Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:8645–8659

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-019-04046-8

RESEARCH ARTICLE - CIVIL ENGINEERING

Prediction of Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Different Quarried

Rocks Using Metaheuristic Algorithm
Reza Asheghi1 · Abbas Abbaszadeh Shahri1 · Mohammad Khorsand Zak2

Received: 16 March 2019 / Accepted: 22 July 2019 / Published online: 31 July 2019
© King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals 2019

Abstract
The direct measurement of uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) as one of the main important rock engineering parameters
is destructive, cumbersome, difficult and costly. Therefore, the prediction of this parameter using simpler, cheaper indirect
methods is of interest. In this paper, the UCS was predicted using a developed hybrid intelligent model including generalized
feedforward neural network (GFFN) incorporated with imperialist competitive algorithm (ICA). To find the optimum model,
197 sets including rock class, density, porosity, P-wave velocity, point load index and water absorption from almost all over
quarries of Iran were compiled. The efficiency and performance of GFFN and hybrid ICA-GFFN models subjected to different
error criteria and established confusion matrixes were compared to multilayer perceptron (MLP) and radial basis function
(RBF) neural network models as well as conducted multivariate regression. The hybrid ICA-GFFN with 11.37%, 14.27%
and 22.74% improvement in correct classification rate over than GFFN, RBF and MLP demonstrated superior predictability
level. The results indicated that the developed ICA-GFFN model as a feasible and accurate enough tool can effectively be
applied for UCS prediction purposes. Using the sensitivity analyses, the P-wave velocity and rock class were identified as
the most and least influences factors on predicted UCS.

Keywords  Quarries · Hybrid intelligence model · Confusion matrix · Sensitivity analysis · Uniaxial compressive strength

1 Introduction cost and economy with relation to project objectives, climate

The natural stones and their products as building materials
need to satisfy certain qualitative requirements in almost all
of rock engineering and construction projects. The natural
stones are referred to each rock type (e.g., sedimentary, igne-
ous or metamorphic) which can be quarried in large blocks
and capable of being processed into indicated shape or size
for specific applications. Therefore, the natural stones can
cover a wide range of construction and decoration purposes
especially for outdoor applications such as paving, flooring
and cladding. This implies for significant role of their physi-
cal, mechanical, chemical and petrographical properties to
endure and maintain essential and distinctive characteristics
of strength, durability, attractiveness (appearance and color),
* Reza Asheghi
asheghi110@gmail.com
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Roudehen Branch, Islamic
Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2
Department of Applied Mathematics, Aligoudarz Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Aligudarz, Iran
and environmental conditions. However, in specific engi-
neering purposes other properties such as hardness, tough-
ness, dressing, seasoning, workability and fire resistance also
may need to be considered. Among these parameters, the
uniaxial unconfined compressive strength (UCS) as one of
the most important rock mechanical properties commonly
is used for a wide variety of planning and designing rock
engineering applications as well as rock mass classification
and rock failure criteria. The standardized measurement
procedures of UCS by both the American Society for Test-
ing and Materials (ASTM) and the International Society
for Rock Mechanics (ISRM) are destructive, expensive and
cumbersome [1]. Moreover, access to sufficient number of
high-quality shaped samples is a prerequisite which cannot
easily be provided in weak or highly weathered rocks (e.g.,
[1–3]). Due to these associated problems, and to save the
time and cost, the prediction of UCS using simpler indirect
test methods as a function of physical and mineralogical
properties of rocks through different statistical and multi-
variate techniques in practical perspective has been high-
lighted (e.g., [1, 2, 4–10]). However, it is approved that such

