was used to train these models, and seven of the
nine prediction models performed excellently on quantitative
indices such as coefficient of determination (R2), root mean square
error (RMSE), and absolute average relative error percentage
(AAREP) when tested with the test data set. The XGBoost-based
algorithm model performed best among the seven models. Addi-
tionally, these seven machine learning models outperformed the
existing strength criteria including the Drucker-Prager criterion,
Mogi-Coulomb criterion, and MWC criterion in terms of prediction
accuracy.
Limited by the characteristics of the algorithms used, the models
obtained in existing studies often struggle to find a good balance
between prediction performance and interpretability. For example,
among the nine models developed by Fathipour-Azar (2022), the
only MLR model that was able to generate interpretable model
expressions performed poorly in terms of prediction performance.
The equivalent Mohr-Coulomb expressions that Rafiai et al. (2013)
and Zhu et al. (2015) translated their established machine learning
models with good prediction performance into are still too complex
in form compared to existing strength criteria. This complexity
hinders the practical application of these models. The issue of
achieving good prediction accuracy while also making the model
2509
easy to use has become a crucial issue in rock strength prediction
research. The advent of gene expression programming (GEP) pro-
vides a solution to this challenge.
GEP was proposed by Ferreira (2001), and it evolved from ge-
netic algorithm (GA) and GP, inheriting the advantages of both. GEP
solves complex nonlinear problems by simple coding and produces
mathematical expressions of models (Faradonbeh et al., 2016).
Therefore, it has been widely used by researchers in various geo-
engineering fields. For example, Ince et al. (2019) applied the GEP
algorithm to the prediction of the uniaxial compressive strength
(UCS) of volcanic clastic rocks and obtained a mathematical
formulation and achieved higher prediction accuracy compared to
the MLR models. Afrasiabian and Eftekhari (2022) established a
rock mode I fracture toughness prediction model based on the GEP
algorithm. By training with different input parameters, the outputs
of seven GEP models with different parameter compositions were
obtained. The best-performing model was selected by comparing
prediction indices and then compared with an established MLR
model. The results of the comparison indicated that the GEP model
outperformed the MLR model in terms of prediction accuracy,
demonstrating the effectiveness of the GEP algorithm in this
application. Zhou et al. (2021a) developed a peak particle velocity
prediction model for blasting based on the GEP algorithm. By
evaluating the effective parameters of the GEP model, the best
model with mathematical relationships was obtained. The results
showed that the model can accurately predict the peak particle
velocity, which provides a guarantee for the determination of the
blasting safety zone. Armaghani et al. (2018) proposed a new model
for predicting the settlement of embedded rock piles based on GEP.
The results showed that for the model based on the GEP algorithm
outperforms the model using the MLR techniques in all three
quantitative analysis metrics used, both on the training and testing
data sets.
The previous studies on predicting rock strength using machine
learning algorithms have another drawback in that they did not
consider the similarities and differences in mechanical properties
among various rocks. For example, the model obtained by Moshrefi
et al. (2018) is only for shale. Fathipour-Azar (2022) used input data
from 29 rocks without classifying them during the model training
process. Although Fathipour-Azar considered the UCS of each rock,
it is clear that relying solely on UCS to distinguish the mechanical
characteristics of different rocks is insufficient. Rock structure,
mineral species and grain size have been proven to have a signifi-
cant impact on the mechanical characteristics of rocks (Askaripour
et al., 2022). The rock genesis affects the rock structure, mineral
species and grain size (Hunter, 1996). Thus, considering the rock
genesis allows for further classification of rock mechanical char-
acteristics without the need for additional measurement
parameters.
In this study, the effect of genesis on the mechanical charac-
teristics of rocks is considered, and a GEP-based true triaxial
strength prediction model for three different genetic rocks is
developed. The model predicts the true triaxial strength (maximum
principal stress, s1) based on the intermediate principal stress (s2),
minimum principal stress (s3), and UCS (sc) data. The true triaxial
test data of 29 different rocks are collected from existing literature
and randomly divided them into a training data set (70% of the
data) and a testing data set (30% of the data). The training data set is
used to train the model and fit the parameters of the existing
strength criterion. Evaluation metrics such as R2, RMSE and mean
absolute percentage error (MAPE) are selected to compare the
model’s accuracy with the existing strength criteria on the training
and testing data sets. The prediction performance of the model
developed in this paper is also compared with the existing GP
model in the s1-s2 plane. The outliers in the model prediction
2510 J. Zhou et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 15 (2023) 2508e2520

results are analysed from the perspective of the mechanism of the

effect of intermediate principal stress on rock strength. Finally, the
effects of the three model input parameters on the output are
analysed by Sobol sensitivity analysis.

2. GEP

GEP is a new GA based on genotypes and expressions proposed

by Ferreira (2001). Like GA and GP, it mimics the natural selection of
populations by natural ecology and the operations of inheritance
and mutation among individuals in populations (Laskar and
Majumder, 2017; Lawal et al., 2021; Onifade et al., 2021). It uses
fitness to select individuals in populations and uses one or more Fig. 2. The flowchart of GEP algorithm.
genetic operators to inherit and mutate the selected individuals to
generate new populations and achieve the evolution of
populations. criteria include the MWC criterion, the ML criterion, and the MMC
In GEP, a single gene is composed of a fixed-length linear string criterion.
of symbols, structured into a head and a tail. The head symbol can
be selected from the set of function symbols and the set of terminal 3.1. MWC criterion
symbols, and the tail symbol can only be selected from the set of
terminal symbols (Oltean and Grosan, 2003). The structure of the Zhou (1994) modified the extended von Mises theory (also
gene plays a crucial role in ensuring the compatibility of the gene known as the Drucker-Prager criterion) again based on the Griffith
and the chromosome, which guarantees the stable operation of the microcracking theory and proposed a strength criterion similar to
GEP program, even after undergoing a series of genetic manipula- the Weibols-Cook criterion but simpler, which takes the following
tions. Individuals in a population (also called chromosomes or ge- form:
nomes) consist of one or more genes, which are connected to each
other by the linking function. The chromosomes are compiled in 1=2
J2 ¼ A þ BJ1 þ CJ12 (1)
the Karva language and can be expressed as nonlinear entities of
different sizes and forms, i.e. expression trees (ETs) (Ferreira, 2001).
s1 þ s2 þ s3
The detailed transformation is shown in Fig. 1. J1 ¼ (2)
3
The basic GEP algorithm involves four basic steps, i.e. creating an
initial randomized overall, executing the GEP procedure, verifying rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
the termination conditions and generating a subsequent overall or 1=2 1h i
J2 ¼ ðs1  s2 Þ2  ðs2  s3 Þ2 þ ðs3  s1 Þ2 (3)
final optimal solution in the form of a simple mathematical 6
expression. The details are shown in Fig. 2. During the four steps,
where J1 represents the average effective surrounding pressure;
the training data set is only used to evaluate the model’s fitness in
and the parameters A, B and C are the constants related to rock
the validation termination condition. Firstly, the population’s in-
cohesion c and rock internal friction angle f, which can be deter-
dividuals (chromosomes) are transformed into mathematical ex-
mined by the following equations:
pressions using the Karva language. Then, for each set of data in the
training data set, the input values are substituted into the expres- pffiffiffiffiffiffi  
27 C1 þ ðq  1Þs3  sc q1
sion to obtain the corresponding output values. The predicted C¼  (4)
values are compared to the actual values using the fitness function 2C1 þ ðq  1Þs3  sc 2C1 þ ð2q þ 1Þs3  sc q þ 2
to obtain the corresponding fitness value of an individual.
C1 ¼ ð1 þ 0:6cÞsc (5)

3. Rock strength criterion  

p f 2
q ¼ tan þ (6)
4 2
This section provides a brief overview of three existing rock
strength criteria that were used for comparison in the study. These

Fig. 1. Transformation relationships between chromosomes, ETs, and mathematical expressions.

 J. Zhou et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 15 (2023) 2508e2520 2511

pffiffiffi
3ðq  1Þ C Bi ¼  2Ai sci (17)
B¼  ½2C0 þ ðq þ 2Þs3  (7)
qþ2 3
Bi
sinfi0 ¼ (18)
sc sc s2c 2 þ Bi
A ¼ pffiffiffi  B  C (8)
3 3 3

4. True triaxial test data

3.2. ML criterion The quantity and quality of rock true triaxial strength test data
affect the prediction accuracy and generalisability of rock strength
The ML criterion is derived from Ewy’s modification of the Lade- models based on machine learning. In this study, a large amount of
Duncan criterion, which is more accurate in predicting the true rock true triaxial test data was collected from the existing literature,
triaxial strength of rocks than the Mohr-Coulomb criterion because and a data set with a variety of rock true triaxial test data was
it takes into account the effect of intermediate principal stresses. established. The data set includes the maximum principal stress s1,
Meanwhile, the ML criterion is not as extreme as the Drucker- the intermediate principal stress s2, the minimum principal stress
Prager criterion in consideration of the effect of intermediate s3 and the UCS sc of the rock at failure during the true triaxial test.
principal stresses on the true triaxial strength (Ewy, 1999). The Fig. 3 shows the distribution of data with respect to the corre-
specific form of the criterion is as follows: lation between the variables. From Fig. 3, it can be seen that the
correlations between variables differ between the three rock types:
I13 igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic rocks. The correlations
¼ 33 þ h (9) between s1 and s2 are more different from those between s1 and s3
I3
for the igneous and metamorphic rocks, while the correlations
between s1 and s2 are closer to those between s1 and s3 for the
I1 ¼ ðs1 þ SÞ þ ðs2 þ SÞ þ ðs3 þ SÞ (10)
sedimentary rocks. Furthermore, the correlations between s1 and
sc also differ among the three types of rocks.
I3 ¼ ðs1 þ SÞðs2 þ SÞðs3 þ SÞ (11) The Welch test is a test of whether the mean values of the
groups are equal by using statistics from the Welch distribution
where S and h are the coefficients related to the rock cohesion c and
(Patil, 2021). The Welch distribution is similar to the F distribution
the angle of internal friction f, respectively, and can be written as
and does not require homogeneity of variances. Therefore, when
c the distribution of the dependent variable does not meet the
S ¼ (12)
tanf requirement of variance chi-square, the Welch test is more robust
than the analysis of variance. The Games-Howell test is a post hoc
one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with unequal variances and
4 tan2 fð9  7 sinfÞ
h¼ (13) unequal group sizes based on Welch’s correction for degrees of
1  sinf freedom by t-test and studentized range statistics (Zhou et al.,
2022b). As shown in Fig. 4, s1 (p ¼ 4  1042 < 0.001, CI95% [0.42,
1]), s2 (p ¼ 2.58  109 < 0.001, CI95% [0.06, 1]), s3
(p ¼ 6.15  1010 < 0.001, CI95% [0.07, 1]) and sc
3.3. MMC criterion (p ¼ 9.25  1036 < 0.001, CI95% [0.27, 1]) were significantly affected
by rock type. Meanwhile, s1 was present in samples of different
Singh et al. (2011) obtained a new nonlinear strength criterion types of rocks and there were statistically significant differences
for intact rocks, called the MMC criterion, by introducing Barton’s (FWelch (2, 278.97) ¼ 136.78, p < 0.001). This was also shown for s2
concept of the critical state of rocks based on the conventional (FWelch (2, 318.3) ¼ 21.06, p < 0.001), s3 (FWelch (2, 303.21) ¼ 22.76,
Mohr-Coulomb criterion. The constitutive parameters of this p < 0.0011), and sc (FWelch (2, 388.26) ¼ 100.01, p < 0.001). From
strength criterion are consistent with the conventional Mohr- this, it is clear that rocks with different geneses have different
Coulomb criterion, and the effect of intermediate principal stress strength characteristics under true triaxial stress.
on strength is considered. The form of the criterion is as follows: To ensure the accuracy and reliability of the developed model,
the data set was randomly divided into a training data set (70% of
2 sinfi0 s2 þ s3 1 sinfi0 s22 þ s23 the data) and a testing data set (30% of the data). The training data
ðs1  s3 Þ ¼ sci þ  set was used to train the model and fit the parameters of the
1  sinfi0 2 sci 1  sinfi0 2
existing strength criterion, while the testing data set was used to
ð0  s3  s2  sci Þ
evaluate the generalisation ability of the model. By using a large
(14) and diverse data set and a rigorous data splitting approach, the
developed model is expected to have a better prediction perfor-
2ci0 cosfi0 mance and wider applicability in practical engineering problems.
sci ¼ (15)
1  sinfi0 Table 1 shows the statistical description of variables in the training
and testing data sets.
When multiple rock triaxial experimental data are available, the
following equations can be used to obtain sinfi0 :
5. Parameter fitting of the conventional intensity criterion
P
ðs  s  sci Þ
Ai ¼ P1 2 3  ð0 < s3  sci Þ (16) In order to compare the prediction performance of the GEP
s3 2sci s3
model with the existing conventional triaxial strength criteria, the
parameter settings of the conventional true triaxial strength
2512 J. Zhou et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 15 (2023) 2508e2520

Fig. 3. Correlation between input and output variables.

criteria for different rocks need to be determined. To obtain the where yi denotes the actual value, y denotes the mean of the actual
parameters required by the conventional strength criteria for value, fi denotes the predicted value, and f denotes the mean of the
different rocks, data fitting was used in this study. This is because predicted value.
the true triaxial test data of the rocks used were mostly docu- RMSE reflects the standard deviation of the fitting error be-
mented in the source literature as only the stress data and UCS of tween the predicted and actual values (Zhou et al., 2022a). The
the rocks at the time of damage. Therefore, it is unable to calculate closer the RMSE is to 0, the higher the prediction accuracy of the
the cohesion and internal friction angle of the rock to obtain the model. RMSE is written by
parameters required by the conventional strength criteria. By using vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
data fitting techniques, it is possible to determine the parameter uP
u n
settings that best fit the strength data for the conventional strength u ðf  yi Þ2
ti ¼ 1 i
criteria (Rafiai et al., 2013; Rukhaiyar and Samadhiya, 2017a; Wang RMSE ¼ (20)
n
et al., 2022). The training data set which was used for GEP model
training is used to fit the parameters in the three strength criteria, MAPE depends on the magnitude and error of the predicted
i.e. ML, MWC and MMC. The final obtained parameters of the three values, thus the size of the data does not affect MAPE. MAPE is
conventional rock strength criteria for each type of rock in the data written by
set are shown in Table 2.
1X n
fi  yi
MAPE ¼ (21)
n i ¼ 0 yi
6. Comparative analysis metrics

The correlation coefficient (R2), RMSE and MAPE were selected

as the evaluation indices of the prediction performance of the
7. Model training and comparison
established GEP model and the conventional strength criterion.
These three metrics are frequently used in model evaluation (Zhou
7.1. Parameter setting
et al., 2021b, 2021c). The correlation coefficient can reflect the
correlation between the predicted value of the strength criterion
In this study, the GEP model takes s2, s3 and sc as input pa-
and the actual value of the true triaxial strength of the rock. The
rameters and s1 as the output parameter. The final model results
closer the value of R2 is to 1, the better the strength criterion pre-
can be expressed by the following equation:
dicts the true triaxial test data of the rock, and the closer the pre-
dicted rock strength is to the true strength of the rock. The s1 ¼ f ðs2 ; s3 ; sc Þ (22)
correlation coefficient R2 is calculated as follows:
The function symbol set of GEP model is set to {þ, ,/, *, Q, sin,
P
n
2 cos, tan, e, pow, atan, asin, acos} (Q denotes open root, pow denotes
½ðfi  f Þðyi  yÞ
i¼1 subdivision, atan denotes the arctangent function arctan, asin de-
R2 ¼ (19)
P
n P
n notes the arcsine function arcsin, and acos denotes the inverse
ðyi  yÞ2 ðfi  f Þ2 cosine function arccos). In addition, the main parameters of the GEP
i¼1 i¼1
model include the number of evolutionary generations, the number
of populations, the number of chromosomal genes, the linking
 J. Zhou et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 15 (2023) 2508e2520 2513

Fig. 4. Distribution of four input parameters for three types of rocks: (a) s1, (b) s2, (c) s3, and (d) sc.

Table 1
Statistical description of variables in the training and testing data sets.

Variable Igneous rock (6 rock types) Sedimentary rock (18 rock types) Metamorphic rock (5 rock types)

Training Testing Training Testing Training Testing

(data volume of 153) (data volume of 47) (data volume of 382) (data volume of 172) (data volume of 105) (data volume of 52)

s1 (MPa) Max 1364 1305 1002 1015 1431 1352

Min 140 100 23.69 23.69 118 82
s2 (MPa) Max 660 600 620.7 527.8 642 401
Min 0 0 0 0 0 0
s3 (MPa) Max 200 200 150 150 200 200
Min 0 0 0 0 0 0
sc (MPa) Max 229 229 310 310 234 234
Min 100 100 23.69 23.69 44.3 44.3

function, the gene head length, the probability of transposition, and

the probability of recombination. After several adjustments, the
final settings of each parameter are determined, as shown in X
n
S2 ¼ ðy  fi Þ2 (24)
Table 3.
i¼1
The fitness of a single individual is calculated as follows:

X
n X
n
S1 ¼ ðyi  yÞ2 (23) S3 ¼ ðyi  fi Þ2 (25)
i¼1 i¼1
2514 J. Zhou et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 15 (2023) 2508e2520

Table 2 where S1 denotes the total sum of squares, S2 denotes the regres-
Parameter settings for various rocks corresponding to conventional strength criteria. sion sum of squares, S3 denotes the residual sum of squares, yi
Rock type (source) MWC criterion ML criterion MMC denotes the actual value of s1 corresponding to the input data, y
criterion denotes the mean of the actual s1 corresponding to the input data,
A B C S n sinf and fi denotes the predicted s1 value predicted by the expression
represented by the individual for the input data.
Inada granite (Mogi, 46.218 1.354 0.001 215.455 17.071 0.914
1971)
Gansu Beishan granite 5.836 2.119 0.006 39.553 55.374 0.91 7.2. Model training results
(Gao et al., 2018)
Westerly granite 1.25 1.514 0.001 51.818 64.66 0.943
(Haimson and Chang, The basic parameters of the above GEP model are substituted
2000) into the GEP model for training, and Fig. 5 shows the variation of
Granite (Feng et al., 86.039 0.586 0 86.519 20.153 0.886 the fitness of the optimal individual of the GEP model with the
2020)
number of iterations. The final generated true triaxial strength
Manazuru andesite 15.114 1.456 0.001 73.974 35.479 0.934
(Mogi, 1971) criterion for the three rock types is written in Eqs. (27)e(29). Fig. 6
Mizuho trachyte (Mogi, 124.269 0.175 0 197.69 5.448 0.741 shows the ETs for three types of rock GEP models.
1971)
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Sandstone (Smart et al., 5.134 0.96 0.002 29.033 10.714 0.493 s1 ¼ 2s3 earctanðsin sc Þ þ s3 þ 1:54sc þ s2 sc ðigneousÞ (27)
1999)
Siltstone (Smart et al., 70.119 4.907 0.046 352499 0 0.857   pffiffiffiffiffi
1999) s1 ¼ s2 arctan arctan etan sc þ s3  arctan s2 þ 2s3 þ sc
Sandstone (Feng et al., 18.043 0.764 0.001 61.029 10.567 0.346
2020) þ 58:88 ðsedimentaryÞ
Slask sandstone 10.107 1.46 0.003 25.092 43.081 0.828
(28)
(Kwasniewski et al.,
2003)
Dunham dolomite (Mogi, 115.959 0.808 0 246.708 10.095 0.768 s1 ¼ s2 cos½cosðsin sc Þ235:15 þ 3s3 þ 2sc
1971)
Solnhofen limestone 58.358 2.098 0.003 2353598 0 0.46 þ arctan s2 ðmetamorphicÞ (29)
(Mogi, 1971)
Phra Wihan sandstone 1.232 1.611 0.007 10.993 53.548 1.007
(Pobwandee, 2010)
Shivpuri sandstone 8.148 1.054 0 7.502 59.64 0.857
(Rukhaiyar and 7.3. Model prediction performance comparison
Samadhiya, 2017b)
Shirahama sandstone 14.125 0.974 0.002 32.895 17.223 0.732 The test data set is used for comparing the prediction accuracy
(Takahashi and Koide,
of the strength criterion based on the GEP model with the selected
1989)
Horonai sandstone 22.311 0.989 0.003 50.896 12.926 0.706 conventional strength criteria (ML, MWC and MMC). The correla-
(Takahashi and Koide, tion between the predicted values and the actual values of the true
1989) triaxial strength of the rock is shown in Fig. 7. One can see that the
Phra Wihan sandstone 31.199 2.921 0.017 2.092 258.916 0.895 sample points of the strength criterion based on the GEP model are
(Walsri et al., 2009)
Phu Phan sandstone 19.777 0.488 0.011 4.549 203.96 0.966
generally clustered around their respective fitted lines, with only a
(Walsri et al., 2009) few data points showing significant deviations from the lines. In
Phu Kradung sandstone 23.703 0.016 0.019 4.371 142.554 0.856 contrast, all three conventional strength criteria exhibit a large
(Walsri et al., 2009) number of training and testing data points with notable deviations
Yunnan sandstone (Feng 5.169 1.131 0.001 22.734 36.353 0.738
from their respective fitted lines. Notably, the deviations between
et al., 2019)
Pakistan gray-black 36.918 2.884 0.01 1313237 0 0.727 predicted values from the strength criterion based on GEP model
sandstone (Gao et al., and experimental values occur mainly in the range of 1000e
2018) 1500 MPa for s1. Similarly, the three conventional strength criteria
Locharbriggs sandstone 5.732 0.926 0.002 17.255 14.374 0.707 also perform poorly in this interval. However, for the experimental
(Smart et al., 1999)
Coconino sandstone (He 9.267 0.971 0.001 88.411 10.781 0.426
value of s1 in the range of 0e1000 MPa, the strength criterion based
et al., 2022) on GEP exhibits better prediction performance, whereas the three
Bentheim sandstone (He 0.71 1.115 0.003 17.255 14.374 0.214 conventional strength criteria have a large number of outliers in
et al., 2022) this interval. Thus, it is evident that the strength criterion based on
KTB amphibolite 3.564 1.369 0.001 118.697 27.307 0.331
the GEP model offers higher and more stable prediction accuracy
(Haimson and Chang,
2002) than the three conventional strength criteria, especially for the
Orikabe monzonite 18.659 1.515 0.001 270.649 13.957 0.905 lower true triaxial strength of rocks.
(Mogi, 1971) Table 4 summarizes the prediction performance metrics of the
Yamaguchi marble 32.162 0.861 0.001 50.904 16.76 0.821 strength criterion based on the GEP model and the three conven-
(Mogi, 1971)
Jinping white marble 92.434 0.17 0.002 65.433 26.324 0.718
tional strength criteria. To better compare the performance of the
(Gao et al., 2018) models at different stages, the prediction performance of the
Marble (Feng et al., 2020) 22.644 0.753 0 54.913 14.195 0.346 models for the testing and training data sets are presented sepa-
rately. For the training set, R2 of the strength criterion based on the
GEP model is 0.9776, RMSE is 65.1618, and MAPE is 0.2031. For the
testing data set, R2 is 0.9755, RMSE is 64.4162, and MAPE is 0.215.
  From the R2, RMSE and MAPE of the four models for the training
S2 S3
Fitness ¼  100 ¼ 1  100 (26) and testing data sets, the prediction performance of the strength
S1 S1
criterion based on the GEP model is significantly better than that of
the three conventional strength criteria selected. For the R2 and
 J. Zhou et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 15 (2023) 2508e2520 2515

Table 3
GEP model parameter settings.

GEP parameter Igneous Sedimentary Metamorphic

Ending symbol set s2 , s3 , sc

Function symbol set þ, -,/, *, Q, sin, cos, tan, e, pow, atan, asin, acos
Evolutionary algebra 1000 1000 1000
Number of genes 4 5 4
Head length 16 20 15
Linking function þ þ þ
Mutation probability 0.00538 0.00621 0.0058
Transposition probability 0.0029 0.00277 0.0029
Reorganisation probability 0.0029 0.00277 0.0029
Individual selection method Roulette wheel selection

Fig. 6. ETs for three types of rock GEP models.

