Design and construction of

bulkhead and plug barriers in mines

 Scope

Bulkhead and plug barriers are required in

mines to control potential flows, rushes and
blasts of water (including slurries) and air.

If uncontrolled, these flows rushes and blasts

may have a serious impact on the operation
of a mine, incur penalties, and threaten
people’s safety, even their lives. In some
instances the future of a mine may be
threatened.

Construction of bulkheads or plugs may be
required in urgent or emergency conditions,
when there is little time for rigorous
investigations and analyses, or for preparation
of a site. Construction may be in adverse, or
even hazardous conditions.
The notes do not cover bulkheads and
barriers for retention and control of fill in
mined stopes. This is another specialist
application, which involves different principles
of design and construction.

Printed: 21 January 2002 Bulkhead & Plug Barriers 2

 Role of bulkhead and plug barriers in mines

Bulkhead and plug barriers are

constructed in underground mines to
confine - or isolate - water, slurry, gases,
blasts, or falling rock.

In essence, bulkheads and plugs are

intended to be impermeable or
impenetrable barriers.

Particularly, within mines, they may be

required to control:
‹ inflowing groundwater, which is
the most common role of
bulkheads and plugs;
‹ toxic or explosive gases,
especially in coal mines;
‹ flows of water or mud associated
with a collapse;
‹ water or slurried fill in a stope, a
shaft, or an open pit;
‹ leaching fluids in a stope;
‹ mine water and gases at closure.
Concrete plug, with a conduit for man-access, at the
Static pressures equivalent to tens or 1200 ft level of the Friendensville Zinc Mine (USA ),
hundreds of metres of water may develop which was constructed to control inflows of
against a bulkhead or plug in these groundwater through limestone. (from Chekan 1985)
circumstances.

Printed: 21 January 2002 Bulkhead & Plug Barriers 3

 Role of bulkhead and plug barriers in mines (continued)

A barrier may have more than one role:

‹ Where a bulkhead or plug may be

installed to protect against falling rock,
at the bottom of a stope or a shaft, for
example, there may be a potential for
an accompanying an air-blast.

‹ In some special circumstances, a

bulkhead or plug barrier that is
confining water on one side may be
required to withstand a potential blast
on the other side.

Typically, barriers are constructed of concrete

masonry, mass concrete, shotcrete, or
grouted aggregate.
Barriers may be constructed in openings in the wall
of an open pit, to isolate backfilled waste
materials and water from potential groundwater or
underground workings.

Printed: 21 January 2002 Bulkhead & Plug Barriers 4

 Background
Construction of engineered bulkhead and plug
barriers in mines is relatively rare. Fill
bulkheads are the most widely applied in
hard-rock mines, and gas-containment
bulkheads in coal mines.
Modern principles for the design of barriers to
control inflows of high-pressure water in hard-
rock mines arose in the South African gold
mines during the late 1950’s. Inundation of
the West Driefontein Mine was the most
famous example. Similar experience evolved
in US lead-zinc mines, especially in fissured
limestone environments. Published
applications of barriers to control water in coal
mines date from the 1930’s. Empirical design
principles evolved in each case, and they
have largely endured through to current times.
In parallel, civil engineers developed empirical
design guides for plugs in dam diversion
tunnels and hydro-energy intake shafts,
based on simple mechanistic principles,
similar to those underlying designs for mining
applications.
Printed: 21 January 2002 Bulkhead & Plug Barriers
Recent intensive investigations of sites of
nuclear waste repositories have included
barriers for sealing the repositories, but
skewed toward absolute sealing of nuclides
against low pressures.
The 1970’s and 80’s brought applications of
finite element analysis to the design of
bulkheads and plugs. In mines, there were
investigations and analyses of the design of
fill and leaching stope bulkheads. For civil
works, there were published examples of
analyses of plugs for dam diversion tunnels
and nuclear waste repositories.
In contrast, many applications, in both civil
and mining environments, have apparently
been consciously over-designed, since this
has simply involved greater quantities of
concrete and grout.
Relatively few papers on the design and
construction of bulkheads and plugs have
been published. Many of these date from the
1950’s and 60’s for mining applications.
5
 Background (continued)

Example of a type of concrete plug constructed in Sections of an experimental plug constructed in a

US coal mines in the 1930’s, for the control of South African gold mine in the 1950’s to
water. The plug’s interface was grouted. investigate their design and construction for the
control of high-pressure water.

