Analysis of removability and stability of rock blocks by considering the rock bridge effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In traditional block theory, the removability and stability of rock blocks are analyzed independently; that is, the stability of a removable block is analyzed in detail, and nonremovable blocks are regarded as stable. However, in practical situations, nonremovable blocks may pose more danger than removable blocks. This paper presents a unified method for analyzing the removability and stability of rock blocks. In this method, the cracking of rock bridges is considered and nonremovable blocks are not assumed to be stable. First, possible cracking rock bridges are identified by extending finite-sized fractures and comparing the boundary surfaces of the resulting blocks with those of the original blocks. Then, the sliding direction associated with each possible moving block is determined by solving an optimization problem. The normal force acting on each sliding surface is determined, and the resisting force on each rock bridge is calculated and integrated into the total resisting force when calculating the safety factor of a possible moving block. Procedures to determine all possible moving blocks are introduced, and the possible moving block with the minimum safety factor is regarded as the actual moving block. The corresponding minimum safety factor is defined as the actual safety factor of the block. The proposed method is verified by considering a few examples. The results show that nonremovable blocks may be unstable if the cracking of rock bridges is considered.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".