See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281684538

Waste Rock Backfill of Open Pits: Design, Optimisation, and Modelling

Considerations

Conference Paper · October 2007

CITATION READS

1 1,746

2 authors, including:

Kenneth C. Carroll
New Mexico State University
77 PUBLICATIONS   808 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Characterization of the Vadose Zone View project

Facilitated Transport Enabled In Situ Chemical Oxidation of 1,4-Dioxane-Contaminated Groundwater View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kenneth C. Carroll on 04 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Waste Rock Backfill of Open Pits: Design, Optimisation, and Modelling
Considerations

B. Johnson Water Management Consultants, Inc. USA

K.C. Carroll Water Management Consultants, Inc. USA

Abstract
Open pit lakes are potential sources of contamination to groundwater, surface water, and the surrounding
ecological system. In dry climates many pit lakes act as passive hydraulic sinks, resulting in no discharge to
the surrounding aquifer. However, these lakes are still subjected to evapoconcentration and are exposed to
humans and wildlife habitats. Backfilling open pits above the water surface is one method of mitigating these
pit lake environmental issues. However, while backfilled pits result in no exposure to these habitats, there
may be discharge to groundwater because the hydraulic sink is eliminated.

Backfill designs may be optimised such that the exposed lake is eliminated but not the passive hydraulic sink.
Optimised backfilling of open pits is becoming an increasingly attractive closure option for mine operators
and regulators. For the mine operator, pit backfill could mean shortened and potentially less costly
downhill haulage routes, and a potential way to dispose of reactive (e.g., acid-generating) waste rock. For
regulators, pit backfill, if placed to optimised elevations, results in a long-term passive hydraulic sink (i.e.,
no discharge of impacted water to groundwater), and minimal surficial pit lake exposed to humans or
wildlife habitats.

This paper provides a summary of pit backfill closure design concepts. The designs are described in terms
of their potential to provide hydrologic and geochemical containment/isolation of pit lake/pore water
solutions. Finally, some tools are described that can be used to design and simulate the performance of
optimised pit backfill closures.

1 Introduction
The trend in hard rock mining continues to evolve toward the exploitation of lower-grade, higher tonnage,
sulphide deposits worldwide. The resulting open pits generally extend below the water table and fill with
water after operations cease. These future and existing pit lakes are becoming increasingly scrutinized by
regulators and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as a potential source of impacts to the environment.
In wet climates, pit lakes often discharge to surface water and groundwater with potential impacts to public
drinking water sources, aquatic life, wildlife, recreation, and other uses. In arid climates, while discharge to
external waters may be limited or non-existent, they may pose a threat to local wildlife and avian life.
Recent advances have resulted in pit management options that consider closure and environmental issues.
These options have included natural refilling (no action), rapid lake filling, sequential backfilling, and post-
mining backfilling (Parshley et al., 2006; Dowling et al., 2004; and Williams, 2006). Backfilling, or
deposition of mined materials in an open pit, has been considered as an option for passive treatment of pit
lakes and closure for open pit mines. Sequential backfilling occurs during operations with multiple pits by
backfilling a previously mined pit with material from a new pit, which decreases closure costs by installing
the closure facilities during operations and minimising haulage.
This paper describes pit and pit lake management strategies and methods that consider not only operational
and economic drivers but also environmental and closure requirements. Optimised, managed backfilling of
pits can be designed for any climate and hydrogeologic regime, as well as various mine types and their
potential liabilities (e.g. poor water quality, acid rock drainage). Finally, this paper describes some tools that
can be used to design and simulate the performance of optimised pit backfill closures.
2 Optimised backfill
Utilising backfilling from a closure standpoint involves evaluating the long-term impacts, sustainability of
environmental (and other) benefits, and the goals/requirements of the mine closure. The technical approach
of a long-term closure management plan utilising backfill is typically based on the following objectives:
1) Permanently cover and submerge as much of the reactive (i.e. sulphide) rock in the pit walls
as possible to minimise long-term oxidation.
2) Optimise the volume and placement of backfill such that the pits function as hydrologic
sinks with no net outflow, effectively preventing groundwater discharges.
3) Use passive treatment components to manage potential outflows and meet water quality
goals.
4) Design management options in a manner consistent with existing engineering limitations
and long-term geotechnical conditions.
Designs of open pit backfilling for mine closure generally include:
No backfill (with or without treatment) – pit refilling to form a pit lake without the addition of
backfill;
Partial (optimised) backfill – partial backfilling of the pit in order to eliminate the lake and
maintain a passive hydraulic sink in perpetuity;
Complete backfill – completely backfilling a pit with minimal or no pit walls exposed and the
surface of the backfill compacted to minimise infiltration,
Complete backfill with lime amendment – identical to the complete backfill option with solid-
phase lime addition to neutralise acidity generated from potentially available sulphide minerals.

2.1 No backfill scenario

Figure 1 shows a schematic of the no backfill scenario and the hydrologic and geochemical components.
The no backfill scenario is the “no action” approach, which may be used to evaluate potential impacts
associated with the development of a permanent pit lake after closure.
The no backfill scenario involves not backfilling the pit below the ultimate pit lake elevation. The pit lake
will fill naturally from pit wall runoff, groundwater inflow, and incident precipitation onto the lake surface.
The lake elevation will stabilise at an elevation where its surface area is large enough such that the
evaporative losses from the open water surface and other outflows equal the combined inflows to the lake.
In semi-arid and arid climates, this scenario generally results in a passive hydraulic sink such that there is no
outflow from the pit lake. Evaporation results in the increase through time of constituents in the pit lake
whose concentrations are not controlled by equilibrium with solid mineral phases (evapoconcentration).

2.2 Complete backfill

Figure 2 shows a schematic of the complete backfill scenario and the hydrologic and geochemical
components. Complete backfilling involves filling of the pit close to the pit rim, or at least above the
pre-mining groundwater elevation. Once the pit lake (as pore water) elevation equilibrates with the
piezometric surface surrounding outside of the pit, groundwater will flow through the backfill, rinsing the
material and potentially carrying dissolved solids back into the formation downgradient of the pit. Also,
precipitation that infiltrates into the backfill or along the contact of the backfill with the pit wall will rinse
and react with the backfill and report to the saturated pore water in the backfill. The quality of the backfill
material will determine its eventual impact on the backfill pore water quality and downgradient groundwater.
With a complete backfill, there is no exposed lake and therefore no evaporation (and no resulting
evapoconcentration of chemical constituents). Also there is limited oxidation and flushing of pit walls
because pit walls are covered and the availability of water and oxygen may be limited. Alkaline amendment
(e.g. lime) or organic amendment may be added as needed to neutralise acid of create reducing conditions.
Figure 1 No backfill design
Figure 2 Complete backfill design
2.3 Partial backfill
Figure 3 shows a schematic of the partial backfill scenario and the hydrologic and geochemical components.
Typically, material is backfilled at least to an elevation required to cover zones of reactive pit wall rock and
below the pre-mining groundwater elevation to maintain a hydraulic sink. The backfill will be placed such
that the top of the backfill is above the predicted final stabilised water level in the pit, as predicted by the no-
backfill scenario water balance. Groundwater discharge into the backfill, pit wall runoff, and infiltration of
incident precipitation are the only inflows to the backfilled pit. These inputs will cause the water level to rise
through the backfill and to reach the backfill surface. As with the complete backfill alternative, alkaline
amendment (e.g. lime or carbonate) or organic amendment to create reducing conditions may be included, as
needed.
Once the backfill pore water reaches the evaporative depth near the top of the backfill, evaporation and
evapotranspiration will balance inflows and maintain the water level at or just below the top of the backfill
surface. This will allow a passive hydraulic sink to be maintained with only ephemeral, shallow ponds
following rain and runoff events. Near-surface pore water and any ephemeral ponding will evapoconcentrate
as a result of water loss from the surface of the backfill. Ephemeral ponded water will be the only potential
source of impacts to the environment.
The partial backfill can be engineered to result in optimal performance both hydraulically and chemically by
hindering or enhancing upward flows and by adding layers of ferric, lime, calcite, fly ash, or organic layers,
or combinations of these to create passive treatment cells (e.g., sulphate and metal-reducing bioreactor to
strip out metals and sulphate).

3 Prediction and design assessment

Open pit backfill may be the most technically feasible and sustainable alternative for final pit closure.
However, there are significant risks associated with backfill as a closure design. Detailed, site-specific data
are required to minimise uncertainties in the water balance and geochemical predictive modelling. In
addition, a clear understanding of the hydrologic and geochemical conceptual model is required to ensure
that predictive models are representing the most influential factors correctly.

