Jack A.

C a l d w e l l
Allan S. E. Moss
Steffen, Robertson and Kirsten (B.C.), Inc.

Since 1979, Jack Caldwell has worked i n North

America w i t h Steffen, Robertson and K i r s t e n (SRK) on
t h e design o f t a i l i n g s impoundments and mine waste-
rock dumps. C u r r e n t l y he i s D i v i s i o n Head f o r t a i l -
i n g s p r o j e c t s and i s s t a t i o n e d i n Denver. He was
educated a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f t h e Witwatersrand
(M.S. and LL.B.) and l e c t u r e d t h e r e f o r f i v e years
i n Geotechnical Engineering. Subsequently he worked
w i t h SRK i n Johannesburg on t h e design and c o n s t r u c -
t i o n of t a i l i n g s impoundments f o r wastes from a
g r e a t v a r i e t y o f ore types.

A l l a n Moss i s D i v i s i o n Head r e s p o n s i b l e f o r r o c k
e n g i n e e r i n g and engineering geology f o r c i v i 1 and
m i n i n g p r o j e c t s w i t h S t e f f e n , Robertson and K i r s t e n
(SRK) i n Vancouver. Previously, he was w i t h SRK i n
South A f r i c a where he completed many rock mechanics
and waste dump designs and i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . He ob-
t a i n e d h i s B.S. (Hons) degree f r a n t h e U n i v e r s i t y of
S t r a t h c l y d e i n 1971.
INTRODUCTION
The design and o p e r a t i o n o f a mine waste dump
i n v o l v e e v a l u a t i n g t h e s t a b i l i t y o f t h e dump and
assessing t h e r i s k and consequences o f i t s f a i l u r e .
D u r i n g mining, a w e l l - o p e r a t e d dump does n o t have t o
be c o m p l e t e l y s t a b l e . P r o v i d e d t h e mode o f p o t e n -
t i a l f a i l u r e i s understood., and m o n i t o r i n g i s done
t o d e t e c t impending f a i l u r e , s t e p s can be t a k e n t o
a v o i d u n d e s i r a b l e consequences o f f a i 1ure. Hence,
t h e dump can be operated s a f e l y and economical l y .
( 1 9 8 1 ) . and t h e r e a d e r i s r e f e r r e d t o F i g . 1 o f t h i s
e a r l i e r paper f o r a g r a p h i c a l p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a l t e r -
natives. Common methods used i n c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e s e
v a r i o u s forms a r e i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g . 1. End-dumped
s l o p e s a r e formed by a process o f c o n t r o l l e d f a i l -
ure; t h e f a c t o r o f s a f e t y o f t h e dump f a c e i s ,
accordingly, c l o s e t o one. The s l o p e a n g l e i s
u s u a l l y c l o s e t o t h e a n g l e o f f r i c t i o n o f t h e dumped
m a t e r i a l , and t h e s l o p e s a r e steep. At closure,
such s l o p e s may be f l a t t e n e d by c o n v e n t i o n a l e a r t h -
moving t o p r o v i d e s l o p e s s u i t e d t o r e c l a m a t i o n .

The t y p e o f i n s t a b i l i t y and t h e most a p p r o p r i - L a y e r - p l a c e d embankments, F i g . 1, a r e c o n s t r u c -

a t e s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s f o r a waste r o c k dump depends t e d f r o m t h e b o t t o m up. Hence, c o n t r o l o f t h e o v e r -
on: ( 1 ) method used t o c o n s t r u c t t h e dump, ( 2 ) t o - a l l s l o p e a n g l e i s more e a s i l y accomplished. Heaped
pography o f t h e dump s i t e , ( 3 ) f o u n d a t i o n c o n d i t i o n s embankments, F i g . 1, a r e n o r m a l l y found i n s t r i p
a t t h e dump s i t e , ( 4 ) p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of mine o p e r a t i o n s where a d r a g l i n e dumps m a t e r i a l i n
t h e waste rock, and ( 5 ) water t a b l e o r p o r e p r e s s u r e p r e v i o u s l y mined areas.
t h a t develops i n t h e dump.

Simple methods o f s t u d y i n g t h e s t a b i l i t y o f a
dump a r e r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e , and t h e s e a r e h e l p f u l t o
i d e n t i f y and understand t h e mode o f f a i l u r e . The
assessment o f t h e f a i l u r e r i s k must a l s o be s i m p l e
i f such an approach i s t o be an i n t e r g r a l p a r t of
p r a c t i c a l dump o p e r a t i o n .
T h i s paper surveys e x i s t i n g simp1 if i e d methods
o f a n a l y z i n g t h e s t a b i l i t y o f waste r o c k embank-
ments. I n p a r t i c u l a r , a method c a l l e d t h e y=O meth-
od i s used t o c a l c u l a t e t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f f a i l u r e
o f a waste dump. Examples o f t h e use o f t h e methods
d e s c r i b e d a r e given.
DEFINITION OF DUMP CONSTRUCTION
METHODS
Rock waste dumps can be c l a s s i f i e d under t w o
general c r i t e r i a : ( 1 ) topography o f dump s i t e , and
( 2 ) method o f dump c o n s t r u c t i o n .
DUMP FAILURE MODE
The v a r i o u s f a i l u r e modes t h a t can o c c u r i n
mine waste embankments a r e shown i n F i g . 2. The
f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g and consequences o f each o f t h e s e
f a i l u r e modes a r e l i s t e d i n Table 1. The methods
used t o a n a l y z e t h e p o t e n t i a l f a i l u r e modes a r e
l i s t e d i n T a b l e 2. Examples o f t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e
v a r i o u s f a i 1u r e modes a r e d i s c u s s e d i n subsequent
s e c t i o n s o f t h i s paper.
S u r f a c e o r edge s l i d e s may o c c u r as m a t e r i a l
moves down t h e slope. T h i s mode o f f a i l u r e i s most
l i k e l y t o o c c u r i n end-dumped embankments and i s

\
\-
The l o c a t i o n o f t h e dump i n r e l a t i o n t o t o p o -
graphy has been d i s c u s s e d by T a y l o r and Greenwood SURFACE OR EDGE SLIDES

COVER

END - DUMPED EMGANKMENTS

SHALLOW FLOW SLIDES BASE FAILURE (SPREADING)

\\----

--a- - 4 E z b - LAYER-PLACED EMBANKMENTS

SOlL COVER

BLOCK TRANSLATION
FOUNDATION CIRCULAR
SOFT SOlL

FAILURE
FAILING MASS

HEAPED EMBANKMENTS
-\
CIRCULAR ARC FAILURE TOE SPREADING

Fig. 1. Mine waste embankment Flg. 2. Mlne waste embankment

placement methods. posslble fallure modes.
 Design of Non-Impounding Mine W a s t e Dumps

T a b l e 1. Cause and Consequence of Dump Failure

F a i l u r e Pbde I n i t i a t i n g Causes Consequences

S u r f a c e o r Edge S l i d e O v e r s t e e p e n i n g caused by a c c u m u l a t i o n o f Run-out area dependent upon f o u n d a t i o n

f i n e s o r t e m p o r a r y cohesion i n c l i n a t i o n and embankment area.
B u r i e d snow o r i c e l e n s e s General 1y o f nuisance v a l u e on1y ( d i s-
r u p t s e f f i c i e n t dumpi ng o p e r a t i o n s ) .

S h a l l o w Flow S l i d e I n f i l t r a t i o n o f r a i n o r snowmelt F a i l u r e can cover l a r g e d i s t a n c e s r a p i d -

ly.
Can cause s u b s t a n t i a1 damage. Temporary
suspension o f dumping o p e r a t i o n s .

B l ock T r a n s l a t i o n Me1t ing snow o r groundwater Dependent on n a t u r a l ground slope.

Decay o f o r g a n i c m a t t e r Can r e s u l t in suspension of dumping
operations.
Earthquakes

C i r c u l a r Arc F a i l u r e E x c e s s i v e h e i g h t ( c o h e s i v e m a t e r i a1 ) D i s t u r b a n c e i n i t i a l l y l i m i t e d t o immedi-
a t e v i c i n i t y o f slope.
Reduction i n t o e support
P a r t i a l l o s s o f dump.

Base F a i l u r e Excessive pore pressure D i s t u r b a n c e i n i t i a l l y l i m i t e d t o immedi-

a t e v i c i n i t y o f slope.
E x c e s s i ve h e i g h t
P r o g r e s s i v e movement i f dumping c o n t i n -
Decay o f o r g a n i c m a t t e r ues.
Earthquakes Intermittent suspension of dumping
operations.

F o u n d a t i o n C i r c u l a r Arc Weak f o u n d a t i o n m a t e r i a l s Major d i s t u r b a n c e .

Excessive pore pressure Loss o f dump.

Toe Spreading Weak f o u n d a t i o n m a t e r i a l s O f t e n s i g n a l s on-set o f base f a i l u r e o r

block translation.
Excess p o r e p r e s s u r e i n f o u n d a t i o n

b e s t e v a l u a t e d by t h e e q u a t i o n s d e s c r i b i n g t h e s t a -
b i l i t y of an i n f i n i t e s l o p e . I f s u f f i c i e n t water
e n t e r s t h e s l o p e and f l o w s p a r a l l e l t o t h e f a c e , a
s h a l l o w f l o w s l i d e may occur. The l i k e l i h o o d o f
s a t u r a t i o n o f t h e rock mass must be c o n s i d e r e d
b e f o r e a p p l y i n g e q u a t i o n s f o r an i n f i n i t e s l o p e
p a r a l l e l t o t h e dump face.
Dumps p l a c e d on f l a t ground o f competent s o i l
are least l i k e l y t o fail. However, i f t h e f l a t
ground i s covered by a t h i n l a y e r o f weak m a t e r i a l ,
base f a i l u r e may o c c u r ; see f o r example B l i g h t
(1969). I f t h e ground i s i n c l i n e d , base f a i l u r e i s
more l i k e l y t o occur. T h i s mode may o c c u r i n b o t h
t h e end-dumped and l a y e r p l a c e d embankments.
B l o c k t r a n s l a t i o n i s l i k e l y t o o c c u r where a
dump i s formed on i n c l i n e d ground and t h e s o i l c o v e r
i s r e l a t i v e l y t h i n and weak. Unusually high water
t a b l e s i n t h e embankment, e a r t h q u a k e s , o r t h e decay
o f o r g a n i c m a t e r i a l beneath t h e dump may i n i t i a t e
f a i l u r e o f t h i s type. The l i k e l i h o o d o f such f a i l -
u r e may be e v a l u a t e d by a n a l y z i n g t h e b l o c k as a
s l i d i n g r i g i d body.
C i r c u l a r a r c f a i l u r e t h r o u g h t h e dump m a t e r i a l
i s most l i k e l y t o o c c u r where t h e dump i s formed on
a competent f o u n d a t i o n , and where t h e dump m a t e r i a l
c o n t a i n s a s i g n i f i c a n t percentage o f f i n e g r a i n
soil. The s t a b i l i t y o f a dump w i t h r e s p e c t t o such
f a i l u r e may be e v a l u a t e d u s i n g any o f a number o f
c h a r t s o r c i r c u l a r a r c f a i l u r e methods.
S i m i l a r l y , a c i r c u l a r a r c f a i l u r e s u r f a c e may
d e v e l o p t h r o u g h a deep f o u n d a t i o n c o n s i s t i n g o f f i n e
grained soils. Such f a i l u r e may be analyzed by c i r -
c u l a r a r c methods o r by b e a r i n g c a p a c i t y a n a l y s i s .
Toe s p r e a d i n g s t a r t s w i t h l o c a l y i e l d i n g o f
f o u n d a t i o n m a t e r i a l a t t h e o u t e r edge o f t h e dump.
It o f t e n i n d i c a t e s t h e onset o f major base f a i l u r e
o r t r a n s l a t i o n o f t h e dump, and t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r
t h i s f o r m o f f a i l u r e can be a n a l y z e d by s t u d y i n g t h e
s t r e s s e s t h a t o c c u r a t t h e boundary o f a f r i c t i o n a l
mass.
DUMP SHEAR STRENGTH
The p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e waste rock
a f f e c t t h e s t a b i l i t y o f t h e dump. I n most i n s t a n c e s
where t h e rock i s competent, t h e e f f e c t i v e a n g l e o f
f r i c t i o n o f t h e r o c k i s about 37'. Fig. 3, t a k e n
f r o m Leps (1970), indicates the variation of
s h e a r i n g s t r e n g t h f o r a wide range o f rocks. Waste
 Simplified Stability Analysis

Table 2. Simplified Methods of Analysis for Waste Dumps

F a i l u r e nDde Simplified k t h o d s Model D e s c r i p t i o n Paraneters

o f Analysis

C + yD cos0 t a n S a f e t y f a c t o r (F) i s t h e r a t i o o f
1. Surface I n f i n i t e slope: s l i d i n g surface
F - y ~s i n g + Y D a/:
o r Edge p a r a l l e l t o slope, o n l y t h e s t r e s s e s a v a i l a b l e shear s t r e n g t h t o t h e m o b i -
Slide See a l s o T a b l e 3. i n t h e s l i d i n g surface together w i t h l i z e d shear strength. U n i t weight
t h e weight o f t h e s o i l e n t e r i n t o y. Cohesion (C). Angle o f s h e a r i n g
t h e l i m i t i n g e q u i l i b r i u m analysis. r e s i s t a n c e (+). Slope a n g l e ( 6 ) .
Depth t o s l i d i n g s u r f a c e (D). Seismic
acceleration a c t i n g paral l e l t o slope
(a). A c c e l e r a t i o n due t o g r a v i t y ( g ) .
tan+ '
F=y'/" - F,g,+, same as edge s l i d e . Submerged
2. Shallow Same as edge s l i d e model e x c e p t
Flow
'
tang
seepage added a c t i n g p a r a l 1e l t o u n i t weight ( y ' ) . Saturated u n i t
Slide S t a b i l i t y Chart: slope. weight (y).
Shallow f l o w s l i d e s ,
Vandre, 1 980. I n f i l t r a t i o n causes a s a t u r a t e d - Minimum 24-hour r u n o f f s u p p l y f o r
v e r t i c a l penetrating-wetting f r o n t w e t t i n g f r o n t advance (0-12 i n c h e s ) , %
t o d e v e l o p which e n a b l e s seepage s a t u r a t i o n , p o r o s i t y . and permeabi 1 i t y
p a r a l l e l t o t h e slope. coefficient (3 x to cm/sec).

3. Block Wedge S t a b i 1it y The dump i s t a k e n as a r i g i d body Weight o f rock, geometry, and s t r e n g t h
Transla- Analysis t h a t may s l i d e down an i n c l i n e d a l o n g f a i l u r e plane.
tion plane. Use s t a n d a r d e q u a t i o n s f r o m
statics.

4. C i r c u l a r Hoeks c h a r t s (1 977). The f a i l u r e o f zone i s t a k e n as a M a t e r i a1 s t r e n g t h , s l o p e geometry.

Arc Any c i r c u l a r a r c c i r c u l a r body t h a t s l i d e s .
Failure f a i l u r e method (eg
Bishop). See a l s o
Hunter and Schuster.

5. Base
F a i 1u r e

a. Founda- Chart: S t a b i l i t y E q u i l i b r i u m o f a system o f wedges Unconsol i d a t e d - u n d r a i n e d s h e a r

tion c o e f f i c i e n t (r/yH)
Spreading vs s l o p e o f founda-
t i o n , B l i g h t , 1981.
beneath a slope. The shear s t r e s s s t r e n g t h (T), u n i t weight ( y ) , slope
e q u a l s t h e h o r i z o n t a l component o f o f f o u n d a t i o n (0-15"), h e i g h t o f s l o p e
t h r u s t f r o m t h e a c t i v e wedge d i v i d e d measured. Embankment (+) r a n g e s
by t h e l e n g t h o f t h e base o f t h e between 30-40". T / ~ Hranges between
p a s s i v e wedge. S l i d i n g surface f o r 0.04-0.10. Safety f a c t o r i s t h e r a t i o
a c t i v e wedge i n c l i n e d r e l a t i v e t o between a v a i l a b l e T and t h e
h o r i z o n t a l a t 45" + 4/2. Sliding m o b i l i z e d T.
s u r f a c e f o r p a s s i v e wedge a l o n g
foundation i n t e r f a c e (passive r e s i s-
tance o f foundation ignored). Slope
a n g l e ( 6 ) e q u a l s embankment (6).

Chart: C r i t i c a l Ti Wedge geometry s i m i 1a r t o B l i g h t ' s Unconsol i d a t e d - u n d r a i ned s h e a r

vs tana, Vandre, model. F o r c e s on each wedge normal strength (c) ranges between 1000-7000
1 980. t o and p a r a l l e l t o t h e s l i d i n g psf. U n i t w e i g h t i s 120 p c f . Tangent
s u r f a c e s a r e i n e q u i 1ibrium. R e s u l - o f f o u n d a t i o n s l o p e ranges between O-
t a n t h o r i z o n t a l component f o r a c t i v e 0.5. Embankment (+) ranges between
and p a s s i v e wedges a r e o p p o s i t e and 30-36". Slope a n g l e i s 37".
equal.

Chart: C r i t i c a l S i m i l a r t o above model e x c e p t con- Minimum l e n g t h o f s l i d i n g s u r f a c e o f

dumping r a t e vs s t a n t d i s t r i b u t i o n o f excess p o r e p a s s i v e wedge i s 10 ft. F o u n d a t i o n
consol id a t ion c o e f - pressure w i t h a s i n g l e drainage t h i c k n e s s i s 5 o r 10 ft. Embankment
f i c i e n t o f founda- d i r e c t i on. ( + J i s 36". Cv ranges between 1 - 6
t i o n (Cv), Vandre, f t /day. F o u n d a t i o n (+) r a n g e s
1 980. between 30-36".
 Design o f Non-Impounding Mine W a s t e Dumps

Table 2. Simplified Methods of Analysis for Waste Dumps (Continued)

F a i 1u r e M e Simp1 if ie d #t hods M e 1 Description Parameters

o f Analysis

b. Base Chart : Required Same as B l i g h t ' s f o u n d a t i o n spread- $ f ranges between 5-30'. 1 ranges
Transla- angle o f shearing ing model. between 0-1 5". Embankment ( + ) ranges
t i o n (toe r e s i s t a n c e of foun- between 30-40".
wedges) d a t i o n ( $ ) vs
slope o f Foundation
( i ) , B l i g h t , 1981.

Chart: C r i t i c a l Same as Vandre's f o u n d a t i o n spread- $ f ranges between 10-42". a ranges

angle o f shearing i n g model. A l s o i n c l u d e s T r o l l o p e ' s between 0-37'. Embankment +
ranges
resistance o f foun- ( 1 977) p o i n t - t o - p o i n t s t r e s s a n a l y - between 30-37'. 0 ranges between 18-
d a t i o n ( $ f ) vs s i s f o r h i s f u l l arching condition. 37".
s l o p e 0 , founda-
t i o n ( a ) , Vandre,
1981 (R).

Chart: C r i t i c a l S i m i l a r t o above w i t h t h e a d d i t i o n Tana ranges between 0-0.5. Seismic

seismic c o e f f i c i e n t of a horizontal seismic force acting c o e f f i c i e n t ranges between 0-0.4 g.
vs s l o p e o f founda- a t the v e r t i c a l i n t e r f a c e o f the U n i t weight i s 120 p c f . Embankment
t i o n (tana) , a c t i v e and p a s s i v e wedge. ranges between 30-36', slope angle
Vandre, 1980. ranges between 18-37'.

6. Founda- Bearing Capacity The dump i s assumed t o a c t as a Dump geometry weight, s t r e n g t h of

t i on Charts. See a l s o l o a d i n g on a f o u n d a t i o n s o i l . The subsoil.
Circular F i g . 5. s u b s o i l may f a i l by t h e f o r m a t i o n o f
Arc a c i r c u l a r arc f a i l u r e surface
beneath t h e dump.

7. Toe Tab1 e : Requi r e d $ determined g r a p h i c a l l y u s i n g Mohr $ ranges between 5-44.3'. a ranges

Spreading Angle o f F r i c t i o n dfagram f o r t h e s t a t e of A c t i v e bltween 5-40'. Embankment ( + ) ranges
($a) i n I n c l i n e d Rankine e q u i l i b r i u m . between 5-45'. Slope angle ranges
Base o f Slope o f between 5-45'.
Cohesionless Soi 1 ,
Brauns, 1980. See
Table 4.

r o c k i s d i f f i c u l t t o t e s t i n t h e l a b o r a t o r y , and t h e
s t r e n g t h determined from Fig. 3 i s u s u a l l y s u f f i -
c i e n t l y accurate. I f t h e rock i s n o t sound and may
d e t e r i o r a t e w i t h t i m e , l o n g - t e r m i n t e g r i t y must be
evaluated. Vandre (1980) recommends s u i t a b l e t e s t
procedures.

The shear s t r e n g t h o f waste m a t e r i a l s i s d i s -

cussed f u r t h e r by C a l l (1981).

WATER AND DUMP STABILITY

Water and t h e a s s o c i a t e d b u i l d - u p o f pore p r e s -
s u r e a r e p r o b a b l y t h e most common causes o f dump
failure. Too h i g h a p h r e a t i c s u r f a c e i n a dump w i l l
reduce t h e shear r e s i s t a n c e w i t h i n t h e dump t o a
p o i n t where it may f a i l . Rapid placement o f dumps
on c l a y s o i l f o u n d a t i o n s may a l s o generate excess
pore water p r e s s u r e s i n t h e f o u n d a t i o n t h a t can l e a d
t o dump f a i l u r e . I f t h e dump m a t e r i a l i s f i n e - NORMAL PRESSURE uN (PSI)
g r a i n e d , s i g n i f i c a n t p o r e p r e s s u r e may develop w i t h -
i n t h e dump as a r e s u l t o f a r a t e o f placement t h a t Fig. 3. Waste rock strengths.
i s f a s t e r t h a n t h e r a t e a t which such p r e s s u r e can
dissipate. (from Leps, 1970).
 Simplified Stability Analysis 53

SURVEY OF EXISTING DUMP STABILITY method i n which t h e f r o n t f a c e o f t h e dump i s

assumed t o be an i n f i n i t e slope. The s t a b i l i t y o r
ANALYTICAL METHODS f a c t o r o f s a f e t y f o r t h i s c o n f i g u r a t i o n can be de-
The f a c t o r o f s a f e t y o f t h e dump may be e s t i - termined using t h e appropriate equation l i s t e d i n
mated u s i n g s i m p l e e q u a t i o n s o r s t a b i l i t y c h a r t s and T a b l e 3. The e q u a t i o n s g i v e t h e f a c t o r o f s a f e t y
tables. The f a c t o r o f s a f e t y determined i n t h i s way f o r a number o f c o n d i t i o n s : a dry slope f o r both
i s a f i r s t approximation o f t h e s t a b i l i t y o f t h e s t a t i c and s e i s m i c s t a b i l i t y , a submerged s l o p e , and
dump. Such methods do n o t p r o v i d e i n s i g h t i n t o t h e a s l o p e w i t h i n which, o r f r o m which, w a t e r i s seep-
mode o f f a i l u r e o f t h e dump. Nevertheless, they are ing.
v a l u a b l e because o f t h e i r a v a i l a b i l i t y , ease o f use,
and p o t e n t i a l f o r p i n - p o i n t i n g l i k e l y f a i l u r e . Such
methods a r e u s u a l l y d e t e r m i n i s t i c , a l t h o u g h p r o c e - Example Calculations
dures e x i s t t o e s t i m a t e t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f f a i l u r e
o f t h e dump. Example 1: C a l c u l a t e t h e f a c t o r o f s a f e t y o f a r o c k
dump b u i l t a t a s l o p e o f 2 t o 1. The mean a n g l e o f
Table 2 l i s t s t h e a n a l y t i c a l methods t h a t may f r i c t i o n o f t h e r o c k i s $ = 35.0'.
be used t o s t u d y p o t e n t i a l dump i n s t a b i l i t y .
Solution: On t h e b a s i s o f h y d r o s t a t i c o r d r y con-
The s i m p l e s t method o f a s s e s s i n g t h e s t a b i l i t y d i t i o n s [ T a b l e 3),
o f a waste embankment i s t o use t h e i n f i n i t e s l o p e
tan$ - t a n 35.0
Table 3. Stability of an Infinite Slope tan0 t a n 26.6U =

The d a t a p r e s e n t e d by Brauns (1980) may be used

Hydrostatic o r d r y conditions: t o s t u d y t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f base s p r e a d i n g beneath a
dump. Table 4 gives t h e angle o f f r i c t i o n t h a t t h e
s o i l , on which t h e dump i s placed, must have i f i t
F = tanO.
tang i s t o remain s t a b l e . The r e q u i r e d a n g l e o f f r i c t i o n
o f t h e base s o i l i s g i v e n f o r d i f f e r e n t a n g l e s o f
S u k r g e d permeable boundary ( i .e., an e q u i p o t e n t i a l i n c l i n a t i o n o f t h e base, t h e s l o p e a n g l e of t h e
boundary w i t h o u t f l o w normal t o t h e s u r f a c e posi- - dump, and t h e a n g l e o f f r i c t i o n f o r t h e dump mate-
rial. The T a b l e i s u s e f u l f o r d e t e r m i n i n g what
t i v e f l o w out o f t h e f a c e ) :
s t r e n g t h o f base m a t e r i a l , on e i t h e r a h o r i z o n t a l o r
i n c l i n e d surface, i s r e q u i r e d f o r s t a b i l i t y . The
f a c t o r o f s a f e t y can be c h a r a c t e r i z e d as t h e r a t i o
o f t h e a v a i l a b l e t o t h e minimum s t r e n g t h r e q u i r e d .
Seepage face ( i - e . , f l o w p a r a l l e l t o t h e s l o p e and Example 2: Calculate t h e factor o f safety against
z e r o pore p r e s s u r e on t h e f a c e ) : base s p r e a d i n g o f t h e dump i n Example 1 i f t h e a n g l e
o f i n c l i n a t i o n , E o f t h e base i s 10'. The mean
i cosg t a n $ a n g l e o f f r i c t i o n o f t h e c o l l u v i u m on t h e base i s 6
F = c - - 'W tan$
( i + 1) s i n g = 25' and c = 0.
C Y tan0 '
Solution: From T a b l e 4, f o r E = lo", 0 = 26.6," 6 =
Seismic a c c e l e r a t i o n ( p e r p e n d i c u l a r t o t h e face, for 35', t h e r e q u i r e d a n g l e o f f r i c t i o n o f t h e base s o i l
e q u i 1ib r i u m ) : t o g i v e a f a c t o r o f s a f e t y o f F = 1.0 a g a i n s t s l i p
a t t h e t o e i s (by l i n e a r i n t e r p o l a t i o n ) a b o u t 16'.
tang
t a n $ = tan0 +-
cosg
I f one d e f i n e s t h e f a c t o r o f s a f e t y a g a i n s t such
s l i p as t h e r a t i o o f r e q u i r e d t o a c t u a l s t r e n g t h o f
t h e base s o i l , F i s 1.63.
Seismic a c c e l e r a t i o n ( h o r i z o n t a l , f o r equi 1 ib r i u m ) :
Example 3: Calculate t h e factor o f safety o f t h e
t a n $ = t a n (0 + 5). dump o f Example 1 i f i t i s p l a c e d on a c l a y l a y e r 5
m t h i c k t o a h e i g h t o f 20 m. Cohesion oJ t h e c l a y
i s c = 30 kPa, and r o c k d e n s i t y i s 18 kN/m.
Where :
Solution: I n order t o evaluate t h e s t a b i l i t y o f a
factor of safety, dump w i t h r e s p e c t t o r o t a t i o n a l f a i l u r e on a deep,
s o f t , f o u n d a t i o n s o i l , t h e dump may be t r e a t e d as a
s l o p e angle, f o o t i n g a p p l y i n g a non-uni f o r m load. This procedure
a n g l e o f f r i c t i o n o f dump m a t e r i a l , r e q u i r e s assuming t h a t t h e dump has n o s t r e n g t h .
T h i s assumption i s n o t t r u e , b u t d e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e
tanel(a) where a i s e a r t h q u a k e s u b s o i l and t h e presence o f r e s u l t i n g t e n s i o n c r a c k s
acceleration, i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e dump c o n t r i b u t e s l i t t l e t o t h e
hydraulic gradient, r e s i s t i n g forces along t h e potential f a i l u r e sur-
face. A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e assumption y i e l d s r e a s o n a b l e
c r i t i c a l h y d r a u l i c g r a d i e n t f o r dump results.
m a t e r i a l f o r upward f l o w ,
hydraulic gradient perpendicular t o The maximum l o a d - b e a r i n g c a p a c i t y o f t h e as-
s l o p e face, sumed f o o t i n g (dump) f o r a ramp l o a d i n g f u n c t i o n i s
g i v e n by W i n t e r k o r n and Fang (1975) as:
u n i t weight o f s o i l ,
u n i t w e i g h t o f water.
 Ln
W W
0

-I
9)
m

P P W P P W W P P W W N P P W W N N
gz
LnOLn L n o c n o cnocnocn c n o c n o c n o 3
0 . 0
e. 1P 1.
o m crr
22 $
QI 0
" a 5
W b
0 a
7-
3
-0
= fn-
C - C C C
wcn COY0 W 0 0
e
u w o G 0, 3
P CL
3
"7 crr
A
-. z
-* 0 -.
- 2 3
0 0 0
3 > s
NN NNN ~ r r r m5'
wcn . 0
CO N m w u c n 2
cn W m
...
m w r
-m z 0
C 0 0
3 c
0 3
=a
W W N N W N N N 0 -0
cn WUcn - P r o
..
C P
...
o c n w
an "
* mm
0 QI
W W W W W W N N N - 0
wcn u ?) 0 cn .
a p' cn
P C O N m r u
0,

P W W P W W W W W N N N
N Y c n o yro m pu
. p cn
P0 0 u cn
 Simplified Stability Analysis 55

HANGING
CRACK POSITION \ / SEGMENT
where (RF)max i s t h e maximum r e s i s t a n c e t o s l i d i n g
t h a t can be developed a l o n g t h e s l i d i n g s u r f a c e and
DF i s t h e f o r c e t e n d i n g t o produce s l i d i n g .

Now, a f o r c e , Pi, i s d e f i n e d such t h a t ,

Pi = ~(RF)max - EDF. (2)

Pi may be t h o u g h t o f as t h e f o r c e t h a t a c t s a c r o s s a
v e r t i c a l s e c t i o n such as CD ( t h e r i g h t hand s i d e o f
slice i). I f Pi i s p o s i t i v e , t h e r e i s an excess of
potential s l i d i n g resistance, the f a c t o r o f safety
o f t h e segment w i l l be g r e a t e r t h a n one, and t h e
segment BCD w i l l n o t s l i d e . I f Pi i s n e g a t i v e ,
t h e r e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t s l i d i n g resistance along t h e
f a i l u r e p l a n e t o h o l d up t h e segment; t h e f a c t o r of
s a f e t y o f t h e segment i s l e s s t h a n one, and t h e seg-
ment w i l l s l i d e .
S u b s t i t u t i n g Eq. 2 i n t o Eq. 1 gives:

I D F + Pi
F = - 1 t-
IDF EDF

I n o r d e r t o c a l c u l a t e t h e v a l u e o f Pi. and hence

F a t any v e r t i c a l s e c t i o n i n a p o t e n t i a l f a i l u r e
zone, t h e p o r t i o n o f t h e s l o p e above t h e f a i l u r e
s u r f a c e i s d i v i d e d i n t o a number o f s l i c e s as shown
i n Fig. 4. The r e l a t i o n s h i p s i d e n t i f i e d i n t h i s
Fig. 4. Geometry for Y =0 method. f i g u r e provide the basis f o r calculating the various
f o r c e s d e f i n e d by t h e f o l l o w i n g e q u a t i o n s :

(1969) a l s o d e s c r i b e s a s i m p l e way o f a s s e s s i n g t h e Wi = b.h.v,

s t a b i l i t y o f a dump on a s o f t , s h a l l o w f o u n d a t i o n . 1 1
N~ = ui -
ui = w.cosei
1 - ui,
(See t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f h i s method i n a subsequent
paper prepared f o r t h i s workshop.)
Si
= b1. c .1 /cosei .
DFi = Wisinei + aWicosei,

The Y 0 Method RF. = S.

1 1
+ N.tan$
1 i'
Pi = RFi - DFi + Pi-l,
One may e v a l u a t e t h e s t a b i l i t y o f a mine waste
embankment u s i n g t h e methods d e s c r i b e d i n t h e p r e - where
vious section. However, a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f
t h e mode and p o s s i b i l i t y o f i n s t a b i l i t y can be ob- c = c o h e s i o n on base,
t a i n e d o n l y by u s i n g more v e r s a t i l e methods. This + = f r i c t i o n a n g l e a t base,
u s u a l l y i n v o l v e s d i v i d i n g a p o t e n t i a l f a i l u r e zone a = earthquake acceleration, and
i n t o a number o f s l i c e s and c a l c u l a t i n g t h e f a c t o r U = w a t e r p r e s s u r e a t base.
o f s a f e t y by any o f t h e numerous methods a v a i l a b l e .
As l o n g as Pj i s p o s i t i v e , compressional f o r c e s
I n t h i s s e c t i o n t h e y=O method i s d e s c r i b e d and e x i s t a c r o s s v e r t i c a l p l a n e s i n t h e s l o p e and c r a c k -
recommended f o r use i n a n a l y z i n g mine waste embank- i n g wi 11 n o t occur. I n zones where Pi i s n e g a t i v e ,
ments. The y=O method i s p r e f e r r e d f o r t h e f o l l o w - t e n s i o n c r a c k s may occur. F o r t h e example shown i n
i n g reasons: F i g . 5, t h e f a c t o r o f s a f e t y o f t h e l o w e r segments
o f t h e s l o p e i s g r e a t e r t h a n one, b u t as soon as t h e
1) It i s s i m p l e and q u i c k t o use. P f o r c e s become n e g a t i v e , t h e f a c t o r o f s a f e t y of
2) It enables one t o assess t h e mode o f t h e l o w e r segment becomes l e s s t h a n one and t h a t
i n t e r n a l f a i l u r e o f t h e embankment. p a r t o f t h e s l o p e w i l l move o u t . A hanging wedge
3) I t s use i s w e l l s u i t e d t o t h e c a l c u l a t i o n w i l l p r o b a b l y remain beyond about p o i n t C.
o f p r o b a b i l i t y o f f a i l u r e o f an embankment.

Robertson (1977) d e s c r i b e s t h e d e r i v a t i o n o f Exampie Caiculation

t h e r i g o r o u s y=O method. I n t h i s paper o n l y t h e
simp1 i f i e d approach i s described. Example 4: Fig. 6 shows t h e f r o n t p a r t o f a t y p i c a l
r o c k dump, t h e o v e r - a l l l a y o u t o f which i s g i v e n i n
The y=O method i s b e s t e x p l a i n e d by c o n s i d e r i n g Fig. 7. The y=O method i s used t o d e t e r m i n e t h e
t h e s l o p e and t h e p o t e n t i a l f a i l u r e s u r f a c e shown i n f a c t o r o f s a f e t y w i t h and w i t h o u t a w a t e r t a b l e i n
Fig. 4. I f a c r a c k were t o f o r m a t any s e c t i o n such t h e dump. The p r o p e r t i s o f t h e waste m a t e r i a l a r e
as CD, t h e n t h e f a c t o r o f s a f e t y a g a i n s t s l i d i n g o f $ = 35' and $ = 17 kN/m 9. The cohesion and f r i c t i o n
t h e segment BCD i s d e f i n e d as: a n g l e o f f o u n d a t i o n c o l l u v i u m a r e c = 0 and $ = 25'.
56

, Design of Non-Impounding

MATERIAL PROPERTIES
C = 2 0 PSI
Mine W a s t e Dumps

C E

a1 103k N

6-- N O WATER

-.
Fig. 5.
DISTANCE FROM TOE

Distribution of P, DF, and F

along failure surface.
4

I n o r d e r t o use t h e y=O method, a p a r t i c u l a r
p o t e n t i a l f a i l u r e surface i s defined. (That shown
i n Figs. 6 and 7 i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y t h e f a i l u r e s u r -
f a c e f o r which t h e minimum f a c t o r o f s a f e t y w i l l be
obtained). Four v e r t i c a l 1i n e s a r e d e f i n e d t h r o u g h
t h e zone above t h e p o t e n t i a l f a i l u r e s u r f a c e . The
f a c t o r o f s a f e t y o f t h e segment t o t h e l e f t o f t h e
v e r t i c a l p l a n e i s d e t e r m i n e d and p l o t t e d as shown i n
F i g . 6.
The f i r s t case i s f o r a s i t u a t i o n where t h e r e
i s no w a t e r t a b l e w i t h i n t h e dump. Table 5 summa-
r i z e s t h e s t e p s used i n c a l c u l a t i n g v a l u e s f o r t h e
r e s i s t i n g and d i s t u r b i n g f o r c e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h each
segment. The Pi f o r c e t h a t a c t s a c r o s s each v e r t i -
c a l p l a n e has been t a b u l a t e d . The f a c t o r o f s a f e t y
f o r each segment a l s o i s t a b u l a t e d . The r e s u l t s o f
t h e a n a l y s i s f o r t h e d r y dump, as w e l l as f o r t h e
dump when a w a t e r t a b l e as shown develops, a r e p l o t -
t e d i n Fig. 6.
When t h e r e i s no water t a b l e w i t h i n t h e s l o p e ,
t h e PI f o r c e i s everywhere p o s i t i v e ; t h e f a c t o r o f
s a f e t y of a l l segments and o f t h e s l o p e i t s e l f i s
g r e a t e r t h a n one; and t h e s l o p e w i l l n o t f a i l . How-
e v e r , when a w a t e r t a b l e d e v e l o p s w i t h i n t h e dump,
Fig. 6.
DISTANCE FROM TOE
Example solution using Y = O
-
method.
t h e PI f o r c e becomes n e g a t i v e j u s t b e f o r e t h e t h i r d
vertical s e c t i o n through t h e p o t e n t i a l f a i l u r e
wedge.
The segment t o t h e l e f t o f t h i s v e r t i c a l sec-
t i o n has a f a c t o r o f s a f e t y o f one and would j u s t
stand. However, t h e f a c t o r of s a f e t y o f segments t o
t h e r i g h t o f t h e c r i t i c a l p o s i t i o n w i l l have a f a c -
t o r o f s a f e t y l e s s t h a n one, and t h e dump w i l l f a i l .
A PROBABILISTIC APPROACH TO
STABILITY ANALYSIS
Rock and s o i l e x h i b i t a n a t u r a l v a r i a b i l i t y i n
g e o l o g i c a l and g e o t e c h n i c a l p r o p e r t i e s . As t h e s t a -
b i l i t y o f a waste dump i s dependent upon t h e s e prop-
e r t i e s , i t f o l l o w s t h a t f a c t o r o f s a f e t y must a l s o
be a v a r i a b l e . T h i s concept i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n Fig.
8. The c a p a c i t y ( s t r e n g t h ) d i s t r i b u t i o n d e s c r i b e s
t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e dump t o p e r f o r m adequately and i s
a r e s u l t o f a number o f f a c t o r s i n c l u d i n g s o i l
 Simplified Stability Analysis 57

s t r e n g t h a l o n g t h e base o f t h e dump and r o c k p a r -

t i c l e s t r e n g t h t h r o u g h o u t t h e dump. The demand Table 5. Solution Summary for
(1 o a d i n g ) d i s t r i b u t i o n i n c l u d e s f a c t o r s such as t h e Example 4 (No Water)
i n c l i n a t i o n of t h e dump base, t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e
w a t e r t a b l e , and earthquake a c c e l e r a t i o n s . I n Fig.
8, a l t h o u g h t h e mean c a p a c i t y ( s t r e n g t h ) i s g r e a t e r
t h a n t h e mean demand ( l o a d ) due t o t h e v a r i a t i o n s i n
both, t h e r e a r e i n s t a n c e s where demand w i l l exceed
c a p a c i t y (as shown by t h e shaded a r e a ) and where Sl i c e Y
f a i l u r e can occur. Consequently, t h e r e i s no u n i q u e
v a l u e t o d e s c r i b e t h e f a c t o r of s a f e t y . It i s a Properties +i
random v a r i a b l e t o which a p r o b a b i 1 i t y d e n s i t y f u n c -
t i o n should be assigned.
Sl i c e bi
There a r e a number o f ways t o c a l c u l a t e t h e Geanetry hi
p r o b a b i l i t y of f a i l u r e of a waste dump. Though
e x a c t mathematical e x p r e s s i o n s can be d e r i v e d , t h e y hwi
t e n d t o be d i f f i c u l t t o r e s o l v e i f more t h a n t w o
v a r i a b l e s a r e present, so a p p r o x i m a t i o n methods a r e +i
n o r m a l l y used. The two most common a r e t h e Monte
C a r l o S i m u l a t i o n and t h e T a y l o r S e r i e s Expansion Analysis DFi
(Harr, 1977). To i l l u s t r a t e t h e use of a p r o b a b i -
1i s t i c approach, these two t e c h n i q u e s have been used RFi
t o e s t i m a t e t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of edge s l u m p i n g and o f
f a i l u r e a l o n g a general f a i l u r e s u r f a c e .
F
The f a c t o r o f s a f e t y a g a i n s t edge s l u m p i n g i n a
waste dump can be determined f r o m t h e e q u a t i o n s f o r
an i n f i n i t e s l o p e (Table 2). Using Taylor Series
Expansion, t h e mean f a c t o r o f s a f e t y (T ) f o r a
s l o p e a n g l e ( 6 ) can be expressed as: Example 5: Calculate the p r o b a b i l i t y o f f a i l u r e o f
a waste dump b u i l t a t a s l o p e o f 2 1. The mean
s t r e n g t h o f t h e dump m a t e r i a l i s t a n + = 0.700 ( + =
35O), and c o e f f i c i e n t o f v a r i a t i o n of t a n +
i s 10%.

where r e p r e s e n t s t h e mean s t r e n g t h o f t h e dump

-
F =
t a n 35O
t a n 26.5u =
material. The v a r i a n c e o f t h e f a c t o r o f s a f e t y ,
v ( F ) , can be g i v e n as:
2
v(tan+) = [coef. var.] [mean] = 0.005
v(F) = [l/tan612 [v(tan+)]

v(F) = [ t a n 26.5 ] 2 0.005 = 0.02

where v ( t a n + ) i s t h e v a r i a n c e o f dump s t r e n g t h . If
i t i s assumed t h a t F f o l l o w s t h e normal d i s t r u b u t i o n
( d e f i n e d by mean and v a r i a n c e ) , t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f From standard normal curve tables, the
f a i l u r e P ( F < l ) can be e s t i m a t e d . p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r u b u t i o n of F can be c o n s t r u c t e d

c1 E c'I E'

FAILURE SURFACE COINCIDENT

WITH GROUND
-
# FOR WASTE ROCK = 35O
6 FOR FAILURE SURFACE = 25O
Y FOR DUMP = 17 k ~ / m ~
Fig. 7. Cross section through waste dump.
58 Design of Non-Impounding Mine W a s t e Dumps

POWER COMBINER: T = KC:

0
K = 0.9566 /
M E A N CAPACITY
M = 0.9253
.o--
MEAN SHEAR STRENGTH

- STANDARD DEVIATION

Fig. 8. Relationship b e t w e e n
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
capacity and demand.
NORMAL STRESS (mPa)
(Fig. 9) and t h e P(Fc1) estimated ( h a t c h e d area,
F i g . 10). This gives:
Fig. 10. Varation of shear strength.

tion. Hence, i n o r d e r t o determine t h e p r o b a b i l i t y

T h i s t e c h n i q u e can be a p p l i e d s u c c e s s f u l l y t o o f dump f a i l u r e , t h e f o l l o w i n g procedure i s used:
s i m p l e e q u a t i o n s o f F and i s u s e f u l as a r a p i d f i r s t
approximation. No assumptions a r e r e q u i r e d as t o 1) F o r t h e g i v e n dump, define a f a i l u r e
shape o f t h e p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n o f s t r e n g t h . s u r f a c e and d i v i d e i n t o s l i c e s .
Values o f s t r e n g t h v a r i a t i o n can be o b t a i n e d f r o m 2) Determine t h e normal s t r e s s a t t h e base of
t a b l e s (see H a r r , 1977). However, as t h e F f u n c t i o n each s l i c e .
becomes more complex, o t h e r methods must be used. 3) Randomly s e l e c t a v a l u e o f shear s t r e n g t h
as a f u n c t i o n o f t h e normal s t r e s s d i s t r i -
The p r o b a b i l i t y o f f a i l u r e a l o n g g e n e r a l s u r - bution.
f a c e s has been e s t i m a t e d by c o n s t r u c t i n g a Monte 4) Calculate resisting, disturbing, and P
C a r l o o v e r l a y f o r t h e y=O method o f a n a l y s i s . As a forces.
f i r s t s t e p , t h e shear s t r e n g t h s o f t h e f o u n d a t i o n 5) C a l c u a l t e F f o r each s l i c e .
and o f t h e dump m a t e r i a l a r e d e t e r m i n e d by conven- 6) Repeat a l o n g f a i l u r e surface.
t i o n a l means, and t h e a p p l i e d normal s t r e s s v e r s u s 7) Repeat s t e p s 2 t o 5 t o o b t a i n d i s t r i b u t i o n
f a i l u r e shear s t r e n g t h a r e p l o t t e d . By r e g r e s s i o n F f o r each segment.
a n a l y s i s , a l i n e a r o r power c u r v e f i t i s made t o t h e 8) From observed probabi 1 i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n o f
data points. Using t h e methods d e s c r i b e d by C a l l F, choose s u i t a b l e t h e o r e t i c a l p r o b a b i l i t y
(1981), t h e l i n e s r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e mean shear distribution.
s t r e n g t h p l u s and minus one s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n a r e
obtained. These p l o t s a r e shown i n F i g . 10. In The p r o b a b i l i t y o f f a i l u r e i s r e p r e s e n t e d by
order t o calculate the probability of f a i l u r e of a t h e a r e a below t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n c u r v e t o t h e l e f t of
dump, t h e shear s t r e n g t h a t t h e base o f each s l i c e a f a c t o r o f s a f e t y o f 1.0 as shown i n F i g . 11.
i s required. For a g i v e n v a l u e o f normal s t r e s s ,
an, a t t h e base o f t h e s l i c e , t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g
v a l u e o f T i s d e t e r m i n e d by randomly sampling f r o m
E x a m p l e o f Probabilistic Method
the p r o b a b i l i t y density function. This function i s of Design
o f t e n assumed t o a p p r o x i m a t e t h e normal d i s t r i b u -
D u r i n g mine l i f e , t h e c h o i c e o f s u i t a b l e dump
geometry and o p e r a t i n g c o n d i t i o n s i s a form o f r i s k
analysis. O p e r a t i n g c o s t s a r e balanced a g a i n s t t h e
c o s t o f dump f a i l u r e o r t h e c o s t o f remedial mea-

PROBABILITY = 0.16
> (FC I )
C

SAFETY FACTOR
FACTOR O F S A F E T Y
Fig. 1 1. Example of distribution of
Fig. 9. Probility distribution of F safety factors for calculating
against edge slumping. probability of instability.
 Simplified Stability Analysis 59

dump, and t h e s e v a l u e s were t h e n compared w i t h t h e

p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t o e s t r e n g t h ( F i g . 12).
F o r t h e " c u t one" dump, t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f t o e
FOUNDATION STRENGTH f o u n d a t i o n s p r e a d i n g was e s t i m a t e d t o be 87% and 60%
BABlLlTY DISTRIBUTION
f o r " c u t two." These v a l u e s i n d i c a t e d t h a t s i n c e a
h i g h p o t e n t i a l r i s k o f dump f a i l u r e e x i s t e d , a more
d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s o f each dump was n e c e s s a r y t o
a s c e r t a i n t h e consequences o f f a i l u r e and t o examine
p o s s i b l e remedi a1 measures. These a n a l y s e s were
"CUT TWO" DUMP c a r r i e d o u t u s i n g t h e y=O method w i t h a p r o b a b i -
l i s t i c o v e r l a y , and t h e f a i l u r e s u r f a c e s examined
a r e shown i n F i g . 7. One hundred Monte C a r l o r u n s
were done i n w h i c h t h e s t r e n g t h o f t h e f o u n d a t i o n
0.25 0.50 0.75 and dump m a t e r i a l were v a r i e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e p r o b -
TAN 4 a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n d e f i n e d above. Sumnary s t a t i s -
t i c s were c a l c u l a t e d f o r t h e f a c t o r o f s a f e t y . This
Fig, 1 2 Probability of foundation was approximated by t h e normal d i s t r i b u t i o n i n o r d e r
t o e s t i m a t e t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f f a i l u r e f o r each seg-
spreading. ment. A comparison o f t h e observed f a c t o r s o f
s a f e t y and t h o s e p r e d i c t e d f r o m t h e normal d i s t r i b u -
sures t o m a i n t a i n dump s t a b i l i t y . I n t h i s manner, t i o n (Fig. 13) i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h i s assumption i s n o t
t h e f i n a n c i a l r i s k i m p l i c i t i n a p a r t i c u l a r dump unreasonable.
c o n f i g u r a t i o n can be assessed. However, i n o r d e r t o
undertake t h i s e x c e r c i s e , i t i t f i r s t n e c e s s a r y t o The e s t i m a t e d v a l u e s o f p r o b a b i l i t y o f f a i l u r e
e s t i m a t e t h e s i z e and l i k e l i h o o d o f f a i l u r e . To r e p r e s e n t t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r a segment t o f a i l . A
demonstrate t h i s process and i l l u s t r a t e t h e i n t e r - segment c o n s i s t s o f a l l t h o s e s l i c e s between t h e t o e
a c t i o n o f p r o b a b i l i t y and waste dump design, t h e o f t h e s l o p e and assumed c r a c k p o s i t i o n ( T a b l e 6 and
f o l l o w i n g example i s g i v e n : T a b l e 7).

Consider a h y p o t h e t i c a l waste dump o f t h e con- The f i n a l r e s u l t i s t h a t f o r t h e " c u t one"

f i g u r a t i o n shown i n Fig. 7. The dump i s t o be b u i l t
i n two stages, each h o l d i n g m a t e r i a l f r o m a s e p a r a t e
mining cut. The f o u n d a t i o n m a t e r i a l c o n s i s t s o f a
c o l l uvium o v e r l y i n g competent bedrock. From l a b o r a -
t o r y t e s t i n g , t h e mean shear s t r e n g t h and i t s v a r i a -
b i l i t y were e s t i m a t e d u s i n g a power f i t t o t h e t e s t
data and t h e r e s u l t s g i v e n i n Fig. 10. No t e s t i n g
was c a r r i e d o u t on t h e dump m a t e r i a l , b u t a mean
a n g l e o f f r i c t i o n o f 35' and a c o e f f i c i e n t o f v a r i a -
t i o n of 10% were assumed. The p r o b a b i l i t y d e n s i t y
f u n c t i o n o f b o t h t h e waste r o c k and f o u n d a t i o n
s t r e n g t h were t a k e n t o a p p r o x i m a t e a normal d i s t r i -
b u t ion.
dump, t h e r e i s a 28% chance o f f a i l u r e a l o n g t h e
e n t i r e assumed s u r f a c e . As t h e dump advances t o t h e
" c u t two" p o s i t i o n , t h e p r o b a b i 1 i t y reduces t o 7.4%.
b u t t h e volume o f m a t e r i a l t h a t can p o t e n t i a l l y be
involved i n f a i l u r e differs. F i g . 14 i1 l u s t r a t e s
t h e r e s u l t o f an e x e r c i s e i n which t h e c o s t o f f a i l -
u r e has been t a k e n as c o s t o f clean-up. To r e d u c e
t h e l e v e l o f c o s t t h a t c o u l d be i n c u r r e d , t h e i n -
s t a l l a t i o n o f a toe-berm has been examined. Anal-
y s i s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f f a i l u r e would
reduce t o l e s s t h a n 1%. The e s t i m a t e d c o s t o f t h e
berm r e p r e s e n t e d an o u t l a y of 5% o f t h e maximum c o s t
of failure.

