2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultras.2013.04.013
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Strength and ultrasonic properties of cemented paste backfill

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
37
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 107 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
37
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…As low as 7° internal friction angle was measured from 360 days curing CPB specimens with 5% cement ratio. Mixes with silt dominant particle size distribution, ∼77% solid (cement+tailings) content including 5-7% cement in solid and ∼23% water content by weight, which were tested in this study are typical CPB materials [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]. As 25 o was found to be a practically acceptable value of internal friction angle for CPB materials having no longer curing time than the period for start of the sulphate attack, cohesion values of CPB materials can be estimated using Equation 3 for different UCS values.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As low as 7° internal friction angle was measured from 360 days curing CPB specimens with 5% cement ratio. Mixes with silt dominant particle size distribution, ∼77% solid (cement+tailings) content including 5-7% cement in solid and ∼23% water content by weight, which were tested in this study are typical CPB materials [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]. As 25 o was found to be a practically acceptable value of internal friction angle for CPB materials having no longer curing time than the period for start of the sulphate attack, cohesion values of CPB materials can be estimated using Equation 3 for different UCS values.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some physical techniques have been used for evaluating the quality and predicting the strength of cementitious materials such as concrete, cement paste backfill (CPB), and soilcrete. Nondestructive techniques (NDTs) were used for estimating the strength of CPB . Cheng et al characterized the geometry and quality of soilcrete by acoustic tomography technology .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nondestructive techniques (NDTs) were used for estimating the strength of CPB. [18][19][20] Cheng et al characterized the geometry and quality of soilcrete by acoustic tomography technology. 21,22 Pereira et al assessed the compressive strength and variability of concrete using ultrasonic testing.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Yilmaz et al [32,33] observed that longer curing time and lower water-to-cement (w/c) ratio result in lower total porosity and higher UCS. The UCS and ultrasonic pulse velocity of CPB increase with increasing binder dosage and reduce with the w/c ratio regardless of sample size and tailings type [34]. Huang et al [35] examined the effect of cement content, curing time and strain rate on the dynamic strength of CPB.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%