Printed: 21 January 2002 Bulkhead & Plug Barriers 6

 Role of bulkheads and plugs as seals

In most instances, barriers are constructed to

seal an opening against a leakage of water or
gas into an operating area, or the surrounds
of a mine.

Leakage may occur through both the interface

between a barrier and its wallrock, and the
surrounding wallrock. Both need to be grouted
to form an effectual seal.

To be effective, a seal depends on

maintaining the integrity and stability of the
barrier, against the imposed pressure. Sealing
and stability are inter-related. A leak may lead
to a failure and, conversely, a failing bulkhead
or plug may leak.

The design and construction of a barrier are

therefore jointly directed to:
‹ sealing the tunnel or shaft, while

‹ maintaining the stability of the

Leakage of water or gas around a concrete bulkhead
barrier, each against the applied or plug may be through the interface between and a
pressure. plug and its wallrock, or cracks and fractures in the
wallrock, driven by the gradient of pressure over its
length.

Printed: 21 January 2002 Bulkhead & Plug Barriers 7

 Types of bulkheads and plugs

Bulkhead and plug barriers may be

conveniently divided into two types:

‰ Slab or plate bulkheads, whose lengths

or thickness (along the axis of a tunnel or
shaft) are less than their diameter (across the
tunnel or shaft). Their strength is limited by
the flexure of the plate, and the shear
resistance of the wall of the tunnel of shaft.

‰ Plugs, whose lengths are greater than

than their diameter. Their strength is limited
by the shear resistance of the wall of the
tunnel or shaft.

The thinner plate structures are usually called

bulkheads, and the thicker/longer structures
are usually called plugs. However,
thicker/longer structures may also be called
bulkheads. Collectively, they may be termed
barriers.

(There is actually a continuous gradation of

ratios of length:diameter, to suite a range of
circumstances.)

Printed: 21 January 2002 Bulkhead & Plug Barriers 8

 Plate bulkheads

Plate bulkheads are typically constructed of

reinforced concrete, placed between
formwork. When pressurised, they flex, or
buckle downstream. Tensile stresses and
extensile strains develop within the centre of
the downstream face of the bulkhead.
Cracking and failure are resisted by the
strength of the concrete and its steel
reinforcement. This type of bulkhead are
generally applied for low pressures,
equivalent to tens of metres of water.

A bulkhead may be keyed into wallrock to

enhance its internal arching, which increases
its shear strength against wallrock, and
reduces its flexure.

Alternatively, thin bulkheads may be

constructed of concrete masonry blocks. Illustration of a plate bulkhead that may be
Bulkheads may be planar, or arched constructed in a coal mine, which is embedded, or
upstream to inhibit flexure and mobilise their hitched, in wallrock to enhance its strength and
shear strength against wallrock. seal against pressurised gas or water.

Printed: 21 January 2002 Bulkhead & Plug Barriers 9

 Plate bulkheads
Applications of thin plate bulkheads in mines

‰ Retain hydraulically-placed backfill in

stopes. Potential hydraulic heads are the
height of the stope, but placement and
drainage of the fill are controlled to limit
hydraulic heads to tens of metres. These are
the most widely applied in hard-rock mines.
Most are constructed of concrete masonry
blocks. They may be curved (arched) or
straight (planar).

‰ Retain leaching fluids in a stope, which

is filled with rubblised rock. Potential hydraulic
heads are the height of the stope, but these
are usually limited to tens of metres for
effective leaching.

‰ Confine ground and mine water, at low

pressures (ie, to ~100m). Applications may
include: isolation of a completed stope;
protection of a level, decline, or shaft against
flows; and permanent seal of a mine.

‰ Confine seam gases in a worked-out

section of a coal mine. Bulkheads may need
to be sufficiently strong to withstand a
potential gas explosion.

