In Situ Seismic Investigations for Evaluating Geotechnical

Properties and Liquefaction Potential of

Fine Coal Tailings
Min Liew, S.M.ASCE 1; Ming Xiao, F.ASCE 2; Shimin Liu 3; and Douglas Rudenko, M.ASCE 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Madras on 03/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This paper presents a field seismic investigation that is effective in evaluating the in situ geotechnical properties and liquefaction
potential of fine coal tailings subjected to mine blasting. In this study, seismic refraction, multichannel analysis of surface waves, and seismic
monitoring are performed on two coal tailings impoundments in Appalachian coalfields in the United States. Shear wave velocity, compres-
sional wave velocity, Poisson’s ratio, small-strain Young’s modulus and shear modulus, and peak particle velocity of the fine coal tailings are
derived. A relatively high rate of vibration attenuation is observed for the fine coal tailings when compared to other blasting applications. The
fine coal tailings are evaluated to be potentially liquefiable when subjected to ground vibrations from mine blasting based on the simplified
procedure for liquefaction evaluation with slight modifications and the input parameters from the seismic investigations. The nondestructive
techniques and methodology described herein can serve as an alternative for liquefaction assessment. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-
5606.0002228. © 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Fine coal tailings; Coal slurry; Seismic refraction; Multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW); Seismic
monitoring; Liquefaction potential.

Introduction such as codisposal of tailings and waste rocks, densified tailings

Fine coal tailings are the waste product produced during the coal
preparation process and are usually hydraulically deposited in
coal tailings impoundments. Owing to the low economic value
of coal tailings, tailings dams are typically built with coarse
coal tailings using the upstream staging method (D’appolonia
Engineering 2009). The upstream staging method refers to the con-
struction of an embankment on top of the settled fine coal tailings
when the previously constructed layer has been fully filled with fine
coal tailings (Highter and Tobin 1980). Coal tailings dam failures
can be immensely destructive, especially when the tailings dams
are constructed using the upstream staging method, because the
stability of the dams is greatly affected by the mechanical strength
of the settled fine coal tailings (D’appolonia Engineering 2009).
The coal tailings dam failures in recent history include the Buffalo
Creek dam failure in 1972, the Big Branch impoundment failure in
2000, and the Kingston Fossil Plant’s slurry spill in 2008. Until all
tailings are safely managed or stored using alternative techniques
1 open-pit mines so that the debris can be quickly transported a short
Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA 16802. ORCID: https://
orcid.org/0000-0002-5156-4610. Email: mul393@psu.edu
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA 16802 (corresponding
author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4791-0346. Email: mzx102@
psu.edu
3
Associate Professor, Dept. of Energy and Mineral Engineering,
3
G Center and EMS Energy Institute, Pennsylvania State Univ., University
Park, PA 16802. Email: szl3@psu.edu
4
Professional Geologist, Vibra-Tech Engineers, Inc., 109 E. 1st St.,
Hazleton, PA 18201. Email: dougr@vibratechinc.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 7, 2019; approved on
October 30, 2019; published online on March 5, 2020. Discussion
period open until August 5, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241.
disposal, and geotextile tube dewatering (Yilmaz 2011; Yilmaz and
Fall 2017), catastrophic failures of tailings impoundments remain a
significant potential and concern.
Ground shaking is one of the major causes of tailings dam fail-
ures (e.g., ICOLD 2001; Blight and Fourie 2005; Rico et al. 2008;
Azam and Li 2010; Michael et al. 2010; Puri and Kostecki 2013).
Among the 221 total case records collected by ICOLD (2001), 35
of them (about 16%) are due to strong ground motions. Recently,
other than earthquake-induced liquefaction, blast-induced liquefac-
tion has received significant attention. Charlie et al. (2013) listed
the cases of explosive-induced liquefaction that had been reported
in the literature. Bench blasting, in which numerous explosives are
detonated in one series, is the most common method used in the
mining industry. In bench blasting, only 20%–30% of the blast
energy is used to fracture rock, and the rest of the energy is lost
in the forms of flying debris and seismic waves, resulting in ground
vibration that could affect the stability of nearby infrastructures
(Sołtys et al. 2017). Coal tailings impoundments, which are built
to store mine debris, are usually constructed in the proximity of
distance to the impoundments. Hence, safety concerns have been
raised regarding the liquefaction susceptibility of loosely deposited
coal tailings when subjected to ground vibrations induced by bench
blasting.
Fine coal tailings are typically classified as silty sand (SM) and
low-plasticity silts (ML) with plasticity indexes of less than 12
(Almes and Butail 1976; McCutcheon 1983; Hegazy et al. 2004;
Genes et al. 2000; Cowherd and Corda 1998; Huang and Li 1987;
Zeng et al. 2008). Based on the findings presented by previous re-
searchers, fine coal tailings samples have moderate to high effective
friction angles (23°–36°) but generally low effective cohesions
(0 kPa). Owing to the nonplastic to low-plastic behaviors, fine coal
tailings samples can be disturbed during sample handling and trans-
portation in the field. As a result, the coal tailings samples that were
tested in most studies were remolded or representative samples.

© ASCE 04020014-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020014

 The liquefaction susceptibility of fine coal tailings has been
evaluated by several researchers (e.g., Ullrich et al. 1991; Zeng
et al. 2008; Salehian 2013; Salam et al. 2019). Ullrich et al. (1991)
conducted cyclic triaxial tests on fine coal tailings from sites with
and without fine coal cleaning, which is a preparation process that
removes sand-sized coal grains from tailings. The results showed
that the excess pore water pressure ratio, ru , for samples without
fine coal cleaning ranges from 0.40 to 0.60, which is higher than the
range of 0.01–0.20 for samples with fine coal cleaning. Zeng et al.
(2008) conducted cyclic triaxial tests on four representative fine
coal tailings samples that had been retrieved from locations beneath
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Madras on 03/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
basic mechanical properties of fine coal tailings to add to the scarce
database, and (3) assess the liquefaction resistance of fine coal
tailings when subjected to ground vibrations from mine blasting.
Study Sites and Geological Setting
The study sites are two coal tailings impoundments located in
northeastern Pennsylvania, United States. Fig. 1(a) presents a vicin-
ity map of Sites 1 and 2 and their relative proximity to the coal
preparation plant. Fig. 1(b) is a zoomed-in view of Site 1, showing

the embankments of a tailings dam in Appalachian coalfields. The
samples did not liquefy even when the largest cyclic load was ap-
plied. Zeng et al. (2008) reasoned that the high liquefaction resis-
tance of the samples may have been due to their high initial
effective confining stress and stated that fine coal tailings at loca-
tions with lower effective confining stress may still be subjected to
liquefaction. Salehian et al. (2013) conducted cyclic triaxial tests on
31 samples, and 28 samples achieved ru of 100%; they concluded
that the criteria by Seed et al. (2003) and Bray et al. (2004) were the
best options when empirically assessing the liquefaction suscep-
tibility of fine coal tailings.
This paper presents a systematic methodology and detailed
logistics of a field seismic investigation conducted in two coal tail-
ings impoundments. This study intends to (1) evaluate the effective-
ness of seismic investigations as an alternative for assessing the
liquefaction potential of in situ fine coal tailings, (2) derive the
two locations (i.e., Lines A and B) where seismic surveys were
carried out. The seismic surveys, which include a seismic refraction
line of 70 m, a multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW)
line of 35 m, and a MASW line of 17.5 m, overlapped with each
other for instrumentation. Fig. 1(c) is a zoomed-in view of Site 2.
The layouts of the seismic investigation as shown in Fig. 1 are pre-
sented in detail in the methodology section. Both impoundments
were constructed and founded on the original bedrock units using
spoil backfill from stripping. Site 1 is an active impoundment with
on-going deposition of coal tailings, whereas Site 2 is an inactive
impoundment where the coal tailings deposition had ceased. Note
that there is one discharge point at Site 1 and two at Site 2. Fanning
channels in both impoundments are consistent with the locations of
discharge points. For Site 2, the discharge point at midpoint was the
dominant one. The groundwater table (GWT) measurements and
the standard penetration tests (SPTs) were performed in a study

Fig. 1. Plan view of two coal tailings impoundments with layouts of seismic lines (for multichannel analysis of surface waves and seismic refraction),
seismographs, and blast holes (for seismic monitoring): (a) plan view; (b) Site 1; and (c) Site 2. (Adapted from NAIP 2017.)

© ASCE 04020014-2 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020014

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Madras on 03/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Geologic map of coal tailings impoundments. (Adapted from Berg 1980.)
by Salam et al. (2019). The maps were modified from orthoimages
published by the USDA-FSA-APFO Aerial Photography Field
Office in June 2017.
Fig. 2 shows the bedrock formations of the study sites. The boxed
area is the study site and approximately the same area depicted in
Fig. 1(a). The geologic information is obtained from the Pennsylva-
nia Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Both coal
tailings impoundments are located on the Llewellyn Formation,
which was deposited during the Pennsylvanian period. The Llewel-
lyn Formation consists of interbedded sandstone, siltstone, shale,
conglomerate, and coal, with sandstone as its main rock type.
The Llewellyn Formation is surrounded by the Pottsville Formation,
which was also deposited during the Pennsylvanian period. The
Pottsville Formation consists mainly of well- to very well-cemented,
medium-grained to conglomeratic sandstone beds (ranging in thick-
ness from about 3 to 21 m), with minor amounts of siltstone, clay-
stone, shale, and thin coals, with sandstone as its main rock type.
Field Sampling and Laboratory Characterization
Field sampling and laboratory characterization were carried out on
coal tailings samples as per ASTM standards. Representative coal
tailings samples (diameter of 47 mm and length of 1.5 m) were
retrieved using a split spoon sampler driven by a Geoprobe Model
6620DT track rig with direct push technology at the following lo-
cations: GWT-1, GWT-2, and GWT-3 [Figs. 1(b and c)]. The same
track rig with a DH-100 automatic drop hammer was used to con-
duct SPTs at the locations presented in Figs. 1(b and c). The results
of the SPTs, together with the compressional and shear wave veloc-
ity profiles derived in this study, are discussed subsequently.
The fine coal tailings samples are classified as SM and ML
based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The plas-
ticity index ranges from 0 to 5; hence, the fine coal tailings fall in
the categories of nonplastic soil and low-plasticity soil. The specific
gravity of the coal tailings samples ranges from 2.1 to 2.3. The hy-
draulic conductivity of most coal tailings falls between 3.6 × 10−7
and 1.0 × 10−6 cm=s. The percentage of fines content (FC) passing
© ASCE 04020014-3
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020014
sieve #200 (i.e., grain size <0.075 mm) was also quantified. The val-
ues are highly scattered, ranging from 11.7% to 58.5%, with a stan-
dard deviation of 15.7%. The liquefaction potential of the coal
tailings samples was evaluated using index properties of water con-
tents and Atterberg limits based on the assessment criteria proposed
by Seed et al. (2003) and Bray and Sancio (2006). The results
showed that all six representative coal tailings samples were sus-
ceptible to liquefaction. More specific details about the laboratory
characterization and preliminary assessment on liquefaction poten-
tial of coal tailings using index properties can be found in Salam
et al. (2019).
Methodology of Seismic Investigation
The seismic investigation of coal tailings carried out in this study
consists of three approaches: MASW, seismic refraction, and seis-
mic monitoring. MASW and seismic refraction are collectively
referred to as seismic surveys. The MASW was performed to de-
termine the shear wave velocities, and the seismic refraction survey
was performed to determine the compressional wave velocities.
The shear wave velocity is a basic physical property that can be
used to evaluate the liquefaction resistance of coal tailings (Andrus
and Stokoe 2000), while both wave velocities are used as an indi-
cator of the stiffness of soils (Kramer 1996). The shear wave and
compressional wave velocity profiles are then used to derive the
Poisson’s ratio, small-strain Young’s modulus, and small-strain
shear modulus of the fine coal tailings. Seismic monitoring was
performed to determine the peak particle velocity (PPV) of fine coal
tailings. The PPV from seismic monitoring and the shear wave
velocity from MASW are used to evaluate the liquefaction potential
of the fine coal tailings.
Shear Wave Velocity Measurements Using MASW
As shown in Figs. 1(b and c), three sets of seismic lines were
laid out at various locations in the impoundments, namely Site 1
Line A, Site 1 Line B, and Site 2. A seismic line or spread refers to a
linear configuration of geophones laid out on the ground surface.
Each set of seismic lines included a seismic refraction spread, a
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 short MASW spread, and a long MASW spread. Each spread
consisted of 24 geophones, and the total spread length was con-
trolled by varying the spacing between geophones. For each of
the three locations (i.e., Site 1 Line A, Site 1 Line B, and Site 2),
four MASW spreads were installed: a forward spread and a reverse
spread with 1.5-m spacing and a forward spread and a reverse
spread with 0.76-m spacing. Twenty-four 4.5-Hz vertical geo-
phones were deployed for each seismic line, as shown in Fig. 3(a).
A 0.76-m spacing between geophones yielded a 17.5-m-long
spread, and a 1.5-m spacing yielded a 35-m-long spread. The
MASW lines with 0.76-m spacing were designed to give better res-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Madras on 03/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
olution of the subsurface coal tailings profiles. All geophones were
connected to a 24-channel Geometrics Strataview seismograph,
which was used to acquire seismic signals. The seismograph
was located at the midpoint of the MASW line. MASW seismic
records 2,048 ms in duration with a sample interval of 1 ms were
collected. No preacquisition filters were used on the seismic data.
The seismic waves for the MASW method were produced using
a 7.3-kg sledge hammer manually dropped on a metal plate on
the ground surface inside each impoundment. Seismic energy
was transmitted into the ground adjacent and in line with the be-
ginning and end of the geophone spread. Offset distances to
this seismic source were 6 m from both the beginning (forward)
and end (reverse) of the 1.5-m-spacing seismic lines, and 3 m
for the 0.76-m-spacing seismic lines. An MASW software (Surf-
seis) manufactured by the Kansas Geological Survey was used
to analyze the MASW field data. The analysis consists in con-
verting the multichannel records into a dispersion image using
the phase-shift method (Park et al. 1998). Fundamental-mode
Rayleigh waves were then extracted and separated from the
dispersion curve. Shear-wave velocity profiles were then obtained
Fig. 3. Equipment for seismic survey and seismic monitoring: (a) a seismic line of 24 geophones; (b) snapshot of small-charge explosion as excitation
in seismic refraction; and (c) a seismograph.
© ASCE 04020014-4
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020014
through iterative inversion based on the least-squares approach of
Xia et al. (1999).
Compressional Wave Velocity Measurements Using
Seismic Refraction
A 3-m-spacing seismic refraction spread was laid out at the same
three locations (i.e., Site 1 Line A, Site 1 Line B, and Site 2).
Twenty-four 14-Hz geophones were deployed for each seismic re-
fraction spread. A 3-m spacing between geophones yielded a 70-m
spread. The geophones were connected to a seismograph similar to
that used for MASW. Seismic refraction records 512 ms in duration
with a sample interval of 500 μs were collected, and no recording
filters were used. Small explosive charges were used to induce seis-
mic excitation, as shown in Fig. 3(b), because the seismic energy
induced by a sledge hammer was insufficient to overcome the
energy dissipation in the soft fine coal tailings. Seismic energy
through a light explosive charge buried 0.75 m below the ground
surface was transmitted from the beginning, end, and three interior
points of the spread. Additional shotpoints (i.e., locations at the
ground surface where a seismic source is activated) were performed
at the two ends of the spread. The first arrival of compressional
waves of each shot record was identified using Interpex’s Firstpick
software. After plotting the arrival time as a function of the
shotpoint-geophone field geometry (i.e., a complex configuration
that is formed by the locations of 24 geophones and 7 shotpoints
of the seismic line), the travel time curves were produced based on
the slope intercept method. Travel time curves were analyzed using
the generalized reciprocal method (GRM) to produce a compres-
sional wave velocity profile of the subsurface strata present at
the three locations.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Peak Particle Velocity Measurements through Seismic
Monitoring
Seismic monitoring was carried out by deploying 15 Geosonics
3000LCP blasting seismographs [Fig. 3(c)] in each impoundment
to measure the ground displacements induced by the blasting
events. The seismic signals were recorded by the data acquisition
system. The seismograph can measure PPV up to 130 mm=s at a
resolution of 0.06 mm=s. Its frequency response ranges from 2 to
250 Hz. Waveform data, at 15-s intervals, with a sampling rate of
2,000=s=channel can be collected consecutively up to a cumulative
total of approximately 4.2 min. The seismographs are calibrated on
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Madras on 03/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
an annual basis utilizing a shake table. The calibration procedure
and specifications can be referenced to the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST). A dynamic field calibration
of the seismographs is also performed after each recording to
ensure its validity. The layouts of the seismographs are shown in
Figs. 1(b and c). At Site 1, 15 seismographs were spaced 53.3 m
apart in the north–south direction and 30.5 m apart in the east–west
direction. At Site 2, 15 seismographs were spaced 18.3 m apart
in the north–south direction and 39.6 m apart in the east–west
direction. All seismographs were inserted 15 cm into the ground,
and their locations were tracked by a global positioning
system (GPS).
Two single blast holes were drilled 1 day before the seismic
monitoring, and their locations are shown in Fig. 1(a). The explo-
sive charges were installed in the morning before the seismic mon-
itoring was conducted. The purpose of the two blast holes was
to transmit ground motion energy to the fine coal tailings in the
impoundments. Each blast hole had a nominal 25.4-cm diameter
to a depth of 12.2 m and then a nominal 20.3-cm diameter to a
depth of 21.3 m. The drilling was done using percussion air rotary
techniques. Since the blast holes were drilled in waste rock from
past stripping operations, PVC pipes with an outside diameter of
20.3 cm were used as casings along the entire depth to prevent the
blast holes from caving in and the migration of explosives into
voids. Ammonium nitrate fuel oil (ANFO) with a density of
0.85 g=cc was used as the explosive for blasting. At the top and
bottom of each explosive column were placed 0.9-kg Pentex 908
cast boosters. The charge weights for Sites 1 and 2 were 385.5
and 317.5 kg, respectively. The stemming height of the boreholes
was at least 8.5 m, and the boreholes were filled with 1.9-cm
crushed stone. At each site, the seismographs were programmed
to turn on 4 min before detonation. All the seismographs were re-
trieved after the blast events to collect the ground vibration records.
PPV measured using these seismographs were then used to evaluate
the liquefaction potential of the coal tailings when subjected to
blast events and to develop a vibration attenuation equation for
the coal tailings.
Results
Compressional Wave Velocity from Seismic
Refraction Survey
The seismogram records collected from the seismic refraction test-
ing are deduced to derive the two-dimensional (2D) compressional
wave velocity profiles of the fine coal tailings. The compressional
wave velocity is a direct measure of the stiffness, hardness, and
degree of compaction of the material (Kramer 1996; Khandelwal
and Ranjith 2010; Ilori et al. 2013). The compressional wave veloc-
ity profiles are shown in the first column of Fig. 4. Based on the
plots, a two-layer compressional wave velocity profile is yielded for
Site 1 Line A, a three-layer profile for Site 1 Line B, and a two-layer
© ASCE 04020014-5
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020014
profile for Site 2. Note that the subsurface profile for Site 1 Line B
(25 m deep) is thicker than that for Site 1 Line A (12 m deep) and
Site 2 (12 m deep). The range of compressional wave velocity de-
termined for each layer of fine coal tailings is noted on the plots.
Figs. 4(a and b) show a small variation of fine coal tailings strata
in the same impoundment. Such variation may have been caused
by the variation of coal slurry discharges in the multi-decade
operation.
The descriptions of the fine coal tailings that correspond to the
ranges of compressional wave velocity are included in Table 1. The
values in Table 1 are developed based on the information obtained
during the seismic survey and the wave velocities of typical rocks
and soils. The ranges of compressional wave velocity for very soft
to stiff fine coal tailings (V p ¼ 100–1,260 m=s) are based on the
seismic survey conducted in this study. For the weathered and
unweathered bedrocks, the values are those presented by Bourbié
et al. (1987). As mentioned in a footnote to Table 1, the range of
compressional wave velocity for water-saturated fine coal tailings
is assumed to be 1,400–1,665 m=s; these values are obtained
from the standard guide listed for water in ASTM D5777 (ASTM
2011) and Allen et al. (1980). These high values of compres-
sional wave velocities do not necessarily indicate high strength
of the fine coal tailings but are due to the fully saturated fine coal
tailings. This is because water is highly incompressible, leading to
high values of compressional wave velocities (V p > 1,400 m=s) in
the layers.
Shear Wave Velocity from MASW
The seismogram records collected from the MASW tests are re-
duced to derive the one-dimensional shear wave velocity profiles
of the fine coal tailings. The shear wave velocity profiles are plotted
together with the compressional wave velocity profiles in the
first column of Fig. 4. The top x-axes indicate V s derived from
MASW, the bottom x-axes are the distance of the seismic line
for the 2D profiles of V p , and all y-axes indicate depths below
grade. The descriptions of each seismic line are included in
Fig. 4(d). The seismic lines of 1.5-m spacing (long seismic lines),
both forward and reverse, were deployed to obtain subsurface in-
formation of deeper depths. The seismic lines of 0.76-m spacing
(short seismic lines), both forward and reverse, were used to obtain
high-resolution subsurface information. Comparison of both the
compressional and shear wave velocity profiles in Fig. 4 makes
it possible to classify the fine coal tailings into different seismic
site classes, from very soft to stiff fine coal tailings, as shown
in Table 1, based on the V s values recommended by the ICC
(2009), which are listed in the fourth column of Table 1. Based
on the ranges of shear wave velocity in Table 1, the two profiles
in Site 1 [Figs. 4(a and b)] have a similar trend and are interpreted
as being very soft fine coal tailings at shallower depth transitioning
to soft fine coal tailings at deeper depth. Given the subsurface in-
formation of deeper depths at Site 1 Line B [Fig. 4(b)], it is noted
that the profile transitions to stiff fine coal tailings at a depth of
19 m. The profile for Site 2 [Fig. 4(c)] is interpreted as soft coal
tailings at shallower depth transitioning to stiff fine coal tailings at
deeper depth.
Determination of Poisson’s Ratio, Small-Strain Young’s
Modulus, and Small-Strain Shear Modulus from
Compressional and Shear Wave Velocities
The Poisson’s ratio, small-strain Young’s modulus, and small-
strain shear modulus of the fine coal tailings are derived based
on the shear wave velocity profiles from the MASW and the
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Vs (m/s) E (MPa) Gmax (MPa)
0 200 400 600 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 100 200 0 50 100
0 0 0 0
Vp = 113-220 m/s GWT-1
GWT-2
2 2 2 2

