12

th
ICSGE
10-12 Dec. 2007
Cairo - Egypt


Ain Shams University
Faculty of Engineering
Department of Structural Engineering
Twelfth International Colloquium on Structural and Geotechnical Engineering


EVOLUTIONARY
RELIABILITY-BASED TUNNELING DESIGN TECHNIQUES

A. A. Ahmed
Professor of Geotechnical and Structural Engineering
Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
Email: ali_abdelfattah@yahoo.com
H. A. Ali
Assistant Professor of Geotechnical and Structural Engineering
Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University
S. M. ElAraby
Assistant Professor of Geotechnical and Structural Engineering
Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University
T. M. ElKateb
Assistant Professor of Geotechnical and Structural Engineering
Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University
S. M. Noureldin
Ph.D. Candidate, Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University
Business Development Manager/ Projects Engineer,
ECG Engineering Consultants Group S.A.
P.O. Box 1167 Cairo 11511 Egypt
Email: shady_nour@ecgsa.com/ noreldin@gmail.com


ABSTRACT
Dependence on factors of safety and engineering experience/ judgment have been used
to be the conservative tools to deal with uncertainty. Probabilistic techniques have been
recently implemented to rational engineering design to quantify uncertainties associated
with tunneling. These techniques have various forms, such as statistical-based limit
equilibrium, and deterministic numerical analyses with random input engineering
parameters.
This paper presents a review of recent advances in probabilistic geotechnical/ tunneling
design. This covers the geostatistical techniques used to predict the stratigraphic
conditions and geotechnical parameters. The applicability of the above techniques is
investigated with emphasis on their advantages and limitations in addition to identifying
trends for future improvement.

This paper also extends to the application of statistical techniques in geotechnical back
analysis in tunneling projects to develop representative engineering parameters for
tunneling design. The approximation of the limit state surface is essential to achieve an
efficient statistical/ reliability analysis of geotechnical systems, especially, for those
systems that cannot be developed explicitly with acceptable accuracy. For nonlinear
problems, the use of regression functions lead to high estimation errors. This paper
demonstrates the utilization of Evolutionary Artificial Intelligence Framework (EAIF)
to estimate probabilistic tunneling parameters values. The proposed technique
overcomes most of the shortcomings associated with the currently used analytical
reliability techniques.
KEYWORDS
tunneling, reliability-based design, Artificial Intelligence (A.I), ANN, uncertainty,
probability, geostatistics, decision making.
1 DETERMINISTIC VERSUS PROBABILISTIC DESIGN APPROACH
Dimensions, environmental factors, material properties, operational parameters,
construction technology, and external loads are design variables incorporating
uncertainties that may be characterized with statistical models. The deterministic
approach defines a worst case or an extreme value to meet in the design and introduces
conservatism by specifying a factor of safety to cover unknowns.
The probabilistic approach utilizes the uncertainty/ statistical characterization of input
design parameters to determine their implication on the output forecast parameters
(probability of failure/ uncertainty of an output forecast).
The application of a factor-of-safety to cover uncertainties has a successful history;
however, the main shortcoming of this approach is that the factor of safety may be too
large, or in some cases, too small. Because it has worked in the past, there is no
guarantee that it will be satisfactory in the future. The whole approach of worst case
extremes can lead to unsafe or uneconomic designs. To select a factor-of-safety, solely
on the basis of being a successful approach in the past, should be thoroughly revised.
The Safety Factor reflects the condition of the problem, the engineer's judgment, and the
degree of conservatism incorporated into the parameter values. A primary deficiency
incorporated with this approach is that the design parameters (material properties,
strengths, loads, etc.) must have single/ deterministic values (deterministic approach),
while these values are, in fact, should be treated as uncertain/ non-deterministic.
The Reliability/ Probabilistic approach extends the safety factor concept to incorporate
uncertainty in the design parameters. This uncertainty can be quantified through
statistical analysis of existing data or judgmentally assigned. Even if judgmentally
assigned, the probabilistic results will be more meaningful than the deterministic
approach because the engineer provides a measure of the judgment uncertainty in each
parameter.
2 CURRENTLY USED RELIABILITY APPROACHES
Application of reliability principles was primarily developed to perform probabilistic
slope stability analysis using different approaches, such as analytical approaches and
MCS. Analytical approaches were primarily apprehensive with obtaining closed form

solutions for the statistical properties of the factors of safety which do not provide
information about the output probability distribution. Besides, it becomes highly
complicated when taking into account different sources of uncertainty. Noureldin [13]
described the shortcomings of the currently used approaches that can be summarized as
follows:
a) In many complicated and nonlinear problems where the analyses involve the use of
numerical procedures such as the finite element method, it is difficult to express the
problem explicitly in terms of the random variables, and therefore the limit state and
the performance functions can only be expressed implicitly rather than in a closed-
form-solution (Goh and Kulhawy, 2003).
b) The currently used techniques are considered difficult to be implemented, as to
achieve accurate results, thousands of finite element analysis runs are needed.
c) The variation of the input parameters undergoes mathematically defined parameter
combinations which should be randomly set.
3 UNCERTAINTY IN SOIL DESIGN PARAMETERS
Uncertainty in soil design parameters is a function of inherent soil variability,
measurement error and model uncertainty. These components can be combined
consi st ent l y usi ng t he f ol l owi ng pr obabi l i st i c appr oach [ 15 and 16] :
a) Assume that the design parameter (
d
) is predicted from a test measurement (m)
using the probabilistic transformation model:

d
= T(t + w +e, ) (1)
Where
d
is the design parameter predicted from a test measurement

m
,
t is the deterministic trend,
w is the inherent variability,
e is the measurement error, and
is the model error.
b) Linearize the Equation about the mean of (w, e, ) using a first-order Taylor series
expansion [2]:

d
T(t,0) + w T/w|
(t,0)
+ e T/e|
(t,0)
+ T/|
(t,0)
(2)
c) Estimate the mean and variance of d by applying second-moment probabilistic
technique:
M
d
T(t,0) (3)
s
d

2
[T/w|
(t,0)
]
2
s
w
2

+ [T/e|
(t,0)
]
2
s
e
2
+ [T/|
(t,0)
]
2
s

2

Where: m
d
and s
d
are the mean and variance of
d
respectively,
s
w
is the variance of inherent soil variability,
s
e
is the variance of measurement error, and
s

is the variance of model error.

d) The spatial average of d is defined as:
1
( )
b
t
z
a z d
a
z dz
L
=
(4)
Where:
a
is the spatial average,
z
t
and z
b
are the top and bottom coordinates of the depth interval,
and
L
a
= z
b
- z
t
is the averaging length.
the variance of the spatial average (s
a
)
2
is given by [18]:
s
d

2
[T/w|
(t,0)
]
2

2
(L
a
) s
w
2

+ [T/e|
(t,0)
]
2
s
e
2
+ [T/|
(t,0)
]
2
s

2
(5)
Where:
2
() is the variance reduction function, which depends on the
length of the averaging interval (L
a
)
The following approximate variance reduction function is proposed for practical
application [18]:

2
(L
a
) = 1 for La v (6)

2
(L
a
) = v/La for La > v (7)
Where:
v
is the vertical scale of fluctuation.
The above general probabilistic approach is applied to determine the typical range of
variability for soil design parameters.
Correlation coefficients between field tests results and soil geotechnical parameters are
essential for estimating the parameters required for the design development. The
following parameters are the main parameters in concern:
a) Shear strength,
b) Friction angle, and
c) Stiffness modulus.
SPT is abundant in nearly all the geotechnical investigations of tunneling projects in
Egypt due to being simple and economic, as well as proving to be strong positively
correlated to the soil strength and to the elasticity parameters. The SPT N-value
recorded during the geotechnical investigation of Greater Cairo Metro - Line No. 2, is
used for predicting the soil design parameters.

4 GEOSTATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF LOT 42, GREATER CAIRO METRO,
LINE NO. 2
The case study in concern is Lot 42 which a part of Phase 2A extending from El-Dokki
to El-Gezira. Being a mega national Project, the Egyptian National Authority of
Tunnels (NAT), conducted an extensive geotechnical investigation program for the
subsurface conditions along the project route. The investigation incorporated deep
boreholes with a majority of SPT tests; the following evaluation of the subsurface
conditions is based on the data gathered throughout that investigation. The site strata
comprise the following (Figure 1):
1. FILL: Appears at the ground surface and extends to a depth of about 1.0 m. The fill
contains asphalt, sand, clay and limestone pieces.
2. CLAY: A medium to stiff silty clay or clayey silt layer exists below the fill and
extends to a depth of about 7.00 m below ground surface.
3. SAND: A medium dense to very dense fine to medium sand layer underlies the clay
and extends to the end of the borings.
4. GROUNDWATER: Groundwater appears at about 3.50 m below the ground
surface.
The SAND layer exhibited refusal at a depth of 18.50 m till the end of the boring. The
SAND layer exhibiting refusal was treated as a separate sand layer, with geostatistical
parameters corresponding to that of Dense Sand in the available literature review
sources.

