Machine learning for pore-water pressure time-series prediction: Application of recurrent neural networks

Xin Wei,Lulu Zhang,Hao-Qing Yang,Limin Zhang,Yang-Ping Yao
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2020.04.011
IF: 8.9
2021-01-01
Geoscience Frontiers
Abstract:A series of RNN variants are applied to PWP prediction for the first time.The influence of input time series length on model performance is investigated.RNNs are much more precise and robust than the traditional static MLP model.RNNs can characterize the time lags between rainfall and PWP responses well.The effects of the hidden layer structure and dropout technique are discussed.Knowledge of pore-water pressure (PWP) variation is fundamental for slope stability. A precise prediction of PWP is difficult due to complex physical mechanisms and in situ natural variability. To explore the applicability and advantages of recurrent neural networks (RNNs) on PWP prediction, three variants of RNNs, i.e., standard RNN, long short-term memory (LSTM) and gated recurrent unit (GRU) are adopted and compared with a traditional static artificial neural network (ANN), i.e., multi-layer perceptron (MLP). Measurements of rainfall and PWP of representative piezometers from a fully instrumented natural slope in Hong Kong are used to establish the prediction models. The coefficient of determination (R<sup>2</sup>) and root mean square error (RMSE) are used for model evaluations. The influence of input time series length on the model performance is investigated. The results reveal that MLP can provide acceptable performance but is not robust. The uncertainty bounds of RMSE of the MLP model range from 0.24 kPa to 1.12 kPa for the selected two piezometers. The standard RNN can perform better but the robustness is slightly affected when there are significant time lags between PWP changes and rainfall. The GRU and LSTM models can provide more precise and robust predictions than the standard RNN. The effects of the hidden layer structure and the dropout technique are investigated. The single-layer GRU is accurate enough for PWP prediction, whereas a double-layer GRU brings extra time cost with little accuracy improvement. The dropout technique is essential to overfitting prevention and improvement of accuracy.<span class="display"><span><ol class="links-for-figure"><li><a class="anchor download-link u-font-sans" href="https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1674987120301134-fx1_lrg.jpg"><span class="anchor-text">Download : <span class="download-link-title">Download high-res image (474KB)</span></span></a></li><li><a class="anchor download-link u-font-sans" href="https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1674987120301134-fx1.jpg"><span class="anchor-text">Download : <span class="download-link-title">Download full-size image</span></span></a></li></ol></span></span>
geosciences, multidisciplinary
What problem does this paper attempt to address?