minerals

Article
Mine Backfilling in the Permafrost, Part II: Effect of
Declining Curing Temperature on the Short-Term
Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cemented
Paste Backfills
Mamert Mbonimpa *, Parrein Kwizera and Tikou Belem
Research Institute on Mines and the Environment, Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue (UQAT),
445 Boul. de l’Université, Rouyn-Noranda, QC J9X 5E4, Canada; Parrein.Kwizera@UQAT.ca (P.K.);
tikou.belem@uqat.ca (T.B.)
* Correspondence: mamert.mbonimpa@uqat.ca; Tel.: +1-(819)-762-0971 (ext. 2618); Fax: +1-(819)-797-6672




Received: 30 January 2019; Accepted: 7 March 2019; Published: 11 March 2019


Abstract: When cemented paste backfill (CPB) is used to fill underground stopes opened in
permafrost, depending on the distance from the permafrost wall, the curing temperature within
the CPB matrix decreases progressively over time until equilibrium with the permafrost is reached
(after several years). In this study, the influence of declining curing temperature (above freezing
temperature) on the evolution of the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of CPB over 28 days’
curing is investigated. CPB mixtures were prepared with a high early (HE) cement and a blend of 80%
slag and 20% General Use cement (S-GU) at 5% and 3% contents and cured at room temperature in a
humidity chamber and under decreasing temperatures in a temperature-controlled chamber. Results
indicate that UCS is higher for CPB cured at room temperature than under declining temperatures.
UCS increases progressively from the stope wall toward the inside of the CPB mass. Under declines
in curing temperature, HE cement provides better short-term compressive strength than does S-GU
binder. In addition, the gradual decline in temperature does not appear to affect the fact that the higher
the binder proportion, the greater the strength development. Therefore, UCS is higher for samples
prepared with 5% than 3% HE cement. Findings are discussed in terms of practical applications.

Keywords: permafrost; cemented paste fill (CPB); HE binder; saline mixing water; declining curing
temperature; UCS

1. Introduction
The reuse of tailings in backfill operations in the form of cemented paste backfill (CPB) is a tailings
management method that allows up to 50% of tailings to be returned underground [1]. This represents
an environmental benefit when the tailings are potentially acid-generating in the presence of water and
atmospheric oxygen. However, the primary role of the CPB is to ensure a safe working environment by
providing ground support for mine structures that surround underground mine openings created by
ore stoping. Different backfilling methods are presented in the literature for metal and coal mines [2,3].
CPB consists of filtered tailings, binder, and water. The role of the binder, added at dosages from
2% to 8% of the dry tailings mass [4–8], is to strengthen the CPB so that the exposed filling faces are
self-supporting when the surrounding edges are extracted. CPB strength is commonly determined in
terms of unconfined compressive strength (UCS) [9–11]. CPB is designed to reach its target UCS after
28 days of curing [12,13]. The water used to homogenize the mixture makes it possible to achieve a
desired consistency (generally expressed in terms of slump) and the rheological properties required

Minerals 2019, 9, 172; doi:10.3390/min9030172 www.mdpi.com/journal/minerals

Minerals 2019, 9, 172 2 of 12

to facilitate transport of the mixture via pipeline. Recent studies showed that superplasticizers could
improve the consistency, rheological properties and strength of CPB [14–17].
For underground support in Arctic mines where stopes are excavated from the permafrost,
ice-cemented backfills were the first type proposed by Bandopadhyay and Izaxon [18]. Ice-cemented
backfill consists of fill materials (gravel, crushed rock, tailings) with ice used as a binder. The schedule
of pillar recovery depends on the rate at which the backfill freezes. Bandopadhyay and Izaxon [18]
developed a finite difference model to analyze the effects of various parameters on ice-cemented
backfill in underground permafrost mines. They suggested that thin layers of backfill could be placed
successively, with the next layer placed after the previous one freezes. Cold air ventilation was used to
accelerate the freezing of the backfill. The temperature of the ventilation air and the thickness of the
backfill layers were the two most important variables affecting the required freezing time. For example,
13.2 days were required to freeze a 0.5 m backfill layer. Backfilling a 25-m-high stope would therefore
take 660 days, which is unacceptable for mining operations. Later, Cluff and Kazakidis [19] developed
different formulations of frozen fill consisting of rock, tailings, ice, and water in specific proportions to
replace more expensive cement-based backfill. Among other key parameters, the applicability is also
controlled by the freezing rate and time.
As mentioned above, the use of CPB in underground stopes in permafrost provides an alternative
to frozen backfill when freezing time is a constraint. However, the required strength must be achieved
within a limited curing time (e.g., 28 days) and under particular thermal curing conditions imposed
by heat exchanges between the CPB matrix and the permafrost. Numerous studies on backfilling
operations in which the stope walls were at temperatures (T) above zero (T > 0) show that higher
CPB curing temperatures resulted in higher UCS in the short term (7 to 28 days), mid-term (28 to
91 days), and long term (>91 days) [2], because higher temperatures accelerate binder hydration [20–23].
However, very little data exists on the effect of declining temperatures on the mechanical strength
of CPB.
Two-dimensional (2D) numerical models were used by Ghoreishi-Madiseh, et al. [24] to study
the effect of the initial CPB temperature (5–25 ◦ C) on the extent of permafrost rock mass at an initial
temperature ranging from −25 ◦ C to −5 ◦ C. A 10 m high × 10 m wide construction site was considered.
The numerical results showed increasing thickness of the thawed rock with increasing initial CPB
temperature, which implies more time required for the permafrost to refreeze. As part of Mine Project
A, located in Nunavut Territory in northern Canada, Beya, et al. [25] (companion paper, Part I) (see also
Beya [26]) investigated three-dimensional heat transfer in CPB placed in underground stopes excavated
®
from permafrost at −6 ◦ C. The 3D Heat Transfer Module in COMSOL Multiphysics was used.
Once the CPB is frozen, its mechanical strength should increase compared to the unfrozen CPB.
Han [27] performed a series of laboratory uniaxial compression tests on CPB specimens cured over 7,
28, and 90 days. Two room temperatures (20 ◦ C and −6 ◦ C) were used to represent thermal conditions
in the permafrost. Results showed significantly higher resistance for frozen CPB cured at −6 ◦ C
compared to 20 ◦ C, regardless of curing time. Therefore, the UCS for frozen CPB was 10.3, 9.9, and 6.9
times that for CPB cured at 20 ◦ C after 7, 28, and 90 days, respectively. This large difference in UCS
between frozen and unfrozen CPB samples can be explained by the reinforcing effect of ice. Moreover,
it is well known that the mechanical strength of frozen soil is greater than that of unfrozen soil in
saturated and unsaturated conditions (e.g., [28,29]).
Knowledge of the evolution of the temperature distribution within the CPB matrix is required
in order to develop laboratory mix formulations. These laboratory mixes are used to investigate the
time required for CPB to freeze when placed in stopes in the permafrost. The expected decreasing
temperatures define the thermal curing conditions for CPB samples for strength assessment (UCS)
during laboratory mix optimization. The objective of this article was to determine the impact of
declining temperatures on CPB placed in stopes excavated from permafrost on the UCS at curing times
of 3, 7, 14, and 28 days.
Minerals 2019, 9, 172 3 of 12

2. Characterization of Materials and Methodology

2.1. Characteristic of Tailings, Binder, and Mixing Water

The tailings used to prepare the CPB were obtained by grinding core samples from the
above-mentioned Mine Project A. Once homogenized, the tailings were subjected to physical and
mineralogical characterization. Details are given in the companion paper (Part I) [25].
Two binder agents were used to determine the effect of binder type on strength acquisition
under declining curing temperatures. The first binder agent was high early (HE) Portland cement
(formerly called Type III cement, according to ASTM [30]). This binder was selected for its early
strength development, which is desirable for backfilling in the permafrost. Considering that mines are
using fly ash and slag to partially replace cement with blended cements [5,17,31–33], the second binder
agent was, a blend of 80% ground granular blast furnace slag and 20% Type I Portland cement, or
general use (GU) (CP I) cement. This blend (hereinafter S-GU) is most often used for mine backfilling
due to its advantages in terms of increased strength compared to GU cement alone (e.g., [5,32]).
For mines in northern conditions, saline pore water (brine) can be naturally derived from permafrost
ice [34,35] or from anthropogenic sources, such as ore de-icing salts. Therefore, mixing water with a salt
concentration of 5 g/L was used to prepare the backfill recipes, as proposed by the industrial partner.
The salt type and concentration added to deionized water to obtain saline water mixture representative of
the expected water composition at the backfill plant are presented in Part I [25].

