September 6, 2002 18:16 WSPC/126-MRE 00096

Mineral Resources Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 3 (2002) 261270

c Imperial College Press

INFLUENCE OF ADMIXTURES ON
CEMENTED BACKFILL STRENGTH

C. WANG and D. D. TANNANT

School of Mining and Petroleum Engineering
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2G7, Canada

A. PADRUTT and D. MILLETTE

Master Builders Technologies, 3 Duncan Road
Dry Creek, Adelaide, SA 5094, Australia

This paper presents laboratory test results showing the influence of cement admixtures
on the compressive strength of three types of cemented backfill: cemented aggregate fill
(CAF), cemented hydraulic fill (CHF) and cemented paste fill (CPF). These results can
be used to select the admixture dosage to achieve a desired compressive strength of a
cemented backfill. Considerations when using an admixture are also given.

1. Introduction
Cemented backfill is normally used in underground mining operations for ground
stability control or for constructing a stable work platform. It is a common prac-
tice to use normal Portland cement as a main binding agent to produce cemented
backfill. Many other binding agents such as fly-ash,12 ground blast furnace slag,6 or
other pozzolans1,9 are also widely used as partial cement replacements to acquire
the desired fill strength. There are three basic types of cemented backfill: cemented
aggregate fill (CAF), cemented hydraulic fill (CHF) and cemented paste fill (CPF).
Due to differences in fill types, procedures for fill material preparation and
fill delivery systems, mines using cemented backfill often experience the following
difficulties:
Partial loss of strength due to the time taken to deliver the fresh, cemented
fill to its placement location. The cement hydration process of ordinary cement
commences immediately after water is added. The cement gel bonds developed
during transportation are degraded during the fill placement because of impact
forces created during the transportation and pouring process.
Segregation of placed fill due to the poor workability of CAF at a low cement
dosage.2
Wastage of cementitious material because of regular flushing of the pipeline in
CHF and CPF operations.

261
September 6, 2002 18:16 WSPC/126-MRE 00096

262 C. Wang et al.

Uncontrolled cement hydration rate imposes a potential for pipeline or borehole

blockage once backfill material flow stops due to an unexpected incident or ex-
cessive segregation of fill material. Uncontrolled cement hydration rate also leads
to an unsuitable rate of strength gain that would be important for early strength
development of fill in some applications.
Shrinkage as a result of excessive drainage makes tight fill difficult or impossible.
High costs because of high cement dosage used to achieve the desired strength
and to compensate for loss of cement in hydraulic fill or segregation in CAF.

Admixtures are ingredients that are typically added to a concrete batch immedi-
ately before or during mixing. It is estimated that 80% of concrete produced in the
construction industry in North America contains one or more types of admixtures.7
Admixtures improve the performance of concrete and are accepted worldwide.10
Cemented backfill contains a much lower percentage of cement compared to
conventional concrete. Nevertheless, the use of cement admixtures can improve
fill performance and reduce costs.4,12 Many of the potential difficulties associated
with fill preparation, transportation, and placement can be reduced with the use
of admixtures, hence resulting in a more optimal mix design. Admixtures used for
cemented backfill should be able to:

Reduce water content.

Produce high early and ultimate strengths.
Increase compressive and flexural strength.
Increase cohesion.
Reduce segregation in a high density hydraulic fill and paste fill.
Improve pumpability and workability.
Increase slump and flowability.
Adjust cement setting time.
Reduce shrinkage and creep.
Reduce the abrasiveness of fill flowing in pipelines.

This paper presents laboratory-testing results for the compressive strength of

three types of backfill made with and without the use of admixtures. The test
samples for compressive strength determination were prepared in accordance with
the mining industry standards.3 CHF was mixed with a cake mixer. CRF and CPF
were prepared with a small concrete mixer. All samples were cured in a curing room
with 100% relative humidity at 25 to 30 C. The ends of CHF and CPF samples
were trimmed flat by hand using a knife and a pair of brass sleeves, while CRF
samples were capped with a tailings/cement mixture at a higher cement content
compared with the cement dosage of the backfill mixture. The loading rate was set
such that sample failure occurred within approximately 10 and 15 minutes for the
unconfined and triaxial compression tests, respectively. The workability tests were
carried out using either standard slump or flow table test methods that are used in
the concrete industry.8
September 6, 2002 18:16 WSPC/126-MRE 00096

