Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, GSP 234 ASCE 2014

3198

Static and dynamic soil pressures over a primary crusher station at a copper
mine in Chile
Bogart Mendez1, Diego Rivera2 and Erdem O Tastan3
1

Rizzo Associates Chile, S.A., Pte. Errazuriz 3724, Las Condes, Santiago, Chile
Rizzo Associates Inc., Penn Center Boulevard, Suite 100, Pittsburgh, PA 15235
3
Rizzo Associates Inc., Penn Center Boulevard, Suite 100, Pittsburgh, PA 15235
2

ABSTRACT: A 36-m high crusher station will support the ROM Pad fill along its
lateral and back perimetral walls. This paper describes the analysis performed to
determine soil-induced lateral stresses on the crusher stations back wall under both
static and dynamic loading. A 3D numerical model is used for the analysis. Static and
dynamic material properties are obtained from geotechnical and geophysical
explorations conducted on site. The seismic environment is characterized considering
Chilean regulations. Soil-structure interaction is considered using interface elements.
Dynamic soil stresses obtained from the numerical model are compared to the
analytical solutions available in the literature. Soil-induced stresses as obtained from
the numerical model are between active and at-rest seismic stresses. Results reveal
that for certain applications, like the one described in this paper, selecting the
appropriate analytical solution, e.g., yielding vs non-yielding conditions, is not
straightforward and the use of numerical models is recommended.
INTRODUCTION
The construction of a new primary crusher station is proposed as part of a mine
expansion plan. The crusher station is about 36 m high and will serve as a retaining
element on three of its four faces to support the surrounding ROM Pad fill.
The dynamic behavior of the crusher station is of great interest due to the (1) high
seismicity in the area, (2) high frequency content and significant vertical acceleration
of Chilean earthquakes and, (3) the complex interaction between the ROM Pad fill
and the crusher station due to the large mass of the ROM Pad behind the building.
To address the unique difficulties, a detailed 3D numerical model is developed with
a particular interest to investigate the type of soil-induced lateral stresses developed
under both static and dynamic loading conditions. The model captures 3D stress
effects, and considers stress-dependency, spatial variation of material properties and
soil-structure interaction.
Soil-induced lateral stresses are also computed with simplified conventional
methods commonly used in engineering practice for yielding and non-yielding
conditions.

Page 1

Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, GSP 234 ASCE 2014

3199

MODEL GEOMETRY
The dimensions of the model are 280 m 350 m in plan view with variable depth
down to 100 m, as seen in Fig. 1.
The ROM Pad fill will be built in two stages: the first stage consists of the ROM
Pad marked as zone A in Fig. 1(a). The second stage or final fill corresponds to the
backfill between the first stage of the ROM Pad, the crusher station and MSE walls
[zone C in Fig. 1(a)]. Zone B is the excavation for the conveyor system that will
transport crushed material.
MSE walls will be used as the front face (boundary) of the ROM Pad. Fig. 1(a)
depicts the plan view of the FLAC3D model, and Fig. 1(b) depicts an isometric view
of the geometry. Dimensions shown in Fig. 1(a) are as follows: width of mat
foundation, B = 23 m, length of final fill behind the building, d = 60 m.
Cross sections A and B are shown in Fig. 2. Fig. 2(a) shows that the depth from the
building foundation to the rock stratum varies along the foundation length, L (42 m),
i.e. the rock stratum dips.
Tetrahedral elements constitute the model mesh. Since FLAC3D uses low order
constant stress and strain elements, the use of Nodal Mixed Discretization (NMD) is
considered for an accurate modeling of plasticity material response (Itasca, 2009).
The mesh geometry is optimized in terms of computational time vs. mesh
refinement. The same mesh is used for both static and dynamic analyses. The
optimization is based on static stress comparison, free-field seismic site response and
computing time with/without NMD. The use of a single model for static and dynamic
computations is a key feature for the project analysis stage, as this allows for a
reasonable run time.
To adequately address the high frequency content, the mesh element size follows
the recommendations presented by Kuhlmeyer and Lysmer (1973).
The interaction of the ROM Pad fill and the crushing station is addressed using
interface elements in the model.
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
For static analysis, roller boundary conditions were assigned to each model outer
face, i.e. the boundaries were restrained only in the direction normal to each face.
The distance from the area of analysis (location of the crusher station) to the model
boundaries is large enough so that boundary locations do not affect the solution. An
analysis is conducted to verify that at the boundaries of the model the stress increment
distribution due to foundation loading is less than 5 % of the maximum value.
For dynamic analysis, free-field boundaries are used for the lateral boundaries of the
model, while a quiet boundary is utilized for the base of the model. These boundary
conditions are fully incorporated into the dynamic option of FLAC3D. The free-field
boundaries at the sides of the model account for the free-field motion that would exist
in the absence of the structure. On the other hand, the quiet boundary at the base is
very effective in absorbing the body waves approaching the boundary, so that they are
not reflected back into the model.

