Dynamic tests of cemented paste backfill: effects of strain rate, curing time, and cement content on compressive strength
Source abstract
Abstract
This article investigates the compressive strength of cemented paste backfill (CPB) under dynamic loading. To accommodate the low impedance CPB, a modified split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) system is adopted. In contrast to traditional solid steel transmitted bar, a hollow aluminum transmitted bar is introduced to reduce the impedance. With this system, the dynamic stress equilibrium is achieved, which guarantees the valid dynamic material testing condition. The dynamic tests are conducted for CPB with different cement contents and curing time. It is observed that: (1) for CPB with the same curing time and cement content, the dynamic strength increases with the strain rate, (2) for CPB with the same cement content, the dynamic strength increases with the curing time, and (3) for CPB with the same curing time and tested under similar strain rate, the dynamic strength increases with the percentage of cement. This observation can be understood by considering the hydration process of cements.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Tailings Management and Properties · Rock Mechanics and Modeling · Geotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (21)
Show source-provided references
1. Belem T, Benzaazoua M (2004) In: Villaescusa and Potvin (eds) The 5th International Symposium on Ground Support in Mining and Underground Construction. Taylor & Francis Group, Perth, Australia, p 637
2. Landriault D, Lidkea W (1993) In: Bawden and Archibald (eds) Innovative mine design for the 21st century: Proceedings of the International Congress on Mine Design, Kingston, Canada, p 111
3. Kesimal A, Yilmaz E, Ercikdi B (2004) Cem Concr Res 34:181710.1016/j.cemconres.2004.01.018 ↗
4. Kesimal A, Yilmaz E, Ercikdi B, Alp I, Deveci H (2005) Mater Lett 59:370310.1016/j.matlet.2005.06.042 ↗
5. Klein K, Simon D (2006) Can Geotech J 43:31010.1139/t06-005 ↗
6. Fall M, Belem T, Samb S, Benzaazoua M (2007) J Mater Sci 42:3914. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-006-0403-210.1007/s10853-006-0403-2 ↗
7. Chong KP, Hoyt PM, Smith JW, Paulsen BY (1980) Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 17:3510.1016/0148-9062(80)90004-2 ↗
8. Cai M, Kaiser PK, Suorineni F, Su K (2007) Phys Chem Earth 32:90710.1016/j.pce.2006.03.007 ↗
9. Kaiser PK, McCreath DR, Tannant DD (1996) Rockburst research handbook. CAMIRO Mining Division, Sudbury
10. Kolsky H (1949) Proc R Soc A B62:676
11. Nemat-Nasser S (2000) In: Kuhn H and Medlin D (eds) ASM metals handbook, vol 8: mechanical testing and evaluation. ASM International, Materials Park, p 3
12. Chen W, Zhang B, Forrestal MJ (1999) Exp Mech 39:8110.1007/BF02331109 ↗
13. Luo H, Lu H, Leventis N (2006) Mech Time-Depend Mater 10:8310.1007/s11043-006-9015-0 ↗
14. Mulliken AD, Boyce MC (2006) Int J Solid Struct 43:133110.1016/j.ijsolstr.2005.04.016 ↗
15. Li QM, Meng H (2003) Int J Solid Struct 40:34310.1016/S0020-7683(02)00526-7 ↗
16. Forrestal MJ, Wright TW, Chen W (2007) Int J Impact Eng 34:40510.1016/j.ijimpeng.2005.12.001 ↗
17. Chen W, Lu F, Frew DJ, Forrestal MJ (2002) J Appl Mech 69:21410.1115/1.1464871 ↗
18. Frew DJ, Forrestal MJ, Chen W (2002) Exp Mech 42:9310.1007/BF02411056 ↗
19. Fu HC, Erki MA, Seckin M (1991) J Struct Eng 117:364510.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1991)117:12(3645) ↗
20. Bischoff PH, Perry SH (1991) Mater Struct 24:42510.1007/BF02472016 ↗
21. Ercikdi B, Kesimal A, Cihangir F, Deveci H, Alp I (2009) Cem Concr Res 31:26810.1016/j.cemconcomp.2009.01.008 ↗