See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237373433

Limit equilibrium analysis for the design of

backfilled stope barricades made of waste rock

Article in Canadian Geotechnical Journal · October 2011

Impact Factor: 1.33 · DOI: 10.1139/t11-063

CITATIONS READS

3 26

2 authors, including:

Li Li
Polytechnique Montréal
48 PUBLICATIONS 532 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Li Li
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 11 May 2016
 1713

Limit equilibrium analysis for the design of

backfilled stope barricades made of waste rock
Li Li and Michel Aubertin

Abstract: Backfilling of underground stopes is commonly applied in mining operations. Barricades are required to hold the
fill material in the stope during and after placement. As such barricades may be constructed with waste rock, there is a need
to develop solutions to analyse their response. This paper presents a limit equilibrium analysis solution for defining the di-
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 74.58.130.107 on 12/09/11

mensions of waste rock barricades. The proposed solution applies to drained (without pore-water pressure) and submerged
(with pore-water pressure) conditions. The solutions are presented and applied to sample cases.
Key words: underground mines, backfill, waste rock, barricades, pore-water pressure, stress state, analytical solution.
Résumé : Le remblayage des chantiers souterrains est courrament utilisé dans les opérations minières. Une barricade est re-
quise pour retenir les matériaux de remblayage dans le chantier pendant et après leur mise en place. Comme les barricades
peuvent être construites avec des roches stériles, il y a un besoin de solutions afin d’analyser leur comprtement. Dans cet ar-
ticle, une solution d’analyse par équilibre limite est proposée afin de dimensionner des barricades de roches stériles. Cette
solution s’applique aux conditions drainées (sans pression interstitielle) et submergées (avec pressions d’eau). Les solutions
sont présentées et appliquées à des cas types.
Mots‐clés : mines souterraines, remblai, roche stérile, barricades, pression interstitielle, état des contraintes, solution analy-
tique.
For personal use only.

Introduction approach is often more economic, and it further reduces the

Backfill is commonly used for improving the rock mass
stability around underground stopes. Backfilling of openings
with tailings or waste rocks can also serve to reduce the
amount of mine wastes disposed on the surface, thus limiting
their environmental impact. Stope backfilling usually requires
the construction of barricades (or bulkheads) to hold the fill
material during and after placement. The stability of barri-
cades is a critical issue, as failure may lead to serious conse-
quences such as flooding of the drift, damage to equipment,
and in extreme cases, personnel injury or fatality (Grice
1998; Sivakugan et al. 2006a, 2006b; Helinski and Grice
2007; Yumlu and Guresci 2007).
Barricades are usually placed at (or near) the entrance of a
drift, close to the base of the stope. These are typically made
of bricks, concrete blocks, or shotcrete reinforced mesh,
which allow drainage. Construction of such barricades can
be fairly expensive and time consuming. An alternative
method is to build barricades with waste rock, which is a
highly permeable and strong material (Li et al. 2009); this
Received 24 August 2010. Accepted 9 August 2011. Published at
www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 31 October 2011.
L. Li. Laboratoire de géotechnique et de génie
géoenvironnemental (LG2), Département de génie de la
construction, École de technologie supérieure, Université du
Québec, 1100, rue Notre-Dame Ouest, Montréal, QC H3C 1K7,
Canada.
M. Aubertin. Industrial NSERC Polytechnique–UQAT Chair on
Environment and Mine Wastes Management, École
Polytechnique de Montréal, C.P. 6079 succursale Centre-ville,
Montréal, QC H3C 3A7, Canada.
Corresponding author: L. Li (e-mail: li.li@etsmtl.ca).
amount of wastes in surface facilities. However, the optimum
sizing of waste rock barricades has not yet been investigated
in details, so there are very few solutions available for their
analyses and design.
In this paper, the authors first recall some analytical solu-
tions to evaluate the stresses in backfilled stopes and drifts,
and on barricades. Then, new limit equilibrium expressions
are proposed to determine the size of barricades made of
waste rock. Sample applications are presented and discussed.
Stresses in backfilled openings
The stresses acting on barricades must be assessed to de-
fine their size. The evaluation of the pressures applied on a
barricade requires in turn the knowledge of the stress state in
the backfilled stope and in the adjacent drift. Analytical solu-
tions previously developed in this regard are summarized in
the following.
Stress state in stopes
Recent work has led to the development of solutions to as-
sess the stress state in backfilled stopes (Aubertin et al. 2003;
Li et al. 2005; Li and Aubertin 2009c). These include a fairly
general analytical formulation applicable to three-dimensional
stopes with partly or fully submerged backfill (see Fig. 1).
For a fully drained (without pore-water pressure, u = 0)
cohesionless backfill, the (total equals effective) vertical
(svh) and horizontal (shh) stresses (kPa) at a depth h (m, h ≤
Hm; Hm is the height (m) of drained (moist) backfill) can be
expressed as follows (Li and Aubertin 2009c):
g
½1 s vh ¼ b m ½1  exp ðhMb m Þ
Mb m

Can. Geotech. J. 48: 1713–1728 (2011) doi:10.1139/T11-063 Published by NRC Research Press
 1714
Fig. 1. Backfilled stope with an access drift and a waste rock barri-
cade. Hb, total height (m) of backfill; Hm, height (m) of drained
(moist) backfill; Hsub, height (m) of piezometric surface.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 74.58.130.107 on 12/09/11
½2 s hh ¼ Kb m s vh
where gb_m (kN/m3) is the unit weight of the moist (or wet)
backfill; parameter Mb_m (m–1) is defined as
½3 Mb m ¼ 2Kb m ðB1 þ L1 Þ tandb m al. 2003; Li et al. 2003, 2005). The theory and implications
In this equation, Kb_m (–) is the reaction coefficient (also
For personal use only.
called earth pressure coefficient) of the wet cohesionless
backfill (Kb_m = sh/sv; sh and sv (kPa) are the horizontal
and vertical (total = effective) stresses, respectively); db_m (°)
is the friction angle along the interfaces between the fill and
the rock walls. In most cases, it can be considered that the
latter is close to the friction angle of the wet (or moist) back-
fill, fb m (°).
Equation [1] is a simplified expression deduced from the
extended formulation given elsewhere (Li et al. 2005; Li and
Aubertin 2009c). The latter also considers the effects of back-
fill cohesion, a surface pressure applied on top of the back-
fill, and different properties on opposing walls; these
additional aspects are not included here.
In a submerged backfill stope (h ≥ Hm in Fig. 1), the ver-
0
tical (s vh 0
) and horizontal (s hh ) effective stresses (kPa) are ex-
pressed as follows (Li and Aubertin 2009c):
g L d Hd
½4 0
s vh ¼ b m ½1  exp ðHm Mb m Þ exp½ðHm  hÞMb sub 
Mb m
g
þ b sub f1  exp½ðHm  hÞMb sub g
Mb sub
0 0
½5 s hh ¼ Kb sub s vh
where gb_sub is the submerged unit weight (kN/m3) of the
backfill (gb_sub = g′ = gb_sat – gw; gb_sat and gw are the unit
weight (kN/m3) of the saturated backfill and of water, respec-
tively); parameter Mb_m is defined by eq. [3]; parameter
Mb_sub is expressed as
1
½6 Mb sub ¼ 2Kb sub ðB þ L1 Þ tandb sub
In these equations, Kb_sub (–) represents the reaction coeffi-
cient of the submerged (saturated) cohesionless backfill
(Kb m ¼ s h0 =s v0 ; s h0 and s v0 (kPa) are horizontal and vertical
effective stresses, respectively); db_sub is the friction angle (°)
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011
along the interfaces between the submerged fill and rock
walls (db sub  fb sub ¼ fb0 ; here, fb sub or fb0 is the effective
friction angle (°) of the submerged backfill).
The horizontal and vertical total normal stresses (kPa) are
then expressed as
0
½7 s hh ¼ s hh þ g w ðh  Hm Þ
0
½8 s vh ¼ s vh þ g w ðh  Hm Þ
The pore-water pressure terms in these equations (second
term on the right-hand side) are conservatively estimated
based on a hydrostatic equilibrium state (no flow condition).
The total and effective stresses at any position in a fully or
partly submerged backfilled stope can be obtained from
eqs. [1]–[8]. These have been validated, in part, using com-
parisons with numerical modeling and measurements on
physical models (Li and Aubertin 2009c). Figure 2 is an il-
lustration of the stresses obtained from the proposed equa-
tions, together with stresses based on the overburden weight.
It can be seen that the stresses calculated with the above
equations can be much lower than those calculated from the
overburden due to an arching effect in the stope (Aubertin et
of arching in particulate media has been reviewed by Handy
(1985); Duran (1997), and Sperl (2006).
Pressure on barricades
It can be understood (from Fig. 1) that the fill in the drift
is being pushed away from the stope by the horizontal pres-
sure caused by the backfill weight. The drift walls then tend
to hold the fill in place due to the shear stresses that develop
along the rock walls. A horizontal stress transfer, somewhat
similar to the vertical transfer causing the arching effect, can
thus occur in the drift and decrease the pressure on the barri-
cade (Thompson et al. 2009; Grabinsky 2010).
Using an analogous approach to that used for a vertical
stope, an analytical solution was developed for calculating
the load P (kN) on a barricade in a drift. For the fully
drained (or dry) backfill condition, this solution can be ex-
pressed as (Li and Aubertin 2009a):

 
2 tandb m 1 Kdt
½9 P¼ ðs hB0 þ s hT0 Þ exp  þ l
2 Kdl Hd Ld
In this equation, Hd is the height (m) of the drift (see
Fig. 1); Ld is the width (m) of the drift; l is the distance (m)
between the drift entrance and the barricade; shB0 and shT0
are the total (equals effective) horizontal stresses (kPa) at the
entrance of the drift, at the base (z = 0) and top (z = Hd) lev-
els, respectively (these values of shB0 and shT0 can be ob-
tained from eqs. [1]–[3]); Kdt (–) and Kdl (–) are the reaction
coefficients of the fully drained backfill along the transversal
and longitudinal orientations of the drift, respectively. A nu-
merical investigation (Li and Aubertin 2009a, 2009b) has in-
dicated that Kdt is typically close to the Rankine active
reaction coefficient Ka, while a value closer to the passive re-
action coefficient Kp (–) applies for Kdl. Hence, one can write
1  sinfb
½10 Kdt  Ka ¼ m
ð 0:3; for fb  30 Þ
1 þ sinfb m
m
Published by NRC Research Press
 Li and Aubertin 1715

Fig. 2. Stresses calculated with eqs. [1]–[8] and those based on the overburden pressure: (a) for a fully drained condition (u = 0); (b) for a
partly submerged condition (with u = gw(h – Hm)), with the phreatic surface at Hm = 5 m; the calculations are performed with B = 10 m, L =
20 m; wet backfill: fb m = db_m = 30°, gb_m = 18 kN/m3; submerged backfill: fb sub = db_sub = 30°, gb_sat = 20 kN/m3.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 74.58.130.107 on 12/09/11
For personal use only.

 

Ld Hd 0 0 2 tandb sub 1
½11 Kdl  Kp ½12 P¼ ðs hB0 þ s hT0 Þ exp 
2 Kdl0 Hd
1 þ sinfb   
¼ m
ð 2  3; for fb  30 Þ K 0
1  sinfb m
m
þ dt l þ g w ð2Hsub  Hd Þ
Ld
For submerged backfill (with positive pore-water pressure),
a particular solution was developed to estimate the total and In this equation, Hsub is the height (m) of the submerged
0 0
effective stresses along the drift. This solution can be used to (saturated) backfill in the stope (Fig. 1); s hB0 and s hT0 are
evaluate the load P (kN) applied on the barricade as follows the horizontal effective stresses (kPa) at the entrance of the
(Li and Aubertin 2009b): drift, at the base (z = 0) and top (z = Hd) levels, respectively

Published by NRC Research Press

 1716 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011

(these two values can be calculated from eqs. [4]–[6]); Kdt0 Fig. 3. Stress distribution along the drift axis at an elevation z =
(–) and Kdl0 (–) are the reaction coefficients of the submerged 1 m, based on the analytical solution given by eqs. [9]–[12]:
(saturated) backfill along the transversal and longitudinal ori- (a) fully drained condition, with Hb = 50 m, B = 6 m, L = 20 m,
entations of the drift, respectively. The investigation of Li Hd = 5 m, Ld = 5 m, fb m = db_m = 30°, gb_m = 18 kN/m3; (b) sub-
and Aubertin (2009a, 2009b) indicates that Kdt0 ffi Ka0 and merged condition, with Hm = 0 m; Hsub = 50 m, B = 6 m, L =
Kdl0 ffi Kp0 (so eqs. [10] and [11] can be used using the effec- 20 m, Hd = 5 m, Ld = 5 m; wet backfill: fb m = db_m = 30°, gb_m =
tive friction angle fb0 for fb m ). 18 kN/m3; submerged backfill: fb sub = db_sub = 30°, gb_sat = 20 kN/m3.
Figure 3 shows, for a sample case (defined in the cap-
tion), the stress distribution along the drift axis for fully
drained (Fig. 3a) and submerged (Fig. 3b) conditions. It can
be seen that the total and effective stresses quickly decrease
when the barricade location is moved away from the en-
trance of the drift (when the pore-water pressure is consid-
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 74.58.130.107 on 12/09/11

ered at hydrostatic equilibrium). This indicates that it can

be advantageous to place a barricade farther from the drift
entrance to reduce the applied pressure (see other remarks
below on this aspect).

Sizing of waste rock barricades

The minimum length required for the waste rock structure
can be evaluated once the pressure acting on the barricade is
known. The solutions developed for that purpose are pre-
sented in the following.

Drained conditions
For personal use only.

Figure 4 shows a fully drained barricade (for u = 0) and

the various forces (kN) acting on its boundaries. The terms
CT and CB are the normal compressive forces at the top and
base of the barricade, respectively; CL is the lateral normal
compressive force on the barricade; ST and SB are the shear
forces at the top and base of the barricade, respectively; SL
is the shear force along the lateral walls. The corresponding
normal stresses (kPa) are also shown in Fig. 4 for the layer
element (with thickness Dl (m)); W is the weight (kN) of the Fig. 4. Fully drained barricade with the acting forces (and stresses)
layer element. on a layer element.
The force CT (and the corresponding vertical stress svT)
acting on the top surface of the barricade is generated when
pushing (and densifying) the waste rock barricade along the
drift axis, during and after its construction. As a void space
may exist on top of the barricade, it is conservative to neglect
this component (i.e., CT = svT = 0) for the size evaluation.
The vertical normal stress at the base of the barricade (due
to its own weight) can then be expressed as
½13 s vB ¼ g wr Hd
where gwr is the unit weight (kN/m3) of fully drained waste
rock. Neglecting the possible downward vertical stress trans-
fer (arching effect) along the two side walls is justified here
because most drifts (and barricades) have a limited height
(usually ≤5 m), so the vertical stress is expected to be close
to the overburden pressure in this case (Li et al. 2005; Li and
Aubertin 2009c).
The horizontal stress (kPa) acting on the side of the verti- rock, which can be obtained from eq. [10] in which fb m is
cal layer element (Fig. 4) can then be calculated as follows: replaced by the friction angle of the waste rock, fwr (°).


z The shear forces (kN) can be estimated from a fully mobi-
½14 s h ¼ Kwr g wr Hd 1  lized Coulomb shear strength:
Hd
where z is the height (m) of the calculation point (Fig. 1); ½15 SB ¼ CB tandwr ¼ s vB Ld LB tandwr
Kwr (–) is the reaction coefficient of the fully drained waste ¼ g wr Hd Ld LB tandwr

