Cemented paste backfill strength profiles for continuous pouring and liquefaction resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current practice for backfilling tall stopes (e.g., long hole or Alimak) with cemented paste backfill (CPB) involves an initial plug pour to protect the barricade, followed by a main pour for the remaining stope. Many mines use higher binder content in the plug to accelerate curing time, supporting continuous pouring (i.e., no plug cure time before starting the main pour). An analytical solution to assess the required plug strength for continuous pours was recently proposed in a paper by Grabinsky et al. (2021). Similarly, various heuristics have been published suggesting a minimum Unconfined Compressive Strength will be sufficient to prevent CPB liquefaction under even the most implausible extreme loading events. However, practising mining engineers would benefit from a more straightforward design approach to assess the suitability of their backfill’s evolving strength in continuous pour and liquefaction resistance design issues. To this end, the authors have found it useful to consider the concept of a Strength Profile with depth in the plug, recognising that this Strength Profile is transient (i.e., changing with time) and must be considered for different critical stages of the plug pour and main pour. The Strength Profile design concept is explained in this paper and demonstrated using key case histories from mines where the backfill was previously monitored during continuous pouring and where the backfill materials were extensively characterised in the laboratory.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".