Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Critical review of AI frameworks predicting mechanical behavior in deep excavations, highlighting implications for safety.
Progressive deformation in deep urban excavations can trigger catastrophic collapse before conventional monitoring and finite element method (FEM) back-analyses can effectively respond, primarily due to observational and computational latency. This paper presents a PRISMA-adapted review of 20 peer-reviewed studies (2021–2025) investigating artificial intelligence (AI) frameworks for real-time mechanical behavior prediction in deep excavation support systems. Two methodological streams are examined: data-driven models (LSTM, Transformers, ST-GAT) and physics-informed approaches (DeepONet, MS-SDL). By mathematically constraining deep learning within governing partial differential equations, these physics-informed models reduce the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of wall deflection predictions by 40–60% relative to standalone three-dimensional FEM baselines, sustaining predictive accuracy even when subjected to 50% sensor noise. However, field deployment remains heavily constrained by failure-state data scarcity, edge-computing latency, and algorithmic opacity. Advancing toward autonomous safety systems requires developing quantized networks for rapid edge inference, embedding interpretability through Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs), and establishing strict regulatory frameworks to govern human-in-the-loop oversight on live construction sites.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tran et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: