Mitigating ground vibrations from sources like vehicles and construction operations poses significant challenges, often relying on computationally intensive numerical methods such as Finite Element Methods (FEM) or Boundary Element Methods (BEM) for analysis. This study addresses these limitations by developing and evaluating Machine Learning (ML) methodologies for the rapid and accurate prediction of Insertion Loss (IL), a critical parameter for assessing the effectiveness of open trenches as vibration barriers. A comprehensive database was systematically generated through high-fidelity numerical simulations, capturing a wide range of geometric, elastic, and physical configurations of a stratified geotechnical system. Three distinct ML strategies—Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), Support Vector Machines (SVM), and Random Forests (RF)—were initially assessed for their predictive capabilities. Subsequently, a Meta-RF stacking ensemble model was developed, integrating the predictions of these base methods. Model performance was rigorously evaluated using complementary statistical metrics (RMSE, MAE, NMAE, R), substantiated by in-depth statistical analyses (normality tests, Bootstrap confidence intervals, Wilcoxon tests) and an analysis of input parameter sensitivity. The results clearly demonstrate the high efficacy of Machine Learning (ML) in accurately predicting IL across diverse, realistic scenarios. While all models performed strongly, the RF and the Meta-RF stacking ensemble models consistently emerged as the most robust and accurate predictors. They exhibited superior generalization capabilities and effectively mitigated the inherent biases found in the ANN and SVM models. This work is intended to function as a proof-of-concept and offers promising avenues for overcoming the significant computational costs associated with traditional simulation methods, thereby enabling rapid design optimization and real-time assessment of vibration mitigation measures in geotechnical engineering.
Pereira et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: