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

net/publication/325976698

Estimating the Strength and Mechanical Properties of Cemented Rockfill for

Underhand Cut-and-Fill Mines

Conference Paper · June 2018

CITATIONS READS

2 2,081

7 authors, including:

Sean N Warren Michael Raffaldi

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention RESPEC
25 PUBLICATIONS 68 CITATIONS 26 PUBLICATIONS 129 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Kathryn Dehn Mark David Ferster

Americas Gold and Silver Sibanye Stillwater, Stillwater Mine
5 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS 4 PUBLICATIONS 18 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sean N Warren on 25 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ARMA 18-873

Estimating the Strength and Mechanical Properties of

Cemented Rockfill for Underhand Cut-and-Fill Mines
Warren, S.N., Raffaldi, M.J., Dehn, K.K., Seymour, J.B.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Spokane, WA, USA
Sandbak, L.A.
Barrick Gold Corporation, Turquoise Ridge Joint Venture Mine, NV, USA
Armstrong, J.
Barrick Gold Corporation, Cortez Hills Underground Mine, NV, USA
Ferster, M.
Sibanye-Stillwater Mining Company, Stillwater Mine, MT, USA

Copyright 2018 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 52nd US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium held in Seattle, Washington, USA, 17–20
June 2018. This paper was selected for presentation at the symposium by an ARMA Technical Program Committee based on a technical and critical
review of the paper by a minimum of two technical reviewers. The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of ARMA, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent
of ARMA is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 200 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: Confidence in the design and stability of backfill exposures in cut-and-fill mines requires a thorough understanding
of its emplaced material properties, particularly in mines utilizing underhand cut-and-fill mining methods where personnel work
directly beneath cemented backfill. Increased use of underhand methods in the last 30 years has improved safety in many mines.
However, with the continual drive for more efficient and cost-effective mining, there is a need to thoroughly understand the
geotechnical properties of cemented fill so that safe, stable openings can be designed while optimizing costs and production
schedules.
One of the common types of backfill used in these operations is cemented rockfill (CRF), delivered in batches and compacted tight
to the stope walls and back using a modified loader equipped with a steel boom or “jammer.” This paper provides an overview of
cut-and-fill mining with jammed CRF and presents the results of strength and mechanical property tests conducted with CRF from
three underhand cut-and-fill mines. Test samples, including cylinders up to 18 inches in diameter and 36 inches in length, were cast
from CRF batched at each mine’s respective batch plant. The test results are augmented with previous test work and compared with
published values from other studies, highlighting practical considerations for estimating the properties of compacted CRF.
batch plant to determine the strength and mechanical
1. INTRODUCTION properties of the backfill after curing 28 days.
The Spokane Mining Research Division (SMRD) of the Various size cylinders with dimensions (diameter×length)
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of 6×12, 12×24, and 18×36 inches were cast at each site
(NIOSH), in cooperation with the Barrick Gold to investigate the effects of sample size and to estimate
Corporation and the Sibanye-Stillwater Mining the strength and elastic properties of the emplaced CRF
Company, is working to better define the strength and from standard 6×12-in quality control cylinders. In
mechanical properties of emplaced cemented rockfill addition, splitting tensile tests were performed on 6×12-in
(CRF) used in underhand cut-and-fill mining operations. cylinders to estimate the tensile-to-compressive strength
Reliable estimates of these properties are important for ratio.
confidence in safety factors for CRF undercut span
designs. This paper provides an overview of underhand cut-and-
fill mining with CRF and describes the sample collection,
The test work described in this paper involved CRF from test methods, and test results obtained from the three
three underhand cut-and-fill mining operations in the different operations. The test results are augmented with
United States: Barrick’s Turquoise Ridge Joint Venture previous NIOSH test data and compared with published
(TRJV) and Cortez Hills Underground (CHUG) mines in values from other studies. Practical considerations for
northeastern Nevada, and the Sibanye-Stillwater Mining estimating CRF properties for undercut design are
Company’s Stillwater Mine near Nye, Montana. Test discussed. Finally, appropriate ranges for CRF properties,
samples of CRF were cast from each mine’s respective including Mohr-Coulomb strength parameters estimated
from concrete materials, are determined for use in beam to work beneath for subsequent undercuts. The
analytical and numerical models. process of undercutting and backfilling continues for each
subsequent level until the ore body is mined out. A
2. BACKGROUND simplified mining sequence is shown in Figure 2, and an
example of exposed CRF in an underground mine is
Underhand cut-and-fill mining methods utilizing
provided in Figure 3.
cemented backfill are commonly used in underground
metal mines in the United States to control weak or highly
stressed rock mass conditions. With these methods, the
rock is mined and replaced with cemented backfill, an
engineered material that forms a stable beam, thus
providing a safe back for the next undercut. Increased use
of underhand methods in the last 30 years has greatly
improved safety in many cut-and-fill mines. However,
with the constant push for more efficient and cost-
effective mining, there is a need to thoroughly understand
the geotechnical properties of cemented backfill to assist
in designing safe, stable openings while optimizing costs
and production schedules. Although there are several
types of cemented backfill, this paper deals only with
CRF.
2.1. Underhand Cut-and-Fill Mining
Underhand cut-and-fill mining results in the replacement
of the rock mass with some type of engineered cemented Figure 2. Schematic cross section through a top and bottom cut
showing offset drifts.
backfill. This paper focuses on high density CRF that has
been emplaced using mechanized compaction as opposed
to the end-dumped CRF used in long-hole stoping and
sublevel benching.
Once a heading is mined, CRF is dumped in the stope and
jammed into place using a modified loader (LHD)
equipped with a steel boom called a “jammer” (Figure 1).
The jammer pushes and forces the CRF tight to the
heading walls and back, resulting in high-density
compacted CRF.

Figure 3. Example of underhand cut-and-fill with CRF.

