Static Liquefaction

September 2017

The Assessment of Static

Liquefaction in Tailings Dams:
A Review

Nico Vermeulen 1
Disclaimer

The principle objective of this presentation is to elicit response, comment & debate
on the topic of static liquefaction in the context of tailings dams.

 it represents an independent review of the state-of-the-art

 it expresses the observations/views of the author, not necessarily of J&W
 it does not propose to offer a recipe for liquefaction assessment

Reference: Static Liquefaction, The Assessment of Static Liquefaction in Tailings

Dams: A Review, presentation by Nico Vermeulen of Jones & Wagener, September
2017

2
CONTENTS
1. Definitions
2. Static Liquefaction
3. Investigations
4. Analysis
5. Challenges

3
1. DEFINITIONS

4
Types of “Liquefaction”
Static Liquefaction


flow type failure as a result of strain softening accompanied by increased pore
pressure and a consequent reduction of the undrained shear strength
 some researchers still adhere to a model that allows for the collapse of a meta-
stable fabric or packing (card house structure) of the soil skeleton (solid particles)
 Mike Jefferies brought us the NorSand CSSM that is capable of modeling static
liquefaction within a sound engineering framework.

Many Triggers
Often heavy rainfall
can also be seismic 5
Dynamic / Cyclic Liquefaction
 failure as a result of the cyclic build-up (ratchetting) of excess pore pressures in
response to repetitive loading or shaking typically associated with seismic events.

Repeated loading
Often earthquakes
6
‘Quick Sand Conditions’
 boiling or quicksand type failure as a result of seepage forces overcoming the self
weight and frictional interaction between non-cohesive grains.

Hydraulic Gradient
Poor seepage control
7
‘Quick Clay Conditions’

 failure as a result of physio-chemical processes resulting in a meta-stable fabric

that collapses on mechanical disturbance.

Dispersion / Flocculation
Mechanical disturbance
8
2. STATIC LIQUEFACTION

9
 Liquefaction
Behaviour of Soils = Composition x State
COMPOSITION STATE
Mineralogy
Size (PSD) Structure Stress-Density
Shape
Texture Fabric Void ratio / Density / State parameter
Critical State / Steady State Bonding Effective stress
Fiction angle Collapsibility Pore pressure
Cohesion Stress history / OCR
Dilatancy (Dilate & Contract)
Earth pressure
Elasticity / Plasticity / Yield / Hardening

Physical properties of particles Packing arrangement & glue History & Starting Point10
Computational Model
Critical State Soil Constitutive Models

 The means to calculate soil behavior

 Elastic conditions
 Yield conditions
 Plastic conditions
 Failure conditions (critical or steady state)
 Framework for understanding soils
 Applied within:
 Known or imposed boundary conditions
 Drainage conditions

 Examples:
 Granta Gravel (simplified sand)
 Cam-clay (Clay)
 Modified Cam-clay (Clay, numerical solutions) CSSM Model for Clays - Cambridge
 NorSand (Sand & Silts -> Tailings)

11
Static Liquefaction: The Recipe for Disaster
1. Liquefaction SUSCEPTIBILITY

potential for undrained strain softening associated with a contractive soil state or low
density

2. Liquefaction TRIGGER
trigger mechanisms that may initiate strain softening (break the camel’s back):
• static or monotonic stress (static loading from self-weight or surcharge)
• cyclic stress (blast/construction vibrations, seismic/earthquake)
• deformation (undermining collapse, squeeze)
• Piping/boiling, overtopping, progressive sloughing . . .

3. Post-liquefaction STABILITY
extent of strain softening and loss of strength and the resultant impact on slope
stability, settlement, bearing capacity etc.

