Design guidelines for the use of SFRS in ground support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are presently no design guidelines based on toughness for the use of Steel Fibre Reinforced Shotcrete (SFRS) in ground support for underground mine development. Typically, in the Australian mining environment, the approach to the use of SFRS in ground support has been one of borrowing experiences from other mines and a “trial and error” method of design, installation, and assessment. There is a need, particularly in the mining industry, for a design guide that can be simply applied by “front line” personnel as an aid to their ground support decision making. This paper provides an overview of the performance characteristics of SFRS and how the various shotcrete guides specify its use. Practical experiences of the use of SFRS in Australia and Canada, in various applications and ground conditions, are combined with existing empirically-based ground support design methods in order to develop a ground support guideline that incorporates the concept of toughness. An assessment of structural synthetic fibres shows that their low modulus makes their performance characteristics different to steel fibres and hence the recommendations made in this paper should not be used to guide their usage.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".