Minimum strength required for resisting cyclic softening/failure of cemented paste backfill at early age
Résumé
This paper attempts to assess empirically the liquefaction susceptibility of cemented paste backfill (CPB) at early age (£ 7 days). Early age CPB can be categorized as a “clay-like” material because their plasticity index, PI ³ 5 (PI = Liquid Limit, LL – Plastic Limit, PL). For clay-like material such as CPB, the liquefaction susceptibility can be characterized by the “cyclic softening” or “cyclic failure” which is assessed using an empirical method developed for clays and clay-like materials. This analysis allowed determining the minimum undrained shear strength required to resist cyclic softening (failure) of cemented paste backfills which is directly related to the unconfined compressive strength (UCS).Références
Belem T., Effenguet H., Mbonimpa M. (2013). Estimation of required minimum binder content by assessing the liquefaction potential of early age cemented mine backfill. Proceedings of 66th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, September 29 - October 3, 2013, 8p.
Belem, T. and Benzaazoua, M. (2008). Underground mine paste backfill technology: applications and design methods. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering. Vol. 26(2): 147-174.
Blight, G.E. (1990). The effect of dynamic loading on underground fill in South African gold mines. Victor de Mello tribute volume. Editorial Edgard Bluücher, Sao Paulo, Brasil, pp. 37-44.
Boulanger, R. W., and Idriss, I. M. (2005). New criteria for distinguishing between silts and clays that are susceptible to liquefaction versus cyclic failure. Proc., Technologies to Enhance Dam Safety and the Environment, 25th Annual United States Society on Dams Conf., USSD, Denver, 357–366.
Grice T. (1998). Underground mining with backfill. Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Summit on Mine Tailings Disposal Systems, 1998, Brisban, 14 p.
Idriss I.M. (1999). An update to the Seed-Idriss simplified procedure for evaluating liquefaction potential, Proc., TRB Workshop on New Approaches to Liquefaction, January, Publication No. FHWA-RD-99-165, Federal Highway Administration.
Idriss, I.M., and Boulanger, R.W. (2006). Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating liquefaction potential during earthquakes. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 26: 115–130.
Potvin, Y., Thomas, E., and Fourie, A.B. (eds) (2004). Handbook on mine fill, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, Australia, ISBN 0-9756756-2-1.
Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M. (1971). Simplified procedure for evaluation soil liquefaction potential. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 97(SM9): 1249-1273.
Seed R. B., Cetin K. O., Moss R. E. S., Kammerer A. M., Wu J., Pestana J. M.,Riemer M. F., Sancio R.B., Bray J.D., Kayen R. E., and Faris A. (2003). Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering: A unified and consistent framework. Keynote presentation, 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar, Long Beach, Calif.
Sladen, J. A., D’Hollander, R. D., and Krahn, J. (1985). The liquefaction of sands, a collapse surface approach. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 22(4), 564–578.
Youd, T.L. (2001). Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127(4): 297 – 313.