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

8646
these correlations due to dependency and variation to rock
types are not precise enough [11]. Moreover, the identified
drawbacks of statistical methods in effectiveness of auxil-
iary factors, uncertainty of experimental tests and inaccurate
prediction in a wide expanded range of data should also be
considered [12]. According to characterized demerits, adopt-
ing other alternatives to overcome the associated problems
in developing UCS predictive models is necessary. In such
cases, the artificial intelligence (AI) techniques have been
approved as very beneficial tools to handle the uncertainties
and insufficient data in modeling the material behavior from
experimental data.
In the recent years, significant degree of success using
soft computing- and artificial intelligence (AI)-aided tech-
niques than conventional statistical methods in producing
more efficient UCS predictive models in rock engineering
applications has been demonstrated. Alvarez Grima and
Babuska [11] showed that fuzzy model can estimate the UCS
much better than multiple regression analysis techniques.
Several researchers such as Meulenkamp and Alveraz Grima
[13], Singh et al. [14], Dehghan et al. [15], Cevik et al. [16]
and Ceryan et al. [17] used the ANN and different regression
models to predict the UCS of sandstone, schistose, traver-
tine, carbonate and clay-bearing rocks. They highlighted that
ANN-based models provide more accurate predictions than
conventional statistical techniques. The results of Gultekin
et al. [18] in estimation of UCS using MR, ANN and ANFIS
methods subjected to three different models and five datasets
showed higher predictability in ANFIS. Further, the com-
pared predicted UCS from different soft computing methods
revealed better performance in ANFIS than others [19, 20].
Singh et al. [21] compared the generalized regression neu-
ral network and ANFIS models and indicated that network
predicts the UCS more accurate than ANFIS. It was also
confirmed that the predictability of AI model integrated with
metaheuristic optimization algorithm can be improved [22,
23]. Momeni et al. [24] figured out that predictability level
of UCS using integrated ANN with particle swarm optimi-
zation can be improved. The developed hybrid ICA-ANN
by Taghavifar et al. [25] and Jahed Armaghani et al. [23]
showed successful ANN optimization by ICA to produce
more precise prediction of results comparing to conventional
ANN technique.
The imperialist competitive algorithm (ICA) [26] as one
of the developed metaheuristics inspired by sociopolitical
behaviors is a global search population-based algorithm and
a component of swarm intelligence technique which can pro-
vide an evolutionary computation without requirement to the
gradient of the function in its optimization process.
In the current study, a hybrid model for the prediction
of UCS using an optimized generalized feedforward neu-
ral network (GFFN) incorporated with ICA was developed.
To predict the UCS, four models—MLP, RBF, GFFN and
13
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:8645–8659
ICA-GFFN—were run using 197 datasets of different
building stones including rock class, porosity (n), density
(γ), water absorption (w), point load index (Is) and P-wave
velocity (Vp) which have been acquired from almost all
quarry locations of Iran. The evaluated performance of the
models using different criteria as well as reduced classifica-
tion error from 30.7% to 10.3% showed superior predict-
ability level of ICA-GFFN than other used neural network
models. Moreover, two different types of sensitivity analyses
were carried out and the most and least effective factors on
predicted UCS were recognized.
2 Basic Concept of ICA
ICA is a new optimization metaheuristic algorithm based
on sociopolitical process of imperialistic competition [26].
This population-based algorithm initially was dedicated to
the continuous optimization issues and then applied to find
the global optima and convergence rate in many complex
discrete combinatorial problems (e.g., [22, 27, 28]). Due to
the well-recognized mathematical formulation of ICA (e.g.,
[22, 26, 27, 29]), this section merely aims to provide a brief
explanation of its theoretical concept.
As presented in Table 1 and Fig. 1, this algorithm starts
with an initial population (countries, Ncou) in which some
of the best countries with lower cost are selected to be the
imperialists (Nimp) and the remains are divided among the
imperialists as colonies (Ncol). These imperialistic empires
then begin to compete with each other and attract the colo-
nies of the weakest empires based on their power which is a
function of the minimum system error. Therefore, the colo-
nies are moved toward an imperialist peak or new minimum
area (assimilation process) to improve their situations and
find better solutions (Fig. 1a). The power of countries and
corresponding counterpart of fitness values are inversely
proportional to their cost; the more power empires pos-
sess more colonies and vice versa (Fig. 1b). The movement
Table 1  Essential steps for successful ICA process
Step Processing paradigm
1 Generating the initial empires
2 Moving the colonies of an
empire toward the imperial-
ist
3 Revolution
4 Exchanging positions of the
imperialist and colony
5 Total power of an empire
6 Imperialistic competition
7 Elimination of empires
8 Convergence
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:8645–8659 8647
Fig. 1  Schematic of execute
process in ICA optimization
procedure: a assimilation
process of a colony toward an
imperialist, b forming initial
empires to gain colonies, c
movement of colony toward rel-
evant imperialist with/without
randomized deviated direction,
d performance of revolution
operation to jump from local
optimum, e competition process
among empires and f eliminate
the weakest empire(s)
direction of each colony toward the imperialist using is
expressed as:
{ } { } { }
x ∼ U(0, 𝛽 ∗ d) → xnew = xold + U(0, 𝛽 ∗ d) ∗ V1 ,
(1)
where x denotes a random variable with uniform distribu-
tion within [0, β* d] interval. The domain of parameter β
falls in [1, 2] interval, and β > 1 shows the movement of
colony toward the imperialist direction (Fig. 1c). d is the
distance between colony and imperialist. {V1} is unity vec-
tor in length which starts at the previous point of the colony
toward the imperialist locations. However, due to partially
absorbed colonies into the imperialist country a deviation
(Fig. 1c) can be observed [30]. This deviation parameter (θ)
also follows uniform distribution and is defined as:
𝜃 ∼ U(−𝜑, 𝜑), (2)
where φ represents an arbitrary parameter describing the
search condition (larger φ value facilitate global search and
smaller for local search) in which π/4 for φ can be a proper
choice [26]. In the revolution process (Fig. 1d), sudden
changes and jumping in assimilation process occur to escape
from possible trap in local optimum. This process similar to
mutation in genetic algorithm which increases exploration
not only improves the ICA’s global convergence but also
prevents from sticking in a local minimum [22, 29]. In ICA
optimization process, the imperialist stands in its position
if during the assimilated or revolted colony no lower cost is
found, else the position of colony and imperialist should be
exchanged and vice versa. As pointed out, all empires begin
to compete with each other to gain and control the colonies
of other empires, where the chance for attraction more colo-
nies directly depends on the empire power (Fig. 1e). The
total power of nth empire ­(TCn) as summation of the power
of imperialist and its attracted colonies is expressed by:
TCn = cost (imperialist) + 𝜉 × mean{cost(colonies of nth empire)},
(3)
where ξ is a positive effective factor on imperialist power in
determining the total power of empire and falls within [0, 1]
interval. The total power is affected by imperialist power in
small value of ξ and can be influenced by the mean power
of colonies in large ξ value. Thus, usually the value of ξ is
considered close to 0.
The expected outcome of competition process is the
shrinkage and then elimination of the weaker empires due
to losing their colonies. As a consequence, after successfully
moving process all countries as new colonies converge to
only one robust empire in the domain of the problem which
would be the desired solution. This algorithm is terminated
when either only the most powerful empire is left or the
user-defined termination criterion (e.g., desirable root mean
square error, RMSE or maximum number of decades, Ndec)
is met. Ndec is similar to the number of generations in a
genetic algorithm and the number of iterations in particle
swarm optimization. By iterating this procedure, the colo-
nies of eliminated weaker empires (Fig. 1f) are attracted with
the most unique powerful empire without any other competi-
tor which controls all colonies with equal cost. Therefore, no
difference between colonies and their corresponding unique
empire is available which can be interpreted as optimum
solution.
The competition process among the empires represents
the possession probability of each empire (pn) based on its
total power and is calculated using normalized total cost of
empire as:
� � Nimp
� NTCn � �
� �;
� �
pn = � ∑N pi = 1;NTCn = max TCi − TCn ,
� imp
�
� i
� i=1 NTCi � i=1
(4)
13

8648 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:8645–8659

where ­TCn and N

­ TCn denote the total and normalized cost Table 2  Strength description of provided database according to
of nth empire. ISRM (1980)
Strength description UCS (MPa) Number of Percentage
samples
3 Compiled Datacenter Extremely low strength < 1 0 0
Very low strength 1–5 1 0.51
Iran plateau due to geo-tectonical conditions contains different
Low strength 5–25 28 14.20
significant diverse quarry deposits (Fig. 2) which can make
Medium strength 25–50 83 42.10
huge annually turnover in the world construction purposes
High strength 50–100 52 26.36
marketing [31, 32]. In the current study, a comprehensive
Very high strength 100–250 33 16.73
dataset comprising the rock class, UCS, point load index (Is),
Extremely high strength > 250 0 0
P-wave velocity (Vp), porosity (n), water absorption (w) and
density (γ) for 70 travertine, 43 different igneous rocks, 23
marbles and 61 limestones from 40 various quarry locations
in Iran was collected. The datasets were obtained from labo- datasets or different locations. Due to unequal number of data-
ratory tests [15, 33–35] and technical reports [36] as well as sets and asymmetrical distribution in each quarry location,
governmental validated relevant sources [37, 38]. To mitigate randomizing the datasets is preferred and also reflected better
the effect of bad data and improve the accuracy of a predictive results than different training sites. The used datasets due to
model, ensemble methods were implemented. The used data different units were normalized (Eq. 5) within the range of [0,
were also treated for missing and outlier values. The datasets 1] to provide dimensionless input data which are necessary to
further were examined using different engineering features improve the learning speed and model stability:
subjected to multiple tuned algorithms. The classified datasets x − xmin
according to ISRM (1980) showed that 42.10% and 26.36% of norm scaled value = . (5)
xmax − xmin
them fall in medium- and high-strength categories (Table 2).
The simple statistical description and calculated 95% confi-
dence intervals of mean and median of provided datasets are
presented in Table 3 and Fig. 3, respectively. The gathered data 4 Applied ANN Models
were then randomized by 55%, 25% and 20% to provide train-
ing, testing and validation sets. The rock classes including sed- ANNs as the main information processing tools in machine
imentary, digenetic, igneous and metamorphic were assigned learning typically are arranged in a series of layers. Input,
and coded from 1 to 4, respectively. The randomizing process hidden and output layers, weights, bias, activation function,
can be executed using two strategies based on the gathered learning rate and training algorithm are the main components
of ANNs. Passing the weighted data through one or more hid-
den layers and transferring the processed information to output
units are precisely the mechanism that ANNs try to replicate
[39]. The data are processed in hidden layers and then transfer
to output unit. The MLPs as the most common typical feed-
forward networks are trained slowly but easy to use and can
approximate any input/output map. The outputs of jth neuron
in hidden layer (Oj) and kth neuron in output layer (Ok) con-
taining a set of adaptive weight (wi,j and wjk) are expressed as:
( n )
∑ ( )
Oj = f xi wij + bi = f W T X + b (6)
i=1

