MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112540008 · doi:10.3390/min10121119

Effect of Stress Path on the Failure Envelope of Intact Crystalline Rock at Low Confining Stress

2020· article· en· W3112540008 on OpenAlexafffund
Shantanu Patel, C. Derek Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerals · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNuclear Waste Management Organization
KeywordsStress pathGeotechnical engineeringGeologyStress (linguistics)Compression (physics)Tension (geology)Envelope (radar)Computer simulationMaterials scienceMechanicsComposite materialEngineeringPhysicsPetrologyShear (geology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerical modelling is playing an increasing role in the interpretation of geological observations. A similar phenomenon is occurring with respect to the interpretation of the stress–strain response of intact rock measured in laboratory tests. In this research, the three-dimensional (3D) bonded particle model (BPM) with flat-jointed (FJ) contact was used to investigate the impact of stress paths on rock failure. The modified FJ contact model used for these studies numerically captured most of the intact rock behavior of Lac du Bonnet granite observed in the laboratory. A numerical simulation was used to track the behavior of this rock for different stress paths, starting with uniaxial tension and compression loading conditions. The migration from uniaxial tension to triaxial compression is challenging to simulate in physical laboratory tests but commonly observed around underground excavations. The numerical modelling methodology developed for this research tracks this stress path and the impact of the intermediate stress on peak strength at low confinements, commonly found around underground excavations.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.208
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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMineralsSame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207