Analysis of an instrumented tight-filling-induced paste containment wall failure and lessons learned for safe backfilling

Tight backfilling is recognised as the major contributing factor of backfill containment wall (also termed barricade, bulkhead, fill-fence, etc.) failure, which can result in a dangerous outflow of fluid backfill. The mining industry has developed a set of operating procedures that reduce risk of such occurrences and mitigate the consequences of resultant outflows of paste. This case study from the Jabal Sayid Mine is presented, demonstrating how such procedures, and particularly a well-designed exclusion zone with catchment berm, successfully mitigated the consequences of a wall failure. The case study details how highresolution cameras quickly identified the failure and enabled an immediate halt in backfilling, limiting subsequent clean-up costs. Real-time total earth pressure monitoring is used to ensure backfilling remains within safe pressure limits. In this case, the increase in pressure past the mine’s standard 150 kPa pressure threshold was not acted on, contributing to the wall failure event. In review, better visualisation of pressure data and a ‘stop backfilling first, ask questions second’ emphasis to operators is required to improve safety. The wall failed at a measured pressure of 800 kPa, which provides important calibration of the 200 mm thick (minimum thickness at centre, flaring out to wider abutments) 20 MPa unconfined compressive strength shotcrete arched wall. High-resolution images show vertical and lateral fractures propagated in the 1–2 seconds prior to a localised failure zone (<1 m2) developing close to the rock abutment contact, allowing escape of fluid paste. It is emphasised that the wall had far exceeded design loads by this point. This event shows a useful example of where the weakest points of the asconstructed wall were. Finally, the pressure increase occurred over a ~ 1 hour period, providing useful insights into the mechanics of how tight filling induced wall failure events occur.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Paste/˜Pœaste
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.36487/acg_repo/2555_02
Primary Topic
Geotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Analysis of an instrumented tight-filling-induced paste containment wall failure and lessons learned for safe backfilling

Benjamin Thompson, Paul L. Carmichael, Murray Grabinsky, Vasileios Chatziefstratiou
Paste/˜Pœaste
Geotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
article

Analysis of an instrumented tight-filling-induced paste containment wall failure and lessons learned for safe backfilling

Benjamin Thompson, Paul L. Carmichael, Murray Grabinsky, Vasileios Chatziefstratiou
article en

Abstract

Tight backfilling is recognised as the major contributing factor of backfill containment wall (also termed barricade, bulkhead, fill-fence, etc.) failure, which can result in a dangerous outflow of fluid backfill. The mining industry has developed a set of operating procedures that reduce risk of such occurrences and mitigate the consequences of resultant outflows of paste. This case study from the Jabal Sayid Mine is presented, demonstrating how such procedures, and particularly a well-designed exclusion zone with catchment berm, successfully mitigated the consequences of a wall failure. The case study details how highresolution cameras quickly identified the failure and enabled an immediate halt in backfilling, limiting subsequent clean-up costs. Real-time total earth pressure monitoring is used to ensure backfilling remains within safe pressure limits. In this case, the increase in pressure past the mine’s standard 150 kPa pressure threshold was not acted on, contributing to the wall failure event. In review, better visualisation of pressure data and a ‘stop backfilling first, ask questions second’ emphasis to operators is required to improve safety. The wall failed at a measured pressure of 800 kPa, which provides important calibration of the 200 mm thick (minimum thickness at centre, flaring out to wider abutments) 20 MPa unconfined compressive strength shotcrete arched wall. High-resolution images show vertical and lateral fractures propagated in the 1–2 seconds prior to a localised failure zone (<1 m2) developing close to the rock abutment contact, allowing escape of fluid paste. It is emphasised that the wall had far exceeded design loads by this point. This event shows a useful example of where the weakest points of the asconstructed wall were. Finally, the pressure increase occurred over a ~ 1 hour period, providing useful insights into the mechanics of how tight filling induced wall failure events occur.

Paste/˜Pœaste
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 94%
Geotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Analysis of an instrumented tight-filling-induced paste containment wall failure and lessons learned for safe backfilling — Benjamin Thompson, Paul L. Carmichael, et al. · Paste/˜Pœaste (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS