COMMON GROUND PROCEEDINGS 10TH AUSTRaLIa NEW ZEaLaND CONFERENCE ON GEOMECHaNICS BRISbaNE

COMMON GROUND 07

Identification of possible new failure mechanisms for the collapse of tailings dams
Jian Chu Nanyang Technological University, Blk N1, 50 Nanyang Ave, Singapore 639798 Wing Kai Leong Victor Li & Associates Ltd, Rm 1103, Kowloon Investment Co. Building, 2-12 Bute Street, Hong Kong A. Balasubramaniam School of Engineering, Griffith University Gold Coast Campus, PMB 50 Gold Coast Mail Centre, Queensland 9726, Australia Sik-Cheung Robert Lo University College, University of New South Wales, Australian Defence Force Academy, ACT 2600, Australia

Keywords: granular soil, failure, laboratory test, liquefaction, stability, tailings ABSTRACT Static liquefaction has been considered as one of the most common failure mechanisms for tailings dams. However, for tailings with relatively high permeability, the assumption of an undrained condition becomes questionable under static loading conditions. In fact, many granular soil or tailings at its in-situ density may not liquefy under static, undrained conditions. In this paper, the problems with the current design approaches for tailings dams are identified. Laboratory test results are presented to demonstrate that granular soil can become unstable under drained or nonundrained conditions. Based on the testing data, two possible new failure mechanisms for tailings dams are proposed. 1 INTRODUCTION

Slope failure or landslide is still one of the common geotechnical hazards. This includes failures of tailing dams of mine waste, mineral sands, or municipal solid waste. There have been a number of failure cases of tailing dams in recent years. Examples in Australia and elsewhere have been given by Eckersley (1985), Davies et al. (2002), Blight and Fourie (2005) and Wright (2006). As explained by Davies et al. (2002), the failure of loose granular soil slopes or cohesionless tailing dams is often considered to be triggered by instability or static liquefaction occurring under undrained conditions, as shown in Fig. 1. Two approaches, the effective stress analysis (ESA) and the undrained strength analysis (USA), have been suggested (Martin and McRoberts, 1998).
F

(a)

(b)

Figure 1 Response of loose, saturated cohesionless tailings under monotonic and cyclic loading (after Davis et al. 2002) According to Martin and McRoberts (1998), in the ESA method, effective stresses during shear are assumed unchanged from those that existed immediately prior to the onset of shear. In other words, failure is calculated as the failure shear stress corresponds to the in-situ effective stresses using the effective failure envelope, at point F, as marked in Fig. 1a. This method may be applicable to dense, dilative soil where the excess pore pressure generated during shear is very small or negative.
590

SLOPE AND STABILITY WALLs

COMMON GROUND PROCEEDINGS 10TH AUSTRaLIa NEW ZEaLaND CONFERENCE ON GEOMECHaNICS BRISbaNE

However, the use of post-liquefaction strength may be problematic. Firstly, granular soil or tailings have to be very loose to exhibit a contractive behavior as shown in Fig. 1. Many granular soil or tailings at its in-situ density may not liquefy under static, undrained conditions. Secondly, the value Sus cannot be defined properly. As the post-liquefaction strength, Sus, should be measured from a test where the soil liquefies. However, once a soil liquefies, the sample will collapse suddenly from the point where liquefaction is initiated, e.g., the peak point P in Fig. 1 (Chu and Leong, 2001). Thus the stresses and strains in the post-peak region cannot be measured properly. The so-called post-liquefaction strength is, in fact, measured as the post-strain softening behaviour, where the specimen does not collapse and only the shear stress is reduced gradually till the ultimate state, which may or may not be constant. It has been demonstrated experimentally by Chu and Leong (2001) that the post-peak behavior during strain softening and instability (or liquefaction) is quite different. Therefore, the Sus obtained from tests with strain softening may not be relevant to soil or tailings that liquefy. Thirdly, the stress state after strain softening is on the critical state line (CSL), as shown in Fig. 1. The study of Chu et al (2003) have shown that the stress ratio at which instability occurs is generally smaller than the stress ratio at critical state for loose sand. Furthermore, for granular soil or tailings with relatively large permeability, the assumption of undrained under static loading conditions may not be reasonable. There are cases where instability or static liquefaction occurred under essentially drained conditions. In a recent reanalysis of the Wachusett Dam failure in 1907, Olson et al. (2000) concluded that the failure was mainly triggered by static liquefaction that occurred under completely drained conditions. Through laboratory model tests, Eckersley (1990) observed that the pore water pressure increase in the gentle granular soil slope was a result, rather than the cause of flowslide. In other words, the flowslide took place under a drained condition. In these cases, failures appear to be triggered by a mechanism similar to static liquefaction although the drainage condition prior to failure is not undrained. If this is the case, equilibrium analysis using the peak friction angle may not be applicable either.

