CDA 2019 Annual Conference

Congrès annuel 2019 de l’ACB

CANADIAN DAM ASSOCIATION Calgary, AB, Canada
ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE DES BARRAGES October 6-10, 2019

IN-PIT DYKES DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE OBSERVATIONS AT

THE MUSKEG RIVER MINE

Raisul Hoda, P.Eng., Canadian Natural Resources Limited, Calgary, AB, Canada
Samuel Li, P.Eng., Canadian Natural Resources Limited, Calgary, AB, Canada
Jason Waldick, P.Eng., Canadian Natural Resources Limited, Calgary, AB, Canada
Scott Martens, P.Eng., Canadian Natural Resources Limited, Calgary, AB, Canada

ABSTRACT

In-pit dykes have been under construction at the Albian Sands site (Muskeg River Mine and Jackpine Mine) to
provide tailings containment in the mined-out pits since 2005. Currently six in-pit dykes are under construction
across Albian, while two have been completed to final elevation. These dykes are typically 60-100 m high and 2-
4 km long. In addition, two perimeter dykes on top of the pit wall crest are under construction, while two are
completed to the final elevation. Construction material for the in-pit dykes is derived from McMurray formation
inter-burden with less than 7% bitumen content, and the Quaternary overburden. Coarse tailings and overburden
sand are used for the drainage elements.

The design basis for in-pit dykes is tied to the mine plan requirements, borrow material availability, and operational
practices using heavy mining equipment. Due to the large size of these structures, it takes several years to construct
them to final elevation and tailings fluid impoundment initiates while active construction is ongoing. Rigorous
quality control and quality assurance are performed during construction to confirm that the material specifications
and design criteria are fulfilled. Performance monitoring of the in-pit dykes is carried out using the Observational
Approach, which involves geotechnical instrumentation monitoring to confirm the design assumptions and identify
adverse trends that may require mitigation. This paper discusses the design methodology adopted for several dykes
at MRM and their performance with regard to stability, seepage, fill stresses and pore pressure generation during
construction and impoundment.

RÉSUMÉ

Des digues sont construites dans les fosses de la mine du site Albion Sands (MRM et JPM) depuis 2005 afin de
retenir les résidus miniers de sables bitumineux. Six sont en construction et deux autres sont terminées. Ces digues
sont habituellement d’une hauteur de 60 à 100 mètres et d’une longueur de 2 à 4 kilomètres. En outre, deux digues
de périmètre sont en construction au sommet de la crête du mur et deux sont terminées. Les matériaux de
construction proviennent des couches de la formation du McMurray qui ont une teneur en bitume inférieure à 7% et
des résidus miniers grossiers des mortes-terrains du Quaternaire. Les sables grossiers des mort-terrains sont utilisés
pour les éléments de drainage.

Le dimensionnement des digues est lié aux exigences du plan minier, à la disponibilité du matériel d’emprunt et aux
pratiques opérationnelles des équipements miniers lourdes. En raison de la grande taille de ces structures, il faut
plusieurs années pour les construire. Le remplissage des bassins de retenue avec des résidus miniers se fait pendant
la construction. La gestion de la performance des digues est effectuée à l’aide de processus de contrôle et
d’assurance qualité pour confirmer que les matériaux utilisés sont conformes aux spécifications et que les critères de
conception sont rencontrés. De plus, l’approche par observationnelle implique la surveillance des digues avec des
instruments géotechniques pour confirmer les calculs de la conception et pour identifier les tendances défavorables.
Cet article traite de la méthodologie de conception adoptée pour plusieurs digues à la mine MRM et de leurs
performances en ce qui concerne la stabilité, le suintement, les contraintes et l’augmentation de la pression
interstitielle pendant la construction des digues et le remplissage des bassins.

CDA 2019 Annual Conference, Calgary, AB, Canada 1

1 BACKGROUND
The Muskeg River Mine (MRM) is an open-pit mine and bitumen production facility operated by
Canadian Natural Resources Limited (Canadian Natural) as part of its Albian Sands joint venture project.
The mine is located on Lease 13, 70 km north of Fort McMurray, Alberta.
Tailings from oil sands mining operations are typically stored in out of pit facilities for the first 5-10 years
of mining operations. At that time, sufficient area of the pit has been mined so that in-pit dykes (IPDs)
can be constructed to partition areas of the pit for tailings storage, and perimeter dykes provide
containment for in-pit storage that is raised above the grade of the surrounding landscape. At present, six
in-pit dykes are under construction across Albian, while two have been completed to the final elevation.
In addition, two perimeter dykes on top of the pit wall crest are under construction, while two are
completed to the final elevation. Like most other operators in the region, Canadian Natural primarily uses
their mine operations fleet to construct the in-pit dykes out of the recovered non-ore materials (<7%
bitumen) that are mined in the process of exposing ore. The vast majority of the construction fill comes
from the McMurray Formation across both mines, although a significant volume of Quaternary
overburden is also used for construction at JPM.
This paper discusses the design
methodology adopted for
several dykes at MRM and their
performance with regard to
stability, seepage, fill stresses
and pore pressure generation
during construction and
impoundment. The discussion
herein is limited to the dykes
providing containment in In-Pit
Cells (IPC) 1 and 2. A general
overview identifying structures
of interest at MRM is presented
on Figure 1.

