Determining rock erodibility parameter « relative block \nstructure » for non-perpendicular hydraulic flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most commonly used method for assessing the hydraulic erodibility of rock is the Annandale’s method. This method is based on a correlation between the force of flowing water and the capacity of rock resistance. This capacity is evaluated using the Kirsten’s index which was initially developed to evaluate the excavatability of earth materials. This index is determined according to certain geomechanical factors, such as the compressive strength of intact rock, the rock block size, the discontinuities shear strength and the relative block structure. This last characteristic represents the required effort to erode the rock and, it can be quantified considering the shape and orientation of the blocks. To determine the relative rock structure in the field, the dip and dip direction of closer spaced joint set, as well as the ratio of joints spacingare required. It is found that the Kirsten’s concept can be applied only when the direction of flow is perpendicular to the strike of closer spaced joint set. Adjustments are introduced to Kirsten's initial concept concerning the relative block structure parameter. Thus, two equations are proposed which were used to propose a rating for the relative block structure parameter for a case example with non-perpendicular flow. \n \nLa méthode la plus utilisée en pratique pour l’évaluation de l’érodabilité hydraulique du roc est celle d’Annandale. Celle-ci se base sur une corrélation entre la force érosive de l’eau et la capacité de résistance du roc. Cette capacité est évaluée à l'aide de l’indice de Kirsten initialement développé pour évaluer l’excavabilité des matériaux. Cet indice est déterminé en fonction de certaines caractéristiques géomécaniques telles que la résistance matricielle de la roche intacte, la taille des blocs, la résistance au cisaillement des discontinuités et la structure relative des blocs. Cette dernière caractéristique représente l’effort requis pour que le roc soit érodé et, elle peut être quantifiée en considérant la forme et l’orientation des blocs. En pratique, elle se détermine en fonction du pendage et la direction du pendage de la famille des joints les moins espacés, ainsi que le ratio d’espacement des joints. Il est observé que le concept de Kirsten n’est valide que lorsque l’écoulement est perpendiculaire à l’azimut de la famille des joints les moins espacés. Des ajustements sont introduits sur le concept initial de Kirsten concernant la structure relative des blocs. Ainsi, deux équations sont proposées et utilisées pour générer des pondérations de la structure relative des blocs pour un exemple de cas avec un écoulement nonperpendiculaire.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".