2.2. Undercut Span Design

Figure 1. Modified LHD equipped with a “jammer” used to
compact CRF into place in a stope.
Depending on the width of the orebody, a series of parallel
cuts are mined and backfilled, forming a CRF sill across
the entire orebody. This sill provides a stable backfill
To design safe undercut spans, engineers must ensure that
the emplaced strength of the backfill exceeds the strength
required to support its own weight and resist applied loads
from the surrounding rock mass. Strength requirements
are typically determined through a combination of
analytical formulae (Mitchell, 1991), empirical design
(Pakalnis et al., 2005), and numerical modeling.
Backfill failures in U.S. mines are usually attributed to
inadequate backfill strength, insufficient or inconsistent
quality control measures, or larger-than-expected mining
spans (Seymour et al., 2013). Backfill span design must
consider a combination of failure modes including: (1)
caving, (2) sliding, (3) flexural failure, and (4) rotational
failure (Mitchell, 1991). Fill properties, stope geometry,
loading conditions, stope closure, type of support, and
quality control issues, such as cold joints and gaps
between successive lifts, must also be considered
(Pakalnis et al., 2005). In the absence of rotational
instability and closure stresses, flexural stability is the
most critical failure mechanism (Stone, 1993; Pakalnis et
al., 2005). Figure 4 shows a database of successful span
designs compiled by Pakalnis et al. (2005) that are plotted
onto a stability chart adapted from Stone (1993) for
backfill spans with vertical sidewalls and a factor of safety
of two.
Figure 4. Flexural stability design chart and backfill span
database modified from Stone (1993) and Pakalnis et al. (2005).
2.3. Cemented Rockfill
The defining characteristics of CRF are a large aggregate
top size of 2 to 6 inches, inclusion of fines from the
crushing process, and a less than 1-in slump, which is
essential for creating self-standing faces when jamming
the material. Aggregate gradation controls the density of
the CRF and, therefore, has a significant impact on CRF
strength (Stone, 2007). Originally developed for concrete
design, the Talbot and Richart (1923) gradation equation,
shown below, represents the optimal gradation curve to
minimize void space when 𝑁𝑁 = 0.5 (Stone, 1993).
𝑢𝑢 𝑁𝑁
𝑃𝑃 = 100 � � (1)
𝑈𝑈𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
where,
𝑃𝑃 = percent passing
𝑢𝑢 = particle size
𝑈𝑈𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = maximum particle size
𝑁𝑁 = distribution constant
However, a coarser gradation, with 𝑁𝑁 ranging from 0.55
to 0.65, is desirable for jammed stopes so that the CRF
has a lower slump and will stand at a steep angle prior to
curing. A finer aggregate gradation, with 𝑁𝑁 ranging from
0.35 to 0.45, performs better in end-dumped longhole
stopes (Stone, 2007). Example target gradation curves for
an aggregate top size of 3 inches are shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Typical target aggregate gradation for cemented
rockfill based on the Talbot curve (Talbot and Richart, 1923),
modified from Stone (2007).
The final CRF mix (water content, cement content,
aggregate grading, etc.) is generally created using civil
engineering concrete guidelines and available aggregate
materials to produce a product with a desired workability,
while still meeting the design strength requirements.
2.4. CRF Strength and Quality Control
A quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC)
program is usually initiated during the commissioning of
the CRF batch plant. Because the unconfined compressive
strength (UCS) test is the most common measure of
backfill strength, this test is normally used for QA/QC
purposes at backfill mines. UCS tests are usually
performed on 6×12-in cast cylinders of CRF, following
the ASTM C31/C31M concrete standard as closely as
possible. The test results are typically used as an index
value for tracking the performance of the batch plant,
assuming that sample preparation procedures are
consistent. The UCS tests also provide a readily available
database that can be used to estimate the emplaced
properties of the CRF; however, there are a number of
factors that complicate this estimation.
Making 6×12-in cylinders typically requires the removal
of aggregate greater than 1/3 the diameter of the cylinder,
known as wet-screening. This process effectively changes
the mix by increasing the cement-to-aggregate ratio
(Neville, 2009). It is generally established that the marble, quartz monzonite, rhyolitic intrusive dike, and
strength measured from 6×12-in cylinders should be some quartzite. This material is crushed and screened to
reduced to estimate the emplaced CRF strength (Barrett 2-in minus. At the Stillwater Mine, development waste
et al., 1983; Stone, 1993; Yu, 1995; O’Toole, 2005). rock, consisting of norite and gabbro, is screened
However, the magnitude of this strength reduction is not underground to 4-in minus.
well defined. Furthermore, CRF compaction also has a
significant impact on strength (Stone, 2007; Warren et al.,
3.2. Sample Collection and Handling
2018), but the level of compaction achieved during Backfill samples were cast in concrete cylinder forms of
jamming has not been clearly determined, making it three different sizes (diameter×length): 6×12, 12×24, and
difficult to directly relate the strength of cast cylinders 18×36 inches. The 6×12-in cylinders were cast in
with the in-place strength of jammed CRF (Warren et al., standard plastic molds and prepared according to
2018). procedures similar to those used at the mines, which
follow, as closely as possible, ASTM C31/C31M.
Oversized aggregate greater than about one-third of the
3. CEMENTED ROCKFILL TESTING
cylinder diameter was removed by hand while making
3.1. Mix Designs and Aggregate Source these cylinders. Due to the low-slump nature of CRF,
At each mine, the CRF mix design that was most strict adherence to the ASTM Standard is difficult.
commonly used for underhand cut-and-fill stopes was
chosen for casting the test cylinders. Constituents for each
of these mixes are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. CRF mix designs used to cast test cylinders at TRJV,
CHUG, and Stillwater mines.
Average
W/C1 Binder Admix2
Mine UCS3
Ratio (% by wt) (oz/lbs water)
(psi)
TRJV 0.73 5.3 0.10 1,590
CHUG 0.96 7.3 0.06 880
Stillwater 0.80 8.0 n/a 4,200
1Water-to-cement ratio
2Water-reducing admixture
3Average 28-day unconfined compressive strength from QA/QC tests

