MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386694478 · doi:10.1093/gji/ggad354

A commercial finite element approach to modelling Glacial Isostatic Adjustment on spherical self-gravitating compressible earth models

2023· article· en· W4386694478 on OpenAlexaff
Pingping Huang, Rebekka Steffen, Holger Steffen, Volker Klemann, Patrick Wu, Wouter van der Wal, Z. Martinec, Yoshiyuki Tanaka

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Journal International · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilHelmholtz AssociationTsinghua UniversitySwedish National Space AgencySight Research UKBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungGlaucoma Research Foundation
KeywordsFinite element methodSpherical harmonicsCompressibilityConformal mapBody forceMixed finite element methodGeologyExtended finite element methodPost-glacial reboundMathematical analysisMechanicsClassical mechanicsGeometryPhysicsMathematicsIce sheet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY This paper presents a method that modifies commercial engineering-oriented finite element packages for the modelling of Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) on a self-gravitating, compressible and spherical Earth with 3-D structures. The approach, called the iterative finite element body and surface force (FEMIBSF) approach, solves the equilibrium equation for deformation using the ABAQUS finite element package and calculates potential perturbation consistently with finite element theory, avoiding the use of spherical harmonics. The key to this approach lies in computing the mean external body forces for each finite element within the Earth and pressure on Earth's surface and core–mantle boundary (CMB). These quantities, which drive the deformation and stress perturbation of GIA but are not included in the equation of motion of commercial finite element packages, are implemented therein. The method also demonstrates how to calculate degree-1 deformation directly in the spatial domain and Earth-load system for GIA models. To validate the FEMIBSF method, loading Love numbers (LLNs) for homogeneous and layered earth models are calculated and compared with three independent GIA methodologies: the normal-mode method, the iterative body force method and the spectral-finite element method. Results show that the FEMIBSF method can accurately reproduce the unstable modes for the homogeneous compressible model and agree reasonably well with the Love number results from other methods. It is found that the accuracy of the FEMIBSF method increases with higher resolution, but a non-conformal mesh should be avoided due to creating the so-called hanging nodes. The role of a potential force at the CMB is also studied and found to only affect the long-wavelength surface potential perturbation and deformation in the viscous time regime. In conclusion, the FEMIBSF method is ready for use in realistic GIA studies, with modelled vertical and horizontal displacement rates in a disc load case showing agreement with other two GIA methods within the uncertainty level of GNSS measurements.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0000.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.215 · 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.

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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Journal InternationalSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207