Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-b5k59 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-05T10:52:40.845Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The potential use of pumice in mine backfill

Subject: Engineering

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2020

Mohammed A. Hefni*
Affiliation:
Mining Engineering Department, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
*
Corresponding author. E-mail: mhefni@kau.edu.sa

Abstract

The use of natural pozzolans in concrete applications is gaining more attention because of the associated environmental, economic, and technical benefits. In this study, reference cemented mine backfill samples were prepared using Portland cement, and experimental samples were prepared by partially replacing Portland cement with 10 or 20 wt.% fly ash as a byproduct (artificial) pozzolan or pumice as a natural pozzolan. Samples were cured for 7, 14, and 28 days to investigate uniaxial compressive strength development. Backfill samples containing 10 wt.% pumice had almost a similar compressive strength as reference samples. There is strong potential for pumice to be used in cemented backfill to minimize costs, improve backfill properties, and promote the sustainability of the mining industry.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Result type: Novel result
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Particle size distribution of tailings from a nickel mine in Canada

Figure 1

Table 1. Physical properties of tailings from a nickel mine in Canada

Figure 2

Table 2. Five backfill treatments tested

Figure 3

Figure 2. Broken backfill samples after performing uniaxial compressive strength test

Figure 4

Figure 3. a) Uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) for each cemented mine backfill mixture after 7, 14, and 28 days curing time; heat map for curing times of b) 7 days, c) 14 days, and d) 28 days

Supplementary material: PDF

Hefni et al. Supplementary Materials

Hefni et al. Supplementary Materials

Download Hefni et al. Supplementary Materials(PDF)
PDF 892.5 KB
Reviewing editor:  Daniel Micallef University of Malta, Environmental Design, Tal-Qroqq, Msida, South, Malta, MSD2080
This article has been accepted because it is deemed to be scientifically sound, has the correct controls, has appropriate methodology and is statistically valid, and has been sent for additional statistical evaluation and met required revisions.

Review 1: The Potential Use of Natural Pozzolans in Mine Backfill

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Comments to the Author: In this article, Pumice has been investigated to know whether it can be used as a mine backfill material. The results show that it can replace cement by 10%. The manuscript can be further improved by revising it based on the following suggestions.

(1) Include “Pumice” in the title.

(2) The cited literature in the “Introduction” section is quite old. It is suggested to include some recent and more relevant literature.

(3) The samples are prepared using tailings from Nickel mine. Please add details to the study area.

(4) The author claims that the use of Pumice is compared to cement and class F fly ash. However, it is not well elaborated and discussed in the “Results and Discussion” section. Present detailed results and provide a thorough discussion of your findings.

(5) The first two sentences in the “Conclusion” section should be rewritten to make them completely convincing.

(6) Figure 2 and Table 2 are not cited in the text.

(7) Please follow the journal guidelines and recheck the entire manuscript for grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. Be cautious when writing chemical formulas and equations

Presentation

Overall score 2.4 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
2 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
3 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
2 out of 5

Context

Overall score 2.8 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
3 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
3 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
2 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
3 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 2.8 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
2 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
3 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
4 out of 5

Review 2: The Potential Use of Natural Pozzolans in Mine Backfill

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none

Comments

Comments to the Author: The paper addresses an important topic in the mining industry sustainability. The work is well defined and the “results and discussion” section is scientifically in order with correct control. I would suggest the author consider more elaboration on the environmental and economical benefits of the application of pozzolans to emphasize the significance of the work done; A few sentences could be added to the introduction section accordingly. This experimental research well suits the journal and I would recommend proofreading before the final submission to correct a few typos in the context (e.g. table 3).

Presentation

Overall score 4.3 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
4 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
4 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
5 out of 5

Context

Overall score 4.5 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
4 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
5 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 4.8 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
5 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
5 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
4 out of 5