New Testing Device for the Grouting Reinforcement Performance of Fractured Rocks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the existing studies on fractured rocks, specimens are prepared by using similar materials or rock fractures are prefabricated, and the weak parts of rock specimens themselves cannot be reflected. Grouting reinforcement tests fail to accurately simulate the influence of the weak plane characteristics of real joints in rocks breaking under a certain stress on the grouting reinforcement effect. However, the grouting effect can be evaluated by comparing the rupture energy of grouting specimens to solve the unreasonable grouting evaluation parameters. In this study, a new testing device for the grouting reinforcement performance of fractured rocks was designed. Multigroup grouting experiments were conducted on multiple real fractured rock specimens in accordance with different grouting parameters to explore the influences of primary rock strength, grouting material, and grouting pressure on the grouting effect. The grouting effect was evaluated by comparing the rupture energy before and after grouting. Results demonstrate that the improvement of postgrouting strength is positively correlated with the improvement of primary rock strength. The grouting effect was affected by the strength of grouting materials, that is, the higher strength of grouting materials contributed to more evident improvement of the mechanical properties of grouted rocks compared with those before grouting. When rocks with the same lithologies were grouted, a high grouting pressure promoted the bonding between slurry and rock fracture plane. The slurry was fully diffused in gaps to form a solid grouting body so that the overall stability of broken rock specimens was strengthened, and the consolidation surface of fracture plane was more stable. The proposed designed testing provides a good equipment to complete the grouting effect test and serves as a technical guide in field engineering.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".