MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386971124 · doi:10.1115/omae2023-107769

Multi-Particle Modelling of Compressive Ice Failure During Indentation by Rock Particles

2023· article· en· W4386971124 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Fitzpatrick, Rocky Taylor, Jan Thijssen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics Simulations and Interactions
Canadian institutionsCentre For Cold Ocean Resources EngineeringMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndentationGeologyParticle (ecology)PermafrostMaterials scienceGeotechnical engineeringMineralogyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The indentation of rock particles into ice is an important aspect of understanding subsea interactions involving ice features. If rock particles are present at the interface between ice and an engineered structure, the question arises: will localization of contact by the rocks cause the ice to fail more easily, resulting in reduced ice pressures, or will rocks transmit high ice pressures through smaller contact areas between the rock and structure resulting in more intense contact stresses on the surface of the structure? This paper presents initial results from a series of tests investigating the indentation of multiple rock particles into an ice specimen, which builds on earlier ice indentation tests on single unconstrained rock particles. Observations from tests conducted using 170g samples of rocks ranging in size from 9.5mm–19.1mm for tests completed at an indentation rate of 0.5 mm/s for indentation depths of 5 mm and 7 mm are presented and discussed. In addition, preliminary results are presented from a Matlab model that has been developed based on the aggregation of independent, individual particle-ice interaction events to simulate multiple particle-ice interactions. A comparison of experimental and simulated results indicates good general agreement and supports the assumption of independent particle-ice indentation events for the interaction conditions considered.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFluid Dynamics Simulations and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207