Published by NRC Research Press

 Li and Aubertin 1717

Kwr g wr Hd2 Fig. 5. Barricade with different water pressure head in the backfill
½16 SL ¼ CL tandwr ¼ LB tandwr and barricade: (a) combined artesian–gravity flow condition;
2 (b) gravity flow condition. P, horizontal load (kN) on the barricade
where dwr is the friction angle (°) along the interfaces be- (see text for details).
tween the fully drained waste rock and the drift walls. The dwr
value could be influenced by geometrical irregularities on the
drift walls. When shearing is expected to take place in the waste
rock (rather than directly along the rock–wall interface), the value
of fwr should be taken for dwr in eqs. [15] and [16]; otherwise,
dwr  2fwr =3 could be used (Pirapakaran and Sivakugan 2007).
The equilibrium of the barricade along the drift axis (x) di-
rection gives
½17 P ¼ SB þ 2SL ðfor ST ¼ 0Þ
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 74.58.130.107 on 12/09/11

Introducing eqs. [15] and [16] into eq. [17] gives the mini-
mum required length (m) of the waste rock barricade (for a In these equations, Hc is the water pressure head (m) on
factor of safety FS = 1): the downstream side of the barricade (which may depend on
P the presence of a containment dike). LG is the length (m) of
½18 LB ¼ the (unconfined) gravity flow, defined as the distance from
g wr Hd ðLd þ Kwr Hd Þ tandwr the downstream side of the barricade to the point at which
the flow changes from (confined) artesian to (unconfined)
gravity (Fig. 5a). This length (m) is expressed as follows:
Submerged conditions
In many cases, the backfill is initially saturated with water. LB ðHd2  Hc2 Þ
Before drainage dissipates the pore-water pressure, the barri- ½21 LG ¼
2Hd Hsub  Hd2  Hc2
cade can be considered under a submerged condition (Li and
For personal use only.

Aubertin 2011). This typically corresponds to short-term con- Figure 6 shows the pore-water pressure distributions calcu-
ditions, during and immediately after placement. lated with eq. [19] along the base (z = 0) of the barricade
It should be recalled here that waste rock barricades are (Fig. 6a) and along different vertical profiles within a barri-
advantageous because of their high permeability and large cade (Fig. 6b) having a rectangular parallelepiped (box) ge-
shear strength (when compared with typical backfill). An ef- ometry. It is seen that the pore-water pressure distribution
ficient drainage is thus expected through a waste rock barri- along the x axis, at the base of the barricade, is linear within
cade, so the pore-water pressure can be dissipated along the the artesian flow region and nonlinear within the gravity flow
length of the barricade. The pore-water pressure distribution region. The pore-water pressure is considered linearly distrib-
in a barricade is mainly influenced by the hydraulic boun- uted along the vertical profiles. Thus, pressure decreases with
dary conditions and its geometry. increased elevation z and with coordinate x.
In the following, two cases are considered according to the In the unconfined flow region of the barricade, the vertical
piezometric level in the stope and drift. (sv) normal (total equals effective) stress (kPa) above the pie-
zometric level (u = 0, for LB ≥ x ≥ LB – LG, z ≥ zw) is given by
Combined artesian and gravity flow condition
When the piezometric level is higher than the height of the ½22 s v ¼ g wr ðHd  zÞ
barricade (i.e., Hsub ≥ Hd, Fig. 5a), a combination of confined
(artesian) and unconfined (gravity) flow conditions should be The vertical (total) stress sv (kPa) in the submerged part of
the barricade (z ≤ zw) can be expressed as follows:
considered. A steady-state solution for evaluating the pore-
water pressure distribution along the barricade has been pre- ½23a s v ¼ uðx; Hd Þ þ g wr sat ðHd  zÞ
sented elsewhere (Li and Aubertin 2011). This solution gives ¼ u þ g wr sub ðHd  zÞ; for x  LB  LG
the pore-water pressure (kPa) within the barricade as follows:
½19 u ¼ g w ½zw ðxÞ  z ½23b s v ¼ g wr Hd  g wr sat z þ ðg wr sat g wr Þzw ;
where zw(x) is the water pressure head (m) at position x. This for LB x LB  LG
value is expressed as where gwr_sat is the unit weight (kN/m3) of the saturated waste
0
x rock, and gwr_sub (= gwr_sat – gw ≡ g wr ) is the submerged unit
½20a zw ðxÞ ¼ Hsub  ðHsub  Hd Þ 3
LB  LG weight (kN/m ) of the saturated waste rock. One can then ex-
for x  LB  LG press the effective vertical stress s v0 in the lower part of the
barricade (z ≤ zw) from eqs. [19] and [23] as follows:
½24a s v0 ¼ g wr sub ðHd  zÞ; for x  LB  LG
 1=2
x  LB 2
½20b zw ðxÞ ¼ Hc2  ðHd  Hc2 Þ
LG ½24b s 0 v ¼ g wr Hd  g wr sub z þ ðg wr sub  g wr Þzw ;
for x LB  LG for LB x LB  LG

Published by NRC Research Press

 1718 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011

Considering the limit equilibrium of the barricade along the (Kwr) are considered identical in this equation (i.e., Kwr =
0
drift axis direction, the total horizontal force P (kN) acting on Kwr sat ), based on a unique value of the internal friction angle
the upstream side can then be expressed as (see Fig. 5) of the waste rock (under effective stresses). The same as-
Z LB LG Z Hd  sumption applies to the effective friction angle along the in-
½25 P¼ 2Kwr s v0 dz þ s v0 ðz ¼ 0ÞLd tandwr dx terfaces for the submerged and drained waste rock (i.e.,
0 0 dwr_sat = dwr).
Z LB Z zw  Solving eq. [25] gives the minimum required length (m)
0 0
þ 2Kwr s v dz þ s v ðz ¼ 0ÞLd tandwr dx for the waste rock barricade as
LB LG 0
Z LB Z Hd 2Hd Hsub  Hd2  Hc2
þ 2Kwr s v tandwr dz dx ½26 LB ¼ P
LB LG zw
l1 tandwr

It should be noted here that the reaction coefficients in the where l1 (kN·m) is obtained from the following:
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 74.58.130.107 on 12/09/11

0
submerged (Kwr sat ) and drained (unsaturated) waste rock

 
Hd4  Hc4 ðHd2  Hc2 Þ2
½27 l1 ¼ 2g wr sub Hd2 ðHsub  Hd ÞðKwr Hd þ Ld Þ þ Kwr g wr sub þ g wr
2 2
 
Hd3  Hc3 ðHd þ 2Hc ÞðHd  Hc Þ2
þ Ld 2g wr sub þ g wr
3 3

For the special condition Hsub = Hd, eq. [26] reduces to the following:
P
½28 LB ¼
G 1 tandwr
For personal use only.

where G1 (kN/m) is obtained from the following:

Kwr Ld ½2g wr sub ðHd
3
 Hc3 Þ þ g wr ðHd þ 2Hc ÞðHd  Hc Þ2 
½29 G1 ¼ ½g sub ðHd þ Hc Þ þ g wr ðHd  Hc Þ þ
2 2 2 2
2 wr 3ðHd2  Hc2 Þ

Gravity flow Again, the reaction coefficient in the submerged waste

For a relatively slow filling of the stope, or early in the back- 0
rock (Kwr sat ) is considered equal to that in the drained (unsa-
filling phase, or later following the end of backfilling, the pore- turated) waste rock (Kwr), and dwr_sat = dwr (°).
water pressure head upstream of the barricade may be lower Solving eq. [31] leads to the following minimum required
than the height of the drift, i.e., Hsub ≤ Hd (Fig. 5b). In this length (m) for the barricade (for FS = 1):
case, an unconfined (gravity) flow occurs. The solution given
by eq. [19] can then be used for estimating the pore-water pres- P
sure distribution within the submerged part of the barricade. ½32 LB ¼
G 2 tandwr
The hydraulic head zw (m) is then given by the following:
 1=2 where the value of G2 (kN/m) is defined as
x 2 
½30 zw ðxÞ ¼ Hsub2
 ðHsub  Hc2 Þ ½33 G 2 ¼ g wr Hd Ld þ Kwr Hd þ ðg wr
LB 

3 
sub

2Ld Hsub  Hc3 Hsub
2
þ Hc2
The total (equals effective) vertical normal stress (kPa) in  g wr Þ þ Kwr
3 Hsub
2  H2
c 2
the drained part of the barricade (above the piezometric level,
i.e., u = 0) is given by eq. [22], while the effective vertical For the special condition Hsub = Hd, eqs. [32] and [33] re-
normal stress can be obtained from eq. [24b]. duce to eqs. [28] and [29]. When Hsub = Hc = 0, eqs. [32]
Considering the limit equilibrium of the barricade along the and [33] reduce to eq. [18].
drift axis direction, one can obtain the following expression for Equations [18], [26], [27], [32], and [33] constitute the
the total load (kN) on the upstream side of the barricade: analytical solutions proposed here for estimating the size
Z LB Z zw  LB (m) of barricades made of waste rock when the pore-
water pressure corresponds to fully drained (u = 0) or sub-
½31 P¼ 2Kwr s v0 dz þ s v0 ðz ¼ 0ÞLd tandwr dx
0 0 merged conditions in the backfilled stope and drift. To il-
Z LB Z Hd lustrate the use of this analytical solution for practical
þ 2Kwr s v tandwr dz dx applications, an example is presented in Appendix A (with
0 zw detailed calculations).

