GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF

WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES

Lecture 2

Modeling of Tailings/Waste Storage Facilities

Jonathan D. Bray, PhD, PE, NAE

Faculty Chair in Earthquake Engineering Excellence
University of California, Berkeley
 MODELING OF TAILINGS/WASTE
STORAGE FACILITIES
Lecture Outline
1. Key Concepts

2. Stratigraphic Models of Tailings Storage Facilities

3. Field Tests to Estimate Engineering Properties of Tailings

4. Laboratory Tests to Estimate Engineering Properties of Tailings

5. Closing Remarks
MODELING OF TAILINGS/WASTE
STORAGE FACILITIES

1. Key Concepts
 Apply Engineering COMPLEX WORLD Site Investigation (e.g.,
Judgment to
geology, field tests, lab tests)
Solve Problem

INSIGHTS OF THE SITE CHARACTERIZATION

RESPONSE OF
GENERALIZED SYSTEM
Deterministic or
Engineering Probabilistic
Approach
Interpret Circle
GENERALIZED
RESULTS SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Tests PHYSICAL Develop Model

or
Analyses or
NUMERICAL
Most Critical Design Issue For Dams

1. Are there materials in tailings dam or its

foundation that can lose significant strength
as a result of monotonic or cyclic loading?

“Flow Slide Possible”

 Las Palmas Gold Mine Tailings Dam Failure
M8.8 Maule, Chile EQ View across scarp
Failure & Flow
Caused 4 deaths
Upstream construction

Bray & Frost 2010

Upstream construction

Sand ejecta near toe of flow debris View from scarp looking downstream
Another Critical Design Issue For Dams

2. If there are not materials that can lose

significant strength, will tailings dam
undergo significant deformation that can
jeopardize performance?

“Excessive Displacement Possible”

 VOLUME CHANGE TENDENCY DURING SHEAR

Drained TX tests at two effective confining stresses

emax
∆σ e1
Contractive
ecritical for σ’3 = 100 kPa
σ’3

ecritical for σ’3 = 300 kPa

e2
Dilative
emin

εa
Dr = (emax – e) / (emax – emin) x 100% Dr ≈ 5 (RCD1557 – 80%)
VOLUME CHANGE TENDENCY IS STRESS-DEPENDENT

e
Contractive

CSL (ec at each σ’)

Dilative

σ’3
Loose sand Dense sand

Contractive Dilative

Behaviour in drained shearing

• Compression (decrease in
volume) of loose sand
• Dilation of dense sand
(increase in volume)

from M. Cubrinovski U. of Canterbury

 Volume Change during Shearing: Dilatancy
AN EXAMPLE FOR A DENSE SAND
CRITICAL STATE

Initially soil is contractive Eventually soil reaches a

Increase in
(decreases in volume) constant volume
volume condition during shearing

Soil then dilates

(increases in volume);
Shear amount of dilation
strain depends on the
Decrease in density of the soil, etc.
volume
Phase transformation
Volumetric
strain

At “phase transformation”
the response changes from
contractive to dilative

from M. Cubrinovski U. of Canterbury

VOLUME CHANGE TENDENCY DURING SHEAR (DR & σ’3)

Lee & Seed 1967 as presented in Idriss & Boulanger 2008

 PORE WATER PRESSURE GENERATION
DURING UNDRAINED MONOTONIC SHEAR

εvol Dilative
Understanding Volumetric
Response During Drained Shear
εa
Contractive

+ Provides Insight into Pore Water

∆u Pressure Generation During
Undrained Shear
εa
-
Volume change (drained test) Change in (excess) pore water
pressure (undrained test)
Drained
Undrained

uue e>>00

• Increase in excess pore water

• Compression (decrease in volume) pressure (decrease in effective
during drained shearing stress) during undrained shearing
ue

from M. Cubrinovski U. of Canterbury

 PORE WATER PRESSURE GENERATION
DURING UNDRAINED MONOTONIC SHEAR

+∆u
e Contractive

ψ = e – eSS (state parameter)

Been & Jefferies 1985

Dilative SSL (independent of

initial state or fabric)
-∆u

σ’3
Monotonic Undrained Triaxial Compression Test

Results from Ishihara 1993

as presented in Idriss &
Boulanger 2008

Phase Transformation
 QUASI-STEADY STATE LINE
(affected by soil fabric, i.e. depositional history)

e
Contractive

Dilative CSL
SSL
QSSL

σ’3
 Soil Fabric (packing of soil particles)
Different Density

• May have contractive or dilative soil response

Contractive Dilative
• At a soil state, the arrangement of particles
Same Density or its fabric may differ significantly

