MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032447758 · doi:10.1680/geot.2007.57.9.757

A new discrete fracture modelling approach for rock masses

2007· article· en· W2032447758 on OpenAlexfundno aff
R.J. Pine, D. R. J. Owen, John Coggan, J.M. Rance

Bibliographic record

VenueGéotechnique · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilRio Tinto
KeywordsRock mass classificationGeologyGeomechanicsBoreholeDiscrete element methodGeotechnical engineeringRock mechanicsAnisotropyFracture (geology)Finite element methodUltimate tensile strengthMohr–Coulomb theoryExtended discrete element methodBoundary element methodStructural engineeringMechanicsEngineeringMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A method for modelling discrete fracture in rock masses under tensile and compressive stress fields is presented, based on a Mohr–Coulomb failure surface in compression and three independent anisotropic rotating crack models in tension. Extension fracturing is modelled by coupling the softening of the anisotropic rotating crack failure criterion to the compressive plastic strain evolution. An explicitly time-integrated coupled discrete element/finite element approach is employed with an explicit Lagrangian contact algorithm to enforce non-penetration of the surfaces created when the tensile strength is depleted. The geomechanical model is applied to naturally fractured rock masses, which are characterised by field mapping and borehole data integrated in a stochastic 3D discrete fracture network model. This approach maximises the utility of the field data and provides a direct approach to the determination of rock mass strength and deformability. It also provides a realistic insight into complex failure mechanisms. Typical applications are mine pillars, roofs, hangingwalls and block caving. The model has also been used on rock slopes.

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)0.000
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 score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score0.649

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations35
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGéotechniqueSame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207