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

Bench Limit

Production Blasting

Maximum Unsupported Span

(Critical Strike Length)

Mucking

BACKFILL

ORE

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)
30

stope
blastings

5FP1 Exto 1
Backfill introd uced here
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

A6-Ref

0
2/ 22/ 93

3/ 14/ 93

4/ 3/ 93

4/ 23/ 93

D ate

5/ 13/ 93

6/ 2/ 93

6/ 22/ 93

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
Status
None
Closed walls
(1.5m burden)
None
Closed walls
(3m burden)
None
6m open span
None
9m open span
None
15m open span
stope empty
15m open span
Stope
filled
Stope
3/4 filled
Stope
5/6 filled
Stope
filled
Stope
filled

Dominant
Frequency (Hz)

Average
Frequency (Hz)

Number of
Data points

10-20

31

17

40-50

52

30-50

45

90-100

88

100-110

94

84

100-130

114

100-110

86

71

10-20

28

40-50

38

30-40

29

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
Blasting

recovered pillar
hyd raulic fill

Maxim um
strike length
(void filled )

Mucking

ORE

Bench
Lim it

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
Blasting

permanent pillar
Maxim um
unsupported
strike length
(void to be
filled at bench
com pletion)

Mucking

ORE

Backfill

Bench
Lim it

Perm anent pillar

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
blasting
(no free face)

Bench
Lim it

Continuous AVOCA fill

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
1.
2.
3.
4.

5.

Material selection
Placement &
compaction
Cycle time
Stability/failure
Dilution/oreloss

Economics
1.
2
3
4
5

Bench
Performance

Geomechanics
1.
2.
3.

dilution
hangingwall
support
blast damage

Figure 5. Parameters influencing bench performance

Cost of fill material

Cost of placement
Cost of dilution
Cost of ore loss
Cost of operational
issues (mucking
fragmentation, etc)

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

Bench Height (m)

40
high
lift
benches

35
hydraulic fill
recommended

30
25
dry fill
recommended

20
15
short
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
height
> 24m

Backfilled

Most likely critical strike length

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
to be
optimized
Minimize
blast
damage

Maximize
hangingwall
support
Maximize fill
stability
and
minimize
fill dilution
Control of
dilution from
hangingwall
failures

Minimize
ore loss at
stope
boundaries

Minimize
backfill
(material &
transport)
cost
Operational
issues

Hydraulic
fill

Permanent
pillars

(3)
repeated Long
Hole Winzing
(LHW) to create
pillars, but support
provided by
hydraulic fill
(4)
hangingwall
(H/W)
deformations
minimized by tight
filling
(3)
moisture content
in hydraulic fill
likely to allow
steep angle of
exposure against
recovered pillar

(2)
repeated LHWinzing
to create pillars
(unfilled while
blasting)

Extraction Strategy
Continuous
Dry fill

Full
AVOCA

General
comments

(4)
conventional blasting
with a free face along
bench length

(1)
repeated blasting
without free face
likely to create
damage due to
confinement

Blast damage
likely to control
up to 15% of
overall behaviour

(1)
rockmass may
continue to deform
between pillars

(2)
H/W deformations
arrested only on
backfilled portion

Support to
unsupported (not
cabled) span is
critical to overall
bench stability

(4)
fill is not placed or
exposed within
extraction sequence

(2)
fill is not required to
stand steeper than its
natural angle in order
to provide support,
but close to blast
(dilution)

(3)
H/W
deformations
arrested by earlier
placement of
backfill
(1)
low moisture
content fill required
to stand at very
steep angles close to
confined blastings

(4)
potential for
failure before
hydraulic fill,
repeated LHW
detrimental, but
rockmass
supported by HF
(4)
experience with
cut&fill mining
and during earlier
benching indicates
that minimal
oreloss is expected

(3)
potential for failure
between pillars,
repeated LHW
detrimental, but
failure arrested by the
pillars

(1)
potential failures
within the
unsupported areas
can not be arrested
and likely to follow
each blast

(2)
minimal H/W
lengths exposed, but
confined blastings
may cause
instability

Hangingwall
material can not
be easily
separated from
ore during
horizontal
mucking

(1)
ore left behind in
pillars to enhance
stability of
independent unfilled
spans. This ore will
never be recovered

(2)
ore wedged into
fillmass and ore left
at the toe of the fill
inorder to achieve a
steep fill rill angle

(4)
lowest material
cost, provided
significnat runs
can be achieved
and the number of
bulkheads
minimized
(1)
bulkhead &
pipelines set-up,
repeated longhole
winzing, pillar
recovery

(3)
less backfill material
required due to
pillars left in place.
Hydraulic fill or dry
fill can be used.

(3)
ore left behind at the
top of the fillmass,
where is thrown by
blasting. Ore left in
any unfilled gaps
near the bench
hangingwall
(2)
more expensive than
hydraulic fill,
requires mucking
units to be used.

