4.5 Article

Hybrid Framework for Forecasting Circular Excavation Collapse: Combining Physics-Based and Data-Driven Modeling

出版社

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002683

关键词

Data-driven; Artificial neural networks; Excavation; Stability; Undrained; Numerical modelling; Limit analysis

资金

  1. Royal Academy of Engineering
  2. Ward and Burke Construction Ltd.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper explores a hybrid framework for forecasting the collapse of fluid-supported circular excavations by combining physics-based and data-driven modeling. Finite-element limit analysis is used to develop a numerical database of stability numbers, considering excavation geometry, soil strength profile, and support fluid properties. The proposed forecasting strategy is retrospectively applied to a recent field monitoring case history using observational method to update the data-driven surrogate model's input parameters.
The use of supporting fluids to stabilize excavations is a common technique adopted in the construction industry. Rapid detection of incipient collapse for deep excavations and timely decision making are crucial to ensure safety during construction. This paper explores a hybrid framework for forecasting the collapse of fluid-supported circular excavations by combining physics-based and data-driven modeling. Finite-element limit analysis is first used to develop a numerical database of stability numbers for both unsupported and fluid-supported circular excavations. The parameters considered in the modeling include excavation geometry, soil strength profile, and support fluid properties. A data-driven algorithm is used to learn the numerical results to develop a fast surrogate amenable for integration within real-time monitoring systems. By way of example, the proposed forecasting strategy is retrospectively applied to a recent field monitoring case history where the observational method is used to update the input parameters of the data-driven surrogate.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据