ARTICLE IN PRESS

Engineering Applications of Articial Intelligence 22 (2009) 808814

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Applications of Articial Intelligence

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engappai

Application of two non-linear prediction tools to the estimation of tunnel

boring machine performance
S. Yagiz a,, C. Gokceoglu b, E. Sezer c, S. Iplikci d
a

Pamukkale University, Department of Geological Engineering, 20020 Denizli, Turkey

Hacettepe University, Department of Geological Engineering, 06800 Beytepe, Ankara, Turkey
c
Hacettepe University, Department of Computer Engineering, 06800 Beytepe, Ankara, Turkey
d
Pamukkale University, Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, 20020 Denizli, Turkey
b

a r t i c l e in f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 29 July 2008
Received in revised form
23 January 2009
Accepted 22 March 2009
Available online 9 May 2009

Predicting tunnel boring machine (TBM) performance is a crucial issue for the accomplishment of a
mechanical tunnel project, excavating via full face tunneling machine. Many models and equations have
previously been introduced to estimate TBM performance based on properties of both rock and machine
employing various statistical analysis techniques. However, considering the nature of the problem, it is
relatively difcult to estimate tunnel boring machine performance by linear prediction models. Articial
neural networks (ANNs) and non-linear multiple regression models have great potential for establishing
such prediction models. The purpose of the present study is the construction of non-linear multivariable
prediction models to estimate TBM performance as a function of rock properties. For this purpose, rock
properties and machine data were collected from recently completed TBM tunnel project in the City of
New York, USA and consequently the database was established to develop performance prediction
models utilizing the ANN and the non-linear multiple regression methods. This paper presents the
results of study into the application of the non-linear prediction approaches providing the acceptable
precise performance estimations.
& 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Articial neural networks
Non-linear multiple regression
Rock properties
TBM prognosis
Tunneling

1. Introduction
Non-linear and complex problems are encountered frequently
during the application of geotechnical projects. One of these
complex problems is the prediction of tunnel boring machine
(TBM) performance. Various performance estimation models have
been used for the selection and the optimization of tunnel boring
machines and excavators since the rst mechanical tunnel project
was constructed. Estimation of machine performance for any type
of mechanical excavators can be employed to reduce the risks
related to high capital costs typical to excavation operations.
Predicting the TBM performance requires the estimation of the
rate of penetration (ROP), the ratio of excavated distance to the
operating time during continuous excavation phase, and advance
rate (AR), the ratio of both mined and supported actual distance to
the total time. In fact, most of the TBM performance prediction
models deal with estimating the rate of penetration. The
performance analysis of the machines and the development of
precise prediction models have been the ultimate goal and are still
under development for many researchers (Tarkoy, 1975; Ozdemir,

 Corresponding author.

E-mail address: syagiz@pau.edu.tr (S. Yagiz).

0952-1976/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2009.03.007

1977; Sharp and Ozdemir, 1991; Nelson and ORourke, 1983;

Lislerud, 1988; Rostami and Ozdemir, 1993; Barton, 1999; Yagiz,
2002, 2006, 2008). Besides these mathematical models and
limited number of empirical and theoretical equations, utilization
of articial neural network (ANN) has been encountered in the
literature (Alvarez Grima et al., 2000; Okubo et al., 2003;
Benardos and Kaliampakos, 2004; Tiryaki, 2008). Further, in the
last few years, the fuzzy logic and the ANN have been utilized for
establishing predictive models in both mining and civil tunneling
applications (Lee and Lee, 1996; Alvarez Grima and Babuska, 1999;
Gokceoglu, 2002; Gokceoglu and Zorlu, 2004; Nefeslioglu et al.,
2003, 2006; Sonmez et al., 2006; Kahraman et al., 2006; Yoo and
Kim, 2007). In the majority of these performed studies, the main
point is to model the tunnel process and make the performance
prediction, based on the experience gained and the data compiled
from the past tunneling projects. The main objectives of the
present study are to develop TBM performance prediction models
by establishing the ANN and non-linear multivariable regression
models and to compare the results obtained from currently
introduced models. To develop the proposed models, the database
that is composed of intact rock properties including uniaxial
compressive strength (UCS), Brazilian tensile strength (BTS) and
brittleness index (BI) and also rock mass properties including
distance between planes of weakness (DPW) and the alpha angle

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Yagiz et al. / Engineering Applications of Articial Intelligence 22 (2009) 808814

809

(a) [the angle between plane of weakness and TBM-driven

direction] together with actual measured TBM penetration rate
in the tunnel site were established using the dataset collected
from about 7.5 km tunnel excavated in various hard rocks.

