MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2582406615 · doi:10.1002/nag.2666

DEM–FEM analysis of soil failure process via the separate edge coupling method

2017· article· en· W2582406615 on OpenAlexaff
Fubin Tu, Daosheng Ling, Chengbao Hu, R. Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNumerical methods in engineering
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsDiscrete element methodFinite element methodCoupling (piping)Spurious relationshipStructural engineeringDiscontinuity (linguistics)MechanicsEngineeringPhysicsComputer scienceMathematicsMathematical analysisMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The concurrent multiscale method, which couples the discrete element method (DEM) for predicting the local micro‐scale evolution of the soil particle skeleton with the finite element method (FEM) for estimating the remaining macro‐scale continuum deformation, is a versatile tool for modeling the failure process of soil masses. This paper presents the separate edge coupling method, which is degenerated from the generalized bridging domain method and is good at eliminating spurious reflections that are induced by coupling models of different scales, to capture the granular behavior in the domain of interest and to coarsen the mesh to save computational cost in the remaining domain. Cundall non‐viscous damping was used as numerical damping to dissipate the kinetic energy for simulating static failure problems. The proposed coupled DEM–FEM scheme was adopted to model the wave propagation in a 1D steel bar, a soil slope because of the effect of a shallow foundation and a plane‐strain cone penetration test (CPT). The numerical results show that the separate edge coupling method is effective when it is adopted for a problem with Cundall non‐viscous damping; it qualitatively reproduces the failure process of the soil masses and is consistent with the full micro‐scale discrete element model. Stress discontinuity is found in the coupling domain. Copyright © 2017 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.385 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in GeomechanicsSame topicNumerical methods in engineeringFrench-language works237,207