MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235835076 · doi:10.1515/ijnsns-2011-120

Establishment of a Dynamic Mohr–Coulomb Failure Criterion for Rocks

2012· article· en· W4235835076 on OpenAlexafffund
Sheng Huang, Kaiwen Xia, Feng Dai

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicHigh-Velocity Impact and Material Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaBeijing Institute of Technology
KeywordsUltimate tensile strengthMohr–Coulomb theorySplit-Hopkinson pressure barCompressive strengthShear (geology)Materials scienceShear strength (soil)Geotechnical engineeringHoek–Brown failure criterionStrength theoryComposite materialStructural engineeringGeologyFinite element methodEngineeringStrain rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Static Mohr–Coulomb Failure Criterion for rocks has been used extensively in various rock engineering applications. In this model, the compressive strength, tensile strength, and shear strength are related. To investigate the applicability of the Mohr–Coulomb model to dynamic failures, we studied the correlation of the three dynamic rock properties: compressive strength, tensile strength and punch shear strength. The strengths are quantified using a split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) system. The methods for acquiring these strengths were briefly discussed. A fine-grained sandstone, Longyou sandstone (LS) was studied using these methods. The results showed that the compressive strength calculated from the punch shear strength of LS matched well with the experimental UCS results, thus the punch shear strength could be effectively used to predict the UCS of rocks. The tensile strength calculated from the punch shear strength of LS also has exhibited a good trend with the experimental results of Brazilian tensile strength. We concluded that the famous Mohr–Coulomb criterion can be extended to the dynamic range. However, caution has to be taken in determining the loading rates for different strength results.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 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

Citations20
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical SimulationSame topicHigh-Velocity Impact and Material BehaviorFrench-language works237,207