Shear Strength of a Cemented Paste Backfill Submitted to High Confining Pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep mining operations require special measures in order to keep safe and economic aspects. After mine ore is extracted, voids are created and need to be filled with high-strength, low-cost materials. Cemented Paste Backfill (CPB) has recently become one of the main alternatives in filling stopes. Although numerous papers have mentioned the magnitudes of the strength of this material, its behavior under high confining pressures is still not well understood. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to increase the knowledge regarding the CPB behavior. Triaxial compression tests were performed using a Hoek Cell and Load Frame System under high confining pressures. Samples with two different binder contents were used in order to obtain the CPB strength improvement. Besides the self-weight consolidation curing method, samples were subjected to a different curing method that simulated a zero gravity condition (rotating wheel) in the first curing day to compare their mixture properties. The results suggested that both curing method and binder content have influenced the geomechanical properties of Cemented Paste Backfill. By increasing the curing time, the CPB shear strength has increased slightly, whereas specimens with higher binder content presented a significant increase in shear strength values.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".