ArticleModeling earth systems and environment2023
Deep learning model for predicting tunnel damages and track serviceability under seismic environment.
Article in Modeling earth systems and environment, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intelligent earthquake prediction using animal vocal behavior analysis based on machine learning and deep learning approaches.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Fuzzy synthetic approach for seismic risk assessment of bridges with insights from the 2023 Kahramanmaras Earthquake in Turkiye.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Modeling peak ground acceleration for earthquake hazard safety evaluation.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Improving predictions of rock tunnel squeezing with ensemble Q-learning and online Markov chain.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Susceptibility assessment of multi-hazards using random forest-back propagation neural network coupling model: a Hangzhou city case study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Jammu and Kashmir in the northwestern part of the Himalayan region is frequently triggered with moderate to large magnitude earthquakes due to an active tectonic regime. In this study, a mathematical formulation-based Seismic Tunnel Damage Prediction (STDP) model is proposed using the deep learning (DL) approach. The pertinency of the DL model is validated using tunnel damage data from historical earthquakes such as the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake, the 2004 Mid-Niigata earthquake, and the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. Peak ground acceleration (PGA), source to site distance (SSD), overburden depth (OD), lining thickness (t), tunnel diameter (Ф), and geological strength index (GSI) were employed as inputs to train the Feedforward Neural Network (FNN) for damage state prediction. The performance evaluation results provided a clear indication for further use in a variety of risk assessment domains. When compared to models based on historical data, the proposed STDP model produces consistent results, demonstrating the robustness of the methodology used in this work. All models perform well during validation based on fitness metrics. The "STD multiple graphs" is also proposed which provide information on damage indexing, damage pattern, and crack predictive specifications. This can be used as a ready toolbox to check the vulnerability in post-seismic scenarios. The seismic design guidelines for tunnelling projects are also proposed, which discuss the damage pattern and suggest mitigation measures. The proposed STDP model, STD multiple graphs, and seismic design guidance are applicable to any earthquake-prone tunnelling project anywhere in the world.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.