4.7 Article

Experimental investigation on the strength characteristics of cement paste backfill in a similar stope model and its mechanism

期刊

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
卷 154, 期 -, 页码 34-43

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.07.142

关键词

Cement paste backfill; Tailings; Strength; In situ; Sedimentation; Similar stope model

资金

  1. 12th Five Years Key Programs for Science and Technology Development of China [2012BAC09B02]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of Central South University [2016zzts092]
  3. China Scholarship Council (CSC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The strength comparison of cement paste backfill (CPB) in situ and laboratory exhibit contrary results both in some publications and case-based data. Based on this issue, this paper investigates the strength characteristics of CPB in a stope. A group of experiments in a large similar stope model (SSM) was designed for simulating the consolidation of CPB in a stope, then the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test on specimens cored in the different position of CPB sample in SSM was conducted. Moreover, macrostructure (high-definition photography and borehole imaging) and microstructure (scanning electron microscopy, SEM) were carried out to help to explain the mechanism. The results indicate that: (i) the strength presents a wave-type change along the horizontal flow direction of paste; (ii) in the gravity direction, the strength decreases gradually from the bottom to the top of the SSM, and there exists sharp changes at some top sections of the SSM; (iii) SEM analyses indicated that the specimens of higher strength showed more compact structure and denser hydration products of Aft, C-S-H and Ca (OH). The strength characteristics of CPB in SSM can be explained by sediment dynamics combined with the macrostructure, microstructure, and 4 strength zones can be concluded accordingly. The studies may guide both backfill study and design. (C) 2017 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