( m
)
∑
Ok = f wjk ⋅ Oj , (7)
j=1

where xi is the ith input and bi and f denote the bias and non-
linear activation function, respectively. W and X express the
vectors of weights and inputs. The bi as a type of connection
Fig. 2  Distribution of active quarries in Iran (www.ime.org.ir)

13
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:8645–8659 8649

Table 3  Descriptive statistics of Variable Type Mean Mean stand- SD Min Median Max Skewness
acquired datasets ard error

Rock class Input 1.51 0.061 0.85 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.72
γ (gr/cm3) Input 2.59 0.012 0.17 2.18 2.58 3.06 0.47
n% Input 6.63 0.45 6.34 0.15 4.50 31.4 1.03
Vp (m/s) Input 4.88 0.06 0.92 2.40 5.09 6.82 − 0.74
w (%) Input 3.06 0.29 4.14 0.070 1.38 16.16 1.78
Is (MPa) Input 4.29 0.22 3.08 0.30 3.32 15.12 1.49
UCS (MPa) Output 57.35 2.76 38.69 4.75 44.20 193.00 0.87

Mean
Is Mean

Median Median
Vp
4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

Mean
Mean

Median n Median
γ
3 4 5 6 7 8 2.54 2.56 2.58 2.60 2.62
Mean

Median w
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Fig. 3  95% confidence intervals of mean and median of compiled datasets

weight with a constant input of 1 is set up into the all neu- The GFFN (Fig. 4) is a subclass of MLPs in which the
rons in the back-propagation and transfer functions except perceptrons of hidden layer are replaced with the generalized
for the input layer. The network error (E) of the kth output shunting inhibitory neurons (GSN) to provide correct deci-
neuron and corresponding root mean square error (RMSE) sion [40]. The GSN enable the connections jump over one
are defined using the actual and predicted values (xk and or more layers which allow neurons to operate as adaptive
yk) as: nonlinear filters and also support higher computational power
as well as more freedom in selecting the optimum topology
n
1 ∑( )2 (e.g., [41–46]).
E= x − yk (8) The RBFs as a hybrid network use nonlinear Gaussian acti-
2 i=1 k
vation transfer functions and tend to learn much faster than
� MLPs.
∑n �
xk − yk
�2 Each input xi at each hidden neuron j is weighted by wh as:
RMSE = i=1
. (9)
n [ ]
Sj = x1 wh1,j , x2 wh2,j , … , xn whn,j , … , xN whN,j , (12)
To reduce the error between the desired and actual outputs,
the weights are optimized using an updating procedure for where xn is the nth input and whn,j is the weight between input
(n + 1)th pattern subjected to: n and hidden neuron j. Accordingly the network output (Om)
is calculated by:
𝜕E(W)
Δwi,k = −𝜂
𝜕wi,k (10) ∑J
(
Sj − c2j
)
Om = exp woj,m + wo0,m , (13)
i=1
𝜎 j
wi,k (n + 1) = wi,k (n) + ∇wi,k (n), (11)
where η is the learning rate.

13

8650
Fig. 4  Simplified generic archi-
tecture of GFFN using GSN
(xj, the output (activity) of jth
neuron; cji and wji, the “shunting
inhibitory” and weight connec-
tions from input i to neuron j;
aj, positive constant of passive
decay rate of the neuron, bj, the
output bias; f and g, activation
functions)
where the activation function φj (·) for hidden neuron j is
normally chosen as Gaussian function; cj and σj denote
the center and width of jth hidden neuron, respectively;
o
wj,m expresses the output weight between hidden neuron j
o
and output neuron m; and w0,m is the bias weight of output
neuron m.
5 Assessment of Optimum Hybrid ICA‑GFFN
Predictive Model
Selecting the appropriate training algorithm and network
size due to no exact or unified method is the most important
and critical task in ANN design [45, 47]. In this study, the
optimum GFFN structure and corresponding adjusted inter-
nal characteristics (e.g., training algorithm, activation func-
tion, number of neurons, learning rate) were found through
an integrated iterative trial–error with constructive technique
(Fig. 5). To find the appropriate training algorithm, the quick
propagation (QP), momentum (MO), quasi-Newton (QN)
and Levenberg–Marquardt (L–M) were examined. The QP
is one of the most popular back-propagation training algo-
rithms with appropriate results in many problems [48]. The
L–M [49, 50] is an advanced and fast nonlinear optimization
algorithm with ability to solve generic curve-fitting prob-
lems. The memory requirements are proportional to the
square of the number of weights in the network, and thus,
the L–M can only be used for small and single output net-
works including a few hundred weights. Moreover, the L–M
is specifically designed to minimize the sum of square error
and hence cannot be used for other types of network error.
The QN [51] as a training algorithm avoids the need to store
computed Hessian matrix during each iteration and thus
require less memory and can be used for bigger networks.
The MO [52] as a well-known standard algorithm designed
to overcome some of the problems associated with standard
13
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:8645–8659
back-propagation training algorithm and is used to speed
up convergence and maintain generalization performance.
The MO is a locally adaptive approach in which each weight
remembers the most recent update, and thus, each weight is
able to update independent of other weights [52, 53].
The activation transfer function for hidden and output
layers was selected among logistic (Log) and hyperbolic
tangent (HyT). Furthermore, the sum of squares and cross-
entropy were also employed as output error function, respec-
tively. Using the two embedded internal loops in defined
procedure (Fig. 5), numerous topologies even with similar
architecture but different internal characteristics were gener-
ated. The process of examining such diverse structures was
carried out to prevent the overfitting problem and escape
from trapping in local minima. The RMSE and iteration
number were the organized termination criteria. The first
priority is to satisfy the RMSE and if not achieved then the
number of iteration (set for 1000 in this study) will consider.
Accordingly, the best results of RMSE and the network cor-
relation (R2) of each tested structure after three runs were
considered. The learning rate of all implemented algo-
rithms was 0.7, whereas the step sizes of hidden layers were
changed from 1.0 to 0.001. The results of executed process
with QP, MO, QN and L–M training algorithms subjected to
Log and HyT activation functions (Fig. 6; Table 4) showed
that the minimum RMSE is occurred in 9–12 neurons. Test-
ing the different architectures using 9 and 11 neurons for MO
and L–M training algorithms demonstrated that the 6-4-5-1
and 6-5-6-1 topologies can be selected as the candidates of
optimum models in which the 6-4-5-1 structure subjected
to MO with HyT activation due to less number of neurons
was chosen (Table 5).
The selected optimum structure (6-4-5-1) then was incorpo-
rated with the ICA code in MATLAB using the same training
and testing datasets. In optimizing process, the ICA parameters
(Table 6) play crucial role and need to be determined from
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:8645–8659 8651