Figure 1: MRM General Layout

2 GENERAL MRM GEOLOGY AND LOWEST MINING SURFACE

Resource drilling across the site provides detailed data on the areas to be mined out for ore recovery. The
resulting data is incorporated into a geology database which forms the basis for the ore/waste model and
makes use of borehole spacing as close as 100 m to characterize the in-situ soils. This model is used to
identify areas of ore (materials containing > 7% bitumen content) and waste (materials containing < 7%
bitumen content) as well as to determine the lowest economically viable mining surface.
The general geology of MRM is characterized by a thin layer of Quaternary overburden (1-5 m),
underlain by the Cretaceous McMurray Formation oil sand on top of the Devonian Waterways Formation
limestone and calcareous shale. The general stratigraphy profile for the MRM area is shown in Table 1.
The surficial Quaternary overburden is present as Holocene and Pleistocene units at MRM. The
depositional environment for the Holocene and Pleistocene are continental and glacial respectively. The
Holocene deposit, Muskeg, is used for reclamation purposes. The Quaternary soils provide potential
seepage pathways which are accounted for in the abutment designs for in-pit and perimeter dykes. The
Upper McMurray (UM) underlies the surficial Quaternary deposits and was generally deposited in a
marine environment. Weak UM clays, if present and continuous, can be the units governing stability. The

CDA 2019 Annual Conference, Calgary, AB, Canada 2

Middle McMurray (MM) underlies the UM deposit and consists of inter-bedded estuarine and tidal
channel sands which form the major ore horizons. Where this member is left in place and constructed
upon (i.e. in a pit wall or waste island), continuous weak clays with steep dip angles may be present and
impact the slope stability. Waste MM fills are utilized for dyke construction.
Table 1: General Stratigraphy Profile
Age Formation Member
Holocene present – 11,000 a Holocene HOL
Quaternary
Pleistocene 11,000 a – 1.6 Ma Pleistocene PL
Clearwater 97.5 Ma – 113 Ma Clearwater Kc KcW
Early Upper McMurray UM
Cretaceous McMurray 113 Ma – 119 Ma Middle McMurray MM2 MM1
Lower McMurray LM2 LM1 LM1w
Devonian Waterways 373 Ma – 375 Ma Devonian DW

The Continental environment Lower

McMurray member (LM) is the lowermost part
of the McMurray Formation and includes a
flushed sandy zone at the bottom called basal
watersands or LM1w, which is similar to the
oil sand but with a low bitumen content and
high permeability. This sandy unit, where
present, becomes the foundation for IPDs and
needs consideration for seepage management
through the dyke foundation. The Cretaceous
McMurray sits uncomformably on the
Devonian Waterways (DW) Formation
limestone and calcareous shale, which may
include clayey facies of geotechnical concern,
in particular a weathered rock (Paleosol) at the
Devonian contact, and may govern stability of
in-pit structures. At MRM, the LM1w and the
weak DW clays frequently form the lowest
Figure 2: LM1w and DW Exposure at Lowest Mined mined surface and hence the foundation for in-
Surface pit structures. Figure 2 shows the LM1w and
DW exposure at the MRM lowest mined
surface within the area of interest for this
paper.

3 MRM IN-PIT TAILINGS CONTAINMENT FACILITIES

As shown on Figure 1 and Figure 2, there are three in-pit tailings containment facilities currently in
operation at MRM, and are referred to as in-pit cells. In-pit dykes along with the pit walls and perimeter
dykes provide containment in each in-pit cell. The design geometry and construction requirements of each
structure depend on the geology and tailings plan needs. Table 2 presents the key design controlling
parameters.
In-Pit Cell 1 (IPC1) is contained by IPD1 to the west, IPD2 to the north, and a combination of pit walls
and Perimeter Dyke 1 (PD1) to the east and south. IPC 1 started as a partitioned tailings cell with first
fluid containment in the western sub-cell in 2008. Mining activity continued in the east of the partition

