Neural network based stochastic design charts for settlement prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional methods of settlement prediction of shallow foundations on granular soils are far from accurate and consistent. This can be attributed to the fact that the problem of estimating the settlement of shallow foundations on granular soils is very complex and not yet entirely understood. Recently, artificial neural networks (ANNs) have been shown to outperform the most commonly used traditional methods for predicting the settlement of shallow foundations on granular soils. However, despite the relative advantage of the ANN based approach, it does not take into account the uncertainty that may affect the magnitude of the predicted settlement. Artificial neural networks, like more traditional methods of settlement prediction, are based on deterministic approaches that ignore this uncertainty and thus provide single values of settlement with no indication of the level of risk associated with these values. An alternative stochastic approach is essential to provide more rational estimation of settlement. In this paper, the likely distribution of predicted settlements, given the uncertainties associated with settlement prediction, is obtained by combining Monte Carlo simulation with a deterministic ANN model. A set of stochastic design charts, which incorporate the uncertainty associated with the ANN method, is developed. The charts are considered to be useful in the sense that they enable the designer to make informed decisions regarding the level of risk associated with predicted settlements and consequently provide a more realistic indication of what the actual settlement might be.Key words: settlement prediction, shallow foundations, neural networks, Monte Carlo, stochastic simulation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".