Fig. 5  Schematic of proposed
flowchart to find the optimum
GFFN and hybrid ICA-GFFN
models

previous studies or trial–error method (e.g., [22, 25, 26, 54,
55]). This is because the ICA by adjusting weights and biases
can minimize the error of optimum GFFN structure. In the cur-
rent paper 2, π/4 and 0.02 were assigned to β, θ and ζ (Table 6),
but the Ncou, Ndec and Nimp were determined using parametric
investigation. The optimum Ncou according to highest R2 and
minimum RMSE values was identified through 11 conducted
hybrid models (Table 7) which trained using selected GFFN
structure. Similar process with Nimp was managed to charac-
terize the optimum Ndec using the variation of RMSE against
the Ncou. As presented in Fig. 7, the approximate boundary
between moderate and very low variation (350) can be con-
sidered as the optimum Ndec. Further, the appropriate Nimp was
obtained through the calculated R2 and RMSE of ICA-GFFN
models subjected to diverse Nimp values for both training and
testing datasets (Table 8). The outcome of trained hybrid ICA-
GFFN model subjected to optimum GFFN structure (6-4-5-1)
and determined ICA parameters (Table 6) is reflected in Fig. 8.
The testing datasets were also employed to assess the capacity
of the network performance.

13

8652 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:8645–8659

6 Validation and Discussion

The confusion matrix is a visual analyzing performance of

Fig. 6  Variation of network RMSE using different training algorithms
based on the number of neurons subjected to HyT and Log activation
functions
an algorithm in a classification problem [56]. In this square
matrix, the number of correct and incorrect predictions are
summarized with count values and broken down by each
class to represent and explain whether the system is confus-
ing two classes. Each [aij] in this matrix shows the number
of records for ith and jth category of target column and cor-
responding network output. A perfect model in classifica-
tion would have zeroes everywhere except on the diagonal
entries. The predictability levels of optimum GFFN and
ICA-GFFN were compared with two developed MLP and
RBF models subjected to the same randomized datasets. The
MLP and RBF were obtained using the procedure presented
in Fig. 5 and trial–error method. The minimum RMSE for

Table 4  Results of implemented Training Min RMSE Number of Activation Training Min RMSE Number of Activa-
training algorithms to assess the algorithm neurons function algorithm neurons tion
optimum GFFN model function

MO 0.181 9 HyT MO 0.207 10 Log

QP 0.195 11 HyT QP 0.216 12 Log
L–M 0.204 10 HyT L–M 0.181 11 Log
QN 0.201 11 HyT QN 0.190 10 Log

The optimum network results subjected to implemented internal characteristics are shown in bold

Table 5  A series of tested Training Min RMSE Number of Structure Layer activation R2
structures corresponding to algorithm neuron transfer function
9 and 11 neurons to find the Train Test Validate
optimum structure
L–M 0.345 11 6-4-7-1 Log 0.88 0.87 0.88
0.516 11 6-4-4-3-1 Log 0.85 0.83 0.80
0.486 11 6-3-5-3-1 Log 0.87 0.84 0.87
0.429 11 6-8-3-1 Log 0.89 0.87 0.89
0.586 11 6-4-3-4-1 Log 0.83 0.81 0.80
0.304 11 6-7-4-1 Log 0.89 0.88 0.90
0.650 11 6-3-4-4-1 Log 0.82 0.80 0.80
0.181 11 6-5-6-1 Log 0.93 0.91 0.92
0.308 11 6-3-8-1 Log 0.89 0.90 0.88
0.206 11 6-11-1 Log 0.92 0.91 0.91
0.273 11 6-6-5-1 Log 0.91 0.91 0.90
MO 0.553 9 6-2-7-1 HyT 0.83 0.81 0.80
0.456 9 6-3-6-1 HyT 0.88 0.89 0.86
0.483 9 6-3-3-3-1 HyT 0.86 0.84 0.87
0.211 9 6-9-1 HyT 0.93 0.92 0.91
0.470 9 6-6-3-1 HyT 0.86 0.83 0.85
0.181 9 6-4-5-1 HyT 0.93 0.92 0.92
0.296 9 6-5-4-1 HyT 0.90 0.91 0.90
0.504 9 6-7-2-1 HyT 0.85 0.84 0.82

The optimum network results subjected to implemented internal characteristics are shown in bold

13
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:8645–8659 8653

Table 6  Selecting of ICA Parameter Range in previous Considered value in this paper

parameters in this study studies
according to previous studies
Number of country (Ncou) 25–500 Parametric investigation was carried out → 200
Number of imperialism (Nimp) 5–65 Parametric investigation was carried out → 20
Number of decades (Ndec) [0–1000] Parametric investigation was carried out → 350
β [1–2] 2
θ π/4; [0, 1] π/4
ζ [0.1–0.02] 0.02

Table 7  Determination of Ncou using Ndec and Nimp subjected to opti- Table 8  Determination of Nimp using both training and testing data-
mum GFFN structure sets
Tested ICA- Ncou Train Test Tested ICA- Nimp Train Test
GFFN 2 2 GFFN 2
R RMSE R RMSE R RMSE R2 RMSE

