Using Intact Rock Brittleness for Assessing TBM Penetration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper reviews the history of the punch penetration test (PPT) as a laboratory method that is conducted on intact sample to measure the rock brittleness (BI).Further, the interaction of rock brittleness and penetration rate of tunnel boring machine (TBM) has been examined and some relationship was developed between the BI and TBM penetration.For this aim, four tunnel projects having various rock types were studied and then four different dataset is examined and discussed herein.It is stated that the test via BI can be perfectly utilized for assessing the boreability of rocks.In conclusion, it is found that there is a relationship between the BI and TBMs penetration with correlation coefficient (r) ranging from 0.34-0.81for hard rocks condition; however this correlation is quite low (0.34) for weathered and very weak sedimentary rocks categorized as extremely low brittle.The obtained results can be accepted for hard rocks but it should be used with care for weathered weak rocks that does not show brittleness behavior under the indentor.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".