Fig. (1): Soil Log at Lot 42 Location



Fig. (2): SPT N-Value of SPT Vs Depth
Figure (2) through Figure (4) and Table (1) illustrates the Sand Layer geostatistical
analysis results. The above mentioned approach is used to investigate uncertainties
associated with the predictions of the following soil design parameters along with the
available guide values found in the literature.
Table (1): SPT N-Value Statistical Parameters at Tunnel Location
Parameter Value
Mean 29
S
2
16
S
2
W
11
S
2
e
5
Standard Deviation 4
COV 13.79%
COVw 11.44%
COVe 7.71%
Scale of Fluctuation () 2.00 m *
Autocorrelation Distance 0.50 m
* This result conforms to the results obtained by Jones et al. (2002) 2.40 m













Fig. (3): Autocorrelation Function (ACF) for Sand


Fig. (4): Estimation of Measurement Error











4.1 Friction Angle:
Estimation of can be deduced using the following equation obtained from Peck et al.
[14], using uncorrected SPT N-values.
= 53.881 27.6034 *e
-0.0147* N
(8)
The transformation function can be expressed as follows:
-0.0147*(t+w+e)
53.881 27.6034
d
e =

(9)
In which (t+w+e) =N. The mean and variance for this design property () can be
determined as follows:
-0.0147t
53.881 27.6034
d
m e

(10)
-0.0147t 2 2 2
0.4058 ( ) ( )
w e d
s s s e
2
s

+ +
(11)
The COV of
d
is given by:
-0.0147t 2 2 2
0.4058 ( ) ( )
w e d
COV COV COV COV e
2

+ +
(12)
The COV of the spatial average
d
can be obtained as follows:
-0.0147t 2 2 2 2
0.4058 ( ) ( )
a w e d
COV COV COV COV e L
2

+ +
(13)
4.2 Modulus of Elasticity of Cohesionless Soils:
Coduto [5], Table (2), and Bowles [3], Table (3), present a list of indicative values for
the elasticity modulus based on the soil type.
Table (2): Typical Values for Youngs Modulus for Sand [5]
Soil Type E
s
, kPa
Loose sand 10,000-25,000
Medium dense sand 20,000-60,000
Dense sand 50,000-100,000
Table (3): Typical Values for Youngs Modulus for Sand [3]
Soil Type E
s
, MPa
Sand and gravel
Loose 50-150
Dense 100-200
Young's Modulus was correlated from the following equations introduced by Bowles
[3]:
E(kPa) = 500*(N+15) (14)
Where N is the SPT N-value
The transformation function can be expressed as follows:
500* ( ) 7500
d
t w e = + + + +

(15)

In which (t+w+e) =N. The mean and variance for this design property can be
determined as follows:
500*( 15)
d
m t

+ (16)
2 2 2 2
( 500 )
w e d
2
s s s s

+ +
The COV of
d
is given by:
2 2 2 2
( / )
d w e d
COV COV COV s m

+ +
(17)
The COV of the spatial average
d
can be obtained as follows:
2 2 2 2 2
( / )
a w e d
COV COV COV L s m

+ +
d

(18)
4.3 Modulus of Elasticity of Cohesive Soils:
Tables (4) and (5) present a list of indicative values for the elasticity modulus based on
soil type:
Table (4): Typical Values for Youngs Modulus for Clay [5]
Soil Type/ Condition E
s
, kPa
Undrained Condition
Clay
Soft 1,500-10,000
Medium 5,000-50,000
Stiff 15,000-75,000
Drained Condition
Soft 250-1,500
Medium 500-3,500
Stiff 1,200-20,000
Table (5): Typical Values of Youngs Modulus for Clay [3]
Soil Type Es, MPa
Clay
Very soft 2-15
Soft 5-25
Medium 15-50
Hard 50-100
Sandy 25-250
Youngs Modulus is correlated by means of the following equations [3]:
E = (150 to 200).C (19)
Where C is the shear strength;
The transformation function can be expressed as follows:
150*( )
d
t w e = + +