2.2. Mixture Preparation and Thermal Curing Conditions

The filtered tailings, binders (HE and S-GU), and saline water were mixed in a mortar mixer.
The 5% binder content Bw (mass of cement/dry mass tailings) was set by the industrial partner.
A 7-inch cone slump was targeted, corresponding to a solid mass concentration (Cw ) of around 76.3%.
The mixing duration was 7 min. Table 1 presents the characteristics of the mixtures prepared for this
study. The backfill temperature was measured at the end of mixing.

Table 1. Characteristics of the studied CPB mixtures.

Temperature at the Distance to the

Binder Bw Target and Applied
Mixtures End of the Mixing Interface Dp
Type (%) Curing Temperature
Tm (◦ C) (m)
M1 HE 5 24.3 - 22 ± 1 ◦ C
M2 HE 5 14.1 22 ± 1 ◦ C
M3 HE 5 14.6 0.0 see Figure 1a
M4 HE 5 13.9 0.5 see Figure 1b
M5 HE 5 14.3 1.0 see Figure 1c
M6 HE 5 14.7 2.0 see Figure 1d
M7 S-GU 5 14.8 22 ± 1 ◦ C
M8 S-GU 5 14.6 0.0 see Figure 1a
M9 S-GU 5 13.9 0.5 see Figure 1b
M10 S-GU 5 14.0 1.0 see Figure 1c
M11 S-GU 5 14.5 2.0 see Figure 1d
M12 HE 3 14.8 - 22 ± 1 ◦ C
M13 HE 3 14.4 0.0 see Figure 1a
M14 HE 3 14.0 2.0 see Figure 1d
M15 HE 5 14.3 - 2 ± 1 ◦C
Minerals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 12

Minerals 2019, 9, 172 4 of 12

28 days. For comparison purposes, the UCS values were also determined on samples (M15) cured at
the constant temperature reached after 28 days.
14
a) b) 14
12 Lab: target
Lab: target 12
10 Lab: applied
Lab: applied 10
Field
8 8
T(°C)

T(°C)
Field
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
0 7 14 21 28 0 7 14 21 28
Curing time (days) Curing time (days)

c) 14 d) 14
12 12
10 10
8 8 Lab: target

T(°C)
T(°C)

6 Lab: target 6 Lab: applied

4 Lab: applied 4
Field
2 Field 2
0 0
0 7 14 21 28 0 7 14 21 28
Curing time (days) Curing time (days)

Figure 1. Variation
Figure 1. Variation over
over time
time in
incuring
curing temperature
temperature estimated
estimated with
with COMSOL
COMSOL (Beya,
(Beya, et
et al.
al. [25]),
[25]), and
and
targeted
targetedandandapplied
appliedin in
thethe
laboratory for different
laboratory distances
for different from the
distances fromCPB–rock wall interface:
the CPB–rock (a) 0 m,
wall interface:
(b)
(a) 0.5
0 m,m,(b)
(c)0.5
1 m,
m,and
(c) 1(d)
m,2and
m. (d) 2 m.

A first
2.3. UCS control group of CPB mixtures (M1 and M7) was prepared with ingredients kept at
Determination.
room temperature (≈ 22 ± 1 ◦ C) for 24 hours. A second group of CPB mixtures containing the HE
binder In(M2
all cases,
to M6) atand
the the
endS-GU
of each curing
binder (M8 time considered
to M11) (3, 7, 14,such
was prepared and 28 thatdays), triplicate samples
the temperature at the
(with a height-to-diameter ◦ ratio
◦ of approximately 2 for all samples)
end of mixing was 14 C ± 1 C. The latter corresponds to the CPB temperature at deposition were subjected to uniaxial in
compression
the tests at a displacement
stope, as determined by Kalonji [36] rateandof 1used
mm/min
by Beya, using a servo-controlled
et al. [25]. In this case,mechanical
the ingredients press
(MTS 10/GL)
(already with a 50were
proportioned) kN normal
kept forloading
24 hours capacity.
inside a The average UCS valueschamber
temperature-controlled are presented
at about below.
4 ◦ C.
Because the press was not installed in a temperature-controlled
This conditioning temperature was determined after several preliminary mixing tests. chamber but instead in a room at
ambient
In the temperature (22 °C),insome
case of backfilling precautions
the permafrost, werehydration
where taken to minimize
occurs under inevitable
declining changes in the
temperature
sample temperature when determining the UCS. It was assumed (not demonstrated)
conditions, it would be useful to assess the extent to which the binder percentage affects the UCS. For this that this
temperature change in CPB samples could potentially impact the UCS.
purpose, additional mixtures (M12 to M14) were prepared with the HE cement at a content Bw of 3%. A typical case of temperature
change
CPB withininvestigated
mixtures a sample (20forcmthis
in height
purpose and
were 10 considered
cm in diameter) cured atof2 0°Cmand
at a distance (M3) exposed
and 2 mto(M13).ambient
air was modeled with the 3D Heat Transfer Module in COMSOL Multiphysics®.
For each mixture, the backfill was poured into 12 plastic molds 20 cm in height and 10 cm Results (details not
shown
in here)for
diameter indicated that the sample
UCS determination temperature
after curing times roseof from
3, 7,2 °C
14,toand20 °C
28 at 5 mm
days from thesamples
(triplicate sample
surface and to 4 °C in the central axis of the sample within six minutes
were used). The molds were placed in either a humidity chamber (at ambient temperature for M1, of exposure to 22 °C. The
curing chamber and press were installed side by side to minimize
M2, M7, and M12) or a temperature-controlled chamber (for the remaining mixtures). The samples possible temperature changes
during
in sample transport. Once chamber
the temperature-controlled the upperunderwent
surface of each CPB sample
decreasing was equalized,
temperatures, it was removed
as explained below.
from the mold and weighed. After measuring the final dimensions, the
Relative humidity in both CPB curing chambers (humidity and temperature-controlled chambers) was specimen was reintroduced
into the temperature-controlled
maintained above 90% throughout chamber for at
the entire least process.
curing 15 minutes to allow equilibrium with the curing
temperature before
A refrigerator uniaxial
was modifiedcompression
for use as a testing. However, it was
temperature-controlled assumed
chamber that the atemperature
by installing thermostat
change during the unconfined compressive test did not affect the UCS.
to control the temperature and a probe to monitor the actual interior temperature. For a targeted
curing UCS values for the
temperature, all CPB mixtures
thermostat were determined
allowed a temperature forswing
a maximum
range aroundcuring time of 28 value
the target days,
because
to only one
be entered. The temperature-controlled
minimum possible range chamber was available1 to
was approximately ◦ F, apply
or 0.5 a◦ C.specific decreasing
The temperature
temperature path (see Table 1 and Figure 1) for each mixture. It
inside the temperature-controlled chamber was monitored with two rugged RT-1 and RT-2 probes was not possible to test several
mixtures
(to simultaneously.
compensate For the 15 mixtures
for any malfunctions). The sensorsstudied werehere, tests were
connected to performed
a data logger overand a period
readings of
more than 420 days.
were taken at 30-minute intervals for 28 days. The maximum absolute difference between the curing
temperatures measured with the two probes was 0.2 ◦ C. Consequently, an average curing temperature
was considered.
Minerals 2019, 9, 172 5 of 12