Printed: 21 January 2002 Bulkhead & Plug Barriers 10

 Plugs

Typically, plugs are applied where high

pressures may develop, equivalent to
hundreds of metres of water, or a long-term
seal is required. They are, in these
circumstances, generally:
‹ longer than their diameter,
‹ constructed of plain (unreinforced)
concrete, but in some instances may
be of grouted aggregate,
‹ constructed within an existing section
of a tunnel or shaft, where walls are
parallel.

A plug’s strength is limited by the shear

strength of the plug-wallrock interface. Under
pressure, this may be enhanced by arching
within the plug, bearing against the wallrock.

In some instances, a tunnel or shaft may be

tapered downstream to increase a plug’s
internal arching and strength over that of a
parallel plug. In other instances, wallrock may
be serrated to create multiple abutments to
enhance internal arching and strength.
Tapers, serrations, and similar styles of
shaping of wallrock are usually impractical in
mines.

Printed: 21 January 2002 Bulkhead & Plug Barriers 11

 Plugs
Applications of plugs in mines

‰ Isolate and seal an unmanageable inflow

of groundwater from an operating section of a
mine. Potential hydraulic heads may develop
to the surface, which may be hundreds of
metres. Inflowing water may arise from high-
permeability rock units, geologic structures,
solution channels, or a collapse.

‰ Isolate and seal a collapsed or caving

section within a mine, where high water
pressures and slurried materials may develop.
If voids remain, a plug may need to withstand
a potential air-blast.

‰ Isolate and seal a section of a mine at

closure, against accumulated or inflowing
groundwater. The intent would usually be to
isolate mine water from the ground or surface
water, where mine water may be
contaminated (eg acidic, heavy metals).
Hydraulic heads to hundreds of metres may
develop. A special case may be isolation and
sealing at a boundary between mine leases.

Printed: 21 January 2002 Bulkhead & Plug Barriers 12

 Non-mining applications of plugs

‰ Close and seal a diversion tunnel for a

dam, to fill and maintain water in the dam.
Hydraulic heads to about 100m may develop
at embankment dams, and to about 200m at
concrete arch dams. Tunnels may be up to
15m diameter. Bulkheads and plugs are
required to seal a tunnel indefinitely (in an
engineering context).

‰ Close and seal a branch of a hydro-energy

intake shaft. Heads to several hundred metres
may develop.

‰ Seal sites of underground repositories of

nuclear wastes. Seals must be absolute and
indefinite (in a geological context). Potential
hydraulic heads may range from small to
hundreds of metres.

‰ Confine blasts at testing facilities and

military sites. Bulkheads must be capable of
withstanding dynamic rather then static (eg
hydraulic) forces.
Engineering designs for each of these
applications have relevance for water control
plugs in mines.
Illustration of a concrete plug constructed in a dam’s
diversion tunnel to stop diversion and allow the dam
to fill. The plug’s interface and wallrock were grouted
to enhance its seal and strength. Numerical modelled
was applied to develop its design length, for the
conditions.