Published by NRC Research Press

 Li and Aubertin
Fig. 6. Pore-water pressure distribution obtained with eqs. [19]–[21]
(a) along the base of the barricade and (b) at three vertical profiles;
results have been obtained for Hsub = 20 m, Hc = 2 m, Ld = 5 m,
LB = 6 m, Hd = 5 m (here, LG = 0.74 m).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 74.58.130.107 on 12/09/11
For personal use only.
Graphical representation
The solutions developed above for estimating the size of
barricades indicate that the minimum required length LB de-
pends on several factors, including the horizontal load on the
barricade (P), the hydraulic head conditions (Hsub and Hc),
the properties of the waste rock used for constructing the bar-
ricade (gwr and dwr), and the geometry of the drift (Hd and
Ld). The load on the barricade is, in turn, dependent on the
geotechnical properties of the backfill material (gb_m, gb_sat
and db_m, db_sub), the geometry of the stope (B and L), the
height of backfill (H) and piezometric level (Hsub), and the
position of the barricade (l) in the drift. The specific effects
of these factors on the pressure acting on a barricade has
been addressed in previous publications (Li and Aubertin
2009a, 2009b), and this analysis is not repeated in detail
here; the influence of the above-mentioned parameters is
nonetheless illustrated briefly in Figs. 7–9, using a few sam-
ple calculations.
Figure 7 shows the influence of the water level in the
stope and drift Hsub (Fig. 7a) and the water level in the con-
1719
Fig. 7. Influence of the pore-water pressure head on the (a) upstream
side, Hsub, and (b) downstream side, Hc, on the minimum required
length of the barricade (for FS = 1). The calculations have been made
for Hb = 40 m, B = 10 m, L = 10 m, Ld = 6 m, Hd = 6 m, l = 0 m,
fb m = db_m = 30°, gb_m = 18 kN/m3, gb_sat = 20 kN/m3, fwr = dwr =
30°, gwr = 22 kN/m3, gwr_sat = 24 kN/m3.
tainment reservoir Hc (Fig. 7b). These show that, in general,
the required barricade length (m) increases with the piezo-
metric level in the stope. This effect becomes more signifi-
cant when the water pressure head in the stope Hsub exceeds
the drift height Hd (Fig. 7a). This result illustrates that the
water level in the backfilled stope can greatly influence the
barricade design. A somewhat similar (but reduced) effect is
observed for the water level in the containment reservoir on
the downstream side (Fig. 7b).
The influence of the geotechnical properties of the waste
rock on barricade design is illustrated in Fig. 8. As expected,
the required length of a barricade LB is reduced when the
friction angle fwr (Fig. 8a) and the unit weight gwr (Fig. 8b)
increase.
Figure 9 shows how the drift height Hd (Fig. 9a) and width
Ld (Fig. 9b) influence the minimum required length LB of a
barricade. It is seen that, other conditions being equal, a
higher drift may lead to a shorter barricade (Fig. 9a), while
a wider drift may require a longer barricade to hold the back-
fill in the stope (Fig. 9b).
Published by NRC Research Press
 1720
Fig. 8. Influence of the (a) friction angle, fwr , and (b) unit weight,
gwr, of the waste rock on the minimum required length of the barri-
cade. The calculations have been made with Hb = 40 m, B = 10 m,
L = 10 m, Ld = 4 m, Hd = 4 m, Hc = 0, l = 0 m, fb m = db_m =
30°, gb_m = 18 kN/m3, gb_sat = 20 kN/m3, dwr = fwr , gwr_sat =
1.3gwr.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 74.58.130.107 on 12/09/11
For personal use only.
Parametric analyses
The use of the proposed solutions is illustrated with addi-
tional calculations using typical stope and drift geometry and
material properties. These results show how the various fac-
tors may affect a barricade design.
Drained backfill and barricade (u = 0)
A fully drained condition corresponds to the case in which
the backfill in the stope and drift is totally drained, i.e., Hb =
Hm. This condition can be obtained under various situations,
including early in the process when the fill is put in place
slowly (so pore-water pressure can dissipate through drainage
across the waste rock barricade), and also in the long term
after drainage of the stope and drift. It can also occur with a
relatively impervious barricade (e.g., waste rock face covered
by an impermeable geosynthetic) when draining pipes are
added, so water from the backfill can rapidly seep out of the
stope and through the drift.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011
Fig. 9. Influence of the (a) barricade height, Hd, and (b) width, Ld,
on the minimum required length of the barricade. The calculations
have been made with Hb = 40 m, B = 10 m, L = 10 m, Hc = 0, l =
0 m, fb m = db_m = 30°, gb_m = 18 kN/m3, gb_sat = 20 kN/m3, fwr =
dwr = 30°, gwr = 22 kN/m3, gwr_sat = 24 kN/m3.
Figure 10 shows the variation of the required barricade
length LB (for FS = 1), for different situations, when the
backfill in the stope and in the drift are both under drained
conditions. Parameters used for the calculations are given in
Table 1. The results from these calculations indicate that the
required barricade length LB tends to increase with a larger
stope height (Fig. 10a), stope width (Figs. 10b, 10c), and
barricade width (Fig. 10d). In these cases, the increase is
nonlinear, and the required barricade length tends to become
almost constant when these dimensions reach a certain value.
On the other hand, the required barricade length can be re-
duced by using a higher drift (Fig. 10e), by placing the barri-
cade farther from the stope (Fig. 10f), and by using stronger
backfill in the stope (Fig. 10g). The required barricade length
can also be reduced when stronger (Fig. 10h) or denser
(Fig. 10i) waste rock is used. The vertical and horizontal
lines meeting on the various curves on these figures represent
a range of typical conditions; it is seen that the required
length is usually below 4–6 m (for FS = 1) for these cases.
Published by NRC Research Press
 Li and Aubertin 1721

Fig. 10. Variation of the required barricade length, LB (for FS = 1), with an increase in (a) stope height, (b) stope width, (c) stope length,
(d) barricade width, (e) barricade height, (f) distance of the barricade to the drift entrance, (g) backfill strength, (h) strength of waste rock, and
(i) unit weight of waste rock; the backfill and barricade are under a drained condition (u = 0); see Table 1 and text for details.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 74.58.130.107 on 12/09/11
For personal use only.

Table 1. Parameters used for sample calculations of the required barricade length, LB, when the backfill and the barricade
are under a drained condition (u = 0).

fb m fwr
Figure Hb (m) B (m) L (m) Ld (m) Hd (m) l (m) (= db_m) (°) (= dwr) (°) gwr (kN/m3)
10a var 6 20 5 5 0 30 38 21
10b 40 var 20 5 5 0 30 38 21
10c 40 6 var 5 5 0 30 38 21
10d 40 6 20 var 5 0 30 38 21
10e 40 6 20 5 var 0 30 38 21
10f 40 6 20 5 5 var 30 38 21
10g 40 6 20 5 5 0 var 38 21
10h 40 6 20 5 5 0 30 var 21
10i 40 6 20 5 5 0 30 38 var
Note: var, varying value; gb_m = 18 kN/m3.

