Strength Development and Microstructure Evolution of Cemented Tailings Backfill Containing Different Binder Types and Contents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The microstructure evolution and strength development of cemented tailings backfill (CTB), mixed with plant tailings and cement, is critical to a more thorough and complete understanding of its functionality as a support structure in underground mining operations. Here, an experimental study is conducted to investigate the effect of the solid contents of tailings, binder proportion, and type of cement reagent on unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and microstructure evolution with respect to a 90-day curing time. The results indicate that the mechanical strength gain is proportionally associated with increased binder and solid content. Besides, the samples prepared with 70 wt % solid content and a 25 wt % binder/tailings ratio have a maximum UCS of 6.26 MPa at a curing time of 90 days. In addition, it is also concluded that the binder proportion promotes the strength acquisition of CTB samples. Specifically, the 90-day UCS of the CTB with solid content of 68 wt % and binder content of 25 wt % is approximately twice that of the CTB with a 12.5 wt % binder proportion. Slag cement (Binder B1) and slag cement with 5 wt % NaOH (Binder B2) are used as admixture to replace the cement reagent; the results show that Binder B2 has more advantages than Binder B1 and Portland cement, and is a suitable cementing material for the CTB technology in the Daye Iron Mine. The microstructure is dominated by the network of hydration products and distribution of the pore, and hydrated material is significantly influenced by the curing time. The tailings particles are enclosed by the hydration products, and randomly disperse within their matrix at curing time of 90 days. Finally, the UCSs of CTB samples are observed to significantly increase with the increase in the curing time.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".