Experimental, analytical, and finite element assessment of the shear strength of concrete‐rock interfaces at different scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper presents an original analytical approach to assess the shear strength of concrete‐rock interfaces while accounting for the effects of scale, roughness and matching conditions. The technique proposed is based on experimental data obtained from small core samples extracted from existing dam sites, with diameters varying from 83 to 145 mm, and larger rectangular samples with side lengths comprised between 320 and 492 mm. The predictions of the analytical formulation are validated against results of direct shear tests, as well as 3D nonlinear finite element simulations. Sensitivity analyses are conducted to evaluate the influence of roughness and matching conditions on the shear behavior of concrete‐rock contacts at different scales. The main results show that: (i) roughness inhomogeneity is one of the main causes of scale effects on the shear strength of concrete‐rock interfaces; (ii) contact geometries proportional in both length and height are expected to present quite similar shear strengths; and (iii) geometry matching conditions must be accounted for as they might be the source of scale effects affecting the evaluation of the shear strength at concrete‐rock interfaces. New equations are also proposed to suggest values of apparent cohesion and friction angle for concrete‐rock contacts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".