MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283806241 · doi:10.3390/su14138097

Minimum Safety Factor Evaluation of Slopes Using Hybrid Chaotic Sand Cat and Pattern Search Approach

2022· article· en· W4283806241 on OpenAlexaff
Amin Iraji, Javad Karimi, Suraparb Keawsawasvong, Moncef L. Nehdi

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSafety factorChaoticMathematical optimizationConvergence (economics)Function (biology)Factor of safetySequence (biology)AccelerationLimit (mathematics)MathematicsComputer scienceAlgorithmStructural engineeringEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study developed an efficient evolutionary hybrid optimization technique based on chaotic sand cat optimization (CSCO) and pattern search (PS) for the evaluation of the minimum safety factor of earth slopes under static and earthquake loading conditions. To improve the sand cat optimization approach’s exploration ability, while also avoiding premature convergence, the chaotic sequence was implemented. The proposed hybrid algorithm (CSCPS) benefits from the effective global search ability of the chaotic sand cat optimization, as well as the powerful local search capability of the pattern search method. The suggested CSCPS algorithm’s efficiency was confirmed by using mathematical test functions, and its findings were compared with standard SCO, as well as some efficient optimization techniques. Then the CSCPS was applied for the calculation of the minimum safety factors of the earth slope exposed to both static and seismic loads, and the objective function was modeled based on the Morgenstern–Price limit equilibrium method, along with the pseudo-static approach. The CSCPS’s efficacy for the evaluation of the minimum safety factor of slopes was investigated by considering two case studies from the literature. The numerical experiments demonstrate that the new algorithm could generate better optimal solutions via calculating lower values of safety factors by up to 10% compared with some other methods in the literature. Furthermore, the results show that, through an increase in the acceleration coefficient to 0.1 and 0.2, the factor of safety decreased by 19% and 32%, respectively.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicGeotechnical Engineering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207