(20)
In which (t+w+e) =C. The mean and variance for this design property can be
determined as follows:

150*
d
m t

(21)
2 2 2 2
( 150 )
w e d
2
s s s s

+ +
(22)
The COV of
d
is given by:
2 2 2 2
( / )
d w e d
COV COV COV s m

+ +
(23)
The COV of the spatial average
d
can be obtained as follows:
2 2 2 2 2
( / )
a d w e d
C O V C O V C O V L s m

+ +
(24)
Figure (5) shows the elasticity modulus variation with depth. Tables (6) and (7)
illustrates the elasticity modulus geostatistical properties at the Case Study Location.

Fig. (5): Soil Log at Lot 42, Variation
of the Elasticity Modulus with Depth
Fig. (6): Simulation Cycle using Hybrid ANN/
MCS System


Table (6): Elasticity Modulus Geostatistical Parameters at Lot 42, Using the
Correlations Reported By Bowles [3]
Sand Layer (1)
E
ref
(kPa) Normal Probabilistic Distribution Function
Mean (kPa) 1.25E+04
Variance 3.05E+07
S.D. (kPa) 5.52E+03
COV (%) 44.07%
Mean + S.D. (kPa) 1.80E+04
Mean - S.D. (kPa) 7.00E+03
E
inc
(kPa) 3.55E+03
y
ref
(m) -3.50
Sand Layer (2)
E
ref
(kPa) Normal Probabilistic Distribution Function
Mean (kPa) 6.49E+04
Variance 3.05E+07
S.D. (kPa) 5.52E+03
COV (%) 8.50%
Mean + S.D. (kPa) 7.04E+04
Mean - S.D. (kPa) 5.94E+04
E
inc
(kPa) 3.55E+03
y
ref
(m) -18.50
Clay
E
min
(kPa) 9E03
E
max
(kPa) 2E04
** For the Sand layer, the modulus of deformation is assumed to proportionally increase with depth
according to the correlation with SPT N-value.
Table (7): Elasticity Modulus Geostatistical Properties at Lot 42, Using the
Correlations Reported by Phoon [15]
Sand Layer (1)
E
ref
(kPa) Normal Probabilistic Distribution Function
Mean (kPa) 8.08E+03
Variance 5.16E+07
S.D. (kPa) 7.18E+03
COV (%) 88.89%
Mean + S.D. (kPa) 1.53E+04
Mean - S.D. (kPa) 8.98E+02
y
ref
(m) -3.50
Sand Layer (2)
E
ref
(kPa) Normal Probabilistic Distribution Function
Mean (kPa) 1.38E+04
Variance 1.45E+08
S.D. (kPa) 1.20E+04
COV (%) 87.08%
Mean + S.D. (kPa) 2.58E+04
Mean - S.D. (kPa) 1.78E+03
y
ref
(m) -18.50
** For the Sand layer, the modulus of deformation is assumed to proportionally increase with depth
according to direct correlation with SPT N-value.