CDA 2019 Annual Conference, Calgary, AB, Canada 3

until 2010 when tailings were introduced to the sub-cell. In 2011 the west and east sub-cells were merged
into a single tailings cell by overtopping the partitioning dyke (IPD1i – not shown). The lowest mined
elevation in IPC1 was approximately 210 m. The current pond elevation is 283 m, resulting in a fluid
depth of approximately 70 m against IPD1 and IPD2. The original ground south and east of IPC 1 varies
between El. 280-285 m, with an exception in the south-west. PD1 was constructed on top of the pit wall
crest to provide an additional 2-12 m of ex-pit containment over the original ground.
In-Pit Cell 2 (IPC2) is contained by IPD3 to the west, IPD2 to the south, and a combination of pit walls
and Perimeter Dyke 2 (PD2) to the east and north. IPC2 started as a partitioned tailings cell with first
fluid containment in the southern sub-cell in 2010. Mining activity continued north of the partition until
2014 when tailings were introduced to the sub-cell. In 2018 the north and south sub-cells were merged
into a single tailings cell by overtopping the partitioning dyke (IPD2i – not shown). The lowest mined
elevation in IPC2 varied between 220-240 m. The current pond elevation is 267 m resulting in a fluid
depth of 35 - 45 m against IPD2 and IPD3. The original ground north and east of IPC2 varies between
280-288 m. A perimeter dyke (PD2) is required to provide additional containment above the original
ground, at present the pond elevation is not high enough to impound against PD2. Currently IPC1 and
IPC 2 are both operational which imposes a temporary head differential of 16 m across IPD2.
In-Pit Cell 3 (IPC3) is contained by IPD1 and IPD3 to the east, IPD4 to the south and west, and a
combination of pit walls and Perimeter Dyke 3 (PD3) to the north. Tailings containment began in IPC3 in
2016 and the current pond elevation is 267 m. The lowest mined elevation in IPC3 was approximately
220 m resulting in a fluid depth of 45 m against IPD4. The original ground north of IPC3 varies between
290-297 m. At present the pond elevation is not high enough to impound against PD3. The final fluid
elevation in IPC3 (297 m) will be higher than the final fluid elevation in IPC1 (287 m) and the structure
will operate under a permanent 10 m head differential between the two ponds. The impact of higher pond
on the downstream side on the overall seepage management of IPD1 and IPD3 is discussed later in the
paper.
Table 2: In-Pit Cells 1, 2 and 3 Structures
Design Max. Height Maximum Maximum
Crest
Crest w.r.t. Pond Impoundment Depth
Cell Structure Length Freeboard (m)
Elevation Downstream Elevation w.r.t. Lowest Mined
(m)
(m) Toe (m) (m) Surface (m)
IPD1 900 300 80 77
IPC1 IPD2 1700 290 80 287 77 3
PD1 4185 290 15 12
IPD2 1700 290 80 77
IPC2 PD2 6000 290 10 287 7 3
IPD3 2350 300 75 67
IPD1 900 300 80 77
IPD3 2350 300 75 77
IPC3 297 3
IPD4 3400 300 80 77
PD3 1600 300 10 7

4 MRM IN-PIT DYKES DESIGN PHILOSPHY

4.1 General
The in-pit dykes at MRM are constructed using waste materials mined out as part of the overall mining
process. Interaction with current and future structures, foundation and abutment geology, and tailings plan
requirements provide direction to the specific design requirements for each dyke. The design parameters
and dyke performance are dependent on the fill and foundation properties and construction techniques.

CDA 2019 Annual Conference, Calgary, AB, Canada 4

MRM has an extensive history of dyke construction with mature fill usage and construction techniques.
The IPDs at MRM are typically constructed as conventional zoned dams with the following zones:
Core: The core zone is the central, low permeability and high strength zone of the dyke and its function is
to reduce seepage through the dyke. It is constructed using well compacted, high quality, non-blocky lean
oil sand fill with some bitumen, to provide a ductile and non-dispersive behaviour.
Shell: The shell zone is located on either side of the core to provide the strength and mass in the dyke. If
applicable, the upstream shell also supports the core in water retention.
Outer Shell: The outer shell zone may be located on the upstream and downstream side of the shell for
the overall dyke stability.
Internal Drains: The drains are located downstream of the dyke core, and serve to collect water that may
seep through the dyke body and the foundation. The chimney-drain acts as a crack stopper and filter to
prevent internal erosion caused by concentrated seepage. Water collected in the internal drains is
conveyed to the downstream toe of the dyke and pumped back to the nearest tailings pond.
Beach above Water (BAW): In some locations, the tailings plan is able to maintain a wide coarse sand
tailings beach above water against the upstream face of the dyke. This condition results in providing an
upstream crack stopper and keeps the pond away from the embankment, resulting in opportunities to
optimise or remove the internal drain requirements.
Seepage Cut-off and Seepage Blanket: Depending on the foundation conditions, a seepage cut-off or a
seepage blanket may be constructed using low permeability fill to lengthen the seepage path.
Typical design cross sections of the IPDs at MRM are presented on Figure 3 and Figure 4.
Table 3 shows example design parameters for different dyke zones. Table 4 presents an example of
generic construction specifications, which may be superseded by the structure specific guidelines.

Figure 3: Typical Design Cross Section with Internal Drains

Figure 4: Typical Design Cross Section with Upstream Beach and No Internal Drains

CDA 2019 Annual Conference, Calgary, AB, Canada 5

 Table 3: General Design Parameters for Dyke Zones and Foundation Units
Effective Fill Pore Foundation Pore
Hydraulic
Zone Friction Pressure Pressure Parameter
conductivity (m/s)
Angle Parameter ( ) (Bbar)*
-7 -8
Core 30° - 35° 0.3 – 0.4 - 1 x 10 – 1 x 10
-6 -7
Shell 28° - 35° 0.3 – 0.4 - 1 x 10 - 2 x 10
Outer Shell 25° - 30° 0.3 – 0.5 - 1 x 10-6
-7 -8
Seepage Cut-off and Blanket 28° - 35° 0.3 – 0.5 - 1 x 10 – 1 x 10
Piezometric
Lower McMurray Watersands 45° - 50° - 2 x 10-5
Elevation
Weak Devonian Waterways Units 14° - 16° - 0.3 - 0.4 5 x 10-6
* calculated based on vertical stress changes and allowing for some dissipation during construction to the final
dyke height

