MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067083573 · doi:10.1002/nag.274

Kinematic modelling of shear band localization using discrete finite elements

2003· article· en· W2067083573 on OpenAlexaff
X. Wang, Dave Chan, N. R. Morgenstern

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShear bandFinite element methodShear (geology)Classification of discontinuitiesMechanicsGeologyGeotechnical engineeringKinematicsMohr–Coulomb theorySimple shearStructural engineeringLateral earth pressureEngineeringPhysicsMathematicsClassical mechanicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Modelling shear band is an important problem in analysing failure of earth structures in soil mechanics. Shear banding is the result of localization of deformation in soil masses. Most finite element schemes are unable to model discrete shear band formation and propagation due to the difficulties in modelling strain and displacement discontinuities. In this paper, a framework to generate shear band elements automatically and continuously is developed. The propagating shear band is modelled using discrete shear band elements by splitting the original finite element mesh. The location or orientation of the shear band is not predetermined in the original finite element mesh. Based on the elasto‐perfect plasticity with an associated flow rule, empirical bifurcation and location criteria are proposed which make band propagation as realistic as possible. Using the Mohr–Coulomb material model, various results from numerical simulations of biaxial tests and passive earth pressure problems have shown that the proposed framework is able to display actual patterns of shear banding in geomaterials. In the numerical examples, the occurrence of multiple shear bands in biaxial test and in the passive earth pressure problem is confirmed by field and laboratory observations. The effects of mesh density and mesh alignment on the shear band patterns and limit loads are also investigated. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.353
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 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

Citations8
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in GeomechanicsSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207