MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2621277077

Influence of weak planes on rockburst occurrence

2016· article· en· W2621277077 on OpenAlexaff
Amin Manouchehrian, Ming Cai

Bibliographic record

Venue3rd International Symposium on Mine Safety Science and Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyExcavationGeotechnical engineeringHomogeneousQuantum tunnellingShearing (physics)Mining engineeringMaterials science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Geological structures such as faults, joints, and dykes have been observed near excavation boundaries in many rockburst case histories. In this paper, the role of weak planes around tunnels in rockburst occurrence was studied. An Abaqus explicit code was used to simulate dynamic rock failure in deep tunnels. Firstly, Abaqus’s usefulness for modeling geomaterials was improved by introducing material heterogeneity using Python scripting. Modeling results showed that heterogeneous models resulted in more realistic failure modes than homogeneous models. Secondly, rock failure near the excavation boundary of a tunnel without any adjacent geological structure was modeled and released kinetic energy from rock due to failure and velocity of elements at the tunnel wall were calculated. Then, a weak plane was added to the model. This resulted in more released kinetic energy and higher element velocity, indicating that rock failure became more violent in the models with weak planes. The modeling results confirm that the presence of geological structures in the vicinity of deep excavations is a condition for the occurrence of rockburst. It explains localized rockburst occurrence in civil tunnels and mining drifts. The presented methodology in this paper for rockburst analysis can be useful for rockburst anticipation and control during mining and tunneling in highly stressed grounds.

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 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue3rd International Symposium on Mine Safety Science and EngineeringSame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207