The curing temperature for the different mixtures was adapted from numerical results obtained
by Beya et al. [25] on heat transfer in CPB placed in underground stopes excavated from permafrost
at −6 ◦ C. The simulated stope dimensions were set at 25 m (height) × 18 m (depth) × 10 m (width).
An initial CPB temperature of 14 ◦ C was used, as proposed by Kalonji [36], who performed numerical
modeling using the non-isothermal pipe flow module in COMSOL Multiphysics® 5.2 [37] to predict
the CPB deposition temperature for an underground stope excavated from the permafrost. Results
obtained by Beya, et al. [25] showed that the CPB temperature decreased over time depending on
the distance from the CPB–rock interface. The entire CPB matrix froze 5 years after backfilling.
The permafrost equilibrium temperature of −6 ◦ C was not reached even after 20 years of curing time.
Figure 1 illustrates the evolution of the CPB temperature over 28 days at different distances (0 m,
0.5 m, 1 m, and 2 m) from the CPB–rock wall interface, as obtained with COMSOL by Beya [26] (see
also [26]). The temperature within the backfill dropped from 14 ◦ C to 2.4 ◦ C, 5.4 ◦ C, 8.3 ◦ C, and
11.4 ◦ C at distances of 0 (interface), 0.5, 1, and 2 m from the permafrost wall, respectively. The backfill
temperature in the CPB zone within a distance of 2 m to 5 m (central axis of the 10-m-wide stope)
remains close to the deposition temperature of 14 ◦ C (12.9 ◦ C at 3 m and 13.8 ◦ C at 5 m) after 28 days
of curing.
These temperature variations were targeted for the curing of some CPB samples (see Table 1).
However, it was practically impossible to apply this continuous temperature variation. Consequently,
the curing temperature was decreased by constant temperature steps, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 also compares the measured variations over time in the curing temperature inside the
temperature-controlled chamber to the targeted temperature path for each position (or distance)
considered in the field. One of the challenges was the time required to change the temperature steps.
These changes were made only on work days, which could have led to slight deviations from the
target (see, e.g., Figure 1b). In general, actual and targeted temperatures showed a maximum absolute
difference of less than 1 ◦ C, which is negligible. Figure 1a shows that the temperature dropped from
14 ◦ C to 2.4 ◦ C for the backfill at the interface between the CPB matrix and the permafrost wall over
28 days. For comparison purposes, the UCS values were also determined on samples (M15) cured at
the constant temperature reached after 28 days.

2.3. UCS Determination

In all cases, at the end of each curing time considered (3, 7, 14, and 28 days), triplicate samples (with
a height-to-diameter ratio of approximately 2 for all samples) were subjected to uniaxial compression
tests at a displacement rate of 1 mm/min using a servo-controlled mechanical press (MTS 10/GL) with
a 50 kN normal loading capacity. The average UCS values are presented below. Because the press
was not installed in a temperature-controlled chamber but instead in a room at ambient temperature
(22 ◦ C), some precautions were taken to minimize inevitable changes in the sample temperature when
determining the UCS. It was assumed (not demonstrated) that this temperature change in CPB samples
could potentially impact the UCS. A typical case of temperature change within a sample (20 cm in
height and 10 cm in diameter) cured at 2 ◦ C and exposed to ambient air was modeled with the 3D Heat
Transfer Module in COMSOL Multiphysics® . Results (details not shown here) indicated that the sample
temperature rose from 2 ◦ C to 20 ◦ C at 5 mm from the sample surface and to 4 ◦ C in the central axis of
the sample within six minutes of exposure to 22 ◦ C. The curing chamber and press were installed side
by side to minimize possible temperature changes during sample transport. Once the upper surface
of each CPB sample was equalized, it was removed from the mold and weighed. After measuring
the final dimensions, the specimen was reintroduced into the temperature-controlled chamber for at
least 15 min to allow equilibrium with the curing temperature before uniaxial compression testing.
However, it was assumed that the temperature change during the unconfined compressive test did not
affect the UCS.
UCS values for all CPB mixtures were determined for a maximum curing time of 28 days, because
only one temperature-controlled chamber was available to apply a specific decreasing temperature path
3.1. Effect of Declining Curing Temperature on the UCS
As a first step, the evolution of the UCS was determined for two CPB mixtures containing 5%
HE cement with temperature at the end of the mixing (Tm) of 24.3 °C (M1) and 14.1 °C (M2) and
which were
Minerals 2019, 9,cured
172 in the humidity chamber. Figure 2 shows higher UCS for M1 than M2. When curing 6 of 12
time was increased from three to 28 days, the UCS increased from 320 kPa to 520 kPa for M1 and
from 240 kPa to 500 kPa for M2. The UCS difference between the two mixtures is more pronounced
(see Table 1 and Figure 1) for each mixture. It was not possible to test several mixtures simultaneously.
at early age (three days of curing) and fades thereafter with time. Therefore, the temperature of the
For the 15 mixtures studied here, tests were performed over a period of more than 420 days.
backfill when placed in the molds appears to influence the hydration of HE cement, which is faster
at Results
3. 22 °C than at 14 °C, even for identical curing temperatures in the humidity chamber.
Figure 2 shows the second step: comparing the UCS of CPB samples containing 5% HE with
The effectatofthe
temperatures declining curing temperature
end of mixing (Tm) at around on the UCS
14 °C. and the
These effectwere
samples of binder
curedtype and
in the content
humidity
on the UCS of CPB cured under decreasing temperatures are presented below.
chamber (M2) and in the temperature-controlled chamber with the temperature paths shown in
Figure 1 (M3 to M6; see Table 1). The UCS values for M5 cured under the thermal conditions
3.1. Effect of Declining Curing Temperature on the UCS
prevailing at the rock–CPB interface (with a temperature decreasing rapidly from 14 °C to reach
3.5 °CAswithin
a first 0.5
step,
daytheand
evolution of thethree
2.7 °C after UCSdays;
was determined forare
see Figure 1a) twothe
CPB mixtures
lowest overcontaining
the curing 5% HE
period
cement with temperature at the end of the mixing (Tm) of 24.3 ◦ C (M1) and 14.1 ◦ C (M2) and which
of 28 days. UCS varies from 80 kPa at three days to 370 kPa at 28 days. The higher the curing
were cured in(for
temperature the distances
humidity chamber.
from 0.5–2Figure 2 shows
m), the more higher
the UCS UCS for M1 for
increases thana M2. When
given curing
curing time. time
As
was increased from three to 28 days, the UCS increased from 320 kPa to 520
mentioned in the introduction, it is generally known that cement hydration is faster at higher kPa for M1 and from
240 kPa to 500 [14–17,30].
temperatures kPa for M2.InThe UCSwords,
other difference between theperformance
the mechanical two mixturesof is more pronounced
the CPB at early
matrix increases
age (three days of curing) and fades thereafter with time. Therefore, the temperature
progressively from the rock–CPB interface toward the center. The tendency of UCS to increase over of the backfill
when placed
the curing timein the molds
is also moreappears
markedto between
influencethree
the hydration
and sevenofdays
HE cement,
of curingwhich is faster
than after the at 22 ◦ C
seventh
than
day of 14 ◦ C, even for identical curing temperatures in the humidity chamber.
at curing.

