Cavity Radius Scaling for Underground Explosions in Hard Rock
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objective of this study was to examine the relationship between the explosive yield and the cavity sizes for chemical explosions in granite. We performed borehole studies in the two cavities produced by chemical explosions in Vermont, including the caliper, acoustic, and optical televiewer logs. The two irregularly shaped explosive cavities imaged during this study have the equivalent scaled radii of 8.26 and 8.34 m/kt1/3. Comparison of the cavity radii, determined in this study, with historical data from other chemical and nuclear explosions in hard rock (e.g., granite) demonstrates that the cavity radius as a function of yield obeys cube root scaling law. The empirical linear fit calculated for the nuclear cavity radii as a function of yield also provides a good approximation for the chemical cavity radii, even though the mechanisms responsible for the creation of cavities during chemical and nuclear shots are different. The depth dependence of the cavity size in hard rock appears to be weaker than proposed by the classical source theory, although there is not enough data to unambiguously resolve the depth dependence. The experimental field measurements of the cavity sizes (determined from geophysical log measurements) agree with the numerical simulations using the hydrodynamic code GEODYN (Antoun et al. , 2000; Lomov et al. , 2005), which confirm approximate cube root scaling with yield assuming that the quality of the rock mass is similar for all events. Online Material: Composite logs for the boreholes S1‐3, S2‐2, and S2‐4.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".