Backfill for Bench Stoping Operations

E. Villaescusa
Professor of Mining Geomechanics, Western Australian School of Mines

K. Kuganathan
Senior Backfill Research Engineer, Mount Isa Mines

ABSTRACT

This paper describes a new methodology that can be applied to compare several
bench extraction strategies requiring backfill. The method is applicable at the
planning or operational stages and can be used to maintain dilution within
design parameters and improve the overall economics of bench stoping
operations. The parameters influencing bench performance have been
empirically rated based on economical, geomechanical, operational and backfill
properties. Four different extraction strategies have been considered and rated
from most preferred to less preferred using an integrated approach to bench
extraction.

INTRODUCTION

The success of mining by the bench stoping method largely depends upon the
level of understanding of critical wall exposure, usually unsupported
hangingwall behaviour, the application of remote mucking technology, drilling
and blasting optimization and the appropriate use of backfilling technology
(Villaescusa et al, 1994). The economics are influenced by the effectiveness of
the adopted bench design and also on having an extraction strategy that
matches the site conditions. Bench design is controlled by the geometrical
dimensions such as sublevel interval, and the exposed stable lengths likely to
match the expected rockmass conditions. Stability charts such as the HSR
method (Villaescusa et al, 1997) or the Modified Stability Graph (Potvin et al,
1989) can be utilized during the planning and design stages to calculate the
required bench dimensions.
An extraction strategy related to the maximum stable length that can be
safely exposed, and the type of backfill to be used is usually identified during
the design stages. In most cases, permanent infra-structure such as ramp access
configurations are also fixed within an initial mine design stage, leaving the
extraction strategy as the only flexible (and most important) parameter to be
optimized during the subsequent production stage.

THE ROLE OF BACKFILL

Backfill can be generally described as any material that is placed

underground to fill the voids created by the extraction process. In up-dip bench
extractions, the backfill provides a working floor for mucking and also helps to
stabilize the exposed spans by minimizing deformation and dynamic loading
of the excavated walls from blasting. Following extraction of an economic
length of a steeply dipping orebody, the void created by a bench stope can be
filled with hydraulic fill or dry fill (waste) to the floor of the drill drive which
becomes the new extraction horizon on the next lift as indicated on Figure 1.
Dry rockfill can be used to minimize deformations (and optimize stability)
while the benches are being extracted, provided that the backfill can be kept
sufficiently far away to minimize dilution of the broken ore by fill at the
interface.
Empirical stability charts such as the HSR (Villaescusa et al, 1997) and the
Modified Stability Graph Method (Potvin et al, 1989) can be used to determine
the maximum unsupported strike lengths which can be safely exposed during
continuous backfilling operations. An optimal use of the 'critical strike length'
concept would ensure that excessive dilution does not occur during production
blasting, where the blasted material may be thrown on top of closely located
backfill rills, contributing to contamination of the ore during mucking.

Filling
Production Blasting

Bench Limit
Maximum Unsupported Span
(Critical Strike Length)

Mucking ORE BACKFILL

Backfill Previous Bench

Figure 1. Schematic of continuous bench backfilling techniques.

The beneficial support provided by the backfill is very important in order to

minimize deformations experienced by the exposed unsupported hangingwalls
as the stope is being extracted or following bench completion. Hangingwall
deformation data collected from properly located multiple point extensometers
has shown that backfill effectively stops the large scale deformation of the
unsupported hangingwall layers during bench stoping (See Figure 2).

D eformation (mm) 5FP1 Exto 1

stope Backfill introd uced here
30 blastings
anchor d epth into H/ W
25 A1-0.5m

20 A2-1.5m

A3-2.5m
15
A4-3.5m

10 A5-7.5m

5 A6-Ref

0
2/ 22/ 93 3/ 14/ 93 4/ 3/ 93 4/ 23/ 93 5/ 13/ 93 6/ 2/ 93 6/ 22/ 93

D ate
Figure 2. Influence of backfilling on hangingwall deformations.

Instrumentation has also been used to determine the dynamic response of

the stope walls as a bench stope is extracted and filled progressively. Table 1
presents a frequency analysis of instrumented walls using triaxial arrays of
geophones indicating that the wall of a filled stope (using dry fill) behaves like a
closed wall (i.e., intact solid ground, where no void has been created). All the
blast vibration data was collected at approximately 5, 9 and 13m into the
hangingwall of the stope (Villaescusa et al, 1997). The beneficial impact of
backfill to stabilize the rockmass surrounding a stope void is very clear from the
data presented in Table 1. Promptly placed backfill appears to reduce the
dynamic loading caused by blasting, thus enhancing the overall regional
rockmass stability.

