MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889786397 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2018-0021

Nonlinear elastoplastic formulation for tunneling effects on superstructures

2018· article· en· W2889786397 on OpenAlex
Itai Elkayam, Assaf Klar

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNonlinear systemQuantum tunnellingGeotechnical engineeringStructural engineeringGeologyMaterials scienceMechanicsEngineeringPhysicsCondensed matter physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper presents a formulation for evaluating the effect of tunneling on existing buildings. The formulation involves the matrix condensation method to represent the response of a linear elastic building and macroelements to represent the nonlinear elastoplastic soil behavior. The formulation includes new features that allow interaction between macroelements, both through the soil continuum and the structure, to result in the final displacements of the foundations due to tunneling. One of the advantages of the formulation is its ability to incorporate a general input of a greenfield field displacement for the interaction analysis, allowing consideration of various tunneling scenarios. The formulation is evaluated by a comparison with a continuum-based solution obtained using the finite difference method. The formulation is then used to conduct a parametric analysis of tunneling–soil–superstructure interaction, considering three different approaches: (i) the suggested elastoplastic formulation, (ii) purely elastic analysis, and (iii) simplified analysis in which the foundations are forced to displace as a greenfield. It is shown that the vertical settlements of the foundations, due to tunneling, are the greatest when the first approach is considered. This is an outcome of the combined vertical and horizontal yielding, depicted in the formulation by the coupled yield function and plastic flow potential. Yet damage, which relates to differential settlement, appears to be smaller in the elastoplastic formulation.

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.

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 score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score0.708

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.193 · 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