Geomechanical safety assessment for transversely isotropic rock mass subjected to deep mining operations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The largest risk for mining operations conducted within the Legnica–Głogów Copper Basin is created mostly by high-energy tremors, the hypocenters of which are located within the main roof strata composed of sedimentary-type rocks — mainly dolomite and anhydrite — about 40–200 m above the excavated copper ore body. These categories of rock clearly exhibit anisotropic strength–deformation characteristics that may significantly affect the safety level value represented by the appropriate safety margin (or safety factor) based on an adequate strength hypothesis. As the focal mechanism most often encountered in such tremors is a slipping-type mechanism with a rupture plane, typically the Mohr–Coulomb theory of strength is applied for a safety level assessment in Polish copper mines. It has been assumed, however, that strength theories based on anisotropic failure criteria should serve as better indicators of correlation between observed and well-characterized sedimentary rock strata failure mechanisms and the location of concentrated areas of the negative values of margin of safety within the rock mass. As changing levels of stress in the rock mass during the mining process may be tracked effectively using solutions offered by appropriate three-dimensional geomechanical models (e.g., finite element method), the assessment of these changes due to mining-face progress is also possible in the location where the seismic tremor occurred. This assessment is characterized by its focal mechanism using the appropriate geophysical methods that permit finding such geomechanical conditions, engaging also the rock mass’ strain–stress states and the material anisotropic characteristics. On the basis of the long-term path of rock mass loading — due to mining predicted by numerical modeling — this could indicate the necessary conditions that should be fulfilled if the anticipated methods of the geophysics failure mechanism could be developed. This is particularly important for anisotropic rock structures. The proposed approach is illustrated using an example of a strong seismic energy event of 0.22 GJ that occurred in 2005 in an area of the Rudna mine.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".