Broken ore loss

(unmucked
within the bench
stope likely to be
detrimental to
stope economics
(difficult to
measure)
The cost of fill
productioin and
reticulation likely
to increase unit
cost

(2)
repeated longhole
winzing, backfill at
bench completion

(4)
a single slot followed
by a repetitive
process of extraction
and dry backfilling

(1)
similar to
conventional, but
additional stop logs
needed in filling
horizon, spilling of
material in
blastholes
(3)
a single slot
followed by a
repetitive process of
extraction and tight
dry backfilling

Significant
dilution may
occur at the
fill/muck rill
interface during
mucking
operations

Distruption to
routine
operations likely
to decrease
extraction rate
Recommended:

Total
Rating

23
(most preferred)

16

18

13
(least preferred)

1). Conventional
dryfill for short
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
to be
optimized
(1)
minimize
blast
damage
subtotal
(3)
maximize
hangingwall
(H/W)
support
subtotal
(2)
maximize
fill stability
and
minimize fill
dilution
subtotal
(7)
control of
dilution from
hangingwall
failures
subtotal
(6)
minimize
oreloss
at stope
boundaries
subtotal
(4)
minimize
backfill
(material &
transport )
cost
subtotal
(5)
operational
issues

Hydraulic
fill

Permanent
pillars

(3)
repeated Long
Hole Winzing
(LHW) to create
pillars, but support
provided by
hydraulic fill

(2)
repeated LHWinzing
to create pillars
(unfilled while
blasting)

3
(4)
H/W
deformations
minimized by tight
filling

2
(1)
rockmass may
continue to deform
between pillars

Extraction Strategy
Continuous
Dry fill

Full
AVOCA

General
comments

(4)
conventional blasting
with a free face along
bench length

(1)
repeated blasting
without free face
likely to create
damage due to
confinement

Blast damage
likely to control
up to 15% of
overall behaviour

4
(2)
H/W deformations
arrested only on
backfilled portion

1
(3)
H/W
deformations
arrested by earlier
placement of
backfill

12

(3)
moisture content
in hydraulic fill
likely to allow
steep angle of
exposure against
recovered pillar

(4)
fill is not placed or
exposed within
extraction sequence

(2)
fill is not required to
stand steeper than its
natural angle in order
to provide support,
but close to blast
(dilution)

(1)
low moisture
content fill required
to stand at very
steep angles close to
confined blastings

(4)
potential for
failure before
hydraulic fill,
repeated LHW
detrimental, but
rockmass
supported by HF

(3)
potential for failure
between pillars,
repeated LHW
detrimental, but
failure arrested by the
pillars

(1)
potential failures
within the
unsupported areas
can not be arrested
and likely to follow
each blast

(2)
minimal H/W
lengths exposed, but
confined blastings
may cause
instability

28
(4)
experience with
cut&fill mining
and during earlier
benching indicates
that minimal
oreloss is expected

21
(1)
ore left behind in
pillars to enhance
stability of
independent unfilled
spans. This ore will
never be recovered

7
(3)
ore left behind at the
top of the fillmass,
where is thrown by
blasting. Ore left in
any unfilled gaps
near the bench
hangingwall

14
(2)
ore wedged into
fillmass and ore left
at the toe of the fill
inorder to achieve a
steep fill rill angle

24
(4)
lowest material
cost, provided
significnat runs
can be achieved
and the number of
bulkheads
minimized

6
(3)
less backfill material
required due to
pillars left in place.
Hydraulic fill or dry
fill can be used.

18
(2)
more expensive than
hydraulic fill,
requires mucking
units to be used.

12
(1)
similar to
conventional, but
additional stop logs
needed in filling
horizon, spilling of
material in
blastholes

16
(1)
bulkhead &
pipelines set-up,
repeated longhole
winzing, pillar
recovery

12
(2)
repeated longhole
winzing, backfill at
bench completion

8
(4)
a single slot followed
by a repetitive
process of extraction
and dry backfilling

4
(3)
a single slot
followed by a
repetitive process of
extraction and tight
dry backfilling

Support to
unsupported (not
cabled) span is
critical to overall
bench stability

Significant
dilution may
occur at the
fill/muck rill
interface during
mucking
operations

Hangingwall
material can not
be easily
separated from
ore during
horizontal
mucking

Broken ore loss

(unmucked
within the bench
stope likely to be
detrimental to
stope economics
(difficult to
measure)

The cost of fill

productioin and
reticulation likely
to increase unit
cost

Distruption to
routine
operations likely
to decrease
extraction rate

subtotal

10

20

15

Global
Rating

94
(most preferred)

62

67

57
(least preferred)

Recommended:
hydraulic fill or
dry fill

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.