Fig. 5. Plot of model fitness versus the number of iterations.
RMSE, the strength criterion based on the GEP model has a sig-
nificant improvement over the selected conventional strength
criteria. It can also be seen that the prediction performance of the
strength criterion based on the GEP model is almost equal for the
training and testing data sets. This indicates that the strength cri-
terion based on the GEP model has better prediction accuracy
performance and also has excellent generalisation ability.
Compared to tables, Taylor diagrams provide a more visual
representation of the prediction power of multiple models (Taylor,
2001). The closer the points on the diagram are to the labelled
measurement points, the better the prediction performance of the
strength criterion represented by that point. Fig. 8 shows the Taylor
plots of the four strength criteria for the training and testing data
sets. One can see that the strength criterion based on the GEP
model has a better prediction performance, both on the training
and testing data sets.
By analysing Table 4, Figs. 7 and 8, it is evident that the pre-
diction performance of the strength criterion based on the GEP
model is better than the three conventional strength criteria. To
further analyse the prediction performance of the above criteria for
different types of rocks, the prediction accuracy of the training and
testing data sets are further divided, as shown in Fig. 9. The y-axis in
the figure represents the R2 between the predicted and experi-
mental values. From Fig. 9a, it can be seen that the prediction
performance of the strength criterion based on the GEP model is
stable and excellent for igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic
rocks. The three conventional strength criteria, i.e. ML, MWC and
MMC, all have limitations in predicting certain types of rocks.
Fig. 9b further shows the prediction performance of the model
for various rocks. The data for rocks of the same type were com-
bined into one and used to compare the prediction performance of
different criteria for that type of rock. One can see that the strength
criterion based on the GEP model has a good prediction accuracy
for all seven rock types except siltstone and marble. In contrast, the
conventional strength criteria, except for their poor performance
on siltstone and marble, also have one or more unsuitable rock
types. This indicates that the strength characteristics of siltstone are
quite different from those of sandstone, limestone and dolomite,
which are also sedimentary rocks, and are not suitable with the
three conventional strength criteria. The strength characteristics of
marble differ from those of amphibolite and monzonite, which are
also metamorphic rocks, and are only suitable for the ML criterion
among the three conventional strength criteria. During the training
process in this study, the strength model represented by the final
output strength criterion approached the overall strength charac-
teristics of the training data set through continuous iterations.
However, for individuals that deviate from the overall data char-
acteristics, their prediction accuracy may be impacted. However,
the generalisability of the strength criterion based on the GEP
model is better than that of the three commonly used conventional
strength criteria selected.
Fig. 10 shows the relationships between the predicted and
experimental values in the s1-s2 plane. Meanwhile, to better
compare the model performance, the strength criterion based on
the GP model for granite and sandstone with the best accuracy
performance was selected for comparison from the study of Yu
et al. (2022). The specific expressions are as follows:
s1 ¼ 48:14 þ sc þ ln 15f4 lnðcos 11  s3 þ s2 Þ þ 2s3
þ sinfs3 þ ln ½3s2 þ cos 12  lnð24 þ sin 19Þg
þ 23flnfs3 þ sinfs3 þ ln½ln 14 þ cos 11 þ s2 þ cos 12
 lnðs3 þ sin 19Þgggg ðgraniteÞ
(30)
s1 ¼ s2 þ2s3 þ 9 ln½s2 lnðs2  21Þ  21 þ 82 þ sc ðsandstoneÞ
(31)
As shown in Fig. 10, the proposed strength criterion based on the
GEP model more accurately predicts the enhancement of s2 to s1
compared to the strength criterion based on the GP model.
2516 J. Zhou et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 15 (2023) 2508e2520
Fig. 7. Scatter plots of experimental and predicted values of s1 for training and testing data sets: (a) Strength criterion based on GEP model, (b) ML criterion, (c) MWC criterion, and
(d) MMC criterion.
However, both strength criteria have the drawback of not accu-
rately predicting that s1 decreases as s2 increases after s2 reaches a
certain value. During the loading process, new microcracks
continuously generate inside the rock, which gradually develop
into fracture faces after coalescing with the original microcracks.
While s2 can limit the generation and development of microcracks,
thus improving the rock strength (s1). However, after s2 reaches a
certain value, the rock undergoes damage along the s2-s3 plane, at
which time the increase in s2 leads to a decrease in the rock
strength (s1) (You, 2009). Pan et al. (2012) showed that the effect of
s2 on the true triaxial strength of the rock (s1) is influenced by the
rock heterogeneity. The input parameters s2, s3 and sc considered
in this paper do not reflect the rock heterogeneity. The chosen
conventional strength criterion also lacks consideration of the rock
heterogeneity. Therefore, in Fig. 7, it appears that all four strength
criteria perform poorly in the prediction of s1 between 1000 MPa
and 1500 MPa. Thus, for a complete prediction of the trend of the
true triaxial strength (s1) with s2 for different rocks, parameters
that represent the rock heterogeneity need to be considered.
Table 5 shows the parameter settings of the four strength
criteria. One can see that the parameter setting of the strength
criterion based on the GEP model is the simplest and the easiest to
obtain. The sc of the rocks can be obtained directly by simple uni-
axial tests. However, the cohesion (c) and internal friction angle (f)
of the rock need to be obtained by the Mohr strength envelope of
the rock, and then by the Mohr strength envelope through triaxial
tests.
Finally, the importance of the input variables for the strength
criterion based on the GEP model was confirmed through Sobol
sensitivity analysis (Yu et al., 2022). As shown in Fig. 11, for the
strength criterion of igneous rocks (sensitivity score: 0.015 for s2,
0.568 for s3, 0.436 for sc), s3 is the primary factor affecting the true
triaxial strength of rocks, followed by sc and finally s2. The same
ranking of the importance of the input factors in the strength cri-
terion of sedimentary rocks and the strength criterion of meta-
morphic rocks was observed as well. It can be seen from Fig. 10 that
under the same s2 state, s1 has a significant increase with the in-
crease of s3. Also, under the same s2 and s3 state, a larger sc results
in a higher s1. As for s2, as it increases, s1 increases and then de-
creases, which has been discussed earlier. Meanwhile, the strength
criterion based on the GEP model obtained for igneous, sedimen-
tary and metamorphic rocks have different importance of input
parameters. For example, the strength criterion obtained for
igneous rocks has a sensitivity score of 0.568 for s3 and 0.436 for sc,
which are relatively closer in importance. However, the importance
of s3 and sc for the strength criterion of metamorphic and sedi-
mentary rocks differs more significantly. Among the three types of
rocks, sc has the largest influence on the output of the strength
criterion of igneous rocks, followed by metamorphic rocks, and
finally sedimentary rocks. This is consistent with the ranking of the
 J. Zhou et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 15 (2023) 2508e2520 2517

Table 4 (mmean ¼ 90.52). It can be observed that the influence of UCS (sc) on
Prediction performance measures of GEP model and three conventional strength the true triaxial strength (s1) increases with UCS increase.
criteria.

Data type Method R2 RMSE MAPE

Training MWC 0.9205 130.0518 0.2163 8. Limitations of the proposed method

ML 0.9451 111.197 0.2075
MMC 0.7906 217.9271 0.2963 The proposed method has some shortcomings, such as:
GEP 0.9776 65.1618 0.2031
Testing MWC 0.9394 114.4607 0.2179
ML 0.947 102.6628 0.2136 (1) The classification of rocks based solely on their geneses
MMC 0.9183 131.5799 0.256 might not fully reflect their mechanical properties, as the
GEP 0.9755 64.4162 0.215 properties can vary greatly even within the same rock type.
To improve the accuracy of the classification, more rigorous
approaches that consider additional factors affecting me-
mean values of sc for the three rock types in Fig. 4d, with igneous chanical properties, such as mineralogical composition and
rocks (mmean ¼ 164.84) being the largest, followed by metamorphic structure, could be explored.
rocks (mmean ¼ 138.81), and finally sedimentary rocks (2) The proposed model cannot completely predict the variation
of s1 with s2 because the parameters related to rock het-
erogeneity are not considered. Rocks are often

Fig. 8. Taylor diagrams of the predicted results of the GEP model and three conventional strength criteria: (a) Training phase, and (b) Testing phase.