(a) (b) Figure 2 Failure mechanisms identified by NRC (1985): (a). Mechanism B for the situation where void redistributes within a globally undrained sand layer; (b). Mechanism C for the situation where failure is induced by spreading of excess pore pressure with global volume changes. Instability or liquefaction of sand may also occur under other non-undrained conditions (Chu et al. 1993; Chu and Leong 2001). Failure mechanisms related to a redistribution of void ratio within a globally undrained sand layer (Fig. 2) and spreading of excess pore pressure with global volume changes (Fig. 2) have been envisaged by NRC (1985) as Mechanisms B and C, respectively. The possibility of dilating behaviour of soil masses prior to slope collapse is also observed in several case studies. Been et al. (1988) argued that the Nerlerk berm failure case might have occurred for dilative sand which lies below the steady state line. Several other cases of flow slide failure in dilative sand have also been presented by Been et al. (1988). Therefore, in addition to liquefaction under undrained conditions, there are other types of failure mechanisms that control the stability of granular slope. However, instability (as defined here as a behaviour in which large plastic strains are generated rapidly due to the inability of a soil element to
SLOPE AND STABILITY WALLs
591

COMMON GROUND 07

However, for loose, contractive soil where positive excess pore pressure is generated, this method is unconservative, as failure occurs at point Sus or P, not at point F, as shown in Fig. 1a. In the USA method, the undrained shear strength is defined as the post-liquefaction strength, Sus, as shown in Fig. 1a. As elaborated by Martin and McRoberts (1998), for contractive materials, design analyses must include both undrained strength analysis (USA) and effective stress analysis (ESA), with design controlled by the analysis type giving the lowest factor of safety. For dilative or fully drained materials, only ESA is required.

COMMON GROUND PROCEEDINGS 10TH AUSTRaLIa NEW ZEaLaND CONFERENCE ON GEOMECHaNICS BRISbaNE

COMMON GROUND 07

sustain a given stress) under other than undrained conditions, such as fully drained conditions, has seldom been studied. The mechanisms of instability of dilating sand have not been properly investigated either. A research program on the instability behaviour of granular soil has been carried out at the Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, in the past years. The objective of this paper is to illustrate two new failure mechanisms using experimental data, that is, the instability of granular soil under drained condition and the instability of granular soil under nonundrained (i.e., other than undrained) conditions. 2 INSTABILITY OF GRANULAR SOIL UNDER DRAINED CONDITIONS

It is well known that when a loose sand specimen is sheared along an undrained path, an effective stress path as typically shown in Fig. 3a will be obtained. Point A is the peak of effective stress path. If the test is conducted under a deformation-controlled condition, strain-softening behaviour that is characterized by a reduction in deviator stress will manifest. On the other hand, if the test is conducted under a load-controlled condition, the specimen will become unstable at point A. This behaviour has often been referred to as static liquefaction. The line, which connects the top of the effective stress paths, has been called the instability line. The zone between the instability line and the failure line (or the critical state line) is called the zone of potential instability.
500

180
400

Failure point from Zone of potential instability

q, Deviator Stress (kPa)

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20

300 400

q, Deviator Stress (kPa)

drained test

300

Critical state line

CU21 CU26 CU20 CU44 INS3

ec 0.864 0.888 0.916 0.972 1.014

CU21 CU26 CU20 CU44

200

Instability line

100

A
0 100 200

0 p', Mean Effective Stress (kPa)