4 4 4 4

Depth (m)
6 Vp = 738-883 m/s 6 6 6

8 8 8 8
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Madras on 03/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

10 10 10 10

12 12 12 12
0 20 40 60
Distance (m)
(a)
Vs (m/s) E (MPa) Gmax (MPa)
0 200 400 600 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 100 200 0 50 100
0 0 0 0
Vp = 160-249 m/s GWT-1
GWT-2

5 5 5 5

10 10 10 10
Depth (m)

Vp = 502-830 m/s

15 15 15 15

20 20 20 20

Vp = 929-1184 m/s
25 25 25 25
0 20 40 60
Distance (m)
(b)
Vs (m/s) E (MPa) Gmax (MPa)
0 200 400 600 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 100 200 0 150 300
0 0 0 0

2 2 2 2
Vp = 255-317 m/s

4 4 4 4
GWT-3
Depth (m)

6 6 6 6

8 8 8 8

10 10 10 10
Vp =1194-1259 m/s

12 12 12 12
0 20 40 60
Distance (m)
(c)

Symbol Seismic survey Description Total length Spacing Mean

(m) (m)
Lower and upper bounds
Seismic refraction N/A 70.0 3.0
E estimated from N60
MASW Long-forward 35.0 1.5
MASW Long-reverse 35.0 1.5 Very soft fine coal tailings

MASW Short-forward 17.5 0.76 Soft fine coal tailings

MASW Short-reverse 17.5 0.76 Stiff fine coal tailings

(d) (e)

Fig. 4. Subsurface profiles of coal tailings’ properties determined from seismic refraction and MASW at (a) Site 1 Line A; (b) Site 1 Line B; and
(c) Site 2 with (d) descriptions of the seismic lines; and (e) legend for subsurface profiles.

