MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043294234 · doi:10.1063/1.3585983

A dynamic punch method to quantify the dynamic shear strength of brittle solids

2011· article· en· W2043294234 on OpenAlexaff
Sheng Huang, Xia‐Ting Feng, Kaiwen Xia

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicHigh-Velocity Impact and Material Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceSplit-Hopkinson pressure barBrittlenessPunchingDynamic testingDynamic loadingDynamic load testingUltimate tensile strengthShear (geology)IsotropyComposite materialStructural engineeringMechanicsStrain rateOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shear strength is an important material parameter for brittle solids. This parameter has been extensively used in material failure models. Although a few methods have been proposed to quantify this parameter under the static loading condition, there is no such a method available to measure it under dynamic loading conditions. This paper presents a punch shear device to measure the dynamic shear strength of brittle solids. In this method, a split Hopkinson pressure bar system (SHPB) is used to exert the dynamic load to a thin disc sample, which is placed in a specially designed holder to minimize the bending stress induced by punching. The sample holder also allows the punch head to load the sample directly and in combination with momentum-trap technique in SHPB, it enables soft recovery of the rock plug and rock ring produced by the punching test. The flexibility and applicability of this method is demonstrated by the application of an isotropic and fine-grained sandstone. Within the theoretical framework of the classical Mohr-Coulomb failure model, the obtained dynamic shear strengths are consistent with the dynamic tensile strengths for the same rock from the literature.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations44
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicHigh-Velocity Impact and Material BehaviorFrench-language works237,207