Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of a rock reinforcement system is a function of successfully matching a rockbolt to ground conditions and the quality of installation. In very heavily fractured ground, the installation of resin or cementitious grouted rockbolts can be challenging. This is due to resin losses within the fractures and voids surrounding the borehole, as well as ‘blown out’ holes and hole closures. Poor installation can result in quality issues which may prevent a ground support system from achieving its specified performance requirements. In adverse ground conditions, where it is difficult to install grouted rockbolts, a mechanical hybrid rockbolt may provide an alternative. The typical configuration of a mechanical hybrid rockbolt is a steel tendon mechanically anchored within a friction rock stabiliser. The rockbolt is installed using a percussion force applied by the rockdrill, and the mechanical anchor is subsequently activated using rotation. This installation process improves the rockbolt’s resilience to hole closures. The absence of a chemical anchoring medium in this configuration reduces the impact of fractures and voids on the performance of the rockbolt. Recent work has focused on quantifying the performance of a mechanical hybrid rockbolt when subjected to a pull or impact test. These investigations employed testing configurations where the loading was applied to the thread of the tendon, or the plate affixed to the tendon. Scant information is available on the performance of mechanical hybrid rockbolts when the rockbolt is subjected to either an axial or shear indirect loading case, which are common in fractured rock masses. This paper describes the methodology and the results of an investigation into the performance of the mechanical hybrid rockbolt when subjected to indirect axial pull testing and shear loading. The investigation was conducted under laboratory-controlled conditions and resulted in consistent and repeatable results.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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.
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".