It has been observed t h a t f o u n d a t i o n s p r e a d i n g I n t h i s manner, it i s p o s s i b l e t o o p t i m i z e dump

a t t h e t o e i s o f t e n an e a r l y i n d i c a t o r o f dump f a i l - d e s i g n by a s s e s s i n g t h e economic consequences o f
ure. As a f i r s t a p p r o x i m a t i o n , t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f
occurrence o f t h i s mode o f f a i l u r e was e s t i m a t e d .
Using t h e e q u a t i o n s developed by Brauns (1980), t h e
angle of f r i c t i o n r e q u i r e d ($,) t o obtain a factor
o f s a f e t y o f 1.0 was d e t e r m i n e d f o r t h e t o e o f each

DISTRIBUTION OF FACTOR OF SAFETY

"CUT TWO" DUMP SEGMENT 2

W
- FAILURE SEGMENT

-7
S.D. = 0.32 /-\ THEORETICAL PROBABIL
w
0.3
/,
14 DISTRIBUTION
a I +1
LL
W
0.2 - r
-
> I \ HISTOGRAM OF RISK OF FAILURE WITH
F I \ OBSERVED VALUES
4 0.1 - L
1 A&-'
TOE BERM INSTALLED
W
[L

0
1.0 2 .O
4

+. \

3.0
a

u I 2 3
.
4 5
FACTOR OF SAFETY UNIT COST
Fig. 13. Comparison between observed Fig. 14. Cost risk for 'cut two"
F and theoretical F. dump.
 Design of Non-Impounding Mine W a s t e Dumps

Table 6. Segment Failure Probability

-

h p Geometry Segment No. F St. Dev. F Observed Prob. Theroetical Prob.

F < 1 F < 1

"Cut one"

"Cut two"

Table 7. Solution Summary for Probabilistic Method Example

Dump Geometry Segment No. 1 Segments 1 1 2 Segments 1-3 Segments 1-4

"Cut one" p r o b a b i 1 i t y 23%

Volume (m2/m r u n ) 60

"Cut two" 0.3%

Volume (m2/m r u n ) 1368

f a i l u r e and t h e a s s o c i a t e d c o s t b e n e f i t s o f remedial REFERENCES

measures.
B a r t o n . N., K j a r e n s l i , B., 1981. "Shear S t r e n g t h o f
R o c k f i l l . " ASCE. Journal o f t h e Geotechnical E n q i -
n e e r i n g < ~ i v i s i i n , Vol. 107, No. GT7, July, pp.
CONCLUSION 873-891.

T h i s paper has s u r v e y e d t h e s i m p l e methods f o r B l i g h t , G.E., 1969, "Shear S t a b i l i t y o f Dumps and

e v a l u a t i n g t h e s t a b i l i t y o f mine waste embankments. Dams o f Gold M i n i n g Waste", The C i v i l Engineer i n
It has d e s c r i b e d a method o f s l i c e s c a l l e d t h e y=O South A f r i c a , March.
method, which i s p a r t i c u l a r l y s u i t e d f o r r a p i d use
i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e mode o f f a i l u r e o f an embank- B l i g h t , G.E., 1969, "Foundation F a i l u r e s of Four
ment and i n a s s e s s i n g t h e r i s k f o r embankment R o c k f i l l Slopes," J o u r n a l o f t h e S o i l Mechanics
failure. An example has i l l u s t r a t e d t h e use o f t h e and Foundations D i v i s i o n , ASCE, Vol. 95, No. SM3,
method. The c o n c l u s i o n s t h a t may be drawn f r o m t h e pp 743-767.
m a t e r i a l p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s paper a r e :
B l i g h t , G.E., 1981, "On t h e F a i l u r e Mode o f Waste
1) A f i r s t assessment o f t h e s t a b i l i t y o f a Rock Dumps," Design o f Non-Impounding Mine Waste
mine waste embankment i n v o l v e s an u n d e r - Dumps Workshop, S o c i e t y o f M i n i n g Engineers, AIME,
s t a n d i n g o f t h e method o f placement o f t h e Denver, November.
dump.
2) Assessment o f s t a b i 1i t y i n v o l v e s d e f i n i n g Brauns, J., 1980, " S a f e t y A g a i n s t S l i p i n I n c l i n e d
t h e n a t u r e o f t h e t o p o g r a p h y and s o i l s a t Bases o f Slope Toe," ASCE, Vo1.106, No. GT 10,
t h e embankment s i t e and t h e p r o p e r t i e s o f October.
t h e dump m a t e r i a l .
3) A r a p i d f i r s t assessment o f t h e s t a b i l i t y H a r r , M.E., 1977, "Mechanics o f P a r t i c u l a t e Media, A
o f a waste embankment may be o b t a i n e d by P r o b a b i l i s t i c Approach," McGraw H i l l .
u s i n g an a p p r o p r i a t e e q u a t i o n , c h a r t , o r
table. A wide range o f t h e s e t o o l s i s Leps, T.M., 1970, "Review o f Shearing S t r e n g t h of
available. Rockfill ," ASCE, Vol. 96, SMX, J u l y .
3) A s i m p l e way o f f u r t h e r e v a l u a t i n g t h e mode
o f f a i l u r e and o f d e t e m i n i n g b o t h t h e f a c - Robertson, A.M., 1976, "The D e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e
t o r o f s a f e t y and p r o b a b i l i t y o f f a i l u r e o f S t a b i l i t y o f Slopes i n J o i n t e d Rock," Ph.D.
a s l o p e , i s t h e y=O method. T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
 Simplified Stability Analysis 61

P e r n i c h e l e , A.D., Kahle, M.B., 1971, " S t a b i l i t y o f Vandre, B.C., 1979, "The Review and R e g u l a t i o n o f
Waste Dumps a t Kennecott ' s B i ngham Canyon Mi ne," Slope S t a b i l i t y , A T e c h n i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e , " Pro-
Trans. Soc. M i n i n g E n g i n e e r i n g , AIME, Vol. 250, c e e d i n g o f Tenth Ohio R i v e r V a l l e y S o i l s Sympo-
No. 4, December, p. 3637. sium, L e x i n g t o n , Kentucky, October.

S c o t t , C.R., 1974, "An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o S o i l Mech- Vandre. B.C., 1980. " S t a b i l i t y o f Non-Impounding

a n i cs and Foundations, " Appl ied Science Pub- Mine Waste Embankments," USDA F o r e s t S e r v i c e ,
l i s h e r s , p. 238. Ogden, Utah, March.
Vandre, B.C., 1980, " S t a b i l i t y o f Non-Impounding
Vandre, B.C. and Andreson, L.R., 1981, " S t a b i l i t y o f Mine Waste Embankments," USDA F o r e s t S e r v i c e .
Waste-Shale Embankments," T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Research Ogden, Utah, March (R-Revi sed v e r s i o n i n p r o g r e s s
Record 790, Transportation Research Board, 1981).
N a t i o n a l Academy o f Sciences, Washington, D.C.,
pp. 18-26. W i n t e r k o r n , H.F., and Fang, H.Y., 1975, " F o u n d a t i o n
E n g i n e e r s Handbook ," Van Nostrand, p. 141.