1 25 0.68 0.182 0.75 0.170 1 5 0.70 0.209 0.79 0.169

2 50 0.69 0.175 0.62 0.231 2 10 0.67 0.180 0.80 0.140
3 75 0.75 0.170 0.46 0.199 3 15 0.83 0.127 0.83 0.128
4 100 0.74 0.169 0.56 0.202 4 20 0.94 0.090 0.92 0.072
5 150 0.66 0.180 0.55 0.266 5 25 20 0.85 0.131 0.88
6 200 0.69 0.167 0.72 0.153 6 30 0.90 0.096 0.95 0.098
7 250 0.65 0.179 0.77 0.148 7 35 0.93 0.106 0.96 0.137
8 300 0.70 0.175 0.52 0.257 8 40 0.93 0.098 0.99 0.073
9 350 0.67 0.210 0.72 0.192 9 45 0.89 0.131 0.96 0.086
10 400 0.70 0.170 0.57 0.175 10 50 0.88 0.130 0.94 0.135
11 450 0.66 0.202 0.85 0.121 11 55 0.90 0.106 0.78 0.147
12 60 0.85 0.149 0.72 0.154
The optimum network results subjected to implemented internal char-
acteristics are shown in bold The optimum network results subjected to implemented internal char-
acteristics are shown in bold

identify the system trouble in distinguishing the real values

in the defined ranges (Table 9).
These matrixes were also calculated for both testing
and validation datasets. The rows with all 0 in each clas-
sification mean that there is no output and corresponding
predicted values which can be an indicator of appropriate
predictability of developed models. The correct classifica-
tion rate (CCR) and classification error (CE) as qualitative
characteristics in classification tasks [57] can be defined
as:
correctly predicted class
CCR = → CE = 1 − CCR. (14)
total testing class

Fig. 7  Performance of ICA-GFFN models using different Ncou to find

the optimum Ndec
MLP and RBF was observed in the number of neurons 11
and 8 corresponding to 6-5-6-1 and 6-8-1 structures. Using
the validation datasets, the confusion matrixes for all mod-
els (GFF, ICA-GFFN, MLP and RBF) were calculated to
The percentage of correctly recognized data within the
general dataset for all models is presented and compared
in Tables 10 and 11, respectively. The calculated results
of CCR and CE for testing and validation datasets showed
10.47% progress in predictability for ICA-GFFN which is
more than other applied models (Table 10). The compared
results of used models (Table 11) also reflected significant

13

8654
Fig. 8  Predictability of opti-
mum GFFN and hybrid ICA-
GFFN using similar randomized
training datasets
higher predictability of ICA-GFFN rather than MLP, GFFN
and RBF.
Two different multivariate regressions (MVRs)
(Eqs. 15, 16) using the same randomized training datasets
were developed and compared to other models (Fig. 9a–d).
The performance of the models then was tested using
absolute error (AE) and calculated residuals (CR). The
AE shows the difference between actual and predicted val-
ues, and indicates the physical error in a measurement, as
well as the uncertainty in a measurement. The residual is
a fitting deviation of predicted value from measured value,
and thus, lower residual represents better fitting condi-
tions. The lowest deviated variation of AE and CR was
observed in ICA-GFFN in which regarding GFFN, RBF,
MLP and MVR models (Fig. 9a, b) can be interpreted as
more precious predictability level. Figure 9a, b also shows
better performance in GFFN than RBF and MLP and sig-
nificant improvement than MVR. Therefore, GFFN and
RBF were ranked as second and third appropriate models
for prediction.
UCS = −89.58 + 8.49(rock clss) + 15.24𝛾 − 0.25n + 1.31w
+ 11.85Vp + 8.08IS(50) R2 = 0.68
(15)
UCS = 2.004 rock class0.31 𝛾 0.27 n−0.09 w0.06 Vp1.41 IS(50)
0.52
R2 = 0.56.
(16)
The performance of applied models to pursue the accuracy
and monitoring of forecasted values also were cross-exam-
ined using known statistical error indices (mean absolute
percentage error, MAPE; variance accounted for, VAF;
RMSE; mean absolute deviation, MAD; coefficient of deter-
mination, R2; and index of agreement, IA). The formulation
of these indices can widely be found in statistical textbooks.
The MAPE is one of the most popular indexes for descrip-
tion of accuracy and size of the forecasting error. The MAD
reflects the size of error in the same units as the data and
13
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:8645–8659
reveals that high predicted values cause higher error rates.
The generic IA which varies from 0 to 1 [58] indicates the
compatibility of modeled and observations. The VAF as an
intrinsically connected index between predicted and actual
values is a representative of model performance. Therefore,
higher values of VAF, IA and R2 as well as smaller values of
MAPE, MAD and RMSE are interoperated as better model
performance (Table 12).
The robustness of the optimized ICA-GFFN model was
also analyzed using sensitivity and weight analyses. The sen-
sitivity analyses are appropriate methods to investigate the
predictability robustness of calibrated model or systems and
determining the importance of inputs in presence of uncer-
tainty [59]. Moreover, removing the least effective inputs
may lead to the development of better results [60]. Here, two
sensitivity analyses methods known as the cosine amplitude
(CAM) and partial derivative (PaD) [60] were used (Eqs. 17,
18) and the results are presented in Fig. 10a.
∑m � �
k=1 xik × xjk
Rij = � , x and xj ∶ elements of data pairs
∑m 2 ∑m 2 i
x
k=1 ik
x
k=1 jk
(17)
� p
�2
SSDi � 𝜕Ok
contribution of ith variable = ∑ ; SSDi = p ,
i SSDi p 𝜕xi
(18)
where Okp and xpi are output and input values for pattern P
and ­SSDi is sum of the squares of the partial derivatives,
respectively.
The results of sensitivity analyses also can be examined
using the assigned W in intelligence models. Individual W
are numerical parameters which can represent the strength
and effect of connections between units; the greater the mag-
nitude, the more the influence. Bias (b) in predictive models
is a measure of model rigidity and inflexibility, and means
that the model is not capturing the entire signal from the
 Table 9  Confusion matrix of optimum models for validation datasets
Output target 4.75–21.94 21.94–39.14 39.14–56.33 56.33–73.52 73.52–90.72 90.72–– 107.91– 125.11– 142.30– 159.41– Total data True False
107.91 125.11 142.30 159.41 176.69

Network output (UCS) → ICA-GFFN

 4.75–21.94 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0
 21.94–39.14 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 10 1
 39.14–56.33 0 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 8 1
 56.33–73.52 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1
 73.52–90.72 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 2 1
 90.72–107.91 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
 107.91–125.11 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 3 0
 125.11–142.30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
 142.30–159.41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0
 159.41–176.69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Note 6 9 10 2 2 5 2 0 3 0 39 35 4
Network output (UCS) → GFFN
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:8645–8659

