MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159803696 · doi:10.1139/t11-054

Application of rock cover alteration ratio concept in preliminary design of unlined pressure tunnels

2011· article· en· W2159803696 on OpenAlexaffvenue
André J. Rancourt, Hani S. Mitri

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJackingGeotechnical engineeringGeologyGround pressureMining engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unlined pressure tunnels were first driven by the Norwegians into hard granitic rock, which is the ideal material for this type of structure. However, the increase in demand for electric power has propelled the industry to develop projects at sites all over the world with less favourable geological conditions. The paper places emphasis on the preliminary design phase when no field measurements are available. A recent study by Rancourt (published in 2010) has investigated the spatial distribution of the minimum stress that is required to control hydraulic jacking around unlined pressure tunnels. Various surface topographic profiles including slopes, hills, and valleys; the rock cover to tunnel diameter ratio; as well as the presence of geological features such as shear zones and dykes were investigated with numerical modelling. Effective rock cover predictions are compared to those given by the well-known Norwegian design criterion, and a correction factor called cover alteration ratio (CAR) has been introduced. In this paper, a design methodology is proposed for use of CAR at the preliminary design stage in the form of a factor of safety against hydraulic jacking to be used in conjunction with the Norwegian criterion. Limitations on the use of the Norwegian criterion are highlighted.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinghigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinghigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.520

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207