Page 2

Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, GSP 234 ASCE 2014

(a)

3200

(b)

FIG. 1. (a) Plan and (b) isometric view of the numerical model in FLAC3D.

(a)

(b)

FIG. 2. View of cross section A (a) and cross section B (b) in the FLAC3D model.
MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
The model developed for the analysis of the crusher station involves excavations in
natural soils, backfilling and embankment construction.
A geotechnical exploration campaign was performed to characterize the site. The
campaign included geophysical testing (downhole, seismic refraction and refraction
microtremor method), laboratory testing, in-situ plate bearing testing, SPT,
exploration pits and drilling down to the rock stratum with core sampling. The
exploration campaign aimed to characterize both the geotechnical units and their
spatial distribution over the site. Four main formations are identified:

Superficial loose silts: Soil cover, not included in the analysis;

Stratum I: Gravelly-silty sand, maximum particle size of 3, low fine content,
average thickness of 10 m;
Stratum II: Sandy-silty gravel, maximum particle size of 1, dense soil,
average thickness of 24 m;

Page 3

Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, GSP 234 ASCE 2014

3201

Stratum III. Moderately weathered sandstone rock, slightly fractured. RQD

increases with depth from 53 % up to 88 %, average thickness of 21 m;
Stratum IV. Unweathered rock with RQD over 90 %, average thickness of
34 m.

The spatial distribution of these strata was determined mainly from geophysical
exploration and drilling data. The variable thickness of all strata across the site can be
seen in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. Only the first rock stratum is considered in the analysis, as
rock strains are assumed to be negligible in higher depths due to high stiffness.
The strength of geomaterials is based on triaxial testing of reconstituted samples,
the results of in-situ plate bearing tests and engineering judgment based on the
knowledge of in-situ soils.
The Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model is considered as a good approximation for
modeling the soil strength under static load conditions for Stratum I and Stratum II,
while a linear elastic material model is attributed to the rock Stratum III. In order to
obtain a better approximation of the soil stiffness variation with confining stresses for
Strata I and II, the Youngs modulus is calculated considering the variation of the
octahedral stress and the soil at-rest pressure coefficient. The variation is obtained
using all the available data gathered in the exploration campaign.
The properties for backfill materials are estimated based on available results from
laboratory testing and upon engineering judgment along with local experience with
the materials on site. It is considered that all backfill materials are granular and will
be compacted up to 95% of its maximum dry density according to regular
construction standards. Backfill materials are divided in two groups: F1 is the group
for the ROM Pad fill and the final fill material and F2 includes the fill used for the
unreinforced portion of the MSE walls and structural fill materials. The ROM Pad
material is modeled with a linear elastic constitutive model. This model is adopted
because the ROM Pad fill yielding analysis is not a priority for the project, as this
embankment is allowed to accommodate large strains without posing any risks to the
operation of the crusher station. Youngs modulus for backfill materials is also
considered to be stress-dependent.
Since the purpose of the analysis is not to evaluate the stability and behavior of the
MSE walls, they are accounted for in a simplified manner. The MSE walls are
modeled as high stiffness soil blocks, in accordance with the usual external global
stability analysis of such reinforced soil masses.
The vertical faces of the MSE walls pose a complex modeling issue if the soil
reinforcement is not explicitly accounted for, because of the material failure of such
vertical faces when considering a material failure criterion. Hence, to avoid such
modeling problems an elastic constitutive model is used for the MSE wall elements.
The static strength and deformability properties for in-situ soil and backfill
materials are shown in Table 1.
The mat foundation is modeled as a reinforced concrete using solid elements with
linear elastic behavior. The Crusher station building is modeled as a single solid
volume, using a linear-elastic constitutive model; equivalent material properties are
considered to adequately represent its stiffness; equivalent properties are computed
from the actual building lateral stiffness.