 4.75–21.94 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0
 21.94–39.14 2 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 8 3
 39.14–56.33 0 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 8 1
 56.33–73.52 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1
 73.52–90.72 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 2 1
 90.72–107.91 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
 107.91–125.11 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 2 1
 125.11–142.30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
 142.30–159.41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 1
 159.41–176.69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Note 7 8 11 1 2 5 2 2 1 0 39 31 8
Network output (UCS) → RBF
 4.75–21.94 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0
 21.94–39.14 1 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 9 2
 39.14–56.33 0 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 7 2
 56.33–73.52 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1
 73.52–90.72 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 2 1
 90.72–107.91 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
 107.91–125.11 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 2 1
 125.11–142.30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1
 142.30–159.41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 1
 159.41–176.69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Note 6 12 8 1 2 5 2 1 2 0 39 30 9

13
8655

8656 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:8645–8659

Table 10  Comparison of CCR and classification error of optimized

False models for validation and test datasets

12
0
0
2
1
1
0
1
2
0
5
Model CCR (%) CE (%) Progress (%)
True

Test Validate Test Validate

27
2
0
1
0
2
3
5
6
8
0
ICA-GFFN 80.3 89.7 19.7 10.3 10.47
Total data

GFFN 75.2 79.5 24.8 20.5 5.41

RBF 73.7 76.9 27.1 23.1 4.16

0
39
1
2
3
3
2
3
5
11
9

MLP 67.1 69.3 32.9 30.7 3.17

159.41–
176.69

Table 11  Comparison between the progresses of applied intelligent

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

models
142.30–
159.41

Model ICA-GFFN (%) GFFN (%) RBF (%) MLP (%)

3
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0

ICA-GFFN – 11.37 14.27 22.74

GFFN − 11.37 – 3.26 12.8
125.11–
142.30

RBF − 14.27 − 3.26 – 9.88

MLP − 22.74 − 12.8 − 9.88 –
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
107.91–
125.11

data. However, the randomly generated W and b should be

1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

scaled to avoid saturation of activation function [61, 62]. The

90.72––

W and b can be adjusted using zero mean normal distribution

107.91

accompanied with variance specification or incrementally

0
0
5
1
0
1
3
0
0
0
0

stochastic configuration algorithms to obtain input-to-node

values that do not saturate the activation function [63–66].
73.52–90.72

The optimum network results subjected to implemented internal characteristics are shown in bold

Typically the [− 1, 1] and [0, 1] intervals are assigned as

fixed for weights and biases, respectively. To have insight
into the model performance, the weights for three runs were
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0

analyzed using the Zhou method [66] and are presented in

56.33–73.52

Fig. 10b. It can be observed that the more important param-

eters show higher weight values.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

7 Conclusion
39.14–56.33

To predict the UCS, a hybrid intelligent ICA-GFFN model

0
13
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
3
8

using an optimum GFFN structure through different exam-

ined internal characteristics and adjusted ICA parameters
21.94–39.14

was developed. The introduced hybrid model then success-

fully was applied to 197 datasets of physical and mechani-
cal properties of a wide variety of quarried stones from
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
1

almost all over the Iran. The performance of hybrid model

was evaluated using different statistical error criteria and
4.75–21.94

Network output (UCS) → MLP

compared to GFFN, RBF, MLP and MVR models. The

extracted CCR from conducted confusion matrix showed
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
2
0

significant predictability level, i.e., from 69.3% in MLP

Table 9  (continued)

with 22.74% progress was improved to 89.7% in ICA-

 159.41–176.69
 107.91–125.11
 125.11–142.30
 142.30–159.41
 90.72–107.91

GFFN. Subsequently the CE from 30.7% was reduced

 56.33–73.52
 21.94–39.14
 39.14–56.33
Output target

 4.75–21.94

73.52–90.72

to 10.3%. Accordingly, the values of 4.14, 0.126, 0.248,

95.80 and 0.98 corresponding to MAPE, RMSE, MAD,
 Note

VAF and R2 reflected superior performance capacities of

13
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:8645–8659 8657

Fig. 9  Comparison the perfor-

mance of developed models
using a AE, b CR and c, d
measured and predicted values
of ICA-GFFN and other models

Table 12  Accuracy Statistical criteria Neural network model MVR models

performance of ICA-GFFN
comparing to other models ICA-GFFN RBF GFFN MLP Equation 15 Equation 16
using validation datasets
MAPE 4.14 7.22 6.65 9.05 14.58 17.36
RMSE 0.126 0.254 0.238 0.289 0.572 0.688
MAD 0.248 0.335 0.376 0.401 0.702 0.745
VAF 95.80 91.55 90.36 87.77 80.56 81.02
AI 0.89 0.81 0.83 0.76 0.69 0.67
R2 0.98 0.93 0.95 0.90 0.81 0.78

Fig. 10  Influence of input
parameters on predicted UCS
and E using different sensitivity
analyses

ICA-GFFN than other neural network and MVR models.
The calculated IA index was another supplementary indi-
cator that showed ICA-GFFN model produces closer pre-
dicted values to observations. Furthermore, the analytical
graph of AE and CR indicated that the ICA-GFFN model
provides more accurate and reliable prediction than other
employed models. The implemented sensitivity analyses
showed that Is, Vp and n are the most effective factors on
predicted UCS values. The result of sensitivity analyses
can also be interpreted as appropriate trend with previous