with 6×12-in cylinders

Mine operations typically source aggregate from what is

available at the site. The aggregate sources for the three
mines in this study are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Summary of CRF aggregate sources for TRJV, CHUG,
and Stillwater mines.
Aggregate
Mine Source Lithology
Top Size
micritic limestone
local
TRJV 3 in with interbedded Figure 6. 18×36-in cylinders of CRF, cast at (A) CHUG and (B)
quarry
siltstone Stillwater prior to testing at SMRD.
CHOP1 limestone, marble,
CHUG 2 in
waste rock dike, quartzite Wax-coated cardboard concrete forms were used for the
Stillwater 4 in waste rock norite, gabbro 12×24-in and 18×36-in cylinder molds. The ASTM C31
1Cortez Hills Open Pit standard only covers preparation of cylinders up to 9
inches in diameter, so preparation of the 12×24-in and
TRJV obtains aggregate from an onsite surface quarry. 18×36-in cylinders followed the standard as closely as
The aggregate is primarily composed of micritic practical and appropriate. Aggregate larger than
limestone with interlayered siltstone, with both units appropriate for the size of the cylinders was removed by
having minimal alteration. Quarried rock is crushed and hand. The 12×24-in and 18×36-in cylinders were cast in
screened to 3-in minus. CHUG obtains aggregate from lifts, about 6 inches high. Each lift was tamped
waste rock at the overlying Cortez Hills Open Pit approximately 50 times with an inflatable rock bolt used
(CHOP). The waste rock is a mixture of limestone, as a tamping rod. Cylinders were completed within
roughly 45 minutes to one hour after mixing at the batch positioned on opposite sides of the sample measured the
plant to not exceed the working time of the CRF. average convergence of the loading platens during these
Completed 18×36-in test cylinders are shown in Figure 6. tests. Regardless of the size of the cylinder, the modulus
of elasticity for each of the samples was calculated as the
3.3. Sample Preparation slope of the best fit line tangent to the stress-strain curve
Prior to conducting the UCS tests, both ends of the 6×12- at 50% of the UCS.
in cylinders were capped with a sulfur capping compound
to meet the end-parallelism requirements found in ASTM The splitting tensile strength (STS) tests followed as
C39/C39M Standard Test Method for Compressive closely as possible the procedures provided in ASTM
Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. For the C496/C496M. This indirect tensile strength test is
large-scale UCS tests, the 12×24-in and 18×36-in commonly used to determine the tensile strength of
cylinders were capped on their top surface with Hydro- concrete. A compressive diametrical line load is applied
Stone®, a self-leveling, rapid curing gypsum cement over the length of a cylindrical specimen, which induces
product that can achieve a compressive strength of 4,000 a tensile stress at the center of the specimen perpendicular
psi after one hour. The bottoms of these cylinders were to the diametrical line load. The tensile strength is
not capped because they were already flat from casting in computed based on the cylinder dimensions and the
the form. No special preparation procedures were applied compressive load at failure.
required for the 6×12-in cylinders used for the splitting
tensile tests. 4. TESTING RESULTS
3.4. Test Methods and Procedures 4.1. Unconfined Compressive Strength
UCS test procedures followed ASTM C39/C39M as A summary of the UCS test results for the 6×12-in,
closely as possible. An axial compressive load was 12×24-in, and 18×36-in CRF samples from the three
applied to the test cylinder at a specified displacement rate mines are provided below in Tables 3, 4, and 5,
so that the sample generally failed within about two to respectively. Additional unpublished UCS test results
five minutes. Depending on the size of the cylinder, two from prior studies conducted by NIOSH with CRF
different test machines were used to conduct the tests. The samples from the Stillwater Mine in 2006 and TRJV in
6×12-in cylinders were tested using a 200-kip, servo- 2010 are included in these tables for comparison.
controlled, electromechanical, stiff-frame test machine. Table 3. Summary of average 28-day UCS for 6×12-in CRF
The 12×24-in and 18×36-in cylinders were tested using a samples from TRJV, CHUG, and Stillwater mines.
600-kip, manual-hydraulic controlled, stiff-frame test
machine, shown in Figure 7. Samples Density UCS Std Dev1
Mine
Tested (pcf) (psi) (psi)
TRJV 8 139.8 2,907 403
CHUG 7 133.9 811 135
Stillwater 14 152.3 3,833 509
TRJV 2010 3 148.9 1,188 53
Stillwater 2006 3 157.1 1,461 111
1Standard deviation

