MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018761448 · doi:10.1139/t06-004

Stability of D-shaped tunnels in a MohrCoulomb material under anisotropic stress conditions

2006· article· en· W2018761448 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Mohamed A. Meguid, R. Kerry Rowe

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsRock mass classificationGeotechnical engineeringOverburdenDeformation (meteorology)Displacement (psychology)Stress (linguistics)Quantum tunnellingGeologyInstabilityFinite element methodStrength reductionMohr–Coulomb theoryExcavationStress fieldAnisotropyOverburden pressureStructural engineeringMaterials scienceEngineeringMechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The near-face stability of D-shaped tunnels excavated in a Mohr–Coulomb material subjected to anisotropic in situ stress conditions is investigated in the present study. The construction of the intake tunnel of the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station is analyzed using three-dimensional elasto-plastic finite element analysis. The induced displacement and stresses around the tunnel opening as the face advances are compared to the field measurements recorded during the tunnel excavation. The effect of rock mass strength reduction on the tunnel deformation, face stability, and distribution of stresses at the tunnel circumference is investigated for different in situ stress conditions. When the ratio of rock mass strength to overburden pressure falls below 0.5, excessive deformation occurrs and squeezing of the rock mass becomes a problem that can cause instability of both the tunnel circumference and the face.Key words: weak rock, tunnelling, horizontal stresses, three-dimensional, finite element, excavation, face stability.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations36
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207