The coupling of geological conditions, hydrodynamic responses, structural displacement, and construction disturbance makes the temporal evolution of tunnel water-inflow risk and corresponding actions difficult to predict using traditional techniques. To address this problem, a multi-source monitoring feature system was established, including pore water pressure, inflow volume, surrounding rock deformation, support strain, geological permeability, and excavation disturbance. Sliding windows were then used to construct time-series samples for a prediction framework containing dilated convolution, bidirectional GRU, and multi-head attention. The methodological novelty does not arise from combining these established modules alone. It lies in a warning-oriented temporal representation that jointly encodes raw states and first-order changes, aligns abrupt seepage mutations with delayed hydraulic–structural responses through parallel branches, and links interpretable precursor evidence to four-level construction actions. Under chronological validation across six monitoring sections of a single tunnel, the model achieved an accuracy of 0.949, an F1-SCORE of 0.946, and an AUC of 0.978. These results represent within-project temporal validation and do not establish transferability to other tunnels or hydrogeological conditions. Within this validation scope, the framework supports risk classification, precursor interpretation, and warning-response linkage at the project scale, thereby extending generic category prediction into response closure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zai et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: