1990 The application of granulation to fine coal preparation
Fine Coal Refuse 25 Years of Field and Laboratory Testing ...
Transcript of Fine Coal Refuse 25 Years of Field and Laboratory Testing ...
©2017 GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. transforming ideas into reality®
Fine Coal Refuse – 25 Years of
Field and Laboratory Testing
Data and Correlations
October 1, 2018
Blaise E. Genes
Gonzalo Castro, Ph.D., P.E.
Thomas O. Keller, P. E.
Fatma Ciloglu, Ph.D., P. E.
©2017 GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. transforming ideas into reality®
1. Introduction
2. Upstream-Constructed Coal Refuse
Impoundments and Key Design Aspects
3. Fine Coal Refuse (FCR) In-Situ Field and
Laboratory Testing
4. FCR Field and Laboratory Data Application
Summary
5. FCR Data Correlations
6. FCR Undrained Strength Analyses Examples
Presentation Outline
©2017 GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. transforming ideas into reality®
Evaluated FCR tailings at numerous WV, KY and IL
impoundment sites since 1991 – 10 WV, 2 KY, 3 IL.
Amassed a database of field and laboratory data
from 15 large, high-hazard upstream-constructed
impoundments.
CPT-based evaluations and undrained strength
analyses performed to evaluate:
Material characteristics;
Liquefaction triggering;
Post-earthquake stability; and
Construction loading rate.
Introduction
©2017 GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. transforming ideas into reality®
02
03
Oldhouse Branch
02
03
Delta
Delta
Stage J Embankment
Upstream-Constructed Coal Refuse Impoundments
Some of the tallest earth
structures in the world;
Unique characteristics;
FCR hydraulically-
deposited and used as
foundation for subsequent
embankment construction;
FCR requires sufficient
time to settle and excess
pore pressure to dissipate;
Undrained conditions
control upstream pushout
and seismic loading;
©2017 GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. transforming ideas into reality®
Key design aspects:
Developing and implementing risk-appropriate
in-situ field and laboratory testing;
Evaluating FCR material characteristics, i.e., does
FCR behave more sand-like or clay-like;
Estimating undrained shear strength and Su/s’v ratio;
Evaluating if strength loss is triggered due to
undrained loading event;
Evaluating post-earthquake stability with appropriate
Su and corresponding safety factor; and,
Evaluating incremental Su required vs. Su gained due
to excess pore pressure and consolidation.
Upstream-Constructed Coal Refuse Impoundments
©2017 GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. transforming ideas into reality®
Field Testing Methods
In-Situ Field Testing Methods:
Cone Penetration Testing
(CPT);
Shear wave velocity
measurements;
Pore-pressure dissipation
and vane shear testing;
Fixed-piston undisturbed
sampling; and,
In-situ/in-tube void ratio.
©2017 GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. transforming ideas into reality®
PS-CPT Field Testing Data
FP
FP
FP
FP
FP
FP
©2017 GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. transforming ideas into reality®
Laboratory Testing Methods
Laboratory Testing:
Grain-size, Atterberg limits, moisture content,
specific gravity;
CU triaxial shear strength:
Peak, Sup and steady-state, Sus undrained shear
strength;
Peak shear strain, e; and,
Sup/s’v. and Sus/s’v strength-to-effective stress
ratios.
©2017 GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. transforming ideas into reality®
Characterizing FCR From Lab Testing
Key Differences – Sand-like or Clay-like Behavior:
Strain at peak undrained shear strength
Abruptness of the drop-off in shearing resistance
Material characterization depends on laboratory data
(% passing #200, plasticity, peak strain), which
influence behavior.
MSHA. 2009
©2017 GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. transforming ideas into reality®
P. K. Robertson and C. E. (Fear) Wride, (1998).
Characterizing FCR From CPT
Site 6
Site 7
Site 8
Site 9
Site 10
Site 12
Site 13
Site 14
Site 15
After MSHA. 2009
©2017 GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. transforming ideas into reality®
Characterizing FCR From CPT
P. K. Robertson and C. E. (Fear) Wride, (1998).
Zone A: Loose sand-like;
Liquefaction Possible – Depends
on EQ M and duration.
Zone B: Clay-like; Liquefaction
Unlikely – Check other criteria,
i.e., cyclic stress/strain.
Zone C: Sensitive Clay-like;
Liquefaction Possible – Depends
on plasticity and EQ M.
Soils with Ic > 2.6 and F > 1.0%
are Likely Non-Liquefiable.
Site 6
Site 7
Site 8
Site 9
Site 10
Site 12
Site 13
Site 14
Site 15
Normalized Tip Resistance (Q) and Friction
(F) Ratio for FCR Materials/Sites
After MSHA. 2009
©2017 GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. transforming ideas into reality®
Peak Undrained Strength vs. Shear Strain
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
Pea
k U
nd
rain
ed S
hea
r S
tren
gth
, S
up, k
sc
Shear Strain at Peak Strength, %
Peak Undrained Shear Strength vs Shear Strain
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5
Site 6
Site 7
Site 8
Site 9
Site 10
Site 12
Site 13
Site 15
Sand-Like Clay-Like
Summary of Shear Strain Range for Laboratory Tested FCR Samples
©2017 GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. transforming ideas into reality®
Characterizing FCR
High quality undisturbed samples used to measure
Sus and Sup.
Sus measured in the laboratory will be higher than in-
situ.
Disturbance accounted for by correcting laboratory
Sus back to the in-situ Sus , which requires:
1. Careful measurement of void ratio during
sampling and handling; and,
2. Estimating slope of the Steady-State Line
(De/DlogSus).
Laboratory-Derived Undrained Strength
©2017 GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. transforming ideas into reality®
Laboratory-Field Undrained Strength
Correction of Sus from Laboratory to In-Situ Void Ratio
MSHA. 2009
©2017 GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. transforming ideas into reality®
Laboratory-Derived SSL
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
0.01 0.1 1 10
Vo
id R
ati
o D
uri
ng
Sh
ear
Undrained Steady State Shear Strength, Sus, ksc
Undrained Steady State Shear Strength vs Void Ratio During Shear
Sites 1, 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5
Site 6
Site 7
Site 8
Site 9
Site 10
Site 11
Site 12
Site 14
0.11
0.13
0.14
0.11
0.11
0.14
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.24
0.11
0.53
De/DSus
Steady-State Line – WV, KY and IL Sites
©2017 GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. transforming ideas into reality®
Characterizing FCR
CPT data and Sup/s’v or Sus/s’v used in engineering
analyses to evaluate:
Liquefaction…will the undrained loading trigger
a strength loss in FCR?
Yes…Use Sus/s’v
No…Use Sup/s’v
Post-earthquake stability factors of safety; and,
Pushout strength required for 1.3 safety factor
in construction stability.
