Evaluates tunnel leakage hazards in heterogeneous environments, indicating significant ecological impacts.
Tunnel seepage in heterogeneous ground can trigger hydrogeological hazards such as concentrated water inflow, groundwater depletion, deformation of surrounding structures, and subsequent eco-environmental degradation. However, these processes are still commonly evaluated using deterministic models that neglect the spatial variability of hydrogeological parameters. To address this limitation, this study develops a stochastic hydro–geo–mechanical–ecological framework that integrates random field theory with physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) for hazard evaluation and rapid prediction of tunnel seepage responses. The spatial variability of key parameters, including permeability and porosity, is characterized using the Karhunen–Loeve expansion and embedded into coupled governing equations for unsaturated–saturated seepage, seepage–stress interaction, and groundwater–soil–vegetation responses. A PINN surrogate model with random-field inputs is then constructed to predict hydraulic head, tunnel inflow, displacement, groundwater depth, vegetation coverage, and soil physicochemical indices, while simultaneously quantifying uncertainty. A karst tunnel case in Chongqing, China, is used to demonstrate the proposed framework. The results show that spatial heterogeneity promotes preferential flow paths and intensifies seepage-induced hazards compared with deterministic mean simulations, leading to larger groundwater drawdown, stronger ecological degradation, and greater overall response variability. The proposed PINN achieves high predictive accuracy (R2 > 0.97) and reduces single-case computational time from hours to seconds, enabling efficient multi-scenario evaluation and uncertainty-aware risk assessment. This framework provides a physically consistent and computationally efficient tool for evaluating water-related hazards and long-term environmental impacts in underground engineering.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: