MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2192699155 · doi:10.1139/l2012-073

Application of acoustic emission for monitoring shear behavior of bonded concrete–rock joints under direct shear test

2012· article· en· W2192699155 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Zabihallah Moradian, Gérard Ballivy, Patrice Rivard

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceAdhesiveDirect shear testAcoustic emissionShear (geology)Composite materialBrittlenessJoint (building)Shear stressGeotechnical engineeringStructural engineeringGeologyEngineeringLayer (electronics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studying shear behavior and failure mechanism of concrete–rock interfaces between concrete structures and rock mass is highly important. To this end, laboratory direct shear tests were conducted on several bonded interfaces. The effect of normal stress, displacement rate, and bonding percentage on shear behavior of bonded joints were also evaluated. The results showed that the adhesive bond between concrete and rock has the most important effect on shear mechanism of concrete–rock interfaces. When the normal load is low, the asperities do not contribute in shear process, so the shear strength of the joints is governed by adhesive bond. The only contribution of the asperities is that they show a small peak after bond breaking peak. When the normal load is high, the asperities break simultaneously with adhesive bond and they show their contribution in the whole shear process. In a constant normal load, by decreasing bonding percentage, the brittle failure of the bonded joints is changed into softening failure because of less contribution of the adhesive bond and more contribution of the rough asperities in joint failure. Acoustic emission (AE) monitoring of bonded joints showed that for all different tested samples under various loading conditions, there has been no or very few AE activities before adhesive bond breaking point, indicating that other parameters (roughness, normal load, displacement rate) are impressed by adhesive bond and maximum shear strength is determined by this parameter.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations60
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207