A Comparison of Underground Opening Support Design Methods in Jointed Rock Mass (TECHNICAL NOTE)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is of great importance to consider long-term stability of rock mass around the openings of underground structure, during design, construction and operation of the said structures in rock. In this context, three methods namely, empirical, analytical and numerical have been applied to design and analyze the stability of underground infrastructure at the Siah Bisheh Pumping Storage Hydro-Electric Power Project (HEPP) in Iran. The geological and geotechnical data utilized in this article were selected and based on the preliminary studies of this project. In the initial stages of design, it was recommended that, two methods of rock mass classification Q and RMR should be utilized for the support system of the underground cavern. Next, based on the structural instability, the support system was adjusted by the analytical method. The performance of the recommended support system was reviewed by the comparison of the ground response curve and rock support interactions with surrounding rock mass, using FEST03 software. Moreover, for further assessment of the realistic rock mass behavior and support system, the numerical modeling was performed utilizing FEST03software. Finally both the analytical and numerical methods were compared, to obtain satisfactory results complimenting each other.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".