{"title":"利用机器学习方法估算玄武岩的弹性模量","authors":"Nurgul Yesiloglu-Gultekin, Ayhan Dogan","doi":"10.1007/s12145-024-01472-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The elastic modulus of basalt is a significant engineering parameter required for many projects. Therefore, a total of 137 datasets of basalts from Digor-Kilittasi, Turkey, were used to predict the elastic modulus of intact rock (E<sub>i</sub>) for this study. P wave velocity, S wave velocity, apparent porosity, and dry density parameters were employed as input parameters. In order to predict E<sub>i</sub>, seven different models with two or three inputs were constructed, employing four different machine learning methods such as Support Vector Machine (SVM), Gaussian Process Regression (GPR), Ensembles of Tree (ET), and Regression Trees (RT). The performance of datasets, models, and methods was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R<sup>2</sup>), Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), Mean Squared Error (MSE), and Mean Absolute Error (MAE). This study presented and analyzed the performance of four machine learning methods. A ranking approach was employed to determine the best performing method and dataset. Based on these evaluations, all four machine learning techniques effectively estimate the value of E<sub>i</sub>. While they can be used as an appropriate choice for estimating the elastic modulus of basaltic rocks, the ET approach appears to be the most successful method. However, the performance of the GPR is the worst according to model assessments. The average R² values for Model 1 through 7 of the ET method for the five test datasets are 0.97, 0.93, 0.89, 0.97, 0.91, 0.99, and 0.99, respectively. The the average R<sup>2</sup> values for GPR from Models 1 to 7 for the five test datasets are 0.73, 0.55, 0.69, 0.48, 0.47, 0.73, 0.56, respectively. An additional indication that the ET performed better than all the other methods was the Taylor diagram, which made it simple to determine how well the model predictions matched the observations. Furthermore, these findings validate the performance of the machine learning techniques employed in this study as valuable instruments for future investigations into the modeling of complex engineering issues. The results of this study suggest that machine learning algorithms can help reduce the need for high-quality core samples and labor-intensive procedures in predicting the elastic modulus of basaltic rocks, resulting in time and cost savings.</p>","PeriodicalId":49318,"journal":{"name":"Earth Science Informatics","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Estimation of the elastic modulus of basaltic rocks using machine learning methods\",\"authors\":\"Nurgul Yesiloglu-Gultekin, Ayhan Dogan\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12145-024-01472-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The elastic modulus of basalt is a significant engineering parameter required for many projects. Therefore, a total of 137 datasets of basalts from Digor-Kilittasi, Turkey, were used to predict the elastic modulus of intact rock (E<sub>i</sub>) for this study. P wave velocity, S wave velocity, apparent porosity, and dry density parameters were employed as input parameters. In order to predict E<sub>i</sub>, seven different models with two or three inputs were constructed, employing four different machine learning methods such as Support Vector Machine (SVM), Gaussian Process Regression (GPR), Ensembles of Tree (ET), and Regression Trees (RT). The performance of datasets, models, and methods was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R<sup>2</sup>), Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), Mean Squared Error (MSE), and Mean Absolute Error (MAE). This study presented and analyzed the performance of four machine learning methods. A ranking approach was employed to determine the best performing method and dataset. Based on these evaluations, all four machine learning techniques effectively estimate the value of E<sub>i</sub>. While they can be used as an appropriate choice for estimating the elastic modulus of basaltic rocks, the ET approach appears to be the most successful method. However, the performance of the GPR is the worst according to model assessments. The average R² values for Model 1 through 7 of the ET method for the five test datasets are 0.97, 0.93, 0.89, 0.97, 0.91, 0.99, and 0.99, respectively. The the average R<sup>2</sup> values for GPR from Models 1 to 7 for the five test datasets are 0.73, 0.55, 0.69, 0.48, 0.47, 0.73, 0.56, respectively. An additional indication that the ET performed better than all the other methods was the Taylor diagram, which made it simple to determine how well the model predictions matched the observations. Furthermore, these findings validate the performance of the machine learning techniques employed in this