2. Data source and data structure

A high-performance Robbins TBM (235-282) excavated a
tunnel about 7.06 m in diameter, about 7.5 km long, and roughly
200 m deep through the subsurface of southwestern Queens in
the City of New York, USA. The tunnel, which is the tunnel no. 3
stage 2 as given in Fig. 1, was constructed between 1997 and 2000
in order to improve freshwater distribution throughout the City.
The tunnel is one of the most complex engineering projects in the
world.
New York City is situated at the extreme southern terminus of
the Manhattan Prong, a northeast-trending, deeply eroded
sequence of metamorphosed rocks that widen northeastward
into the crystalline terrains of New England (Merguerian, 1983,
1996; Yagiz, 2002; Merguerian and Ozdemir, 2003). The Sound is
in a natural boundary between crystalline rocks of the New
England Appalachians and southward-dipping sediments of the
coastal plain and overlying glacial sediments (Baskerville, 1992,
1994).
TBM excavation of the Queens Tunnel in the construction area
is obstructed by geological conditions including unexpected
lithology and rock fabric orientation, a zone of crosscutting
rhyodacite dikes and brittle faults hinders. The geological complex
in the study area includes compositionally variable high-grade
gneiss and amphibolite and younger crosscutting igneous rocks
including foliated intrusive, pegmatite, mac and rhyodacite
dikes. Minor meta-sedimentary units include calc-silicate rock,
granofels and shear-bounded lenses of biotite-garnet schist that
share petrographic characteristics with the Ordovician schist
(Merguerian, 1983; Yagiz, 2002; Merguerian and Ozdemir,
2003). As the results of statistics and laboratory analysis,
distribution and percentages of the rock type along the tunnel
alignment were categorized as shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. Distribution of rock types along the tunnel based on the eld study (Yagiz,
2002; Merguerian and Ozdemir, 2003).

Table 1
Basic descriptive statistics for the established dataseta.

Maximum
Minimum
Average
Median
Standard
deviation
Variance
a

UCS

BTS

DPW

Alpha

(MPa)

BI
(brittleness)
(kN/mm)

(MPa)

Measured
(ROP)
(m/h)

(m)

(deg)

199.7
118.3
150.1
142.1
22.2

11.4
6.7
9.5
9.8
0.9

58.0
24.9
34.6
31.2
8.5

2.00
0.05
1.02
0.80
0.64

89.0
2.0
44.7
45.0
23.3

3.07
1.27
2.04
2.03
0.36

492.4

0.8

71.5

0.42

541.9

0.13

Total number of data points is 151.

The Queens tunnel was studied in both eld and laboratory in

order to establish database to be used for the development of the
ANN and the non-linear multivariable regression models. Part of
the database was established by performing intact rock tests
including uniaxial compressive strength, Brazilian tensile strength
and rock brittleness in accordance with ASTM standard at the
Earth Mechanics Institute of Colorado School of Mines in the USA.
Secondly, in the eld, alpha angle, that is the angle between plane
of weakness and TBM-driven direction, was computed and also
the distance between planes of weakness and the ROP in stroke
base was measured. The result of the tests in the laboratory and
the measured ROP, DPW and alpha in the eld were utilized as
input variables to generate the prediction models. The ranges of
input parameters in the database, including 151 cases, and their
basic descriptive statistics are given in Table 1.

3. Simple regression and input selection

Fig. 1. The location map of the constructed tunnel (no. 3, stage 2 from shaft 16b to
19B, not-to-scale).

In the rst stage of the analyses, a series of simple regression

analyses between the independent variables and the dependent
variable was conducted (Table 2). The simple regression analyses
provide a means of summarising the relationship between two
variables. During the simple regression analyses, linear, power,
logarithmic and exponential functions were used. All statistical
analyses including F-tests were performed using a computer
package (SPSS, 2007). All type relations between the ROP and the
BI are positive and statistically signicant at p 0.05 level while
those between the ROP and the DPW are inverse and signicant
(Table 2). Only the power function yielded signicant relation

ARTICLE IN PRESS
810

S. Yagiz et al. / Engineering Applications of Articial Intelligence 22 (2009) 808814

Table 2
Correlation coefcients of the simple regressions between the ROP and the
independent variables (number of data: 151).

UCS
BTS
BI
DPW

a
a

Linear

Power

Logarithmic

Exponential

0.26
0.09
0.58a
0.47a
0.22

0.23
0.09
0.55a
0.44a
0.40a

0.25
0.10
0.58a
0.44a
0.35

0.24
0.09
0.55a
0.46a
0.26

Statistically signicant at p 0.05 level.

Table 3
Correlation coefcients of the relations among the independent variables.

