MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Discrete Element Modeling of Cone Penetration Tests Incorporating Particle Shape and Crushing

2015· article· en· W2005727764 on OpenAlexaff
O. Falagush, G. R. McDowell, Hai‐Sui Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Geomechanics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsGeomechanica (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscrete element methodParticle (ecology)Penetration (warfare)Materials scienceBall (mathematics)MechanicsParticle sizeRotation (mathematics)Granular materialComposite materialPhysicsGeometryEngineeringMathematicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of particle shape and particle crushing on the results of cone penetration testing (CPT) of granular materials in a calibration chamber has been studied using three-dimensional discrete element modeling. Simulating the whole chamber with a realistic particle size requires a large number of particles, which leads to a large computational time. Both 90° and 30° segments of a calibration chamber were used in this study to reduce computational time. The effect of particle shape was simulated by prohibiting particle rotation or using simple two-ball clumps. Prohibiting particle rotation was found to increase tip resistance significantly compared with free particle rotation, and replacing a single sphere with different shapes of simple two-ball clumps was also found to have an important effect on the tip resistance. Particle crushing was simulated during CPTs by replacing a broken particle with two new equal-sized smaller particles. The results showed that there was a considerable reduction in the tip resistance for the crushing model compared with the noncrushing model, and this reduction increased as the confining stress increased.

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations67
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of GeomechanicsSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207