4.4 Transformation (Model) Error:
It should be noted that the transformation (model) error of the correlation equations is
neglected due to the following reasons:
a) The transformation (model) error is relatively negligible compared to the inherent
variability and the measurement error, and
b) Lack of data related to the scatter or regression error.
4.5 Soil Geotechnical Parameters at Lot 42
In the light of the above mentioned analyses, Table (8) illustrates the findings of the
geostatistical analysis.
Table (8): Soil Geotechnical Parameters at Lot 4275
Clay Sand Layer (1) Sand Layer (2) Property
Distribution Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
Mod. Of Elasticity,
E
ref
(kPa)
Variable
min. 9E+03
max 20E+03
1.25E+04 5.52E+03 6.49E+04 5.52E+03
Angle of Friction, Normal N/A N/A 36
0
2
0
41
0
2
0
Cohesion, C (kPa) Normal 60 20 N/A N/A N/A N/A
It is worth mentioning that simplifying assumptions are essential from a practical point
of view. According to El-Ramly [7] and ElKateb [6], simplifying assumptions are often
adopted for the inherent soil variability. Principal assumptions can be made according
to the geometry of the project. In projects with significant extent (e.g. long
embankment) soil properties can be averaged vertically in each borehole and the
averaged values are used to estimate the horizontal autocovariance function. However,
in cases where the vertical function is more important (e.g. compressibility), averages of
measurements at the same elevation in different boreholes are used to estimate the
vertical autocovariance function.
In analyzing the stability of the dykes of the James Bay project, Christian et al. [14]
adopted a single isotropic autocorrelation distance for all soil properties and layers. This
study has been limited to studying the soil inherent variability in the vertical direction
due to a) the absence of a well defined plan for the soil investigation program in the
horizontal direction, b) focusing on the soil vertical variability which is the major factor
affecting deformations and straining actions associated with tunneling. This study is
limited to investigating the inherent variability in the vertical direction.
5 ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK (ANN)/ MONTE CARLO
SIMULATION (MCS) HYBRID SYSTEM
The use of Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) in geomechanics has significantly
increased in the last decade [12 and 13]. Moreover, their successful applications in other
fields of decision-making and in computer and electrical engineering is expected to lead
to further interest and confidence in their applications in all fields of civil engineering.
The expert judgments that must routinely be made in geotechnical engineering make it
an excellent field for ANN applications. The objective of this paper is to utilize the
ANN technique in obtaining an A.I. based expression that approximately represents the
performance function. A Hybrid Model Using ANN/ MCS is developed to calculate the

statistical moments of the performance function (the mean and variance of the
performance function).
The Hybrid ANN/ MCS technique was innovated by virtue of generating and compiling
a Dynamic Link Library file (DLL) for the ANN and embedding it to a macro
application written in Microsoft Visual Basic Language, Figure (6). This linkage,
as illustrated in Figure (6), overcame a major shortcoming of ANNs. This shortcoming
is related to information storage. The information acquired during training is stored in
the connection weights in a complex manner that is often difficult to interpret. In
general, the rules governing the relationships between the network input/output
variables are difficult to quantify, and thus ANNs are often criticized for being black
boxes. The technique presented in this paper is considered a utility to overcome this
black box limitation. Other techniques used to overcome the shortcomings of ANNs
using neuro-fuzzy techniques have been tackled by Shahin [17].
The technique utilized for reaching the optimal neural network for the study conducted
in this paper is an Evolutionary Generalized Feedforward Network "EGFFN" which is a
generalization of the Multilayer Perceptron (MLP), such that connections can jump over
one or more layers. In theory, a MLP can solve any problem that a Generalized
Feedforward Network can solve. In practice, however, EGFFNs often solve the problem
much more efficiently. A standard MLP requires hundreds of times more training
epochs than the EGFFNs containing the same number of processing elements, Figure
(7).
6 BACK-ANALYSIS USING NON-DETERMINISTIC APPROACH TO
DEMONSTRATE THE STRESS RELEASE CORRESPONDING TO
CONFINEMENT LOSS
The monitored settlement profiles for Cairo Metro Line No. 2 revealed the following
[5]:
a) The back-calculated distance for the point of inflection i varied at different Lots
and different locations between 5.8 m and 8.3 m. Some of the observed relationships
for i/a versus z/2a (a is the tunnel radius) varied between 1.0 and 2.0 for Phase 1 and
between 1.3 and 1.85 for Lots 40, 42 and 46 (Phase 2A).
b) The back-calculated volume losses at the Cairo Metro Line No. 2 at the beginning of
tunneling for Phase 1 at Lots 12, 14 and 16 averaged at 0.5% and exceeded 0.8% at
some locations. On the other hand, the back-calculated volume loss for Phase 2A was
estimated at 0.3% average and 0.5% maximum.
In order to determine the stress release corresponding to the confinement loss occurred,
an ANN/MCS Hybrid System Back-Analysis Framework HSBAF was used to
express the probabilistic parameters of the stress release under the uncertainty of the soil
parameters including shear strength parameters and the modulus of deformation
following two aspects:
a) Measured surface settlement at the lot under study: HSBAF-1
b) Values of volume loss mentioned in literature: HSBAF-2.
The test section is analyzed through approximately 300 runs using the geotechnical
finite element code Plaxis version 7.2. The main goal of the FEA is to carry out a