Table 4: General Construction Specifications

Min. Total Min. Compacted Max. Loose Cleanup
Zone Type
Fluid Dry Density Lift Thickness Specifications
Seepage control zones of the dam i.e. Core
and Seepage Blanket constructed from non- 1700 kg/m3 or
10 1 m* -
blocky, ductile fill from MM and UM units 95% SPMDD

Shell and Outer Shell, constructed from all

1650-1700 kg/m3
trafficable fills available at site 8 1-1.5 m* Basic
or 95% SPMDD
Chimney drain constructed from Pleistocene
- 1615 kg/m3 0.5 m High quality
Fluvial or Tailings sand with <5% fines
* When compacted with a loaded CAT 797 haul truck or equivalent

4.2 In-Pit Cell 1 Dykes Design

IPC1 is designed to hold tailings up to a maximum elevation of 287 m. As shown on Figure 1,,
containment of IPC1 is provided by IPD1, IPD2, and PD1. All three dykes have been constructed to their
final crest elevations.
Figure 5 shows a representative design cross section for IPD1. It is primarily founded on the mine pit
floor on the Devonian Waterways (DW) formation. The foundation elevation varies from 205 m to 230 m
both along the alignment, as well as upstream and downstream of the dyke section. Dyke stability is
controlled by the relatively weak, fissile sequences of limey and calcareous shale within the uppermost
several metres of the mine pit floor of the DW. IPD1 is designed as a zoned mine waste dyke (core, shell,
and outer shell) with internal drainage elements to the final crest elevation of 300 m. Due to a change in
the tailings plan, the containment requirement for IPC1 is only up to 287 m pond elevation; but IPD1 has
been constructed to 300 m to provide containment for IPC3 on the downstream side to 297 m. As a result,
for the initial 10 years of operation the seepage was east to west from IPC1 to IPC3, however, the IPC3
pond will ultimately be 10 m higher than the IPC1 pond and the seepage direction will reverse. The dyke
therefore had to be designed to safely manage seepage flows including potential crack flows in both
directions. In 2015, the IPD1 design was updated to address the planned 10 m head differential between
IPC3 and IPC1. The design update included a minimum of 100 m wide beach above water against the
dyke in IPC3 to keep the pond away from the dyke structure and to act as an upstream crack stopper.
Figure 6 shows a representative design cross section for IPD 2. It is founded on several foundation units
including limestone, MM/LM2 Waste Islands and Lower McMurray watersands. The stability governing
units are weak McMurray clays and shallow Devonian limestone. LM1w is present under the entire
footprint of IPD2 in varying thicknesses, although other materials are present in some areas of the dyke

CDA 2019 Annual Conference, Calgary, AB, Canada 6

foundation above the LM1w. IPD2 is designed as a zoned mine waste dyke (core, shell and outer shell)
with internal drainage elements. The structure has undergone multiple design updates due to the changes
in the tailings plan. The original design of IPD2 required an internal drainage system to protect against
seepage from IPC1 toward IPC2. In 2009, the tailings plan required that IPC2 be filled concurrently or
ahead of IPC1, potentially reversing the seepage direction. A design update was issued in which the
downstream chimney drain was discontinued and a head differential restriction between IPC1 and IPC2
was applied. At this time, the downstream foundation level drainage system was already constructed. In
2011, the dyke design was updated to accommodate operational flexibility in the tailings plan and the
internal drains were re-implemented. Although IPC1 and IPC2 are both planned to go up to 287 m,
temporary head differentials across the dyke require careful management of the ponds during the filling
phase. A combination of beach above water in IPC1 and internal drainage system at higher elevations are
being utilized to operate the dyke safely.

Figure 5: IPD1 Representative Design Section

Figure 6: IPD2 Representative Design Section

PD1 generally runs on the pit wall crest and is founded on the surficial Quaternary soil or the MM, which
contains clay layers. Seepage management through PD1 is managed using a combination of internal
drains, upstream BAW, and seepage cut-off. Internal drains were included in the south and west portion
of the dyke to provide protection against concentrated seepage toward the crusher. The east and south
portions of the dyke manage seepage with a combination of a 200 m wide upstream coarse tailings sand
BAW and by blanketing the sand and gravel in the exposed surficial Quaternary with low permeability
lean oil sand fills. The MRM lease boundary and the Muskeg River run in close proximity of IPC1 on the
east side and the dyke provides ex-pit containment of up to 7 m at this location. Figure 7 shows a
representative design section of PD1, with internal drains.

