Results of Modeling of Ground Surface Deformation Due To a Subsurface Pressurized Crack
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ground surface deformation due to subsurface structures has been one of the major concerns in foundation engineering. Pressurized subsurface cracks created by hydraulic fracturing may induce surface deformation and recently this technique has been employed in a variety of disciplines in civil and environmental engineering. Conventionally, analytical solutions have been used to predict surface deformation due to a pressurized crack, but they are typically based on an assumption of a planar crack with simple shape located in an infinite solid ignoring the impact of actual crack morphology and ground surface, which may lead to significant errors in estimating surface deformation. This paper describes a new numerical method to estimate ground deformation due to a pressurized crack with arbitrary surface morphology. In this approach, surface of the crack is discretized with a finite element mesh. We then calculate displacement field around the crack using Somigliana formula with given displacement at each node on the crack’s surface. Here, Mindlin’s solutions for nuclei of strain in a semi-finite solid are used as kernel functions. Integral equation of Somigliana formula is solved numerically with Gaussian quadrature. Comparison of the calculation results with those from analytical solutions indicates that the new numerical method can provide the same displacement field at points close to a crack where the impact of the ground surface is negligible. Furthermore, calculation results demonstrate that analytical solutions significantly underestimate displacement at points on the ground surface due to the lack of consideration of ground surface. These results validate that our method for a semi-infinite solid has advantages over analytical solutions for the estimation of ground surface deformation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".