600
M1 (5% HE, Tm = 24.3 °C, Tc = 22°C)
500
M2 (5% HE, Tm = 14.1°C, Tc = 22°C)
UCS (kPa)

400
M3 (5% HE, Tm = 14.6 °C, Dp = 0.0 m, Tc : Fig. 1a)
300
M4 (5% HE, Tm = 13.9 °C, Dp = 0.5 m, Tc : Fig. 1b)
200
M5 (5% HE, Tm = 14.3 °C, Dp = 1.0 m, Tc : Fig. 1c)
100
M6 (5% HE, Tm = 14.7 °C, Dp = 2.0 m, Tc : Fig. 1d)
0
0 7 14 21 28
Curing time (days)

Figure 2. UCS variation with curing time for CPB containing 5% HE cured at constant temperature (22 ◦ C)
Figure
in 2. UCS variation
the humidity chamber with
(M1curing timeand
and M2) for CPB containingtemperatures
at decreasing 5% HE cured (M3
at constant
to M6)temperature (22 the
depending on °C)
distance Dp from the CPB–permafrost wall interface: 0 m (M3), 0.5 m (M4), 1 m (M5), and 2 m (M6). the
in the humidity chamber (M1 and M2) and at decreasing temperatures (M3 to M6) depending on
distance Dp from the CPB–permafrost wall interface: 0 m (M3), 0.5 m (M4), 1 m (M5), and 2 m (M6).
Figure 2 shows the second step: comparing the UCS of CPB samples containing 5% HE with
The above
temperatures atprocedure
the end of was repeated
mixing (Tm) atbut with the
around ◦ C. cement
14 HE replacedwere
These samples by the S-GU
cured in binder (blend
the humidity
of 80% Slag
chamber (M2)andand20% GU).
in the Figure 3 compares the
temperature-controlled UCS ofwith
chamber CPBthemixtures containing
temperature paths 5%shown S-GU:
in
temperatures at the end of mixing (Tm) were around 14 °C. These mixtures were
Figure 1 (M3 to M6; see Table 1). The UCS values for M5 cured under the thermal conditions prevailing cured in the
humidity
at chamber
the rock–CPB (M7) and
interface theatemperature-controlled
(with temperature decreasing chamber
rapidlywith
fromthe ◦ C to reach 3.5
14 temperature ◦ C within
paths shown
in Figure
0.5 day and 2.7 ◦to
1 (M8 M11)three
C after depending onFigure
days; see the distance
1a) arefrom the CPB–permafrost
the lowest over the curingwall
periodinterface. The UCS
of 28 days.
of M7 from
varies cured80atkPa
22 °C vary days
at three fromto30370
kPakPa
to 1050 kPa when
at 28 days. the curing
The higher time was
the curing increased(for
temperature from 3 to 28
distances
days.0.5–2
from The UCS of M8
m), the more tothe
M11 cured
UCS under for
increases decreasing temperatures
a given curing time. Asclosely approach
mentioned in thethat of the M7
introduction,
mixture
it curedknown
is generally at 22 °C incement
that the humidity chamber
hydration upattohigher
is faster the seventh curing [14–17,30].
temperatures day. Afterwards,
In otherthe UCS
words,
the mechanical performance of the CPB matrix increases progressively from the rock–CPB interface
toward the center. The tendency of UCS to increase over the curing time is also more marked between
three and seven days of curing than after the seventh day of curing.
The above procedure was repeated but with the HE cement replaced by the S-GU binder (blend of
80% Slag and 20% GU). Figure 3 compares the UCS of CPB mixtures containing 5% S-GU: temperatures
at the end of mixing (Tm) were around 14 ◦ C. These mixtures were cured in the humidity chamber (M7)
and the temperature-controlled chamber with the temperature paths shown in Figure 1 (M8 to M11)
depending on the distance from the CPB–permafrost wall interface. The UCS of M7 cured at 22 ◦ C
Minerals 2019, 9, 172 7 of 12

vary from
Minerals 2019,30
9, xkPa
FORtoPEER
1050REVIEW
kPa when the curing time was increased from 3 to 28 days. The UCS of 7M8 to
of 12
Minerals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 12
M11 cured under decreasing temperatures closely approach that of the M7 mixture cured at 22 ◦ C in
of
theM8 to M11 chamber
humidity increase very
up toslightly
the seventhcompared
curingtoday.
M7.Afterwards,
At 28 days the
of curing,
UCS ofthe
M8UCS is only
to M11 235 kPa,
increase very
of M8 to M11 increase very slightly compared to M7. At 28 days of curing, the UCS is only 235 kPa,
170 kPa, 171 kPa, and 85 kPa at a distance of 2 m (M11), 1 m (M10), 0.5 (M9), and 0 m
slightly compared to M7. At 28 days of curing, the UCS is only 235 kPa, 170 kPa, 171 kPa, and 85 kPa (M8) from the
170 kPa, 171 kPa, and 85 kPa at a distance of 2 m (M11), 1 m (M10), 0.5 (M9), and 0 m (M8) from the
CPB–rock wall
at a distance of 2interface.
m (M11), 1Atm a(M10),
given0.5curing time,
(M9), and 0 mthe UCS
(M8) from increases with wall
the CPB–rock increasing curing
interface. At a
CPB–rock wall interface. At a given curing time, the UCS increases with increasing curing
temperature. More specifically, the CPB performance increases progressively from
given curing time, the UCS increases with increasing curing temperature. More specifically, the CPB the interface
temperature. More specifically, the CPB performance increases progressively from the interface
toward the center
performance of the
increases CPB matrix,from
progressively as shown in Figure
the interface 2 for the
toward the center
HE cement. For the
of the CPB S-GUasbinder,
matrix, shown
toward the center of the CPB matrix, as shown in Figure 2 for the HE cement. For the S-GU binder,
the increase in UCS over time is almost linear.
in Figure 2 for the HE cement. For the S-GU binder, the increase in UCS over time is almost linear.
the increase in UCS over time is almost linear.
1200
1200
1000
1000 M7 (5% S-GU, Tm = 14.8 °C, Tc = 22°C)
(kPa)

800 M7 (5% S-GU, Tm = 14.8 °C, Tc = 22°C)

(kPa)

800 M8 (5% S-GU, Tm = 14.6 °C, Dp = 0.0 m, Tc : Fig. 1a )

UCS

M8 (5% S-GU, Tm = 14.6 °C, Dp = 0.0 m, Tc : Fig. 1a )