Figure 7: PD1 Representative Design Section

CDA 2019 Annual Conference, Calgary, AB, Canada 7

4.3 In-Pit Cell 2 Dykes Design
IPC2 is designed to hold tailings up to a maximum elevation of 287 m. Containment of IPC 2 is provided
by IPD2 (crest elevation 290 m), IPD 3 (crest elevation 300 m) and PD2. The crest length of IPD3 is 2350
m, and the crest length of PD 2 is approximately 6000 m. PD2 has been constructed to its final crest
elevation of 290 m, and IPD3 construction is nearing completion. Figure 1 shows the general location
plan for the IPC2 dykes.
The original ground on the north pit wall crest is at or above 290 m elevation to provide the needed
containment to 287 m elevation in the IPC2 pond. Ex-pit containment is required on the east pit wall, and
the PD2 can be divided into north and south sections, both providing ex-pit fluid containment of up to 8
m. The Muskeg River flows in close proximity to the east side, hence additional controls for
environmental protection have been taken. The construction of the entire structure on the east side is done
using only high quality fills as per core specifications. The high permeability Quaternary sand and gravel
under the entire eastern stretch of the dyke has been excavated and back filled with core quality fill to
provide a continuous seepage cut off. Additionally, in the south section where the pond elevation above
the original ground is highest, a significantly wide (>50 m) coarse sand tailings beach has been
established to keep the pond away from the dyke structure. Figure 8 shows a representative cross section
of PD2, with seepage cut-off in the Quaternary soils.

Figure 8: PD2 East Representative Design Section

Similar to IPD1, IPD3 is also designed as a zoned mine waste dyke with internal drainage elements to the
final crest elevation of 300 m, for providing containment to 297 m in IPC3 on the west side. The filling
schedule of IPC2 was 3 years ahead of IPC3 and the seepage management system was designed for flow
from IPC2 (east) toward IPC3 (west), with a reversal in seepage direction when IPC3 fills above IPC2. To
account for the planned 10 m head differential between IPC3 to IPC2, different design measures have
been taken for the northern and southern halves of IPD3.
The southern half of IPD3 was initially designed for direct fluid impoundment in IPC2 (east) to elevation
287 m, and the seepage management system included the foundation level drains which were constructed
to capture flow through the foundation and the dyke fill. Prior to the initiation of filling in IPC2, due to
mine plan needs, construction of an in-pit dump structure (Dump 2X) started on the IPC2 side. This dump
structure provided additional stability and increased the seepage path from IPC2 to the downstream (IPC3
side). To take advantage of this condition, the design was optimized to stop chimney drain construction at
its as-built elevation varying between 260-270 m. The addition of Dump 2X in the overall cross-section
of the southern part of IPD3 provided a control for the reverse seepage (west to east) scenario as well,
since the overall crest width of the structure increased by a minimum of 200 m. Finally, a BAW zone will
be established against the dyke in IPC3 to keep the pond away from the structure. Refer to Figure 9 for a
representative cross section.

CDA 2019 Annual Conference, Calgary, AB, Canada 8

 Figure 9: Representative Cross Section of IPD3S
The northern half of IPD3 was also initially designed for direct fluid impoundment in IPC2 (east) to
elevation 287 m, and the seepage management system included the foundation level drains which were
constructed but the chimney drain construction was not initiated. Instead, the tailings plan developed such
that a 150 m wide sand beach above water would be placed against the dyke upstream up to elevation 298
m, while maintaining the fluid elevation at 287 m. The IPC3 (west) pond is planned to go up to 297 m and
the presence of a large beach in IPC2 will act as a filter drain and is considered adequate protection
against concentrated seepage due to the pond head differentials between IPC3 and IPC2. Refer to
Figure 10 for a representative cross section.

Figure 10: Representative Cross Section of IPD3N

5 DYKE PERFORMANCE
Over the past decade of construction and operations, the performance of the dyke structures has been well
documented through geotechnical instrumentation, construction quality control, and visual inspections.
Performance of the dyke fill and foundation during construction and seepage observations are discussed
in this section.
5.1 Construction Induced Fill Pore Pressure
As discussed in Section 4, the IPDs are constructed using waste materials generated during of the mining
process. Materials used for construction of the core and shell zones can typically be described as
bituminous silt and sand (ML), placed and compacted dry of optimum. Loaded Caterpillar 797 haul trucks
are used to compact lifts and it is common for materials to be beyond 100% Standard Proctor density. The
combination of high fines content, tendency to over compact fills, and rapid construction rates present a
risk of compaction induced high pore pressures in the fill with slow dissipation over a span of years. Pore
pressures in the dyke fill at MRM are reported as a ratio of measured pore pressure to calculated total
vertical stress, .
The initial design assumptions for dyke core and shell zones were 0.5 and 0.3 respectively. The
application of higher in the core zone was intended to reflect the placement of potentially wet of
optimum fills to construct a more ductile core zone and gain higher resistance to hydraulic fracturing
during operation. Further discussion on hydraulic fracturing, relevant to dyke construction at MRM, is
covered later in the paper.

