MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1876225670 · doi:10.1002/nag.2346

Capturing the complete stress–strain behaviour of jointed rock using a numerical approach

2015· article· en· W1876225670 on OpenAlexaff
Kamran Esmaieli, John Hadjigeorgiou, Martin Grenon

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRock mass classificationDiscrete element methodModulusGeotechnical engineeringGeological Strength IndexRock mechanicsGeologyGrain sizeFracture (geology)Stress (linguistics)Compressive strengthSample size determinationMaterials scienceComposite materialMineralogyMechanicsMathematicsStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary This paper presents the results of a series of numerical experiments using the synthetic rock mass (SRM) approach to quantify the behaviour of jointed rock masses. Field data from a massive sulphide rock mass, at the Brunswick mine, were used to develop a discrete fracture network (DFN). The constructed DFN model was subsequently subjected to random sampling whereby 40 cubic samples, of height to width ratio of two, and of varying widths (0.05 to 10 m) were isolated. The discrete fracture samples were linked to 3D bonded particle models to generate representative SRM models for each sample size. This approach simulated the jointed rock mass as an assembly of fractures embedded into the rock matrix. The SRM samples were submitted to uniaxial loading, and the complete stress–strain behaviour of each specimen was recorded. This approach provided a way to determine the complex constitutive behaviour of large‐scale rock mass samples. This is often difficult or not possible to achieve in the laboratory. The numerical experiments suggested that higher post‐peak modulus values were obtained for smaller samples and lower values for larger sample sizes. Furthermore, the observed deviation of the recorded post‐peak modulus values decreased with sample size. The ratio of residual strength of rock mass samples per uniaxial compressive strength intact increases moderately with sample size. Consequently, for the investigated massive sulphide rock mass, the pre‐peak and post‐peak representative elemental volume size was found to be the same (7 × 7 × 14 m). Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.708
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.264 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in GeomechanicsSame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207