UCS

600
M9 (5% S-GU, Tm = 13.9 °C, Dp = 0.5 m, Tc : Fig. 1b )
600
M9 (5% S-GU, Tm = 13.9 °C, Dp = 0.5 m, Tc : Fig. 1b )
400 M10 (5% S-GU, Tm = 14.0 °C, Dp = 1.0 m, Tc : Fig. 1c )
400 M10 (5% S-GU, Tm = 14.0 °C, Dp = 1.0 m, Tc : Fig. 1c )
200 M11 (5% S-GU, Tm = 14.5 °C, Dp = 2.0 m, Tc : Fig. 1d )
200 M11 (5% S-GU, Tm = 14.5 °C, Dp = 2.0 m, Tc : Fig. 1d )
0
0 0 7 14 21 28
0 7 14 21 28
Curing time (days)
Curing time (days)
Figure 3. UCS variation
UCS variation with curingtime
variation with time forCPB
CPB containing 5% S-GU (blend of 80% Slag and 20%
Figure 3.
Figure 3. UCS with curing
curing timeforfor CPBcontaining
containing5%5%
S-GU
S-GU(blend of 80%
(blend SlagSlag
of 80% andand
20%20%
GU)
GU) cured
curedcured at a constant
at a constant temperature
temperature ◦
(22 C) in(22 °C) in the humidity chamber (M7) and at decreasing
GU) at a constant temperature (22the humidity
°C) chamber (M7)
in the humidity and at(M7)
chamber decreasing
and attemperatures
decreasing
temperatures
(M8 to M11) (M8 to M11)
depending on depending
the distance on thethe
from distance from the CPB–permafrost
CPB–permafrost wall interface: 0 wall interface:
m (M8), 0m
0.5 m (M9),
temperatures (M8 to M11) depending on the distance from the CPB–permafrost wall interface: 0m
(M8), 0.5
1 m (M10), m (M9), 1 m (M10), and 2 m (M11).
(M8), 0.5 m and
(M9),2 1mm(M11).
(M10), and 2 m (M11).
3.2.Effect
3.2. EffectofofBinder
BinderType
Type on
on the
the UCS
UCS ofof CPB
CPB Cured
Cured under
under Declining
Declining Temperature
Temperature
3.2. Effect of Binder Type on the UCS of CPB Cured under Declining Temperature
The effect
The effect of
of binder
binder type
type waswasexamined
examinedby bycomparing
comparingthe theUCS
UCSofofCPB mixtures
CPB mixturesprepared
prepared with 5%
with
The effect of binder type average
was examined by comparing the UCS of(Tm)
CPB atmixtures± prepared with
◦ C. First,
5% HE (M2) and S-GU (M7) with average temperature at the end of mixing (Tm) at 14.4 ± 0.3 °C.
HE (M2) and S-GU (M7) with temperature at the end of mixing 14.4 0.3 the
5%
UCS HEof (M2)andand S-GU (M7)
in awith average temperature at the temperature
end of mixing (22(Tm)
± 1 ◦at 14.4 ± 0.3 °C.
First, theM2UCS ofM7 M2cured
and M7 humidity
cured in a chamber
humidityatchamber
a constant at a constant temperature C)(22
are±1
compared
°C) are
First, the UCS
in Figure 4.inFor of M2
curingand M7 cured in a humidity chamber at a constant temperature (22 ±1 °C) that
are
compared Figure 4. times less than
For curing times14 less
days,than
the UCS of M7
14 days, the(with
UCS5% of S-GU) remains
M7 (with lower than
5% S-GU) remains
compared
of M2than in
(withthatFigure
5% of
HE). 4. For curing times less than 14 days, the UCS of M7 (with 5% S-GU) remains
lower M2Beyond
(with 5% 14 HE).
daysBeyond
of curing,
14 the
daysUCS of M7 increases
of curing, the UCS drastically to exceed
of M7 increases that of
drastically
lower
M2 than
(morethat that of
thanof128%M2 (with 5%
gain). than HE).
For the Beyond
curing 14
period days
from of curing,
the 14th the
to the UCS of
28ththe
day,M7 increases
theto
UCS drastically
to exceed M2 (more 128% gain). For the curing period from 14th theincreases
28th day,atthean
to exceedlinear
average that of M2of(more
rate 4.6 andthan 128%
43.8 kPa/dgain).
for For
M2 the
and curing
M7, period from the 14th to the 28th day, the
respectively.
UCS increases at an average linear rate of 4.6 and 43.8 kPa/d for M2 and M7, respectively.
UCS increases at an average linear rate of 4.6 and 43.8 kPa/d for M2 and M7, respectively.
1200
1200
1000
1000
800
(kPa)

800
(kPa)

600 M2 (5% HE, Tm = 14.1°C, Tc = 22°C)

M2 (5% HE, Tm = 14.1°C, Tc = 22°C)
UCS

600
UCS

400 M7 (5% S-GU, Tm = 14.8 °C, Tc = 22°C)

400 M7 (5% S-GU, Tm = 14.8 °C, Tc = 22°C)
200
200
0
0 0 7 14 21 28
0 7 14 21 28
Curing time (days)
Curing time (days)
Figure 4. Comparison of the UCS of CPB samples containing 5% HE (M2) and S-GU (M7) with
Figure 4. Comparison
temperature at the endof of
themixing
UCS ofatCPB14 ◦samples
C and atcontaining 5% HE temperature
constant curing (M2) and S-GU(22 (M7) with
◦ C) in the
Figure 4. Comparison of the UCS of CPB samples containing 5% HE (M2) and S-GU (M7) with
temperature at the
humidity chamber. end of mixing at 14 °C and at constant curing temperature (22 °C) in the humidity
temperature at the end of mixing at 14 °C and at constant curing temperature (22 °C) in the humidity
chamber.
chamber.
Second, the UCS of CPB mixtures containing 5% HE (M3 and M6) and S-GU (M8 and M11)
Second,
cured under the UCS of CPB
decreasing mixturesincontaining
temperature 5% HE (M3 and M6)
the temperature-controlled and S-GU
chamber (M8 and M11)
are compared cured5.
in Figure
Second, the UCS of CPB mixtures containing 5% HE (M3 and M6) and S-GU (M8 and M11) cured
under decreasing temperature in the temperature-controlled chamber are compared in Figure 5. The
under decreasing temperature in the temperature-controlled chamber are compared in Figure 5. The
decreasing curing temperatures applied are representative of thermal conditions at distances of 0 m
decreasing curing temperatures applied are representative of thermal conditions at distances of 0 m
(M3 and M8) and 2 m (M6 and M11) from the permafrost wall. The mixtures made with S-GU binder
(M3 and M8) and 2 m (M6 and M11) from the permafrost wall. The mixtures made with S-GU binder
Minerals 2019, 9, 172 8 of 12

The decreasing
Minerals curing
2019, 9, x FOR PEERtemperatures
REVIEW applied are representative of thermal conditions at distances of 0 12
8 of m
(M3 and M8) and 2 m (M6 and M11) from the permafrost wall. The mixtures made with S-GU binder
(M8 and
(M8 and M11)
M11)have
havelower
lowerUCSUCScompared
comparedto tomixtures
mixturesmademadewith withHE
HEbinder
binder(M3
(M3and andM6).
M6).Therefore,
Therefore,
the UCS
the UCS of M3 andand M8
M8atatthe
theinterface
interface(distance
(distanceofof0 m)
0 m) is 80 kPa
is 80 and
kPa 20 kPa
and (i.e.,(i.e.,
20 kPa a difference of 60ofkPa)
a difference 60
after three days of curing, and 370 kPa and 85 kPa (i.e., a difference of 285 kPa) after 28
kPa) after three days of curing, and 370 kPa and 85 kPa (i.e., a difference of 285 kPa) after 28 days ofdays of curing,
respectively.
curing, For M6 and
respectively. For M11 at a M11
M6 and distance
at a of 2 m, theofUCS
distance 2 m,isthe225UCS
kPais
and
22540kPa
kPaand
(a difference
40 kPa (a of 185 kPa),
difference
respectively, after three days of curing, and 440
of 185 kPa), respectively, after three days of curing,kPa and 235
440 kPa (a difference of 205 kPa) after
and 235 kPa (a difference of 205 28 kPa)
days
of curing.
after 28 days of curing.

500

400
M6 (5% HE, Tm = 14.7 °C, Dp = 2.0 m, Tc : Fig. 1d)
UCS (kPa)

300
M3 (5% HE, Tm = 14.6 °C, Dp = 0.0 m, Tc : Fig. 1a)
200
M11 (5% S-GU, Tm = 14.5 °C, Dp = 2.0 m, Tc : Fig. 1d )
100
M8 (5% S-GU, Tm = 14.6 °C, Dp = 0.0 m, Tc : Fig. 1a )
0
0 7 14 21 28
Curing time (days)

