Effect of Joint Opening and Block Protrusion on the Hydraulic Pressure Around Rock Blocks in Unlined Dam Spillways
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT Rock mass erosion has been a serious safety concern in recent years, especially in the case of dam spillways. Rock block removal by uplift depends on the weight of the block, shearing resistance developed along the sliding faces and hydraulic forces around the block. The effects of several geomechanical and hydraulic parameters on the hydraulic pressures around a block are being studied using a pilot plant scale laboratory spillway model. This study focuses on the effect of joint opening (JO) and block protrusion (BP) on the hydraulic pressures inside the joint and on the top of the block. The blocks are placed in 5 different configurations for testing with three different opening values between the blocks (3, 10 and 20mm) and different block protrusion heights. The test results show that the pressure on the top of the block has a dominating effect in the uplift of the block as the pressure on the bottom of the block remained almost constant with different JO and BP conditions. Test results revealed that block protrusion plays a very important role in the uplift of a block. INTRODUCTION During the flood season, the excessive water stored in the reservoirs shall be released downstream through spillways considering the safety of the dams. These spillways can be broadly classified into two types: parallel flow spillways and plunging jet spillways. In both cases, the flowing water with huge hydraulic energy could cause significant erosion of the rock mass, which may incur unnecessary expenses in repairs and public safety risks (Annandale, 2012; Pells, 2016). In recent years, the damage from the hydraulic erosion has become an important concern in frequently operating spillways. Rock mass erosion is a complex phenomenon that depends on both hydraulic and geomechanical parameters. Rock mass erosion occurs when the resistive capacity of the rock mass is exceeded by the erosive capacity of flowing water (Annandale, 2012; Boumaiza, 2019; Pells, 2016). The erosive capacity is dependent on the flow conditions and the common parameters used to represent the erosive capacity are unit stream power dissipation (Annandale, 2006; Pells, 2016), flow velocity and shear stress (Bollaert, 2010, 2016). The resistive capacity represents the ability of rock mass to withstand the hydraulic forces from the flowing water which is dependent on several geomechanical parameters like joint shear strength, joint opening, joint protrusion, joint orientation, block volume, etc. Boumaiza et al. (2019, 2021) studied the existing rock mass geomechanical indices that represents the rock mass resistive capacity against hydraulic erosion and concluded that they considered improper weightage to some parameters or completely ignore some other relevant parameters like joint opening, 3D rock block volume, while considering unimportant parameter like the unconfined compressive strength of intact rock specimens. A comprehensive description of the erosion prediction models developed in the past few decades is provided by Jalili Kashtiban et al. (2021) most of which are based on empirical relationships. The underlying mechanisms behind the erosion has not been studied to the full extent (Saiang et al., 2022).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».