Table 1. Dynamic response of a rockmass as backfilling proceeds.

Backfill Dominant Average Number of
Status Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) Data points
None
Closed walls 10-20 31 17
(1.5m burden)
None
Closed walls 40-50 52 8
(3m burden)
None 30-50 45 7
6m open span
None 90-100 88 5
9m open span
None 100-110 94 84
15m open span
stope empty 100-130 114 9
15m open span
Stope 100-110 86 7
½ filled
Stope - 71 6
3/4 filled
Stope 10-20 28 5
5/6 filled
Stope 40-50 38 5
filled
Stope 30-40 29 8
filled

EXTRACTION STRATEGIES

In mining operations where the bench heights are fixed during mine
development, the extraction strategy is the only variable that can be used to
optimize the economics of bench stoping. The extraction strategies considered
within this study include:

1) Extraction using a continuous dryfill mass (waste rock having a rill angle
between 38-42 degrees) that follows an advancing bench brow at a fixed
distance (not exceeding a critical unsupported strike length) along the entire
bench length (as shown in Figure 1).
2) Extracting a bench to a maximum stable unsupported strike length,
followed by backfill using hydraulic fill in conjunction with brick bulkheads.
This is followed by pillar recovery and the process is repeated along entire
bench length (See Figure 2). Although this strategy is primarily linked to
hydraulic fill, the use of cemented fill would ensure that minimal fill dilution
would be experienced following pillar recovery.
Tem porary pillar (d rilled )

N ew Slot Prod uction recovered pillar

Blasting hyd raulic fill

Maxim um Bench
strike length Lim it
(void filled )

Mucking ORE
Bulkhead s

Backfill

Figure 2. Hydraulic fill and pillar recovery

3) Leaving (planned) permanent pillars between independent (unfilled)

hangingwall spans along the entire bench length. Backfilling is done at bench
completion using either dry or hydraulic fill (See Figure 3). On this strategy, it is
critical to establish the optimum distances between the pillars in order to
minimize the number of pillars required, especially in high grade orebodies.
Pillar dimensions are a function of the ground conditions, the expected stress
levels and the optimum extraction of the adjacent long hole winzes. Blast
monitoring programs can be implemented to determine optimum cut lengths to
be taken during long hole winzing in order to minimize blast damage to the
adjacent hangingwall areas and specially the narrow pillars (Villaescusa et al,
1997). In weak rockmasses, the stability of un-filled spans may be affected by
blasting in adjacent spans along the strike of the orebody.
perm anent pillar

N ew Slot Prod uction permanent pillar

Blasting

Maxim um
unsupported
strike length Bench
(void to be Lim it
filled at bench
com pletion)
Mucking ORE
Perm anent pillar

Backfill Backfill

Figure 3. Non recoverable permanent pillars in conjunction with backfill.

4) The introduction of full Avoca techniques, where the bench is extracted

along the entire length by a repetitive process which requires the bench to be
extracted to a maximum stable length, the void tight filled to the brow, and the
subsequent bench blasting to be taken with no free face (See Figure 4).

Filling Filling

Prod uction Bench

blasting Lim it
Continuous AVOCA fill
(no free face)

Mucking BACKFILL
ORE

Backfill Previous Bench

Figure 4. Full Avoca extraction method.

The option of extracting a bench beyond its stable limits and then leaving a
(unplanned) pillar to arrest a hangingwall failure has not been considered in
this analysis, because it does not represent good design or operational practices.
Option 3 above is related to extracting the bench using pillars that have been
designed at the very early stages, and it is assumed that the spans between
pillars are stable and independent (from a deformational point of view) of each
other.
In order to assess the effectiveness of each of the bench extraction strategies,
several parameters were considered (See Figure 5). Geomechanics is related to
the ability of a system to provide adequate hangingwall support and to
minimize dilution and the effects of blast damage to the adjacent rockmass. Fill
performance is related to optimal selection of fill material and the placement
method in order to reduce cycle time, dilution, ore losses and to enhance the
stability of the fill itself as well as the surrounding rockmass. The economics of
any of the selected strategies is controlled by factors such as cost of backfilling
(materials and placement), dilution, ore loss, poor fragmentation, etc. all
contribute to the success and applicability of each of the bench extraction
strategies considered.

