Investigation of Backfilling Step Effects on Stope Stability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cemented rock fill (CRF) is commonly used in cut-and-fill stoping operation in underground mining. This allows for the maximum recovery of ore. Backfilling can improve stope stability in underground workings, and then improve ground stability of the whole mine site. Backfilling step scenarios vary from site to site. This paper presents the investigation of five different backfilling step scenarios and their impacts on the stability of stopes at four different mining levels. A comprehensive comparison of displacements, major principal stress and stress concentration factor (SCF) was conducted. The results show that different backfilling step scenarios have little influence on the final displacement for displacement in the stopes. Among the five backfilling scenarios, the major principal stress and stress concentration factor (SCF) have almost the same final results. The backfilling scenario SCN-1 is the optimum option among these five backfilling scenarios. It can immediately prevent the increase of the displacement and reduce the sidewall stress concentration, thereby preventing possible failures. Using the same strength of CRF can achieve same effects among the four mining levels. Applying backfilling CRF of the same strength at different mining depths is acceptable and feasible to improve the stability of the stopes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".