13

8658
empirical correlations which mostly have been established
by these three factors, and thus, the obtained MVR cor-
relations in this paper also can be calibrated with these
effective factors.
Acknowledgements  Deputy of research and technology of Islamic
Azad University, Roudehen branch, Tehran, is kindly acknowledged.
Critical reviews by anonymous reviewers and the editor, which signifi-
cantly improved the quality of our work, are thankful.
References
1. Kahraman, S.: Evaluation of simple methods for assessing the
uniaxial compressive strength of rock. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci. 38, 981–994 (2001)
2. Abbaszadeh Shahri, A.; Larsson, S.; Johansson, F.: Updated rela-
tions for the uniaxial compressive strength of marlstones based
on P-wave velocity and point load index test. Innov. Infrastruct.
Solut. 1, 17 (2016). https​://doi.org/10.1007/s4106​2-016-0016-9
3. Ferentinou, M.; Fakir, M.: An ANN approach for the prediction
of uniaxial compressive strength of some sedimentary and igne-
ous rocks in eastern KwaZulu-Natal. Proc. Eng. 191, 1117–1125
(2017). https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.proen​g.2017.05.286
4. Abbaszadeh Shahri, A.; Gheirati, A.; Espersson, M.: Prediction
of rock mechanical parameters as a function of P-wave velocity.
Int. Res. J. Earth Sci. 2(9), 7–14 (2014)
5. Basu, A.; Aydin, A.: Predicting uniaxial compressive strength by
point load test: significance of cone penetration. Rock Mech. Rock
Eng. 39, 483–490 (2006)
6. Kahraman, S.: The determination of uniaxial compressive strength
from point load strength for pyroclastic rocks. Eng. Geol. 170,
33–42 (2014)
7. Palchik, V.: On the ratios between elastic modulus and uniaxial
compressive strength of heterogeneous carbonate rocks. Rock
Mech. Rock Eng. 44(1), 121–128 (2011)
8. Tugrul, A.; Zarif, I.H.: Correlation of mineralogical and textural
characteristics with engineering properties of selected granitic
rocks from Turkey. Eng. Geol. 51, 303–317 (1999)
9. Yagiz, S.: Predicting uniaxial compressive strength, modulus of
elasticity and index properties of rocks using the Schmidt hammer.
Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 68(1), 55–63 (2009)
10. Yasar, E.; Erdogan, Y.: Correlating sound velocity with the den-
sity, compressive strength and Young’s modulus of carbonate
rocks. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 41(5), 871–875 (2004)
11. Alvarez Grima, M.; Babuska, R.: Fuzzy model for the prediction
of unconfined compressive strength of rock samples. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. 36, 339–349 (1999)
12. Majdi, A.; Rezaei, M.: Prediction of unconfined compressive
strength of rock surrounding a roadway using artificial neural
network. Neural Comput. Appl. 23, 381–389 (2013). https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s0052​1-012-0925-2
13. Meulenkamp, F.; Alveraz Grima, M.: Application of neural net-
works for the prediction of the unconfined compressive strength
(UCS) from Equotip hardness. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 36,
29–39 (1999)
14. Singh, V.K.; Singh, D.; Singh, T.N.: Prediction of strength proper-
ties of some schistose rocks from petrographic properties using
artificial neural networks. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 38, 269–
284 (2001)
15. Dehghan, S.; Sattari, G.H.; Chehreh Chelgani, S.; Aliabadi, M.A.:
Prediction of uniaxial compressive strength and modulus of elas-
ticity for Travertine samples using regression and artificial neural
networks. Min. Sci. Technol. 20, 0041–0046 (2010)
13
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:8645–8659
16. Cevik, A.; Sezer, E.A.; Cabalar, A.F.; Gokceoglu, C.: Modeling
of the uniaxial compressive strength of some clay-bearing rocks
using neural network. Appl. Soft Comput. 11, 2587–2594 (2011)
17. Ceryan, N.; Okkan, U.; Kesimal, A.: Prediction of unconfined
compressive strength of carbonate rocks using artificial neural
networks. Environ. Earth Sci. 68(3), 807–819 (2012)
18. Gultekin, N.Y., Gokceoglu, C., Sezer, E.A.: Prediction of uniaxial
compressive strength of granitic rocks by various nonlinear tools
and comparison of their performances. Int. J. Rock. Mech. Min.
Sci. 62,113–122 (2013)
19. Mishra, D.A.; Srigyan, M.; Basu, A.; Rokade, P.J.: Soft computing
methods for estimating the uniaxial compressive strength of intact
rock from index tests. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 80, 418–424
(2015)
20. Singh, R.; Umrao, R.K.; Ahmad, M.; Ansari, M.K.; Sharma, L.K.;
Singh, T.N.: Prediction of geomechanical parameters using soft
computing and multiple regression approach. Measurement 99,
108–119 (2017)
21. Singh, R.; Vishal, V.; Singh, T.; Ranjith, P.G.: A comparative
study of generalized regression neural network approach and
adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference systems for prediction of uncon-
fined compressive strength of rocks. Neural Comput. Appl. 23(2),
499–506 (2013). https​://doi.org/10.1007/s0052​1-012-0944-z
22. Hosseini, S.; Al Khaled, A.: A survey on the imperialist com-
petitive Algorithm metaheuristic: implementation in engineering
domain and directions for future research. Appl. Soft Comput. J.
(2014). https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.08.024
23. Jahed Armaghani, D.; Mohd Amin, M.F.; Yagiz, S.; Shirani Far-
donbe, R.; Asinda Abdullah, R.: Prediction of the uniaxial com-
pressive strength of sandstone using various modeling techniques.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 85, 174–186 (2016)
24. Momeni, E.; Jahed Armaghani, D.; Hajihassani, M.; Amin,
M.F.M.: Prediction of uniaxial compressive strength of rock
samples using hybrid particle swarm optimization-based artificial
neural networks. Measurement 60, 50–63 (2015)
25. Taghavifar, H.; Mardani, A.; Taghavifar, L.: A hybridized artificial
neural network and imperialist competitive algorithm optimiza-
tion approach for prediction of soil compaction in soil bin facility.
Measurement 46, 2288–2299 (2013)
26. Atashpaz Gargari, E.; Lucas, C.: Imperialist competitive algo-
rithm: an algorithm for optimization inspired by imperialistic
competition. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Congress on Evolu-
tionary Computation, pp. 4661–4667 (2007)
27. Atashpaz-Gargari, E.; Hashemzadeh, F.; Rajabioun, R.; Lucas, C.:
Colonial competitive algorithm, a novel approach for PID con-
troller design in MIMO distillation column process. Int. J. Intell.
Comput. Cybern. 1, 337–355 (2008)
28. Jahed Armaghani, D.; Hasanipanah, M.; Mohamad, E.T.: A com-
bination of the ICA–ANN model to predict air overpressure result-
ing from blasting. Eng. Comput. 32, 155–171 (2016)
29. Nazari-Shirkouhi, S.; Eivazy, H.; Ghodsi, R.; Rezaie, K.; Atash-
paz-Gargari, E.: Solving the integrated product mix-outsourcing
problem using the imperialist competitive algorithm. Expert Syst.
Appl. 37, 7615–7626 (2010)
30. Palmer, R.R.; Colton, J.; Karmer, L.: A History of the Modern
World, 9th edn. Knopf, New York (2002)
31. Lorpari Zanganeh, A.; Roosta, A.: Analytical study of Iran export
