Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Compares data-driven methods for predicting excavation outcomes in soft clay, suggesting optimal techniques for practice.
This paper investigates the use of physics-assisted data-driven methods for predicting the performance (such as wall deformation and factor of safety against basal heave) of deep excavation in soft clay. Physics-assisted prediction methods with different levels of physical analysis assistance are investigated: the Level 1 method adopts multiple physical analysis parameters such as excavation dimension and support system stiffnesses as inputs; the Level 2 method relies on the wall deformation calculated by one-dimensional (1D) FEM as the main input; the Level 3 method relies on the wall deformation calculated by three-dimensional (3D) FEM as the main input. The degree of physical analysis assistance is minimal for the Level 1 method and maximal for the Level 3 method because the Level 1 method does not require FEM, but the Level 3 method requires 3D FEM. A new database comprising 100 clay sites is compiled to train the three data-driven methods, and their prediction capacities are compared using the extensive leave-one-out cross-validation method. The results show that the Level 3 method provides the most accurate wall deformation predictions, achieving the highest coefficient of determination (R2 = 0.73) and coefficient of efficiency (COE = 0.72) and the lowest mean absolute error (MAE = 0.42), with the narrowest 95% confidence intervals, whereas the Level 2 method exhibits weaker performance (R2 = 0.58; COE = 0.58; MAE = 0.51). Accordingly, wall deformation prediction should rely on the Level 3 method when 3D FEM is feasible. When 3D FEM is not viable, the Level 1 method (R2 = 0.61; COE = 0.61; MAE = 0.50) is preferred over the Level 2 method because FEM-free physical parameters are less complicated and more informative than 1D FEM outputs. For factor of safety prediction, the Level 1 method performs better than other methods due to multiple physical input parameters. Therefore, the Level 3 method is recommended for wall deformation prediction when 3D FEM is available, while the Level 1 method is recommended for factor of safety prediction and for practical applications when 3D FEM is unavailable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abdi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: