A state‐of‐the‐art review on delayed expansion of cemented paste backfill materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Utilizing delayed expansion cemented paste backfill materials (DECPB) in mine backfill operations offers an effective solution to the challenge of achieving proper contact between the in‐situ cemented backfill mass and the roof in mined‐out areas (backfill‐roof contact). This article presents recent progress in both theoretical and experimental research concerning DECPB. The types and mechanisms of expansive additives, including expansive agents, foaming agents, and expansive mineral materials relevant to DECPB, are explained, along with their impact on the expansive properties and mechanical characteristics of DECPB. The composition, material characteristics, preparation methods, and controlled release mechanisms of microcapsules are analyzed. Two methods for measuring the volume change rate of paste backfill slurries are discussed. Research indicates that an appropriate content of expansive additives not only enhances the expansive properties of cemented paste backfill materials but also contributes to improving their mechanical properties. Chemical foaming agents and bentonite are found to be more suitable for preparing DECPB compared to expansive agents. The delayed expansion of cemented paste backfill material is influenced by microcapsules, with their wall materials, preparation parameters, and the alkaline slurry environment affecting their controlled release mechanism. Developing and optimizing precise measurement devices and methods forfor the volume change rate of cemented paste backfill materials is essential requirement for studying the performance of DECPB. Combining delayed expansion technology with retarding techniques in cemented paste backfill materials can provide a reliable solution for achieving proper backfill‐roof contact in the future.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".