MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389166634 · doi:10.56952/igs-2023-0289

Investigating Thermal Gradient Cracking and Fracture Process Zone Development in Granitic Rocks

2023· article· en· W4389166634 on OpenAlexaff
Kareem Ramzy Aboayanah, Lei Sun, Giovanni Grasselli

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTemperature gradientMaterials scienceCrackingCoalescence (physics)Ultimate tensile strengthThermalComposite materialDigital image correlationFracture (geology)Fracture mechanicsThermal expansionThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Thermal stresses developed under disturbed temperature field induce thermal cracking when material’s strength is exceeded. In this paper, digital image correlation (DIC) and thermo-mechanical finite-discrete element method (FDEM-TM) simulations were adopted to investigate thermal gradient cracking and the evolution of its fracture process zone in Stanstead granite. DIC results showed that thermal gradient cracks initiated in a radial pattern from the heating source and the spatial density of the cracks was higher closer to the heating source than at the sample periphery. The macrocrack coalesced from the cooler portion of the sample inwards; however, smaller cracks initiated first from the hole before the coalescence. FDEM-TM simulations, supported by DIC experimental observations, revealed that thermal gradient cracks initiate as a result of an advancing tensile hoop stress front induced by the transient temperature diffusion in the rock. Therefore, the location of the thermal gradient crack initiation depends on both the local material tensile strength and the magnitude of the local induced tensile stress. Analysis of the thermal gradient fracture process zone (TG-FPZ) showed that maximum TG-FPZ length occurred at the onset of traction-free macrocrack propagation and decreased gradually until the macrocrack reached the heating hole. TG-FPZ width increased along the macrocrack length from the sample periphery towards the heating hole. This is attributed to the pronounced differential expansion mechanism in the hotter near-hole region and the induced tensile hoop stresses later in the heating stage when the macrocrack approached the hole.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207