Figure 5. Comparison of the evolution of the UCS of CPB samples containing 5% HE (full lines)
Figure 5. Comparison of the evolution of the UCS of CPB samples containing 5% HE (full lines) and
and S-GU (dashed lines) cured at decreasing temperatures depending on the distance from the
S-GU (dashed lines) cured at decreasing temperatures depending on the distance from the
CPB–permafrost wall interface (Dp): 0 m (M3 and M8) and 2 m (M6 and M11).
CPB–permafrost wall interface (Dp): 0 m (M3 and M8) and 2 m (M6 and M11).
Based on the results in Figure 5, the UCS of M7 would be expected to exceed that of M2 for curing
timesBased
beyondon the results
14 days. in FigureHE
However, 5, the
cementUCSprovides
of M7 would betterbe expected to
mechanical exceedthan
strength that does
of M2 for
S-GU
curing
binder times beyond
over the entire14 days.time
curing However, HE cement
of 28 days. Furthermore,provides better
for the mechanical
period from thestrength thanday
14th to 28th doesof
S-GU binder over the entire curing time of 28 days. Furthermore, for the period
curing, the UCS increases at an average linear rate of 1.9 and 5.5 kPa/d for M3 and M6 (at a distance from the 14th to 28th
day
fromofthe
curing, the UCS
permafrost wallincreases
Dp of 0 andat an2 average linear rate
m), respectively. of 1.9
These andare
rates 5.57.9
kPa/d forkPa/d
and 2.2 M3 and forM6M3(at
anda
distance
M8 (at afrom the permafrost
distance Dp of 0 m),wall Dp of 0 andCompared
respectively. 2 m), respectively. These rates
to the increasing UCS arerates
7.9 and
of M22.2 (with
kPa/dHE)for
M3 and M8 (at a distance Dp of 0 m), respectively. Compared to the increasing
and M7 (with S-GU), which were cured in a humidity chamber at a constant temperature of 22 ± 1 ◦ C UCS rates of M2 (with
HE) and M75),(with
(see Figure S-GU), which
the increasing UCS were curedmore
rate drops in a significantly
humidity chamber at a constant
for the CPB with S-GU temperature
than with HE. of
22 ± 1 °C (see
Assuming Figure
that 5), the
the UCS andincreasing UCS rate
its increasing rate aredropsduemore significantly
to hydration for the CPB
(neglecting otherwith S-GU
factors than
such as
with HE. Assuming that the UCS and its increasing rate are due to hydration
consolidation), we may conclude that, in the short term (up to 28 days of curing), the hydration kinetics(neglecting other factors
such
of theasS-GU
consolidation),
binder are more we may conclude
negatively that, by
affected in the short term (up
the progressive to 28indays
decrease curingof temperature
curing), the
hydration kinetics of the S-GU binder are more negatively affected
compared to the HE cement. Therefore, the use of HE cement may be beneficial in the short by the progressive decrease in
term for
curing temperature compared to the HE cement.
mine backfilling of stopes excavated from the permafrost. Therefore, the use of HE cement may be beneficial
in the short term for mine backfilling of stopes excavated from the permafrost.
3.3. Effect of Cement Content on the UCS of CPB Curing under Decreasing Temperature
3.3. Effect of Cement Content on the UCS of CPB Curing under Decreasing Temperature
Several previous studies have shown that increasing the percentage of binder increases the UCS,
Several
all other previous
conditions studies
being have
equal shown that
[14,38,39]. In the increasing the percentage
case of backfilling in theof binder increases
permafrost the UCS,
where hydration
all other conditions being equal [14,38,39]. In the case of backfilling in the
occurs under decreasing temperature conditions, it would be useful to determine the extent to whichpermafrost where hydration
occurs under
the binder decreasing
content affectstemperature
the UCS. For conditions,
this purpose, it wouldthebeUCSuseful to determine
of the CPB mixtures the extent to which
prepared with
the binder content affects the UCS. For this purpose, the UCS of the
5% and 3% HE cement and cured under the same thermal conditions was compared. CPB mixtures CPB mixtures prepared with 5%
and 3% HE cement and cured under the same thermal conditions
at distances from the CPB–permafrost interface of 0 m (M3 and M13) and 2 m (M6 and M14) were was compared. CPB mixtures at
distances
considered. from the CPB–permafrost
Results are shown in Figure interface
6. Forof 0 m (M3 and
comparison M13) and
purposes, 2 m (M6
this graph alsoand
showsM14) thewere
UCS
considered. Results are shown in Figure 6. For comparison purposes,
of CPB mixtures prepared with 5% and 3% HE binder and cured at a temperature of 22 C (M2 and this graph also shows ◦ the UCS
of CPBrespectively).
M12, mixtures prepared It can with 5% and 3%
be observed thatHE thebinder
samples andcontaining
cured at a 5% temperature
HE have of 22 °CUCS
higher (M2 than
and
M12, respectively).
samples prepared with It can3%beHE,observed
regardless thatofthe
the samples containingThe
curing conditions. 5%effects
HE haveof thehigher UCS than
temperature on
samples prepared with 3% HE, regardless of the curing conditions. The
hydration and the resulting UCS thus remain closely related to the binder proportion, even under effects of the temperature on
hydration
decreasingand the resulting UCS thus remain closely related to the binder proportion, even under
temperatures.
decreasing temperatures.
Minerals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 12
Minerals 2019, 9, 172 9 of 12
Minerals 2019,
600 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 12

500
600
M2 (5% HE, Tm = 14.1°C, Tc = 22°C)
400
500 M12 (3% HE, Tm = 14.8 °C, Tc = 22°C)
UCS (kPa)

M2 (5% HE, Tm = 14.1°C, Tc = 22°C)

300
400 M3 (5% HE, Tm = 14.6 °C, Dp = 0.0 m, Tc : Fig. 1a)
M12 (3% HE, Tm = 14.8 °C, Tc = 22°C)
UCS (kPa)

M13 (3% HE, Tm = 14.4 °C, Dp = 0.0 m, Tc : Fig. 1a )

200
300 M3 (5% HE, Tm = 14.6 °C, Dp = 0.0 m, Tc : Fig. 1a)
M6 (5% HE, Tm = 14.7 °C, Dp = 2.0 m, Tc : Fig. 1d)
100 M13 (3% HE, Tm = 14.4 °C, Dp = 0.0 m, Tc : Fig. 1a )
200
M14 (3% HE, Tm = 14.0 °C, Dp = 2.0 m, Tc : Fig. 1d )
M6 (5% HE, Tm = 14.7 °C, Dp = 2.0 m, Tc : Fig. 1d)
1000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 M14 (3% HE, Tm = 14.0 °C, Dp = 2.0 m, Tc : Fig. 1d )
0 Curing time (days)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Curing time (days)
Figure 6. Evolution of the UCS in mixtures (M2, M3, and M6) containing 5% HE (full lines) and
mixtures
Figure 6. (M12–M14)
Evolution ofcontaining
the UCS in3%mixtures
HE (dashed
(M2,lines)
M3, cured
and M6)under a constant
containing 5%temperature
HE (full lines)of 22 °C
and
Figure 6. Evolution
(M2 and(M12–M14)
mixtures of the UCS
M12) andcontaining in mixtures
under decreasing (M2, M3,
temperatures
3% HE (dashed and
lines) cured M6) containing
depending 5% HE (full
on thetemperature
under a constant lines)
distance from and
◦
of 22 the
C
mixtures
(M2 (M12–M14)
and M12)
CPB–permafrostandwall containing
under 3%temperatures
decreasing
interface (Dp):HE
0 m(dashed lines)
M13)cured
depending
(M3 and 2under
andon mthe a and
constant
distance
(M6 fromtemperature
M14). of 22 °C
the CPB–permafrost
(M2 and M12)
wall interface (Dp):and
0 munder
(M3 and decreasing
M13) and 2temperatures
m (M6 and M14). depending on the distance from the
CPB–permafrost
4. Discussion wall interface (Dp): 0 m (M3 and M13) and 2 m (M6 and M14).
4. Discussion
The results on the effect of declining curing temperature on mechanical strength were obtained
4. Discussion
using The results
curing on the paths
thermal effect of declining
that closely curing
approach temperature on mechanical
the temperature strength
variations were obtained
predicted by Beya,using
et al.
curingThe results
thermal on
paths the effect
that of
closely declining
approach curing
the temperature
temperature on mechanical
variations predicted strength
by Beya, were
et al.obtained
[25] (see
[25] (see also [26]). These results show that the curing temperature at the CPB–permafrost wall
using
also curing
[26]). These thermal
results paths
show that
thatclosely
the approach
curing the temperature
temperature at the variations predicted
CPB–permafrost wall by Beya,
interface et al.
(mixtures
interface (mixtures M3 and M13 with 5% and 3% HE cement, respectively), which decreases rapidly
◦ C (at 0 days),
[25]
M3 (seeM13
and alsowith [26]). These results show respectively),
that the curing temperature rapidly
at the CPB–permafrost wall
from 14 °C (at 0 5% andreaches
days), 3% HE cement,
3.5 °C after 0.5 days,which 2.7 °Cdecreases
after three days,from and14remains almost
interface
reaches 3.5 ◦
(mixtures
C after2.4 M3days,
0.5 and M13 ◦
2.7the with
C 5%three
after anddays,
3% HE andcement,
remains respectively),
almostthe which
constant decreases
(around ◦ rapidly
2.4 condition
C) up to
constant (around °C) up to 28th day (see Figure 1a), represents worst-case curing
from
the 14 day
°C (at 0 Figure
days),1a),
reaches 3.5 °Cthe after 0.5 days, 2.7 °C after three days, and remains almost
with the lowest UCS values (see Figures 2,5 and 6). Given the long period of time when(see
28th (see represents worst-case curing condition with the lowest UCS values the
constant
Figures (around
2, 5 and 2.4Given
6). °C) uptheto long
the 28th dayof
period (see
timeFigure
when 1a), represents
the temperature the remains
worst-case curing2condition
between and 3 ◦C
temperature remains between 2 and 3 °C (from the third to the 28th day of curing), it would be
with
(from the lowest
the third UCS values of(see Figures 2,5 andinformative
6). Given tothe long period
the UCSof time when M3the
informative toto the
compare 28th dayUCS
the curing),
obtained it would
on M3be to the UCS obtained compareon samples obtained
cured at aonconstantto
temperature
the UCS obtainedremainson between
samples 2 and
cured at a3constant
°C (from the third
curing to the 28th
temperature of 2 ◦C
day of curing),
(M15 in Table it would
1). This be
latter
curing temperature of 2 °C (M15 in Table 1). This latter curing procedure is simpler than that shown
informative
curing procedureto compare the than
UCSthat obtained on inM3 to the1a.UCS obtained on samplesin cured at 7,
a constant
in Figure 1a. Theisresults
simpler are presented shownin Figure Figure
7, showingThe results
that thearetwo
presented Figure
curing procedures showing
produce
curing
that the temperature
two curing of 2 °C (M15
procedures in Table
produce 1). This
almost latterUCS
identical curing
for procedure
a curing is simpler
time of up to than
28 thatIn
days. shown
other
almost identical UCS for a curing time of up to 28 days. In other words, applying the rapidly declining
in Figure
words, 1a. Thethe
applying results aredeclining
rapidly presentedcuringin Figurethermal7, showing
path is thatrequired
not the twofor curing procedures
mixtures with HE produce
binder.
curing thermal path is not required for mixtures with HE binder.
almost identical UCS for a curing time of up to 28 days. In other words, applying the rapidly declining
400
curing thermal path is not required for mixtures with HE binder.
400
300
UCS (kPa)

