Advertisement

Prediction of uniaxial compressive strength of carbonate rocks from nondestructive tests using multivariate regression and LS-SVM methods

  • Sefer Beran ÇelikEmail author
Original Paper
  • 91 Downloads

Abstract

Uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) value of a rock material is one of the most important design parameters in engineering practice and related fields of geosciences. Through this importance, prediction of UCS values of rock materials from nondestructive quicker and simpler tests are widely preferred. The aim of this study is to predict the UCS values of five carbonate rock groups including marble, dolomite, two limestones, and travertine from longitudinal ultrasonic wave velocity (Vp), Schmidt hardness rebound number (SHR), and cubic sample sizes (L). For this aim, a total of 90 cubic samples with 7, 9, and 11 cm edge sizes were prepared. Chemical, petrographical, and basic physical properties of the sample groups were investigated. After Vp and SHR values, UCS values of all samples were determined. By using multivariate regression analyses (MR), different UCS prediction equations from dry unit weight (γd), Vp, SHR, and also L values were proposed. Prediction performances of proposed model in which Vp, SHR, and L are input parameters was also analyzed by least square support vector machines (LS-SVM) method. Prediction performances of the MR and LS-SVM models were analyzed by coefficient of determination (R2), efficiency (E), and root mean square error (RMSE) performance measures. These values were calculated as 0.867, 0.799, and 16.616 respectively for the LS-SVM model and 0.781, 0.749, and 18.561 respectively for the MR model. The LS-SVM method was found to be successful in the prediction of the UCS values from nondestructive test data of carbonate rocks.

Keywords

Uniaxial compressive strength Schmidt hammer rebound values Ultrasonic wave velocity Carbonate rocks LS-SVM method 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to express his sincere gratitude to geological engineers Ozan Düdükçü and Emin Deymeci from Ece and Çoban Marble Companies in Denizli, Turkey, respectively, for their support in sample supply and preparation. The author also wishes to express his kind regards to Dr. Fatih Dikbaş for English language editing of the manuscript.