non-deterministic parametric study for the stress release factor at Lot 42, and to
facilitate a source of input data that can represent the performance of tunneling in the
section under study. The soil was modeled by 127 fifteen-node elements. The Mohr-
Coulomb elastic perfectly plastic model was used to represent the nonlinear, stress-
strain behavior of the soil. The angle of friction (), the cohesion (C), and the modulus
of elasticity (E) were introduced to the analysis as random variables with Probability
Distribution Functions (PDFs) as mentioned in Table (8).
Sixty percent (60%) of the FEA runs were used for training, while the rest were divided
equally between the cross validation and testing data sets. The neural network algorithm
was then used to determine the Stress Release Z (, C, E, Smax) & Z (, C, E, Vs),
which represent the stress release occurred as a function of the random variables , C,
Esand, Eclay and the maximum surface settlement at the centerline of the tunnel
Smax or the volume of the settlement profile at the ground surface Vs. The optimal
neural network constituted of six (6) input neurons representing the input variables, one
hidden layer containing four (4) neurons, and one (1) output neuron representing the
Stress Release factor (1-). EGFFN Model configuration and results are illustrated in
Figure (7) and the evaluation of the ANN model performance is demonstrated in Tables
(9) and (10).
Table (9): HSBAF-1: Data Sets Performance
Performance Training Cross Validation Testing
MSE (Mean Square Error) 0.001 0.001 0.001
NMSE (Normalized MSE) 0.022 0.041 0.036
MAE (Mean Average Error) 0.021 0.025 0.025
Min Absolute Error 0.000 0.000 0.001
Max Absolute Error 0.067 0.141 0.109
r (correlation) 0.990 0.985 0.982
Table (10): HSBAF-2: Data Sets Performance
Performance Training Cross Validation Testing
MSE (Mean Square Error) 0.001 0.001 0.003
NMSE (Normalized MSE) 0.035 0.023 0.089
MAE (Mean Average Error) 0.023 0.021 0.028
Min Absolute Error 0.001 0.001 0.000
Max Absolute Error 0.098 0.072 0.368
r (correlation) 0.989 0.990 0.957

The final forecast charts (Figures 8 and 9) reflect the combined uncertainty of the
assumption on the models output. The analysis of both the first and the second
approaches revealed that the stress release occurred has a mean value of 16% and 19%
with a Standard Deviation of 6% and 7% respectively having a best fit of a Gamma
Distribution Probability Distribution Function.




Fig. (7): Configuration of ANN for Predicting Stress Release Factor




Fig. (8): HSBAF-1, PDF of (1-) Corresponding to max. Surface Settlement of 10 mm,
Gamma Distribution, Loc. =0.09, Scale=0.05, Shape=1.50




Fig. (9): HSBAF-2, PDF of (1-) Corresponding to Vs=0.30%
Gamma Distribution, Loc. =0.10, Scale=0.05, Shape=1.93
7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:
Tunneling is subject to a diversity of uncertainties compared to other areas of
geotechnical engineering. Accordingly, it is never possible to unerringly predict
tunneling conditions. However, it is possible to determine the range over which those
parameters may vary. Such deliverable can in turn serve as a basis for risk analysis and
decision making under uncertainty. It is shown that the prediction of statistical soil
strength and deformation parameters using Geostatistical analysis techniques is the key
to non-deterministic/ reliability/ probabilistic analyses.
The conventional deterministic approach does not account for quantified uncertainty
and relies on conservative parameters to deal with uncertain conditions. Using such
approach, the impact of subjective conservatism cannot be assessed and conservative
design can not be considered as a safeguard.
On the contrary, non-deterministic analysis incorporates uncertainty, and provides
greater insight into design reliability; thus, enhancing the engineering judgment and
improving the decision making process. The next stage in the progress of tunneling
design shall count on non-deterministic tunneling analysis.
Applicability and cost/time effectiveness are key elements in order to effectively convey
and communicate a probabilistic methodology to practicing engineers. An
approximation of the limit state surface is essential for achieving efficient reliability or
probabilistic analysis of geotechnical systems for which their models cannot be
developed explicitly. For nonlinear problems, the use of simple regression functions
may lead to high estimation errors.

