Abstract
The compressibility of mining backfill governs its resistance to the closure of surrounding rock mass, which should be well reflected in numerical modeling. In most numerical simulations of backfill, the Mohr–Coulomb elasto-plastic model is used, but is constantly criticized for its poor representativeness to the mechanical response of geomaterials. Finding an appropriate constitutive model to better represent the compressibility of mining backfill is critical and necessary. In this paper, Mohr–Coulomb elasto-plastic model, double-yield model, and Soft Soil model are briefly recalled. Their applicability to describing the backfill compressibility is then assessed by comparing numerical and experimental results of one-dimensional consolidation and consolidated drained triaxial compression tests made on lowly cemented backfills available in the literature. The comparisons show that the Soft Soil model can be used to properly describe the experimental results while the application of the Mohr–Coulomb model and double-yield model shows poor description on the compressibility of the backfill submitted to large and cycle loading. A further application of the Soft Soil model to the case of a backfilled stope overlying a sill mat shows stress distributions close to those obtained by applying the Mohr–Coulomb model when rock wall closure is absent. After excavating the underlying stope, rock wall closure is generated and exercises compression on the overlying backfill. Compared to the results obtained by applying the Soft Soil model, an application of the Mohr–Coulomb model tends to overestimate the stresses in the backfill when the mine depth is small and underestimate the stresses when the mine depth is large due to the poor description of fill compressibility. The Soft Soil model is recommended to describe the compressibility of uncemented or lightly cemented backfill with small cohesions under external compressions associated with rock wall closure.
Highlights
The compressibility of mining backfill governs its resistance to the closure of surrounding rock mass, which should be well reflected in numerical modeling
Compared to the results obtained by applying the Soft Soil model, an application of the Mohr–Coulomb model tends to overestimate the stresses in the backfill when the mine depth is small and underestimate the stresses when the mine depth is large due to the poor description of fill compressibility
The Soft Soil model is recommended to describe the compressibility of uncemented or lightly cemented backfill with small cohesions under external compressions associated with rock wall closure
Summary
The compressibility of mining backfill governs its resistance to the closure of surrounding rock mass, which should be well reflected in numerical modeling. Mohr–Coulomb elasto-plastic model, double-yield model, and Soft Soil model are briefly recalled Their applicability to describing the backfill compressibility is assessed by comparing numerical and experimental results of one-dimensional consolidation and consolidated drained triaxial compression tests made on lowly cemented backfills available in the literature. The comparisons show that the Soft Soil model can be used to properly describe the experimental results while the application of the Mohr–Coulomb model and double-yield model shows poor description on the compressibility of the backfill submitted to large and cycle loading. Compared to the results obtained by applying the Soft Soil model, an application of the Mohr–Coulomb model tends to overestimate the stresses in the backfill when the mine depth is small and underestimate the stresses when the mine depth is large due to the poor description of fill compressibility. Using mine waste as underground mining backfill helps to minimize the surface disposal of mine waste [1,2,3,4]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