3.1 Water balance modelling considerations

The primary objectives of water balance modelling are typically:
• Estimate the contributions of individual water balance components and likely pit water
surface or backfill pore water elevations for input to the geochemical models;
• Evaluate and optimise effectiveness of closure management options with respect to the
development of hydrologic sinks; and
• Evaluate sensitivity of closure management performance relative to uncertainty in estimated
values for specific water balance components.
The dynamic system model GoldSim (GTG, 2004) is considered one of the most appropriate and flexible
codes for water balance modelling. Individual components of the final pit water balance are linked to one
another and accounted for in the simulation. For each time step, the change lake storage is calculated and
tracked, and thus the pit lake volume calculation is advanced through time. Pit lake stage is also calculated
from a known relationship between volume and stage.
For each time-step, the sum of the components is assumed equal the change in lake storage (Equation 1). As
the lake’s surface area continues to increase, evaporative losses may eventually balance with inflows,
resulting in equilibrium between inflows and outflows and a stable pit lake elevation or stable water level
within the backfill. The pit lake model accounts for inflows, outflows and changes in storage:

∑ Inflows monthly − ∑ Outflows monthly = ΔStorage monthly (1)

Figure 3 Partial backfill design
One-month time steps are generally chosen to allow simulation of seasonal variations in the model.
Water balance components and conceptual models are illustrated schematically in Figures 1, 2, and 3 for the
three backfill closure designs. Backfill in an open pit affects the open pit volume, stage versus volume
curves, evaporation, groundwater inflow, in-pit hydraulic mixing, and pit water storage.
The closure design water balance should be developed to match the site conditions including pit geometry,
runoff/catchment areas, groundwater gradients, backfill elevation and volume, seasonal climate data,
operational facilities, and any other conditions that may impact the hydrologic system. Climate data are
critical to water balances. Site-specific climate measurements of precipitation and evaporation for a
significant period of record are requirements of post closure predictions. Any available pit water storage
monitoring, dewatering, and surface water flow measurements may be used to calibrate the water balance
model.
In semi-arid or arid settings, evaporation may equal all water inflows to the pit area resulting in a pit lake
level below the pre-mining groundwater elevation, which is a passive hydraulic sink with no surface or
groundwater discharging from the pit. Backfilling reduces the evaporation and complete backfill will likely
result in some discharge to the groundwater and/or surface water system. Partial backfill elevation may be
optimised with the water balance to ensure development of a long-term hydraulic sink and minimisation of a
pit lake. This is the ideal design for a backfill closure because it minimises potential for off-site migration,
may increase acid neutralisation (depending on backfill composition), covers reactive pit walls, decreases
potential oxidation, and limits or eliminates pit lake formation.
3.2 Geochemical modelling considerations
The geochemical modelling approach for evaluating the closure management options conceptualises the
open pit lake as a completely mixed reactor unless the pit is backfilled or the lake permanently stratifies.
The geochemical model, as with the water balance, predicts changes through time but does not evaluate
spatial variations except at the near-surface of a partially backfilled pit. The predicted pit lake or backfill
pore water composition reflects the relative proportion and composition of each inflow component in
addition to specific geochemical reactions assumed to occur.
Pits backfilled to above the pre-mining groundwater table were also assumed to be completely mixed.
However, this is unlikely to be the case because density effects will cause the more-concentrated, higher total
dissolved solids (TDS) waters to collect at the bottom of the pit backfill. Preferential pathways of
groundwater flow into and out of the backfilled pit will tend to dilute backfill pore waters, resulting in the
groundwater along those flow paths being of better quality than the less-permeable areas of the backfill.
Geochemical modelling inputs are typically obtained from the water balance results and laboratory test data
that estimate the rates of chemical weathering and the chemistry of waters that contact backfill and pit walls
over time. Figure 4 shows the water balance and geochemical components that impact the pit lake and
backfill geochemical model.