© ASCE 04020014-6 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020014

 Table 1. Seismic site classification of fine coal tailings with corresponding ranges of compressional wave velocity, V p , shear wave velocity, V s , and N values
Profile name and description V s (m=s) N values
of coal tailings V p (m=s) V s (m=s) from ICC (2009) from ICC (2009)
Very soft fine coal tailings 100–250a <100b N/A N/A
Soft fine coal tailings 250–900a 100–200b <183 N < 15
Stiff fine coal tailings 900–1,260a 200–400b 183–366 15 ≤ N ≤ 50
Very dense coal tailings and soft rock N/A 400–762b,c 366–762 N > 50
Rock (weathered) 1,500–2,200d 762–1,524c 762–1,524 N/A
Hard rock (unweathered) 3,500–6,000d >1,524c >1,524 N/A
a
Ranges of V p are from this study, and V p ranges from 1,400 to 1,665 m=s if coal tailings are fully saturated [ASTM D5777 (ASTM 2011; Allen et al. 1980)].
b
Ranges of V s are from this study.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Madras on 03/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

c
Ranges of V s are values suggested for seismic site classification by ICC (2009).
d
Ranges of V p are obtained from Bourbié et al. (1987).

compressional wave velocity profiles from the seismic refraction,
as shown in Eqs. (1)–(3) (Kramer 1996):

2  SD, and the relationship is described through the power law as pre-
2
3V p − 4V 2s
Small-strain Young’s modulus; E ¼ ρV s ð1Þ
V 2p − V 2s
V 2p − 2V 2s
Poisson’s ratio; ν ¼
2ðV 2p − V 2s Þ
Small-strain shear modulus; Gmax ¼ ρV 2s
where ρ = density; V p = compressional wave velocity; and V s =
shear wave velocity of fine coal tailings.
The small-strain Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the
fine coal tailings are calculated at a depth interval of 0.1 m using
the values from both the compressional and shear wave velocities.
Similarly, the small-strain shear modulus profiles are also calcu-
lated at a depth interval of 0.1 m using values from the shear wave
velocity. For each location, the calculation is repeated for all four
shear wave velocity profiles using the same compressional wave
velocity profile since only one compressional wave velocity profile
is derived per location. These computations yield four depth pro-
files for each of the three parameters. The solid lines in Fig. 4
represent the mean values of the four profiles. The dotted lines
in Fig. 4 represent the upper and lower bounds with one standard
deviation. The second column of Fig. 4 shows the profile of the
Poisson’s ratio for all three seismic line locations. The third column
of Fig. 4 is for the small-strain Young’s modulus, and the last
column of Fig. 4 is for the small-strain shear modulus. As shown
in Figs. 4(a and b), the profiles of the Poisson’s ratio, small-strain
Young’s modulus, and small-strain shear modulus of Site 1 Lines A
and B are consistent with each other. The Poisson’s ratios are all in
the range of 0.3–0.5, including the upper and lower bounds of one
standard deviation. The small-strain Young’s modulus of the fine
coal tailings ranges from 20 to 200 MPa, and the small-strain shear
modulus of the very soft and soft fine coal tailings is in the range of
10–50 MPa.
Peak Particle Velocity and Vibration Attenuation
Equation
Ground motions in the fine coal tailings were induced by blasting
near the impoundments and recorded by seismographs. A total of
30 seismographs were used in the impoundments, but only 28 data
points of PPV were collected since 2 seismographs experienced
malfunction. The PPV is plotted against the scaled distance
(SD), as shown in Fig. 5. The SD is calculated as a function of
the distance (D) between the blast location and the point of interest
and the charge weight (W) as presented in Eq. (4). The square-root
scaling is used for W since the charges used in this study are cylin-
drical (Kumar et al. 2013). The PPV is inversely proportional to the
sented in Eq. (5). The intercept, a, is a curve fitting coefficient that
is related to the degree of confinement, rock strength, and explosive
parameters, and the slope, b, represents the attenuation rate of vi-
bration based on geologic conditions (ISEE 2011). For the fine coal
ð2Þ tailings, a is determined to be 740 and b is −2.04, as shown in
Eq. (6), which is used in the next section to calculate the ground
ð3Þ acceleration to evaluate the liquefaction potential of fine coal
tailings upon bench blasting:
D
SD ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi ð4Þ
W
PPV ¼ a × SDb ð5Þ
PPV ¼ 740SD−2.04 ð6Þ
Liquefaction Resistance of Fine Coal Tailings
The liquefaction resistance of the fine coal tailings is evaluated
from the shear wave velocity profiles based on the simplified
procedure presented by Andrus and Stokoe (2000). While this
simplified procedure is typically used for evaluating the liquefac-
tion resistance of soils against earthquake loads, it is adapted and
utilized in this study for loads induced by bench blasting, which
consists of a series of detonation. The cyclic stress ratio (CSR)
of an earthquake load is commonly calculated as 65% of the peak
horizontal ground surface acceleration, amax (Andrus and Stokoe
2000). However, it is reasonable to use 100% of the amax to cal-
culate the CSR of bench blasting. This is because the delay time
between holes for the bench blasting is typically within a few
milliseconds, resulting in a stress loading that approximates a
sinusoidal function with amax as the amplitude. In the case of a sin-
gle detonation, it is assumed that 65% of amax can still be used.
The amax can be estimated from Eq. (7) (ISEE 2011) using the
PPV and frequency, f, measured in the field. f ranges from 4 to
6 Hz based on the seismograph measurements. The PPV can also
be predicted using the vibration attenuation equation, as shown in
Eq. (6), in the absence of field data and if SD ranges from 6 to
8 m=kg0.5 . A detailed examination of the SD range is included in
the discussion section:
2πfPPV
amax ¼ ð7Þ
9810
where amax = peak horizontal ground surface acceleration in the
unit of gravitational acceleration, g; PPV = peak particle velocity
(mm=s); and f is frequency (Hz) that corresponds to the PPV data.

© ASCE 04020014-7 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020014

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Madras on 03/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. PPV prediction equation for fine coal tailings and its comparisons with other general attenuation equations by ISEE (2011).

The CSR is estimated using Eq. (8). The shear stress reduction
coefficient, rd , can be estimated from the chart by Idriss (1999).
The total vertical stress, σv , and vertical effective stress, σv0 , can
be calculated from the unit weight of fine coal tailings and the depth
of the groundwater table. The depth of the groundwater table can be
estimated from the Poisson’s ratio profile if seismic surveys were
carried out instead of drilling. The moist unit weight of the coal
tailings is determined to be 15.0  1.1 kN=m3 based on the labo-
ratory results from this study. This value is comparable to those
reported in the literature (Busch et al. 1975; Zeng et al. 2008;
Salehian 2013) that reported the average moist unit weight of fine
coal tailings as 14.9  1.2 kN=m3 based on 45 measurements from
these independent studies:



a σv
CSR ¼ 1.0 max r ð8Þ
g σv0 d
coal tailings to resist liquefaction due to vibrations from bench
blasting are calculated and plotted in Figs. 6(a and b), respectively.
As depicted in Fig. 6(a), the resistance of the fine coal tailings
against cyclic liquefaction increases with depth. The data points
are plotted in circular (Line A) and triangular (Line B) markers
for Site 1 and square markers for Site 2. The trend of an increasing
resistance is more obvious at Site 1. For Site 2, the cyclic resistance
ratio first increases with depth and then decreases starting at a depth
Cyclic resistance ratio, CRR Factor of safety, FS
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 1.5 5 10
0 0
2 2