Table 4. Summary of average 28-day UCS for 12×24-in CRF

samples from TRJV, CHUG, and Stillwater mines.
Samples Density UCS Std Dev1
Mine
Tested (pcf) (psi) (psi)
TRJV 3 139.5 1,582 685
CHUG 4 146.9 707 57
Figure 7. Unconfined compression testing of an 18×36-inch Stillwater 4 151.7 1,710 1,130
CRF cylinder.
TRJV 2010 3 139.4 799 140
1Standard
During the UCS tests with the 6×12-in cylinders, a deviation
standard concrete compressometer device was used to
measure the axial and radial deformation of the samples
following ASTM C469/C469M. Only the axial
deformation was measured during UCS tests with the 12-
in and 18-in diameter samples. Two linear potentiometers
Table 5. Summary of average 28-day UCS for 18×36-in CRF As shown in Figure 8, a plot of the UCS test results
samples from TRJV, CHUG, and Stillwater mines. demonstrates a clear decrease in strength with increased
Std sample size. The reduction in compressive strength is
Samples Density UCS more apparent, depending on the specific CRF mix.
Mine Dev1
Tested (pcf) (psi) However, if the UCS values for the CRF samples are
(psi)
TRJV 4 136.5 962 164 normalized in terms of their respective average 6-in
cylinder strengths, all of the CRF mixes exhibit a
CHUG 4 142.2 498 90 substantial decrease in compressive strength as the size of
Stillwater 4 143.6 847 229 the sample increases. This compressive strength size
effect is plotted for each test set in Figure 9. Depending
Stillwater 2006 3 145.3 593 59
on the CRF mix, the average UCS for the 18×36-in
1Standard deviation cylinders ranges from 22% to 61% of the average UCS
for the 6×12-in cylinders.
4.2. Elastic Properties
Average results of the elastic modulus measurements for
CRF samples from the TRJV, CHUG, and Stillwater
mines are provided in Tables 6, 7, and 8, respectively. For
the CRF samples from TRJV, modulus values were
measured only for the 6×12-in cylinders.
Table 6. Summary of average elastic modulus measured for
CRF from TRJV.
Samples Modulus Std Dev1
Size
Tested (ksi) (ksi)
6×12 7 2,566 252
1Standard deviation

Table 7. Summary of average elastic modulus measured for

CRF from CHUG.
Samples Modulus Std Dev1
Size
Tested (ksi) (ksi)

Figure 8. Unconfined compressive strength versus cylinder 6×12 6 625 119

diameter for CRF samples from TRJV, CHUG, and Stillwater 12×24 4 300 37
mines.
18×36 4 269 112
1Standard deviation

Table 8. Summary of average elastic modulus measured for

CRF from Stillwater.
Samples Modulus Std Dev1
Size
Tested (ksi) (ksi)
6×12 13 2518 415
12×24 4 941 637
18×36 4 686 190
1Standard deviation

The elastic modulus values measured during the CHUG

Figure 9. Compressive strength size effect for CRF samples
from TRJV, CHUG, and Stillwater mines.
and Stillwater tests are plotted versus sample diameter in
Figure 10. As mentioned previously, different test
machines and measurement techniques were used for the
UCS tests, depending on the size of the CRF sample.
Despite this inconsistency in test methods, the reduction
in elastic modulus with increasing sample size is
apparent, particularly for the Stillwater samples. Similar
to the UCS size effect noted above, normalizing the
elastic modulus measurements in term of their respective Average Poisson’s ratios determined from the
average 6-in cylinder values provides a clear indication compressometer measurements during UCS tests with the
that the elastic modulus of a CRF sample decreases as the 6×12-in CRF samples from the TRJV, CHUG, and
size of the sample increases, regardless of the CRF mix. Stillwater mines are provided in Table 9.
As shown by a plot of the modulus size effect in Figure
11, the average 18×36-in modulus ranges from 27% to
4.3. Tensile Strength
43% of the average modulus for the 6×12-in cylinders. The results of STS tests with 6×12-in CRF samples from
the three mines are listed in Table 10. For comparison,
additional long-term STS test results reported by
Seymour et al. (2018) are also included.
Table 10. Summary of average 28-day STS for 6×12-in CRF
samples from TRJV, CHUG, and Stillwater mines.
Samples Density STS1 Std Dev2
Mine
Tested (pcf) (psi) (psi)
TRJV3 4 138.8 439 37
3
CHUG 5 127.7 118 27
Stillwater3 8 146.5 461 60
4
TRJV 2001 4 136.4 276 22
1Splittingtensile strength
2Standard deviation
3Samples cured for 28 days prior to testing.
4
Samples cured for 5,924 days (more than 16 years) prior to testing.

Figure 10. Elastic modulus versus cylinder diameter for CRF

samples from the CHUG and Stillwater mines.

Figure 12. Splitting tensile strength versus average unconfined

Figure 11. Elastic modulus size effect for CRF samples from compressive strength for CRF samples from the TRJV, CHUG,
the CHUG and Stillwater mines. and Stillwater mines.