References

  1. Aboutaleb S, Bagherpour R, Behina M, Aghababaei M (2017) Combination of the physical and ultrasonic tests in estimating the uniaxial compressive strength and Young’s modulus of intact limestone rocks. Geotech Geol Eng 35:3015–3023Google Scholar
  2. Altındağ R (2012) Correlation between P-wave velocity and some mechanical properties for sedimentary rocks. South Afr Inst Min Metall 112:229–237Google Scholar
  3. Alvarez Grima M, Babuška R (1999) Fuzzy model for the prediction of unconfined compressive strength of rock samples. Int J Rock Mech Min 36:339–349Google Scholar
  4. Anon (1979) Classification of rocks and soils for engineering geological mapping part I: rock and soil materials. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 19:364–371Google Scholar
  5. ASTM (1999) Standard test method for compressive strength of dimension stone (designation: C 170). Annual book of ASTM standards, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  6. Aydin A, Basu A (2005) The Schmidt hammer in rock material characterization. Eng Geol 81(1):1–14Google Scholar
  7. Aydoğdu M, Fırat M (2015) Estimation of failure rate in water distribution network using fuzzy clustering and LS-SVM methods. Water Resour Manag 29:1575–1590Google Scholar
  8. Azimian A (2017) Application of statistical methods for predicting uniaxial compressive strength of limestone rocks using nondestructive tests. Acta Geotech 12:321–333Google Scholar
  9. Baykasoğlu A, Güllü H, Çanakcı H, Özbakır L (2008) Prediction of compressive and tensile strength of limestone via genetic programming. Expert Syst Appl 35:111–123Google Scholar
  10. Beiki M, Majdi A, Givshad AD (2013) Application of genetic programming to predict the uniaxial compressive strength and elastic modulus of carbonate rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min 63:159–169Google Scholar
  11. Bieniawski ZT (1974) Estimating the strength of rock materials. J S Afr I Min Metall 74(8):312–320Google Scholar
  12. Bruno G, Vessia G, Bobbo L (2013) Statistical method for assessing the uniaxial compressive strength of carbonate rock by Schmidt hammer tests performed on core samples. Rock Mech Rock Eng 46:199–206Google Scholar
  13. Büyüksağış İS, Göktan RM (2007) The effect of Schmidt hammer type on uniaxial compressive strength prediction of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min 44:299–307Google Scholar
  14. Cargill JS, Shakoor A (1990) Evaluation of empirical methods for measuring the uniaxial compressive strength of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 27(6):495–503Google Scholar
  15. Çelik SB (2017) The effect of cubic specimen size on uniaxial compressive strength of carbonate rocks from Western Turkey. Arab J Geosci 10:426Google Scholar
  16. Ceryan N, Okkan U, Kesimal A (2012) Application of generalized regression neural networks in predicting the unconfined compressive strength of carbonate rocks. Rock Mech Rock Eng 45:1055–1072Google Scholar
  17. Ceryan N, Okkan U, Kesimal A (2013a) Prediction of unconfined compressive strength of carbonate rocks using artificial neural networks. Environ Earth Sci 68:807–819Google Scholar
  18. Ceryan N, Okkan U, Samui P, Ceryan Ş (2013b) Modeling of tensile strength of rocks materials based on support vector machines approaches. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 37:2655–2670Google Scholar
  19. Çobanoğlu İ, Çelik SB (2008) Estimation of uniaxial compressive strength from point load strength, Schmidt hardness and P-wave velocity. Bull Eng Geol Environ 67:491–498Google Scholar
  20. De Brabanter K, Karsmakers P, Ojeda F, Alzate C, De Brabanter J, Pelckmans K, De Moor B, Vandewalle J, Suykens JAK (2011) LS-SVMlab toolbox user’s guide version 1.8. K. U. Leuven, ESAT-SISTA TechnicalReport 10—146, Leuven, p 115Google Scholar
  21. Deere DU, Miller RP (1966) Engineering classification of intact rock. Technical Report AFWL-TR-65-116. Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico 300pGoogle Scholar
  22. Dehghan S, Sattarı GH, Chehreh CS, Aliabadi M (2010) Prediction of unconfined compressive strength and modulus of elasticity for travertine samples using regression and artificial neural networks. Min Sci Technol 20:41–46Google Scholar
  23. Demirdağ S, Yavuz H, Altındağ R (2009) The effect of sample size on Schmidt rebound hardness value of rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min 46:725–730Google Scholar
  24. Demirdağ S, Şengün N, Uğur İ, Altındağ R (2018) Estimating the uniaxial compressive strength of rocks with Schmidt rebound hardness by considering the sample size. Arab J Geosci 11:502Google Scholar
  25. EN 1926 (2006) Natural stone test methods - Determination of uniaxial compressive strength. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, p 17Google Scholar
  26. EN 1936 (2006) Natural stone test methods - Determination of real density and apparent density, and of total and open porosity. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, p 10Google Scholar
  27. Entwisle DC, Hobbs PRN, Jones LD, Gunn D, Raines MG (2005) The relationships between effective porosity, uniaxial compressive strength and sonic velocity of intact Borrowdale Volcanic Group core samples from Sellafield. Geotech Geol Eng 23:793–809Google Scholar