Influence of Admixtures 263

2. Influence of Admixtures on Strength of Cemented Aggregate

Fill (CAF)
The effect of two kinds of admixtures, Meyco MineFill R01 (MMR01) and Glenium
51 on the mechanical properties of CAF was investigated. Another CAF mix with no
admixture was used as control. Meyco Minefill R01 is a liquid admixture for making
more uniform and higher quality cemented backfill mixes. It retards the setting
time to facilitate transportation, pumping, placing and curing, and to improve
the pumpability, workability and strength of cemented backfill. Glenium 51 is a
new generation admixture based on modified polycarboxylic ether combined with
hydration control stabilizer. Compared to traditional superplasticizers, Glenium 51
has a more powerful dispersing effect and is able to provide extended setting times
for wet mix concrete. It is capable of reducing the water content while increasing
the workability and strength of cement products.
The aggregates used for this investigation had a nominal maximum particle
size of 40 mm with a particle size distribution presented in Fig. 1. CAF samples
of 150 mm in diameter and 300 mm in length were molded and tested for the
determination of unconfined compressive strength UCS at a curing age of 28 days.
Table 1 gives the details about the compositions and strength of the three CAF
mixes.

100
90
Percentage Passing (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)

Fig. 1. Particle size distribution of aggregate used for CAF.

It can be found from Table 1 that the addition of either MMR01 or Gle-
nium 51 substantially improved the CAF strength. At an admixture addition of
300 ml/100 kg cement, MMR01 increased the CAF UCS by 26%, while Glenium
51 gave an UCS increase of 30% at a dosage of 600 ml/100 kg cement.
A further study was carried out on the impact of admixtures on the properties of
fill made with a combination of tailings and aggregate (CTAF). The aggregate por-
tion of the fill had a maximum nominal size of 20 mm. The grain size distributions
of the aggregate and the unclassified gold tailings are shown in Figs. 2 and 3.
September 6, 2002 18:16 WSPC/126-MRE 00096

264 C. Wang et al.

Table 1. Unconfined compressive strength of CAF.

CAF mix Control With MMR01 With Glenium 51

Cement percentage 5.12 5.12 4.63

Water/Cement ratio 1.083 1.083 1.2
Admixture dosage, ml/100 kg cement 0 300 600
Mean UCS of two tests, MPa 7.2 9.1 9.4
Relative to the control 100% 126% 130%

100
90
Percentage Passing (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)

Fig. 2. Particle size distribution of aggregate used for CTAF.

100
90
80
Percentage Passing (%)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (micrometers)

Fig. 3. Particle size distribution of tailings used for CTAF.

Using MMR01 at a dosage of 0%, 0.3%, 0.6% and 0.9%, respectively, four sets
of CTAF samples of 100 mm in diameter and 200 mm in length with a target slump
of 200 mm were cast with a recipe of tailings/aggregate/cement being 32:64:4 by
September 6, 2002 18:16 WSPC/126-MRE 00096

Influence of Admixtures 265

weight. Strength determination was carried out using triaxial compression testing
at confining pressures of 100, 200 and 300 kPa, respectively. The testing results
presented in Table 2 indicate that an increase in strength of around 26 to 36% was
achieved when an admixture dosage of 300 to 600 ml/100 kg cement was used. An
admixture dosage of 900 ml/100 kg cement increased the strength by 46 to 55%.
The reason that the strength of samples with an admixture dosage of 600 ml/100 kg
cement was almost the same as that with an admixture dosage of 300 ml/100 kg
cement was that the CTAF mix with an admixture dosage of 600 ml/100 kg cement
had a higher slump than the rest of the samples. It would be reasonable to expect
that an admixture dose of 600 ml/100 kg cement would produce a higher strength
than at 300 ml/100 kg cement if all CTAF mixes had the same slump value.
The water contents listed in Table 2 reveal that greater admixture (MMR01)
addition to the CTAF mix resulted in a water reduction while the slump remained
the same. This partially explains why the use of the admixture increased the CTAF
strength.

Table 2. Triaxial compressive strength of CTAF.

Compressive strength (MPa)

MMR01
Addition Actual Water Conf. Pressure 100 kPa Conf. Pressure 200 kPa Conf. Pressure 300 kPa
(ml/100 kg Slump Content Mean Relative to Mean Relative to Mean Relative to
cement) (mm) (%) Control Control Control

0 200 28.9 2.46 100 2.94 100 3.15 100

300 200 25.2 3.31 135 3.72 127 4.26 135
600 205 25.64 3.24 132 3.70 126 4.27 136
900 200 23.53 3.82 155 4.29 146 4.83 153