Olsen & Stark (2003) + Been & Jefferies (2006, 2016)

12
Nic’s Rules of Thumb
 SUSCEPTIBILITY:
 All hydraulically placed fine tailings below the water table
should be considered contractive & susceptible to liquefaction
 TRIGGER:
 Assume that a plausible trigger will exist.
 Consider undrained shear strength for ‘quick’/brittle triggers
 POST-LIQUEFACTION:
 Check slope stability
 su(liq)/s’vo = 2% to 5% - liquefied undrained strength ratio
 CONSEQUENCE:
 Test Rheology and determine in situ Density profile
 Carry out a dam-break analysis, i.e. what is the consequence

Suggest you investigate & analyse back-to-front

13
Examples of Static Liquefaction Failures
 1965 El Cobre, Chile
 copper tailings, >200 deaths
 1966 Aberfan, Wales
 Coal tip, 144 deaths including 116 school children
 1971 San Fernando, California USA
 Van Norman dams, 80 000 evacuated
 1983 Canadian Beaufort Sea => CANLEX
 Nerlark underwater berms, construction abandoned
 1985 Sand Heads, Fraser River Delta, Canada
 Seabed instability
 1994 Merriespruit, South Africa
 Gold tailings, 17 deaths
 2008 Kingston Fossil Plant, Tennessee USA
 Fly ash, 4.2x106m3 spill
 2014 Mount Polley, British Columbia, Canada
 Copper & gold tailings, 10x106m3 water & 7.3x106m3 tailings spill (foundation failure)
 2015 Samarco, Minas Gerais, Brazil
 Iron ore, 158 homes destroyed, 17 deaths, 32-60x106m3 tailings spill
14
3. INVESTIGATIONS

15
Desk Study
Seismic Data – Ground Acceleration (PPV)

 Earthquake (Trigger?)
 10% Probability of exceedance in 50 years, or
 Maximum Credible Earthquake (Australia vs. Northern SA on the Rift Belt)
 Be careful of the questions that you ask, you may not like the answers

Design & Operational Data

 Foundations / Drainage / Liner

 Topography / Geometry
 RoR / Delivery (sluicing vs cyclone)
 History / ‘Funnies’ / ‘Specials’ / ‘Deviations’

Environmental Data
 Water Balance
 Rainfall
 1:100 year 24hr event 16
In situ Investigations
Geotechnical Drilling
 SPT – always good as a back-up check for liquefaction potential
 Tube sampling (undisturbed, Shelby Tube, Mostap) for laboratory testing
 Core extraction (disturbed samples) and visual logging
 Piezometer installation

Sonic Drilling
 Faster than conventional rotary core drilling
 Good core recovery in soft tailings
 Continuous casing of the borehole to prevent collapse
 Allows SPT, tube sampling & piezometer installation
 Can drill without water / drilling mud, i.e. ‘dry-drill’

 Slowly becoming more widely available in SA for geotechnical applications

 SA Contractors do not have inner-sleeves (expensive) for better core recovery
17
Sonic Drilling

Core Liner No Core Liner

18
Core recovery by Sonic Drilling
Note no inner sample sleeve used

19
CPT measures Soil STATE & BEHAVIOUR
Penetration Testing - SCPTu
 CPT – cone resistance, sleeve friction (now common) & inclination
 u – dynamic pore pressure and equilibrium pore pressure
 S – shear wave velocity (should become common!!)

SCPTu
 Multiple ‘liquefaction parameters’ are measure simultaneously and continuously
 Many liquefaction analyses are based primarily on CPTu data
 Shear wave velocity adds another level of interpretation (SPT CPT vs)
 Reliable measurement of pore pressure regime in a tailings dam (critical)
 Best bang for buck by far, should be the primary investigation tool
 Window sampling now possible (Mostap)
 Cannot penetrate hard or dense layers, or possibly all the way to the base of TSF
 Seismic piezocone not as widely available in SA, or measures top-down
 May still be perceived as ‘expensive’!?! 20
SCPTu with Dual/Multi Geophones

 

1 is good!