Applications for Testing Data
©2017 GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. transforming ideas into reality®
Post-Earthquake Stability Analyses
Sup
/s’v
or Sus
/s’v
s’v
s’v
s’v
s’v
Downstream Stability
Upstream Stability
©2017 GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. transforming ideas into reality®
Laboratory-Derived FCR Sus
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Est
ima
ted
Ver
tica
l E
ffec
tiv
e S
tres
s, k
sc
Undrained Steady State Shear Strength In-Situ, Sus, ksc
Undrained Steady State Shear Strength In-Situ vs Estimated Vertical Effective Stress
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5
Site 6
Site 7
Site 8
Site 9
Site 10
Site 12
Sus = 0.16 s'v
Sus min = 0.03 s'v Sus max = 0.27 s'v
Undrained Steady-State Shear Strength to Effective Stress Strength Ratio
©2017 GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. transforming ideas into reality®
Laboratory-Derived Undrained Strength
Literature Correlations of Sus/s’v from Failure Cases
Sus
/s’v
Correlations - References
MSHA. 2009
©2017 GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. transforming ideas into reality®
Laboratory-Derived FCR Sup
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Est
imate
d V
erti
cal
Eff
ecti
ve
Str
ess,
ksc
Peak Undrained Shear Strength In-Situ, Sup ksc
Peak Undrained Shear Strength In-Situ vs Estimated Vertical Effective Stress
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5
Site 6
Site 7
Site 8
Site 9
Site 10
Site 12
Site 13
Site 14
Site 15
Sup = 0.24 s'v
Sup min = 0.19 s'v Sup max = 0.35 s'v
Peak Undrained Shear Strength to Effective Stress Strength Ratio
©2017 GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. transforming ideas into reality®
Laboratory-Derived Undrained Strength
Sus vs. Soil Behavior Index, Ic Sus vs. Laboratory Fines Content
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Su
s, k
sc
Ic, dim
Sus vs. Ic
Site 6
Site 7
Site 8
Site 9
Site 10
Site 12
Site 13
y = 0.589x - 1.0939
R² = 0.0995
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Su
s, k
sc
Fines Content, %
Sus vs. FC Lab
Site 6
Site 7
Site 8
Site 9
Site 10
Site 12
Site 13
y = 0.0111x
R² = -0.328
Fines Data Correlations – Sus
©2017 GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. transforming ideas into reality®
Laboratory-Derived Undrained Strength
Sus vs. N1,60 Relationship Sup vs. N1,60 Relationship
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 5 10 15
Su
s, k
sc
N1,60, bpf
Sus vs. N1,60
Site 6
Site 7
Site 8
Site 9
Site 10
Site 12
Site 13
y = 0.2715e0.1003x
R² = 0.2872
Lower Bound,
Seed & Harder
Lower Bound, GEI
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 5 10 15
Su
p,
ksc
N1,60, bpf
Sup vs. N1,60
Site 6
Site 7
Site 8
Site 9
Site 10
Site 12
Site 13
y = 0.6601e0.0697x
R² = 0.4033
Lower Bound,
Seed & Harder
Lower Bound, GEI
Data CorrelationsN1,60
Data Correlations – Sus
and Sup
©2017 GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. transforming ideas into reality®
Laboratory-Derived Undrained Strength
Undrained Steady-State Shear Strength, Sus vs. Shear Wave Velocity, Vs
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Un
dra
ined
Ste
ad
y-S
tate
Sh
ear
Str
eng
th, S
us,
ksc
Shear Wave Velocity, Vs, m/s
Undrained Steady-State Shear Strength vs Shear Wave Velocity
Site 3
Site 4
Site 6
Site 7
Site 8
Site 9
Site 10
Site 12
y = 0.0044x
R² = -0.049
Vs
Data Correlations – Sus
©2017 GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. transforming ideas into reality®
Laboratory-Derived Undrained Strength
Literature Correlations of Sus with SPT and CPT Data
Sus
and Sus
/s’v
Correlations References
MSHA. 2009
©2017 GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. transforming ideas into reality®
Staged Construction Stability Analysis
Su required for stability FS=1.3
©2017 GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. transforming ideas into reality®
Staged Construction Stability Analysis
Su required for stability FS=1.3Su required for stability FS=1.3
©2017 GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. transforming ideas into reality®
Staged Construction Stability Analysis
Su required for stability FS=1.3Su required for stability FS=1.3
©2017 GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. transforming ideas into reality®
Staged Construction Stability Analysis
Su required for stability FS=1.3
©2017 GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. transforming ideas into reality®
Staged Construction Stability Analysis
Su required for stability FS=1.3
©2017 GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. transforming ideas into reality®
Upstream-constructed impoundments must endure
high level of scrutiny particularly for seismic and push-
out construction undrained loading conditions.
25+ years of consistent field and laboratory testing of
FCR yielded a significant volume of high quality data.
FCR data and correlations present ranges to evaluate
peak and steady-state undrained shear strength in
absence of, or for data comparison.
Risk-appropriate site-specific testing should be
performed to estimate undrained shear strengths.
Site-specific FCR strength ultimately control
undrained strength analyses.
Conclusions