UCS
BTS
BI
DPW
a angle

UCS

BTS

BI

DPW

a angle

1.000

0.280
1.000

0.630
0.121
1.000

0.116
0.113
0.154
1.000

0.089
0.023
0.193
0.026
1.000

between the ROP and the a angle. However, although these

relations are statistically signicant, the coefcients of
correlations are rather low. As seen from Table 2, the other
relations between the ROP and some independent variables such
as UCS and BTS are statistically insignicant. These results
revealed that obtaining a reliable relation for the estimation of
the ROP using a unique variable is almost impossible. Because of
that, to provide a reliable estimation for the ROP, constructing
some multivariable models is indispensable. As summarized in
Table 2, BTS is the less signicant one (r 0.10) on the rate of
penetration in comparison with other rock properties. Therefore,
the BTS of rock was excluded from the developed models. To
prevent redundancy in the models, the relationship among the
independent variables was investigated (Table 3). As
demonstrated in Table 3, there is no redundancy between the
input parameters. However, there is statistically meaningful
relationship between UCS and brittleness index of rocks.
Brittleness index, computed for evaluating the force penetration
prole with the graph obtained from the punch penetration test,
is one of the most crucial tests for predicting borability and
cuttability of rock (Dollinger et al., 1998; Szwedzicki, 1998; Yagiz
2002, 2008, 2009; Copur et al., 2003). Actually, utilization of the
test and the evaluation of its results vary and depend on the
research purposed. The test was used by Szwedzicki (1998) to
investigate indentation hardness of rock while it was utilized for
investigating brittleness and toughness of rock by different
researchers (Dollinger et al., 1998; Yagiz and Ozdemir, 2001;
Yagiz, 2002, 2006, 2009; Copur et al., 2003). On the other hand, in
the late 1960s, the test was originally developed to estimate
cuttability and borability of rock by means of the penetration
index (Hamilton and Handewith, 1970). Data evaluating
techniques for measuring the rock brittleness index from the
test result were previously presented by Yagiz (2002, 2006, 2009).
Since the result of the test could represent various rock properties
(i.e., brittleness, toughness, hardness, borability and cuttability)
depending on the evaluation of the test results, using the punch
penetration test for estimating the rate of penetration is
necessary. In fact, brittleness, that is the behavior of rock under
the indenter and cutters, is the combination of rock properties
rather than only one rock parameter. Thus, in this study, the test
was conducted to obtain one of the input parameters to be used
for predicting the rate of penetration.

In order to be able to quantify the inuence of discontinuity

properties on tunnel boring machine performance, the alpha
angle, that is the angle between tunnel axis and the planes of
weakness, has been used. The a angle determined by Yagiz (2008)
was considered as another input parameter for the models. The
last independent variable, i.e. DPW, which is the average distance
between planes of weakness, was determined in the eld and
computation of the DPW was made by Yagiz (2002) using the
fracture class (FC) designation modied from Bruland (1999).
When making a close inspection to Table 2, all simple relations
between the ROP and the independent variables are not linear.
The relations between the ROP and the UCS, BI and DPW are linear
while that between the ROP and the a angle is a power function.
Therefore, to provide the best prediction of the ROP, some nonlinear multivariable prediction models should be constructed.
Before the construction of the non-linear multivariable prediction
models, to apply a learning stage independent of magnitude of
data and to provide standardization among the inputs and the
outputs, all data were normalized using the following equation:
X norm X  X min =X max  X min

(1)

where Xnorm is the normalized value of the measured variable; X is

the measured variable; Xmin is the minimum value of the
measured variable in the data; and Xmax is the maximum value
of the measured variable in the data (necessary data can be
obtained from Table 1 for the variables used in the present study).

4. Non-linear multiple regression analyses

As can be stated previously, prediction of ROP is a non-linear
multivariable problem. To consider the effects of intact rock and
rock mass properties together on the ROP, the non-linear multivariable regression analyses were performed using a statistical
package, namely SPSS Version 11.5 (SPSS, 2007). Non-linear
regression is a method of nding a non-linear model of the
relationship between the dependent variable and a set of
independent variables. Unlike traditional linear regression, restricted to estimating linear models, non-linear regression can
estimate a model with arbitrary relationships between independent and dependent variables (SPSS, 2007). In the present study,
considering the simple regression functions, the non-linear
multivariable regression functions were described and the process
was carried out using iterative estimation algorithm. Previously,
Yagiz (2008) developed a linear multivariable regression equation
for the prediction of the ROP using the dataset obtained from the
tunnel site; however, attempt was not made to perform either
non-linear multivariable regressions or the ANN models. Therefore, in this research, the database was re-established, as training
and testing datasets, for the development of both non-linear
multivariable regression equation and the ANN model to predict
TBM penetration rate. To this aim, ve different datasets were
selected randomly and used for establishment of the models; after
that, the results of the performed models were compared in order
to select the most precise one among them. During the data
selection process, a visual basic code was written for selection of
random datasets using the randomizer function (Zorlu et al.,
2008). Swingler (1996) and Looney (1996) recommended 20% and
25% of whole dataset for testing, respectively, while Nelson and
Illingworth (1990) proposed between 20% and 30% of whole data
for testing. When considering these suggestions, 30 cases were
selected randomly as the testing datasets. This random selection
process was repeated ve times as applied in the previous studies
(Sonmez et al., 2006; Zorlu et al., 2008). Using the model
development data, ve different non-linear multivariable regression equations were developed (Table 4). As given in Table 4, the

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Yagiz et al. / Engineering Applications of Articial Intelligence 22 (2009) 808814

811

Table 4
Non-linear multivariable regression equations obtained from the randomly selected model development datasets.
Dataset