Page 4

Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, GSP 234 ASCE 2014

3202

For dynamic analyses, a linear-elastic model is used for all materials. Elastic moduli
for all strata are obtained based on geophysical data (Gmax). Strength and material
properties are shown in Table 2.
Table 1. Strength and elastic material properties for static analyses.
Material
K0
(kg/m3) ( ) Es (MPa)(1)
Stratum I
1910
38
56
0.38
Stratum II
2070
40
114
0.36
Stratum III (Rock)
2120
4272
ROM Pad (F1)
1910
130
Final fill (F1)
1910
36
130
0.41
Unreinforced MSE (F2)
1910
38
200
0.38
Structural Fill (F2)
1910
38
257
0.38
Reinforced MSE
1910
820
Crusher Station
1600
4000
Foundation Mat
2400
22000
(1)
Static
Elastic
Modulus
(large
strains),
values
at
center
of
strata
(2)
Mohr-Coulomb model

Model
MC(2)
MC
Linear Elastic
Linear Elastic
MC
MC
MC
Linear Elastic
Linear Elastic
Linear Elastic

Table 2. Strength and elastic material properties for dynamic analyses.

Material
Vs (m/s) Ed (MPa) (1)

Stratum I
0.33
330
553
Stratum II
0.30
550
1628
Stratum III (Rock)
0.30
1450
11589
ROM Pad and final fill (F1)
0.33
330
553
Un. MSE and structural fill (F2) 0.33
330
553
Reinforced MSE
0.33
402
820
Crusher Station
0.30
4000
Foundation Mat
0.30
22000
(1)
Dynamic Elastic Modulus (small strains), values at center of strata

Model
Linear Elastic
Linear Elastic
Linear Elastic
Linear Elastic
Linear Elastic
Linear Elastic
Linear Elastic
Linear Elastic

SIMPLIFIED METHODS FOR EARTH PRESSURE ANALYSIS

Soil-induced lateral stresses at the Crusher Station back wall obtained from the
numerical FLAC3D analyses for static and dynamic load conditions are compared
with simplified methods. For static load conditions, results from the analysis are
compared with active and at-rest conditions obtained from Rankine equations.
For dynamic load conditions, results from the analysis are compared with four
different and widely used simplified methods:

Ostadan (2005): Rigid walls, soil-wall interaction effects, earthquake frequency

content, backfill fundamental frequency and dynamic soil properties. The response
acceleration spectrum at the base of the wall is obtained;
Wood (1973): Rigid walls (non-yielding), considers elastic properties subjected to

Page 5

Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, GSP 234 ASCE 2014

3203

harmonic loading. Ostadan pressure distribution is assumed;

Wu-Finn (1999): Rigid walls. The method is based on design charts developed
through a combination of 250 earthquakes and shear moduli distributions. Backfill
fundamental frequency and earthquakes dominant frequency are accounted for;
Mononobe-Okabe (1929): Originally developed for active conditions. Whitman
(1991) suggests approximating at-rest conditions using a horizontal seismic
coefficient, kh, equal to A0 (peak ground acceleration). For this analysis, two kh are
compared: kh=A0 and kh =A0/2, where A0 is equal to 0.30, based on Chilean codes.
Both cases consider a vertical seismic coefficient, kv = (2/3)* A0.
SEISMIC ENVIRONMENT
A synthetic input motion is generated based on a record from a nearby location to
the site. The synthetic time series is compatible with the design spectrum of the
Chilean NCh433 regulation for zone II with soil type II, and is generated with the
Atik-Abrahamson (2010) methodology. In order to achieve reasonable computing
time, only the strong motion duration is considered for the analysis.
Because the synthetic motion is compatible with a design spectrum, a deconvolution
analysis is performed to obtain the motion to be input at the base of the FLAC3D
model (Meja and Dawson, 2006). As a check, the deconvolved signal, obtained with
SHAKE2000 (Geomotions, 2000), is then convolved both in SHAKE2000 and
FLAC3D to verify that the response spectrum at the surface is close enough to the
target NCh433 spectrum. Fig. 3(a) compares the spectrum of synthetic signal to that
of NCh433, while Fig. 3(b) shows the comparison of the surface spectrum obtained
using the deconvolved synthetic motion. The comparison indicates that deconvolved
signal can be used as the input to the model.
Since Chilean Earthquakes have an important vertical acceleration component, the
dynamic analysis considers vertical acceleration acting along with the horizontal
motion. According to the Chilean code NCh2369, the vertical seismic coefficient can
be computed as 2/3 of the horizontal effective peak acceleration (EPA, computed as
the average spectral acceleration between periods 0.1 to 0.5 sec). The same
assumption is adopted to estimate a vertical acceleration time series, computed as 2/3
of the horizontal time series. Once the input motion is generated, the free-field
response of the full FLAC3D model is compared to the target NCh433 spectrum.
The free-field response is obtained using the actual FLAC3D model, i.e., using the
mesh and spatial distribution of materials set up for the analyses. Fig. 4 compares the
free-field spectrum at the center of the model to the design spectrum of the Chilean
Earthquake Code NCh433. Spectra for horizontal and horizontal-vertical acceleration
time series are shown in Fig. 4. The computed free-field response is above the target
spectrum for the high frequency range of the spectrum. In terms of effective peak
acceleration (Chilean code is in terms of EPA), the FLAC3D computed response is
10% higher for the horizontal acceleration case, and about 27% for the horizontalvertical acceleration calculation. Results are on the conservative side, and show that
the model adequately transmits the frequency content of the input signal.

Page 6

Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, GSP 234 ASCE 2014

1.20

1.20

NCh433, EPA = 0.30 g

1.00

Convoluted motion, EPA = 0.28 g

0.80
Sa (g)

0.80
Sa (g)

NCh433, EPA = 0.30 g

1.00

Synthetic earthquake, EPA = 0.29 g

3204

0.60

0.60

0.40

0.40

0.20

0.20

0.00

0.00
0.10

1.00

F (Hz)

10.00

100.00

0.10

1.00

F (Hz)

10.00

100.00

Sa (g)

(a)
(b)
FIG. 3. (a) Comparison of the synthetic motion spectrum to the target NCh433
spectrum, and (b) comparison of the surface spectrum obtained using the
deconvolved motion.
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.10

FLAC3D, hor & ver accel, EPA = 0.38 g

FLAC3D horizontal accel, EPA = 0.33 g
NCh 433, EPA = 0.30 g

1.00

F (Hz)

