Water Management in Hydraulic Fill Operations

In the authors? experience inappropriate water management in hydraulic fill masses has been the root cause of most barricade failures. Inappropriate water management can lead to high water pressures, reduced effective stresses and increased barricade stresses (Kuganathan 2002). In addition the high hydraulic conductivity and non-plastic nature of most hydraulic fills makes susceptibility to piping failure (Cowling et al. 1987) a high possibility in many hydraulic backfills where a static water head is available. In order to avert both of these failure mechanisms it is essential to control the elevation of the phreatic surface within the fill mass. This is usually achieved through campaigned filling and resting periods. The duration of filling and resting periods are often estimated using some form of stope drainage simulator. Due to the random nature of many characteristics that influence the fill mass hydraulic conductivity, simulation of hydraulic fill drainage can be difficult. The high consequences of inaccurate phreatic surface estimates combined with the high variability in drainage properties often results in operators taking a conservative approach to this modelling. This conservative approach can lead to significant delays in the filling cycle which can have a major impact on the productivity of many hydraulic fill operations and can often results in an unnecessary movement towards capital intensive paste fill systems. This paper presents a water management technique which combines a simplified drainage model with in-situ monitoring to provide a rational approach to water management. With an accurate drainage model filling operations can be carried out at optimum efficiency without compromising safety. The implementation of this strategy has lead to a significant increase in filling rates at a number of Australian filling operations. A brief case study from one of these sites has been presented.