Regression equation

ROPn 0:151UCSn 0:538BIn  0:255DPW n 0:480a0:286 0:077

0.82

ROPn 0:138UCSn 0:488BIn  0:235DPW n 0:471a0:244 0:075

0.81

ROPn 0:139UCSn 0:524BIn  0:234DPW n 0:633a0:205 0:076

0.82

ROPn 0:181UCSn 0:523BIn  0:259DPW n 0:456a0:245 0:111

0.80

ROPn 0:192UCSn 0:541BIn  0:231DPW n 0:485a0:231 0:067

0.82

correlation coefcients of the developed non-linear multivariable

regression models vary between 0.80 and 0.82 as considering only
model development datasets. However, when taking into
consideration the testing datasets, the correlation coefcients
are between 0.77 and 0.85.
The idea behind the non-linear multivariable models such as
the non-linear multivariable regression and ANN is to analyze the
experience gained from the tunnel boring process and to
correspond it to a set of selected data. The model inputs are
based on data relating to encountered rock properties, geotechnical characteristics of subsurface and encountered site condition as
well as machine specications. Even though machine specications (i.e., thrust, power, torque) are very important for overall
TBM tunneling and scheduling, in the case of ground composed of
highly fractured rock condition or complex formation, the
properties of the ground tend to be the most effective ones.
Consequently, encountered site conditions different from the
TBMs working envelope affect the obtained performance rate
(Deer, 1981). Therefore, the encountered rock mass properties and
geotechnical site condition are the most effective factors for TBM
performance as stated by many researchers (Tarkoy, 1973; Nelson,
1993; Bruland, 1999; Barton, 2000; Yagiz and Ozdemir, 2001;
Yagiz, 2008).

5. Articial neural network models

The ANN models have been one of the attractive tools used in
geotechnical and rock engineering application due to its high
performance in the modeling of non-linear multivariable problems. A neural network model of the data generating system can
be constructed utilizing ANN and the network-assessing outputs
from inputs. ANNs have a strong similarity with biological brain
and thus the basic characteristic of their terminology is adopted
from neuroscience. The basic characteristic is the ability to
perform massively parallel computing of the input data, unlike
the custom mathematic models that are based rather on a serial
process of mathematical and logical functions (Fausett, 1994).
ANN-based models are also empirical in nature; however, they
can provide practically accurate solutions for both precisely or
imprecisely formulated problems and phenomena that are only
understood through experimental data and eld observations
(Meulenkamp and Alvarez Grima, 1999; Singh et al., 2001; Lee
et al., 2003; Neupane and Achet, 2004; Gokceoglu et al., 2004;
Gomez and Kavzoglu, 2005; Sonmez et al., 2006; Singh et al.,
2007; Zorlu et al., 2008; Nefeslioglu et al., 2008). In the literature,
there are several networks such as Hopeld networks, adaptive
resonance theory networks, Kohonen networks, backpropagation
networks, recurrent networks, counterpropagation networks,
radial basis function networks, etc. However, the backpropagation
networks are the most widely used type of networks and are

considered the workhorse of ANNs (Rumelhart et al., 1986). Due to

its popularity, and its exibility and adaptability in modeling a
wide spectrum of problems in many application areas (Basheer
and Hajmeer, 2000), in this study, feed-forward articial neural
network architecture with hyperbolic tangent sigmoidal activation function
hx ex  ex =ex ex

(2)

has been employed in order to obtain an accurate model using

MATLAB Version 7.3.0.267 (Demuth et al., 2005). The same
datasets employed in the non-linear multivariable regression
analyses were used for developing the ANN models. Since the
hidden layer is the most crucial element of the network, the
number of neurons in the hidden layer has been selected carefully
according to suggested heuristics by different authors (HechtNielsen, 1987; Hush, 1989; Kanellopoulas and Wilkinson, 1997).
The ANN architecture (4  8  1) suggested by Hecht-Nielsen
(1987) [p2Ni+1] was preferred in this study. This particular
structure type means that the ANN has a total of three layers, with
4 neurons, representing the UCS, BI, DPW and a in the input layer,
one hidden layer with 8 neurons, followed by 1 neuron in the
output layer that is eventually estimated ROP (Fig. 3). Various
authors (Hecht-Nielsen, 1987; Baheer, 2000) pointed out that one
hidden layer may be sufcient to solve most problems. Hence, in
this study, one hidden layer was selected. The ANN model
parameters such as learning rate (Z) and momentum coefcient
(m) also have crucial importance for an ANN model. A brief review
on these model parameters can be found in the study published
by Basheer and Hajmeer (2000) and Sonmez et al. (2006). If the
learning rate is selected as small, the training rate can be slow,
because small learning rate values cause minor changes to
weights in the network. However, the training phase may cause
oscillations when the selected learning rate is too large (Sonmez
et al., 2006). The momentum coefcient has a stabilizing effect in
the backpropagation algorithm (Negnevitsky, 2002). Different
momentum coefcients have been proposed such as 0.40.9 by
Wyhthoff (1993), 0.01.0 by Hassoun (1995) and Fu (1995), close
to 1.0 by Henseler (1995) and Hertz et al. (1991). Depending on
the problem being solved, it seems that the success of training
varies with the selected momentum coefcient, and a trial-anderror procedure is normally preferred (Basheer and Hajmeer,
2000). In the present study, series of sensitivity analyses are
performed considering the ranges of learning rate and momentum
coefcient. The good and plausible results were obtained if the
learning rate was selected as 0.01 and 0.1 separately for the most
effective ANN architecture and the momentum coefcient was set
to 0.95 as the study performed by Sonmez et al. (2006). Moreover,
considering the information provided by different authors and the
trial-and-error procedure applied in the present study, the
learning rate and the momentum coefcient were selected as
0.1 and 0.95, respectively. The prepared model was run ve times