To estimate the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) of the fine coal

tailings, the shear wave velocity (V s ) is first corrected to account
for the overburden stress. The corrected shear wave velocity (V s1 ) 4 4

and the magnitude scaling factor (MSF) are then used to calculate
CRR using Eq. (9) (Andrus and Stokoe 2000). V s1 is an upper limit
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

of V s1 for liquefiable coal tailings and is correlated with the amount 6 6

of FC in coal tailings. Coal tailings with V s1 greater than 200 m=s
are assumed to be nonliquefiable (Andrus and Stokoe 2000). In
the mining industry, the total amount of explosives used in an 8 8
entire blast is typically less than 100,000 kg; hence, earthquake
magnitude on the Richter scale (M L ) is less than 5.0 (Arkansas
Geological Survey 2015). At earthquake magnitudes lower than 10 10
Site 1 Line A
5.5, the M L is consistent with the moment magnitude scale (M w ) Site 1 Line A
Site 1 Line B
(Kramer 1996). Hence, the MSF is taken as 1.82 as the Mw is less Site 1 Line B
Site 2
than 5.2 (Idriss 1999): Site 2
12 12

2
 (a) (b)
V 1 1
CRR ¼ a s1 þ b  −  MSF ð9Þ
100 V s1 − V s1 V s1 Fig. 6. Plots of (a) calculated CRR and (b) FS of fine coal tailings due
to blast loading, and the CSR is based on Eq. (8). The dashed line in
The factor of safety (FS) for coal tailings to resist liquefaction is
plot (b) indicates a typical allowable FS of 1.5 for liquefaction.
then evaluated using CRR and CSR. The CRR and the FS for fine

© ASCE 04020014-8 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020014

 of 4 m. Based on Fig. 6(b), where 100% of amax is used in calcu-
lating FS, the lower bound of the calculated FS falls under FS of
1.5, indicating that the coal tailings are prone to liquefaction haz-
ards during bench blasting. Taking into account that the blasting
loads in this study are lower than those typically induced during
mine blasting, the coal tailings are likely to liquefy or lose shear
strength upon strong blasting events.
Analyses and Discussion
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Madras on 03/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Variability of MASW Data
The variability of the shear wave velocity profiles across the three
locations in the two impoundments is examined and discussed in
this section. All 12 profiles are plotted in Fig. 7(a) with the coef-
ficient of variation, COV, in Fig. 7(b), and the number of shear wave
velocity profiles, n, in Fig. 7(c). The mean value and the 16th and
84th percentiles are calculated at a depth interval of 0.1 m. As
shown in Fig. 7(a), the mean shear wave velocity profile increases
with depth and starts to decrease at a depth of 12.0 m. The profiles
below 12.0 m are not considered reliable because of the limited
length of the seismic line. In Fig. 7(b), the COV of the fine coal
tailings ranges from 0.10 to 0.38 above 12.0 m. The COV of the
fine coal tailings is computed based on the shear wave velocity pro-
files generated for the three locations in the two Appalachian coal
fields; its applicability elsewhere needs further investigation.
The accuracy of a shear wave velovity profile largely depends
on the quality of its dispersion curve. The dispersion curves of
forward and reverse seismic lines should closely align with each
other when the geologic materials are deposited and compacted
similarly in the lateral direction. In the situation of a tailings im-
poundment, materials are deposited by gravity, with heavier mate-
rials being deposited first on one side of the impoundment and finer
materials being deposited last on the other side of the impound-
ment. As a result, the dispersion curves may slightly deviate from
Shear wave velocity, Vs (m/s)
0 200 400
0 0
Vs profiles
Mean
16th percentile
5 5
84th percentile
10
Depth (m)
15
20
25
(a)
Fig. 7. (a) Shear wave velocity profiles; (b) corresponding coefficient of variation; and (c) number of profiles along depth.
© ASCE
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020014
each other. In this study, the MASW records are converted into
dispersion curves using the phase-shift method as described in
the methodology section. The fundamental mode Rayleigh waves
of all seismic lines are extracted, and the corresponding phase
velocities and frequencies are plotted in Fig. 8, where a thin solid
line represents one seismic line (either long-forward, long-reverse,
short-forward, or short-reverse) conducted at a specific location.
The mean (thick solid line) is calculated by averaging the
dispersion curves of these four MASW spreads. The lower and
upper bounds (dashed lines) are calculated as the mean plus or mi-
nus one standard deviation (mean  1σ). The mean, lower bound,
and upper bound are calculated only at frequencies where there are
more than three dispersion curves. Fig. 8(a) shows that the
dispersion curves for Site 1 Line A start to deviate from each other
at frequencies lower than 8 Hz. The dispersion curves for Site 2
start to deviate from each other at frequencies lower than 7 Hz,
as depicted in Fig. 8(c). The depth of penetration in this study
is therefore limited by the frequency range. If deeper subsurface
information is needed for future studies in the case of a large tail-
ings impoundment, a longer spread length or a heavier hammer is
recommeneded to obtain frequencies below 8 Hz and subsurface
information below 12 m.
Indication of Unsaturated Fine Coal Tailings below
Groundwater Table
Using a measuring tape that was lowered into a borehole, the
groundwater table was measured to be 1.1–2.0 m below the ground
surface at Site 1. However, from the seismic refraction, the com-
pressional wave velocity was 830–883 m=s at a depth of 1.1–2.0 m,
as shown in Fig. 4(b). The discrepancy from the compressional
wave velocity profiles from the measured groundwater table depth
indicates the coal tailings are unsaturated below the groundwater
table. As shown in Table 2, the degree of saturation of the fine coal
tailings samples at Site 1 ranges from 73% to 94% at depths below
the groundwater table (i.e., at depths of 7.6 and 12.2 m) based on
Coefficient of variation, COV Number of profiles, n
600 0 0.2 0.4 0 5 10 15
0
5
10 10
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
15 15
20 20
25 25
(b) (c)
04020014-9 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 250 250

Phase velocity (m/s)

Phase velocity (m/s)
200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
(a) Frequency (Hz) (b) Frequency (Hz)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Madras on 03/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

350
Legend
300
Phase velocity (m/s)

Mean
250

200 Lower and upper bounds

150 Seismic lines

(i.e. long-forward, long-reverse,
100
short-forward, and short-reverse)
50
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
(c) Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 8. Dispersion curves of MASW for (a) Site 1 Line A; (b) Site 1 Line B; and (c) Site 2.

