MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7053286216

Using Tunnel Boring Machine Penetration Tests to Quantify Performance in Hard Rock

2019· other· en· W7053286216 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Canterbury Research Repository (University of Canterbury) · 2019
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle Accelerators and Free-Electron Lasers
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTunnel boring machineThrustExcavationPenetration ratePenetration (warfare)Penetration test
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tunnel boring machine (TBM) penetration tests entail incrementally increasing TBM thrust from full stop to maximum speed and recording the penetration rate either at set thrust levels or at set times. TBM penetration test data can be analysed by plotting the penetration rate (distance/revolution) against the net cutter thrust (force per cutter) over the full range of thrust levels in the test, called the penetration-thrust graph. This research shows that the transition from excavation dominated by grinding to excavation dominated by chipping can be observed in penetration-thrust graphs. Correlating penetration test data to the geological and geomechanical characteristics of rock masses through which a penetration test is conducted provides the ability to reveal the efficiency of the chipping process in response to changing geological conditions. By analysing penetration test data from projects in the Swiss Alps, and published data from Singapore, this research shows that the strength of the rock is an important control on how much net cutter thrust is required to transition from grinding to chipping. It also shows that the geological characteristics of a rock will determine how efficiently chipping occurs once it has begun. In particular, geological characteristics that lead to efficient fracture propagation, such as fabric and mica content, will lead to efficient chipping. These findings will enable a better correlation between TBM performance and geological conditions for use in TBM design, as a basis for contractual payments where penetration rate dominates the excavation cycle and in further academic investigations into the TBM excavation process.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.599
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Canterbury Research Repository (University of Canterbury)Same topicParticle Accelerators and Free-Electron LasersFrench-language works237,207