ARTICLE IN PRESS
812

S. Yagiz et al. / Engineering Applications of Articial Intelligence 22 (2009) 808814

separately using the datasets selected randomly. The testing data

sets were also simulated using the constructing ANN models and
cross-correlations were carried out. The results of the crosscorrelations are summarized in Table 5.

construction process, 5 randomly selected datasets were used and

some prediction performance indices such as the root mean
square error (RMSE), the variance accounted for (VAF) and the
coefcient of the cross-correlation (r) were calculated (Table 5).
Theoretically, the excellent prediction capacities are 100% for VAF,
0 for RMSE and 1 for r. As utilizing the results given in Table 6, it is
too difcult to select the best model for the ROP prediction.
Furthermore, the high performances of the train dataset indicate
that the learning stage of the ANN model and the model
development stage of the non-linear multivariable regression
are successful if those of the test dataset reveal that the
generalization ability of the model is satisfactory. Zorlu et al.
(2008) proposed a simple ranking procedure for the selection of
the best model. In the present study, the basic philosophy of the
ranking procedure proposed by Zorlu et al. (2008) was considered
and the ranking values of each dataset were calculated for each
model separately (Table 6). According to the ranking values,
model 1 exhibited the best prediction performance for the ANN
model while model 3 yielded the best results for the NLMR model.
The cross-correlation graphs of model 1 are presented in Fig. 4a
for the ANN and in Fig. 4b for the non-linear multivariable
regression equation.

6. Comparison and model selection

In the present study, various non-linear multivariable prediction models were developed by employing non-linear multivariable regression technique and the ANN. During the model

ROPn 0:139UCSn 0:524BIn  0:234DPW n 0:634a0:205 0:076

(3)

Table 6
Total rank values of the models obtained from ve randomly selected datasets.
Method

Model

Total rank

ANN

1
2
3
4
5

25
15
20
22
14

NLMR

1
2
3
4
5

23
22
24
21
18

Fig. 3. The architecture of the ANN model used in the study.

Table 5
Prediction performance indices of each model and their rank values.
Method

Model

RMSE

VAF

Rating for RMSE

Rating for VAF

Rating for r

Rank value

ANN

Train
Train
Train
Train
Train

0.066
0.074
0.064
0.074
0.071

89.234
85.541
89.650
86.090
87.573

0.95
0.93
0.95
0.93
0.94

4
2
5
2
3

4
1
5
2
3

5
3
5
3
4

13
6
15
7
10

0.104
0.150
0.177
0.080
0.178

69.188
50.352
14.105
86.640
16.924

0.85
0.77
0.64
0.93
0.66

4
3
2
5
1

4
3
1
5
2

4
3
2
5
1

12
9
5
15
4

0.116
0.115
0.114
0.168
0.115

66.850
64.980
67.650
34.910
67.100

0.82
0.81
0.82
0.80
0.82

3
4
5
2
4

3
2
5
1
4

5
4
5
3
5

11
10
15
6
13

0.115
0.120
0.119
0.115
0.121

63.050
66.620
61.500
71.420
59.100

0.81
0.85
0.79
0.85
0.77

5
3
4
5
2

3
4
2
5
1

4
5
3
5
2

12
12
9
15
5

Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
NLMR

1
2
3
4
5

Train
Train
Train
Train
Train
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test

1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5

RMSE: root mean square error; VAF: values account for; r: coefcient of cross-correlation.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Yagiz et al. / Engineering Applications of Articial Intelligence 22 (2009) 808814

813

their prediction performances were compared. When considering

the training datasets, the prediction performance of the ANN
models is obviously higher than that of the non-linear multivariable regression equations. However, on taking into consideration the test datasets, there is no salient difference between the
performances of both methods.
It is concluded that the developed prediction models can be
used for prediction of the tunnel boring machine as various hard
rock conditions encountered. It is evident that the prediction
models constructed in this research are open to be developed.
References

Fig. 4. (a) Cross-correlation graph of the ANN model using dataset 1; (b) Crosscorrelation graph of the non-linear multivariable regression model using dataset 3.