CDA 2019 Annual Conference, Calgary, AB, Canada 9

High pore pressures with slow dissipation were observed during the early stages of in-pit dyke
construction in the core zone of the IPD1/2 intersection area at MRM. The subject of these high values
was studied in detail and the primary findings were reported by Seto et al (2009). That study concluded
that the high pore pressures were a response to rapid placement and over-compaction of wet of optimum
fills. The triaxial compression tests completed on undisturbed samples from the dyke suggested that the
high fills were dense and dilative. The high pore pressures reduce with shear strain increase, resulting
in an increase in effective stress upon shearing. Based on those findings, an effective stress approach
(friction angle and measured ) may result in an overly conservative design. A stability analysis with
total stress parameters (total stress friction angle and 0) or undrained shear strengths could be used
in dilative lean oil sand fills to assess the short term factor of safety, however, the long term factor of
safety could significantly reduce compared to the undrained assessment, due to pore pressure increase
from seepage or further construction. An assessment using the design value would be intermediate
between these two cases and could be a reasonable interpretation of the long term conditions.
The impact of rapid and concentrated placement of wetter fill was also noted recently on a dyke upstream
shell. Approximately 15 m of vertical placement occurred in a span of weeks, resulting in a significant
rise in the observed in a nearby piezometer tip. The construction was eased in the area to allow
dissipation of the pore pressure, and a drop in piezometric elevation was noted in the next few weeks.
This dyke is in its early stage of construction; hence no impact to the dyke stability is expected due to the
increase in fill pore pressure.
As the mine matured, the scope of in-pit dyke construction at MRM increased to cover multiple
structures, and revisions to the original fill allowances were required to improve mine waste capture.
Construction controls were put in place to prevent the concentrated placement of fills prone to developing
high pore pressures. Inclusion of dry of optimum fills was implemented for core zone construction; with
the application of additional dozer effort to break lumps down into a homogeneous matrix with the wetter
fills. This approach provided operational flexibility and resulted in lower observed pore pressures. In
addition, construction rate restrictions of 10 m per rolling month and 30 m per rolling year were
implemented to facilitate dissipation of the excess pore pressures building up in the fill.
As additional performance data became
available, measured from Vibrating Wire
Piezometers (VWP) installed within the dyke
fill has been generally compliant with the
design. Figure 11 presents the peak
measured values observed in the dyke fill,
prior to the influence of the seepage front.
The current design value for in the dyke
fill is 0.3, and a large majority of observed
values fall beneath that upper bound. Many
of the peak values shown on Figure 11
were observed when fill depths above the
instrumentation were relatively shallow. Pore
pressures in the dyke fill have generally
shown a trend of dissipation over time.
Figure 11: Observed Peak for In-pit Dyke Fills in Core and
Shell Zones due to Construction
5.2 Hydraulic Fracture Considerations
Hydraulic fracture in lean oil sand dykes was first reported by Barlow et al. (1998) for the Syncrude
Highway Berm by conducting a series of borehole hydraulic fracturing tests in well-compacted mine
waste fills using both water and fluid fine tailings as injection fluids. This program demonstrated that it
was possible to initiate and fracture the mine waste fill. Subsequent work carried out by Cameron et al.,

CDA 2019 Annual Conference, Calgary, AB, Canada 10

(2008) provided a theoretical background to formulate the hydraulic fracture problem for oil sands dams.
Cameron et al. (2008) identifies a number of variables that contribute to hydraulic fracture including:
observed Coefficient of Earth Pressure (Kobs) and Pore Pressure Ratio ( ). The geotechnical engineering
team at Albian has been gathering earth pressure cell (EPC) data to evaluate hydraulic fracture since
2009.
Horizontal and vertical total stresses can be measured using EPCs aligned in horizontal and vertical
configurations. Each EPC location also includes a VWP for pore pressure monitoring, to allow calculation
of effective stresses and earth pressure coefficients. Initially Kobs for EPCs installed in typical sections of
the dykes ranged from 0.4 to 0.8 while the Kobs for EPCs installed near the abutment and waste islands
ranged from 0.4 to 0.6. As construction continued, Kobs for EPCs regardless of installation location have
converged into a narrow range between 0.4 and 0.5. The measured K values match well with the values
calculated using Jaky empirical equation (Jaky 1944) by assuming the LOS friction angle is between 30
and 35 degrees.
Field testing in the form of pressuremeter and hydraulic fracture tests were conducted in 2010 (BGC
2011). The intent of the field program was to measure the pressure required to initiate fracture (and
closure pressure) to gain further insight into the minor principal stress within the dyke fill. Data collected
during the program supported the observations collected from EPC clusters with Kobs ranging between 0.4
and 0.9 with a median if 0.6. An important observation from the hydraulic fracture tests was that the
pressure required to initiate fracture was lower at locations near abutments compared with the locations
elsewhere.
Hydraulic fracture can lead to concentrated seepage that greatly increases the likelihood of internal
erosion unless filters are included in the design. To ensure a proactive approach is being taken to control
the risk, mitigation measures are integrated at design stage. These measures include:
 Preparation of the foundation and the abutments to minimize differential settlement;
 Construction of a wide central core using low permeability, strong, and ductile materials;
 A minimum of 3 m freeboard above the pond elevation to provide additional weight over the core;
 A downstream chimney drain (constructed of <5% fines sand) designed to satisfy both permeability
and filter criteria;
 Alternatively, a wide upstream sand beach (i.e. coarse sand tailings) to serve as a crack stopper.