Table 9. Summary of the average Poisson’s ratio for 6×12-in A plot of the STS test results versus the average UCS for
CRF samples from TRJV, CHUG, and Stillwater mines. the same backfill mix is shown in Figure 12. As indicated
Samples Poisson’s Standard by the dashed line in this plot, the average tensile strength
Mine
Tested Ratio Deviation of the CRF samples is directly proportional to their
TRJV 7 0.22 0.05 average compressive strength. Furthermore, nearly all of
the STS test results exceed 10% of the average UCS for
CHUG 6 0.16 0.03
their respective mix, which is represented by the solid line
Stillwater 13 0.25 0.05 in Figure 12. The tensile strength of CRF is typically
assumed to be 1/10 of its compressive strength for
undercut span designs.
5. DISCUSSION
The following three main factors complicate the
estimation of emplaced CRF properties from test results
with standard 6×12-in QA/QC cylinders: (1) variation in
compaction (density), (2) size effects, and (3) wet-
screening of oversized aggregate.
5.1. Compressive Strength: Compaction (Density)
Mine QA/QC test data indicate that compaction, as
measured by density, has a significant effect on the UCS
of CRF. An 8% increase in the density of a CRF sample
from 130 to 140 pcf may cause an increase of nearly 60%
in the UCS test result (Warren et al., 2018). This
underscores the importance of obtaining a reasonable
estimate of in-place CRF density when using UCS test
results from standard 6×12-in QA/QC cylinders to
estimate the emplaced strength of CRF for design
purposes.
A plot of UCS versus density for CRF samples at the
TRJV and CHUG mines is shown in Figure 13. The strong
correlation between strength and density is fairly common
and well documented (Stone 2007). Because Stillwater
had a newly commissioned batch plant, the mine staff had
not yet established a sufficient database to capture this
trend.
Figure 13. UCS versus density for CRF cylinders at the TRJV
and CHUG mines.
The large range in the density of the QA/QC samples is
more than likely cause by inconsistent sample preparation
techniques and testing methods. ASTM C31/C31M
procedures recommend the use of internal vibratory
consolidation, rather than the traditional rodding method,
for concrete having a slump less than 1 inch. However,
CRF, having a zero-slump, is too stiff for the type
concrete vibrators mentioned in this standard.
Roller-compacted mass concrete (RCC) is a zero-slump
concrete used for dam construction that is placed using
trucks and dozers and compacted using large vibratory
rollers (ACI, 1999). RCC differs from most CRF because
the paste almost completely fills the voids between the
aggregate particles. Although RCC has a 28-day UCS in
the range of many rockfills, this material typically has a
maximum aggregate size of 1.5 to 3.0 inches (ACI, 1999).
Procedures for making QA/QC test cylinders of RCC
include the use of a vibrating table (ASTM
C1176/C1176M) or a vibrating compaction hammer
(ASTM C1435/C1435M). These practices are currently
being investigated in an effort to develop a more reliable
method for obtaining consistent compaction or density
values for CRF cylinders.
5.2. Compressive Strength: Wet-Screening
When sampling freshly mixed concrete, ASTM
C172/C172M cautions that wet screening of the concrete
to remove the aggregate, which is larger than appropriate
for the size of the sample mold, can significantly affect
the test results. Removing the oversized aggregate (larger
than 1/3 the diameter of the cylinder mold) effectively
changes the mix design, increasing the cement-to-
aggregate ratio (Neville, 2009). This produces a relative
increase in strength as compared to the emplaced strength
of the bulk material (Bureau of Reclamation, 1981). The
greater the quantity of oversized aggregate screened from
the mix, the greater the increase in sample strength
(Neville, 2009).
In this study, the average 28-day UCS of the 18×36-in
CRF samples ranged from 498 to 962 psi, while the
average 28-day UCS for the 6×12-in CRF samples ranged
from 811 to 3,833 psi. The CHUG CRF exhibited the
smallest UCS size effect, but it also had the smallest
aggregate top size and, therefore, the least amount of wet
screening. On the other hand, the Stillwater CRF
demonstrated the largest UCS size effect, but it had the
largest aggregate top size and, therefore, the most wet-
screened material. The difference in aggregate top size for
CRF samples from the CHUG and Stillwater mines are
clearly noticeable in Figure 6, Section 3.2.
It is important to note that the current CRF mix designs at
all three mines perform adequately. The differences in
UCS size effect between these different backfills is not a
reflection of the quality of the CRF, but rather a
consequence of the sampling methodology, which
requires wet screening of the backfill in order to cast test
cylinders of a practical size.
5.3. Compressive Strength: Size Effects
Many materials, including rock (Hoek and Brown, 2003),
exhibit a general decrease in strength with increasing
sample size. A reduction in UCS with increased sample
size (independent of the effects of wet screening) is also
a well-documented characteristic of concrete (Blanks and
McNamara, 1935; Bureau of Reclamation 1981). A
typical size effect curve for the compressive strength of
concrete is shown in Figure 14. As the diameter of the
concrete sample increase, its UCS decreases, eventually
leveling off when the cylinder diameter exceeds about 20
inches. Consequently, the strength of the placed bulk
concrete is only about 85% of the UCS of the 6-in
diameter test cylinders (Blanks and McNamara, 1935).
While the larger scale factor (0.61) listed in Table 11 for
the CHUG CRF is consistent with the limited information
that has been previously published, the remaining scale
factors are significantly smaller in magnitude. A summary
of reported scale factors for estimating the UCS of
emplaced CRF from 6×12-in cylinder tests is listed in
Table 12, along with similar information for concrete. The
previously published scale factors for CRF are generally
only mentioned in the literature, with limited details
provided regarding the testing and development of these
values.
Table 12. Reported scale factors for estimating the UCS of
emplaced CRF and concrete.
Maximum
Scale Aggregate
Source Cylinder
Factor1 Top Size
Diameter

