An Investigation of the Uniaxial Compressive Strength of a Cemented Hydraulic Backfill Made of Alluvial Sand
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Backfill is commonly used in underground mines. The quality control of the backfill is a key step to ensure it meets the designed strength requirement. This is done through sample collection from the underground environment, followed by uniaxial compression tests to obtain the Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) in the laboratory. When the cylindrical cemented backfill samples are axially loaded to failure, several failure modes can be observed and mainly classified into diagonal shear failure and axial split failure. To date, the UCS obtained by these two failure modes are considered to be the same with no distinction between them. In this paper, an analysis of the UCS results obtained on a cemented hydraulic backfill made of alluvial sand at a Canadian underground mine over the course of more than three years is presented. The results show that the UCS values obtained by diagonal shear failure are generally higher than those obtained by axial split failure for samples with the same recipe and curing time. This highlights the importance of making a distinction between the UCS values obtained by the two different modes of failure. Their difference in failure mechanism is explained. Further investigations on the sources of the data dispersion tend to indicate that the UCS obtained by laboratory tests following the current practice may not be representative of the in-situ strength distribution in the underground stopes due to segregation in cemented hydraulic backfill.
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.
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 it