Thin Rock Support Liners Modeled with Particle Flow Code
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rapid setting, thin, spray-on polymeric liner materials are being developed for underground rock support in Canadian mines. These materials have performance characteristics that lie between those of shotcrete and mesh. Two-dimensional numerical models using Particle Flow Code (PFC) are used to model thin spray-on liners in simulated laboratory tests. The objectives were to determine how to model liners with PFC and based on these results to gain some insight about the support mechanisms provided by a liner. Direct tension tests and block punching tests were numerically simulated and used to calibrate the PFC micro-mechanical input parameters. Based on previous laboratory testing, the representative properties for a generic liner material are a tensile strength of 2MPa achieved at 50% elongation. The tensile strength is equivalent to a rupture load of 2kN per millimeter of liner per linear meter. A typical thin spray-on liner thickness used to support rock around an excavation is about 4mm. Therefore, the PFC liner models were calibrated to break at around 8kN per linear meter of liner material.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".