Optimisation of cemented rockfill strength for open

stope support

H. Saw1, R. de Vries 2, J Player 3, R. Hassell 2 and E. Villaescusa1

1 Western Australian School of Mines, Kalgoorlie, Australia

2 MMG Dugald River Mine, Cloncurry, Australia
3 MineGeoTech, Kalgoorlie, Australia

ABSTRACT
The use of cemented rockfill (CRF) for support of open stope walls has increased in the Australian
underground mines operations over the last 5 years due in part to its low capital cost. In open stoping
the exposed CRF masses require adequate strength and stiffness, in order to resist the forces and to
limit the displacement associated with movements in the rock mass surrounding the excavations. The
CRF material preparation often involves the use of large particles, either from crushed rock or from
development mining waste sometimes up to 400mm in diameter. However, the use of waste rock,
which has a poorly graded particle size distribution may not achieve the required minimum target
strength due to segregation and large air voids within the fill mass. This paper describes the optimisation
of CRF strength by either crushing of the waste rock or the addition of sand to the mix. Both methods
increase the level of fines in the mix design. Cylindrical samples having 400 mm diameter and 800 mm
heights were prepared for Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) testing. The UCS test was determined
using the Western Australian School of Mines (WASM) large-scale static test frame. The laboratory
results were compared with a database of large-scale CRF strength mixed without sand from a number
of mine sites. The comparison shows a significant strength development in the CRF mixing with addition
of sand. This has the potential to improve the overall economics of open stope mining, due to less
dilution at the exposed fill mass.

1
INTRODUCTION
The use of cemented rockfill (CRF) for support of open stope walls has increased in the Australian
underground mines operations over the last 5 years due to its low capital cost (Villaescusa, 2014). The
mixing and delivery of the CRF into a stope can be achieved using an underground Load-Haul-Dump
(LHD). The exposed CRF masses require adequate strength and stiffness, in order to resist the forces and
limit the displacement associated with movements in the rock mass surrounding the excavations. The
CRF strength optimization usually includes:

• Determination of the minimum strength required to fulfil a performance criteria;

• Optimisation of the mix variables to produce the required minimum strength for the lowest
cement usage;
• Implementation of quality control procedures and monitoring of the fill performance on a
periodic basis to ensure compliance with design (Saw, et al., 2011).

CEMENTED ROCK FILL DESIGN OPTIMISATION

The required mine fill strength is a function of the mining method, geometry of ore body and stope,
and the possible failure modes. Mitchell and Roettger (1989) described the potential failure modes of
cemented mine fill used to support the uncemented mine fill in steeply dipping ore zones. Failure modes
included sliding, crushing, flexural and caving. Sliding occurs due to low frictional resistance between a
mine fill and a rock wall. Crushing occurs when the induced stress exceeds the Uniaxial Compressive
Strength of a fill mass. Flexural failure occurs when a fill mass has a low tensile strength, caving can be a
results of arching, and rotational failure due to low shearing resistance at a rock wall. When mine fill is
considered as a roof slab, the analysis methods developed by Evans (1941) and later modified by Beer
and Meek (1982) can be applied. Such method for roof design procedure considering plane strain is
described in Brady and Brown (1993).

Stone (1993) developed stability charts using the pseudo-3D formulations of Mitchell and Roettger
(1989). A Safety Factor of two was considered due to the effects of segregation and the potential for an
occasional improper mixing by underground operators. A typical minimum required UCS for different
loading mechanisms is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Typical minimum required UCS for CRF applications

(Mitchell and Roettger (1989).