• Different fabric results from different

depositional processes during its formation
but different fabric (e.g., fluvial deposit, hydraulic fill) and
subsequent stress-strain history

• Soil density and fabric depend on current stresses;

however, they also depend on depositional process
and stress history, which affects QSSL
from M. Cubrinovski U. of Canterbury
 Threshold Strain Concept
γf 1. When γ < γtl, the
response is linear elastic

2. When γ < γtv there

are negligible plastic
volumetric strains.
Thus, no significant
excess pore water
pressures (EPWP).

3. When γ > γtv,

1 2 3 4 significant plastic
volumetric strains.
Thus, large EPWP
can develop

4. When γ > γf, soil

failure occurs
Vucetic (1994)
 MODELING OF TAILINGS/WASTE
STORAGE FACILITIES

2. Stratigraphic Model of Tailings Storage Facilities

 Mine Tailings Characteristics
• Tailings PSD influenced by (i) ore mineralogy, (ii) alteration type, (iii) degree of grinding in
milling process, and (iv) clay minerals present in orebody
• Tailings plasticity influences performance (e.g., high-plasticity tailings settle poorly,
consolidate slowly & significantly, dewater poorly)
CT - Coarse Tailings HRT - Hard Rock Tailings ART - Altered Rock Tailings FT - Fine Tailings UFT - Ultra-Fine Tailings
Nonplastic (NP) Silty Sand NP or Low Plasticity Sandy Silt Low Plasticity Sandy Silt Low to Moderate Plasticity Silt High Plasticity Silty Clay

from C. Bareither CSU ICOLD (2017)

 Tailings Disposition
Subaqueous deposition
• Discharging within a water body (e.g., inundated tailings pond)
• Restricts oxygen exposure = limits acid generation
• Water management = keep tailings submerged; additional water may be required
and containment dams must be designed accordingly

Sub-aerial deposition (e.g., thin-layer sub-aerial deposition)

• Sequential deposition of thin, slurry tailings layers around perimeter of TSF
• Increase density, improve stability, and restrict air & water contact to reduce acid
generation
• Successful technique in environmentally sensitive areas

from C. Bareither CSU

 Spigot Discharge & Hydraulic Disposition

Image: tailings.info

from C. Bareither CSU

 Cyclone Separation and Tailings Disposition
• Separate coarser and finer tailings
• Overflow deposition forms beach area
• Feed needs sufficiently low solids
content for effective separation

J. Hilgers (AECOM)

from C. Bareither CSU

Soil Layering in Hydraulic Filled Dam

Lower San Fernando Dam: H.B. Seed

 Design Sections & Components
• Design Sections
– Idealized sections to evaluate
• Considerations
– Geology and foundation
– Idealized geometry
– Starter dam, Decant pond, Filters, etc. Fundão Dam – design section
– Material properties
– Static & seismic demands
– Design criteria
• Site Investigation & Construction Observations
 Selecting Sections
• Height / geometry of tailings facility
• Presence of weak materials
• Pore water pressures
Cerro Verde, Peru
• In situ data
• Instruments for calibration
• Number of sections to evaluate
depends on, e.g.:
– Type and size of facility
– Geologic heterogeneity
Elandsrand gold mine,
South Africa (NGS)
– Consequences of poor performance

from C. Bareither CSU

 MODELING OF TAILINGS/WASTE
STORAGE FACILITIES

3. Field Tests to Estimate Engineering Properties of Tailings

 Field Investigation Tools
• Geology
• Geophysics (e.g., Vs & Vp)
• Geotechnical
– CPTu

– Soil Borings with SPT

– iBHT, LPT

– FVST

– Detailed Logging of Continuous Samples

Geophysical Methods
Seismic CPTu
qt (MPa) fs (kPa) U2, U0 (kPa) Vs (m/s)
0 10 20 0 100 200 300 -100 400 900 1400 0 400 800
0 0 0 0