7. Results and conclusions

In the present study, a non-linear multivariable problem
encountered in tunneling projects was investigated. During the
analyses stages, 5 possible independent variables (UCS, BTS, BI,
DPW and a angle) to predict TBM penetration rate were employed.
As the result of the independent variable selection assessments,
the BTS was excluded and the models were constructed on four
independent variables. The relations between the ROP and three
independent variables (UCS, BI and DPW) are linear while that
between the ROP and the a angle is a power function. Also, the
correlation coefcients of the simple regressions between the ROP
and the independent variables are rather low. Due to that,
development of the non-linear multivariable prediction models
to estimate the tunnel boring machine is essential. Two different
non-linear multivariable prediction tools such as the ANN and the
non-linear multivariable regression method were employed and

Alvarez Grima, M., Babuska, R., 1999. Fuzzy model for the prediction of unconned
compressive strength of rock samples. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences 36 (3), 339349.
Alvarez Grima, M., Brunies, P.A., Verhoef, P.N.W., 2000. Modeling tunnel boring
machine by neuro-fuzzy methods. Tunneling and Underground Space
Technology 15 (3), 259269.
Baheer, I., 2000. Selection of methodology for modeling hysteresis behavior of soils
using neural networks. Journal Computer Aided Civil Infrastructure Engineering 5 (6), 445463.
Basheer, I.A., Hajmeer, M., 2000. Ariticial neural networks: fundamentals,
computing, design and application. Journal of Microbiological Methoda 43,
331.
Barton, N., 1999. TBM performance estimation in rock using Qtbm. Tunnels and
Tunneling International 31 (9) London.
Barton, N., 2000. TBM Tunneling in Jointed and Faulted Rock. Balkema Publishers,
Netherlands, 172p.
Baskerville, C.A., 1992. Bedrock and engineering geologic maps of Bronx County
and parts of New York and Queens counties. US Geological Survey
Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2003, New York (2 sheets; colored
maps on scale of 1/24,000).
Baskerville, C.A., 1994. Bedrock and engineering geology maps of New York County
and parts of Kings and Queens counties. US Geological Survey Miscellaneous
Investigations Series Map I-2306, New York and parts of Bergen and Hudson
counties, New Jersey (2 sheets; colored maps on scale of 1/24,000).
Benardos, A.G., Kaliampakos, D.C., 2004. Modeling TBM performance with Articial
Neural Networks. Tunneling and Underground Space Tech 19, 597605.
Bruland, A., 1999. Hard Rock Tunnel Boring: Advance Rate and Cutter Wear.
Norwegian Institute of Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Copur, H., Bilgin, N., Tuncdemir, H., Balci, C., 2003. A set of indices based on
indentation test for assessment of rock cutting performance and rock
properties. The Journal of South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
103 (9), 589600.
Deer, D.U., 1981. Adverse geology and TBM tunneling problems. In: Proceedings of
RETS. Society of Mining, pp. 574586.
Demuth, H., Beale, M., Hagan, M., 2005. MATLAB Version 7.3.0.267; Neural
Network Toolbox for Use with Matlab. The Mathworks, 348pp.
Dollinger, G.L., Handewith, H.J., Breeds, C.D., 1998. Use of the punch test for
estimating TBM performance. Tunneling and Underground Space Technology
13 (4), 403408.
Fausett, L., 1994. Fundamental of Neural Networks; Architectures, Algorithm and
Application. Prentice Hall International Editions, New York.
Fu, L., 1995. Neural Networks in Computer Intelligence. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Gokceoglu, C., 2002. A fuzzy triangular chart to predict the uniaxial compressive
strength of the Ankara agglomerates from their petrographic composition.
Engineering Geology 66, 3951.
Gokceoglu, C., Zorlu, K., 2004. A fuzzy model to predict the uniaxial compressive
strength and modulus of elasticity of a problematic rock. Engineering
Applications of Articial Intelligence 17, 6172.
Gokceoglu, C., Yesilnacar, E., Sonmez, H., Kayabasi, A., 2004. A neuro-fuzzy model
for modulus of deformation of jointed rock masses. Computers and
Geotechnics 31, 375383.
Gomez, H., Kavzoglu, T., 2005. Assessment of shallow landslides susceptibility
using articial neural network in Jabonosa, River Basin, Venezuela. Engineering
Geology 78, 1127.
Hamilton, H.W., Handewith, H.J., 1970. Apparatus and Method for testing rock.
United State Patent Ofce, no. 3618369, patented November 9, 1971.
Hassoun, M.H., 1995. Fundamentals of Articial Neural Networks. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Hecht-Nielsen, R., 1987. Kolmogorovs mapping neural network existence theorem.
In: Proceedings of the First IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks,
San Diego, CA, USA, pp. 1114.
Henseler, J., 1995. Backpropagation. In: Braspenning, P.J., et al. (Eds.), Articial
Neural Networks, an Introduction to ANN Theory and Practice, Lecture Notes in
Computer Science. Springer, Berlin, pp. 3766.
Hertz, J., Krogh, A., Palmer, R.G., 1991. Introduction to the Theory of Neural
Computation. Addison-Wesley, Reading MA.
Hush, D.R., 1989. Classication with neural networks: a performance analysis. In:
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems Engineering.
Dayton, OH, USA, pp. 277280.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
814

