Effect of Joint Orientation on Rock Mass Erosion Based on Experimental Results Using a Pilot Plant Spillway Model
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT: Hydraulic rock mass erosion is termed as the gradual removal of intact rock blocks due to excessive erosive forces of flowing water. Understanding the mechanism of this erosion process requires to study the hydraulic pressures on rock block surfaces, especially at the top and bottom of intact blocks. These intricate hydraulic conditions depend on several hydraulic and geomechanical factors. In the current study, the effect of joint orientation on the hydraulic pressures is studied using the pilot plant scale spillway model constructed at Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, Québec, Canada. Two metal boxes were used to vary the orientation of the joints to −45°, 0° and 45° inclinations with respect to the direction of water flow. The 9 blocks are arranged in 3 rows with 3 blocks in each row; the central block is instrumented to measure the hydraulic pressures. The static and dynamic head (Hs + Hd) at the top of block is much higher than that at the bottom of block for 0° orientation arrangement. However, in the case of inclined joints, the pressure at the top of block is found to be almost equal to that at the bottom of block. 1. INTRODUCTION Hydraulic rock mass erosion is considered critical in the design of hydraulic structures in recent years especially in the case of unlined dam spillways. The stability and safe operation of hydraulic structures is compromised with the higher erosion rates of rock (Gardner, 2023) under flood conditions. Historic erosion cases like the Oroville Dam, California (Koskinas et al., 2019; Wahl et al., 2019), Mokolo Dam in South Africa and Copeton Dam in Australia (Pells, 2016), Ricobayo Dam in Spain (Annandale, 2006) and Spaulding Dam in California (George, 2015) are a few examples of disasters that occurred either under normal operating discharges or flows below the design flow rates. These historical examples illustrate the limitations in existing hydraulic erosion hazard assessment including the mechanism and rate of erosion. The widely used erodibility index method (Annandale, 2006, 2012) is prominent in erosion prediction, given its simplicity. However, due to its empirical nature, it cannot provide the details of the failure modes and mechanisms. Additionally, the resistive capacity of the rock mass given by this method does not incorporate all the hydraulic and geomechanical parameters affecting the erosion process. Other recent empirical methods developed by Pells (2016) also suffer from the similar limitations. The rock mass resistive capacity is governed by the material parameters and the joint characteristics such as joint spacing, joint orientation, shape and volume of the block, joint filling, block protrusion and toughness of the block (Annandale, 2012; Boumaiza et al., 2019; Pells, 2016). Cameron et al. (1986, 1990) have presented various geological aspects of the rock mass that affect the erosion process and highlighted the headward migration of knickpoint with the erosion towards the spillway crest. Pitsiou (1990) have explained the importance of various parameters of the rock mass discontinuities on the hydraulic erosion process and the importance of a classification of the geological data into different categories based on the spillway type. The hydraulic erosive power depends especially on the velocity of the flow, the stream power dissipation and the bed shear stress (Coleman et al., 2003; Dubinski, 2009). The complex interaction of the flowing water with the spillway bed rock determines the erosion process resulting in a complex erosion mechanism.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».