MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968972177 · doi:10.1520/gtj20120086

Fracture Behavior of Intact Rock Using Acoustic Emission: Experimental Observation and Realistic Modeling

2013· article· en· W1968972177 on OpenAlexaff
Shuhong Wang, Runqiu Huang, Pengpeng Ni, Minsi Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnical Testing Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcoustic emissionFracture (geology)Materials scienceDiscrete element methodRock mass classificationGeotechnical engineeringParticle flowStructural engineeringGeologyMechanicsComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It is well known that acoustic emission (AE) is a powerful nondestructive testing tool for examining the behavior of materials deforming under stress. One can use it to monitor fracture or damage in a rock mass by listening to AE events during failure under compressive loads. In this paper, an experimental study on the AE source location in square cylinder granite specimens under uniaxial compression is reported. In order to determine the three-dimensional location of AE events, eight AE sensors were mounted on the specimen. The AE source location was determined via the acquisition of eight channel AE sensors after filtering, processing, reporting, and visualizing seismic data. On the basis of the laboratory experiment results, the granite sample was numerically simulated via the Burgers model using the discrete element program PFC2D (Particle Flow Code in Two Dimensions) to further study the mechanism of fracture initiation and propagation in intact rock. In PFC2D, materials may be modeled as either bonded (cemented) or unbonded (granular) assemblies of particles. It can describe nonlinear behavior and localization with accuracy that cannot be matched by typical finite element programs. The consistency of stress-strain curves obtained with PFC2D and with the test results shows that PFC2D is a practical tool for reproducing AE events in rock, and use of the Burgers model is feasible in the field of rock failure and provides an analysis of the microcracking activity inside the rock volume to predict rock fracture patterns under uniaxial loading conditions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations36
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeotechnical Testing JournalSame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207