10.00

100.00

FIG. 4. FLAC3D-computed free-field spectra for one and two acceleration

components

ANALYSIS RESULTS
Results are presented in terms of soil-induced lateral stresses for both static and
dynamic loading phases. Dynamic loading is applied after static equilibrium is
reached. Static analysis considers construction sequence and stress-dependant soil
modulus. Further details about static analysis are provided in Mndez and Rivera
(2013).
Static Soil Stresses
The sequence for static analysis is as follows;
1) initial equilibrium of the free field to achieve geostatic stress state,
2) initialization of model displacements and construction of the first stage of the
ROM Pad [zone A in Fig. 1(a)],
3) performing all the excavations required in the model [zone 3 of Fig. 1(a) and
excavation for the building mat foundation],
4) initialization of model displacements and beginning the simultaneous construction
of the building and the MSE walls on each side of the building,
5) construction of the final fill behind the building (second construction stage of the
ROM Pad). This sequence of analysis is based on the planned execution stages of the

Page 7

Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, GSP 234 ASCE 2014

3205

project. The initialization of model displacements is done to address the effect of the
fills around the building on both induced settlements and soil-induced lateral stresses.
Computed FLAC3D static soil-induced stresses over the center of the back wall of
the crushing station building are presented in Fig. 5(a), along with theoretical values
for active and at rest stresses. Also, the values of total lateral force for each case are
presented in the same figure. The static soil-induced stress distribution, as well as the
total lateral force, is very similar to the at rest condition and not to the active stress
distribution, as commonly assumed in the design of conventional retaining walls. It is
reasonable to attribute the development of the at rest soil-induced stress distribution to
the influence of the ROM Pad fill behind the building. This is because the weight of
the ROM Pad causes settlements behind the building, thus inducing rotation of the
crushing station towards the backfill [see Fig. 5(a), contours correspond to horizontal
displacement], consequently developing a soil-induced stress state very similar,
although somewhat larger than, to the at rest condition. However, it is interesting to
note that the numerically-computed soil-induced stress distribution alternates between
the active and the at rest theoretical values. Also, note that near the top of the wall,
stresses are lower than the active stresses. These values are computed as a result of
the interaction between the fill and the building through the interface element, which
can account for full separation between both materials. It is likely that these lower
stresses result from a three-dimensional effect of the upper part of the wall, which is
less confined than the lower parts of the building wall. This complex behavior of the
soil-induced stresses cannot be obtained using simplified conventional methods.
Therefore, for non-conventional cases, like the one presented herein, selection of the
adequate simplified method for computing lateral soil stresses can be challenging and,
in some cases, not possible. Accordingly, a detailed numerical evaluation of soilinduced lateral stresses and forces is recommended.
Additionally, Fig. 5(b) presents the soil-induced stress contours over the back wall
of the building (compression stresses are negative). A fairly regular stress distribution
can be observed in Fig. 5(b). Small stress concentrations result on the lower corners
of the building, where the building and the mat foundation join. However, these stress
concentrations are not expected to influence the overall stresses.
Dynamic Soil Stresses
After computing the static stress state, seismic loading is applied in the horizontal
(Y direction, see Fig. 5) and vertical directions. A linear elastic analysis is performed,
considering a combination of local and Rayleigh damping for the high frequencies.
Soil-induced stress distributions computed with analytical methods are also presented
for comparison purposes. It is worth to recall that the building has three of its faces
covered by backfill, and only the front face is free, as seen in Fig. 1.
Static and dynamic stresses (total stresses), are shown in Fig. 6(a). Results are
computed with both analytical methods and FLAC3D. Results for FLAC3D are
presented in terms of average stresses (average of stress time series for all nodes at
the center of the back wall along its height), average stresses plus two standard
deviations (Av+2SD) and as the collection of maximum stresses along the wall height
(Max).