Submerged backfill with drained barricade (Hsub > Hd), while the barricade is kept under a drained con-
Figure 11 shows the variation of the minimum required dition (u = 0). This situation is expected to arise during and
length of the barricade LB (m) as a function of various pa- just after backfilling because the hydraulic conductivity of
rameters when the backfill in the stope is partly submerged the waste rock is much larger than that of the fill material,

Published by NRC Research Press

 1722 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011

Fig. 11. Variation of the required barricade length, LB (for FS = 1), with increase in (a) Hsub, (b) B, (c) L, (d) Ld, (e) Hd, (f) l, (g) backfill
strength, (h) strength of waste rock, and (i) gwr; the backfill is partly submerged, and the barricade is under a drained condition (see Table 2
for details).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 74.58.130.107 on 12/09/11
For personal use only.

Table 2. Parameters used for sample calculations of the required barricade length when the backfill is partly sub-
merged but the barricade is under a drained condition (u = 0).

fb m fwr
Figure Hsub (m) B (m) L (m) Ld (m) Hd (m) l (m) (= db_m) (°) (= dwr) (°) gwr (kN/m3)
11a var 6 20 5 5 0 30 38 21
11b 10 var 20 5 5 0 30 38 21
11c 10 6 var 5 5 0 30 38 21
11d 10 6 20 var 5 0 30 38 21
11e 10 6 20 5 var 0 30 38 21
11f 10 6 20 5 5 var 30 38 21
11g 10 6 20 5 5 0 var 38 21
11h 10 6 20 5 5 0 30 var 21
11i 10 6 20 5 5 0 30 38 var
Note: var, varying value; other parameters include Hb = 40 m and gb_m = 18 kN/m3.

so the barricade may act like a “toe drain” at the base of the in the stope (Fig. 11a). The stope width (Fig. 11b) and length
stope. The parameters used for the calculations are given in (Fig. 11c) as well as the drift width (Fig. 11d) also affect the
Table 2. The results in this figure indicate that the required required barricade length, although a plateau seems to be
barricade length significantly increases with the water height reached when these reach a certain size. Figures 11e and 11f

Published by NRC Research Press

 Li and Aubertin 1723

Fig. 12. Variation of the required barricade length, LB (for FS = 1), with increase in (a) Hsub, (b) B, (c) L, (d) Ld, (e) Hd, (f) l, (g) backfill
strength, (h) strength of waste rock, and (i) gwr; the backfill and the barricade are under submerged conditions (see Table 3 for details).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 74.58.130.107 on 12/09/11
For personal use only.

Table 3. Parameters used for sample calculations of the required barricade length when the backfill and the barricade are
under submerged conditions.

fb m fwr
Figure Hsub (m) B (m) L (m) Ld (m) Hd (m) l (m) (= db_m) (°) (= dwr) (°) gwr (kN/m3)
12a var 6 20 5 5 0 30 38 21
12b 10 var 20 5 5 0 30 38 21
12c 10 6 var 5 5 0 30 38 21
12d 10 6 20 var 5 0 30 38 21
12e 10 6 20 5 var 0 30 38 21
12f 10 6 20 5 5 var 30 38 21
12g 10 6 20 5 5 0 var 38 21
12h 10 6 20 5 5 0 30 var 21
12i 10 6 20 5 5 0 30 38 var
Note: var, varying value; other parameters include Hb = 40 m, Hc = 0, and gb_m = 18 kN/m3.

show that the required barricade length can be reduced when
it is higher or constructed farther from the stope. Figures
11g, 11h, and 11i further show that the required length LB is
smaller when stronger backfill or waste rock or heavier waste
rock are used. Again, the vertical and horizontal lines meet-
ing on the various curves on these figures represent a range
of typical conditions.
A comparison between the results shown in Figs. 10 and 11
indicates that the required barricade length is increased by
pore-water pressure (piezometric level) in the backfilled stope.

