MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3020847374 · doi:10.1186/s40069-020-0398-0

Numerical Simulation of Consolidation Behavior of Large Hydrating Fill Mass

2020· article· en· W3020847374 on OpenAlexafffund
Liang Cui, Mamadou Fall

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTailings Management and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsConsolidation (business)Rock mass classificationMultiphysicsGeotechnical engineeringMaterials scienceCuring (chemistry)EngineeringComposite materialFinite element methodStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Underground mined-out voids need to be backfilled for the stability of the surrounding rock and also to increase ore extraction from adjacent pillars. One of the relatively newer means is cemented paste backfilling, which has been extensively adopted in underground mining operations around the world. During and after the placement of cemented paste backfill (CPB) into stopes, complex multiphysics (thermal, hydraulic, mechanical and chemical) processes take place in the large mass of CPB and could affect its consolidation behavior. An analysis of the consolidation process in CPB mass is essential for the assessment of CPB behavior and cost-effective designs in practice. In this paper, multiphysics simulation of the consolidation behavior of CPB mass is performed under different conditions, including the mixture recipe, and backfilling, drainage, surrounding rock and curing conditions. It is found that the in situ consolidation behavior of CPB structures is a function of the multiphysics processes that occur in the cementing backfill mass. Moreover, the rock mass conditions, including the geometry and rock wall roughness, influence the consolidation process of CPB structures. Cement content, curing time and backfilling rate play a crucial role in the consolidation process of CPB. The obtained results can facilitate a better understanding of the consolidation behaviour of CPB for backfill designers and engineers, and thus contribute to enhance the engineering of CPB structures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Concrete Structures and MaterialsSame topicTailings Management and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207