Tunnel engineering – influence of the type and the quantity of measurements in the back analysis of geomechanical parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The monitoring data collected during tunnel excavation can be used in inverse analysis procedures in order to identify more realistic geomechanical parameters that can increase the knowledge about the interested formations. These more realistic parameters can be used in real time to adapt the project to the real structure in situ behaviour. However, monitoring plans are normally designed for safety assessment and not especially for the purpose of inverse analysis. In fact, there is a lack of knowledge about what types and quantity of measurements are needed to succeed in identifying the parameters of interest. Also, the optimisation algorithm chosen for the identification procedure may be important for this matter. In this work, this problem is addressed using a theoretical case with which a thorough parametric study was carried out using two optimisation algorithms based on different calculation paradigms, namely a conventional gradient-based algorithm and an evolution strategy algorithm. Calculations were carried for different sets of parameters to identify several combinations of types and amount of monitoring data. The results clearly show the high importance of the available monitoring data and the chosen algorithm for the success rate of the inverse analysis process.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".