5.3 Construction Induced Foundation Pore Pressure

The in situ materials that form the foundations of the IPDs commonly contain weak clays as discussed in
Section 2. It is important to understand the induced pore pressures in the dyke foundation units during the
construction, and how fast can they dissipate. The time for the loading-induced pore pressure to dissipate
depends on the permeability, compressibility and the drainage condition of the foundation soils. Pore
pressures in the foundation materials at MRM are reported as a ratio of measured change in pore pressure
to calculated change in total vertical stress, B. In the early stages of in-pit dyke design, the design B used
for LM2 and DW clays were directly based on those applied to ex-pit structures (i.e. mine waste dumps
and external tailings facility) design, due to lack of data from in-pit dyke construction specifically. With
the unloading during mining and reloading during construction, the response to vertical loading is not the
same as that for additional loading during ex-pit structure construction. The B values applied to initial
IPD designs may have overestimated pore pressure generation in the foundations and may have resulted
in overly conservative designs. With the evolution of the mine and construction of several in-pit dyke and
dump structures across Albian, additional LM2 and DW piezometric data became available for usage
during the design stage. Construction of the in-pit dykes takes several years before the structures are
complete. In this period there is opportunity for foundation pore pressures to dissipate during periods of
slow construction. To incorporate this dissipation of the construction induced pore pressure, the B with
the suffix VPD (Vertical Partial Dissipation) is considered to be more applicable than the instantaneous B.

CDA 2019 Annual Conference, Calgary, AB, Canada 11

The B pore pressure ratio is calculated using the following equation by assuming the initial water table
elevation for in pit structures at the lowest mined surface elevation (LME):

= (1)
.
Where:
γ = Unit weight of water, 9.8 kN/m3, γ = Unit weight of fill, 19.5 kN/m3
LME = Lowest mined surface elevation (m), PZ = Current piezometric elevation (m),
Fill Elev. = Current fill elevation directly above tip (m).
In 2017, a review of VWP data collected from 31 instruments installed beneath the MRM IPD was
conducted to better evaluate pore pressure conditions in the DW. Instruments installed beneath more than
15 m of in-situ material were excluded for the data set, as many of them indicated piezometric elevations
below the LME. Instruments that appeared to be primarily influenced by the rise of adjacent pond
elevation were also excluded from the data set. A histogram and summary of the data review are shown
on Figure 12. A significant number of instruments (29% occurrence) reported B values less than 0;
this implies that the piezometric elevation
observed at that instrument is below the LME.
Observed B values for the DW weak facies
were consistently below than 0.4 (97%
occurrence) and commonly below 0.3 (90%
occurrence).These B values have been
adopted as most likely case (MLC) and
reasonable worst case (RWC) pore pressure
ratios in recent IPD designs and have been
successful to date. A caution in the
interpretation of these data is that many of the
piezometers were installed using the fully-
grouted method, and the low B values may
partially reflect dissipation up the grout column
towards more permeable materials along the
borehole. Conservative characteristic Figure 12: Observed in the DW Member
parameters were therefore selected for design
based on this data set.

5.4 Advancement of the Seepage Front

The progression of the seepage front through the dykes will depend largely on the geometry and
foundation conditions. Seepage through the dyke has been modelled in critical sections using
instrumentation data collected over the lifespan of these structures to calibrate the inputs for the transient
seepage models. The transient models provide an estimate of where the seepage front currently is and
how it might progress in the coming years. The combination of the instrumentation data and transient
seepage models provide insights on the structure performance.
Seepage through LM1w
The LM1w channels heavily influence the advancement of the seepage front through the dykes. The clean
water-bearing sands found in the LM1w member are two to three orders of magnitude higher in
permeability than the dyke fill and are often continuous across the dyke footprint. IPD 1 and 2 were both
designed with lean oil sand seepage blankets at the upstream toe to increase the length of the seepage
path. The seepage blankets have been successful in delaying the seepage front through the LM1w;
however, pore pressures observed throughout the LM1w quickly respond to variations in the upstream

CDA 2019 Annual Conference, Calgary, AB, Canada 12

pond throughout the LM1w. Figure 13 shows VWP data collected from instruments in the LM1w channel
beneath IPD 2. The instruments are distributed over a 350 m section perpendicular to the dyke centerline.
All of the instruments shown on Figure 13 exhibit an initial one-year lag in pore pressure response which
may be partially attributed to the upstream seepage blanket.

Figure 13: Pore Pressure Response of IPD2 Upstream and Downstream LM1w VWP
A transient seepage modelling exercise was conducted using LM1w VWP data to aid in calibration. The
model was calibrated by adjusting the LM1w member permeability until the first modelled increase of
pore pressure coincided with the observed VWP data. When comparing the modelled and observed data
there was a notable difference in rate of pore pressure increase resulting in higher pore pressures in the
model than observed in the instrumentation. To account for this difference, a low permeability region was
modelled where the LM1w member was exposed to tailings fluid to simulate fines build up or “blinding”
of the LM1w. The model including the blinded LM1w interface better reflects the observed conditions
within the LM1w. A comparison of the different models and the observed VWP data are presented on
Figure 14.

Figure 14: Comparison of Modelled and Observed Pore Pressure Response in LM1w
Seepage through Shallow Devonian Waterways
In contrast to the LM1w, the DW limestone that comprises the remainder of the foundation has generally
been a competent barrier against seepage. Figure 15 contains VWP data collected from select instruments
in the DW foundation below IPD 1. Instruments located upstream (east) of the core experience a lag in
pore pressure response proportionate to the length of the seepage path. VWP installed on downstream side
of the core have remained isolated from the upstream pond and have recently seen construction related
pore pressure increases in response to tailings deposition in IPC3 (west).