Fill performance Economics

1. Material selection 1. Cost of fill material
2. Placement & 2 Cost of placement
compaction 3 Cost of dilution
3. Cycle time 4 Cost of ore loss
4. Stability/failure 5 Cost of operational
5. Dilution/oreloss issues (mucking
Bench fragmentation, etc)
Performance

Geomechanics
1. dilution
2. hangingwall
support
3. blast damage

Figure 5. Parameters influencing bench performance

 Optimization of any bench extraction strategy can only be achieved by
analyzing the problem in an integrated manner. Any attempt to analyze
benching based on a single, isolated issue could lead to erroneous and
misleading conclusions.
Effective, preventative measures to improve stability and reduce rock mass
damage should be provided in the design stages to prevent fill mucking and ore
contamination in the extraction stages. This will automatically minimise the
problem of dilution. The best approach to dilution control is not the
measurement of dilution, but to concentrate in prevention at its sources by due
diligence at the design and extraction stages.
Experience suggests that is very difficult to estimate the amount of waste or
fill material mucked out either to gain access to broken ore or in the process of
removing the ore. Any attempt to estimate dilution by relating it to a solid ore
volume or bucket count in the mucking process may not quantify dilution with
the required accuracy. Cavity monitoring using the Optech system may be the
only way to quantify ore loss or fill dilution within single digits.
Once an inadequate design has been implemented (for example an excessive
bench height in poor rockmass conditions), it is very difficult to optimize any
extraction strategy. Furthermore, when the excavations are extracted to
instability due to indifferent or inefficient operational practices, excessive
dilution to the ore stream is likely. Remedial measures such as arresting failures
with unplanned pillars can be effective but this can lead to orelosses and blast
damage to the surrounding rockmass.

EMPIRICAL RATING OF EXTRACTION STRATEGIES

The paper proposes an empirical selection procedure for bench and filling
extraction strategies (See Table 2). The classification rates the most significant
controlling parameters and can be used to determine the most suitable
extraction strategy for a particular mine site. The preferred bench extraction
strategies are linked to the use of conventional dry fill and hydraulic fill
options. In mine sites where a hydraulic fill plant is not available, the
classification would be limited to three extraction strategies (all linked to dry
fill).
The selection procedure presented in Table 2 can be used in conjunction
with an economic model of backfill that accounts for stope dimensions, the cost
of backfill material and transport to the stope, number of bulkheads, filling rate,
etc. Figure 6 shows the results from a model developed by Mount Isa Mines and
suggest that high lift benches should be filled using hydraulic fill. The strategy
to fill short lift benches will depend upon the rockmass quality (maximum
stable length) i.e., for short lift benches dry fill or wet fill may be recommended
(See Figure 6).
In high lift benches (24-45m high), adequate stabilization of the unsupported
hangingwalls is very difficult using continuous dry fill as shown in Figure 7.
The shallow rill angle (38-42 degrees) of the dry fill means that a significant
portion of the exposed walls remain unsupported, even if the rill reaches the
advancing bench brow. The backfill mass is likely to interact with the broken
ore muckpile, thereby contributing to dilution.

One way tramming distance = 200m

bench width = 7m

50

45 most likely
stable
length
40
high
lift
Bench Height (m)

benches 35
hydraulic fill
30 recommended

25

dry fill
20 recommended

short 15
lift
benches
10
10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Bench Length (m)

Figure 6. A conceptual model of backfill material and transport cost.

Filling
Production blasting

Unsupported
Hangingwall area

Bench Backfilled Most likely critical strike length

height
> 24m

ore mucking

Figure 7. Schematic long section view of a high lift bench stope.

The selection criteria presented in Table 2 suggest that full Avoca is the least
recommended method of extraction. This is particularly true in high lift benches
where blast damage, backfill stability and excess dilution are likely to become
an issue. High lift benches require larger diameter blastholes, compared with
short lift benches, in order to minimize hole deviation. However, the large
blasthole sizes are likely to increase the level of blast damage, especially when
the detonation occurs under full confinement from the Avoca backfill.
Table 2 identifies seven key parameters (blast damage, hangingwall support,
fill stability, dilution, ore loss, material cost and operational issues) likely to
control the economics and the performance of bench stoping operations. The
total rating for each extraction strategy is simply calculated by adding the
numbers on each column.
 The results on Table 2 were calculated assuming that each of the controlling
parameters had equal weighting. Alternatively, the most suitable extraction
sequence can be determined by weighting the parameters in order of
importance for a particular mining site. An example from the Lead Mine at
Mount Isa Mines is used to illustrate the methodology (Table 3). The results
indicate that hydraulic fill is the recommended option for that particular set of
parameter weightings. Similar exercises can be undertaken for any mine site,
provided the weighting of the parameters controlling bench performance is
determined. In all cases, the chosen extraction strategy is the one with the
maximum number of points.

