Rock mass response model for circular openings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main parameters affecting the failure and deformation state of the rock mass around a circular opening are the level of vertical and horizontal in situ stresses, the characteristics of the rock mass, the diameter of the opening, and the support pressure. The influence of all these parameters on the stress-induced final deformations around circular openings was investigated by a finite difference based two-dimensional numerical simulation for both hydrostatic and nonhydrostatic stress field conditions. From the results of the parametric studies, the variation of tunnel strain versus the ratio of uniaxial compressive strength of the rock mass to in situ vertical stress and the ratio of radial support pressure to in situ vertical stress for fair quality and poor quality rock masses was statistically analysed. As a result of the three-dimensional nonlinear regression analysis and surface curve fitting process by means of a large number of models, a best-fit model with the best correlation with these dimensionless parameters was proposed for calculating tunnel strains and ground response curves. Specific charts were created to highlight the influence of parameters on the deformation response of the openings to various support pressures.Key words: numerical modelling, circular openings, ground response curve, finite difference, FLAC.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".