Comparison of existing joint orientation parameters and their effect on rock erodibility in dam spillways
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rock mass erosion in unlined spillways causes significant structural damage and necessitates expensive repairs. The rock mass is made up of blocks formed by various arrangements of joint sets. The volume and the protrusion of these blocks, as well as the orientation, opening and roughness of the joints, are all features that can affect rock erodibility. Most of these features are incorporated in parameters developed for rock mass characterization. Three joint orientation parameters are compared in this article using a database containing geological and hydraulic information on scoured spillways. According to the detailed method, data are first classified according to rock quality using the Geological Strength Index obtained with the chart suggested by Marinos and Hoek (GSI chart ). Then, for each GSI chart class, data are distributed according to the damage level, stream power and joint orientation parameter chosen. This study shows that no joint orientation parameter is currently able to accurately represent the effect of joint orientation on erosion of excellent- to poor-quality rock mass. Moreover, this study shows that the GSI chart index is not a rock quality index that completely evaluates rock erosion, as some relevant parameters for evaluating rock erodibility are not considered.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".