0 0 50 100 150 200 p', Mean Normal Effective Stress (kPa)

(a) (b) Figure 3 Instability of loose sand under undrained conditions It needs to be pointed out that the instability line is not unique, but varies with the void ratio of sand and the applied effective mean stress. Fig. 3b shows the effective stress paths obtained from a series of isotropic consolidated undrained (CIU) tests conducted on specimens with different consolidation void ratios, ec, but under the same mean effective stress. It can be seen from Fig. 3b that the smaller the ec, the higher the instability line. It has also been established that instability will not occur for loose sand under a drained condition if the stress state imposed at a point (for example, at point A in Fig. 3a) does not change (Chu and Leong, 2001). However, the stress state of a soil element along a slope is changing. For example, during water infiltration, a soil element along a slope may follow a constant shear drained (CSD) effective stress path, as suggested by Brand (1981). Along this stress path, the shear stress is considered constant but the mean effective stress is reducing. The instability behaviour of sand along a CSD path has been examined experimentally. The results of a typical test, DR7, are shown in Fig. 4. The loose sand specimen (with a void ratio ec = 0.945) was firstly sheared to point A along a drained path (Fig. 4a). The deviator stress at point A is q = 150 kPa. On the q = constant path, the confining stress was reduced at a rate of 1 kPa/min, resulting a stress path moving from point A to point B (Fig. 4a). There were little axial and volumetric strain developments until point B where both axial and volumetric strains started to develop at a faster rate, as shown in Figs. 4b and 4c. This can be seen more obviously from Fig. 4d which shows that the axial strain rate shot up at point B, indicating an unstable behaviour. Using point B, the instability line can be determined as shown in Fig. 4a. With further reduction in the confining stress, the stress path moved further toward the CSL. However, at this stage the axial and volumetric strain rates had increased to such an extent that the testing system could not catch up to maintain q to be constant. It needs to be pointed out
592

SLOPE AND STABILITY WALLs

COMMON GROUND PROCEEDINGS 10TH AUSTRaLIa NEW ZEaLaND CONFERENCE ON GEOMECHaNICS BRISbaNE

300 250 q, Deviator Stress (kPa) 200 150 100 50 0 0 100 200 300 p', Mean Effective Stress (kPa)

160

9 Axial or Volumetric Strain (%)

DR7, ec = 0.945
Confining Stress (kPa)

140

A B

a 3

8 7 6 5 4

CSL

IL B A

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 20

A A
40

B B
60 80

v
100

2 1 0 120

t, Tim e (min)

(a)
0.16 0.14 d a/dt, Strain Rate (%/min) 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00
A B

(b)

9 8 Axial or Volumetric Strain (%) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 p', Mean Effective Stress (kPa)

a

v

B A B A

20

40

60

80

100

t, Time (min)

(c)

(d)

Figure 4 Instability of loose sand under a drained condition with reduction in confining stress. 3 INSTABILITY OF DENSE GRANULAR SOIL UNDER NON-UNDRAINED CONDITIONS

For dense sand, instability will not occur under undrained conditions, as concluded by Chu et al. (1993). As there is no reason why a soil has to deform under a completely undrained condition, a soil element could be subjected to other than non-undrained conditions. This non-undrained condition can be modelled experimentally by strain path with d v/dcontrolled. When dv/d> 0 is imposed on dense sand, the pore water pressure will decrease and instability will not occur. However, when an adequate dilative dv/d is imposed, the pore water pressure will increase and instability becomes a possibility. Figure 5(a) presents the effective stress paths resulting from two stability tests, Z01 and Z10, on dense sand. In conducting the tests, the specimens were first sheared along a drained path with 30' = 150 kPa to a stress ratio of q/p' = 1.36 and 0.75 (or 1'/3' = 3.5 and 2.0) for tests Z01 and Z10 respectively. The external loads, i.e., the axial load and the cell pressure, were then maintained constant to conduct an instability check along a strain path of dv/d. Under these conditions, instability occurred for Test Z01, but not for Test Z10. When instability occurred in Test Z01, the axial strain and the pore-water pressure increased suddenly, as shown in Figs. 5(b) and 5(c). Physically it was observed that the specimen collapsed suddenly, i.e., pre-failure instability had occurred. It needs to be pointed out that the instability shown in Fig. 5 was not due to the control of a negative strain increment ratio alone. This is testified by Test Z10 (Fig. 5) where instability did not occur along a strain path the same as that for Test Z01. More examples are given by Chu et al. (1993). The observed instability was not due to strain localization or rate/time effect either, as explained by Chu et al. (1993). Instability only occurs when appropriate conditions are met.
SLOPE AND STABILITY WALLs
593