Table 2. Degree of saturation and small-strain Young’s modulus estimated microscope. Fourie et al. (2001) explained that in the case of tail-
using N values from SPT ings deposition, which is similar to this study, air may enter voids
Small-strain within the tailings during the drainage process after a deposition
Young’s Young’s cycle, but these air pockets are not dislodged following a sub-
modulus, modulus, sequent deposition, resulting in occluded air bubbles.
Site Depth (m) S (%)a N valuea N 60 a Es (MPa)b E (MPa)c Compressional wave velocity is very sensitive to the degree of
1 7.6 92, 82 3 1.86 3.62 62.4 saturation. Research on Ottawa sands by Allen et al. (1980) showed
1 12.2 73, 94 7 2.08 3.75 64.7 a sharp increase in the compressional wave velocity approaching
2 4.6 75 2 3.12 4.37 75.4 1,400 m=s only when the degree of saturation is near 100%. Com-
2 7.6 100 2 7.66 7.10 122.5 pressional wave velocity can therefore be used to indicate the thick-
a
Degree of saturation (S), N value, and N 60 were obtained from field and ness of the unsaturated layer below the phreatic layer (Naesgaard
laboratory testing (Salam et al. 2019). et al. 2007; Hossain et al. 2012). Although liquefaction resistance
b
Es is estimated from N 60 determined in this study. of fine coal tailings can increase in an unsaturation condition, par-
c
E is estimated from Es by assuming 94% reduction in modulus (Seed and tially saturated soils can still liquefy provided that the pore air and
Idriss 1970; Vucetic and Dobry 1991). pore water pressures can build up to reach the initial total stress
under dynamic conditions (Unno et al. 2008). Given that the lique-
faction behavior of unsaturated tailings is not fully understood and
laboratory test results. Although soils are typically assumed to be the relationship between the liquefaction resistance and the degree
fully saturated below the groundwater table with a compressional of saturation has not been quantified, this study evaluated the lique-
wave velocity of 1,400 m=s, the degree of saturation and the phre- faction potential of fine coal tailings by assuming full saturation for
atic level are in fact two different concepts. As pointed out by layers below the water table.
Hubbert (1940), the water table is defined as an isobaric surface While the compressional wave velocity is below 1,400 m=s, the
where pore water pressure is equal to atmospheric pressure and should Poisson’s ratio approximately 0.5 at the depth of groundwater table,
not be used to imply the degree of saturation. The soils can be unsatu- as shown in Fig. 4. It is reasonable to assume that the Poisson’s
rated below the phreatic level due the presence of air bubbles. ratio of the fine coal tailings below the groundwater table is 0.5
This phenomenon of unsaturation beneath the phreatic level due owing to the high incompressibility of groundwater. As presented
to undissolved air bubbles has also been reported in the literature in Figs. 4(a and b) for Site 1 Lines A and B, the Poisson’s ratio
(e.g., Bonnet and Meyer 1988; Kokusho 2000; Fourie et al. 2001; sharply increased to 0.49 and 0.48 at depths of 2.1 and 1.5 m, re-
Holzer and Bennett 2003). Holzer and Bennett (2003) reported the spectively. Owing to the deep groundwater table at Site 2, as pre-
discrepancies between groundwater table measured using seismic sented in Fig. 4(c), the Poisson’s ratio fluctuates along the depth
refraction and that measured using boring. Undissolved air bubbles and does not approach 0.5. A sharp increase in Poisson’s ratio
may be caused by seasonal fluctuations in the groundwater table. to 0.5 can therefore be used to represent the depth of groundwater
Fourie et al. (2001) also identified unsaturation below the phreatic table but not necessarily the fully saturated coal tailings. It is also
level in tailings sand using undisturbed frozen cores and observed noted in Fig. 4 that Poisson’s ratios slightly decreased below the
air bubbles in these cores using a cryogenic scanning electron groundwater table. These trends may be due to the low resolutions