300
200 M3 (5% HE, Tm = 14.6 °C, Dp = 0.0 m, Tc : Fig. 1a)
UCS (kPa)

200 M3
M15(5% HE,
(5% Tm
HE, = 14.6
Tm °C,°C,
= 14.3 DpTc= =0.0 m, Tc : Fig. 1a)
2°C)
100

M15 (5% HE, Tm = 14.3 °C, Tc = 2°C)

100
0
0 7 14 21 28
0 Curing time (days)
0 7 14 21 28
Figure 7. Effect ofCuring
decreasing (M3) and constant (M15) curing temperatures on CPB strength.
time (days)
Figure 7. Effect of decreasing (M3) and constant (M15) curing temperatures on CPB strength.
As explained above, the results presented in this study are limited to 28 days of curing time.
Figure
WhenAs placed in7.permafrost
explainedEffect of decreasing
above, the (M3)
results
walls, CPB and constant
presented
freezes (M15)
inathis
after curingare
timetemperatures
study
certain to on
28CPB
limitedyears).
(several daysstrength.
of curingintime.
As mentioned the
When placeditin
introduction, is permafrost
known that the walls,
UCS CPB freezesCPB
of frozen after a certain
increases time
over (several
that years).CPB
for unfrozen As [27].
mentioned in
It would
As explained above, the results presented in this study are limited to 28 days of curing time.
theworthwhile
be introduction, it is knownthe
investigating thatimpact
the UCS onof frozen
the CPB increases
long-term mechanical over that forof
behavior unfrozen CPB [27]. It
CPB of decreasing
When placed in permafrost walls, CPB freezes after a certain time (several years). As mentioned in
would temperature
curing be worthwhile investigating
until the impact
freezing is reached. Thison the long-term
would provide anmechanical
opportunity behavior of CPBthe
to investigate of
the introduction, it is known that the UCS of frozen CPB increases over that for unfrozen CPB [27]. It
decreasing
potential curing
impact temperature
of sulfate attack. until
Indeed, freezing is reached.
the tailings This would
used contained provide
0.35% an and
of pyrite opportunity to
the backfill
would be worthwhile investigating the impact on the long-term mechanical behavior of CPB of
investigate the potential impact of sulfate attack. Indeed, the tailings used contained
recipes were prepared using mixing water containing soluble sulfates [25]. A deleterious effect of the 0.35% of pyrite
decreasing curing temperature until freezing is reached. This would provide an opportunity to
investigate the potential impact of sulfate attack. Indeed, the tailings used contained 0.35% of pyrite
Minerals 2019, 9, 172 10 of 12

presence of soluble sulfates as well as sulfide minerals on the strength of CPB due to sulfate attack can
be expected.

5. Conclusions
The purpose of this article was to investigate the influence of declining curing temperatures on
the strength of cemented paste backfills (CPB) placed in open underground stopes in the permafrost.
Decreasing temperature variations generated within the CPB matrix by heat exchange with the
permafrost were used in the laboratory as curing temperatures. CPB temperatures that decreased
progressively over time—depending on the distance from the CPB–permafrost wall interface—were
considered. The unconfined compressive strength (UCS) values were measured after curing times of 3,
7, 14, and 28 days. The effect of binder type on the UCS development was examined by considering a
high early (HE) type cement and a blend of 80% slag and 20% GU cement (S-GU). Binder contents of 3%
and 5% were considered for the HE cement. For CPB mixtures cured in the humidity chamber, results
indicated that the HE cement produces higher UCS than does the S-GU binder. Afterwards, the UCS of
the mixtures containing S-GU binder increased drastically to exceed that for the mixtures containing HE
cement. For both binder types, results showed higher UCS for CPB cured in the humidity chamber than
under decreasing temperatures in a temperature-controlled chamber, regardless of curing time. For a
given curing temperature, UCS increased progressively from the permafrost wall toward the center of
the CPB matrix. For curing times less than 28 days under decreasing temperatures, HE cement provides
better mechanical strength than S-GU binder, indicating that the use of the HE cement for backfilling
in the permafrost can be beneficial in the short term. Binder content maintains its influence on the
hydration process and the ensuing UCS development, even under decreasing curing temperatures.
Indeed, samples containing 5% HE cement showed higher UCS than samples prepared with 3%,
regardless of curing conditions.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.M., and T.B.; methodology, M.M., T.B., and P.K.; validation, M.M.;
formal analysis, P.K. and M.M. investigation, P.K.; resources, M.M.; data curation, K.P. and M.M.; writing—original
draft preparation, M.M. and P.K.; writing—review and editing, M.M., and T.B.; visualization, P.K. and M.M.;
supervision, M.M. and T.B.; project administration, M.M.; funding acquisition, M.M.
Funding: This research was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
(NSERC); Discovery Grants Program–Individual provided to Mbonimpa; grant number RGPIN-2015-05172).
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the technical staff of the Research Institute on Mines
and the Environment (RIME) for assistance during testing.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Hassani, F.; Archibald, J. Mine Backfill; CD-ROM; CIM: Montreal, QC, Canada, 1998.
2. Sheshpari, M. A review of underground mine backfilling methods with emphasis on cemented paste backfill.
Electron. J. Geotech. Eng. 2015, 20, 5183–5208.
3. Zhang, J.; Li, M.; Taheri, A.; Zhang, W.; Wu, Z.; Song, W. Properties and Application of Backfill Materials in
Coal Mines in China. Minerals 2019, 9, 53. [CrossRef]
4. Belem, T.; Benzaazoua, M.; Bussière, B. Mechanical behaviour of cemented paste backfill. In Proceedings of
the 53th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Geotechnical Engineering at the Dawn of the Third Millennium,
Montreal, QC, Canada, 15–18 October 2000; Volume 1, pp. 373–380.
5. Benzaazoua, M.; Fall, M.; Belem, T. A contribution to understanding the hardening process of cemented
pastefill. Miner. Eng. 2004, 17, 141–152. [CrossRef]
6. Brackebusch, F.W. Basics of paste backfill systems. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 1995, 3, 122A.
7. Kesimal, A.; Yilmaz, E.; Ercikdi, B. Evaluation of paste backfill mixtures consisting of sulphide-rich mill
tailings and varying cement contents. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2004, 34, 1817–1822. [CrossRef]
Minerals 2019, 9, 172 11 of 12

