Gradient-based design robustness measure for robust geotechnical design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a gradient-based robustness measure for robust geotechnical design (RGD) that considers safety, design robustness, and cost efficiency simultaneously. In the context of robust design, a design is deemed robust if the system response of concern is insensitive, to a certain degree, to the variation of noise factors (i.e., uncertain geotechnical parameters, loading parameters, construction variation, and model biases or errors). The key to a robust design is a quantifiable robustness measure with which the robust design optimization can be effectively and efficiently implemented. Based on the developed gradient-based robustness measure, a robust design optimization framework is proposed. In this framework, the design (safety) constraint is analyzed using advanced first-order second-moment (AFOSM) method, considering the variation in the noise factors. The design robustness, in terms of sensitivity index (SI), is evaluated using the normalized gradient of the system response to the noise factors, which can be efficiently computed from the by-product of AFOSM analysis. Within the proposed framework, robust design optimization is performed with two objectives, design robustness and cost efficiency, while the design (safety) constraint is satisfied by meeting a target reliability index. Generally, cost efficiency and design robustness are conflicting objectives and the robust design optimization yields a Pareto front, which reveals a tradeoff between the two objectives. Through an illustrative example of a shallow foundation design, the effectiveness and significance of this new robust design approach is demonstrated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".