3. Influence of Admixtures on Strength of Cemented Hydraulic

Fill (CHF)
Two types of admixture, Rheobuild 561 and MMR01, were used separately to pre-
pare CHF samples, 50 mm in diameter and 100 mm in length, to investigate the
effects of admixtures on CHF strength development. Rheobuild 561 is a ready-
to-use liquid admixture made of synthetic polymers specially designed to impart
rheoplastic qualities to concrete. Either Rheobuild 561 or MMR01 was added to a
CHF mix of 72% solids density tailings at a dosage ranging from 0 to 600 ml/100 kg
cement. The particle size distribution for the deslimed tailings used to make the
samples is presented in Fig. 4.
The unconfined compressive strengths of the CHF samples after curing for 7,
28 and 56 days are presented in Table 3. This table indicates that both Rheobuild
561 and MMR01, regardless of the dosage used, increased the UCS at all curing
ages. In the range of admixture dosages of 300 to 600 ml/100 kg cement, higher
admixture dosage gave higher strength.
September 6, 2002 18:16 WSPC/126-MRE 00096

266 C. Wang et al.

100
90

Percentage Passing (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (micrometers)

Fig. 4. Particle size distribution of deslimed tailings for CHF.

Table 3. Unconfined compressive strength (MPa) of CHF.

Rheobuild 561 MeycoMinefill R01

Admixture 7 days 28 days 56 days 7 days 28 days 56 days

Dosage Mean Relative to Mean Relative to
(ml/100 kg) Control Control

0 0.226 0.298 100 0.361 100

300 0.245 0.339 114 0.438 0.269 0.344 115 0.411
400 0.256 0.369 124 0.445 0.274 0.366 123 0.429
500 0.261 0.382 128 0.458 0.283 0.397 133 0.447
600 0.259 0.386 130 0.469 0.320 0.413 139 0.460

4. Influence of Admixtures on Strength of Cemented Paste Fill

(CPF)
The influence of admixtures on the strength of cemented paste fill was carried
out using gold tailings samples from the Eastern Goldfields in Western Australia.
The particle size distribution of the tailings used is presented in Fig. 5. Paste fill
samples with a nominal size of 75 mm diameter and 150 mm length were prepared
at a cement dosage of 6% by weight and a solid density of 75%. Three batches
of cemented paste fill samples were cast for this particular investigation. The first
batch is the control samples, which had no admixture. The second and third batch
were made by using either Pozzolith 344N or MMR0l as admixtures.
Pozzolith 344N is basically a water reducer in liquid form capable of improving
cohesion, workability and compaction in concretes using poorly graded or poorly
shaped aggregates.
The three batches of paste fill samples at the same solids density developed
markedly different strengths over a period of 28 days. Details are presented in
Table 4.
September 6, 2002 18:16 WSPC/126-MRE 00096

Influence of Admixtures 267

100
90

Percentage Passing (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (micrometers)

Fig. 5. Particle size distribution of tailings used for paste fill.

Table 4. Unconfined compressive strength (MPa) of paste fill.

Sample Batch Sample No. Individual UCS Mean UCS Relative to the Control

Control 1 0.585
2 0.654 0.641 100
3 0.683
Pozzolith 344N 1 0.771
2 0.810 0.767 120
3 0.722
MineFill R01 1 0.800
2 0.839 0.834 130
3 0.863

The testing results indicated that the addition of both admixtures significantly
improved the compressive strength of CPF. In all cases, the water content was the
same. The use of MMR01 offered a better strength than Pozzolith 344N.
If the water content is not reduced while adding the admixture into the paste
fill mixture, the use of the admixture can improve the paste fill flowability. This
was revealed by paste fill flow table tests.5,8 Using static flow to represent slump
and dynamic flow for flowability during transport, the flow table testing results
provided in Table 5 show that only the MMR01 improved the static flowability or
slump of the mix while both of the admixtures tested caused an improvement in
the dynamic flowability, but the MMR01 offered better flowability.

5. Considerations When Using Admixtures for Backfill

Admixtures are a very active component in the cemented backfill mix even though
its physical dosage is negligible in terms of weight percentage compared with the
September 6, 2002 18:16 WSPC/126-MRE 00096

268 C. Wang et al.

Table 5. Flow table testing results for

paste fill with admixtures.

Flow (%)
Test
Method No Admixture 344N R01
Static 5 5 16
Dynamic 74 82 118

total weight of the aggregate/tailings and cement. Caution must be taken while
designing a cemented backfill recipe because inappropriate use of admixtures in a
backfill operation will not only result in a high backfill cost but may also cause a
negative impact on the strength development and workability. The following should
be considered when designing a cemented backfill recipe with an admixture.

5.1. Admixture type

Each type of cement admixture is designed for a particular purpose with most
admixtures designed for the construction industry. The principal reason for using
admixtures in mine backfill is to improve the workability of the fresh fill mix and the
strength of the final fill mass. Some concrete admixtures, such as water reducers,
retarders, plasticizers, etc. may be used to prepare cemented backfill regardless of
the much smaller cement dosage in backfill compared to normal concrete. However,
preference may be given to specifically designed admixtures for backfill purposes.

