A numerical analysis of the stress distribution in backfilled stopes considering nonplanar interfaces between the backfill and rock walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimation of stresses in backfilled stopes is a critical issue for backfill design in underground mines. This task can be accomplished by numerical modeling. To date, most numerical modelings were performed without considering interface elements between the backfill and rock walls. The few published works using planar fill–wall interfaces showed that the stress states can be different than those obtained by numerical modeling without considering interface elements, especially when the shear strength of the planar interfaces is lower than that of the backfill. This tends to indicate that the stress estimation in backfilled stopes must be made by accounting for the (planar) fill–wall interfaces. In practice, blasting is commonly used in hard rock mines, and the stope walls are seldom regular and planar. Consequently, it is expected to be more appropriate to analyze the mechanical behavior of the backfill by considering nonplanar interfaces. In this paper, the stress distributions along the vertical central line of 2D backfilled stopes are analyzed using FLAC3D by considering nonplanar interface elements. The asperities of nonplanar interfaces are idealized by saw teeth and the roughness of interfaces is characterized by the teeth height and angle. The numerical results show that the stress state within backfilled stopes can be largely dependent on the shear strength and geometry of the interfaces. This indicates that a survey of the actual rock wall faces should be made and taken into account in the numerical modelings to obtain a better estimate of the stresses in the backfilled stopes. Nevertheless, the results further show that the numerical modelings using planar fill–wall contacts without interface elements lead to comparable stress distributions as those obtained by considering nonplanar interface elements when the interfaces are rough enough. More results are presented by considering different stope geometries and mechanical properties of the backfill with nonplanar interface elements.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".