4 4 4 4

8 8 8 8

12 12 12 12

16 16 16 16

Depth (m)
20 20 20 20

24 24 24 24

Butcher et al. 2005 28 28 28 28

Rice 1985 32 32 32 32

36 36 36 36
Mayne 2007

∆T ∆D True Interval (2 receivers) SCPTu is preferred

Vs=
∆T

30
 Geophysical Methods
Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW)

∆d
Advantages: No borehole required vR ( f ) =
Perform quickly ∆t ( f )

Disadvantages: Specialized equipment

vR ( f )
Experienced operators λR ( f ) =
Horizontal layering only f
Locating Depth to Saturation Using P-Wave Measurements
(but it may change over time)

Groundwater Level

S = 100%

Crosshole seismic testing in

Christchurch (UT-Austin)
32
Cone Penetration Test (CPTu)

qt = qc + u2(1 - a)

a = An/Ac =
tip net area ratio
(a should be > 0.8)
Robertson & Wride (1998) / Robertson (2009)
qt (MPa) USE NORMALIZED VALUES: Qtn & Fr

(qt − σvo)
Q = ⋅ CN
tn Pa
CN = (Pa/σ’vo)n
n = 0.381 Ic + 0.05 (σ’vo/Pa) – 0.15 ≤ 1.0
Pa = 1 atm. pressure = 101.3 kPa

f
F = s ⋅100
r (q − σvo)
t
Soil Behavior Type Index, Ic (Robertson 2010)
Ic = [ (3.47 – log Qtn) 2 + (1.22 + log Fr) 2 ] 0.5

Ic is an index of different types of soil behavior

It is not the unified soil classification system

Identifying Flow Liquefaction Potential (Robertson 2010)

Approximate Boundary between

Flow Liquefaction Failure Case Histories
Contractive & Dilative Responses
Updated Soil Behavior Type Index, IB (Robertson 2016)
Identifying Cemented & Aged Soil (Robertson & Cabal 2015)

Use Vs (i.e., Go = ρ Vs2)

Utah tailings

&

qt

to identify cemented or aged soil

with

KG = [ Go / qt ] Qtn0.75
CPT qt measures “average” resistances over a zone

qt reading at each 1-cm depth-interval represents

layer that is 2-15 cone diameters (dc) thick
(10 cm2 cone with 5 dc has zone thickness = 18 cm)

Robertson 2012
 Scale Effects
CPT cannot recognize stark interface
between materials

CPT data between clay & sand can be

misinterpreted as silt when it does not exist

Size of transition zone is a function of soil

stiffness and cone size

Remove ‘transition’ zones if can be proven

Also, Boulanger & DeJong (2018) filtering

method; implemented in CLiq

Ahmadi & Robertson 2005

 Thin Layer Correction
CPT tip resistance is
affected by soil above and
below tip (“scale effect”)

Measured qtA of thin sand

layer is too low (qt*)

Apply thin layer correction:

qt* = KH x qtA

KH = 0.25[((H/dc)/17) – 1.77]2 +1.0

Correction is function of
soil stiffness & cone size

Youd et al. 2001 (from Robertson & Wride 1995)

Estimate Hydraulic Conductivity and Groundwater Level
Using CPT Dissipation Tests

Robertson 2012
 CPT Investigations at Gravel Sites
Bray et al. 2014 – CPT14
0 0

2 2

4 4
DENSE GP
6 6

8 8
Depth (m)

10 10

12 12

14 14

16 16
Z2-16
18 18
Z2-8
20 20
0 1 2 3 4 0 200 400 600 800
Ic qc1n

CPT Z2-8 in July 2011: refusal at only 3.4 m

CPT Z2-16 in March 2013: advanced to 9 m with pre-collaring

Pre-Collaring System
(I. Haycock, McMillan Drilling)
Perform CPTs before Drilling for Field Testing or Sampling

Fieldwork in Adapazari (Bray et al. 2004)

 CPT Piston-Type Sampler

• Single-tube system
• 300 mm long, 25 mm diameter sample
• Use to retrieve disturbed soil samples
for soil index tests (e.g., PI)
 SPT N60 - ASTM D1586 & D6066

SPT: 5 cm O.D. 3.4 cm I.D.

