MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161333306 · doi:10.1002/nag.1130

A framework for automatic modeling of underground excavations and optimizing three‐dimensional boundary and finite element meshes derived from them—framework

2012· article· en· W2161333306 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Hazegh, Attila M. Zsáki

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolygon meshFinite element methodComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)Boundary (topology)Numerical analysisDegrees of freedom (physics and chemistry)VisibilityExcavationAlgorithmMathematical optimizationStructural engineeringEngineeringMathematicsGeotechnical engineeringComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY Many problems in mining and civil engineering require using numerical stress analysis methods to repeatedly solve large models. Widespread acceptance of tunneling methods, such as New Austrian Tunneling Method , which depend heavily on numerical stress analysis tools and the fact that the effects of excavation at the face of a tunnel are distinctively three–dimensional (3D), necessitates the use of 3D numerical analysis for these problems. Stress analysis of a practical mining problem can be very lengthy, and the processing time can be measured in days or weeks at times. A framework is developed to facilitate efficient modeling of underground excavations and to create an optimal 3D mesh by reducing the number of surface and volume elements while keeping the result of stress analysis accurate enough at the region of interest , where a solution is sought. Fewer surface and volume elements mean fewer degrees of freedom in the numerical model, which directly translates into savings in computational time and resources. The mesh refinement algorithm is driven by a set of criteria that are functions of distance and visibility of points from the region of interest, and the framework can be easily extended by adding new types of criteria. This paper defines the framework, whereas a second companion paper will investigate its efficiency, accuracy and application to a number of practical mining problems. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.301 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in GeomechanicsSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207