Cemented Paste Backfill (CPB) Material Properties for Undercut Analysis

Abstract

A longstanding mine backfill design challenge is determining the strength required if the (partially) cured backfill is subsequently undercut. Mitchell (1991) called the undercut backfill a sill mat and proposed an analytical solution that is still often used, at least for preliminary design, and has motivated subsequent empirical design methods. However, fully employing the Mitchell sill mat solution requires knowledge of the backfill material’s Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS), tangent Young’s modulus (Et), tensile strength (σt), as well as estimates of stope wall closure. Conducting a high-quality UCS test poses challenges but relating the test result to the remaining material parameters is more difficult. Some new material testing data is presented and compared to available published results. Using the parameter mi=UCS/σt the range of available testing data is found to be mi= 3 to 22, however, the most compelling data is obtained when the Mohr’s failure circle in tension is tangential to the corresponding Mohr–Coulomb failure envelope determined from other strength tests. In these cases, the value mi= 4 is found for the materials tested, which is much lower than the value mi= 10 commonly assumed and implies a limiting UCS 60% lower compared to the conventional assumption. It is also found that the relationship between Et and UCS is described by a power function that is close to linear, but the values for the constant and exponent in the power function depend on the material tested. However, for given tailings the power function is found to be independent of void ratio, binder type or concentration, curing time, and water salinity, within the ranges these parameters were investigated. Therefore, when Et is used in the Mitchell sill mat solution it should be correlated with the UCS using the appropriate power function. These correlations are then used with the Mitchell sill mat solution and published measurements of backfill closure strains to estimate the Mitchell solution’s range of applicability based on its underlying assumptions, and a similar analysis is extended to an “empirical design method” motivated by the Mitchell sill mat solution. It is demonstrated that these existing approaches have limited applicability, and more generally a full analysis in support of rational design will require numerical modeling that incorporates the effect of confining stress on the material’s stiffness and mobilized strength.

Cemented paste backfill strength profiles for continuous pouring and liquefaction resistance

“…Generally, this approach requires careful QA/QC processes, and Grabinsky et al (2022) have reviewed the early-age strength assessment of CPB. It should also be emphasised that this method is an analytical framework to define adequate CPB early-age strength for safe backfilling, calibrated using fieldwork data.…”

“…Of the three most common backfill forms, i.e., cemented paste backfill (CPB), cemented hydraulic fill (CHF), and cemented rock fill (CRF), CPB is currently preferred owing to its relatively fast delivery rate, the potential to tight fill the stope, and the opportunity to reuse the mine's generated tailings to the greatest extent possible, which then reduces the volume of waste materials reporting to surface disposal sites. CPB's Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) in the range of 10 2 to 10 3 kPa have been reported, with the highest UCS being about 5 MPa for Lucky Friday Mine and 6 MPa for Kidd Mine (which blends paste with esker sand to achieve higher densities) (Grabinsky et al 2022). The opposite extreme timeframe from a design perspective occurs when the fresh CPB is deposited into the stope.…”