Table 2. Empirical rating of bench extraction strategies

Strategy weight (most preferred = 4, least preferred = 1)
Parameters Extraction Strategy
to be Hydraulic Permanent Continuous Full General
optimized fill pillars Dry fill AVOCA comments
(3) (2) (4) (1) Blast damage
repeated Long repeated LHWinzing conventional blasting repeated blasting likely to control
Minimize Hole Winzing to create pillars with a free face along without free face up to 15% of
blast (LHW) to create (unfilled while bench length likely to create overall behaviour
damage pillars, but support blasting) damage due to
provided by confinement
hydraulic fill
(4) (1) (2) (3) Support to
hangingwall rockmass may H/W deformations H/W unsupported (not
Maximize (H/W) continue to deform arrested only on deformations cabled) span is
hangingwall deformations between pillars backfilled portion arrested by earlier critical to overall
support minimized by tight placement of bench stability
filling backfill
(3) (4) (2) (1) Significant
moisture content fill is not placed or fill is not required to low moisture dilution may
Maximize fill in hydraulic fill exposed within stand steeper than its content fill required occur at the
stability likely to allow extraction sequence natural angle in order to stand at very fill/muck rill
and steep angle of to provide support, steep angles close to interface during
minimize exposure against but close to blast confined blastings mucking
recovered pillar (dilution) operations
fill dilution
(4) (3) (1) (2) Hangingwall
potential for potential for failure potential failures minimal H/W material can not
Control of failure before between pillars, within the lengths exposed, but be easily
dilution from hydraulic fill, repeated LHW unsupported areas confined blastings separated from
hangingwall repeated LHW detrimental, but can not be arrested may cause ore during
failures detrimental, but failure arrested by the and likely to follow instability horizontal
rockmass pillars each blast mucking
supported by HF
(4) (1) (3) (2) Broken ore loss
experience with ore left behind in ore left behind at the ore wedged into (unmucked
Minimize cut&fill mining pillars to enhance top of the fillmass, fillmass and ore left within the bench
ore loss at and during earlier stability of where is thrown by at the toe of the fill stope likely to be
stope benching indicates independent unfilled blasting. Ore left in inorder to achieve a detrimental to
boundaries that minimal spans. This ore will any unfilled gaps steep fill rill angle stope economics
oreloss is expected never be recovered near the bench (difficult to
hangingwall measure)
(4) (3) (2) (1) The cost of fill
lowest material less backfill material more expensive than similar to productioin and
Minimize cost, provided required due to hydraulic fill, conventional, but reticulation likely
backfill significnat runs pillars left in place. requires mucking additional stop logs to increase unit
(material & can be achieved Hydraulic fill or dry units to be used. needed in filling cost
transport) and the number of fill can be used. horizon, spilling of
bulkheads material in
cost
minimized blastholes
(1) (2) (4) (3) Distruption to
bulkhead & repeated longhole a single slot followed a single slot routine
Operational pipelines set-up, winzing, backfill at by a repetitive followed by a operations likely
issues repeated longhole bench completion process of extraction repetitive process of to decrease
winzing, pillar and dry backfilling extraction and tight extraction rate
recovery dry backfilling
Recommended:
 Total 1). Conventional
23 16 18 13 dryfill for short
Rating
(most preferred) (least preferred) lift benches.
2). HF for high
lift benches
Table 3. Empirical rating of bench strategies, Mount Isa Mines Lead Mine.
Parameter weight (most important = 7, least important = 1)
Parameters Extraction Strategy
to be Hydraulic Permanent Continuous Full General
optimized ↓ fill pillars Dry fill AVOCA comments
(1) (3) (2) (4) (1)
repeated Long repeated LHWinzing conventional blasting repeated blasting
Hole Winzing to create pillars with a free face along without free face Blast damage
minimize (LHW) to create (unfilled while bench length likely to create likely to control
blast pillars, but support blasting) damage due to up to 15% of
damage provided by confinement overall behaviour
hydraulic fill

