MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005985909 · doi:10.1139/t02-063

Prediction of grout penetration in fractured rocks by numerical simulation

2002· article· en· W2005985909 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mijia Yang, Zhou Yue, P KK Lee, Bei Su, LG Tham

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroutGeotechnical engineeringGeologyRock mass classificationParametric statisticsPenetration (warfare)EngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As fractures in rock significantly reduce the strength as well as the stiffness of the rock mass, grouting may be required to improve the performance of the rock mass in engineering or mining projects. During grouting, mortar of cement or other materials is injected into the rock mass so that the fractures can be filled up and the rock mass can act as an integral unit. Unlike water, grouts are usually viscous and behave as non-Newtonian fluids. Therefore, the equations describing the flow of grout are more complicated and the solutions are quite difficult to obtain. The problem is further aggravated by the fact that the fractures are mostly randomly distributed, and it is rarely possible to accurately define the fractures and the distribution patterns. In this paper, a numerical model is proposed for analyzing the grouting process. The model is based on the stochastic approach, and it can provide the depth of penetration and the fluid pressure due to the flow of grout, which is modeled as a Bingham fluid, in the fractured rock mass. Parametric studies have been carried out to investigate the effects of various factors on the depth of penetration, and a regression formula is developed for calculating the penetration depth. Experiments have been carried out and their results are used to validate the present method.Key words: stochastic fractures, fractured rock mass, grout flow, grout penetration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score0.455

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.182 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations79
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207