Determination of the relationship between direct tensile test and Brazilian splitting test of cemented tailings backfill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cemented tailings backfill (CTB) is an artificial structure that provides ground support for the mining structure in the cut-and-fill mining method. The stability of CTB has a bearing on safe and economical production in mines. Tensile strength is an important design parameter that affects the quality of CTB. The Brazilian splitting test (BT) operation is more convenient but the accuracy of results is insufficient. The direct tensile test (DTT), the results of which are accurate though the test threshold is high, can be used to determine the tensile strength of CTB. Therefore, by determining the differences between the results of the two test methods, the tensile strength of CTB can be obtained more precisely using BT. In this study, DTT and BT were performed on CTB with various solid mass contents, binder contents and curing times. The findings demonstrated that, with only numerical differences, the tensile strength of CTB obtained from DTT and BT follows the same pattern of variation with binder content, solid mass content and curing period. The results of BT were lower than those of DTT because the Poisson effect reduces the tensile strength of the BT specimens. A linear fit between the DTT and BT results showed a strong linear correlation with a scale factor of 2.435. This study obtained the scale relationship between the DTT and BT results for the CTB at the test level. The study’s findings can serve as a guide for improving the quality assessments and strength designs of CTB in mines.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".