MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2362670586

PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION OF CONSTITUTIVE MODEL FOR HARD ROCK UNDER HIGH IN-SITU STRESS CONDITION USING PARTICLE SWARM OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHM

2005· article· en· W2362670586 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Feng Xia-ting

Bibliographic record

VenueChinese journal of rock mechanics and engineering · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticle swarm optimizationBrittlenessConstitutive equationCohesion (chemistry)AlgorithmComputationRock mechanicsGeotechnical engineeringComputer scienceMathematical optimizationMathematicsEngineeringStructural engineeringMaterials scienceFinite element method
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Particle swarm optimization(PSO) algorithm is a stochastic global optimization technique and has become the hotspot of evolutionary computation because of its excellent performance and simplicity for implementation.In light of the fact that it is hard to determine the parameters of a constitutive model—cohesion weakening and frictional strengthening(CWFS) model,which performs excellently in modeling the extent and depth of brittle failure zone for hard rock under high in-situ stress condition,a new method is presented to identify parameters of CWFS model using PSO.At first,the stochastic values of parameters are initialized and the difference in failure zone between the value computed and the datum measured is regarded as fitness value to evaluate quality of the parameters.Then the parameters are updated continually using PSO until the optimal parameters are found.Thus parameters are identified adaptively during computation.The results of applications to two real tunnels,i.e.,Mine-by tunnel in Canada and Taipingyi tunnel in China,show that the method is feasible and efficient for identifying constitutive parameters and predicting the extent and depth of brittle failure of hard rock under high in-situ stress condition with high precision.

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 score0.580
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations8
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChinese journal of rock mechanics and engineeringSame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207