Minimum required UCS

Loading mechanism
(Safety Factor - 2)
MPa
Free standing vertical exposures 0.5
Undercut sill 2.5
Pillar to retain uncemented rock fill 2.5
2
Material Characterisation

Waste rock : The CRF material preparation often involves the use of large particles, either from
crushed rock (crushed to sub 150mm) or from development mining waste having up to 400 mm
diameter in size. Figure 1 shows typical particle size distribution curves for the waste rock used for
mixing CRF. The specific gravity and bulk density ranges from 2.77 to 3.02 and 2 to 2.16 g/cm3,
respectively. The weight – volume relationship of CRF is determined by its porosity, void ratio and
relative density. In some cases, the use of waste rock, which has a poorly graded particle size
distribution may not achieve the required minimum target strength due to segregation and large air
voids in the fill mass (Cordova et al., 2016).

100
Mine A (Uncrushed waste rock)
90 Mine B (Crushed waste rock)
Mine C (Crushed waste rock)
80
Mine D (Crused waste rock)
Mine D (Uncrushed waste rock with addition of 2.5 % coarse sand)
70
Comulative passing (%)

Coarse aggregate limits for standard concrete (ASTM C33-07)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Particle size (mm)

Figure 1. Typical particle size distribution curves for waste rock (Crushed, Uncrushed and Uncrushed
with addition of sand) used for CRF.

Binders: Binder such as cement or natural pozzolans is the main substance for strength
development in any type of mine fill. It is also the most expensive item of the fill mix. A choice of binder
depends upon on the required strength and durability requirements of a particular mine fill operation. A
cost effective, optimum strength mix design can be achieved by selecting or blending the right binder for
a given fill material (waste rock, aggregate, tailings sand, etc.) and mixing water (Saw & Villaescusa,
2011).

Mixing water: The mixing water has three main functions: (1) it reacts with the cement powder,
thus producing hydration; (2) it acts as a lubricant, contributing to the workability the fresh mixture and

3
(3) it secures the necessary space in the cement paste for the development of hydration (Popovics,
1992). The impurities in the mixing water can cause a strength reduction in any type of mine fill (Wang &
Villaescusa, 2001). The impurities can either be dissolved or suspended in the water. In certain cases,
the contaminated water can be used for mine fill purposes by mixing it with fresh water. However, it is
important to determine whether the impurities may lead a strength reduction (Saw & Villaescusa, 2011).

LABORATORY MIXING AND CASTING

The CRF mix design is usually calculated based on the specific gravity, bulk density of the waste
rock, cement percentage and the water:cement ratio. A typical CRF mix design is shown in Table 2. The
waste rock and cement were weighted and placed into a concrete mixer and mixed dry. Water was also
weighted and placed into the concrete mixer and mixed continuously until the batch was thoroughly
mixed. The CRF was cast into the 400 x 800 mm (diameter x height) cylindrical moulds. After casting, all
samples were kept in a curing chamber, which was set up a temperature of 30˚C and humidity of 90%
similar to typical underground mine conditions.

Table 2. Typical cemented rock fill mix design.

Waste Rock (Crushed or uncrushed) 70 - 98 %

Cement 2-4%

Sand or tailings (May or may not be in the CRF mix) 2 - 30 %

Water : Cement ratio 0.5 - 2

Modified slump test for CRF

Generally, a standard cone slump measurement as suggested by ASTM-C143/C143M is used to

measure the consistency of freshly mixed concrete. The standard cone slump test is only applicable to
plastic concrete having coarse aggregate up to 37.5mm in size. Therefore, for this research a modified
slump test was used to understand the flow behaviour for CRF when it is discharged into a mine stope
void. Following mixing, the test procedure used consisted of placing the fresh CRF into the (400 mm
diameter x 800 mm length) mould as shown in Figure 3 (a) and gradually lifting up the mould to measure
the slope angle of the CRF sample as shown in Figure 3 (b).

4
 (a) (b)

Figure 2. Modified slump test and CRF angle measurement.

Uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) testing

The uniaxial compressive strength of the (400 x 800) mm samples was determined using the WASM
large scale static test machine, Morton et al., (2007). The loading rate was approximately 2mm/minute.
The axial displacement was measured with four potentiometers, which were attached to the base plate
of the specimen. The test machines automatically acquire load and displacement using a Signal Express
data logging system. A top cap was prepared using a dental plaster before setting up the sample for
testing to ensure the load was evenly applied. The WASM large scale static test machine set up for large
CRF UCS test is shown in Figure 4. Figure 5 shows UCS test results for the CRF mixed in laboratory using
crushed and uncrushed waste rock with a 5% cement dosage. It shows that the UCS of the CRF
significantly increase for the CRF mixed with crushed waste rock, which had well graded particles size
distribution and a larger percentage of fine particles (Figure 6-a). On the other hands, the CRF mixed
with uncrushed CRF contained larger particles with poorly graded size distribution which caused
segregation and large air voids in the CRF samples (Figure 6-b).

5
 Figure 3. WASM static test machine set up for large scale (400 x 800) mm CRF UCS test.

5.0
CRF mixed with crushed waste rock, 5% cement
4.5
CRF mix with uncrushed waste rock, 5% cement
4.0
Uniacial Compressive Strength (MPa)

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 7 14 21 28 35
Curing (days)

Figure 4. UCS test results for the CRF mixed in the WASM laboratory.

6
 (a) CRF with high fine particles (b) CRF with low fine particle
and well graded PSD and poorly graded PSD

Figure 5. Example of large scales CRF sample after UCS testing.

CEMENTED ROCK FILL

Mixing and filling process

The main steps for underground CRF filling process include construction of waste rock bund and LHD
stop, batch up cement slurry, tram waste rock and cement slurry, mixing CRF with LHD and filling into
the stope. A schematic of a cemented rock filled stope is shown in Figure 7. An example of mixing and
filling of the CRF with LHD in an underground mine is presented in Figures 8a to 8d.

Any changes to the mix design are completed during the cement slurry batching process at the
surface batch plant. Any variations to cement content, water or sand addition is computer controlled
and then delivered to the mixing sump via the Agitator truck. At the mixing sump the waste rock is
combined with the slurry; no additional water or material is added underground.

7
 LHD Stop

Cross Cut

Direction of advancing stope front Uncemented

rock fill

Unmined ore
Cemented 20 m
Slot rise holes rock fill

Waste rock bund 15 m

Figure 6. Schematic of a cemented rock filled stope (Van Der Merwe, 2009).

(b) Mixing CRF in underground (a) CRF mix details

(c) Dumping of CRF into the stope

Figure 7. Mixing and filling CRF with LHD in underground.

8
Quality assurance and quality control

Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) and performance monitoring were undertaken at

different stages of the CRF preparation and filling process. Generally, a routine QA/QC programme
included,

• Sampling of the crushed and screened waste rock from stockpile for regular PSD analysis;
• Task observations of the CRF mixing process to ensure the fill note and operational
procedures is being followed and additional water is not being used.
• Collecting CRF samples for UCS test to check compliance with target strength (Figure 8);
• Conducting survey with Cavity Monitoring System (CMS) on the stope before and after CRF
placement.

The standard process to collect the large diameter UCS samples is to:

1. Prepare the cylinders by coating in form oil to prevent the cement binding to the cylinder.
2. Prepare the CRF mix as per mine procedures.
3. Collect the sample mid-way through the delivery of the mix to the stope i.e. if a batch
normally uses 6 loader buckets then collect the samples on the 3rd or 4th bucket.
4. Clean up the cylinders and cover the top with plastic to reduce moisture loss.
5. Leave underground for a minimum of 4 days before moving to surface for transport to the
WASM laboratory.

9
 Figure 8. Sampling CRF for QA/QC test.

Uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) test results

A correlation of Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) at 28 days curing with different cement
content using crushed waste rock is presented in Figure 9. Generally UCS increased with increasing
cement content. However, the test results show a wide range of strength distribution. The lower
strength for a given cement percentage was mainly due to the segregation and large air voids in the
samples. An example showing the variation in segregation quality for two samples taken from the same
mix is shown in Figure 10.

