MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7086932048 · doi:10.18280/acsm.490403

Parametric Study and Optimization of Longitudinal Bolting in Tunnel Face Reinforcement

2025· article· en· W7086932048 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales de Chimie Science des Matériaux · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoltingFace (sociological concept)Parametric statisticsReinforcementControl theory (sociology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Longitudinal bolting has emerged as an effective pre-confinement technique to reinforce tunnel faces, offering advantages over alternative methods by directly enhancing stability in the excavation direction and improving load transfer to the surrounding ground.Despite its practical use, the influence of key design parameters remains insufficiently quantified for optimization.This study addresses this gap through a three-dimensional numerical model that incorporates soil-bolt interaction, with the soil represented by the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion and the bolts modeled as linear elastic elements.A systematic parametric study was performed to evaluate the effects of bolt density, embedded length, axial stiffness, and soil strength on tunnel face stability.The results demonstrate that increasing bolt density significantly reduces face extrusion and axial displacement, although the rate of improvement diminishes beyond 0.25 bolts/m .Force distribution analysis revealed three distinct zones: confinement (0-0.5R),anchorage (0.5R-2.5R), and inert (>2.5R).The factor of safety was shown to reach its optimum at a bolting density of 0.25 bolts/m , providing a balance between reinforcement efficiency and material economy.These findings not only clarify the mechanisms governing longitudinal bolting efficiency but also deliver practical guidelines for the design and optimization of tunnel face reinforcement systems.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.292
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.243 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnales de Chimie Science des MatériauxSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207