MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309000717 · doi:10.46873/2300-3960.1366

Numerical modelling of destress blasting – A state-of-the-art review

2022· review· en· W4309000717 on OpenAlexaff
Shuting Miao, Petr Koníček, Peng‐Zhi Pan, Hani S. Mitri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Mining · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersInstitute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of SciencesState Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and Geotechnical EngineeringChinese Academy of SciencesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsRock blastingRock mass classificationGeotechnical engineeringStiffnessEngineeringMining engineeringExplosive materialStructural engineeringComputer simulationFracture (geology)Simulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a proactive mine safety measure against the occurrence of rockburst, destress blasting has been applied to numerous mining conditions to precondition highly stressed rock mass to mitigate the risk of rockburst occurrence in deep mines as well as in deep underground constructions. However, the application of destress blasting mostly depends on engineering experience, while its mechanism and efficiency have not been well understood. Rapid advances in computer technology have made numerical simulation an economical and effective method to study the rock blasting effect. Enormous research efforts have been made to numerically investigate the blasting fracture mechanism, optimize blasting design, and assess the efficiency of destress blasting. This review focuses on the state-of-the-art progress in numerical modelling associated with destress blasting over the last two decades. Some commonly used modelling approaches for destressing blasting are compared and reviewed. Currently, two different ways of modelling based on static and dynamic modes are typically used to study the effect of blasting. In the static method, destress blasting is simulated by modifying the rock mass’s stiffness and strength properties to obtain the post-blast stress state in the destressed zone. The dynamic modelling technique focuses on the dynamic fracture process of coals and rock masses, during which the predetermination of the damage induced by blasting is not necessary. Moreover, the extent of damage zones around the blast hole can be precisely estimated in the dynamic modelling method by considering time-varying blast pressure and strain rate dependency on the strength of rock mass but at the cost of increased computation and complexity. Besides, different destress blasting modelling methods, generally classified into continuum-based, discrete-based, and coupled methods, are compared and reviewed. The fracture mechanism of blasting in the rock mass is revealed, and the destressing efficiency of the existing destress blasting design is assessed and compared with classical results. The factors that may affect the efficiency of destress blasting are summarized. Finally, the difficulties and challenges associated with the numerical modelling of destress blasting are highlighted briefly.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable MiningSame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207