MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7106791260 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2025-0269

Fuzzy decision-driven multi-dimensional seismic fragility analysis of shield tunnels in liquefiable strata

2025· article· en· W7106791260 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBasic and Applied Basic Research Foundation of Guangdong ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsFragilityFuzzy logicShieldProbabilistic logicIncremental Dynamic AnalysisReliability (semiconductor)Ground motion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate seismic fragility analysis is essential for ensuring the post-earthquake safety of shield tunnels in liquefiable strata. Current fragility methodologies predominantly adopt empirically selected ground motion intensity measures (IMs) and single damage measures (DMs), while overlooking uncertainties stemming from sampling insufficiency and inhomogeneity. This study presents an advanced fragility analysis framework to systematically address these limitations. Initially, a computational model of a shield tunnel in liquefiable strata is developed and validated through experimental and theoretical simulations. Subsequently, fuzzy probabilistic seismic demand models are established considering uncertainties in model parameters based on nonlinear dynamic analysis results. Progressing to the fuzzy decision-making phase, an approach integrating fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution is implemented to quantitatively determine the optimal IM. Finally, multi-dimensional fragility analysis is conducted, using the DMs reflecting tunnel deformation and uplift. The results reveal that sustained maximum velocity, as the optimal IM, produces more conservative estimates of tunnel damage probability than the conventional IM, peak ground acceleration. Moreover, the implementation of multi-dimensional fragility analysis incorporating dual DMs yields significantly improved reliability in seismic risk assessment.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical Journal→Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures→French-language works237,207→