5.2. Cement type

Cement made from different raw materials or binding agents can exhibit different
reaction speeds with a given admixture. The effects of a particular admixture on
the performance of a backfill made with a specific cement or binding agent should
be tested.

5.3. Aggregate or tailings chemistry

The chemical composition of tailings varies from one process plant to another due
to different mineral processing methods and ore types. In addition, there may be
oxidization of elements such as sulphides in tailings. Unfortunately, it is very difficult
and not very practical to determine the elements that are actively involved in cement
hydration and that react with an admixture.

5.4. Water quality for cement hydration

Cement hydration will be affected by the water chemistry. Water quality, particu-
larly the salinity of water, has a significantly adverse impact on the strength devel-
opment of cemented backfill.11 If saline ground water is used to prepare a cemented
September 6, 2002 18:16 WSPC/126-MRE 00096

Influence of Admixtures 269

backfill, preference of admixture selection should be given to an admixture that is

insensitive to the chemical elements in the water.

5.5. Backfill type

The backfill type, CAF, CHF or CPF, is important to consider when selecting an
admixture because of their different grain size distributions, water contents, and
degrees of quality control. For instance, segregation control is a major concern with
CAF, while water reduction and abrasiveness are two of the main concerns with
CHF and CPF.

5.6. Backfill preparation method and delivery system

The strength loss of a cemented backfill prepared in a surface plant depends on the
cement hydration rate and the time needed for delivering the fill mix from surface to
underground where it is placed. A proper selection of admixture type and rational
dosage can postpone the cement setting time and hence minimise the strength loss
caused during backfill transportation and placement.

6. Conclusions
Many factors should be taken into account when selecting appropriate admixtures
for a particular backfill operation. An important factor is the fill strength. Labo-
ratory strength tests should be conducted to optimise a backfill recipe design. An
economics analysis can be conducted to determine the net benefit of using a rel-
atively expensive admixture versus the benefits of higher strength and easier fill
transportation and placement that can be obtained with addition of an admixture.
Laboratory testing for the compressive strength of three different types of back-
fill have demonstrated that certain cement admixtures can substantially improve
the strength of the fill. Strength increases of up to 50% relative to mix designs
without an admixture were obtained. Appropriate selection of an admixture also
provides other benefits such as reduced water content, improved pumpability, and
delayed setting time.

7. Acknowledgments
The authors appreciate the support provided by a number of mining operations in
the Eastern Goldfields in Western Australia. Their provision of backfill materials
made the studies presented in this paper possible. The Western Australian School of
Mines appointment and financial support to the primary author was indispensable
for the completion of this study and is sincerely acknowledged.

References
1. J. F. Archibald, D. O. DeGagne, P. Lausch and E. M. De Souza, Ground waste glass
as a pozzolanic consolidation agent for mine backfill, CIM Bull. 88, 995 (1995) 8087.
September 6, 2002 18:16 WSPC/126-MRE 00096

270 C. Wang et al.

2. M. Bloss, Evolution of cemented rock fill at Mount Isa Mines, Min. Res. Eng. 5, 1
(1996) 2342.
3. R. Cowing and A. G. Grace, Personal communications, 1998 and 1999.
4. E. Douglas and V. M. Malhotra, Ground granulated blast-furnace slag for cemented
mine backfill: Production and evaluation, CIM Bull. 82, 929 (1989) 27-36.
5. Master Builders Technologies, Underground Construction Laboratory Report 01023,
January 2001.
6. P. Nieminen and P. Seppanen, The use of blast-furnace slag and other by-products as
binding agents in consolidated backfilling at Outokumpu Oys mine, Proc. Int. Symp.
Min. Backfill, Lulea, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1983, 4958.
7. V. S. Ramachandran, Concrete Admixtures Handbook, 2nd Edition (Noyes Publica-
tions, 1995).
8. W. H. Taylor, Concrete Technology and Practice, 4th edn. (McGraw-Hill, Sydney,
1977).
9. E. G. Thomas, A review of cementing agents for hydraulic fill, Proc. Jubilee Symp.
Mine Filling, Mount Isa, North West Queensland Branch, AusIMM, 1973, 6575.
10. E. Vazques, Admixtures for concrete improvement of properties, Proc. Int. RILEM
Symp. (Chapman and Hall, 1990).
11. C. Wang and E. Villaescusa, Influence of water salinity on the properties of cemented
tailings backfill, Inst. Min. Metall. Trans. Min. Tech. Sec. A110 (2001) A62A65.
12. T. R. Yu and D. B. Counter, Use of fly ash in backfill at Kidd Creek Mines; CIM
Bull. 81, 909 (1988) 4450.