MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Strength characterization of rock masses, using a coupled DEM-DFN model

2012· article· en· W2151991400 on OpenAlexaff
Barthélémy Harthong, Luc Defebvre, Frédéric‐Victor Donzé

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Journal International · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeological Strength IndexGeologyClassification of discontinuitiesFractal dimensionCoalescence (physics)Rock mass classificationFractalShearing (physics)Fracture (geology)Discontinuity (linguistics)Discrete element methodGeotechnical engineeringBrittlenessRock mechanicsMechanicsMaterials scienceComposite materialMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A discrete element model (DEM) is used to study the mechanical behaviour of a pre-fractured brittle medium subjected to triaxial loadings where progressive failure can occur. The initial discrete fracture network (DFN) is based on a fractal distribution and it is used to characterize the influence of clustering and size distribution of pre-existing fractures, on the strength of fractured rock masses. The proposed approach captures the progressive failure process occurring in the rock matrix as shearing displacement takes place along pre-existing discontinuities. The results show that the mechanical behaviour of fractured rock masses is mainly dependent on the fracture intensity. However, for a given fracture intensity, the strength can exhibit a 50 per cent variability depending on the size distribution of the pre-existing fractures. This difference can be attributed to the different mechanisms that involve sliding and crushing of blocks in the case of large interconnected fractures or progressive failure of the rock matrix through coalescence of cracks in the case of small unconnected fractures. Clustering of fractures was found to influence the spatial variability of the mechanical properties and therefore to have a scale effect on strength. The results outline the relevance of three parameters, the power-law exponent of the fracture size distribution, the clustering fractal dimension which fixes the fracture-to-fracture correlation number and the fracture intensity, to characterize the mechanical behaviour of rock masses.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.226 · 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
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

Citations82
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Journal InternationalSame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207