Interpreting Backfill QA/QC Test Data: Do We Need an Industry Standard?

Most mines using backfill routinely carry out quality control (QC) testing of backfill mixes with unconfined compression test cylinders. This is true for paste operations, hydraulic fill operations, and cemented rockfill operations worldwide. However, a large number of mines simply do not prepare and test the backfill samples in a consistent manner and fail to properly analyze or interpret the test results. Conventional concrete test criteria are not applicable given the differences in the mix constituents and the fact that a large number of the backfill QC test cylinders typically fail to achieve the target strength. Standard industry practices are needed to improve the analysis and interpretation of QC test results and to provide a better means of determining if the backfill is achieving its intended target strength. This paper will attempt to lay the groundwork for standard industry practices and will address several key questions raised by operators, such as how laboratory test data compares to in-stope performance, and how many QC tests should fail before a red flag should be raised. INTRODUCTION Although paste backfill is widely used throughout the mining industry, cemented rockfill (CRF) remains as the backfill of choice in places like Nevada where very poor ground conditions mandate the use of underhand mining. The safety and stability of undercut entries beneath backfill is a function of the quality of the cemented fill, which is typically assured through routine quality control testing. In the absence of a backfill quality standard, most mines rely on concrete standards to design and interpret their backfill quality control programs. In the USA, these standards are developed and published by organizations such as the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI). However, the application of these standards to cemented backfills can be very difficult owing to the high degree of variability in backfill mixes and the resulting variability in test results. To illustrate, the concrete industry standards denote that an acceptable (passing) test result occurs when the average strength of the duplicate test cylinders exceeds the target strength and no single test result deviates from the target strength by more than 10% (ACI 214R). Remedial measures must be taken if three consecutive tests fail. With mine backfills, it is safe to say that these criteria are rarely achievable. A further, more dramatic example is the accepted coefficient of variation for concrete QC cylinders. According to ACI 214R, the coefficient of variation (CV) should range from below 3% (excellent rating) to above 6% (poor rating). However, if this analysis method is applied to several backfill QC databases from operating mines, coefficients of variation are calculated on the order of 50%. Clearly, there is a need to develop better industry practices for assessing the quality of mine backfill and to assist mine operators with the interpretation of test results and the development of action plans in the event of undesired outcomes.