2 is better!!
21
Three independent shear wave velocity measurements
CPTu / SCPTu (single geophone) / CSW

Remarkable correlation!
Was this pure luck?
22
Piezometers
 All TSF’s should have piezometers that are monitored as part of operations
 Site records are typically poor, incomplete and not well understood by site staff
 Piezometers are often lost or damaged as part of operations
 Extensions to piezometers are not always properly recorded

Electronic Piezometers
 Real time data to the cloud and available to all for analysis
 Multi-level sensors -> pore pressure regime
 Auto-trigger warning levels
 Communications technologies allow long term remote sensing (10 year battery life)
 Theft/vandalism no longer a major concern due to wireless technologies

 Perceived as expensive
 Limited ‘track record’
 Data flooding 23
Laboratory Investigations

Disturbed tests for COMPOSITION

Undisturbed tests to verify STATE

Classification

• SG – Specific Gravity
• PSD - Particle Size Distribution and fines content
• Atterberg Limits - influence of the fines
• Moisture content
• Confirm SBT & FC classifications from CPTu interpretation

Commercial Laboratories
 Routine tests, reasonable chance of reliable & repeatable results
 Can be done on disturbed but representative samples
 Best source of composition data

 Laboratories can and do ‘regularly’ mess up basic tests 24

Characterisation – Undisturbed Specimens

• Density / Void Ratio – critical to liquefaction susceptibility

• Triaxial tests - indication of expected stress paths & dilatancy
• Verify state parameter estimates from CPTu & calculations

Characterisation – Triaxial Tests on Disturbed Specimens

• Shear strength – effective strength parameters

• Critical State Parameters - depends on the model adopted
• We need both Drained & Undrained tests to probe NorSand parameters
• Staged consolidation assist in understanding compression/consolidation

Commercial Laboratories in SA
 Specimen preparation and care are critical, lab manager needs to be aware
 Special test procedures are often required for CSSM parameters
 Regrettably results are not as reliable as they should be in SA
 Capacity and testing time are major challenges
 Research lab capacity is extremely limited for commercial testing 25
Fabric Effects on Reconstituted Samples
Chang et al. (2011) Hoeg et al. (2000): Silts & Tailings

Critical State Models

 Test reconstituted samples
 Develop intrinsic soil parameters
 Model complex behaviour
 Explain fabric effects to some degree

26
 CIU Triaxial Tests on the same tailings material
140

120
f’ = 19° f’ = 39°
Deviator stress (kPa)

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Mean normal effective stress (kPa)

Reconstituted – Moist Tamp Undisturbed – Shelby Tube

eo = 0.9 eo = 1.2!
Sample liquefied during the test Strongly dilatant at lower density!

? Lab error or real soil behaviour ?

27
Specialised Testing

• Electron micrographs – still the best way to see what you are dealing with

• X-Ray Diffraction & SEM Spectrometry

• Cyclic Triaxial Tests

• Bender Element Tests
• Cyclic Simple Shear Tests
• Resonant Column Tests

• Rheology Tests – for dam break analyses

• Cylinder & Vane viscometer tests
• Newtonian vs Non-Newtonian behaviour (𝜏: 𝛾)
• Tailings typically 4 parameter Bingham Plastic

28
Walking on Water?

... well corn-starch

(non-Newtonian Fluid)
29
4. ANALYSIS

30
Slope Stability = Balancing Act

DISTURBING FORCES

FoS > 1

STABILISING FORCES
31
Olson & Stark (2003) – Case based
 Based on undrained shear strength to the vertical effective stress ratio with depth
su/s’vo

 Liquefaction trigger: su(yield)/s’vo peak available strength (not CS Yield)

 Liquefied strength: su(liq)/s’vo not zero, but low say 2% to 5%
 Non plastic fines (tailings) do not reduce liquefaction susceptibility (?Robertson?)
 Liquefaction failures typically when su(yield) = 25% to 30% of s’vo

 Susceptibility:
 Contractive/dilative boundary (‘simplification’ of Fear & Robertson, 1995 SPT)
′
𝜎𝑣𝑜 𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑦 = 1.10𝑥10−2 𝑞𝑐1 4.79