Published by NRC Research Press

 1724
Barricade under submerged conditions
When the stope and drift are submerged by rapid backfill-
ing, with a high pore-water pressure developing, a large part
of the barricade can become fully saturated, with Hsub > Hd
(Fig. 5a). In such cases, it is conservative to treat the barri-
cade design for a submerged condition (with confined flow).
Figure 12 shows the variation of the required barricade
length LB (for FS = 1) for various situations. The same gen-
eral tendencies are observed here, when compared to the
cases of drained barricades (Figs. 10 and 11). However, the
required barricade length calculated for the submerged cases
is significantly increased compared with the drained cases
(for the same geometry and material property). For instance,
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 74.58.130.107 on 12/09/11
for a stope backfilled to a total height of Hb = 40 m, the re-
quired barricade length LB (for FS = 1) is 3 m if the backfill
in the stope and the barricade in the drift are under fully
drained conditions; it goes to 5.7 m if the water pressure
head in the stope reaches 10 m, while the barricade is kept
fully drained; it reaches 8 m if the water pressure head in
the stope reaches 10 m while the barricade is submerged on
the upstream side, for a poorly drained barricade; a larger
pressure head (>10 m) in the drift would lead to an even
larger barricade length. These results illustrate the great im-
portance of pore-water pressure and of drainage conditions
on the barricade design.
This further indicates why effort should be made to mini-
For personal use only.
mize the pore-water pressure head in the stope and in the
drift to maximize the stability of barricades (and to reduce
their size and costs).
Discussion
Analytical solutions, such as the ones proposed here, are
commonly used in geotechnics, as these provide a convenient
means to assess, in a practical manner, the effect of various
parameters that may affect the design of engineering works.
Many existing solutions used in soil mechanics are based on
limit equilibrium analyses, which often require some simpli-
fying assumptions regarding the problem statement (in terms
of geometry, constitutive behaviour, loading conditions, etc.).
This is why such solutions should be validated as much as
possible, by comparing results with actual measurements
from real situations or physical models (for specific cases),
and with numerical simulations (for more general tenden-
cies). This is the path that was taken to develop the basic
equations used here for the total and effective stresses acting
in backfilled stopes and drifts (Li and Aubertin 2009a,
2009b) and to define the pore-water pressure distribution in
barricades made of waste rock (Li and Aubertin 2011).
Of course, such analytical solutions do not provide a uni-
versal method for the detailed design of backfilled stopes and
barricades, which requires a more complete evaluation of the
complex situation that typically can best be solved using nu-
merical tools. Nevertheless, such relatively simple analytical
solutions should not be neglected (or decried, as is some-
times the case) because these can be quite useful, especially
in the early stages of a project.
The results obtained from the proposed solutions provide
some useful indication for the design of barricades. For in-
stance, it shows that the barricade position in the drift may
significantly affect the required length LB. By placing the
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011
barricade farther from the entrance of the stope, the applied
pressure can be reduced, thus reducing the required barricade
length. However, the increased distance in the drift may also
affect drainage of the backfill and pore-water pressure dissi-
pation, especially if the filling rate is rapid. Also, in the case
of cemented paste backfill, placing the barricade farther from
the drift entrance increases the cement requirement. An opti-
mization is thus required to consider the pros and cons,
which influence the choice of an optimal position and size
for barricades made of waste rock. The analytical solutions
can be of great help when the problem is well understood,
but it is likely that the final design should involve additional
calculations under transient conditions for drainage and con-
solidation, which can best be conducted using numerical tools.
Also, it should be recalled that the proposed solutions were
based on an overburden vertical stress at the base of the bar-
ricade. A possible vertical arching, which would reduce the
effective stresses on the floor of the drift, has been neglected.
As indicated above, this is deemed justified because most
drifts (and barricades) have a limited height (usually ≤5 m)
when compared with their width and length. In such cases,
the ensuing vertical pressure is typically close to the stresses
calculated from the overburden weight (Li et al. 2005; Li and
Aubertin 2009c). For high and narrow drifts, the arching ef-
fect may become significant and the proposed solution would
underestimate the required length of barricade. This specific
aspect is beyond the scope of the paper, but the degree of over-
estimation can be evaluated using the arching solution pro-
posed by the authors (Li et al. 2005; Li and Aubertin 2009c).
In practice, the shear strength parameters of waste rock are
seldom measured. In the absence of specific tests, typical val-
ues can be used, especially at the preliminary phase of a proj-
ect (Leps 1970; Barton and Kjaernsli 1981; Hribar et al.
1986; Quine 1993; Linero et al. 2007; Barton 2008; McLe-
more et al. 2009). These values should be selected conserva-
tively to limit the effect of uncertainty; a larger factor of
safety may also be required to compensate for this effect.
Other factors, such as the shape of the barricade (which is
typically a parallelepiped with inclined upstream and down-
stream boundaries — not a box) and the shear strength in-
crease with backfill consolidation and curing time, may also
play a role for the final design.
It should finally be recalled that the proposed solutions
were developed for a factor of safety FS = 1. In practice, de-
pending on the degree of uncertainty and possible conse-
quences of a barricade failure, this factor of safety must be
above 1 to finalize the design of barricades.
Work on these various aspects is ongoing.
Conclusions
Analytical solutions have been proposed to evaluate the
length of waste rock barricades, LB, for cases where the back-
fill in the stope and drift is fully drained (u = 0) or partly to
fully submerged. Results obtained from the proposed solu-
tions show that one of the most critical influencing factors
for the size of a barricade is the pore-water pressure in the
stope and drift. The results obtained with the proposed solu-
tions indicate that the size of a waste rock barricade may be-
come excessive when the pore-water pressure is large. In
such cases, alternative options should be considered, includ-
Published by NRC Research Press
 Li and Aubertin
ing the addition of a more efficient drainage system and a
slower (multilayered) backfilling of the stope, to reduce the
buildup of excess pore-water pressure. Other important fac-
tors, such as the strength of the backfill and waste rock, size
of the stope and drift, and location of the barricade also play
a key role for the design of such barricades, as illustrated by
sample calculations presented in the paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the support from École de tech-
nologie supérieure de l’Université du Québec (FIR, PSIRE,
and FDÉTS), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada (NSERC), and the participants of the Indus-
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 74.58.130.107 on 12/09/11
trial NSERC Polytechnique–UQAT Chair in Environment and
Mine Wastes Management (www.polymtl.ca/enviro-geremi/).
References
Aubertin, M., Li, L., Arnoldi, S., Belem, T., Bussière, B.,
Benzaazoua, M., and Simon, R. 2003. Interaction between backfill
and rock mass in narrow stopes. In Proceedings of the 12th
Panamerican Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering and the 39th U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium (Soil
and Rock America 2003), Cambridge, Mass., 22–26 June 2003.
Edited by P.J. Culligan, H.H. Einstein, and A.J. Whittle. Verlag
Glückauf Essen (VGE), Essen, Germany. Vol. 1, pp. 1157–1164.
Barton, N. 2008. Shear strength of rockfill, interfaces and rock joints
For personal use only.
and their points of contact in rock dump design. In Proceedings of
the First International Seminar on the Management of Rock Dumps,
Stockpiles and Heap Leach Pads (Rock Dumps 2008), Perth,
Western Australia, 5–6 March 2008. Edited by A. Fourie. Australian
Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, Western Australia. pp. 3–17.
Barton, N., and Kjaernsli, B. 1981. Shear strength of rockfill. Journal
of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 107(7): 873–891.
Duran, J. 1997. Sables, poudres et grains. Introduction à la physique
des milieux granulaires. Eyrolles Sciences, Paris.
Grabinsky, M.W. 2010. Keynote address — in situ monitoring for
groundtruthing paste backfill designs. In Proceedings of the 13th
International Seminar on Paste and Thickened Tailings, Toronto,
Ont., 3–6 May 2010. Edited by R. Jewell and A. Fourie. Australian
Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, Western Australia. p. 3.
Grice, T. 1998. Stability of hydraulic backfill barricades. In
Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Mining and
Backfill (MineFill’98), Brisbane, Australia, 14–16 April 1998.
Edited by M. Bloss. The Australian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy (AusIMM), Carleton, Victoria, Australia. pp. 117–120.
Handy, R.L. 1985. The arch in soil arching. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 111(3): 302–318. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410
(1985)111:3(302).
Helinski, M., and Grice, A.G. 2007. Water management in hydraulic
fill operations. In Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium
in Mining with Backfill, Montreal, Que., 29 April – 2 May 2007.
[CD-ROM]. Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and
Petroleum (CIM), Montréal, Que.
Hribar, J., Dougherty, M., Ventura, J., and Yavorskyu, P. 1986. Large
scale direct shear tests on surface mine spoil. In Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Geotechnical Stability in Surface
Mining, Calgary, Alta., November 1986. pp. 295–303.
Leps, T.M. 1970. Review of shearing strength of rockfill. Journal of the
Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 96(4): 1159–1170.
Li, L., and Aubertin, M. 2009a. Horizontal pressure on barricades for
backfilled stopes. Part I: Fully drained conditions. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 46(1): 37–46. doi:10.1139/T08-104.
Li, L., and Aubertin, M. 2009b. Horizontal pressure on barricades for
1725
backfilled stopes. Part II: Submerged conditions. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 46(1): 47–56. doi:10.1139/T08-105.
Li, L., and Aubertin, M. 2009c. A three-dimensional analysis of the
total and effective normal stresses in submerged backfilled stopes.
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 27(4): 559–569. doi:10.
1007/s10706-009-9257-0.
Li, L., and Aubertin, M. 2011. Numerical and analytical solutions for
the pore-water pressures within barricades made of waste rocks.
École Polytechnique de Montréal, Montréal, Que. Technical report
EPM-2011-02.
Li, L., Aubertin, M., Simon, R., Bussière, B., and Belem, T. 2003.
Modeling arching effects in narrow backfilled stopes with FLAC.
In Proceedings of 3rd International Symposium on FLAC and
FLAC3D Numerical Modeling in Geomechanics, Sudbury, Ont.,
21–23 October 2003. Edited by R. Brummer, P. Andreux, C.
Detournay, and R. Hart. A.A. Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, the
Netherlands. pp. 211–219.
Li, L., Aubertin, M., and Belem, T. 2005. Formulation of a three
dimensional analytical solution to evaluate stress in backfilled
vertical narrow openings. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 42(6):
1705–1717. [With Erratum 43(3): 338–339, doi:10.1139/t06-017.]
doi:10.1139/t05-084.
Li, L., Ouellet, S., and Aubertin, M. 2009. A method to evaluate the size
of backfilled stope barricades made of waste rock. In Proceedings of
the 62nd Canadian Geotechnical Conference and 10th Joint CGS/
IAH-CNC Groundwater Specialty Conference (GeoHalifax’2009),
Halifax, N.S., 20–24 September 2009. Edited by G. Fenton. BiTech
Publishers Ltd., Richmond, B.C. pp. 497–503.
Linero, S., Palma, C., and Apablaza, R. 2007. Geotechnical
characterisation of waste material in very high dumps with large
scale triaxial testing. In Proceedings of the International Symposium
on Rock Slope Stability in Open Pit Mining and Civil Engineering,
Perth, Western Australia, 12–14 September 2007. Australian Centre
for Geomechanics, Perth, Western Australia; The University of
Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia. pp. 59–75.
McLemore, V.T., Fakhimi, A., van Zyl, D., Ayakwah, G.F., Anim, K.,
Boakye, K., et al. 2009. Literature review of other rock piles:
characterization, weathering, and stability. New Mexico Bureau of
Geology and Mineral Resources, Socorro, N.M.
Pirapakaran, K., and Sivakugan, N. 2007. Arching within hydraulic
fill stopes. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 25(1): 25–
35. doi:10.1007/s10706-006-0003-6.
Quine, R.L. 1993. Stability and deformation of mine waste dumps in
north-central Nevada. M.S. thesis, University of Nevada, Reno, Nev.
Sivakugan, N., Rankine, K., and Rankine, R. 2006a. Permeability of
hydraulic fills and barricade bricks. Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering, 24(3): 661–673. doi:10.1007/s10706-005-2132-8.
Sivakugan, N., Rankine, R.M., Rankine, K.J., and Rankine, K.S.
2006b. Geotechnical considerations in mine backfilling in
Australia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(12–13): 1168–1175.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.06.007.
Sperl, M. 2006. Experiments on corn pressure in silo cells —
translation and comment of Janssen’s paper from 1895. Granular
Matter, 8(2): 59–65. doi:10.1007/s10035-005-0224-z.
Thompson, B.D., Grabinsky, M.W., Bawden, W.F., and Counter, D.B.
2009. In-situ measurements of cemented paste backfill in long-
hole stopes. In Proceedings of the 3rd Canada–US Rock
Mechanics Symposium and 20th Canadian Rock Mechanics
Symposium (RockEng09), Toronto, Ont., May 2009. Edited by
M. Diederichs and G. Grasselli. The Canadian Institute of Mining,
Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM), Montréal, Que. Paper 4061.
Yumlu, M., and Guresci, M. 2007. Paste backfill bulkhead
monitoring — a case study from Inmet’s Cayeli mine, Turkey.
In Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium in Mining with
Published by NRC Research Press
 1726 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011