study as valuable instruments for future investigations into the modeling of complex engineering issues. The results of this study suggest that machine learning algorithms can help reduce the need for high-quality core samples and labor-intensive procedures in predicting the elastic modulus of basaltic rocks, resulting in time and cost savings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49318,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Earth Science Informatics\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Earth Science Informatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12145-024-01472-7\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Earth Science Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12145-024-01472-7","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
玄武岩的弹性模量是许多项目所需的重要工程参数。因此,本研究共使用了 137 个来自土耳其 Digor-Kilittasi 的玄武岩数据集来预测完整岩石的弹性模量(Ei)。输入参数包括 P 波速度、S 波速度、表观孔隙度和干密度参数。为了预测 Ei,采用了四种不同的机器学习方法,如支持向量机(SVM)、高斯过程回归(GPR)、树集合(ET)和回归树(RT),构建了七种具有两个或三个输入的不同模型。使用判定系数(R2)、均方根误差(RMSE)、均方误差(MSE)和平均绝对误差(MAE)对数据集、模型和方法的性能进行了评估。本研究介绍并分析了四种机器学习方法的性能。研究采用了排名方法来确定性能最佳的方法和数据集。根据这些评估结果,所有四种机器学习技术都能有效估计 Ei 的值。虽然它们都可作为估算玄武岩弹性模量的适当选择,但 ET 方法似乎是最成功的方法。然而,根据模型评估,GPR 的性能最差。在五个测试数据集中,ET 方法模型 1 至 7 的平均 R² 值分别为 0.97、0.93、0.89、0.97、0.91、0.99 和 0.99。在五个测试数据集上,模型 1 至 7 的 GPR 平均 R2 值分别为 0.73、0.55、0.69、0.48、0.47、0.73 和 0.56。泰勒图是 ET 性能优于所有其他方法的另一个标志,它可以简单地确定模型预测与观测结果的匹配程度。此外,这些发现还验证了本研究中采用的机器学习技术的性能,它们是未来研究复杂工程问题建模的宝贵工具。本研究的结果表明,机器学习算法有助于减少预测玄武岩弹性模量时对高质量岩芯样本和劳动密集型程序的需求,从而节省时间和成本。
Estimation of the elastic modulus of basaltic rocks using machine learning methods
The elastic modulus of basalt is a significant engineering parameter required for many projects. Therefore, a total of 137 datasets of basalts from Digor-Kilittasi, Turkey, were used to predict the elastic modulus of intact rock (Ei) for this study. P wave velocity, S wave velocity, apparent porosity, and dry density parameters were employed as input parameters. In order to predict Ei, seven different models with two or three inputs were constructed, employing four different machine learning methods such as Support Vector Machine (SVM), Gaussian Process Regression (GPR), Ensembles of Tree (ET), and Regression Trees (RT). The performance of datasets, models, and methods was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R2), Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), Mean Squared Error (MSE), and Mean Absolute Error (MAE). This study presented and analyzed the performance of four machine learning methods. A ranking approach was employed to determine the best performing method and dataset. Based on these evaluations, all four machine learning techniques effectively estimate the value of Ei. While they can be used as an appropriate choice for estimating the elastic modulus of basaltic rocks, the ET approach appears to be the most successful method. However, the performance of the GPR is the worst according to model assessments. The average R² values for Model 1 through 7 of the ET method for the five test datasets are 0.97, 0.93, 0.89, 0.97, 0.91, 0.99, and 0.99, respectively. The the average R2 values for GPR from Models 1 to 7 for the five test datasets are 0.73, 0.55, 0.69, 0.48, 0.47, 0.73, 0.56, respectively. An additional indication that the ET performed better than all the other methods was the Taylor diagram, which made it simple to determine how well the model predictions matched the observations. Furthermore, these findings validate the performance of the machine learning techniques employed in this study as valuable instruments for future investigations into the modeling of complex engineering issues. The results of this study suggest that machine learning algorithms can help reduce the need for high-quality core samples and labor-intensive procedures in predicting the elastic modulus of basaltic rocks, resulting in time and cost savings.
期刊介绍:
The Earth Science Informatics [ESIN] journal aims at rapid publication of high-quality, current, cutting-edge, and provocative scientific work in the area of Earth Science Informatics as it relates to Earth systems science and space science. This includes articles on the application of formal and computational methods, computational Earth science, spatial and temporal analyses, and all aspects of computer applications to the acquisition, storage, processing, interchange, and visualization of data and information about the materials, properties, processes, features, and phenomena that occur at all scales and locations in the Earth system’s five components (atmosphere, hydrosphere, geosphere, biosphere, cryosphere) and in space (see "About this journal" for more detail). The quarterly journal publishes research, methodology, and software articles, as well as editorials, comments, and book and software reviews. Review articles of relevant findings, topics, and methodologies are also considered.