S. Yagiz et al. / Engineering Applications of Articial Intelligence 22 (2009) 808814

Kahraman, S., Altun, H., Tezekici, B.S., Fener, M., 2006. Sawability prediction of
carbonate rocks from shear strength parameters using articial neural
networks. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 43,
157164.
Kanellopoulas, I., Wilkinson, G.G., 1997. Strategies and best practice for neural
network image classication. International Journal of Remote Sensing 18,
711725.
Lee, I.M., Lee, J.H., 1996. Predicting of pile bearing capacity using articial neural
networks. Computer and Geotechnics 18 (3), 189200.
Lee, S., Ryu, J.H., Lee, M.J., Won, J.S., 2003. Use of articial neural network for
analysis of the susceptibility to landslides at Boun, Korea. Environmental
Geology 44, 820833.
Lislerud, A., 1988. Hard rock tunnel boring; prognosis and cost. Tunneling and
Underground Space Technology 3 (1), 917.
Looney, C.G., 1996. Advances in feed-forward neural networks: demystifying
knowledge acquiring black boxes. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data
Engineering 8 (2), 211226.
Merguerian, C., 1983. Tectonic signicance of Camerons Line in the vicinity of the
Hodges Complexan imbricate thrust model for Western Connecticut.
American Journal of Science 283, 341368.
Merguerian, C., 1996. Stratigraphy, structural geology, and ductile- and brittle
faults of New York City. In: Benimoff, A., et al. (Eds.), The Geology of New York
City and Vicinity, Field Guide and Proceedings, 68th Annual Meeting, Staten
Island, New York, pp. 5377.
Merguerian, C., Ozdemir, L., 2003. Rock mass properties and hard rock TBM
penetration rate investigations, Queens Tunnel Complex, NYC Water Tunnel
#3, Stage2. In: Robinson, R.A., Marquardt, J.M. (Eds.), Rapid Excavation and
Tunneling Conference, pp. 10191036.
Meulenkamp, F., Alvarez Grima, M., 1999. Application of neural networks for the
prediction of the unconned compressive strength (UCS) from Equotip
hardness. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36
(1), 2939.
Neupane, K.M., Achet, S.H., 2004. Use of back propagation neural network for
landslides monitoring; a case study in the higher Himalaya. Engineering
Geology 74, 213236.
Nefeslioglu, H.A., Gokceoglu, C., Sonmez, H., 2003. A Mamdani model to predict the
weighted joint density. Lecture Notes in Articial Intelligence 2773, 10521057.
Nefeslioglu, H.A., Gokceoglu, C., Sonmez, H., 2006. Indirect determination of
weighted joint density (wJd) by empirical and fuzzy models: Supren (Eskisehir,
Turkey) marbles. Engineering Geology 85, 251269.
Nefeslioglu, H.A., Gokceoglu, C., Sonmez, H., 2008. An assessment on the use of
logistic regression and articial neural networks with different sampling
strategies for the preparation of landslide susceptibility maps. Engineering
Geology 97 (3-4), 171191.
Negnevitsky, M., 2002. Articial Intelligence: A Guide to Intelligent Systems.
Addison-Wesley, England.
Nelson, P., 1993. TBM performance analysis with reference to rock properties.
In: Hudson, J. (Ed.), Comprehensive Rock Engineering, vol. 4. Pergamon Press,
New York, pp. 261291.
Nelson, M., Illingworth, W.T., 1990. A Practical Guide to Neural Nets. AddisonWesley, Reading MA.
Nelson, P.P., ORourke, T.D., 1983. Tunnel boring machine performance in
sedimentary rocks, Report to Goldberg-Zoino Associates of New York, P.C.
School of Civil and Environmental of Civil Engineering, Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY, 438pp.
Okubo, S., Kfukie, K., Chen, W., 2003. Expert systems for applicability of tunnel
boring machine in Japan. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 36 (4),
305322.
Ozdemir, L., 1977. Development of theoretical equations for predicting tunnel
borability. Ph.D. Thesis, T-1969, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO, USA
(unpublished).
Rostami, J., Ozdemir, L., 1993. A new model for performance prediction of hard rock
TBM. In: Bowerman, L.D. et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of RETC, Boston, MA, pp.
793809.
Rumelhart, D.E., Hinton, G.E., Williams, R.J., 1986. Learning internal representation
by error propogation. In: Rumelhart, D.E., McClleland, J.L. (Eds.), Parallel
Distributed Processing: Exploration in the Microstructure of Cognition, vol. 1.
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (Chapter 8).
Sharp, W., Ozdemir, L., 1991. Computer modeling for TBM performance prediction
and optimization. In: Proceedings of International Symposium on Mine
Mechanization and Automation. CSM/USBM, 1(4), 5766.
Singh, V.K., Singh, D., Singh, T.N., 2001. Prediction of strength properties of some
schistose rocks from petrographic properties using articial neural Networks.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 38 (2), 269284.
Singh, T.N., Sinha, S., Singh, V.K., 2007. Prediction of thermal conductivity of rock
through physico-mechanical properties. Building and Environment 42 (1),
146155.
Sonmez, H., Gokceoglu, C., Nefeslioglu, H.A., Kayabasi, A., 2006. Estimation of rock
modulus: For intact rock with an articial neural network and for rock masses
with a new empirical equation. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences 43, 224235.
SPSS Inc., 2007. SPSS Regression Models (version 11.5). /www.spss.comS.
Swingler, K., 1996. Applying Neural Networks: A Practical Guide. Academic Press,
New York.
Szwedzicki, T., 1998. Indentation hardness testing of rock. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 35 (6), 825829.