10
 5.0
Crushed waste rock - 2.5 % cement
4.5
Crushed waste rock - 3 % cement
Uniaxial Compressive Strength (MPa) 4.0 Crushed waste rock - 4 % cement
3.5 Crushed waste rock - 5 % cement

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Cement content (%)

Figure 9. A correlation of Uniaxial Compressive Strength at 28 days curing

with different cement content .

Figure 10. Samples collected from the same mixed (paired samples). The sample on the left
reached a UCS of 0.46MPa and the sample on the right 1.67MPa.

11
 A comparison of UCS for CRF mixed with crushed waste rock, uncrushed waste rock and uncrushed
waste rock with addition sand using 3% general purpose cement is shown in Figure 11. Its shows that
the UCS of CRF mixed with crushed waste rock were much higher than that of CRF mixed with uncrushed
waste rock. The UCS of CRF increased significantly with the addition of 2.5% sand into the uncrushed
waste rock for the same 3% cement percentage. (Figure 1 showed the particle size distribution that
applies for each type of crushed and uncrushed fill type.) Figure 12 shows a typical sample for uncrushed
without sand and uncrushed with sand.

The addition of sand to the mix increases the level of fines which has the dual benefit of reducing
the amount of voids in the mix but also helping reduce segregation in the stope by creating a more even
material flow.

5.0
Crushed waste rock and
4.5
3% cement (14 Samples)
Uniaxial Compressive Strength (MPa)

4.0
Uncrushed waste rock and
3.5 3% cement (6 Samples)

3.0 Uncrushed waste rock

with 2.5 % sand and 3%
2.5
cement (4 Samples)
2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49
Curing (days)

Figure 11. A comparison of UCS for CRF mixed with crushed waste rock, uncrushed waste rock and
uncrushed waste rock with addition sand using 3% general purpose cement.

12
 Figure 12. Uncrushed sample showing voids which reduces strength, UCS 0.24MPa (left).
Uncrushed and sand with less voids, UCS 2.02MPa (right).

COST AND OVERALL ECONOMIC BENEFIT

Crushing waste material or the addition of sand to the mix increases the level of fines. This has the
dual benefit of reducing the amount of voids in the mix thus increasing strength but also helping reduce
segregation in the stope by creating a more even material flow. This benefit does come with higher
operational costs; however, this can be countered by a reduction in the cement content to achieve the
required strength. Cement is often the largest single consumable costs for open stoping underground
mines and even small reductions in the usage can provide large cost savings.

Some typical costs for the material components of CRF are:

• Portland Cement, $270/t
• Crushing to sub 150mm, $4.30/t
• Sand, $20/t
• Water, $1.30/t

Operational costs including waste haulage, agitator truck and loader are expected to be similar for
uncrushed CRF and uncrushed with sand CRF. Crushed CRF may have an additional haulage component
to haul to and from the crusher but this is not considered here. Using a typical CRF mix design a simple
cost model for each CRF type by cement content has been developed and is shown in Figure 13.

13
 $30
Crushed waste rock (<150mm)
Uncrushed waste rock
Unrushed waste rock with 2.5% Sand
$25

Material Cost Per Tonne (AUD)

$20

$15

$10

$5

$-
2 3 4 5 6 7
Mix Cement Content (%)

Figure 13. Cost per CRF mix type by cement content.

The required cement content for each CRF type to achieve the minimum UCS for free standing
vertical exposures and undercut sills is shown in Table 3 combined with the cost per tonne of CRF. These
cement contents have been derived from the results shown in Figure 9 and 10 and from work
completed by Stone (1993). Due to the higher strengths achieved by the addition of sand and the
crushing of the waste material these CRF types require less cement to achieve the same strength.

Using sand in the CRF mix provides a saving of 11% per tonne for a 0.5 MPa mix and a 26% saving for
2.5MPa mix. Crushing by contrast costs 22% more at 0.5 MPa but when higher strengths are required is
10% cheaper than uncrushed. It is clear that the addition of sand is the most cost effective CRF type.
While the savings on a per tonne basis are small this saving is amplified by the considerable volume of
backfill tonnes most open stoping mines place back into the mine each year.

