MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4389475153 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2023-0283

Study on strength damage model considering resistivity and failure characteristics of the frozen soil–rock mixture under different loading rates

2023· article· en· W4389475153 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shuangjiao Wang, Zhiqing Li, Zhiao Gao, Zhiyu Qi, Kai Sun, Ruilin Hu, Yingxin Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringElectrical resistivity and conductivityGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The strength damage and deformation failure of frozen soil–rock mixture (FSRM) often restrict the safety of the major engineering construction in cold areas or the spatial development of urban underground water-rich rock and soil masses. To investigate the uniaxial strength damage evolution and failure characteristics of FSRM under different loading rates (0.3, 0.6, 3, 6, 30, and 60 mm·min−1) in the quasi-static range, resistivity monitoring and image recognition technology were used to study the time-stress-volumetric strain-resistivity changes. The results indicate that the peak stress, peak strain, initial yield modulus, and tangential modulus of FSRM increase rapidly before increasing slowly as the loading rate increases, and there are critical loading rates and post-peak failure phenomenon. Three distinct types of failure modes, bulge failure, oblique shear failure, and fragmentation failure were observed at low (0.3–0.6 mm·min−1), medium (3–6 mm·min−1), and high loading rates (30–60 mm·min−1), respectively. The macroscopic failure of the FSRM at different loading rates arises from a combination of strain rate hardening of the strength and damage softening of the structure. To predict the stress-strain characteristics at various loading rates, a damage prediction model with a damage variable correction factor considering residual strength was employed based on the improved Duncan–Chang model and damage theory of electrical resistivity, and the predicted results were in good agreement with the experimental data.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.257
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical Journal→Same topicGeophysical Methods and Applications→French-language works237,207→