Stone 19932 20 in 0.65 n/a

Barrett et al.
17.7 in 0.60 4 in
19832

O'Toole 20052 20 in 0.66 n/a

In situ
Figure 14. Compressive strength size effect for concrete after Yu 19922 0.66 n/a
testing
Blanks and McNamara (1935).
Walton, 19892 18 in 0.54 5 in
5.4. Compressive Strength: Overall Scale Effect
The UCS size effect and the effect of wet screening Blanks and
24 in 0.85 3–9 in
cannot be individually quantified without conducting a McNamara, 19353
more complex and controlled study because the size of the Bureau of
wet-screened aggregate is a function of the sample’s Reclamation, 18 in 0.73 n/a
cylinder diameter. As a result, the UCS size effect and the 19814
1Scale
effects of wet screening can only be expressed as an factor to estimate the UCS of emplaced CRF or concrete from
standard 6×12-in cylinder tests.
overall scale effect. 2
Cemented rockfill
3Concrete, effect of sample size
NIOSH test results indicate that depending on the backfill 4Concrete, combined effects of sample size and wet screening
mix, the UCS of an 18×36-in CRF sample can range from
22% to 61% of the UCS for a standard 6×12-in sample. As shown in Figure 15, the overall scale effect appears to
Aggregate top sizes and scale factors for estimating the be dependent on the top size of the aggregate. After
emplaced strength of CRF from standard QA/QC cylinder screening, the maximum dimension of the aggregate is
tests are listed in Table 11 for all three mines. typically larger than the screen size, particularly if a
Table 11. Scale factors for estimating emplaced UCS based on grizzly equipped with parallel bars is used to separate the
standard QA/QC tests with CRF samples from TRJV, CHUG, oversized material. Because these devises screen in only
and Stillwater mines. one dimension, elongated and tabular clasts of aggregate,
having dimensions larger than the bar spacing, can pass
Mine Aggregate Top Size Scale Factor1
through the grizzly. The presence of oversized aggregate
CHUG 2 in 0.61 may have detrimentally influenced some of the recent test
TRJV 3 in 0.33 results with CRF samples from the Stillwater mine. More
consistent test results may be obtained if the CRF
Stillwater 4 in 0.22 aggregate is more thoroughly screened using a grizzly
Stillwater 2006 3 in 0.41 equipped with perpendicular bars.
1Scale
factor to estimate the UCS of emplaced CRF from standard
6×12-in cylinder tests.
 Figure 16. Average UCS versus curing age for CRF samples
Figure 15. Scale factor versus aggregate top size for CRF from TRJV mine, after Seymour et al. (2018).
samples from the TRJV, CHUG, and Stillwater mines.
5.6. Elastic Properties
5.5. Compressive Strength: Age Elastic properties are usually needed for more complex
As reported by Seymour et al. (2018), CRF samples under numerical analyses involving finite or discrete element
controlled curing conditions continue to gain strength programs. Reported values for the deformation modulus
with age similar to concrete. In a recent NIOSH study, the of CRF from a variety of different mines are provided in
UCS of 6×12-in CRF samples from the TRJV mine that Table 14. These modulus values were determined using
had cured for 5,927 days (more than 16 years) were several different methods, including UCS tests with large
compared with the results of previous UCS tests diameter cylinders, in-situ testing, instrumentation
conducted with similar CRF samples after they had cured studies, and numerical back-analysis of measured
for 708 days (almost 2 years) and also with the results of displacements.
QA/QC tests conducted at the mine after 7 and 28 days of Table 14. Modulus of deformation values for compacted CRF
curing. The results of these tests are provided in Table 13 determined by a variety of different methods.
and plotted in Figure 16.
Deformation Modulus
Table 13. UCS test results with 6×12-in CRF samples from Source Method Average or Range
TRJV mine at different curing ages (Seymour et al., 2018). (ksi)
Curing Time Samples Average UCS Fraction of Tesarik et al., Numerical
190
(days) Tested (psi) 28-Day UCS 20071 back-analysis
7 28 572 0.65 Yu, 19952 In situ testing 331–490
28 28 886 1.00 Tesarik et al., Instrumented
185–1,579
19953 backfill
708 3 1390 1.57
Tesarik et al., 18-in diameter
5,927 4 1636 1.85 326
20034 cylinder testing

These UCS test results indicate that the strength of CRF 18-in diameter
This Paper5 269
cylinder testing
continually increases with time, but that the rate of
strength gain gradually diminishes with prolonged curing 18-in diameter
This Paper6 686
time. Because most underground mines provide favorable cylinder testing
1TRJV
curing conditions, the in-place CRF should continue to Mine, Nevada, USA (jammed)
2Kidd
gain strength. However, as with concrete, if the relative Creek Mine, Ontario, Canada (consolidated)
3Buick Mine, Missouri, USA (placed in lifts with loaders and dozers)
humidity drops below 80% or the temperature drops 4Cannon Mine, Washington, USA (18-in diameter cylinders)
below freezing, the hydration process may be halted 5CHUG Mine, Nevada, USA (18-in diameter cylinders)

(Hosmatka and Panarese, 1990). 6Stillwater Mine, Montana, USA (18-in diameter cylinders)
As discussed in Section 4.2 and shown in Figures 10 and
11, the elastic modulus of a CRF sample decreases as the
size of the sample increases, indicating that the modulus
is affected by sample size and/or wet screening. In Figure
17, the modulus data from this study and from Tesarik et
al. (2003) are plotted versus the respective UCS of each
CRF sample, indicating a clear correlation between elastic
modulus and UCS. An ACI equation (Wight and
McGregor, 2009) for calculating the secant modulus of
typical concrete, having a density of 145 pcf, based on its
UCS value is also plotted in Figure 17.

Figure 18. Elastic modulus versus UCS for 18-in diameter CRF
samples from the Cannon, CHUG, and Stillwater mines.
Cannon Mine data is from Tesarik et al. (2003).

5.7. Tensile Strength

Standard relationships between the UCS, STS, and
flexural strength of concrete indicate that the tensile
strength can exceed 10% of the UCS, particularly for
lower strength concrete (Wight and MacGregor, 2009).
As discussed in Section 4.3, STS test results with CRF
samples from the TRJV, CHUG, and Stillwater mines
confirm that the average tensile strength of CRF is at least
10% of its UCS.