  28. Ersoy H, Kanık D (2012) Multicriteria decision-making analysis based methodology for predicting carbonate rocks’ uniaxial compressive strength. Earth Sci Res J 16(1):65–74Google Scholar
  29. Fener M, Kahraman S, Bilgil A, Günaydın O (2005) A comparative evaluation of indirect methods to estimate the compressive strength of rocks. Rock Mech Rock Eng 38(4):329–343Google Scholar
  30. Gökçeoğlu C (1996) An assessment on the reliability of uniaxial compressive strength data estimated from Schmidt hammer hardness rebounds. Geol Eng 48:78–81 (In Turkish)Google Scholar
  31. Gökçeoğlu C (2002) A fuzzy triangular chart to predict the uniaxial compressive strength of the Ankara agglomerates from their petrographic composition. Eng Geol 66:39–51Google Scholar
  32. Goyal MK, Bharti B, Quilty J, Adamowski J, Pandey A (2014) Modeling of daily pan evaporation in sub tropical climates using ANN, LS-SVR, fuzzy logic, and ANFIS. Expert Syst Appl 41:5267–5276Google Scholar
  33. Gupta V, Sharma R, Sah MP (2009) An evaluation of surface hardness of natural and modified rocks using Schmidt hammer: study from northwestern Himalaya, India. Geogr Ann 91 A(3):179–188Google Scholar
  34. Hebib R, Belhai D, Alloul B (2017) Estimation of uniaxial compressive strength of North Algeria sedimentary rocks using density, porosity, and Schmidt hardness. Arab J Geosci 10:383Google Scholar
  35. Hucka V (1965) A rapid method of determining the strength of rocks in situ. Int J Rock Mech Min 2:127–134Google Scholar
  36. ISRM (2007) The complete ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization, testing and monitoring: 1974–2006. In: Ulusay R, Hudson JA (eds) suggested methods prepared by the commission on testing methods. ISRM, Compilation arranged by the ISRM Turkish National Group, Ankara 628pGoogle Scholar
  37. Jun X, Annan J, Zhiwu W, Jingping Q (2013) A nonlinear optimization technique of tunnel construction based on DE and LSSVM. Math Probl Eng 2013(980154):11Google Scholar
  38. Kahraman S (2001) Evaluation of simple methods for assessing the uniaxial compressive strength of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min 38:981–994Google Scholar
  39. Kahraman S (2007) The correlations between the saturated and dry P-wave velocity of rocks. Ultrasonics 46:341–348Google Scholar
  40. Kahraman S, Alber M (2006) Estimating unconfined compressive strength and elastic modulus of a fault breccia mixture of weak blocks and strong matrix. Int J Rock Mech Min 43:1277–1128Google Scholar
  41. Karakul H (2017) Investigation of saturation effect on the relationship between compressive strength and Schmidt hammer rebound. Bull Eng Geol Environ 76:1143–1152Google Scholar
  42. Karakul H, Ulusay R (2013) Empirical correlations for predicting strength properties of rocks from P-wave velocity under different degrees of saturation. Rock Mech Rock Eng 46:981–999Google Scholar
  43. Karakuş M, Kumral M, Kılıç O (2005) Predicting elastic properties of intact rocks from index tests using multiple regression modelling. Int J Rock Mech Min 42:323–330Google Scholar
  44. Karaman K, Kesimal A (2015) A comparative study of Schmidt hammer test methods for estimating the uniaxial compressive strength of rocks. B Eng Geol Environ 74:507–520Google Scholar
  45. Katz O, Reches Z, Roegiers J-C (2000) Evaluation of mechanical rock properties using a Schmidt hammer. Int J Rock Mech Min 37:723–728Google Scholar
  46. Kılıç A, Teymen A (2008) Determination of mechanical properties of rocks using simple methods. B Eng Geol Environ 67:237–244Google Scholar
  47. Kurtuluş C, Sertçelik F, Sertçelik I (2016) Correlating physico-mechanical properties of intact rocks with P-wave velocity. Acta Geodyn Geophys 51:571–582Google Scholar
  48. Madhubabu N, Singh PK, Kainthola A, Mahanta B, Tripathy A, Singh TN (2016) Prediction of compressive strength and elastic modulus of carbonate rocks. Measurement 88:202–213Google Scholar
  49. Minaeian B, Ahangari K (2013) Estimation of uniaxial compressive strength based on P-wave and Schmidt hammer rebound using statistical method. Arab J Geosci 6:1925–1931Google Scholar
  50. Mishra DA, Basu A (2013) Estimation of uniaxial compressive strength of rock materials by index tests using regression analysis and fuzzy inference system. Eng Geol 160:54–68Google Scholar
  51. Mishra DA, Srigyan M, Basu A, Rokade PJ (2015) Soft computing methods for estimating the uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock from index tests. Int J Rock Mech Min 80:418–424Google Scholar
  52. Momeni E, Nazir R, Armaghani DJ, Mohamad ET (2015) Prediction of unconfined compressive strength of rocks: a review paper. J Teknol 77(11):43–50Google Scholar
  53. O’Rourke JE (1989) Rock index properties for geoengineering in underground development. Min Eng 41(2):106–110Google Scholar
  54. Palchik V, Hatzor YH (2004) The influence of porosity on tensile and compressive strength of porous chalk. Rock Mech Rock Eng 37(4):331–341Google Scholar
  55. Parent T, Domede N, Sellier A, Mouatt L (2015) Mechanical characterization of limestone from sound velocity measurement. Int J Rock Mech Min 79:149–156Google Scholar
  56. Proceq (2014) Pundit lab/Pundit lab+ ultrasonic instrument operating instructions. Proceq SA, Zurich, p 31Google Scholar
  57. Proceq (2016) Portable nondestructive concrete testing instrument. Proceq SA, Zurich, p 10Google Scholar