Printed: 21 January 2002 Bulkhead & Plug Barriers 13

 Principles of design of concrete plugs
Design objectives
Concrete plugs are designed to jointly satisfy
two criteria:
‹ seal a tunnel or shaft, against
leakage through the interface and
surrounding wallrock,
‹ maintain its strength, against shear
failure, at the interface (or through
adjacent wallrock).
These factors are inter-related, since a
leaking plug may lead to a failure, and a
failing plug may leak.
There is relatively little published literature,
and only a few precedents for the design of
concrete plugs. Most deal with water-control
plugs in South African gold mines, lead-zinc
mines in limestone, coal mines, hydro intake
shafts, and dam diversion tunnels.
In many instances, conscious over-design has
been adopted. Nowadays, an engineered
design is usually required, since costs of
construction are significant, and the
consequences of a failure may be disastrous.
Printed: 21 January 2002 Bulkhead & Plug Barriers
Design variables
Several variables may be incorporated in the
design of a concrete plug:
‹ Length, which is the primary design
variable, given that a plug is
constructed of concrete, filling the
shaft or drive. Longer plugs are less
permeable and stronger.
‹ Grouting of the interface and
surrounding wallrock, involving its
extent, type, and pressure, which
influences both strength and
permeability.
‹ Reinforcement of the interface and
wallrock, with steel tendons, which
primarily influences their strengths
under changing pressures.
‹ Reinforcement of the concrete of the
plug, although this is usually
considered only for installations in
shafts.
14
 Principles of design of concrete plugs (continued)
A limited range of analytical techniques are
available. They range from simplistic to
rigorous:
‰ A general rule of thumb:
‹ length:diameter ratio - for the
combination of strength and leakage.
This is a relatively crude guide, and
should not generally be used.
‰ For leakage:
‹ empirical hydraulic gradient criterion,
from which a design length may be
estimated;
‹ numerical modelling (in principle).
‰ For stability:
‹ empirical limiting shear stress on the
interface, from which a design length
may be estimated;
‹ analytical limiting shear strength of
the interface, from which a design
length may be estimated;
‹ numerical modelling, which is the
most rigorous technique.
Printed: 21 January 2002 Bulkhead & Plug Barriers
‰ Empirical criteria require an assessment
of appropriate factors for the condition of the
interface and wallrock. They are, therefore,
unreliable; that is, a design should generally
not rely on them. Nonetheless, they are based
on experience (although of a limited range),
and provide a useful first estimate of design
lengths.
‰ Numerical modelling should be
undertaken for all critical installations.
‹ Modelling can readily examine the
strength and deformation of a plug, but
it may involve uncertain estimates of
properties of materials and the
influence of reinforcement.
‹ Modelling may incorporate the flow of
fluids, but flow properties are likely to
be so uncertain that the extra time and
cost may not be justified.
‰ Whatever the design procedure, an
overlay of professional judgement is
required, based on experience from
precedents in comparable circumstances.
15
 Empirical design of plugs
Limiting pressure gradient, for leakage

Leakage is likely to occur through a

combination of the concrete-wallrock interface
and the surrounding wallrock. Concrete itself is
virtually impermeable. A design therefore
needs to account for the potential permeability
of the interface and the surrounding rock, for
the expected pressures.
The limiting pressure gradient criterion for
Experience from installations to control high leakage accounts for:
inflows of groundwater in South African gold ‹ pressure, imposed by gas or water,
mines led to the the concept of a limiting
‹ length (but not diam eter) of the
pressure gradient, for the rock conditions and
the nature of the interface. Given a limiting plug,
gradient and the expected pressure, a limiting ‹ permeability of the interface and the

design length for a plug can be estimated. surrounding wallrock, through the
selected limiting pressure gradient.
An assessment of the ground conditions at a
site is crucial. The permeability of the
surrounding rock is not explicitly embodied in
the limiting pressure gradient criterion, but is
implicitly through the selected limiting gradient.
The selection of a limiting gradient is based on
precedents, and a general assessment of the
surrounding rock, which each require
professional judgement.

Printed: 21 January 2002 Bulkhead & Plug Barriers 16

 Empirical design of plugs
Limiting Shear Stress at Interface, for strength

Studies during the late 1950’s of plugs

installed in South African gold mines
incorporated the principle of a limiting shear
stress along the plug-wallrock interface. A
plug is assumed to act as a rigid inclusion in a
tunnel or shaft, restrained by interface friction.

As a plug’s length increases, the interface The limiting shear stress criterion for
shear stress decreases, for a particular strength accounts for:
hydraulic force. Below a limiting shear stress ‹ pressure, imposed by gas or water,

for the conditions, a plug is accepted as ‹ length and width (or height) of the
having sufficient strength. plug,
‹ shear strength of the interface,

Even at the time there was acceptance that through the selected “allowable” or
the mechanism of a limiting shear stress was limiting shear strength.
a simplification of a complex system. They
recognised that there was likely to be a
gradient of shear stress along an interface.
Nonetheless, the criterion was accepted as a
useful design guide.