This paper demonstrated an alternative procedure based on the evolutionary neural
network algorithm to develop an approximate limit state surface overcoming most of
the shortcomings of the currently used techniques. By implementing a hybrid system
using ANN/ MCS, it is possible to estimate the probabilistic value of soil unloading/
deformation parameters associated with soft ground tunneling conditions by using a
practical technique and an easy to implement number of FEA runs, Figure (10) . The
proposed Hybrid System Backanalysis Framework (HSBAF) has proven to be a
promising technique in probabilistic assessment of non-deterministic factors. However,
coupling both neural networks and Genetic Algorithm (Evolutionary Generalized
Feedforward Network, EGFFN) technique has proven to be reliable, effective and
efficient in refining and improving the performance of neural network architectures.

Figure (10): Decrease in the Overall Number of FEA Runs Required by the
Proposed Hybrid Model

8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We, the authors, would like to express our gratitude to all those who gave us the
possibility to complete this work. We are deeply indebted to Prof. Dr. Fathalla
ElNahhas, Ain Shams University, whose help, stimulating suggestions and
encouragement helped us floating the boat.
We would also like to express our sincere gratitude and appreciation to Gen. Eng.
ElHosseiny Abdel-Salamm and Dr. Ashraf AbuKreisha, Egyptian Tunneling Society/
National Authority of Tunnels NAT, for providing us with their support at all levels.
9 REFERENCES:
[1] Baecher, G.B. And Chritian, J.T., 2003. Reliability and Statistics in Geotechnical
Engineering, John Wiley and Sons.
[2] Benjamin, J. R. & Cornell, C. A., "Probability, Statistics, And Decision For Civil
Engineers", Mcgraw-Hill, New York, 1970, 684 P.
[3] Bowles, J., 1996, "Foundation Analysis and Design", Mcgraw-Hill, New York.
[4] Christian, J.T., Ladd, C.C., and Baecher, G.B., 1994, Reliability and Probability in
Stability Analysis, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 120, (2): 1071-
1 11 1.

[5] Coduto, D., 1994, "Foundation Design: Principles and Practices", Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs.
[6] Elkateb, T., 2003, "Quantification of Soil Heterogeneity", Ph.D. Thesis, Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada.
[7] El-Ramly, H., 2001. Probabilistic Analyses of Landslide Hazards and Risks: Bridging
Theory and Practice. Ph.D. Thesis, the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research,
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
[8] Goh, Anthony T. C. and Kulhawy, F. H., 2003. Neural Network Approach To Model The
Limit State Surface For Reliability Analysis. Can. J. Geotech., Rev. Can. Geotech. 40(6):
1235-1244
[9] Hamza Associates, 1997. Greater Cairo Metro Line 2 Phase 2, Phase 3 Tunnel
Monitoring, Lot 42 (El-Dokki/ El-Gezira). Monitoring Report.
[10] Jones Allen L., Kramer, Steven L., and Arduino, P., 2002, "Estimation of Uncertainty in
Geotechnical Properties for Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering", Peer 2002/16.
[11] Laso, E., Sagrario, M., Lera, G., and Alarcon, E., 1995. A Level II Reliability Approach
to Tunnel Support Design. Appl. Math. Modeling 1995, Vol. 19.
[12] Noureldin, S.M. 2003. Neuronet Prediction of Settlement Associated with Soft Ground
Tunneling. M.Sc. Thesis, Ain Shams University, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo, Egypt.
[13] Noureldin, S.M. 2006. Reliability-Based Tunneling Design: An Overview. International
Symposium on Utilization of Underground Space in Urban Areas, November 2006,
Sharm El Sheikh Egypt.
[14] Peck, R.B., Hanson, W.E., Thornburn, T.H., 1974, "Foundation Engineering", John
Wiley and Sons, New York.
[15] Phoon, K. K., 1995, "Reliability-Based Design of Foundations for Transmission Line
Structures" Ph. D. Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., USA.
[16] Phoon, K. K., 2004, "Towards Reliability-Based Design for Geotechnical Engineering",
Special Lecture for Korean Geotechnical Society, Seoul.
[17] Shahin, M.A., Jaksa, M.B. & Maier, H.R., 2003. Neurofuzzy Networks Applied To
Settlement Of Shallow Foundations on Granular Soils. Applications of Statistics and
Probability in Civil Engineering, Der Kiureghian, Madanat & Pestana (EDS), Millpress,
Rotterdam, ISBN 90-5966- 004-8.
[18] Vanmarcke, E. H., 1989, "Reliability in Foundation Engineering Practice",
Foundation Engineering: Current Principles & Practices (GSP 22), Ed. F. H.
Kulhawy, ASCE, New York, 1658 - 1669.