Planning for Closure:

Field and Laboratory

Investigations for
Soil Cover Design
Peter E. Kowalewski
SRK Consulting
Objective of Cover Design
Obtain cover design that meets sites
objective
Infiltration-limiting
Oxygen-limiting
Obtain estimate of long term soil cover
performance
Quantify percolation through covered ore
Identify risks with regard to cover stability
Idealized Approach
Conceptual/Preliminary Design
Types of covers to be evaluated
Estimated soil types based on site knowledge
Site Soils Investigation
Numerical modeling of cover alternatives
Establishment of test plots / Monitoring
Validation of numerical model
Selection of preferred cover alternative
Construction
Overview of Data Requirements
Climatic Data
Site-specific
Soils Data
Ore to be covered
Potential cover soils
Quantifying Cover Performance
Predictive Numerical Modeling
SoilCover, HYDRUS 1-D/2-D, SEEP/W, etc
Field Demonstration
Instrumented Cover Test Sections
Tensiometers
TDR
Moisture Sensors
Soil Water Potentiometers
Lysimeters
Field Demonstration - Benefits
Provides data related to actual cover
performance (vs modeled results)
Allows cover model to be verified
Provides degree of reliability to long term
performance predictions
Allows for identification of potential cost
savings in design
Site Soils Investigation
Identify potential sources of cover soils
Identify available soil volumes
Assess geotechnical properties
Establish range of properties
Assess properties of ore to be covered
Operational and closure task
Ore Investigation
Assess/confirm geotechnical properties
Identify in-situ conditions of ore
Variation in profile?
Density
Moisture content
Saturated Permeability
Cover Soil SWCC Comparison
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Suction (kPa)
V
o
l
.

M
o
i
s
t
u
r
e

C
o
n
t
e
n
t

(
%
)
Cover Soil SWCC Comparison
0
0. 05
0. 1
0. 15
0. 2
0. 25
0. 3
0. 35
0. 1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Matric Suction (kPa)
M
o
i
s
t
u
r
e

C
o
n
t
e
n
t

(
v
o
l

%
)
Barrier Soil SWCC Comparison
0
0. 05
0. 1
0. 15
0. 2
0. 25
0. 3
0. 35
0. 4
0. 01 0. 1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Suction (kPa)
W
a
t
e
r

C
o
n
t
e
n
t

(
v
o
l

%
)
Ore SWCC Comparison
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Suction (kPa)
V
o
l
.

M
o
i
s
t
u
r
e

C
o
n
t
e
n
t

(
%
)
P-1 5 P-1 25 P-1 94 P-2 9 P-2 59 P-2 68.5 P-2 119 P-3 6.5
P-3 29 P-3 93.5 P-3 108.5 P-3 122 Li terature Li terature
Heap Moisture Profiles
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0%
D
e
p
t
h

(
f
t
)
Note: V olumetr ic Mois tur e Contents
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0%
Conclusions
Benefits
Site-specific data included in analyses
Optimized cover design
Validated cover performance
Potential capital cost reduction