4.7 Article

Evaluation of static segregation of cemented gangue-fly ash backfill material using electrical resistivity method

期刊

MEASUREMENT
卷 154, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.measurement.2020.107483

关键词

Cemented gangue-fly ash backfill material; Static segregation; Electrical resistivity method; Bleeding; Image analysis

资金

  1. Joint Funds of the National Natural Science Foundation of China, China [U1710258, U1810120]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China, China [51574172, 51804208]
  3. Key Technologies Research and Development Coal-Based Program of Shanxi Province, China [MQ2014-12]
  4. Key Research and Development Program (social development) of Shanxi Province, China [201803D31044]
  5. Program for Innovative Talents of Science and Technology in Shanxi Province, China [201605D211003]
  6. Research Fund of The State Key Laboratory of Coal Resources and Safe Mining, CUMT, China [SKLCRSM18KF016]
  7. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation, China [2018M632423]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Static segregation of a cemented gangue-fly ash backfill material (CGFBM) presents a harmful impact on its mechanical and pipeline transportation performances. To evaluate the static segregation of a CGFBM in real time, electrical resistivity (ER) method is proposed by monitoring the ER change at different depths. The static stabilities of various mixtures with different mass concentrations of 74%, 76%, 78%, 80%, and 82% are evaluated in terms of the ER characteristics and derived segregation index (SI). Results showed that: for mixtures with relatively low mass concentrations (74% and 76%), the SI gradually decreases with increasing elapsed time after casting. 0.85 is the critical value. The CGFBM with a SI smaller and larger than 0.85 can be considered to have a low and high stability, respectively. The feasibility of the ER method is verified by bleeding test and image analysis method. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据