6. ESTIMATED MODELING PROPERTIES

Figure 17. Elastic modulus versus UCS for CRF samples from
Using the available CRF test data from the TRJV, CHUG,
the Cannon, CHUG, and Stillwater mines. Cannon Mine data is and Stillwater mines, the emplaced properties of jammed
from Tesarik et al. (2003). CRF were estimated for use in numerical modeling. These
properties are summarized in Table 15 and may be
Keeping the form of the ACI Equation constant while appropriate for other compacted cemented rockfills.
applying least squares regression on the intercept of the Table 15. Estimated emplaced properties of jammed CRF.
equation produces the regression equation (2), which is
listed below and plotted as the dashed line in Figure 17. Property Range
UCS, σc 500–950 psi
0.5
𝐸𝐸 = 57(𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈) -990 (2) Tensile strength1, σt 50–95 psi
where, 2
Cohesion , c 100–250 psi
𝐸𝐸 = Elastic Modulus (ksi) Friction Angle3, ϕ 35º–45º
𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 = Unconfined compressive Strength (psi)
Modulus, E 200–800 ksi
Figure 18 was created to estimate the elastic modulus of
emplaced CRF as a function of its UCS. However, the Poisson’s Ratio, v 0.16–0.25
1Estimated
UCS value used in this estimate must reasonably reflect as 10% of estimated emplaced unconfined compressive
the strength of the in-place CRF. UCS values obtained strength
2Estimated from Mohr-Coulomb theory using range of friction angles
from QA/QC tests with standard 6×12-in cylinders need 3Estimated from normal concrete and roller-compacted concrete
to be corrected for effects of sample size and wet literature (Richart et al., 1928; Nielsen, 1984; ACI, 1999).
screening as discussed in section 5.4.
Shear strength properties were estimated based on the
reported ranges for the friction angle of standard concrete
(Richart et al., 1928; Nielsen 1984) and for the friction
angle of roller-compacted concrete (ACI, 1999).
Cohesion was estimated using the standard Mohr-
Coulomb relationship, 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 = 2𝑐𝑐 tan(45 + ϕ⁄2). This
equation provides cohesion values between 21% to 26%
of the UCS, a range that is comparable to concrete and
RCC (ACI, 1999).
7. CONCLUSIONS
• Strength and mechanical properties were determined
from tests with cast cylinders of CRF from three
underhand cut-and-fill mines in the United States.
These tests show that the properties of this material
depend on many site-specific factors. Furthermore,
properties related to compaction, cylinder size, and
wet screening of oversized aggregate are in turn
affected by sample preparation methods.
• Compaction causes densification as porosity is
removed from the fill, increasing its strength and
stiffness. Because the emplaced density (or porosity)
of jammed CRF has not been measured, it is difficult
to relate the properties of smaller cylinders to those of
the emplaced material.
• The removal of oversized aggregate when casting
QA/QC cylinders increases the cement-to-aggregate
ratio, resulting in a relative increase in the 6×12-in
cylinder strengths as compared to the emplaced
strength of the CRF. The effects of sample size and
wet screening cannot be quantified individually
because the size of the wet-screened aggregate is
determined by the diameter of the sample.
Consequently, the sample size effect and the effects
of wet screening can only be expressed as an overall
scale factor.
• Test results presented in this paper document a much
larger variation in this scale effect as compared to
values currently discussed in the literature. These
findings underscore the need for site-specific testing.
Whereas the average UCS of 6×12-in cylinders
ranged from 811 to 3,833 psi, a factor of nearly 5, the
average UCS of 18×36-in cylinders ranged from 498
to 962, a factor of only 2. These test results suggest
that the differences in the emplaced strength of CRF
at different mines may not be as significant as the
QA/QC testing results indicate.
• Although the measured reduction in UCS with sample
size was larger than expected in some cases, the use
of CRF in current applications has a good safety
record. Nevertheless, the stability of undercut spans
beneath CRF depends on several other factors,
including tensile strength, emplaced compaction, and
applied loading. A more complete understanding of
these factors would help improve backfill designs.
• Finally, based on the test results in this study and
previously published data, methods for estimating the
emplaced properties of jammed CRF were developed.
While this information can be used to help assign
properties for CRF in numerical models, site-specific
strength properties should be used when calculating
safety factors for backfill exposures.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors want to thank the Barrick Gold Corporation
and the Sibanye-Stillwater Mining Company for
collaborating in this research. In particular, thanks to the
following individuals for coordinating the casting and
transport of the CRF cylinders: at TRJV, Chase Barnard,
Patrick Braden, and the backfill batch plant operators; at
Cortez Hills, Kaitlynn Hrenko, Mariah McCormick,
Jeremiah Larocque, and the CHUG 2017 summer interns;
and at Stillwater, Tyler Luxner. The assistance of the
following NIOSH personnel with logistical support and
laboratory testing is greatly appreciated: Mike Stepan,
Habte Abraham, Jerry Richardson, Seth Finley, and Mark
Powers.
DISCLAIMER
The findings and conclusions in this paper are those of the
author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH). Mention of any company or product does not
constitute endorsement by NIOSH.
REFERENCES
1. ACI (American Concrete Institute). 1999. Roller-
Compacted Mass Concrete. ACI Manual of Concrete
Practice, ACI 207.5R-99, 1–47. Farmington Hills,
Michigan: ACI.
2. ASTM Standard C31/C31M-15ae1, Standard Practice
for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the
Field. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
3. ASTM Standard C39/C39M-16b, Standard Test Method
for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete
Specimens. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
International.
4. ASTM Standard C78/C78M-16, Standard Test Method
for Flexural Strength of Concrete Using Simple Beam
with Third Point Loading. West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM International.
5. ASTM Standard C172/C172M-17, Standard Practice for