 SPT Energy Measurements
EFV
N 60 = N ⋅
Accelerometers

60

t = tf
EFV = ∫ F (t ) ×V (t )dt
t =0 Strain Gages
F (t ) = E × A × ε (t ) V (t ) = ∫ A(t ) dt

Measured Force and Velocity

Instrumented Becker Penetration Test (iBPT)
[DeJong et al. 2015]
 Field Vane Shear Test (FVST)
[ASTM D2573]
120
2V3-VST5_70.0
100

80 • Straightforward in situ test

Torque (N-m)
60
• Direct assessment of peak
40 & remolded undrained
20 shear strength
0
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 • Assess sensitivity (ST)
10
Rate (deg/s)

1 • Consider rate of rotation,

0.1 drainage, rod friction,
0.01
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 progressive yielding
Rotation (degrees)

from S. Olson U. of Illinois

 Progressive Failure
• Small Vane – 2.5 cm diameter

• Medium Vane – 5.7 cm diameter

• Large Direct Shear Box – 30 cm by 30 cm square

3.5
Small-scale Vane (2.5cm in diameter)
3 Median-scale Vane (5.7cm in diameter)

2.5
Shear stress (kPa)

1.5 Large-scale direct shear box (30.5 by 30.5 cm square)

1
Relative size of tests
0.5

0 Large Direct Shear Box

0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement (cm)
Sonic Boring

Conventional Sonic Drilling and

Logging in Christchurch (T+T)
Detailed Logging from Continuous High-Quality Sampling
(in Christchurch, see Beyzaei et al. 2018)
SEM Allows One to See Tailings Particles
(tailings material in Peru)
 MODELING OF TAILINGS/WASTE
STORAGE FACILITIES

4. Laboratory Tests to Estimate Engineering Properties of Tailings

 Calibration of Constitutive Model
Cyclic Triaxial Test (Markham et al. 2015) & FLAC-PM4Sand (Luque & Bray 2015)

PM4Sand Ver. 3.0 (Boulanger and Ziotopoulou, 2015)

 “Undisturbed” Soil Sampling & Testing

D&M Thin- Walled Hydraulic Fixed-Piston Sampler

Careful Transportation

ASTM D6519-08 Careful Test Preparation

 Cyclic Tests
Each test deforms soil differently and works over a particular strain range
All lab tests affected by specimen preparation & sample disturbance

Cyclic Triaxial Test Cyclic Simple Shear Test Cyclic Torsional Shear Test

CKC Automated Triaxial Testing System

 Field Strain-Dependent
Shear Modulus Reduction Curve
 Peak Dynamic Strength of Clays
Chen, Bray, and Seed (2006)
• Sdynamic, peak = Sstatic, peak (Crate) (Ccyc ) (Cprog) (Cdef)
2.2

2
Range of the strength adjustments

• Rate of loading: Crate > 1

Rate corrected strength / Baseline strength

1.8
Upper bound

1.6
median value

1.4

• Number of significant cycles: Ccyc < 1

1.2

Lower bound
1

0.8

0.6
0.01 0.1 1 10

• Progressive failure: Cprog < 1 Sliding velocity (in/s)

(Biscontin, 1999)
0%

• Distributed deformation: Cdef < 1

Peak strength deduction (%)

-10%

-20%

Typical values often lead to: -30%

0 4 8 12 16 20

Sdynamic, peak ≈ Sstatic, peak (1.4) (0.85 ) (0.9) (0.9) ≈ Sstatic, peak
Number of significant pulses

Near-Fault Pulse: Sdynamic, peak ≈ Sstatic, peak (1.4)(1)(1)(0.9) ≈ 1.25 Sstatic, peak
Long Duration: Sdynamic, peak ≈ Sstatic, peak (1.4)(0.7)(0.9)(0.9) ≈ 0.8 Sstatic, peak
 Dynamic Strength of Clay
Chen, Bray, and Seed (2006)

Peak dynamic strength is used for strain-hardening soil

or limited displacements

As earthquake-induced strain exceeds failure strain,

dynamic strength reduces for strain-softening soil

60

50
Peak Strength
Shear strength (psf)

40 Residual Strength
30

20
Remolded Strength
10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
perferential displacement (inches)
MODELING OF TAILINGS/WASTE
STORAGE FACILITIES

5. Closing Remarks
 Closing Remarks
• Understand engineering process

• Focus on strength loss potential

• Use critical state framework

• Consider depositional environment – Fabric

• In situ tests (e.g., Vs, CPTu, FVST) provide much insight

• Lab tests are useful for additional insight & model calibration