MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314988644 · doi:10.1061/41130(369)177

A Possible Method for Obtaining Fracture Parameters for Crack Propagation in Quasi-Brittle Materials Subject to Compression

2010· article· en· W2314988644 on OpenAlexafffund
Xuran Xiao, Nigel G. Shrive

Bibliographic record

VenueStructures Congress 2010 · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceBrittlenessCompression (physics)Fracture mechanicsTension (geology)Composite materialCrackingFracture (geology)Crack closureStructural engineeringCrack growth resistance curveEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quasi-brittle engineering materials contain flaws such cracks, pores, voids and fissures. Mode I cracking from such pre-existing flaws is the major cause of brittle fracture of these materials in compression. It is commonly accepted that that failure in uniaxial compression is characterized by multiple cracks propagating parallel to the direction of compression, whereas brittle failure in tension is typified by the propagation of a single crack. The energetics of crack propagation in compression are clearly different to those in tension. We report on a method used to study compressive fracture of concrete and masonry with a single crack. Pre-set cracks with different shapes of crack tip were placed in specimens. These specimens were tested to study their effect on compressive fracture. Specimens with cylindrical pre-set cracks failed with a single crack parallel to the compression.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStructures Congress 2010Same topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207