8. Landriault, D.; Verburg, R.; Cincilla, W.; Welch, D. Paste technology for Underground Backfill and Surface Tailings
Disposal Applications; Short Course Notes, Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Technical Workshop;
Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Montreal, QC, Canada, 1997; Volume 27, p. 1997.
9. Belem, T.; Benzaazoua, M. An overview on the use of paste backfill technology as a ground support method
in cut-and-fill mines. In Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Ground Support in Mining
and Underground Construction, Perth, Australia, 28–30 September 2004; Villaescusa, E., Potvin, Y., Eds.;
CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2004; pp. 28–30.
10. Fourie, A.B.; Helinski, M.; Fahey, M. Using effective stress theory to characterize the behaviour of backfill.
In Proceedings of the Minefill Conference, Montreal, QC, Canada, 29 April–2 May 2007; Volume 29.
11. Mitchell, R.J.; Olsen, R.S.; Smith, J.D. Model studies on cemented tailings used in mine backfill.
Can. Geotech. J. 1982, 19, 14–28. [CrossRef]
12. Belem, T.; Benzaazoua, M. Design and Application of Underground Mine Paste Backfill Technology.
Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2008, 26, 147–174. [CrossRef]
13. Thompson, B.D.; Bawden, W.F.; Grabinsky, M.W. In situ measurements of cemented paste backfill at the
Cayeli Mine. Can. Geotech. J. 2012, 49, 755–772. [CrossRef]
14. Ouattara, D.; Belem, T.; Mbonimpa, M.; Yahia, A. Effect of superplasticizers on the consistency and
unconfined compressive strength of cemented paste backfills. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 181, 59–72.
[CrossRef]
15. Ouattara, D.; Mbonimpa, M.; Yahia, A.; Belem, T. Assessment of rheological parameters of high density
cemented paste backfill mixtures incorporating superplasticizers. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 190, 294–307.
[CrossRef]
16. Ouattara, D.; Yahia, A.; Mbonimpa, M.; Belem, T. Effects of superplasticizer on rheological properties of
cemented paste backfills. Int. J. Miner. Process. 2017, 161, 28–40. [CrossRef]
17. Zhang, J.; Deng, H.; Taheri, A.; Deng, J.; Ke, B. Effects of Superplasticizer on the Hydration, Consistency, and
Strength Development of Cemented Paste Backfill. Minerals 2018, 8, 381. [CrossRef]
18. Bandopadhyay, S.; Izaxon, V. Ice-cemented backfill for underground support in arctic mines. In Proceedings
of the SME Annual Meeting, Denver, CO, USA, 6 February 2004.
19. Cluff, D.L.; Kazakidis, V. Frozen Baclfill Mix Formulations and Process for Use Thereof in Underground
Mining Applications. U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. US 2012/0114429 A1, 10 May 2012.
20. Fall, M.; Belem, T.; Samb, S.; Benzaazoua, M. Experimental characterization of the stress–strain behaviour of
cemented paste backfill in compression. J. Mater. Sci. 2007, 42, 3914–3922. [CrossRef]
21. Li, H.; Yang, H.; Chang, C.; Sun, X. Experimental Investigation on Compressive Strength of Frozen Soil
versus Strain Rate. J. Cold Reg. Eng. 2001, 15, 125–133. [CrossRef]
22. Nasir, O.; Fall, M. Coupling binder hydration, temperature and compressive strength development of
underground cemented paste backfill at early ages. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2010, 25, 9–20. [CrossRef]
23. Yilmaz, E.; Belem, T.; Bussière, B.; Benzaazoua, M. Relationships between microstructural properties and
compressive strength of consolidated and unconsolidated cemented paste backfills. Cem. Concr. Compos.
2011, 33, 702–715. [CrossRef]
24. Ghoreishi-Madiseh, S.A.; Hassani, F.; Mohammadian, A.; Abbasy, F. Numerical modeling of thawing in
frozen rocks of underground mines caused by backfilling. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. 2011, 48, 1068–1076.
[CrossRef]
25. Beya, F.K.; Mbonimpa, M.; Belem, T.; Li, L.; Kalonji, K.; Benzaazoua, M.; Ouellet, S. Mine backfilling in the
permafrost, Part I: Numerical prediction of thermal curing conditions within the cemented paste backfill
matrix. Minerals 2019, 9, 165. [CrossRef]
26. Beya, F.K. Étude du Transfert de chaleur dans les remblais en pâte cimentés curant sous les conditions
aux frontières des chantiers miniers dans le pergélisol. Master’s Thesis, UQAT—École Polytechnique de
Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada, 2016.
27. Han, F.S. Geotechnical Behaviour of Frozen Mine Backfills. Master’s Thesis, Université d’Ottawa/University
of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2011.
28. Evirgen, B.; Onur, M.I.; Tuncan, M.; Tuncan, A. Determination of the Freezing Effect on Unconfined
Compression Strength and Permeability of Saturated Granular Soils. Int. J. GEOMATE 2015, 8, 1283–1287.
[CrossRef]
Minerals 2019, 9, 172 12 of 12

29. Li, H.; Zhu, Y.; Pan, W. Uniaxial compressive strength of saturated frozen silt. In Proceedings of the 8th
International Conference on Permafrost, Zürich, Switzerland, 21–25 July 2003; pp. 679–684.
30. ASTM. C150-07 Standard Specification for Portland Cement; ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2007.
31. Sivakugan, N.; Veenstra, R.; Naguleswaran, N. Underground Mine Backfilling in Australia Using Paste Fills
and Hydraulic Fills. Int. J. Geosynth. Ground Eng. 2015, 1, 18. [CrossRef]
32. Tariq, A.; Yanful, E.K. A review of binders used in cemented paste tailings for underground and surface
disposal practices. J. Eniron. Manag. 2013, 131, 138–149. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33. Zhao, Y.; Soltani, A.; Taheri, A.; Karakus, M.; Deng, A. Application of Slag–Cement and Fly Ash for Strength
Development in Cemented Paste Backfills. Minerals 2019, 9, 22. [CrossRef]
34. Hivon, E.G.; Sego, D.C. Distribution of saline permafrost in the Northwest Territories, Canada. Can. Geotech. J.
1993, 30, 506–514. [CrossRef]
35. Williams, J.R. Ground Water in the Permafrost Regions of Alaska; US Government Printing Office: Washington,
DC, USA, 1970.
36. Kalonji, K. Étude des propriétés rhéologiques et du transport du remblai cimenté en pâte en condition
nordique. Master’s Thesis, UQAT—École Polytechnique de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada, 2016.
37. COMSOL Multiphysics. Heat Transfer Module User’s Guide; COMSOL: Burlington, MA, USA, 2015; Volume 5.2.
38. Benzaazoua, M.; Belem, T.; Bussière, B. Chemical aspect of sulfurous paste backfill mixtures. Cem. Concr.
2002, 32, 1133–1134. [CrossRef]
39. Kesimal, A.; Yilmaz, E.; Ercikdi, B.; Alp, I.; Deveci, H. Effect of properties of tailings and binder on the
short-and long-term strength and stability of cemented paste backfill. Mater. Lett. 2005, 59, 3703–3709.
[CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).