  58. Sachpazis CI (1990) Correlating Schmidt hardness with compressive strength and Young’s modulus of carbonate rocks. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 42(1):75–83Google Scholar
  59. Samsudin R, Saad P, Shabri A (2011) River flow time series using least squares support vector machines. Hydrol Earth Syst Sc 15(6):1835–1852Google Scholar
  60. Sarkar K, Tiwary A, Singh TN (2010) Estimation of strength parameters of rock using artificial neural networks. B Eng Geol Environ 69(4):599–606Google Scholar
  61. Schmidt E (1951) Investigations with the new concrete test hammer for estimating the quality of concrete. Schweizer Archive angerwandte Wissenschaft Technik (Solothurn) 17(5):139Google Scholar
  62. Selçuk L, Nar A (2015) Prediction of uniaxial compressive strength of intact rocks using ultrasonic pulse velocity and rebound-hammer number. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 49(1):67–75Google Scholar
  63. Selçuk L, Yabalak E (2015) Evaluation of the ratio between uniaxial compressive strength and Schmidt hammer rebound number and its effectiveness in predicting rock strength. Nondestruct Test Eva 30(1):1–12Google Scholar
  64. Shabri A, Suhartono (2012) Streamflow forecasting using least-squares support vector machines. Hydrol Sci J 57(7):1275–1293Google Scholar
  65. Shalabi FI, Cording EJ, Al-Hattamleh OH (2007) Estimation of rock engineering properties using hardness tests. Eng Geol 90(3):138–147Google Scholar
  66. Sharma PK, Singh TN (2008) A correlation between P-wave velocity, impact strength index, slake durability index and uniaxial compressive strength. B Eng Geol Environ 67(1):17–22Google Scholar
  67. Sharma PK, Khandelwal M, Singh TN (2011) A correlation between Schmidt hammer rebound numbers with impact strength index, slake durability index and P-wave velocity. Int J Earth Sci 100(1):189–195Google Scholar
  68. Sönmez H, Tuncay E, Gökçeoğlu C (2004) Models to predict the uniaxial compressive strength and the modulus of elasticity for Ankara agglomerate. Int J Rock Mech Min 41(5):717–729Google Scholar
  69. Sönmez H, Gökçeoğlu C, Nefeslioğlu HA, Kayabaşı A (2006) Estimation of rock modulus: for intact rocks with an artificial neural network and for rock masses with a new empirical equation. Int J Rock Mech Min 43(2):224–235Google Scholar
  70. Suykens JAK, Vandewalle J (1999) Least squares support vector machine classifiers. Neural Process Lett 9(3):293–300Google Scholar
  71. Suykens JAK, Van Gestel T, De Brabanter J, De Moor B, Vandewalle J (2002) Least squares support vector machines. World Scientific, Singapore 294pGoogle Scholar
  72. Tiryaki B (2008) Predicting intact rock strength for mechanical excavation using multivariate statistics, artificial neural networks and regression trees. Eng Geol 99(1–2):51–60Google Scholar
  73. Tütmez B, Tercan AE (2007) Spatial estimation of some mechanical properties of rocks by fuzzy modelling. Comput Geotech 34(1):10–18Google Scholar
  74. Vasanelli E, Calia A, Colangiuli D, Micelli F, Aiello MA (2016) Assessing the reliability of non-destructive and moderately invasive techniques for the evaluation of uniaxial compressive strength of stone masonry units. Constr Build Mater 124:575–581Google Scholar
  75. Viswanathan R, Samui P (2016) Determination of rock depth using artificial intelligence techniques. Geosci Front 7(1):61–66Google Scholar
  76. Yağız S (2009) Predicting uniaxial compressive strength, modulus of elasticity and index properties of rocks using the Schmidt hammer. B Eng Geol Environ 68(1):55–63Google Scholar
  77. Yağız S, Sezer EA, Gökçeoğlu C (2012) Artificial neural networks and nonlinear regression techniques to assess the influence of slake durability cycles on the prediction of uniaxial compressive strength and modulus of elasticity for carbonate rocks. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 36(14):1636–1650Google Scholar
  78. Yaşar E, Erdoğan E (2004a) Correlating sound velocity with the density, compressive strength and Young’s modulus of carbonate rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min 41:871–875Google Scholar
  79. Yaşar E, Erdoğan Y (2004b) Estimation of rock physicomechanical properties using hardness methods. Eng Geol 71(3):281–288Google Scholar
  80. Yılmaz I, Sendir H (2002) Correlation of Schmidt hardness with unconfined compressive strength and Young’s modulus in gypsum from Sivas (Turkey). Eng Geol 66(3):211–219Google Scholar
  81. Yılmaz I, Yüksek AG (2008) An example of artificial neural network (ANN) application for indirect estimation of rock parameters. Rock Mech Rock Eng 41(5):781–795Google Scholar
  82. Yılmaz I, Yüksek G (2009) Prediction of the strength and elasticity modulus of gypsum using multiple regression, ANN, and ANFIS models. Int J Rock Mech Min 46(4):803–810Google Scholar
  83. Zhu C, Zhao H, Zhao M (2014) Back analysis of geomechanical parameters in underground engineering using artificial bee colony. Sci World J 2014(693812):13Google Scholar
  84. Zhu C, Zhao H, Ru Z (2015) LSSVM-based rock failure criterion and its application in numerical simulation. Math Probl Eng 2015(246068):13Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Engineering, Department of Geological EngineeringPamukkale UniversityDenizliTurkey

Personalised recommendations