Fig. 9. Prediction accuracy for (a) rocks of different geneses and (b) different types of rocks.
2518 J. Zhou et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 15 (2023) 2508e2520

Fig. 10. Trend of the predicted and experimental values in the s1-s2 plane: (a) GEP model with Inada granite data, (b) GP model with Inada granite data, (c) GEP model with
sandstone data, and (d) GP model with sandstone data.

Table 5 strength characteristics. Future studies could focus on

Parameter composition of the GEP model and three conventional strength criteria. quantifying rock heterogeneity and incorporating it into the
Model/criterion Common parameter Unique parameter Acquisition means input parameters of the model to improve its accuracy.
GEP s1 , s2 , s3 sc Uniaxial test
ML c, f Triaxial test
MWC c, f Triaxial test
MMC c, f, sc Triaxial test 9. Conclusions

In this paper, the influence of rock genesis on the mechanical

characteristics of rocks is considered. A true triaxial strength pre-
diction model based on the GEP algorithm for three different ge-
netic rocks is developed. A total of 901 sets of true triaxial test data
for 29 rocks are collected from the literature. The data are then
randomly divided into a training data set (70% of the data) and a
testing data set (30% of the data). By training with the data from the
training data set, the strength criterion of igneous, sedimentary and
metamorphic rocks based on the GEP model is obtained. The same
training data set is used to determine the parameters of the three
conventional strength criteria (ML, MWC and MMC). Then the
testing data sets are used to compare the prediction performance of
these models. The obtained strength criterion is also compared
with that of the GP model. Finally, the Sobol sensitivity analysis
technique is used to analyse the effect of the model input variables
on the output. Based on these analyses, the paper arrived at the
following conclusions:
Fig. 11. Total sensitivity from Sobol sensitivity analysis.
(1) For the testing data set used, the rock strength criterion
based on the GEP model has better prediction performance
heterogeneous in terms of their mineralogical composition, than the three conventional strength criteria. In comparison,
structure, and other factors, which can greatly affect their the true triaxial strength criterion based on the GEP model
 J. Zhou et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 15 (2023) 2508e2520
improves R2 by 3.1%e6.2%, reduces RMSE by 37.3%e51%, and
reduces MAPE by a maximum of 16%.
(2) The rock strength criterion based on the GEP model suits
more types of rocks, compared to the three conventional
strength criteria. The prediction performance is more stable
for different types of rocks. For the nine different rocks in the
data set used, the rock strength criterion based on the GEP
model shows low prediction accuracy for only two rock
types. All three conventional strength criteria have three and
more rocks with low prediction accuracy.
(3) Compared to the strength criterion based on the GP model
developed by Yu et al. (2022), the strength criterion based on
the GEP model proposed in this paper provides more accu-
rate prediction of the true triaxial strength of rocks. However,
the input parameters of both models do not take into account
the parameters that can represent the rock heterogeneity.
Therefore, both models do not predict the effect of s2 on s1
changing from enhanced to weakened after a certain point.
For a complete prediction of the true triaxial mechanical
behaviour of rocks, input parameters that represent the rock
heterogeneity need to be considered.
(4) The results of Sobol sensitivity analysis indicate that for the
three types of rocks of different geneses, the true triaxial
strength (s1) is most influenced by s3, followed by sc, and
finally by s2. However, for rocks of different geneses, s2, s3
and sc have different percentages of influence on s1. Addi-
tionally, the influence of sc on the true triaxial strength of the
rock (s1) increases with sc increase.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This research is partially supported by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 42177164), the Distin-
guished Youth Science Foundation of Hunan Province of China
(Grant No. 2022JJ10073) and the Innovation-Driven Project of
Central South University (Grant No. 2020CX040).
References
Afrasiabian, B., Eftekhari, M., 2022. Prediction of mode I fracture toughness of rock
using linear multiple regression and gene expression programming. J. Rock
Mech. Geotech. Eng. 14 (5), 1421e1432.
Armaghani, D.J., Faradonbeh, R.S., Rezaei, H., Rashid, A.S.A., Amnieh, H.B., 2018.
Settlement prediction of the rock-socketed piles through a new technique
based on gene expression programming. Neural Comput. Appl. 29 (11), 1115e
1125.
Askaripour, M., Saeidi, A., Mercier-Langevin, P., Rouleau, A., 2022. A review of
relationship between texture characteristic and mechanical properties of rock.
Geotechnics 2 (1), 262e296.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1974. Estimating the strength of rock materials. J. S. Afr. Inst. Min.
Metall 74 (8), 312e320.
Chen, Y., Yong, W., Li, C., Zhou, J., 2023. Predicting the thickness of an excavation
damaged zone around the roadway using the DA-RF hybrid model. Comput.
Model. Eng. Sci. 136 (3), 2507e2526.
Drucker, D.C., Prager, W., 1952. Soil mechanics and plastic analysis or limit design.
Q. Appl. Math. 10 (2), 157e165.
Du, K., Li, X., Su, R., et al., 2022a. Shape ratio effects on the mechanical character-
istics of rectangular prism rocks and isolated pillars under uniaxial compres-
sion. Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. 32 (2), 347e362.
Du, K., Sun, Y., Zhou, J., Khandelwal, M., Gong, F., 2022b. Mineral composition and
grain size effects on the fracture and acoustic emission (AE) characteristics of
rocks under compressive and tensile stress. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 55 (10),
6445e6474.
Ewy, R.T., 1999. Wellbore-stability predictions by use of a modified Lade criterion.
SPE Drill. Complet. 14 (2), 85e91.
2519
Faradonbeh, R.S., Armaghani, D.J., Monjezi, M., Mohamad, E.T., 2016. Genetic pro-
gramming and gene expression programming for flyrock assessment due to
mine blasting. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 88, 254e264.
