Physical and numerical tests of the excavation walls in jointed rock masses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the magnitude and distribution of earth pressure on the support systems of open cuts in jointed rock masses. A physical model test was carried out using concrete blocks with man-made joints to represent a jointed rock mass. The model test was simulated numerically to provide a justifiable basis for extended numerical parametric studies. This study focused on the overall procedures of the physical model test, its numerical simulation, and extended numerical parametric studies. A comparison of the results from both the physical model test and numerical simulation confirmed that the applied numerical approach and methodology were suitable for further extended numerical parametric studies. The controlled parameters were the different rock types and joint characteristics including joint shear condition, joint spacing, and joint inclination angle. Results of the earth pressures from the numerical parametric tests in jointed rock masses were compared with Peck’s empirical earth pressure for soil ground. The comparison showed that the earth pressure in jointed rock masses can be very different from that in the soil ground. Accordingly, the effect of the rock types and joint characteristics needs to be considered when designing excavation support systems in jointed rock masses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".