Given a maximum likely hydraulic force, a

limiting length of plug is determined for the
“allowable shear stress”.

Printed: 21 January 2002 Bulkhead & Plug Barriers 17

 Role of numerical analysis for the design of plugs
The empirical design methods for leakage
and strength do not adequately account for
some factors that influence the performance
of a concrete plug. Particularly, they do not
account for the deformation of the wallrock
and plug under pressure, which both influence
strength and leakage.
Numerical analyses provide a more rigorous
procedure for analyses of the strength and
permeability of a plug.
Numerical analyses of strength may
incorporate:
‹ three dimensional shapes, including
tapered and serrated plugs;
‹ a realistic mechanistic model of the
interface;
‹ multiple (or mixed) wallrock materials;
‹ integrated deformation of the plug and
wallrock, simulating arching, strains
and failure;
‹ reinforcement in the wallrock and the
plug, although only implicitly.
Printed: 21 January 2002 Bulkhead & Plug Barriers
Analyses can, if required, incorporate:
‹ generation of heat of hydration in
concrete;
‹ dynamic forces, from an explosion or
an air-blast;
‹ permeability of the interface and
surrounding rock - if the properties are
known.
In all cases, though, the principle limitation of
numerical modelling is the estimation of
properties of materials, be they static,
hydraulic or dynamic. Since they apply to the
(complex) interface and a narrow periphery of
disturbed and dilated rock, there is no
practical way to measure these properties.
Estimation must rely on precedents and
judgement.
Thus, even though numerical models
incorporate realistic mechanistic components,
they are limited by the complex indeterminate
nature of the interface and its immediate
surrounds.
18
 Role of numerical analysis (continued)

As an example, for the plug in the Gordon

Dam’s diversion tunnel, mentioned previously
in the context of the 1.5x empirical guideline,
the Hydro-electric Commission reduced an
initial design length of a tapered plug from
14.6m (2.3x least diameter), based on a
multiplicative guide (at the time), to a
constructed length of 6.5m (0.8x least
diameter), based on a finite element analysis.

During recent years, potential concrete plugs

for underground sealing of high-level nuclear
waste repositories have been analysed with
numerical methods.

Currently, numerical analyses are regarded

as the appropriate method to refine and check
a design, if not to be the primary tool for
design. Empirical methods are, at best, a
means to develop a preliminary design, as a
basis for numerical analysis. A design for a
critical installation (eg, high-head, or toxic
materials), should not be accepted without an
appropriate numerical analysis.

Printed: 21 January 2002 Bulkhead & Plug Barriers 19

 Numerical analysis
Numerical modelling of deformability and strength

An example of the results of a

numerical analysis of the
strength of a concrete plug. The
plot is a longitudinal section,
along the centre-line of the plug
and drive, showing the top half of
the plug (bottom of plot) and an
equal extent of overlying wallrock
(top of plot). Water pressure was
applied to the plug and wallrock
on the LHS. Contours are of
strain.

If the estimates of the properties

of materials and the mechanistic
model were correct, this plug
would be stable for the applied
pressure.

(Numerical analysis by Ken McNabb,

Mincad Systems)

Printed: 21 January 2002 Bulkhead & Plug Barriers 20

 Construction

Preparation of site
The shear strength and permeability of the
interface between a plug and its wallrock are
critical factors. The site of construction must,
therefore, be thoroughly cleaned of loose and
oily material, including the floor, and loose
rock scaled from walls.

Construction
Plugs are usually constructed of plain
(unreinforced) concrete. Appropriate
standards (eg, AS) may be adopted for the
concrete and its placement. The upstream
end of a plug would usually become
inaccessible, so that formwork may be
wooden or, conveniently in mines, concrete
masonry walls. Cold joints within a plug must
be avoided.

Plain concrete has sufficient strength

(compared with the interface), and is
effectively impermeable without internal
Illustration of the construction of a concrete plug in a
reinforcement. High gradients of internal rectangular-shaped drive, between masonry block
strain within the upstream end of a plug may bulkheads, as formwork, at each end.
make reinforcement counter-productive.