and manufacturing of decorative stones in the year 2012 (2012–
2013) and Iran’s position in global decorative stone industry. Int.
J. Sci. Manag. Dev. 3(1), 793–798 (2015)
32. Tahernejad, M.M.; Ataei, M.; Khalokakaei, R.: A strategic analy-
sis of Iran’s dimensional stone mines using SWOT method. Arab.
J. Sci. Eng. 38, 149–154 (2013). https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1336​
9-012-0422-z
33. Abbaszadeh Shahri, A.: Identification and Estimation of Nonlin-
ear Site Effect Characteristics in Sedimentary Basin Subjected to
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:8645–8659 8659
Earthquake Excitations. Ph.D dissertation, Department of Geo-
physics, Science and research branch, Islamic Azad University,
Tehran, Iran (2010)
34. Jamshidi, A.; Nikudel, M.R.; Khamehchiyan, M.; Zarei Sahamieh,
R.; Abdi, Y.: A correlation between P-wave velocity and Schmidt
hardness with mechanical properties of travertine building stones.
Arab. J. Geosci. 9, 568 (2016). https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1251​
7-016-2542-3
35. Rajabzadeh, M.A.; Moosavinasab, Z.; Rakhshandehroo, G.:
Effects of rock classes and porosity on the relation between uni-
axial compressive strength and some rock properties for carbonate
rocks. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 45, 113–122 (2012). https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s0060​3-011-0169-y
36. Water and Energy Resources of Iran: Engineering Geology and
Rock Mechanics of Dam and Power Plant of Chamshir. Report
5589601, Ministry of Energy of Iran (2012)
37. Iran’s Ministry of Industries and Mines Statistics and Information
Service (2009). www.mim.gov.ir
38. Iranian Mining Organization (2004). www.imo.gov.ir
3 9. Hamdia, K.; Ghasemi, H.; Zhuang, X.; Alajlan, N.; Rabczuk,
T.: Computational machine learning representation for the
flexoelectricity effect in truncated pyramid structures. Comput.
Mater. Contin. 59(1), 79–87 (2019). https​://doi.org/10.32604​/
cmc.2019.05882​
40. Bouzerdoum, A.; Mueller, R.: A generalized feedforward neural
network architecture and its training using two stochastic search
methods. In: Cantú-Paz, E., et al. (eds.) Genetic and Evolutionary
Computation—GECCO 2003. GECCO 2003. Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, vol. 2723. Springer, Berlin (2003)
41. Abbaszadeh Shahri, A.; Asheghi, R.: Optimized developed arti-
ficial neural network-based models to predict the blast-induced
ground vibration, innovative infrastructure solutions. (2018). https​
://doi.org/10.1007/s4106​2-018-0137-4
42. Abbaszadeh Shahri, A.; Larsson, S.; Johansson, F.: CPT-SPT cor-
relations using artificial neural network approach—a case study
in Sweden. Electron. J. Geotech. Eng. (EJGE) 20(Bund. 28),
13439–13460 (2015)
43. Arulampalam, G.; Bouzerdoum, A. Expanding the structure of
shunting inhibitory artificial neural network classifiers. In: IJCNN.
IEEE (2002). https​://doi.org/10.1109/ijcnn​.2002.10076​01
44. Bouzerdoum, A.: A new class of high-order neural networks with
nonlinear decision boundaries. In: Proceedings of the Sixth Inter-
national Conference on Neural Information Processing (ICONIP
’99), pp. 1004–1009, Perth, Australia (1999)
45. Ghaderi, A.; Abbaszadeh Shahri, A.; Larsson, S.: An artificial
neural network based model to predict spatial soil type distribution
using piezocone penetration test data (CPTu). Bull. Eng. Geol.
Environ. (2018). https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1006​4-018-1400-9
46. Jadhav, S.; Nalbalwar, S.; Ghatol, A.: Performance evaluation of
generalized feedforward neural network based ECG arrhythmia
classifier. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Issues 9(4), 379–384 (2012)
47. Sonmez, H.; Gokceoglu, C.; Nefeslioglu, H.A.; Kayabasi, A.: Esti-
mation 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. Sci. 43, 224–235 (2006)
48. Fahlman, S.E.: Faster-learning variations of backpropagation: an
empirical study. In: Touretzky, D., Hinton, G.E., Sejnowski, T.J.
(eds.) Proceedings of the 1988 Connectionist Models Summer
School, pp. 38–51. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo
(1988)
49. Levenberg, K.: A method for the solution of certain non-linear
problems in least squares. Q. Appl. Math. 2, 164–168 (1944)
50. Marquardt, D.W.: An algorithm for least-squares estimation of
nonlinear parameters. J. Soc. Ind. Appl. Math. 11(2), 431–441
(1963)
51. Bertsekas, D.P.: Nonlinear Programming. Athena Scientific, Bel-
mont (1995)
52. Swanston, D.J.; Bishop, J.M.; Mitchell, R.J.: Simple adaptive
momentum: new algorithm for training multiplayer perceptrons.
Electron. Lett. 30, 1498–1500 (1994)
53. Wiegerinck, W.; Komoda, A.; Heskes, T.: Stochastic dynamics
of learning with momentum in neural networks. J. Phys. A 27,
4425–4437 (1994)
54. Abdechiri, M.; Faez, K.; Bahrami, H.: Neural network learning
based on chaotic imperialist competitive algorithm. In: Proceed-
ings of the 2nd International Workshop on Intelligent Systems and
Applications (ISA), pp. 1–5. IEEE (2010)
55. Abdollahi, M.; Isazadeh, A.; Abdollahi, D.: Imperialist competi-
tive algorithm for solving systems of nonlinear equations. Com-
put. Math. Appl. 65, 1894–1908 (2013)
56. Stehman, S.: Selecting and interpreting measures of thematic clas-
sification accuracy. Remote Sens. Environ. 62(1), 77–89 (1997)
57. Dreižienė, L.; Dučinskas, K.; Paulionienė, L.: Correct classifica-
tion rates in multi-category discriminant analysis of spatial gauss-
ian data. Open J. Stat. 5, 21–26 (2015)
58. Willmott, C.J. (1984) On the evaluation of model performance in
physical geography. In: Spatial Statistics and Models, pp. 443–460
(1984)
59. Saltelli, A.; Ratto, M.; Andres, T.; Campolongo, F.; Cariboni, J.;
Gatelli, D.; Saisana, M.; Tarantola, S.: Global Sensitivity Analy-
sis: The Primer. Wiley, New York (2008)
60. Gevrey, M.; Dimopoulos, I.; Lek, S.: Review and comparison of
methods to study the contribution of variables in artificial neural
network models. Ecol. Model. 160(3), 249–264 (2003)
61. Ferrari, S.; Stengel, R.F.: Smooth function approximation using
neural networks. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. 16(1), 24–38 (2005)
62. Pao, Y.H.; Park, G.H.; Sobajic, D.J.: Learning and generalization
characteristics of the random vector functional-link net. Neuro-
computing 6(2), 163–180 (1994)
63. Asteris, P.G.; Plevris, V.: Anisotropic masonry failure criterion
using artificial neural networks. Neural Comput. Appl. 28(8),
2207–2229 (2016). https​://doi.org/10.1007/s0052​1-016-2181-3
64. Nguyen, D.; Widrow, B.: Improving the learning speed of 2-layer
neural networks by choosing initial values of the adaptive weights.
In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Neural
Networks, vol. 3, pp. 21–26 (1990)
65. Wang, D.; Li, M.: Stochastic configuration networks: fundamen-
tals and algorithms. IEEE Trans. Cybern. 47(10), 3466–3479
(2017)
66. Zhou, W.: Verification of the nonparametric characteristics of
backpropagation neural networks for image classification. IEEE
Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 37, 771–779 (1999)
13