MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380536516 · doi:10.3390/en16124686

Back-Analysis of Rock Mass Strength at a Radioactive Waste Disposal Site Using Acoustic Emission Monitoring Data and 3D Numerical Modelling

2023· article· en· W4380536516 on OpenAlexaff
F. Deák, Matthew A. Perras, István Szűcs, Ákos Török

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNemzeti Kutatási, Fejlesztési és Innovaciós Alap
KeywordsRock mass classificationAcoustic emissionGeotechnical engineeringRadioactive wasteGeological Strength IndexGeologyDeformation (meteorology)Compressive strengthModulusStress (linguistics)ExcavationMaterials scienceComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, a new method was examined that used acoustic emission (AE) monitoring data, in combination with a primary Boundary Element stress analysis, to back-calculate rock mass strength. The presented AE data came from the National Radioactive Waste Repository (NRWR) for low- and intermediate-level waste (LLW/ILW). AE monitoring is able to detect the pre-peak, peak, and post-peak stress changes in rock mass. The presented method used AE monitoring data to back-calculate parameters, such as uniaxial compressive strength and the rock mass deformation modulus. The AE initiation threshold was used to develop an objective function that considered the stress in the rock mass and the rock mass strength. The findings of this research propose that most AE events can be related to the crack initiation threshold, and in space, most of them are located at points away from the excavated walls. In the vicinity of the excavation damage zones around the cavities, the stress conditions beyond the crack damage boundary of the rock mass occur in many areas, leading to significant irreversible deformations. This novel method was demonstrated to aid in the prediction of rock mass strength and is a valuable, non-invasive method for improving the spatial prediction of rock mass parameters, which will lead to safer underground storage facilities.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207