Backfill, Montréal, Que., 29 April – 2 May 2007. [CD-ROM]. The
Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM),
Montréal, Que.
List of symbols
B stope width (m)
CB normal compressive force at the base of the barricade
(kN)
CL lateral normal compressive force on the barricade (kN)
CT normal compressive force at the top of the barricade (kN)
FS factor of safety
Hb total height of backfill in the stope (m)
Hc water pressure head on the downstream side of the bar-
ricade (m)
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 74.58.130.107 on 12/09/11
g′ effective unit weight (kN/m3)
g b0 submerged (effective) unit weight of the backfill (kN/m3)
gb_m unit weight of moist (or wet) backfill (kN/m3)
gb_sat unit weight of the saturated backfill (kN/m3)
gb_sub (or g b0 ) submerged (effective) unit weight of the backfill
(kN/m3)
gw unit weight of water (9.81 kN/m3)
gwr unit weight of the fully drained (moist) waste rock (kN/m3)
0
g wr effective unit weight of the saturated waste rock (kN/m3)
gwr_sat unit weight of the saturated waste rock (kN/m3)
gwr_sub submerged (effective) unit weight of the saturated waste
rock (kN/m3)
db_m friction angle (°) along the interfaces between wet (or
moist) backfill and the rock walls
db_sub friction angle (°) along the interfaces between the satu-

Hd height of the drift (m) rated backfill and rock walls

Hm height of moist (wet, or dry) backfill (m) dwr friction angle (°) along the interface between waste
Hsub height of the water table (piezometric surface) in the rock and rock mass
stope (m) dwr_sat friction angle (°) along the interface between saturated
h depth in backfill (m) waste rock and rock mass
K0 effective at-rest reaction coefficient l1 parameter defined in eq. [27] (kN·m)
Ka effective active reaction coefficient for drained (moist) s h horizontal stress (kPa)
(u = 0) material s h0 horizontal effective stress (kPa)
Ka0 effective active reaction coefficient (also called earth shB0 total horizontal stresses at the base (z = 0) of the drift
pressure coefficient) for submerged material entrance (kPa)
Kb_m effective reaction coefficient of the wet cohesionless 0
s hB0 horizontal effective stress at the base (z = 0) of the drift
backfill entrance (kPa)
Kb_sub effective reaction coefficient of the submerged (satu- shh total horizontal stress at depth h (kPa)
rated) cohesionless backfill 0
s hh effective horizontal stress at depth h (kPa)
For personal use only.

Kdl effective reaction coefficient of the fully drained back- shT0 total horizontal stresses at the top (z = Hd) of the drift
fill (u = 0) along the longitudinal orientation of the entrance (kPa)
drift 0
s hT0 horizontal effective stress at the top (z = Hd) of the
Kdl0 effective reaction coefficient of the submerged (satu- drift entrance (kPa)
rated) backfill along the longitudinal orientation of the s v vertical stress (kPa)
drift s v0 effective vertical stress (kPa)
Kdt effective reaction coefficient of the fully drained back- svB vertical normal stress at the base of the barricade (kPa)
fill along the transversal orientation of the drift svh total vertical stress at a depth h (kPa)
Kdt0 effective reaction coefficient of the submerged (satu- 0
s vh effective vertical stress at depth h (kPa)
rated) backfill along the transversal orientation of the svT total vertical stress acting on the top surface of the bar-
drift ricade (kPa)
Kp effective passive reaction coefficient for drained (moist) fb0 internal friction angle (°) of the saturated backfill under
(u = 0) material effective stresses
Kp0 effective passive reaction coefficient for submerged (sa- fb m internal friction angle (°) of the wet (or moist) backfill
turated) material fb sub (or fb0 ) internal friction angle (°) of the saturated back-
Kwr effective reaction coefficient of the fully drained (u = fill under effective stresses
0) waste rock fwr internal friction angle (°) of the waste rock
0
Kwr sat effective reaction coefficient of the saturated waste rock
L stope length (m)
LB the minimum required length of barricades (m) Appendix A. Sample calculations
Ld width of the drift (m) The application of the proposed solution is illustrated by
LG length of the (unconfined) gravity flow section of the
barricade (m)
considering a stope and drift with the following geometry
l distance between the drift entrance and the barricade (m) (see Fig. 1):
Dl thickness (m) of vertical layer element (Fig. 4) B = 10 m
Mb_m parameter for moist (or dry) backfill defined by eq. [3] L = 20 m
(m–1) Hm = 22 m
Mb_sub parameter for submerged backfill defined by eq. [6] (m–1)
P load acting on a barricade in a drift (kN)
Hsub = 8 m
SB shear force at the base of the barricade (kN) Ld = Hd = 5 m
SL shear force along the lateral walls (kN) l=2m
ST shear force at the top of the barricade (kN) Hc = 0 m
u pore-water pressure (kPa) The properties of the backfill are given as follows:
W weight of the layer element (kN)
x coordinate (m) gb_m = 18 kN/m3
z height of the calculation point (m) gb_sat = 20 kN/m3
zw height of piezometric surface gb_sub = gb_sat – gw = 10.19 kN/m3
G1 parameter defined in eq. [29] (kN/m) fb m = fb sub = db_m = db_sub = 30°
G2 parameter defined in eq. [33] (kN/m) The properties of the waste rock are

Published by NRC Research Press

 Li and Aubertin 1727

gwr = 20 kN/m3 The value of parameter Mb_m is calculated with eq. [3]:
gwr_sat = 22 kN/m3
gwr_sub = gwr_sat – gw = 12.19 kN/m3 Mb m ¼ 2Kb m ðB1 þ L1 Þ tandb m



fwr = dwr = dwr_sat = 30° 1 1 1
The reaction coefficients for the backfill are expressed as ¼2 þ tan30 ¼ 0:057 735
3 10 m 20 m
(see details in Aubertin et al. 2003; Li et al. 2005)
1  sinfb 1  sin30 1 The value of parameter Mb_sub is calculated with eq. [6]:
Kb ¼ Kb ¼ m
¼ ¼
1 þ sin30 3
m m
1 þ sinfb m

Mb sub ¼ 2Kb sub ðB1 þ L1 Þ tandb sub



Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 74.58.130.107 on 12/09/11

1 1 1
¼2 þ tan30 ¼ 0:057 735
3 10 m 20 m

The vertical effective stress at the base (h = Hb = Hm + Hsub = 22 m + 8 m = 30 m) of the stope becomes (eq. [4])
0 g g

s vh ¼ b m ½1  expðHm Mb m Þ exp½ðHm  hÞMb sub  þ b sub 1  exp½ðHm  hÞMb sub 
Mb m Mb sub
18 kN=m3
¼ f1  exp½ð22 mÞð0:057 735 m1 Þg exp½ð22 m  30 mÞð0:057 735 m1 Þ
0:057 735 m1
10 kN=m3  
þ 1
f1  exp½ 22 m  30 m 0:057 735 m1 g
0:057 735 m
¼ ð311:769 kPaÞð0:7192Þð0:6301Þ þ ð173:205 kPaÞð0:3699Þ
For personal use only.