Printed: 21 January 2002 Bulkhead & Plug Barriers 21

 Construction (continued)
Reinforcement of wallrock
Whether or not the interface between
concrete and wallrock is reinforced remains
an open question. A majority of reported
applications are not reinforced.
If applied, its primary role would be to:
‹ maintain the integrity of the interface
where tensile stresses and cracking
may occur;
‹ increase a plug’s effective shear
strength;
‹ generally, enhance the integrity of
wallrock under high fluid pressures.
Wallrock with extensive planes of weakness
(eg, bedding, schistocity) or dense fracturing
(eg, coal measures) would more likely require
reinforcement. Reinforcing tendons should be
fully bonded (acting as dowels) to enhence
the rock’s cohesiveness.
Reinforcement may be required to survive in
potentially corrosive conditions (eg, acid
water), and for long periods (possibly
decades). Cement-grouted rebar would be
favoured for most environments.
Printed: 21 January 2002 Bulkhead & Plug Barriers
Post-construction grouting
Post-grouting of a plug’s interface and
wallrock are crucial for its strength and
permeability under pressure. Concrete would
not always have an intimate contact with
wallrock, especially at the back (roof), and
concrete usually shrinks as it cures. Grouting
is intended to provide an intimate interface,
and fill permeable fractures or cracks in
wallrock.
Cement grout is suitable in most
circumstances, but chemical grouts may be
required where cracks are fine or imposed
pressures are expected to be very high. Grout
pressures to 2.0x the expected maximum fluid
pressure, and at least greater than the
hydraulic jacking pressure for the conditions,
are usually required for effectual sealing.
Grouting may need to extend at least one
diameter into wallrock.
Re-grouting may be required as fluid
pressures increase, cracks are opened, and
leaks develop. Chemical grouts, which are
finer than cement, may need to be injected at
this stage.
22
 Construction of grouted aggregate plugs

Placement of concrete to form a plug may be
impractical when, for example:
‹ there is no facility to mix or deliver
concrete,
‹ concrete cannot be physically placed
at a site,
‹ conditions at the site are hazardous.
These circumstances may particularly arise in
an emergency, such as a flood or a collapse.
Typically, at least one extra cycle of grouting
is required for grouted aggregate plugs:
‹ initially, the aggregate, at low
pressure;
‹ subsequently, the interface and
remaining voids in the aggregate, at
high pressure;
‹ finally, the interface and surrounding

rock, when the plug has cured, at high

In lieu of concrete, a plug may be constructed pressure.
in situ by post-grouting aggregate dumped or
stowed in the tunnel. In a sense, concrete is
mixed in situ. Many of the early plugs placed
in the South African gold mines were of this
type.

As for concrete plugs, the site needs to be

cleared of loose rock, dust, mud, and oil.
Flows of water need to be stemmed.
Aggregate needs to be angular, clean (ie, no
fines), and well-graded.

Grouted aggregate plugs are generally longer

than an equivalent concrete plug in the same
circumstances, to account for their inherently
lower strength and greater permeability.

Printed: 21 January 2002 Bulkhead & Plug Barriers 23

 Remotely constructed barriers

Sometimes, the site required for the

construction of a barrier is inaccessible. There
may be flowing water, noxious gases, or the
threat of a collapse, water- or mud-rush, air-
blast, or explosion.

An interim barrier may be constructed

remotely by delivering aggregate or concrete
through holes drilled into the tunnel or shaft.
Materials accumulate in a cone, at the angle
of rill or slump. Such a barrier may stem the
flow of water, or provide a restricted protective
cover for the construction of a permanent and
well-engineered barrier. A limited post-
grouting of aggregate may be feasible in
some circumstances. Jet-grouting of placed
aggregate or collapsed material may be
possible in some circumstances.

These barriers cannot substitute for a

permanent, high-pressure barrier, because
quality-control measures were foregone: the
site is unprepared (ie, loose rock and fines
may remain), the plug is relatively weak and
permeable, and there is little or no post-
grouting. They have inadequate strength and
are a poor sealant.

Printed: 21 January 2002 Bulkhead & Plug Barriers 24