ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Failure Prediction With (pseudo) Acoustic Emission and Supervised Algorithm Random Forest - Case Study of Four Numerical Sandstones
1
Theoretical Geophysics, Institute of Geophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland
Submission date: 2024-12-03
Final revision date: 2025-06-16
Acceptance date: 2025-06-23
Online publication date: 2025-07-28
Publication date: 2025-07-28
Corresponding author
Civil and Environmental Engineering Reports 2025;35(3):326-347
KEYWORDS
uniaxial compressionnumerical modellingsupervised machine learningrandom forestdiscrete element method
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
In this paper, an automated methodology for predicting the stress state and time to failure of a material during a uniaxial compression test was proposed. It was shown that, based solely on pseudo-acoustic emission, the supervised machine learning algorithm Random Forest can perform predictions with good or very good accuracy. The Coefficient of Determination R2 on the test dataset reached 84% (for axial stress prediction) and 73% (for time to failure prediction). This work was limited to predictions only in numerical modeling using the Discrete Element Method. Cylindrical samples with macroscopic parameters corresponding to four real sandstones were generated. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) was applied to show what is the contribution of individual features of pseudo-acoustic emission to the algorithm's output and its predictions.
REFERENCES (29)
1.
Dorostkar, O and Carmeliet, J 2019. Grain friction controls characteristics of seismic cycle in faults with granular gouge. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 124, 6475–6489.
2.
Rouet-Leduc, B, Hulbert, C, Lubbers, N, Barros, K, Humphreys, CJ and Johnson, PA 2017. Machine learning predicts laboratory earthquakes. Geophysical Research Letters 44, 9276–9282.
3.
Bolton, DC, Shreedharan, S, Rivière, J and Marone, C 2020. Acoustic energy release during the laboratory seismic cycle: Insights on laboratory earthquake precursors and prediction. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 125, e2019JB018975.
4.
Rucka, M, Knak, M and Nitka, M 2023. A study on microcrack monitoring in concrete: discrete element method simulations of acoustic emission for non-destructive diagnostics. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 293, 109718.
5.
Géron, A 2019. Hands-On Machine Learning with Scikit-Learn, Keras, and TensorFlow, 2nd Edition, O'Reilly Media, Inc.
6.
Cundall, PA and Strack, ODL 1979. A discrete numerical model for granular assemblies. Geotechnique 29, 1, 47–65.
7.
Abe, S, Boros, V, Hancock, W and Weatherley, D 2014. ESyS-particle tutorial and user’s guide. Version 2.3.1, https://launchpad.net/esys-par....
8.
Weatherley, DK, Boros, VE, Hancock, WR and Abe, S 2010. Scaling benchmark of ESyS-Particle for elastic wave propagation simulations, 2010 IEEE Sixth Int. Conf. E-Science, Brisbane, Australia, 277–283.
9.
O’Sullivan, C 2011. Particulate Discrete Element Modelling: A Geomechanics Perspective, Spon Press/Taylor and Francis, London.
10.
Wang, Y, Abe, S, Latham, S and Mora, P 2006. Implementation of Particle-scale Rotation in the 3-D Lattice Solid Model, Pure and Applied Geophysics 163, 1769-1785.
11.
Wang, YC 2009. A new algorithm to model the dynamics of 3-D bonded rigid bodies with rotations. Acta Geotechnica 4, 2, 117-127.
12.
Mora, P and Place, D 2002. Stress correlation function evolution in lattice solid elasto-dynamic models of shear and fracture zones and earthquake prediction. Pure and Applied Geophysics 159(10), 2413-2427.
14.
Łukaszewski, P 2003. Development of fracture processes in Silesian Carboniferous sandstones. Geological Quarterly 47, (1), 29-38.
15.
Klejment, P, Dziedziczak, R, Łukaszewski, P 2021. Strength of industrial sandstones modelled with the Discrete Element Method. Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica 43(4), 346–365.
17.
Strumbelj, E and Kononenko, I 2014. Explaining prediction models and individual predictions with feature contributions. Knowledge and information systems 41.3, 647-665.
18.
Klejment, P 2021. Application of supervised machine learning as a method for identifying DEM contact law parameters, Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering 18(6), 7490–7505.
19.
Zhao, T and Hu, G 2023. Study on the size effect of elastic modulus of rock considering the joint spacing. Frontiers in Materials 10, 1142683.
20.
González-Fernández, MA, Estévez-Ventosa, X, Pérez-Rey, I, Alejano, LR, Masoumi, H 2024. Size effects on strength and deformability of artificially jointed hard rock. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 176, 105696, ISSN 1365-1609.
21.
Weibull, W 1939. A Statistical Theory of the Strength of Materials, 1–45, Stockholm, Sweden: Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Science, 1939.
22.
Bazant, Z 1997. Scaling of quasibrittle fracture: hypotheses of invasive and lacunar fractality, their critique and Weibull connection. International Journal of Fracture 83, 41–65.
23.
Carpinteri, A, Chiaia, B, Ferro, G 1995. Size effects on nominal tensile strength of concrete structures: multifractality of material ligaments and dimensional transition from order to disorder. Materials and Structures 28(6), 311–317.
24.
Xiao, H, He, L, Shi, R, Song, J, Tang, Y, Zhang, Q and Shi, P 2021. Size Effect on Mechanical Behaviors of Intact Rocks Based on Enlarged Digital Models. Frontiers in Earth Science 9, 803406.
25.
Thuro, K, Plinninger, RJ, Zah, S, and Schütz, S 2001. Scale Effect in Rock Strength Properties. Part 1: Unconfined Compressive Test and Brazilian Test. Rock Mechanics—A Challenge for Society, Sarkka et Eloranta, Eds. Swets et Zeitinger Lisse.
26.
Tatiana, D, Bednarik, M, Dikejová, P, Adamcová, R 2022. Influence of specimen size and shape on the uniaxial compressive strength values of selected Western Carpathians rocks, Environmental Earth Sciences 81, 247.
27.
Hoek, E, Brown, ET 1980. Underground excavations in rock. The Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, Stephen Austin and Sons Ltd., Hertford, London, p. 527.
28.
Hoek E, Brown, ET 1997. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 34(8), 1165–1186.
29.
Ren, CX, Dorostkar, O, Rouet-Leduc, B, Hulbert, C, Strebel, D, Guyer, RA et al. 2019. Machine learning reveals the state of intermittent frictional dynamics in a sheared granular fault. Geophysical Research Letters 46, 7395–7403.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 2450-8594 |
| ISSN: | 2080-5187 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
