MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403223521 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2024-0255

Computed tomography-driven analysis of particle breakage using a coupled FDM–DEM approach

2024· article· en· W4403223521 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mengmeng Wu, Yuze Sun, Xianghao Situ, Jianfeng Wang, Zhen‐Yu Yin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreakageComputed tomographyParticle (ecology)Geotechnical engineeringTomographyFinite element methodGeologyMechanicsMaterials sciencePhysicsEngineeringStructural engineeringComposite materialOpticsRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study proposes a refined approach for simulating the mechanical behavior of soils under high stress by integrating the finite difference method–discrete element method (FDM–DEM) with in situ experiment. This novel framework incorporates advanced technologies such as flexible membrane and X-ray computed tomography (CT) to enhance the predictive capabilities of the simulation with physical insight. The FDM–DEM model adeptly simulates irregular particle shapes, capturing their interactions and the dynamics of particle breakage. The use of flexible membrane within the model further enriches this approach by enabling the capture of deformation responses in granular materials during shearing. Moreover, the adoption of CT technology facilitates continuous optimization of the simulation process. Validation through in situ experiments has confirmed the model’s effectiveness. The ability of the model to predict areas of high stress concentration—and their correlation with observed particle breakage patterns—underscores the utility of the enhanced FDM–DEM framework as a robust predictive tool for understanding the behavior of granular materials under shearing.

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 score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207