MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7106287590 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2025-0560

Multi-stage and multi-objective optimization framework for servo-controlled wall deflection during deep excavation

2025· article· en· W7106287590 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaChina Postdoctoral Science FoundationNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsDeflection (physics)ExcavationLimitingMinificationServoDeformation (meteorology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Controlling excavation-induced deformation is essential for excavation safety and adjacent structure protection. To address the increasingly stringent deformation control requirements driven by growing building density in urban areas, this study proposes a multi-stage and multi-objective optimization framework for servo-controlled wall deflection during deep excavations. First, since the servo force optimization involves thousands of deflection evaluations, a pretrained surrogate model is developed to accelerate this computationally intensive process. Subsequently, a primary–secondary loss formulation is defined, with deformation control as the primary goal and unloading minimization as a secondary objective for stability. Finally, this formulation is optimized using a cross-stage coordinated algorithm. Unlike existing methods that treat stages independently, the proposed algorithm employs beam search to evolve top-ranked solutions in parallel, yielding globally optimal servo force configurations. A deep excavation project in Ningbo, China is used for illustration. The proposed surrogate model outperforms alternative approaches, achieving R 2 values above 0.95 across all stages. With a 10% unloading ratio, the optimization reduces the maximum wall deflection at each stage by approximately 30%–35%, demonstrating effective deformation control. For stricter requirements, a higher allowable unloading ratio can be adopted, potentially limiting deflection to within 0.2% of the excavation depth.

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)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207