Fathipour-Azar, H., 2022. Polyaxial rock failure criteria: insights from explainable
and interpretable data-driven models. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 55 (4), 2071e2089.
Feng, X.T., Kong, R., Zhang, X., Yang, C., 2019. Experimental study of failure differ-
ences in hard rock under true triaxial compression. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 52
(7), 2109e2122.
Feng, F., Li, X., Du, K., Li, D., Rostami, J., Wang, S., 2020. Comprehensive evaluation of
strength criteria for granite, marble, and sandstone based on polyaxial exper-
imental tests. Int. J. GeoMech. 20 (2), 04019155.
Ferreira, C., 2001. Gene expression programming: a new adaptive algorithm for
solving problems. Complex Syst. 13 (2), 87129.
Gao, Y.H., Feng, X.T., Zhang, X.W., Feng, G.L., Jiang, Q., Qiu, S.L., 2018. Characteristic
stress levels and brittle fracturing of hard rocks subjected to true triaxial
compression with low minimum principal stress. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 51 (12),
3681e3697.
Griffith, A.A., 1921. The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. Philos. Trans. R.
Soc. Lond. Ser. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 221 (582e593), 163e198.
Haimson, B., 2006. True triaxial stresses and the brittle fracture of rock. Pure Appl.
Geophys. 163 (5), 1101e1130.
Haimson, B., Chang, C.D., 2000. A new true triaxial cell for testing mechanical
properties of rock, and its use to determine rock strength and deformability of
Westerly granite. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 37 (1), 285e296.
Haimson, B.C., Chang, C.D., 2002. True triaxial strength of the KTB amphibolite
under borehole wall conditions and its use to estimate the maximum horizontal
in situ stress. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 107 (B10). ETG 15-11-ETG 15-14.
He, P.F., Ma, X.D., He, M.C., Tao, Z.G., Liu, D.Q., 2022. Comparative study of nine intact
rock failure criteria via analytical geometry. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 55 (6), 3083e
3106.
Hoek, E., Brown, E.T., 1980. Empirical strength criterion for rock masses. J. Geotech.
Eng. Div. 106 (9), 1013e1035.
Hunter, R.H., 1996. Texture developments in cumulate rocks. In: Cawthorn, R.G.
(Ed.), Layered Intrusions. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 77e101.
Ince, I., Bozdag, A., Fener, M., Kahraman, S., 2019. Estimation of uniaxial compressive
strength of pyroclastic rocks (Cappadocia, Turkey) by gene expression pro-
gramming. Arabian J. Geosci. 12 (24), 1e13.
Jiang, H., Xie, Y., 2011. A note on the mohrecoulomb and druckereprager strength
criteria. Mech. Res. Commun. 38 (4), 309e314.
Kwasniewski, M., Takahashi, M., Li, X., 2003. Volume changes in sandstone under
true triaxial compression conditions. In: Proceedings of the 10th ISRM
Congress, Technology Roadmap for Rock Mechanics. South African Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy, pp. 683e688.
Lade, P.V., Duncan, J.M., 1975. Elastoplastic stress-strain theory for cohesionless soil.
J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 101 (10), 1037e1053.
Laskar, B.Z., Majumder, S., 2017. Gene expression programming. In: Acharjya, D.P.,
Mitra, A. (Eds.), Bio-Inspired Computing for Information Retrieval Applications.
IGI Global, Pennsylvania, PA, USA, pp. 269e292.
Lawal, A.I., Kwon, S., Hammed, O.S., Idris, M.A., 2021. Blast-induced ground vibra-
tion prediction in granite quarries: an application of gene expression pro-
gramming, ANFIS, and sine cosine algorithm optimized ANN. Int. J. Min. Sci.
Technol. 31 (2), 265e277.
Li, X., Du, K., Li, D., 2015. True triaxial strength and failure modes of cubic rock
specimens with unloading the minor principal stress. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 48
(6), 2185e2196.
Li, E., Yang, F., Ren, M., Zhang, X., Zhou, J., Khandelwal, M., 2021. Prediction of
blasting mean fragment size using support vector regression combined with
five optimization algorithms. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 13 (6), 1380e1397.
McClintock, F.A., Walsh, J.B., 1962. Friction on Griffith cracks in rocks under pres-
sure. In: Proceedings of the 4th U.S. National Congress of Applied Mechanics.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), New York, USA, pp. 1015e
1021.
Mogi, K., 1967. Effect of the intermediate principal stress on rock failure. J. Geophys.
Res. 72 (20), 5117e5131.
Mogi, K., 1971. Fracture and flow of rocks under high triaxial compression.
J. Geophys. Res. 76 (5), 1255e1269.
Moshrefi, S., Shahriar, K., Ramezanzadeh, A., Goshtasbi, K., 2018. Prediction of ul-
timate strength of shale using artificial neural network. J. Min. Environ. 9 (1),
91e105.
Oltean, M., Grosan, C., 2003. A comparison of several linear genetic programming
techniques. Complex Syst. 14 (4), 285e314.
Onifade, M., Lawal, A.I., Abdulsalam, J., Genc, B., Bada, S., Said, K.O., Gbadamosi, A.R.,
2021. Development of multiple soft computing models for estimating organic
and inorganic constituents in coal. Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. 31 (3), 483e494.
Pan, P.Z., Feng, X.T., Hudson, J., 2012. The influence of the intermediate principal
stress on rock failure behaviour: a numerical study. Eng. Geol. 124, 109e118.
Patil, I., 2021. Visualizations with statistical details: the ’ggstatsplot’ approach.
J. Open Source Softw. 6 (61), 3167.
Pobwandee, T., 2010. Effects of Intermediate Principal Stress on Compressive
Strength and Elasticity of Phra Wihan Sandstone. PhD Thesis. School of Geo-
technology, Institute of Engineering, Suranaree University of Technology,
Thailand.
Rafiai, H., 2011. New empirical polyaxial criterion for rock strength. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. 48 (6), 922e931.
2520 J. Zhou et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 15 (2023) 2508e2520
Rafiai, H., Jafari, A., Mahmoudi, A., 2013. Application of ANN-based failure criteria to
rocks under polyaxial stress conditions. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 59, 42e49.
Rukhaiyar, S., Samadhiya, N.K., 2017a. A polyaxial strength model for intact sand-
stone based on Artificial Neural Network. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 95, 26e47.
Rukhaiyar, S., Samadhiya, N.K., 2017b. Strength behaviour of sandstone subjected to
polyaxial state of stress. Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. 27 (6), 889e897.
