MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000435608 · doi:10.1063/1.5122763

Linkage-based device for creep testing of coal rock

2020· article· en· W3000435608 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Dongming Zhang, Chen Ye, Xianmeng Zhang, Xiaohan Qi, Yushun Yang, Xiong Li

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science and Technology Major ProjectUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsCreepOverburden pressureStress (linguistics)CoalGeotechnical engineeringMaterials scienceTriaxial shear testDeformation (meteorology)Coal miningStiffnessGeologyComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The creep properties of coal rock have been extensively investigated under conventional uniaxial stress conditions, whereas few studies have considered its characteristics or the process of seepage under triaxial stress. This study proposes and verifies a linkage-based creep test device for coal rock to study its creep characteristics under triaxial stress. The deformation, pressure, and signals of acoustic emission under triaxial stress were measured by using a specially designed data measurement system. The experimental device uses the connecting rod loading mechanism for continuous constant pressure loading. Through theoretical calculations and finite element analysis, the authors show that the strength and stiffness of the device satisfy the requirements of a maximum load of 300 kN. A creep test was carried out to verify the operation of the proposed device and analyze the creep characteristics of sandstone under different confining pressures. The results show that the device can analyze the catastrophic characteristics of sandstone, and this proves its validity and reliability in terms of monitoring the continuous pressure or constant pressure of sandstone during creeping. The device provides a new method to study the creep properties of coal rock under different stresses and seepage conditions.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207