MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2580718865 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2016-0393

Influence of end effect on rock strength in true triaxial compression test

2017· article· en· W2580718865 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Yuhang Xu, Ming Cai, X.W. Zhang, Xia‐Ting Feng

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInstitute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of SciencesState Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and Geotechnical EngineeringChinese Academy of Sciences
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringPrincipal stressTriaxial shear testCompression (physics)Hoek–Brown failure criterionStress (linguistics)Compressive strengthGeologyRock mechanicsMaterials scienceComposite materialShear (geology)Rock mass classification

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The influence of the end effect on rock strength in true triaxial compression testing was studied using a numerical approach. The influence of the intermediate principal stress (σ2) on rock strength was isolated by using the two-dimensional Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion that depends only on the major principal stress (σ1) and minor principal stress (σ3). Thus, any enhancement to the rock strength with the increase of σ2 can be attributed to the end effect. It was shown that the end effect can result in an apparent σ2 effect, as long as the coefficient of friction (μ) at the rock specimen – steel platen contacts is not zero and the specimen in the σ2 loading direction is squat. When the strengthening due to the increase of σ2 predicted by a theoretical failure criterion was added to the strengthening due to the end effect, the results were in good agreement with the observed σ2 effect from some previous laboratory tests, indicating that the observed σ2 effect in true triaxial compression testing could be partially influenced by the end effect, particularly when σ3 was low. It is suggested to decrease the end effect to a level where the apparent σ2 effect is very small so that the obtained test results are more meaningful to characterize the actual σ2 effect.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations53
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207