Coupled Hydro-Mechanical Cracking of Concrete using XFEM in 3D
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a computational method for simulation of 3D hydrofracturation using a segregated and a coupled algorithm hydraulic model. The crack propagation is modeled using a combination of continuous damage and XFEM. The poroelastic problem in the first stage of cracking is modeled using a poro-damage model, where the permeability is linked to the damage coefficient. Once the crack is modeled using XFEM, a hydraulic mesh is automatically generated on the fracture surface with the possibility of including features such as drains. The pressure is computed on the hydraulic mesh taking into account the crack opening computed with the structural model and the different types of flow in a crack: laminar or turbulent, parallel or non-parallel. The pressure computed with the hydraulic mesh is transferred to the structural mesh to recompute the structural response. This procedure, iterated until convergence, can predict hydraulic fracturing taking into account complex flows. A validation example on a wedge-splitting specimen is presented.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".