MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413487172 · doi:10.70425/rml.202503.23

The effect of loading contact angle on the tensile behavior of rock disks

2025· article· en· W4413487172 on OpenAlexaff
Mostafa Asadizadeh, Saeed Khosravi, Nasrin Abbasssalimi, Nima Babanouri, Mohammad Rezaei, Aref Alipour, Veljko Lapčević, A. Hedayat, Taghi Sherizadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueRock mechanics letters. · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUltimate tensile strengthMaterials scienceComposite materialContact angleGeotechnical engineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tensile strength is one of the most important characteristics of rock masses that could govern the stability of rock structures. Due to difficulties in its direct measurements, indirect methods such as the Brazilian test have been developed to assess the tensile strength of laboratory-scale rock material. This study considers the effect of loading contact angle on the indirect tensile strength of rock-like disks by adopting experimental and discrete element methods. Several experimental specimens made of synthetic materials were examined under diametrical loading, and consequently, a numerical model using PFC3D was calibrated accordingly. Then, the impacts of the loading contact angle (θ) on the tensile strength, failure pattern, and contact force chain were investigated in detail. The results indicated that as θ increases from 0°, suggested by ASTM, to 90°, the tensile state is dominated at the specimen center, whereas for angles greater than 90°, the dominant stress state changed to compression. Also, while σxx (tensile stress) at the center of the disk did not change for θ below 40°, the σyy (compressive stress) and σzz (out-of-plan normal stress) increased after θ =30°. The analysis of developed cracks suggested that when θ is lower than 30°, the percentage of tensile and shear cracks were constant (80% and 20%, respectively). As the loading contact angle increased, tensile cracks decreased, whereas the other increased. By analyzing the failed specimens, three categories of crack patterns and two categories of contact force chains were identified.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRock mechanics letters.Same topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207