The application of natural landform analogy and geology‐based spoil classification to improve surface stability of elevated spoil landforms in the B owen B asin, A ustralia—A review

Abstract

Abstract Large‐scale open cut mining has occurred within the Bowen Basin for over 4 decades, transitioning from shallow mining depths and limited spoil elevation to increased mining depths, prestripping and increasingly elevated mesa‐like landforms. As a result of this evolution, the stabilisation of modern constructed landforms is no longer assured through the establishment of vegetation alone. The selection of resilient fragmental spoil types for the construction of final landform surfaces, and as cladding for stabilising steep erosive batters, is a practical methodology that has the potential to significantly improve rehabilitation outcomes, by increasing surface rock cover, roughness, and infiltration and reducing erodibility. An understanding of the properties and behaviour of individual spoil materials disturbed during mining is required. Relevant information from published literature on the geological origins, lithology, and weathering characteristics of individual strata within the Bowen Basin Coal Measures (and younger overlying weathered strata) has been reviewed, related to natural landforms and applied to the surface stability of major strata types when disturbed by mining. A spoil classification derived from geological characteristics and weathering behaviour of identifiable lithologic components has been reviewed and refined, demonstrating the application of use of geological information. This classification system is a tool for the allocation of spoil types and use of categories that have application in premine feasibility investigations, landform design, and material selection and placement. The logic of classifying materials based on their stability in the natural landscape has wider relevance to other mining areas where elevated landforms of sedimentary material are constructed.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 17 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.