Evaluation of the performance of yielding rockbolts during rockbursts using numerical modeling method
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The assessment of yielding rockbolt performance during rockbursts with actual seismic loading is essential for rockburst supporting designs. In this paper, two types of yielding rockbolts (D-bolt and Roofex) and the fully resin-grouted rebar bolt are modeled via the "rockbolt" element in universal distinct element code (UDEC) after an exact calibration procedure. A two-dimensional (2D) model of a deep tunnel is built to fully evaluate the performance (e.g., capacity of energy-absorption and control of rock damage) of yielding and traditional rockbolts based on the simulated rockbursts. The influence of different rockburst magnitudes is also studied. The results suggest that the D-bolt can effectively control and mitigate rockburst damage during a weak rockburst because of its high strength and deformation capacity. The Roofex is too "soft" or "smooth" to limit the movement of ejected rocks and restrain the large deformation, although it has an excellent deformation capacity. The resin-grouted rebar bolt can maintain a high axial force level during rockbursts but is easy to break during dynamic shocks, which fails to control rapid rock bulking or ejection. Three types of rockbolts cannot control the large deformation and mitigate rockburst damage effectively during violent rockbursts. The rockburst damage severity can be significantly reduced by additional support with cable bolts. This study highlights the effectiveness of numerical modeling methods in assessing the complex performance of yielding rockbolts during rockbursts, which can provide some references to improve and optimize the design of rock supporting in burst-prone grounds.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it