Manually directional splitting of in-situ intact igneous rocks into large sheets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a directional large-area rock fracturing method. The method had distinctive features compared with other common fracturing methods. The area of the fracturing surface could reach 10–500 m 2 . The fractured rock was sheet-like in shape, with a thickness of 6–8 cm. The main fracturing tools and procedures used were described in the paper. This paper analyzed the reason for controllable and directional (also mode-I) rupturing in rock from the view of fracture mechanics. Counter-intuitively, the fracturing surface of the rock sheet had an angle (approximately 25°) to the loading direction (i.e., the orientation of the maximum principal compressive stress). The rupture behavior was controlled by the relationship between the load and the geometric boundary of the rock. It is found that the fracturing surface can suddenly and rapidly propagate after a certain strike by calculating the energies of the rock sheet. The striking energy could be converted into elastic strain energy, which accumulates in a very-slightly bent rock sheet step by step until exceeds the bearing limit of rock sheet. Most of the stored elastic strain energy was subsequently released in the form of splitting energy, leading to rock fracturing. This study provides insights into the occurrence of tectonic earthquakes. • A manual method for splitting in situ intact rock into large sheets is introduced. • The splitting tools, steps, and results of the method are summarized. • Examination of the mechanism of directional and controllable splitting. • Tensile splitting was analyzed with a small amount of manual power.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".