MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2530317966 · doi:10.1144/sp443.20

Characterizing the mechanical behaviour of the Tournemire argillite

2016· article· en· W2530317966 on OpenAlexaff
Xueqing Su, Son Nguyen, Ehsan Haghighat, S. Pietruszczak, D. Labrie, Jean-Dominique Barnichon, Hadj Abdi

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Society London Special Publications · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaNatural Resources CanadaMcMaster UniversityCanadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A laboratory programme of uniaxial, triaxial, cyclic and Brazilian tests was conducted to investigate the anisotropic mechanical behaviour of the Tournemire argillite, with different axial loading orientations with respect to the bedding planes (i.e. loading orientation angle, θ=0°, 30°, 45°, 60° and 90°). The experimental results show that both strength and deformation of the argillite are direction-dependent. Failure occurs in a brittle manner with a sudden collapse of the material strength. The failure mode exhibits localization along distinct failure planes and also depends on the loading orientation. This paper summarizes the experimental results and describes constitutive relationships that were developed in order to simulate the stress–strain behaviour of the Tournemire argillite. A microstructure tensor approach is adopted in order to take into account the anisotropic behaviour of the argillite. The identification procedure for material function and parameters is outlined, and the model is applied to simulate the set of triaxial tests performed at different levels of confining pressure and orientation of the bedding planes. It is demonstrated that the model adequately reproduces the anisotropy, the pre-peak stress–strain response and the onset of material collapse in those tests.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.220
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological Society London Special PublicationsSame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207