Discrete element analysis of the influence of bolt pattern and spacing on the force‐displacement response of bolted steel mesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Steel wire mesh held by a pattern of bolts can be used to stabilize a rock slope. Knowledge of the force‐displacement response of steel mesh is essential in the design of this support system. Laboratory tests have been used to test mesh that is held to rigid steel frames. These testing conditions differ from how steel mesh is held in the field by bolts. The existing laboratory test data may underestimate the deformation and overestimate the load‐bearing capacity of the steel mesh. This paper focuses on the response of the high tensile strength steel mesh held by commonly used bolt patterns. Discrete element models were used to study the force‐displacement response of the steel mesh pinned by bolts. The influences of different bolt patterns and varying ratios of bolt spacing on the effectiveness of steel wire mesh were analyzed. Relationships between the resistance force of steel mesh and bolt density at various mesh deformations were developed. These relationships can help engineers choose the bolt spacing and provide an estimate of the resistance force that a steel mesh can mobilize at a desired deformation limit for a given bolt pattern.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".