MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293072430 · doi:10.1016/j.jrmge.2022.05.008

Calibration of an elastoplastic model of sand liquefaction using the swarm intelligence with a multi-objective function

2022· article· en· W4293072430 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Qiutong Li, Zhehao Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsLiquefactionParticle swarm optimizationGeotechnical engineeringMonotonic functionTriaxial shear testFunction (biology)CalibrationConstitutive equationGeologyComputer scienceStructural engineeringShear (geology)EngineeringAlgorithmMathematicsFinite element methodMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to post-seismic observations, spectacular examples of engineering failures can be ascribed to the occurrence of sand liquefaction, where a sandy soil stratum could undergo a transient loss of shear strength and even behave as a “liquid”. Therefore, correct simulation of liquefaction response has become a challenging issue in geotechnical engineering field. In advanced elastoplastic models of sand liquefaction, certain fitting parameters have a remarkable effect on the computed results. However, the identification of these parameters, based on the experimental data, is usually intractable and sometimes follows a subjective trial-and-error procedure. For this, this paper presented a novel calibration methodology based on an optimization algorithm (particle swarm optimization (PSO)) for an advanced elastoplastic constitutive model. A multi-objective function was designed to adjust the global quality for both monotonic and cyclic triaxial simulations. To overcome computational problem probably appearing in simulation of the cyclic triaxial test, two interrupt mechanisms were designed to prevent the particles from wasting time in searching the unreasonable space of candidate solutions. The Dafalias model has been used as an example to demonstrate the main programme. With the calibrated parameters for the HN31 sand, the computed results were highly consistent with the laboratory experiments (including monotonic triaxial tests under different confining pressures and cyclic triaxial tests in two loading modes). Finally, an extension example is given for Ottawa sand F65, suggesting that the proposed platform is versatile and can be easily customized to meet different practical needs.

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 score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical EngineeringSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207