The hydrologic and geochemical inputs are combined in a geochemical modelling code such as PHREEQC
(Parkhurst and Appelo, 1999). This is an industry-standard, thermodynamic chemical equilibrium speciation
and reaction path model that simulates mixing and reactions to predict the composition of the pit lake and
backfill pore water.
The geochemical modelling process involves a series of solution mixing, chemical reactions, and mineral
surface adsorption reactions to predict the pit lake and backfill pore water composition at each selected
output time. The model setup process includes:
1) Running water balances for each pit lake and backfill pore water scenario and develop a pit
filling curve and volumetric inflows and outflows.
2) Selecting appropriate time steps for each pit lake and backfill pore water filling scenario based
on the water balance results.
3) Extracting water volumes and percentages (mixing ratios) from the water balance for all inflows
and outflows for each time step for each pit lake and backfill pore water filling scenario.
 4) Developing individual, charge-balanced waters that are representative of contact waters from
laboratory test results.
5) Scaling laboratory test results to field scale conditions of grains size (i.e., grain surface area),
and the quantity of water available for reaction.
The processes involved in running the model include:
1) Mixing the individual components of pit wall runoff in proportion to their quantities in the pit
wall to estimate an average pit wall runoff chemistry.
2) Mixing the individual components of the flushed damaged rock zone chemistry in proportion to
their quantities to estimate an average chemistry.
3) For backfill scenarios, mixing backfill waters in proportion to their quantities in the backfill to
estimate the average backfill pore water end member.
4) Mixing the backfill pore water end member with varying proportions of groundwater (and
precipitation) to simulate the mixing of groundwater (and precipitation) with the backfill.
5) Mixing the pit wall solutions with the groundwater, backfill pore water, surface water, and
rainfall according to proportions from the pit lake water balance model.
6) Removing pure water from the pit lake and backfill pore water to account for evaporation in
quantities estimated from the water balance.
7) Equilibration of the pit lake water with likely mineral phases (e.g. ferrihydrite) and atmospheric
gasses available for reaction (oxygen and carbon dioxide).
8) Adsorption of specific compounds (arsenic, barium, lead, cadmium, copper, nickel, calcium,
phosphate, zinc, beryllium, and sulphate) from the pit lake onto ferrihydrite according to
Dzombak and Morel (1990).
9) The resulting chemistry should then used as the existing pit lake and backfill pore water
chemistry for the subsequent time step, and the procedure can then be repeated for each time
period.
The pit walls may contribute dissolved mass to the pit lake in two ways. The first is from direct runoff of
precipitation. Pit wall runoff reacts with the surficial material of the pit wall and rinses reaction products
into the lake. The second is from inundation of the pit wall as the lake level rises. As the damaged rock
zone is flushed by the rising water of the pit lake, chemical reaction products are released into the lake.
After this time, pyrite oxidation is limited because of the high (i.e. saturated) moisture content of the
damaged rock zone (DRZ) (Figure 4).
The DRZ is the blast fractured rim of the pit wall that results in higher fracture density and particle surface
areas. This zone weathers quickly and generates more oxidation and chemical weathering products than the
undisturbed wall rock behind the DRZ. Figure 5 shows the thickness of oxidation within the pit wall DRZ
(assuming 10% porosity) with infinite thickness compared to a 1 m thick DRZ predicted with an oxygen
diffusion model (Davis and Ritchie, 1986). The zone of oxidation increases with the DRZ thickness.
Laboratory testing is conducted under controlled and specific conditions including, in the case of humidity
cell tests (HCTs), the grain size and volume of water used (ASTM, 1996). Because test samples and water
volumes are different in the field than in the laboratory, test results must be adjusted (scaled) to account for
these differences. The HCT results are scaled to the site-specific field conditions by the relative change in
rock surface area and volume of water flushed over the rock. This scaling is conducted for both the
unsubmerged pit-wall runoff and the water that enters the lake from the pit-wall after submergence.
 10

4 11
1 2

Legend
6
5 1 Bedrock
2 Damaged Rock Zone (DRZ)
9 3 Pit Lake
4 Precipitation to pit wall
5 Evaporation
3 6 Pit wall runoff
8
7 Groundwater inflow/outflow
8 Flushing of DRZ
7 9 Infiltration to DRZ
10 Catchment run-in/overflow
11 Precipitation to pit lake

