MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320731642 · doi:10.3390/ma16041572

An Extended Hydro-Mechanical Coupling Model Based on Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics for Simulating Crack Propagation in Rocks under Hydraulic and Compressive Loads

2023· article· en· W4320731642 on OpenAlexaff
Dianrui Mu, Aiping Tang, Haigang Qu, Junjie Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics Simulations and Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSmoothed-particle hydrodynamicsCoalescence (physics)Geotechnical engineeringFracture mechanicsMechanicsRock mass classificationHydraulic fracturingMaterials scienceShear (geology)Compressive strengthCrackingPermeability (electromagnetism)GeologyStructural engineeringEngineeringComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A seepage model based on smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) was developed for the seepage simulation of pore water in porous rock mass media. Then, the effectiveness of the seepage model was proved by a two-dimensional seepage benchmark example. Under the framework of SPH based on the total Lagrangian formula, an extended hydro-mechanical coupling model (EHM-TLF-SPH) was proposed to simulate the crack propagation and coalescence process of rock samples with prefabricated flaws under hydraulic and compressive loads. In the SPH program, the Lagrangian kernel was used to approximate the equations of motion of particles. Then, the influence of flaw water pressure on crack propagation and coalescence models of rock samples with single or two parallel prefabricated flaws was studied by two numerical examples. The simulation results agreed well with the test results, verifying the validity and accuracy of the EHM-TLF-SPH model. The results showed that with the increase in flaw water pressure, the crack initiation angle and stress of the wing crack decreased gradually. The crack initiation location of the wing crack moved to the prefabricated flaw tip, while the crack initiation location of the shear crack was far away from the prefabricated flaw tip. In addition, the influence of the permeability coefficient and flaw water pressure on the osmotic pressure was also investigated, which revealed the fracturing mechanism of hydraulic cracking engineering.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterialsSame topicFluid Dynamics Simulations and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207