Singh, M., Raj, A., Singh, B., 2011. Modified MohreCoulomb criterion for non-linear
triaxial and polyaxial strength of intact rocks. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 48 (4),
546e555.
Smart, B., Somerville, J., Crawford, B.R., 1999. A rock test cell with true triaxial
capability. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 17 (3), 157e176.
Takahashi, M., Koide, H., 1989. Effect of the intermediate principal stress on strength
and deformation behavior of sedimentary rocks at the depth shallower than
2000 m. In: Maury, V., Fourmaintraux, D. (Eds.), Rock at Great Depth. A.A.
Balkema, pp. 19e26.
Taylor, K.E., 2001. Summarizing multiple aspects of model performance in a single
diagram. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 106 (7), 7183e7192.
Walsri, C., Poonprakon, P., Thosuwan, R., Fuenkajorn, K., 2009. Compressive and
tensile strengths of sandstones under true triaxial stresses. In: Proceedings of
the 2nd Thailand Symposium on Rock Mechanics. Chonburi, Thailand, pp. 199e
218.
Wang, S., Liu, Y., Du, K., Zhou, J., Khandelwal, M., 2020. Waveform features and
failure patterns of hollow cylindrical sandstone specimens under repetitive
impact and triaxial confinements. Geomech. Geophys. Geo-Energy Geo-Resour.
6 (4), 1e18.
Wang, S.M., Zhou, J., Li, C.Q., Armaghani, D.J., Li, X.B., Mitri, H.S., 2021. Rockburst
prediction in hard rock mines developing bagging and boosting tree-based
ensemble techniques. J. Cent. South Univ. 28 (2), 527e542.
Wang, M., Chen, B., Zhao, H., 2022. Data-driven rock strength parameter identifi-
cation using artificial bee colony algorithm. Buildings 12 (6), 725.
Wiebols, G., Cook, N., 1968. An energy criterion for the strength of rock in polyaxial
compression. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 5 (6), 529e549.
Xie, C., Nguyen, H., Bui, X.N., Nguyen, V.T., Zhou, J., 2021. Predicting roof displace-
ment of roadways in underground coal mines using adaptive neuro-fuzzy
inference system optimized by various physics-based optimization algo-
rithms. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 13 (6), 1452e1465.
Xie, H., Lu, J., Li, C., Li, M., Gao, M., 2022. Experimental study on the mechanical and
failure behaviors of deep rock subjected to true triaxial stress: a review. Int. J.
Min. Sci. Technol. 32 (5), 915e950.
Yong, W., Zhou, J., Jahed Armaghani, D., et al., 2021. A new hybrid simulated
annealing-based genetic programming technique to predict the ultimate
bearing capacity of piles. Eng. Comput. 37, 2111e2127.
You, M., 2009. True-triaxial strength criteria for rock. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 46
(1), 115e127.
Yu, M.-H., Zan, Y.-W., Zhao, J., Yoshimine, M., 2002. A unified strength criterion for
rock material. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 39 (8), 975e989.
Yu, B., Zhang, D., Xu, B., Liu, Y., Zhao, H., Wang, C., 2022. Modeling of true triaxial
strength of rocks based on optimized genetic programming. Appl. Soft Comput.
129, 109601.
Zhang, L., Zhu, H., 2007. Three-dimensional Hoek-Brown strength criterion for
rocks. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 133 (9), 1128e1135.
Zhang, Q., Wang, S.L., Ge, X.R., Wang, H.Y., 2010. Modified Mohr-Coulomb strength
criterion considering rock mass intrinsic material strength factorization. Min.
Sci. Technol. 20 (5), 701e706.
Zhang, Q., Zhu, H., Zhang, L., 2013. Modification of a generalized three-dimensional
HoekeBrown strength criterion. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 59, 80e96.
Zhang, Q., Li, C., Quan, X., Wang, Y., Yu, L., Jiang, B., 2018. New true-triaxial rock
strength criteria considering intrinsic material characteristics. Acta Mech. Sin.
34 (1), 130e142.
Zhang, Q., Wang, H.Y., Jiang, Y.J., Lu, M.M., Jiang, B.S., 2019. A numerical large strain
solution for circular tunnels excavated in strain-softening rock masses. Comput.
Geotech. 114, 103142.
Zhou, S., 1994. A program to model the initial shape and extent of borehole
breakout. Comput. Geosci. 20 (7e8), 1143e1160.
Zhou, J., Li, C., Koopialipoor, M., Jahed Armaghani, D., Thai Pham, B., 2021a.
Development of a new methodology for estimating the amount of PPV in sur-
face mines based on prediction and probabilistic models (GEP-MC). Int. J. Min.
Reclamat. Environ. 35 (1), 48e68.
Zhou, J., Qiu, Y., Armaghani, D.J., et al., 2021b. Predicting TBM penetration rate in
hard rock condition: a comparative study among six XGB-based metaheuristic
techniques. Geosci. Front. 12 (3), 101091.
Zhou, J., Qiu, Y., Zhu, S., et al., 2021c. Optimization of support vector machine
through the use of metaheuristic algorithms in forecasting TBM advance rate.
Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 97, 104015.
Zhou, J., Dai, Y., Du, K., Khandelwal, M., Li, C., Qiu, Y., 2022a. COSMA-RF: new
intelligent model based on chaos optimized slime mould algorithm and random
forest for estimating the peak cutting force of conical picks. Transp. Geotech. 36,
100806.
Zhou, J., Huang, S., Qiu, Y., 2022b. Optimization of random forest through the use of
MVO, GWO and MFO in evaluating the stability of underground entry-type
excavations. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 124, 104494.
Zhu, C., Zhao, H., Ru, Z., 2015. LSSVM-Based rock failure criterion and its application
in numerical simulation. Math. Probl. Eng. 246068, 2015.
Jian Zhou obtained his BSc degree (2008) and PhD (2015)
from Central South University (CSU), China, and as Visiting
scholar with Mine Design Laboratory at McGill University
from 2013 to 2014. Currently, he is an associate professor
in the School of Resources and Safety Engineering at CSU,
China. His current research interests include geological
and geotechnical hazards prediction and mitigation,
applying predictive models in rock mechanics and mining
engineering. Dr. Zhou is the Highly Cited Researcher in the
field of Cross-Field (Clarivate), the Highly Cited Chinese
Researcher in the field of Mining Engineering (Elsevier)
and the Distinguished Young Scholars Fund of Hunan
Province, China. He has published more than 100 papers
in international journals on mining and geotechnical is-
sues, and received China’s 100 Most Influential International Academic Papers Award,
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering and Journal of Central South Uni-
versity Best Paper Award.