Tarkoy, P.J., 1973. Predicting TBM penetration rate in selected rock type. In:
Proceedings, Ninth Canadian Rock Mechanics Symposium, Montreal.
Tarkoy, P.J., 1975. Rock hardness index properties and geotechnical parameters for
predicting tunnel boring machine performance. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL, 326pp. (unpublished).
Tiryaki, B., 2008. Application of articial neural networks for predicting the
cuttability of rocks by drag tools. Tunneling and Underground Space
Technology 23 (3), 273280.
Wyhthoff, B.J., 1993. Backpropagation neural networks: a tutorial. Chemometrics
and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 18, 115155.
Yagiz, S., 2002. Development of rock fracture and brittleness indices to quantify the
effects of rock mass features and toughness in the CSM Model basic
penetration for hard rock tunneling machines. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of
Mining and Earth Systems Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO,
USA, 289pp. (unpublished).
Yagiz, S., 2006. A model for the prediction of tunnel boring machine performance.
In: Proceedings of the 10th IAEG Conference on Engineering Geology for
Tomorrows Cities; Substructures and Underground Space, Paper no. 383; in
DVD, Nothingam, UK.
Yagiz, S., 2008. Utilizing rock mass properties for predicting TBM performance in
hard rock condition. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23,
326339.
Yagiz, S., 2009. Assesment of brittleness using rock strength and density with
punch penetration test. Tunneling and Underground Space Technology article
24 (1), 6477.
Yagiz, S., Ozdemir, L., 2001. Geotechnical parameters inuencing the TBM
performance in various rocks. In program with abstracts. 44th Annual Meeting
of AEG. Technical Session 10; Engineering Geology for Construction Practices,
St. Louis. MO, USA.
Yoo, C., Kim, J., 2007. Tunneling performance prediction using an integrated GIS
and neural network. Computer and Geotechnics 34, 1930.
Zorlu, K., Gokceoglu, C., Ocakoglu, F., Nefeslioglu, H.A., Acikalin, S., 2008. Prediction
of uniaxial compressive strength of sandstones using petrography-based
models. Engineering Geology 96, 141158.

Saffet Yagiz was born on April 1, 1969, in Kirikkale, Turkey. He received his B.Sc.
degree from the Geological Engineering Department of Ankara University in 1992,
Turkey. He received his M.Sc. degree from the Geological Engineering Department
of Missouri Technical University in 1997, and then his Ph.D. degree in 2002, from
the Mining and Earth Systems Engineering Department of Colorado School of
Mines in the USA. He is currently assistant professor in the Applied Geology
Division of Geological Engineering Department of Pamukkale University. His
research interests are the interaction of tunnel boring machines and rock mass,
engineering rock mechanics, tunnel geology and excavation.

Candan Gokceoglu was born on July 25, 1966, in Ardahan, Turkey. He received his
B.Sc. degree from the Hydrogeological Engineering Department of Hacettepe
University in 1989. He received his M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees from the Geological
Engineering Department of the same university in 1993 and 1997, respectively. He
is currently an associate professor in the Applied Geology Division of Geological
Engineering Department of Hacettepe University. He is Vice President of Turkish
Fuzzy System Association. His areas of interest are landslides, rock mechanics and
fuzzy system applications.

Ebru Sezer was born on December 25, 1974, in Ankara, Turkey. She received her
B.Sc. degree from the Computer Engineering Department of Hacettepe University
in 1996. She received her M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees from the Computer Engineering
Department of the same university in 1999 and 2006, respectively. She is currently
associated lecturer in the Computer Engineering Department of Hacettepe
University. Her areas of interest are semantic web technologies and fuzzy system
applications.

Serdar Iplikci was born on June 14, 1970, in Denizli, Turkey. He received his B.Sc.
degree from the Electronics and Communication Engineering Department of
Technical University of Istanbul in 1991. He received his M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees
from the Systems and Control Engineering Department and the Electrical and
Electronics Engineering Department of the Bogazici University in 1999 and 2002,
respectively. He is currently an associate professor in the Control Division of
Electrical and Electronics Engineering Department of Pamukkale University. His
areas of interest are machine learning, intelligent control and nonlinear dynamics.