MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Study on impermeability of fly ash sand-based sealing wall under CO2 gas storage in strip backfilling goaf

2025· article· en· W6941855653 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsCanada Energy Regulator
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermeationPorosityFly ashPermeability (electromagnetism)CoalMethaneGypsum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using the remaining space of the gob after strip filling to carry out large-scale storage of CO2 gas is an ideal model to achieve green and low carbon construction in the large coal power base in northwest China. The impermeability of the goaf sealing wall to prevent the horizontal escape of CO2 gas is the key to the success or failure of this project. Taking the Zhundong II Mine in the Junggar Desertified Mining Area, Xinjiang, as the engineering background. Through high-pressure permeability experiments, phenolphthalein titration experiments, XRD diffraction experiments, SEM electron microscopy experiments and COMSOL numerical simulation, the 28-day permeation process of CO2 gas at 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 and 1.0 MPa in the fly ash sand-based specimens with a mass ratio of 23 (windblown sand)∶11 (fly ash)∶2 (quicklime)∶1 (gypsum) was studied. The results show that: ① The permeation rate of CO2 gas in the specimens gradually decreases with the permeation time. The permeation depths at 28 days under the five pressures are 1.49, 2.40 , 3.20, 4.0 and 4.77 cm, respectively; ② The porosity and permeability of the fly ash sand-based specimens also show a negative exponential trend of decrease during the CO2 gas permeation process. The porosity and permeability at 28 days under the five pressures are 30.44% and 5.94×10−15 m2, 29.44% and 5.70×10−15 m2, 29.03% and 5.57×10−15 m2, 28.13% and 5.23×10−15 m2, and 27.02% and 4.95×10−15 m2, respectively; ③ During the permeation process of CO2 gas in the fly ash sand-based specimens, needle-like and flocculent CaCO3 crystals are formed, and the unit cell volume of CaCO3 is 1.15 times larger than that of Ca(OH)2, making the specimens more compact; ④ By dynamically assigning the permeability of the material before and after carbonization, it is simulated that the depth distances of CO2 gas in the fly ash sand-based sealing wall at 3 years under the five pressures are 0.606, 0.921, 1.172, 1.465 and 1.800 m, respectively. Finally, based on the engineering geological conditions of the Zhundong No.2 Mine coal-power base in Xinjiang's desertified mining area, this study focuses on the design of construction process parameters for sealing walls in goaf areas, providing reference for the green mining and low-carbon utilization of coal resources in the desertified mining areas in the northwest of China.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.197
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions→French-language works237,207→