MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409349017 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2024-0650

Physics-informed neural networks for solving steady-state temperature field in artificial ground freezing

2025· article· en· W4409349017 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kai-Qi Li, Zhen‐Yu Yin, Ning Zhang, H. Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkGround freezingField (mathematics)Ground stateGeotechnical engineeringPhysicsStatistical physicsMechanicsEngineeringArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial ground freezing (AGF) is a widely used technique for soil stabilization and waterproofing. Numerous studies have been devoted to solving the heat transfer problems in AGF while encountering limitations in handling complex geometries and boundary conditions and being computationally intensive. Recently, using machine learning methods to predict temperature fields has gained attention, demonstrating the potential to achieve higher accuracy than conventional models. However, these methods are typically limited by the need for large, labeled datasets, which are time-consuming and difficult to obtain. In this study, we address these challenges by applying physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) to solve the steady-state heat transfer problem in AGF, focusing on the temperature distribution around a single freezing pipe. By embedding the heat conduction equation into the loss function, PINNs reduce the need for extensive labeled data. To enhance accuracy and efficiency, transfer learning is employed, and results are compared against the finite element method. Results show that PINNs achieve high accuracy, particularly in larger domains with moderate temperature gradients, while providing competitive performance in more complex configurations involving steeper gradients. This approach offers a promising alternative for modeling temperature fields in geotechnical applications, with implications for reducing computational costs in AGF design.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical Journal→Same topicLandslides and related hazards→French-language works237,207→