MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3145096650 · doi:10.82308/20299

Laboratory investigation into soundless chemical demolition agents for rock breakage in underground mines

2019· article· en· W3145096650 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Kelly-Meriam Habib

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeomechanics and Mining Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsDemolitionBreakageMining engineeringGeologyUnderground mining (soft rock)Forensic engineeringEngineeringWaste managementCoal miningCivil engineeringComputer scienceCoal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The method of drilling and blasting with explosives is widely used in the mining industry for mine development and ore production. However, the use of explosives is associated with rigorous safety and environmental constraints as blasting creates toxic fumes, ground vibrations and dust. The following study is conducted on Soundless, Explosive-Free Chemical Demolition Agents (SCDAs), a more environmentally friendly method for the fragmentation of rock as a potential replacement of explosives. SCDAs are powdery materials similar to Portland cement, which when mixed as a slurry and poured into blind drilled holes, an expansive pressure is produced upon curing and eventually breaks the material apart. Given that SCDAs are commercially available, there is proof of workability in civil engineering applications for the breakage of concrete foundations. SCDAs are commonly used in the demolition of concrete foundations as well as in stone quarries where the use of explosives is either restricted or prohibited. An interest is drawn towards SCDAs due to its environmental advantages which mitigate the risk of explosives. This study is a step in investigating its workability in hard rock mine development and production where the rock is subjected to high in-situ confinement pressure which would make rock breakage cumbersome. A drawback of the SCDAs is that the time needed to develop the full expansive pressure is too long for practical mine development applications. The primary goal of the study is to accelerate the expansion rate of SCDAs as one of the steps towards development of a feasible method of rock breakage in underground mines. The SCDA used in this investigation is Betonamit, a commercially available expansive cement. The experimental investigation was conducted in the Rockbolting Lab of the Mine Design Laboratory. This study is an extension of the work previously conducted by Musunnuri & Mitri (2009) and Dessouki & Mitri (2011) in the Mine Design Laboratory of McGill University.The factors investigated are: the expansive pressure, expansive pressure rate, and fractural growth on concrete blocks. The effect of chemical additives on expansive pressure is investigated with the goal to reduce the time of expansion. Common concrete accelerators including calcium chloride, sodium chloride, calcium formate, and sodium were investigated.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicGeomechanics and Mining EngineeringFrench-language works237,207