Detecting the fracture process zone in concrete using scanning electron microscopy and numerical modelling using the nonlocal isotropic damage model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper deals with two aspects of the characterization of the fracture process zone (FPZ) in quasi-brittle materials such as concrete. An overview is given of the possibility of using a destructive technique, such as the scanning electron microscope, and a numerical model, such as the nonlocal isotropic damage model (NLIDM), to detect FPZ characteristics, e.g., length and width of the FPZ. The fracture of concrete requires the consideration of progressive damage, which is usually modelled by a constitutive law and can be studied by a numerical method. The object-oriented finite element method (OOFEM) has recently been used in damage studies, and thus the FPZ is calculated on the basis of one of the damage models (the NLIDM). The results obtained from the experimental investigation are similar to those obtained using the NLIDM, which has proven to be a useful tool for analysis of the cracking process.Key words: object-oriented finite element method, nonlocal isotropic damage model, fracture process zone, scanning electron microscope.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".