© ASCE 04020014-10 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020014

 of the compressional wave velocity profiles as compared to the
shear wave velocity profiles.
Justifications of Seismic Survey Results
Using SPT Data
Consistency of the parameters determined from the seismic surveys
and the standard penetration tests (SPTs) are examined to evaluate
the reliability and effectiveness of seismic surveys in characterizing
the fine coal tailings. The N values that correspond to various coal
tailings profiles according to the ICC (2009) are included in Table 1.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Madras on 03/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Based on the shear wave velocity profiles in Fig. 4, the fine coal
tailings are considered very soft to soft above 19 m for Site 1 and
9 m for Site 2 (based on the lower bound of the profile, as indicated
by the long-forward seismic line) and the N values determined for
those layers should be lower than 15, as shown in the last column of
Table 1. As indicated in Table 2, the N values were recorded as 3 at
a depth of 7.6 m and 7 at a depth of 12.2 m for Site 1. For Site 2, the
N values were both 2 at depths of 4.6 and 7.6 m. The low N values
(<15) showed that the interpretation of coal tailings strata based on
the N values was consistent with that based on the shear wave
velocity profiles.
The N values are also used to validate the small-strain Young’s
modulus derived from the compressional and shear wave velocity
profiles as shown in Fig. 4. By taking Site 1 as an example, the N
values are corrected to N 60 , which are 1.86 and 2.08 at depths of 4.6
and 7.6 m, respectively, as shown in Table 2. The Young’s modulus
can be calculated as a function of N 60 from Eq. (10) (Coduto 2001):
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Es ¼ β 0 OCR þ β 1 N 60 ð10Þ
where Es = high-strain Young’s modulus; β 0 and β 1 = correlation
factors that vary for various soil types; OCR = overconsolidation
ratio; and N 60 = SPT N value corrected for field procedures. Based
on the results of consolidation testing conducted in this study, the
preconsolidation stress is approximately the same as the effective
stress for the coal tailings samples, resulting in an OCR of 1 for the
fine coal tailings. Since the coal tailings samples are classified as
SM or ML, β 0 is taken as 2,500 kPa and β 1 as 600 kPa (Coduto
2001). Based on Eq. (10), Es is calculated to be 3.62 MPa and
3.75 MPa at depths of 4.6 and 7.6 m, respectively. The Young’s
modulus estimated from Eq. (10) is a high-strain modulus because
it is derived from SPT, a high-strain penetration test with strain on
the order of 10−1 (Sabatini et al. 2002). Hence, the high-strain
Young’s modulus was corrected to the small-strain Young’s modu-
lus, E, which has the same shear strain on the order of 10−6 as that
from the seismic survey. Considering that the modulus reduction
curve is mainly controlled by the plasticity index of the materials
(Vucetic and Dobry 1991) and the samples in this study are clas-
sified as nonplastic to low-plasticity soils (PI ¼ 0–5) (Salam et al.
2019), the relationship of shear modulus reduction with shear strain
that was developed for nonplastic soils (Seed and Idriss 1970;
Vucetic and Dobry 1991) is applied to the fine coal tailings. Based
on this relationship, the reduction in the shear modulus for sand
when the shear strain changed from 10−6 to 10−1 is approximately
94%. Sett et al. (2010) reasoned that the relationship of the Young’s
modulus reduction to strain followed the same relationship of shear
modulus to shear strain. Therefore, in this paper, a 94% reduction
of Young’s modulus is adopted when the strain increased from 10−6
to 10−1 . The high-strain Es is corrected to small-strain E of 62.4
and 64.7 MPa at depths of 4.6 m and 7.6 m, respectively, as shown
in Table 2. The same calculations are performed for Site 2, and the
results are also included in Table 2. As depicted in the third column
of Fig. 4(c) for Site 2, the values are consistent with the small-strain
© ASCE 04020014-11
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020014
Young’s modulus profiles estimated from the seismic survey.
For Site 1 [as shown in Figs. 4(a and b)], the small-strain Young’s
moduli obtained from the SPT are slightly lower than the small-
strain Young’s moduli estimated from the seismic survey. This dis-
crepancy may be due to the fact that the SPT location does not
overlap with the seismic lines at Site 1 as depicted in Fig. 1(b).
Statistical Justification and Comparison of Attenuation
Equation
The attenuation Eq. (6) developed for the fine coal tailings in this
study is compared to the general equations developed for various
mining sites, as depicted in Fig. 5. The slope of the best fit line
for the site with coal tailings is the highest of all, indicating that
the vibration attenuation rate is the highest for coal tailings. Since
the attenuation rate is based on the site conditions, the slurry-like
coal tailings are believed to be responsible for the high rate of
attenuation. However, the attenuation equation is based on SD
values ranging from 6 to 8 m=kg0.5 ; its application to higher
SD values (10–100 m=kg0.5 ) needs to be verified. The attenuation
equation is statistically analyzed to evaluate its reliability in pre-
dicting the PPV of fine coal tailings in other regions due to blast
loading. The fit-and-diagnosis test suggests that there is an unusual
and influential data point, which is plotted as an empty circle in
Fig. 5. The removal of this outlier improves the coefficient of de-
termination (R2 ) from 0.63 to 0.69. Though R2 of at least 0.70 is
typically recommended by ISEE (2011) in developing vibration
attenuation equations, a prediction equation with R2 of 0.69 could
still be used to provide rough estimations of PPV, since the sample
size, n, is small (<30). A larger sample size might improve R2 .
However, the P-value (i.e., the marginal significance level of a
statistical hypothesis test) estimated for this data set is less than
0.001, which constitutes statistical evidence showing that the log-
arithms of PPV and SD are linearly associated at the 95% confi-
dence level.
Comparison of Liquefaction Resistance of Fine Coal
Tailings with Findings in the Literature
The liquefaction resistance of fine coal tailings can vary with the
percentage of FC and the initial effective confining stress. The CRR
that is determined in this study using the simplified procedure
proposed by Andrus and Stokoe (2000) is plotted against the per-
centage of FC in the coal tailings (Fig. 9). Every CRR data point
0.7
10 m < Depth < 15 m
0.6
8 m < Depth < 10 m
Cyclic resistance ratio, CRR
0.5 4 m < Depth < 8 m
Depth < 4 m
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Percentage of fines content, FC (%)
Fig. 9. CRR of coal tailings over a wide range of percentages of FC.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 represents the average value that is computed from all CRR
values for a specific percentage of FC at a specific depth range.
In Fig. 9, as the percentage of FC increases, the CRR in the depth
group that is larger than 4 m tends to increase, suggesting that
fine coal tailings with higher FC tend to have higher resistance
to liquefaction. This finding is consistent with those of Ullrich
et al. (1991) that the samples from sites with fine coal cleaning
(i.e., higher FC) have a lower range of ru under the same cyclic
loads. This finding applies to fine coal tailings with similar density
since the liquefaction resistance also depends on the density relative
to a critical value. Fig. 9 also shows that the CRR increases with
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Madras on 03/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
depth for fine coal tailings with similar FC. This observation is in
agreement with the findings of Zeng et al. (2008) that fine coal
tailings samples retrieved from locations with higher effective con-
fining stresses (i.e., deeper depths) do not liquefy even under large
cyclic loads.
Summary and Conclusions
In this study, seismic surveys, which include seismic refraction
and the MASW, and the seismic monitoring of ground vibrations
are conducted in two coal tailings impoundments in Appalachian
coalfields in the United States. Based on seismogram records
from the MASW and seismic refraction survey, the shear wave
velocity and compressional wave velocity profiles are determined
for fine coal tailings, respectively. Combining both wave velocity
profiles, the Poisson’s ratio, small-strain Young’s modulus, and
small-strain shear modulus are derived. Based on the PPV data
from seismic monitoring, a vibration attenuation equation for peak
particle velocity is developed specifically for fine coal tailings. The
liquefaction resistance of fine coal tailings is evaluated using the
PPV from seismic monitoring and the shear wave velocity from the
seismic survey.
Using a sledge hammer in the MASW survey and small explo-
sive charges in the seismic refraction survey, the seismic surveys
could effectively determine the strata of fine coal tailings. The seis-
mic refraction survey successfully determined the compressional
wave velocity profiles of fine coal tailings and captured the thick
and unsaturated layers of fine coal tailings below the groundwater
table. Hence, compressional wave velocity can be used to estimate
the depth of fully saturated fine coal tailings but not groundwater
depth, whereas Poisson’s ratio can be used to determine ground-
water depth. The accuracy of the parameters determined from
the seismic surveys is also examined using the SPT data. Compar-
isons along the depth of the two sites show that the interpretation of
the fine coal tailings strata based on the shear wave velocity from
the MASW was consistent with that based on the N values from
SPTs. The small-strain Young’s moduli derived from the seismic
surveys are also consistent with those estimated based on the
N 60 of the SPTs. For the fine coal tailings, the PPV is correlated
with the SD through the power rule; the curve fitting results in the
intercept, a, of 740 and slope, b, of −2.04. The slope, b, for coal
tailings is the highest among other general equations, suggesting
the highest rate of vibration attenuation of fine coal tailings.
However, the attenuation equation is based on SD values ranging
from 6 to 8 m=kg0.5 ; its application to higher SD values (10 to
100 m=sqrt kg) needs to be verified.
The liquefaction potential of the fine coal tailings due to bench
blasting is evaluated using the simplified approach of Andrus
and Stokoe (2000). When 100% of amax is used in calculating
the CSR of bench blasting, the lower bound of the calculated
FS falls under the typical design factor of 1.5, indicating that coal
tailings are prone to liquefaction when subjected to typical mine
© ASCE 04020014-12
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020014
blasting. The CRR is shown to have a strong association with
depth. In general, the average in situ CRR of coal tailings increases
with depth and percentage of FC. The increasing rate of CRR
against the percentage of FC is also more drastic at depth deeper
than 8 m.
This paper presents a detailed in situ seismic investigation that is
effective at determining the in situ properties of coal tailings and
evaluating the liquefaction potential of coal tailings subjected to
ground vibrations due to mine blasting. While the coal tailings
properties presented in this study are site-specific, the described
methodology of the seismic investigation can be applied to other
coal tailings impoundments to assess the in situ coal tailings prop-
erties in other regions.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code generated or used during the
study are available from the corresponding author by request.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful for the financial support provided by
the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSMRE), US Department of Interior. This paper is based upon
work supported by OSMRE under Cooperative Agreement
No. S16AC20074. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or re-
commendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and
do not necessarily reflect the views of OSMRE. The authors thank