Page 8

Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, GSP 234 ASCE 2014

3206

(a)
(b)
FIG. 5. FLAC3D-computed dynamic soil stresses for one and two acceleration
components
The envelope of maximum stresses assumes that all nodal maximum stresses occur
at the same time step, a very conservative condition. However, it is observed that this
plot agrees well with results from Ostadan and Wood methods, which account for
non-yielding wall conditions.
On the other hand, the average FLAC3D results align well with the M-O method for
active conditions (using a horizontal seismic coefficient, kh, equal to Ao/2). A soilinduced stress distribution between both limits is computed as the average distribution
plus two standard deviations. Fig. 6(a) shows that this distribution is similar to the MO method using Whitman (1991) kh = A0 recommendation to approximate the nonyielding wall condition. The overall trend of inverted triangle distribution is fairly
reproduced in FLAC3D results, as shown in Fig. 6(b). It is noted from the stress
distribution that the lower part of the wall is subjected to high stresses. This is
attributed to the base shear developed at the bottom of the building; the mat
foundation is fully buried along its perimeter and total height (2 meters), while the
building has a free face on its front. As a result of this particular condition, it is
expected to observe larger lateral stresses at the bottom of the wall, as computed with
FLAC3D, and shown in Fig. 6.
Seismic lateral forces obtained from FLAC3D analysis (Av+2SD) fall somewhere
in between results from simplified analytical methods. The difference among these
methods is relatively high. Therefore, a detailed assessment of the nature of the

Page 9

Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, GSP 234 ASCE 2014

3207

retaining system and earth pressure conditions should be performed, in order to

determine the most adequate analytical method to be used during design. Numerical
models are highly recommended, particularly for complex 3D retaining conditions.

(a)
FIG. 6. (a) Static + dynamic soil stress, (b) dynamic stress

(b)

CONCLUSIONS
From the static and dynamic analyses carried out, it is possible to draw the
following conclusions:
- The weight of the ROM Pad backfill behind the building induces a tilt towards the
fill, thus developing a soil-induced lateral stress distribution close to the at-rest
condition. This condition is observed from the results of the analysis, and it was not a
preliminary assumption as required when using simplified analytical methods.
- Dynamic soil-induced lateral stresses are between the active and at-rest condition,
as observed from numerical results. However, numerical results align fairly well with
the M-O results for the case of considering a horizontal seismic coefficient equal to
the value of the peak ground acceleration. Despite this trend for lateral stresses,
numerical results for lateral seismic forces are about 60 % larger than those computed
with the latter criterion.

Page 10

Geo-Congress 2014 Technical Papers, GSP 234 ASCE 2014

3208

- Results indicate that the selection of an adequate analytical simplified method is

not straightforward when the problem being analyzed is complex, thus caution is
warranted in those cases. A numerical model is best suited to study such kind of
particular problems.
REFERENCES
Atik L.A. and Abrahamson N. (2010). An improved method for nonstationary
spectral matching, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 26(3), 601-617
Geomotions (2000). SHAKE2000, a computer program for the 1-D analysis of
geotechnical earthquake engineering problems, Lacey, Washington, USA.
Itasca Consulting Group Inc. (2009). FLAC3D, Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua
in 3 Dimensions, Version 4, Minneapollis, Minnesota USA.
Kuhlmeyer, R L y Lysmer J. 1973. Finite element method accuracy for wave
propagation problems. ASCE J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Vol 99(SM5), 421-427
Meja, L.H. y Dawson E.M., 2006. Earthquake Deconvolution for FLAC, Proc. of the
4th International FLAC Symposium, Madrid, Spain, May 2006
Mndez, B. and Rivera D. (2013). Three-dimensional settlement analysis of a
primary crusher station at a copper mine in Chile. Accepted for publication at the
proc. of the 3rd Int. FLAC/DEM Symposium, October 22-24, Hangzhou, China
Mononobe, N (1929). On the determination of earth pressures during earthquakes,
Proc. of the World Engineering Conference, Vol. 9, pp. 176-182
Ostadan F (2005) Seismic soil pressure for building walls An updated approach,
Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 25, Issues 7-10,
August-October 2005; pp. 785-793
R.V. Whitman (1991). Seismic design of earth retaining structures, Second Int.
Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil
Dynamics, March 11-15, 1991, St Louis, Missouri, Paper No. SOA6
Wu G. and Finn L. (1999). Seismic lateral pressures for design of rigid walls,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 36(3), 509-522

Page 11