CDA 2019 Annual Conference, Calgary, AB, Canada 13

 Figure 15: Pore Pressure Response of IPD1 Upstream and Downstream DW VWP
Seepage through Dyke Fill
Seepage through the dyke fill of IPD 1 and IPD 2 has been modelled using a calibrated transient seepage
analysis. The material parameters and assumptions for the transient model have been adjusted to replicate
the observed instrumentation data throughout the lifespan on the dykes. The results of the model and
instrumentation data indicate that the upstream seepage front is still progressing through the dyke fill and
that the core is intact. The modelled phreatic surfaces and observed VWP data at select intervals are
presented on Figure 16.

Figure 16: Modelled Phreatic Surface in IPD1 and IPD2

Response of the Drainage Elements
Instruments installed in the downstream drainage elements of the MRM dykes indicate that the drains are
performing as intended. Their response to the upstream pond rise has not been observed yet, indicating
that a concentrated seepage across the dyke fill (such as due to cracking) has not occurred during
operations at MRM. The data from these instruments shows that the drainage elements are draining freely
and are not building up pore pressures. VWPs in the drains respond quickly to downstream pond level
changes, due to direct connectivity.

CDA 2019 Annual Conference, Calgary, AB, Canada 14

6 SUMMARY
MRM site has over 18 years of mine waste dyke construction experience including the External Tailings
Facility starter dyke. The in-pit dykes have been providing tailings containment since 2008, and there are
three active in-pit cells operational at this time. Dyke construction is well underway to establish the fourth
in-pit cell towards the west of MRM. The design basis for in-pit dykes at MRM is that of conventional
zoned dams with internal drainage systems as needed. The construction practices have evolved to achieve
the intended design parameters while maximizing the available fill utilization from the mine.
 Prior to the influence of the seepage front, a large majority of the construction induced pore
pressure, , are observed to fall beneath the design value of 0.3 in the dyke fill, and have shown a
general trend of dissipation over time as construction rates ease. Construction induced pore pressures
in the foundation of low permeability material (LM2, DW) get the opportunity to dissipate during
periods of slow construction, as it takes several years for these structures to be completed. With the
unloading during mining and reloading during construction, the response to vertical loading is not the
same as that for additional loading during ex-pit structure construction.
 Hydraulic fracture considerations are integral to the design and special construction methods have
been established at the fill and in-situ abutment interface locations which are considered more prone to
differential settlement and cracking.
 The advancing seepage front is heavily influenced by the presence or absence of high permeability
zones such as the LM1w. Seepage blankets constructed at the upstream toe of the dykes have been
effective in delaying the seepage front by extending the seepage path. The observed and modelled
relationship between LM1w piezometric elevation and pond elevation indicates that the seepage
through the LM1w is not constant over time. It is hypothesized that fines buildup at the interface of the
LM1w and the pond may be a cause for the reduction in permeability.
 After a decade of tailings impoundment, the dyke core and internal drainage system appear to be
performing as anticipated. Instrumentation data and numerical modelling indicate that the seepage
front is still progressing through the dyke fill and that a steady state seepage condition is likely years
away.
Generally, the dykes are performing as per the design intent and the detailed monitoring has allowed the
design to be adapted to the observed performance where necessary.

7 REFERENCES
BGC Engineering. 2011. “Muskeg River Mine In-pit Dykes 2010 Fill Characterization Program Factual Site
Investigation Report.”
Barlow J. P., Lach Paul R., Roberts E.C., and Cameron R. 1998. “Mature Fine Tails Hydraulic Fracturing Study.”
51st Canadian Geotechnical Conference, 1998.
CDA (Canadian Dam Association). 2011. Guidelines for Public Safety Around Dams.
Cameron R, Madden B. and Danku M., 2008. “Hydraulic Fracture considerations in oil sand overburden dams.”
GeoEdmonton 08.
Canadian Natural Resource Limited. 2018. “Muskeg River Mine and Jackpine Mine Field Construction Manual.”
Fell, R., MacGregor P., Stapledon D. and Bell G. 2005. Geotechnical Engineering of Dams. CRC Press.
Hoda R., Iqbal S., and Martens S. 2016, “In-Pit Dyke Construction Practices at Muskeg River and JackPine Mine.”
CDA 2016.
Jaky, J. 1944. “A nyugalmi nyomas tenyezoje (The coefficient of earth pressure at rest).” Magyar Mernok es
Epitesz-Egylet Kozlonye, pp. 355-358.
Klohn Crippen Berger Limited. 2006. “Muskeg River Mine In-pit Dykes 1 and 2 Design Update Report.”
Seto J.T.C., Biggar K.W., Ferris G.W., and Eaton T., 2009. “High Pore Pressure Within Embankment Construction
of Lean Oil Sands.” Tailings and Mine Waste 2009
SoeMoe K.W., Biggar K.W., Martens S., and Hoda R., 2013. “Application of Geotechnical Instrumentation in
Monitoring In-pit Dykes Performance.” GeoMontreal 2013

CDA 2019 Annual Conference, Calgary, AB, Canada 15