DEM simulation of the compression of crushable sand: does the initial particle shape matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in DEM modeling, combined with high-resolution X-ray tomography, opened the way for computer models based on virtual replicas of the particles which preserve nearly all facets of their geometry. This leads to simulation advantages, but also high computational costs. Here we tackle a question stemming from this trend: how accurate should particle models be to ensure accuracy? We address this question for the case of the compression of crushable sand. LS-DEM was used to generate three models of Ottawa sand (exact replicas, ellipsoids, and spheres) from digital images of its grains. Compression-induced crushing was simulated for all sets by tracking evolving size and shape distribution. The results confirm that exact replicas provide the closest match of the measurements. However, intermediate degrees of rendering (e.g. ellipsoids preserving volume and aspect ratio of the real grains) led to satisfactory results only marginally different from those of exact replicas. These findings provide an example of the protocols that may be followed to identify the optimal degree of particle approximation which should be regarded as mandatory to achieve a conscious, sustainable use of computational resources.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".