MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004210787 · doi:10.1115/detc2013-12024

Sensitivity Analysis of Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics in PAM-CRASH for Modeling of Soft Soils

2013· article· en· W2004210787 on OpenAlexaff
Ranvir Dhillon, Moustafa El–Gindy, R.M. Mohamed Ali, David Philipps, Fredrik Öijer, Inge Johansson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics Simulations and Interactions
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmoothed-particle hydrodynamicsFinite element methodSoil waterSensitivity (control systems)Computer scienceGeotechnical engineeringSoil scienceEnvironmental scienceGeologyMechanicsEngineeringStructural engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid progression of computational power and development of non-mesh particle modeling techniques provides solutions to problems which are not accurately modeled using traditional finite element analysis techniques. The field of soft soil modeling has been pressing on in recent years and the smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) modeling method in PAM-CRASH provides opportunity for further advancement in accuracy. This research focuses on the development of soft soil models using SPH with verification using pressure-sinkage and shear strength criterion. Soil model parameters such as geometry and contact model are varied to determine the effect of the parameters on the behaviour of the soft soil and relationships are developed. The developed virtual soil models are compared against existing soils to determine which soils are accurately modeled and further refinements are made to validate the models with existing empirical data.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.408
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFluid Dynamics Simulations and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207