MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326388177 · doi:10.1061/40794(179)53

3D Finite Element Prediction of Ground Movement Induced by Tunnelling Operation in London Clay

2005· article· en· W2326388177 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammadreza Yazdchi, H. C. Yeow, Scott Young

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsArup Group (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantum tunnellingSettlement (finance)Finite element methodComputer scienceProcess (computing)EngineeringStructural engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Realistic finite element (FE) modelling of the tunnel construction process has been restricted by the computational effort needed to incorporate the three-dimensional (3D) aspects of the tunnelling operation. Two-dimensional (2D) plane strain models have therefore been widely adopted by practitioners and researchers in their studies of effects of tunnelling. However 2D modelling suffers the drawback whereby a volume loss must be assumed at the outset as the input for the FE model. This paper presents a feasible method of undertaking complex non-linear 3D numerical modelling of the tunnelling operation using Oasys LS-DYNA software, which utilises an explicit time-stepping method to undertake computationally efficient 3D modeling, without any assumptions regarding volume loss, but rather by modelling the excavation sequence and time-dependent gain in lining strength accurately. It is considered that 3D modelling techniques can be applied to different tunnelling methods in different ground conditions, and will provide an efficient means to estimate tunnelling induced settlement and the effects on nearby structures, without recourse to empirical estimates of volume loss.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.500
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207