Figure 4 Pit wall damaged rock zone

Figure 5 Pit wall transient oxidation thickness
Groundwater recharging the pit lake and precipitation that infiltrates directly into the backfill will react with
the backfill. The resulting water chemistry will depend on the composition of the backfill in each pit.
Laboratory column tests determine the number of pore volumes required to flush reaction products from
backfill material until the influent water quality is similar to effluent water quality. Backfill pore water
chemistry may be predicted with a similar methodology to the pit wall runoff using kinetic weathering test
results with consideration of planned backfill grain size, surface area, composition, and volumes, which may
vary through time.
Backfill contact water geochemical simulation includes the following protocol:
• Characterise the mixture of backfill materials over time with respect to the grain size
distribution, lithology, acid generation potential, and metals leaching potential.
• Utilise humidity cell kinetic test results to predict the composition of pore water chemistry
resulting from the backfill composition over time.
• Adjust water chemistry from laboratory to field scale according to grain surface areas to
account for the difference between the lab test and the actual backfill used. This is done by
converting the HCT concentrations to a mass per unit surface area and using that production
rate to estimate the mass production rate in the backfill using the grain surface area of the
backfill material.
• Simulate the mixing of the resulting water with groundwater that is predicted to flow into
the pit lake or backfill, in proportions according to the number of pore volumes that have
flowed through the backfill during that time step.
• Continue geochemical modelling methodology as described above to mix with other water
balance components and predict reactions through time.
• Evaporation extinction depth must be estimated based on the surface design, and backfill
pore water modelling needs to consider changes in saturated/unsaturated storage and reactive
mineral surface areas through time.
Geochemical models of backfill designs predicted to maintain a long-term passive hydraulic sink must
predict the effect of evapoconcentration on water quality. Additionally, geochemical models of designs that
are not likely to be long-term hydraulic sinks must predict impacts of discharges from the pit to the surface
and groundwater systems. Designs with alkaline or organic amendments can be predicted by adding
amendments to the materials being simulated in the geochemical model. However, acid generating and acid
neutralising rates and compositions should be used for long-term predictions.

4 Conclusions
Backfilling of open pits is a feasible closure strategy that warrants consideration. Each mine will have
specific issues that need to be considered that will affect the feasibility of backfilling, including pit size,
hydrogeology, climate, hauling distance, and rock geochemistry. The partial backfilling alternative is a
reasonable approach for mines with potential water quality problems because it can be optimised to maintain
a hydraulic sink and limit exposure of reactive pit wall zones. Environmental issues for closure generally
relate to processes that couple hydrology and geochemistry, and a closure design feasibility evaluation
should consider all of the relevant contributing factors. Closure planning and design developed during
mining operations (concurrent closure planning) provides the flexibility for optimising material haulage and
facility construction timing while minimising material movement and other costs.
References

ASTM (1996) ASTM D5744-96 – Standard Test Method for Accelerated Weathering of Solid Materials
Using a Modified Humidity Cell.
Davis, G.B. and Ritchie, A.I.M. (1986) A model of oxidation in pyritic mine wastes: Part 1 - Equations and
approximate solution, Applied Mathematical Modelling, 10(5), pp. 314-322.
Dowling, J., Atkin, S., Beal, G., and Alexander, G. (2004) Development of the Sleeper Pit Lake, Mine Water
and the Environment, 23, pp. 2-11.
Dzombak, D.A., and Morel, F.M.M. (1990) Surface complexation modelling--Hydrous ferric oxide: New
York, John Wiley, 393 p.
GTG (2004) GoldSim – Dynamic Systems Modelling Platform. Goldsim Technology Group, GoldSim
Version 8.024.
Parkhurst, D.L. and Appelo, C.A.J. (1999) User’s Guide to PHREEQC (Version 2) - A Computer Program
for Speciation, Batch-Reaction, One-Dimensional Transport, and Inverse Geochemical Calculations,
U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4259, Denver, CO.
Parshley, J.V., Bowell, R.J., and Ackerman, J. (2006) Reclamation and Closure of Summer Camp Pit Lake
Nevada: A Case Study, The 7th International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage (ICARD), March
26-30, 2006, St. Louis MO. R.I. Barnhisel (ed.) Published by the American Society of Mining and
Reclamation (ASMR), 3134 Montavesta Road, Lexington, KY 40502.
Williams, R.D. (2006) Pit Backfill: Yea or Nay, A Montana Example, The 7th International Conference on
Acid Rock Drainage (ICARD), March 26-30, 2006, St. Louis MO. R.I. Barnhisel (ed.) Published by
the American Society of Mining and Reclamation (ASMR), 3134 Montavesta Road, Lexington, KY
40502.
TECHNICAL AND SOCIAL PROGRAM
October 16-19, Sheraton Hotel & Convention Center, Santiago, Chile

View publication stats