Table 3 Estimated cement content to achieve minimum UCS

Uncrushed Uncrushed with Sand Crushed (<150mm)
Minimum Cement Cost per Cement Cost per Cement Cement
UCS Content Tonne Content Tonne Content Content
0.5 MPa 3% $9.90 2.5% $8.78 2.5% $12.67
2.5 MPa 7% $23.10 5% $17.00 5% $20.77

14
CONCLUSIONS
Testing of large diameter UCS cylinders of CRF has shown higher strengths can be achieved for the
same cement content by providing more fine material to the mix. This can be achieved through either
the addition of sand during the cement slurry batching process or by crushing of the waste rock. It is
noted that the results for the uncrushed CRF with sand come from a small data set. A simple cost model
has shown the cost of the sand is less than the saving from the cement reduction it achieves. Due to the
large volume of backfill placed at most open stoping operations any reduction in cement usage can
provide large cost savings.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to express their appreciation to MMG Limited, Xstrata Nickel Australia, Ramelius
Resources and Northern Star Resources Limited for their financial sponsorship to undertake this
research.

REFERENCES
Beer, G and Meek, J. L, 1982. Design curves for roofs and hanging walls in bedded rock based on
voussoir beam and plate solutions. Transactions of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, Vol. 91,
A18-22.
Brady, B.H.G. and Brown, E.T., 1993. Rock mechanics for underground mining, 2nd Edition, Chapman and
Hall, London, 571 pp.
Cordova, M., Saw, H. & Villaescusa E., 2016. Laboratory Testing of Cemented Rock Fill for Open Stope
Support. Proceeding of 7th International conference and exhibition on mass mining, Sydney, The
Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Carlton Victoria.
Evans, W.H., 1941.The strength of undermined strata. Transactions of the Institution of Mining and
Metallurgy, Vol. 50. 475-532.
Mitchell, R. J., Roettger, J. J., 1989. Analysis and modelling of sill pillars. Innovations in mining backfill
technology, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 53–62.
Morton, E., Thompson, A., Villaescusa, E. & Roth, A., 2007. Testing and analysis of steel wire mesh for
mining applications of rock surface support. 11th ISRM Congress on Rock Mechanics V2, 1061-1064,
Lisbon, July, London:Taylor and Francis.
Popovics, S., 1992. Concrete Materials: properties, specifications, and testing, Noyes Publications, New
Jersey.
Saw, H. & Villaescusa E., 2011. “Research on the mechanical properties of minefill: influences of material
particle size, chemical and mineral composition, binder and mixing water”, Minefill 2011.
Proceeding of 10th International Symposium on Mining with Backfill, Cape Town, (Ed: Ilgner,
H.J.).The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Johannesburg, pp.143-152.
Saw, H., Prentice, S. & Villaescusa E., 2011. “Characterisation of cemented rockfill materials for the
Cosmos nickel mine, Western Australia”. Proceeding of The International Conference on Advances in

15
 Construction Materials through Science and Engineering, Hong Kong, C. Leung & K.T. Wan (Eds.),
The International Union of Testing and Research Laboratories for Materials and Structures (RILEM),
pp-187, Bagneux.
Stone, D.M.R., 1993. The optimization of mix designs for cemented rockfill, Proc. Minefill 93, (Ed. Glen
H.W.), The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, pp.249 – 253.
VD Merwe, S., 2009. Backfill fill management plan. Cosmos nickel operation internal report, Xstrata
Nickel Australia.
Villaescusa E., 2014. Geotechnical design for sublevel open stoping, CRC Press, 519pp.
Wang, C. and Villaescusa, E., 2001. Influence of water salinity on the properties of cemented tailings
backfill. Min Technol: IMM Trans Sect A 110(1):62–65.

16