Sampling Freshly Mixed Concrete. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
6. ASTM Standard C469/C469M-14, Standard Test
Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson’s
Ratio of Concrete in Compression. West Conshohocken,
PA: ASTM International.
7. ASTM Standard C496/C496M-11, Standard Test
Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical
Concrete Specimens. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
International.
8. ASTM Standard C1176/C1176M-13, Standard Practice
for Making Roller-Compacted Concrete in Cylinder
Molds Using a Vibrating Table. West Conshohocken,
PA: ASTM International.
9. ASTM Standard C1435/C1435M-14, Standard Practice
for Molding Roller-Compacted Concrete in Cylinder
Molds Using a Vibrating Hammer. West Conshohocken,
PA: ASTM International.
10. Barrett, J.R., J.E. Stewart, and J.G. Brock. 1983.
Cemented gravel for a small underground mine. In
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Mining
with Backfill, Lulea, Sweden, 7 – 9 June 1983, ed. S.
Granholm, 69–78. Rotterdam: Balkema.
11. Blanks, R.F. and C.C. McNamara. 1935. Mass concrete
tests in large cylinders. Journal of the American
Concrete Institute, 31: 280–303.
12. Bureau of Reclamation. 1981. Concrete Manual. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Water and Power Resources
Service, 8th ed. Washington DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
13. Gonano, L.P. and R.W. Kirby. 1977. In situ investigation
of cemented rockfill in the 1100 Ore Body, Mt. Isa Mine,
Queensland Technical Report No. 47, Australian
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organization.
14. Hoek, E. and E.T. Brown. 2003. Underground
Excavations in Rock. The Institution for Mining and
Metallurgy, London: Taylor & Francis.
15. Hosmatka, S.H. and W.C. Panarese. 1990. Design and
Control of Concrete Mixtures. 13th ed. Skokie, Illinois:
Portland Cement Association.
16. Mitchell, R.J. 1991. Sill mat evaluation using centrifuge
models. Mining Science and Technology, 13: 301–313.
th
17. Neville, A.M. 2009. Properties of Concrete. 4 ed.
Harlow, England: Pearson Prentice Hall.
18. Nielsen, M.P. 1984. Limit Analysis in Concrete
Plasticity. 1st ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
19. O’Toole, D. 2005. A review of some important aspects
of cemented aggregate fill. In Handbook on Mine Fill,
eds. Y. Potvin et al., 134–137. Nedlands, Western
Australia: Australian Centre for Geomechanics.
20. Pakalnis, R., C. Caceres, K. Clapp, M. Morin, T. Brady,
T. Williams, W. Blake, and M. MacLaughlin. 2005.
Design spans – underhand cut and fill mining. In
Proceedings of 107th CIM-AGM, Toronto, Canada, 9 pp.
21. Richart, F.E., A. Brandtzaeg, and R.L. Brown. 1928. A
study of the failure of concrete under combined
compressive stresses. Bulletin No. 185, University of
Illinois, Engineering Experiment Station, Urbana-
Champaign, IL.
22. Seymour, J.B., L.A. Martin, C.C. Clark, D.R. Tesarik,
and M.A. Stepan. 2013. An analysis of recent MSHA
accident data for underground metal mines using
backfill. SME Annual Meeting, Feb 24 – 27, 2013,
Denver, CO: Society for Mining, Metallurgy, &
Exploration, Preprint No. 13-061, 9 pp.
23. Seymour, J.B., M.J. Raffaldi, S.N. Warren, and L.A.
Martin. 2018. Long term stability of a large undercut
span beneath cemented rockfill at the Turquoise Ridge
Mine. In Proceedings of the 52nd U.S. Rock Mechanics /
Geomechanics Symposium, Seattle, WA, 17 – 20 June
2018, eds. R. Schultz et al., Paper No. ARMA 18-1008,
16 pp.
24. Stone, D.M.R. 1993. The optimization of mix design for
cemented rockfill. In Proceedings of Minefill 93: The
South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
Symposium Series S13, Johannesburg, ed. H.W. Glen,
249–253. Johannesburg: SAIMM.
25. Stone, D.M.R. 2007. Factors that affect cemented
rockfill quality in Nevada mines. In Proceedings of the
Ninth International Symposium on Mining with Backfill
(Minefill 2007), Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 29 April –
3 May 2007, eds. F. Hassani et al., Paper No. 2539, 14
pp.
26. Talbot, A.N. and F.E. Richart. 1923. The strength of
concrete, its relation to the cement, aggregates and
water. Bulletin No. 137, University of Illinois,
Engineering Experiment Station, Urbana-Champaign,
Illinois.
27. Tesarik, D.R., J.D. Vickery, and J.B. Seymour. 1991.
Evaluation of in situ cemented backfill performance.
U.S. Bureau of Mines, Report of Investigations 9360, 26
pp.
28. Tesarik, D.R., J.B. Seymour, T.R. Yanske, and R.W.
McKibbin. 1995. Stability analysis of a backfilled room-
and-pillar mine. U.S. Bureau of Mines, Report of
Investigations 9565, 20 pp.
29. Tesarik, D.R., J.B. Seymour, and F.M. Jones. 2003.
Determination of in situ deformation modulus for
cemented rockfill. In Proceedings of 10th Congress of
International Society for Rock Mechanics: Technology
Roadmap for Rock Mechanics, Johannesburg, South
Africa, 8 – 12 September 2003, eds. M. Handley and D.
Stacey, 1209–1220. Johannesburg: SAIMM.
30. Tesarik, D.R., J.B. Seymour, L.A. Martin, and F.M.
Jones. 2007. Numeric model of cemented rockfill span
test at the Turquoise Ridge Mine, Golconda, Nevada,
USA. In Proceedings of the Ninth International
Symposium on Mining with Backfill (Minefill 2007),
Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 29 April – 3 May 2007, eds.
F. Hassani et al., Paper No. 2512, 8 pp.
31. Walton, T.R. 1989. Project 88030 – Waste rock backfill
testing with admixtures. Lafarge Canada Ltd. Internal
memo.
32. Warren, S.N., M.J. Raffaldi, K.K. Dehn, J.B. Seymour,
L.A. Sandbak, and J. Armstrong. 2018. Estimating the
unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of emplaced
 cemented rockfill (CRF) from QA/QC cylinder
strengths. SME Annual Meeting, Feb 25 – 28, 2018,
Minneapolis, MN, Society for Mining, Metallurgy &
Exploration, Preprint 18-031, 11 pp.
33. Wickens, J.D.V. and B.J. Snyman. 2017. Cemented
aggregate fill test work. In Proceedings of the 12th
International Symposium on Mining with Backfill
(Minefill 2017), Denver, Colorado, 19 – 22 Feb 2017,
eds. D. Stone et al., Paper No. SYM2017-0304, 9 pp.
34. Wight, J.K. and J.G. MacGregor. 2009. Reinforced
Concrete: Mechanics and Design. 5th ed. Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
35. Yu, T.R. 1992. Mechanisms of fill failure and fill
strength requirements. In Proceedings of the 16th
Canadian Rock Mechanics Symposium, Sudbury,
Canada, 43–48.
36. Yu, T.R. 1995. Consolidated Rockfill. Course notes
presented at Cheng-Kung University, 257 pp.

View publication stats