MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2728964689

Influence of test conditions on post-peak deformation behavior of rock

2017· dissertation· en· W2728964689 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yuhang Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueLu Zone Ul (Laurentian University) · 2017
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringDeformation (meteorology)Test (biology)GeologyMaterials scienceComposite material
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the post-peak deformation behavior of rock is important for underground rock engineering. Laboratory property testing is commonly employed to investigate the post-peak deformation behavior. However, the test conditions of laboratory testing, especially the Loading System Stiffness (LSS) of stiff test machines, are usually varied and the influence of this variation on the test results has not been fully elucidated. In addition, studying the influence of test conditions on the post-peak deformation behavior of rock is crucial for interpreting test results and subsequently applying the results to rock engineering design. The goal of this dissertation is to identify how the post-peak deformation behavior of a rock specimen is affected by three major aspects of test conditions––the specimen geometry, the contact conditions, and the LSS. To achieve this goal, an FEM/Explicit tool was employed to carry out numerical experiments, in which the same material property was assumed for the rock specimens and each wanted test condition was isolated for analysis. The well-observed slenderness effect and the recently-observed cross-sectional shape effect on the Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) of rocks were studied. The modeling results suggest that the numerical tool and models are suitable for investigating the problem and the hoop tension theory could be flawed. Next, the cross-sectional shape effect on the post-peak deformation behavior was investigated. The modeling results reveal that although the influence of the cross-sectional shape on the UCS of rocks is small, the cross-sectional shape affects the post-peak deformation behavior considerably. The actual contact condition and the end effect in true triaxial compression tests were simulated while the legitimate intermediate principal stress (2) effect was excluded from the rock material contacts are frictional and the specimen in the 2 loading direction is squat. Thus, existing 3D empirical failure criteria based on previous true triaxial compression test results may overestimate the rock strength. The influence of LSS on the post-peak stress–strain relations of stable rock failure was examined. Key loading components of stiff test machines were considered in the numerical model. The modeling results clarify that LSS affects the post-peak stress–strain curves of rocks even when the failure process is stable. Unless LSS is either perfectly rigid or equivalent to the critical LSS (), the post-peak stress–strain curves obtained under various LSS (with LSS >  ) are varied and all steeper than the one under an ideal loading condition. This dissertation demonstrates the cross-sectional shape effect in the post-peak deformation stage, the long overlooked 2 effect caused by the end effect, and the variation of post-peak stress– strain curves due to the LSS. This dissertation also makes a contribution to examining the hoop tension theory and recognizing the correct choice of cross-sectional shape for test specimens, offers insights into improving 3D empirical failure criteria and true triaxial test settings, and suggests new requirements for developing stiff test machines in the future.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLu Zone Ul (Laurentian University)Same topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207