MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799498604 · doi:10.1520/gtj20170208

Application of Digital Image Correlation Technique for Measurement of Tensile Elastic Constants in Brazilian Tests on a Bi-Modular Crystalline Rock

2018· article· en· W2799498604 on OpenAlexaff
Shantanu Patel, C. Derek Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnical Testing Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptical measurement and interference techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital image correlationPoisson's ratioStrain gaugeSpeckle patternTension (geology)Tensile testingMaterials scienceModulusUltimate tensile strengthYoung's modulusStrain (injury)Composite materialCompression (physics)Elastic modulusGeotechnical engineeringPoisson distributionStructural engineeringMathematicsOpticsGeologyPhysicsEngineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Most rocks show different elastic properties in tension and compression (bi-modularity). In this study, we derive new equations to calculate the tensile Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio from a Brazilian test by incorporating bi-modularity into stress–strain equations. We tested Brazilian specimens of Lac du Bonnet granite and compared the Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio in tension obtained with the values from direct tension tests on dog-bone shaped specimens. Digital image correlation (DIC) and conventional strain gauges were used to extract the strain on the flat surfaces of the Brazilian disks. With the DIC technique, a speckle density of approximately 250 speckles/cm2 was needed to accurately capture the strain pattern. The strain measured using the DIC technique was consistent with the strain measured using the conventional strain gauges. The major advantage of the DIC technique is the ability to map the complete strain pattern over the surface of the Brazilian disk and quantify the uniformity of loading. The Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio in tension were obtained using the new equations and were found to be in general agreement with the values obtained from the direct tension 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 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeotechnical Testing JournalSame topicOptical measurement and interference techniquesFrench-language works237,207