subtotal → 3 2 4 1
(3) (4) (1) (2) (3)
H/W rockmass may H/W deformations H/W
maximize deformations continue to deform arrested only on deformations Support to
hangingwall minimized by tight between pillars backfilled portion arrested by earlier unsupported (not
(H/W) filling placement of cabled) span is
support backfill critical to overall
bench stability

subtotal → 12 3 6 9
(2) (3) (4) (2) (1)
moisture content fill is not placed or fill is not required to low moisture Significant
maximize in hydraulic fill exposed within stand steeper than its content fill required dilution may
fill stability likely to allow extraction sequence natural angle in order to stand at very occur at the
and steep angle of to provide support, steep angles close to fill/muck rill
minimize fill exposure against but close to blast confined blastings interface during
recovered pillar (dilution) mucking
dilution
operations
6 8 4 2
subtotal →
(7) (4) (3) (1) (2)
potential for potential for failure potential failures minimal H/W Hangingwall
control of failure before between pillars, within the lengths exposed, but material can not
dilution from hydraulic fill, repeated LHW unsupported areas confined blastings be easily
hangingwall repeated LHW detrimental, but can not be arrested may cause separated from
failures detrimental, but failure arrested by the and likely to follow instability ore during
rockmass pillars each blast horizontal
supported by HF mucking

subtotal → 28 21 7 14
(6) (4) (1) (3) (2)
experience with ore left behind in ore left behind at the ore wedged into Broken ore loss
minimize cut&fill mining pillars to enhance top of the fillmass, fillmass and ore left (unmucked
oreloss and during earlier stability of where is thrown by at the toe of the fill within the bench
at stope benching indicates independent unfilled blasting. Ore left in inorder to achieve a stope likely to be
boundaries that minimal spans. This ore will any unfilled gaps steep fill rill angle detrimental to
oreloss is expected never be recovered near the bench stope economics
hangingwall (difficult to
measure)
subtotal → 24 6 18 12
(4) (4) (3) (2) (1)
lowest material less backfill material more expensive than similar to
minimize cost, provided required due to hydraulic fill, conventional, but The cost of fill
backfill significnat runs pillars left in place. requires mucking additional stop logs productioin and
(material & can be achieved Hydraulic fill or dry units to be used. needed in filling reticulation likely
transport ) and the number of fill can be used. horizon, spilling of to increase unit
bulkheads material in cost
cost
minimized blastholes

subtotal → 16 12 8 4
(5) (1) (2) (4) (3)
bulkhead & repeated longhole a single slot followed a single slot Distruption to
pipelines set-up, winzing, backfill at by a repetitive followed by a routine
operational repeated longhole bench completion process of extraction repetitive process of operations likely
issues winzing, pillar and dry backfilling extraction and tight to decrease
recovery dry backfilling extraction rate
 5 10 20 15
subtotal →
Recommended:
94 62 67 57 hydraulic fill or
Global
(most preferred) (least preferred) dry fill
Rating
As explained earlier (See Figure 6), a model that accounts for the volume of
material to be used, the cost of the material and the transport to the stope must
also be considered. On that particular case in the Lead Mine, continuous dry fill
is used for short lift benches, while hydraulic fill is used for high lift benches.

CONCLUSIONS

The most economical bench extraction strategy can be recommended by

considering a series of seven controlling parameters that can be rated according
to their local importance in a particular mine site. Geomechanical, economical
and operational issues that can be linked to backfill are likely to influence the
overall bench performance and economics. The methodology developed can be
applied at the planning or during the operational stages of bench extraction.

REFERENCES

Potvin, Y., M. Hudyma, and H. Miller, 1989. Design Guidelines for open stope
support. CIM Bulletin, 82.
Villaescusa E., L.B. Neindorf, and J. Cunningham, 1994. Bench stoping of
lead/zinc orebodies at Mount Isa Mines Limited. Proceedings of the
MMIJ/AusIMM Joint Symposium, New Horizons in Resource Handling
and Geo-Engineering, Yamaguchi University, Ube Japan, 351-359.
Villaescusa, E., C. Scott and I. Onederra, 1997. Near field blast monitoring at the
Hilton Mine. Mount Isa Mines Technical Report, No. Res Min 78. Mining
Research, Mount Isa Mines Limited.
Villaescusa E., D. Tyler and C. Scott, 1997. Predicting underground stability
using a hangingwall stability rating. Proccedings of the 1st Asian Rock
Mechanics Symposium, Environmental and Safety Concerns in
Underground Construction (H.K. Lee, H.S. Yang and S.K. Chung, Editors),
Seoul Korea, 171-176.