MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283011553 · doi:10.3390/min12060763

Expansion Properties of Cemented Foam Backfill Utilizing Coal Gangue and Fly Ash

2022· article· en· W4283011553 on OpenAlexaff
Xiao Wang, Jixiong Zhang, Meng Li, Feng Gao, Abbas Taheri, Binbin Huo, Ling Jin

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerals · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTailings Management and Properties
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersChina University of Mining and TechnologyNatural Science Foundation of Jiangsu ProvinceGovernment of Jiangsu ProvinceNational Science Fund for Distinguished Young ScholarsChina Postdoctoral Science FoundationNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCarbonationFly ashMaterials scienceCementVolume (thermodynamics)Compressive strengthFoaming agentGangueEttringiteCoalComposite materialBrittlenessLimeSlurryMetallurgyWaste managementPortland cementPorosity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cemented backfill (CB) utilizing coal gangue (CG) and fly ash (FA) is widely applied in coal mines. However, the bleeding and shrinkage of CB leads to insufficient contact with surrounding rock, which is not beneficial for controlling roof subsidence and even stope stability. Herein, a cemented foam backfill (CFB) formulation is demonstrated, employing hydrogen dioxide (H2O2) as a chemical foaming agent. The cement and FA show noticeable inhibiting effects on volume expansion due to the network formed by their hydrates. Moderately lower cement, FA, and solid concentration are beneficial to improve volume increment and prolong expanding duration. A foaming coefficient (k) is proposed in theory to evaluate the foaming efficiency. The kem values, determined by volume evolution experiments of CFB slurries, provide a calculation basis for the needed dosage of H2O2 solution targeting specific volume increment. CFB specimens with expanding ratios of 21%~103% and densities of 994~592 kg/cm3 were prepared, with an actual foaming coefficient of 52.40 cm3/g and uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of 0.32~0.55 MPa. The mass of H2O2 solution was 1.9%~11.3% of cement and 0.29%~1.67% of total solid materials by weight. The UCS decline compared to CB was attributed to rich pores observed by CT and carbonation indicated by X-ray diffraction (XRD).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMineralsSame topicTailings Management and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207