the crew members of Vibra-Tech Engineers for performing the seis-
mic survey. The authors also thank Dr. Behnoud Kermani and
Dr. Jintai Wang, former PhD students at the Pennsylvania State
University, for their help in the seismic survey.
References
Allen, F. A., F. E. Richart Jr., and R. D. Woods. 1980. “Fluid wave
propagation in saturated and nearly saturated sands.” J. Geotech.
Eng. Div. 106 (3): 235–254.
Almes, R. G., and A. Butail. 1976. “Coal refuse: Its behavior related to the
design and operation of coal refuse disposal facilities.” In Proc., 7th
Ohio Valley Soils Seminar on Shales and Mine Wastes: Geotechnical
Properties, Design and Construction, 9. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Andrus, R. D., and K. H. Stokoe, II. 2000. “Liquefaction resistance of
soils from shear-wave velocity.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 126 (11):
1015–1025. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:11
(1015).
Arkansas Geological Survey. 2015. “Equivalent energy of earthquakes.”
Accessed June 27, 2018. http://www.geology.ar.gov/geohazards/eq
_geninfo.htm.
ASTM. 2011. Standard guide for using the seismic refraction method
for subsurface investigation. ASTM D5557. West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM.
Azam, S., and Q. Li. 2010. “Tailings dam failures: A review of the last one
hundred years.” Geotech. News 28 (4): 50–53.
Berg, T. M. 1980. Geologic map of Pennsylvania: 1:250,000. Harrisburg,
PA: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Dept. of Environmental Resour-
ces, Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey.
Blight, G. E., and A. B. Fourie. 2005. “Catastrophe revisited: Disastrous
flow failures of mine and municipal solid waste.” Geotech. Geol. Eng.
23 (3): 219–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-004-7067-y.
Bonnet, G., and M. Meyer. 1988. “Seismic refraction tests above water
table.” J. Geotech. Eng. 114 (10): 1183–1189. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9410(1988)114:10(1183).
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Bourbié, T., O. Coussy, and B. Zinszner. 1987. Acoustics of porous media.
Houston: Gulf Publishing Company, Book Division.
Bray, J. D., and R. B. Sancio. 2006. “Assessment of the liquefaction
susceptibility of fine-grained soils.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
132 (9): 1165–1177. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)
132:9(1165).
Bray, J. D., R. B. Sancio, M. F. Riemer, and T. Durgunoglu. 2004. “Lique-
faction susceptibility of fine-grained soils.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., 11th
Int. Conf. on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering and 3rd Int.
Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, 655–662. Singapore:
Stallion Press.
Busch, R. A., R. R. Backer, L. A. Atkins, and C. D. Kealy. 1975.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Madras on 03/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Vol. 8062 of Physical property data on fine coal refuse. Pittsburgh:
US Dept. of Interior Bureau of Mines.
Charlie, W. A., T. E. Bretz, L. A. Schure, and D. O. Doehring. 2013. “Blast-
induced pore pressure and liquefaction of saturated sand.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 139 (8): 1308–1319. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
GT.1943-5606.0000846.
Coduto, P. D. 2001. Foundation design: Principles and practices. 2nd ed.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Cowherd, D. C., and I. J. Corda. 1998. “Seismic considerations for up-
stream construction of coal refuse dams.” In Proc., 1998 Annual Conf.
Las Vegas, NV, 523–534. Lexington, KY: Association of State Dam
Safety Officials.
D’appolonia Engineering. 2009. Engineering and design manual: Coal
refuse disposal facilities, prepared for the US. Pittsburgh: Mine Safety
and Health Administration.
Fourie, A. B., B. A. Hofmann, R. J. Mikula, E. R. F. Lord, and P. K.
Robertson. 2001. “Partially saturated tailings sand below the phreatic
surface.” Géotechnique 51 (7): 577–585. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot
.2001.51.7.577.
Genes, B. E., T. O. Keller, and J. P. Laird. 2000. “Steady state liquefaction
susceptibility of high hazard upstream-constructed coal refuse disposal
facilities.” In Proc., Tailings Dams 2000, 47–58. Las Vegas: ASDSO/
USCOLD.
Hegazy, Y. A., A. G. Cushing, and C. J. Lewis. 2004. “Physical, mechani-
cal, and hydraulic properties of coal refuse for slurry impoundment de-
sign.” In Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Site Characterization, Geotechnical
and Geophysical Site Characterization, edited by A. Viana da Fonseca
and P. W. Mayne, 1285–1292. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Millpress.
Highter, W. H., and R. F. Tobin. 1980. “Flow slides and the undrained
brittleness index of some mine tailings.” Eng. Geol. 16 (1–2): 71–82.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7952(80)90008-3.
Holzer, T. L., and M. J. Bennett. 2003. “Unsaturation beneath a water
table.” Environ. Eng. Geosci. 9 (4): 379–385. https://doi.org/10.2113/9
.4.379.
Hossain, A. M., R. D. Andrus, and W. M. Camp III. 2012. “Correcting
liquefaction resistance of unsaturated soil using wave velocity.” J. Geo-
tech. Geoenviron. Eng. 139 (2): 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000770.
Huang, Y. H., and J. Li. 1987. Strength and consolidation characteristics
of fine coal refuse. Washington, DC: Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Dept. of Interior.
Hubbert, M. K. 1940. “The theory of ground-water motion.” J. Geol. 48 (8):
785–944. https://doi.org/10.1086/624930.
ICC (International Code Council). 2009. International building code.
Country Club Hills, IL: ICC.
ICOLD (International Commission on Large Dams). 2001. Tailings
dams: Risk of dangerous occurrences, lessons learnt from practical
experiences. Bulletin 121. Paris: ICOLD.
Idriss, I. M. 1999. “An update to the Seed-Idriss simplified procedure
for evaluating liquefaction potential.” In Proc., TRB Workshop on New
Approaches to Liquefaction, FHWA-RD-99-165. Washington, DC:
Federal Highway Administration.
Ilori, A. O., E. E. Okwueze, and V. I. Obianwu. 2013. “Evaluating compac-
tion quality using elastic seismic P-wave.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 25 (6):
693–700. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000559.
ISEE (International Society of Explosives Engineers). 2011. ISEE blasters’
handbook. Cleveland: ISEE.
© ASCE 04020014-13
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020014
Khandelwal, M., and P. G. Ranjith. 2010. “Correlating index properties
of rocks with P-wave measurements.” J. Appl. Geophys. 71 (1): 1–5.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2010.01.007.
Kokusho, T. 2000. “Correlation of pore-pressure B-value with P-wave
velocity and Poisson’s ratio for imperfectly saturated sand or gravel.”
Soils Found. 40 (4): 95–102. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.40.4_95.
Kramer, S. L. 1996. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. New York:
Pearson Education.
Kumar, R., D. Choudhury, and K. Bhargava. 2013. “Prediction of blast-
induced vibration parameters for soil sites.” Int. J. Geomech. 14 (3):
04014007. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000355.
McCutcheon, H. P. 1983. “Liquefaction and cyclic mobility of coal refuse
material.” M.Sc. thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Carnegie Mellon
Univ.
Michael, P. R., M. W. Richmond, M. J. Superfesky, D. E. Stump Jr., and
L. K. Chavel. 2010. “Potential of breakthroughs of impounded coal
refuse slurry into underground mines.” Environ. Eng. Geosci. 16 (3):
299–314. https://doi.org/10.2113/gseegeosci.16.3.299.
Naesgaard, E., P. M. Byrne, and D. Wijewickreme. 2007. “Is P-wave veloc-
ity an indicator of saturation in sand with viscous pore fluid?” Int. J.
Geomech. 7 (6): 437–443. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641
(2007)7:6(437).
NAIP (National Agriculture Imagery Program). 2017. NAIP digital Ortho
photo image: Hazleton, Luzerne. Salt Lake City: USDA-FSA-APFO
Aerial Photography Field Office.
Park, C. B., R. D. Miller, and J. Xia. 1998. “Imaging dispersion curves of
surface waves on multi-channel record.” In SEG Technical Program
Expanded Abstracts 1998, 1377–1380. Tulsa, OK: Society of Explora-
tion Geophysicists.
Puri, V. K., and T. R. Kostecki. 2013. “Liquefaction of mine tailings.” In
Proc., 7th Int. Conf. on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering,
16. Rolla, MO: Missouri Univ. of Science and Technology.
Rico, M., G. Benito, A. R. Salgueiro, A. Díez-Herrero, and H. G. Pereira.
2008. “Reported tailings dam failures: A review of the European inci-
dents in the worldwide context.” J. Hazard. Mater. 152 (2): 846–852.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.07.050.
Sabatini, P. J., R. C. Bachus, P. W. Mayne, J. A. Schneider, and T. E.
Zettler. 2002. Geotechnical engineering circular no. 5 (evaluation
of soil and rock properties). No. FHWA-IF-02-034. Washington,
DC: US DOT Office of Bridge Technology, Federal Highway
Administration.
Salam, S., M. Xiao, A. Khosravifar, M. Liew, S. Liu, and J. Rostami. 2019.
“Characterizations of static and dynamic geotechnical properties and
behaviors of fine coal refuse.” Can. Geotech. J. 56 (12): 1901–1916.
https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2018-0630.
Salehian, A. 2013. “Predicting the dynamic behavior of coal mine tailings
using state-of-practice geotechnical field methods.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept.
of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Kentucky.
Seed, H. B., and I. M. Idriss. 1970. Soil moduli and damping
factors for dynamic response analysis. Rep. No. UCB/EERC-70/10.
Berkeley, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of
California.
Seed, R. B., et al. 2003. “Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering:
A unified and consistent framework.” In Proc., 26th Annual ASCE Los
Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar. Berkeley, CA: Earthquake
Engineering Research Center.
Sett, K., B. Unutmaz, K. Ö. Çetin, S. Koprivica, and B. Jeremić. 2010.
“Soil uncertainty and its influence on simulated G=Gmax and damping
behavior.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 137 (3): 218–226. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000420.
Sołtys, A., M. Twardosz, and J. Winzer. 2017. “Control and documentation
studies of the impact of blasting on buildings in the surroundings of
open pit mines.” J. Sustainable Min. 16 (4): 179–188. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.jsm.2017.12.004.
Ullrich, C. R., B. K. Thacker, and N. R. Roberts. 1991. “Dynamic properties
of fine-grained coal refuse.” In Vol. 3 of Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Recent
Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics,
393–397. Rolla, MO: Missouri Univ. of Science and Technology.
Unno, T., M. Kazama, R. Uzuoka, and N. Sento. 2008. “Liquefaction of
unsaturated sand considering the pore air pressure and volume
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 compressibility of the soil particle skeleton.” Soils Found. 48 (1):
87–99. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.48.87.
Vucetic, M., and R. Dobry. 1991. “Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic re-
sponse.” J. Geotech. Eng. 117 (1): 89–107. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9410(1991)117:1(89).
Xia, J., R. D. Miller, and C. B. Park. 1999. “Estimation of
near-surface shear-wave velocity by inversion of Rayleigh
waves.” Geophysics 64 (3): 691–700. https://doi.org/10.1190/1
.1444578.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Madras on 03/09/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Yilmaz, E. 2011. “Advances in reducing large volumes of environmentally
harmful mine waste rocks and tailings.” Mineral Resour. Manage.
27 (2): 89–112.
Yilmaz, E., and M. Fall. 2017. Paste tailings management, 1–303. Cham,
Switzerland: Springer.
Zeng, X., J. A. Goble, and L. Fu. 2008. “Dynamic properties of coal waste
refuse in a tailings dam.” In Proc., Geotechnical Earthquake Engineer-
ing and Soil Dynamics IV, 1–14. Reston, VA: ASCE. https://doi.org/10
.1061/40975(318)45.

© ASCE 04020014-14 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020014