Pore-water pressure and liquefaction response of layered fine soils undergoing cementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cemented paste backfill (CPB) is fine-grained soil undergoing cementation. It is widely used in mining operations for ground support and tailings disposal. In the field, CPB may be placed in one layer (continuous filing), or multiple layers (discontinuous or sequential filling). Until now, no studies have addressed the effect of the different filling strategies on the CPB response during cyclic events by using the shaking table technique. This paper presents new findings regarding the effect of the different filling strategies of CPB on its geotechnical response to dynamic loading. Samples were prepared with different scenarios, including one layered-CPB sample (discontinuous filling), in which each layer was cured for a different duration, and two unlayered-CPB samples (continuous filling), one of which was cured for 2.5 h and the other for 4.0 h. All samples were exposed to the same cyclic loading conditions using a one-dimensional shaking table. Geotechnical parameters, including pore-water pressure, settlement, volumetric water content and liquefaction susceptibility, were monitored or determined before, during and after shaking. The results indicate that layered-CPB samples are resistant to liquefaction under the studied loading conditions, while the unlayered-CPB samples are prone to liquefaction under the studied conditions when they are cured for less than 4.0 h.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".