COMMON GROUND 07

that the pore water pressure did not change during the whole test. Therefore, instability in the form of a rapid increase in plastic strains is observed under a fully drained condition. It should be noted that this type of drained instability can occur for both dense and loose sand (Chu et al. 2003).

3,

COMMON GROUND PROCEEDINGS 10TH AUSTRaLIa NEW ZEaLaND CONFERENCE ON GEOMECHaNICS BRISbaNE

COMMON GROUND 07

400 q, Deviator stress (kPa) 300 200

Failure Line

Z01
Axial strain (%)

12 10 8 6 4 2 0
600

Test Z01

Z10
100 0 0 100 200 300

Onset of instability check

(a)
400 500 p', Mean normal effective stress (kPa)

Onset of instability check

a,

(b)
4
t, Time (min)

250 Pore water pressure (kPa) 200 150 100 50 0 0 2 4 t, Tim e (m in) 6

Test Z01

Run-off

(c)
8

Figure 5 Instability test of dense sand under non-undrained conditions: (a) effective stress paths for Tests Z01 and Z10, (b) axial strain versus time curve for Test Z01, (c) pore pressure versus time curve for Test Z01.

INSTABILITY CONDITIONS UNDER UNDRAINED OR DRAINED CONDITIONS

Based on the testing results, a relationship between the slope of instability line and the consolidated void ratio of sand ec (which is equivalent to the in-situ void ratio for a slope) can be established as shown in Fig. 6a. This relationship can be replotted into Fig. 6b using the state parameter to take the effect of stress level into consideration. In Fig. 6b, the same relationship established under plane-strain conditions is also shown (Wanatowski and Chu 2007) for comparison. This relationship can be used to assess the stability of granular soil slopes or tailing dams. It should be pointed out that the relationship established under axisymmetric conditions may not be used directly for plane-strain problems. The relationships established in Figs. 6 are applicable to instability under both undrained and drained conditions, as discussed in detail by Chu et al. (2003). Therefore, these relationships can be used in slope stability without knowing whether the drained or undrained conditions will prevail. These relationships can be used directly into slope stability problem. Knowing the state parameter of a soil element, the slope of instability, IL, can be determined using Fig. 6b. The IL can be converted into an effective stress friction angle. The critical state friction angle is related to IL at = 0. The IL value (or friction angle) reduces with increasing and are all smaller than the IL value (or friction angle) at critical state. Therefore, the use of critical friction angle in the design of granular slope might lead to unconservative design.
IL

Slope of Instability Line,

IL

1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
CU21

CIU triaxial tests CKoU triaxial tests

CU26 K0U1 CU20 K0U3 CU44

Slope of Instability Line,

1.6

K0U4

1.2

Triaxial (CIU) Triaxial (CKoU) Plane-strain (CKoU)

0.8
Plane-strain Triaxial

Void Ratio, ec

0.4 0.00

0.04

0.08

0.12

State Parameter,

(a) (b) Figure 6 Relationship between slope of instability and the void ratio or the state parameter
594