¼ 205:4 kPa
The horizontal effective stress at the base (h = Hb = Hm + Hsub = 22 m + 8 m = 30 m) of the stope is then (eq. [5])


0 0 1 0
s hh ¼ Kb sub s vh ¼ ð205:4 kPaÞ ¼ 68:5 kPa ¼ s hB0
3
In the same manner, the vertical effective stress at the top of the drift (h = Hb – Hd = 30 m – 5 m = 25 m) is (eq. [4])
0 g  g

s vh ¼ b m 1  expðHm Mb m Þ exp½ðHm  hÞMb sub  þ b sub 1  exp½ðHm  hÞMb sub 
Mb m Mb sub
18 kN=m3
¼ f1  exp½ð22 mÞð0:057 735 m1 Þg exp½ð22 m  25 mÞð0:057 735 m1 Þ
0:057 735 m1
10 kN=m3  
þ 1
f1  exp½ 22 m  25 m 0:057 735m1 g
0:057 735 m
¼ ð311:769 kPaÞð0:7192Þð0:841Þ þ ð173:205 kPaÞð0:159Þ
¼ 216:1 kPa
The horizontal effective stress at top of the drift (h = Hb – Hd = 30 m – 5 m = 25 m) then becomes (eq. [5])
0 0 1 0
s hh ¼ Kb sub s vh ¼ ð216:1 kPaÞ ¼ 72:0 kPa ¼ s hT0
3
The load applied on the barricade is estimated with eq. [12] as follows:
 
  
L d Hd 0 0 2 tandb sub 1 Kdt0
P¼ ðs hB0 þ s hT0 Þ exp  þ l þ g w ð2Hsub  Hd Þ
2 Kdl0 Hd Ld
 
  
ð5 mÞð5 mÞ ð2Þðtan30 Þ 1 1=3
¼ ð68:5 kPa þ 72:0 kPaÞ exp  þ ð2 mÞ þ ð10 kN=m Þ½ð2Þð8 mÞ  5 mÞ
3
2 2 5m 5m
¼ ð12:5 m2 Þ½ð140:5 kPaÞð0:734 97Þ þ 110 kPa
¼ 2665:8 kN

Li and Aubertin 2011with Kdt0 = 1/3 (eq. [10]) and Kdl0 ≈ 2 (eq. [11]).

Published by NRC Research Press

 1728 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011

As Hsub = 8 m > 5 m = Hd, combined artesian and gravity flow is expected within the barricade. The minimum required
length of the barricade is obtained with eq. [26] (for FS = 1):

  
2Hd Hsub  Hd2  Hc2 ð2Þð5 mÞð8 mÞ  ð5 mÞ2  ð0 mÞ2
LB ¼ P¼ ð2665:8 kNÞ ¼ 7:4 m
l1 tandwr ð25 468:4 kN
mÞðtan38 Þ
where l1 (kN·m) is obtained from eq. [27] as follows:
 
Hd4  Hc4 ðHd2  Hc2 Þ2
l1 ¼ 2g wr sub Hd ðHsub  Hd ÞðKwr Hd þ Ld Þ þ Kwr g wr sub
2
þ g wr
2 2
 
H  Hc
3 3
ðHd þ 2Hc ÞðHd  Hc Þ 2
þ Ld 2g wr sub d þ g wr
3 3
¼ ð2Þð12 kN=m3 Þð5 mÞ2 ð8 m  5 mÞ½ð0:3843Þð5 mÞ þ 5 m
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 74.58.130.107 on 12/09/11

    
3 ð5mÞ  ð0mÞ ½ð5mÞ2  ð0mÞ2 2
4 4
þ 0:3843 ð12 kN=m Þ þ ð20 kN=m Þ
3
2 2
    
3 ð5 mÞ  ð0 mÞ ½5 m þ ð2Þð0 mÞð5 m  0 mÞ2
3 3
þ 5 m ð2Þð12 kN=m Þ þ ð20 kN=m Þ
3
3 3
¼ 12 458:7 kN
m þ 3843 kN
m þ 9166:6667 kN
m
¼ 25 468:4 kN
m

Kb_sub effective reaction coefficient of the submerged (satu-

In the latter, coefficient Kwr is obtained by considering the rated) cohesionless backfill
waste rock at rest (K0) in the transversally horizontal direction: Kdl0 effective reaction coefficient of the submerged (satu-
rated) backfill along the longitudinal orientation of the drift
For personal use only.

Kwr ¼ 1  sinfwr ¼ 1  sin38 ¼ 0:3843
References
Aubertin, M., Li, L., Arnoldi, S., Belem, T., Bussière, B.,
Benzaazoua, M., and Simon, R. 2003. Interaction between backfill
and rock mass in narrow stopes. In Proceedings of the 12th
Panamerican Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering and the 39th U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium (Soil
and Rock America 2003), Cambridge, Mass., 22–26 June 2003.
Edited by P.J. Culligan, H.H. Einstein, and A.J. Whittle. Verlag
Glückauf Essen (VGE), Essen, Germany. Vol. 1, pp. 1157–1164.
Li, L., and Aubertin, M. 2011. Numerical and analytical solutions for
the pore-water pressures within barricades made of waste rocks.
École Polytechnique de Montréal, Montréal, Que. Technical report
EPM-2011-02.
Li, L., Aubertin, M., and Belem, T. 2005. Formulation of a three
dimensional analytical solution to evaluate stress in backfilled
vertical narrow openings. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 42(6):
1705–1717. [With Erratum 43(3): 338–339, doi:10.1139/t06-017.]
doi:10.1139/t05-084.
List of symbols
B stope width (m)
FS factor of safety
Hb total height of backfill in the stope (m)
Hc water pressure head on the downstream side of the bar-
ricade (m)
Hd height of the drift (m)
Hm height of moist (wet, or dry) backfill (m)
Hsub height of the water table (piezometric surface) in the
stope (m)
h depth in backfill (m)
K0 effective at-rest reaction coefficient
Kb_m effective reaction coefficient of the wet cohesionless
backfill
Kdt0 effective reaction coefficient of the submerged (satu-
rated) backfill along the transversal orientation of the drift
Kwr effective reaction coefficient of the fully drained (u =
0) waste rock
L stope length (m)
LB the minimum required length of barricades (m)
Ld width of the drift (m)
l distance between the drift entrance and the barricade (m)
Mb_m parameter for moist (or dry) backfill defined by eq. [3] (m–1)
Mb_sub parameter for submerged backfill defined by eq. [6] (m–1)
P load acting on a barricade in a drift (kN)
gb_m unit weight of moist (or wet) backfill (kN/m3)
gb_sat unit weight of the saturated backfill (kN/m3)
gb_sub submerged (effective) unit weight of the backfill (kN/m3)
gw unit weight of water (9.81 kN/m3)
gwr unit weight of the fully drained (moist) waste rock (kN/m3)
gwr_sat unit weight of the saturated waste rock (kN/m3)
gwr_sub submerged (effective) unit weight of the saturated waste
rock (kN/m3)
db_m friction angle (°) along the interfaces between wet (or
moist) backfill and the rock walls
db_sub friction angle (°) along the interfaces between the satu-
rated backfill and rock walls
dwr friction angle (°) along the interface between waste
rock and rock mass
l1 parameter defined in eq. [27] (kN·m)
0
s hB0 horizontal effective stress at the base (z = 0) of the drift
entrance (kPa)
0
s hh effective horizontal stress at depth h (kPa)
0
s hT0 horizontal effective stress at the top (z = Hd) of the
drift entrance (kPa)
0
s vh effective vertical stress at depth h (kPa)
fb m internal friction angle (°) of the wet (or moist) backfill
fb sub internal friction angle (°) of the saturated backfill under
effective stresses
fwr internal friction angle (°) of the waste rock

Published by NRC Research Press