A solution to estimate the total and effective stresses in backfilled stopes with an impervious base during the filling operation of cohesionless backfill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Mining backfill is commonly used in underground mines. A critical concern of this practice is to evaluate the pressures and total stresses in backfilled stopes to ensure a safe and economic design of barricades, constructed to retain the backfill. When a slurried backfill is placed in a mine stope, excess pore water pressure (PWP) can instantaneously generate and progressively dissipate. The dissipation of the excess PWP and consolidation lead to the development of effective stresses, which in turn lead to an arching effect in the backfilled stope. Until now, arching effect has been largely considered for stress estimation in dry or submerged backfill. The former corresponds to the final state at the end process of the drainage and consolidation of the backfill with a pervious while the latter with an impervious barricade. However, previous studies have shown that the most critical moment for the stability of barricades is during the stope filling. Therefore, the design of barricades requires a proper estimation of the pressure and total stresses during the filling operation. This in turn needs joint consideration of the arching effect and consolidation of the backfill. In this paper, a new solution is developed to evaluate the pressures and stresses in backfilled stopes during the filling operation of cohesionless backfill by considering the self‐weight consolidation and arching effect. The proposed solution is validated by numerical modeling with Plaxis2D. It can thus be used to evaluate the pressures and stresses in backfilled stopes during the stope filling with an impervious barricade.
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".