SLOPE AND STABILITY WALLs

COMMON GROUND PROCEEDINGS 10TH AUSTRaLIa NEW ZEaLaND CONFERENCE ON GEOMECHaNICS BRISbaNE

CONCLUSIONS

Post-liquefaction undrained shear strength, Sus, has been used for the design of tailings dams. However, this approach is problematic as explained in the paper. The main problems include that the assumption of an undrained condition is questionable for tailings with relatively high permeability and the fact that Sus cannot be defined properly, particularly when in-situ test data are used. Many granular soil or tailings at its in-situ density may not liquefy under static, undrained conditions either. It is demonstrated in this paper that granular soil can become unstable under drained or non-undrained conditions. Two possible new failure mechanisms for tailings dams are proposed. The first is that the dams can fail under a constant shear drained conditions when the mean effective stress is being reduced due to water infiltration or lateral stress change. The conditions for drained instability are the same as that for undrained instability, as discussed in the paper. Therefore, the relationships shown in Fig. 6 can be used in slope stability analysis without knowing whether a drained or undrained condition prevails. It should be pointed out that under undrained conditions only loose sand becomes unstable, whereas under drained conditions, instability can occur for both loose and dense granular soil (Chu et al, 2003). The stress ratio required to trigger instability for loose sand can be much smaller that that at critical state, and it increases with increasing density (Chu et al., 2003). The second failure mechanism is that granular soil at any density can become unstable under non-undrained conditions, that is, when water infiltration or migration from one area causes soil in other areas to dilate. The conditions for this type of instability were established elsewhere (Chu et al. 1993; Chu and Leong, 2001). This mechanism has been used to explain the mechanisms of failures due to post-liquefaction flow. REFERENCES Been, K. Conlin, B. H. Crooks, J. H. A. Fitzpatrick, S. W. Jefferies, M. G. Rogers, B. T. & Shinde, S. (1988). Back analysis of the Nerlerk berm liquefaction slides: Discussion. Can. Geotech. J., 24, 170-179. Blight, G. E.& Fourie, A. B. (2005). Catastrophe revisited disastrous flow failures on mine and municipal solid waste. Geot. & Geol. Eng., 23, 219-248. Brand, E. W. (1981). Some thoughts on rain-induced slope failures. Proc.10th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Eng., 3, 373-376. Stockholm. Chu, J. & Leong, W. K. (2001). Pre-failure strain softening and pre-failure instability of sand: a comparative study. Geotechnique, 51(4), 311-321. Chu, J., Leroueil, S., & Leong, W. K. (2003). Unstable behaviour of sand and its implications for slope instability. Can. Geotech. J., 40, 873-885. Chu, J. Lo, S-C. R. & Lee, I. K. (1993). Instability of granular soils under strain path testing. J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE, 119(5), 874-892. Davies, M, McRoberts, E. C. & Martin, T. E. (2002). Static liquefaction of tailings fundamentals and case histories. Proc. Tailings Dams 2002, ASDSO/USCOLD, Las Vegas, Eckersley, J. D. (1985). Flowslides in stockpiled coal, Engineering Geology, 22, 13-22. Eckersley, J. D. (1990). Instrumented laboratory flowslides. Geotechnique 40(3): 489-502. Martin, T. E. & McRoberts, E. C. (1998). Some considerations in the stability analysis of upstream tailings dams, Tailings and Mine Waste 99, Fort Collins, Colorado, 287-302. National Research Council (1985). Liquefaction of soils during earthquakes. Committee on Earthquake Engineering, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, USA. Olson, S. M. Stark, T. D. Walton, W. H. & Castro, G. (2000). 1907 static liquefaction flow failure of the north dike of Wachusett dam, J. Geotech. & Geoenv. Eng., ASCE, 126(12), 1184-1193. Sento, N. Kazama, M. Uzuoka, R. Ohmura H. & Ishimaru M. (2004). Possibility of Postliquefaction Flow Failure due to Seepage. J. Geotech. & Geoenv. Eng., ASCE, 130(7), 707-716. Wanatowski, D. & Chu, J. (2007). Static liquefaction of sand in plane-strain. To appear in Can. Geotech. J. Wright, B. G. (2006). Slope failure mechanisms in hydraulically placed coarse sand tailings. Australian Geomechanics, 41(3), 169-183.
SLOPE AND STABILITY WALLs
595

COMMON GROUND 07

The conditions for instability under non-undrained conditions have been established by Chu et al. (1993, Chu & Leong, 2001). These conditions have been used to explain the mechanisms of failures due to post-liquefaction flow (Sento et al. 2004).