32
 Triger Analysis:
𝑠𝑢,𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑
𝐹𝑜𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑔𝑒𝑟 = FoS ≥ 1
𝜏𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 + 𝜏𝑠𝑒𝑖𝑠𝑚𝑖𝑐 + 𝜏𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟

 su(yield)/s’vo based on CPT data and back analysis of liquefaction failures

𝑠𝑢 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑
′ = 0.205 + 0.0143𝑞𝑐1 ± 0.04 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑞𝑐1 ≤ 6.5𝑀𝑃𝑎
𝜎𝑣𝑜

 tstatic stress levels associated with the current static slope stability, i.e.
a static slope failure is a trigger for liquefaction

 tseismic based on CSR & CRR, Seed, Youd & Idriss, 1971, 1997, 2001
𝛼𝑚𝑎𝑥 CSR = tseismic / s’vo
𝜏𝑠𝑒𝑖𝑠𝑚𝑖𝑐 = 0.65 𝜎𝑣𝑜 𝑟𝑑 𝐶𝑀
𝑔 CRR = su(yield)/s’vo
PGA Depth/Stress Reduction Magnitude Scaling
33
  tother could be deformation driven shear, deformation etc.

 Other trigger analysis methods

 Simplified Liquefaction Potential Index method (LPI or IL): seismic resistance
see Iwasaki et al. (1978 & 1982)

 Post-trigger Stability:
 Assign liquefied strength to soils along failure planes
 Carry out a limit equilibrium stability check
 FoS ≤ 1 Failure
 1 < FoS ≤ 1.1 Progressive failure
 FoS > 1.1 No failure

 su(liq)/s’vo based on CPT data

𝑠𝑢 𝑙𝑖𝑞
′ = 0.03 + 0.0143𝑞𝑐1 ± 0.03 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑞𝑐1 ≤ 6.5𝑀𝑃𝑎
𝜎𝑣𝑜
34
35
NorSand CSSM [Mike Jefferies 1993]
 Principle Axioms
 The CSL is a unique locus of failure or ultimate states
 Shear strain moves a soil towards the CS

 Characteristics [built on the state parameter, ]

 NCL is no longer a unique locus defining the hardening law
 The state parameter now defines the position of the ‘external’ yield surface
 OCR [R] defines how far the soil state is from yield, elastic range
 Infinite yield surfaces can exist not necessarily intersecting the CSL
 Plasticity is still governed by associated flow & normality
 State parameter is used to capture the effects of the density state
 Dilatancy behavior is captured as a function of the state parameter
 Unloading can cause yield (internal yield surface) – load cycles can cause ‘creep’
 Principal stress rotation causes softening = ƒ(lode angle)
 It accommodates phase transfer dilation and pseudo steady state fundamentally
 Elasticity assumes constant shear rigidity (Ir) and constant Poisson’s ratio (n)

36
 ∞ NCLs as ƒ() i.e. ƒ(density)
 NCLs on both sides of the CSL
 Solution to the Problem that:
“Sands always behave OC”

37
Decoupling of the Yields Surface from the CSL

38
 8 Model Parameters (dimensionless)
 M = Slope of the CSL in stress space, (q/p’)
 l = Slope of the CSL in void ratio/stress space, (e/ln(p’))
 G = Altitude of the CSL in void ratio/stress space, (e/ln(p’))
 H = Plastic Hardening Coefficient, is ƒ() and modelled as H = Ho + H()
 Hardening Law determined by Iterative Forward Modelling (IFM)
 Can approximate to 1/(l–k) in silty clayey soils, H often taken as zero
 Hr = Plastic Softening Coefficient, not yet fully understood
  = State-Dilatancy Coefficient, i.e. relationship between  & Dmin
 External Yield Surface & Internal Yield Surface
 Ir = Shear rigidity, G/p’
 n = Poisson’s ratio
 Helper Parameters
 N = Stress-Dilatancy Coefficient, i.e. relationship between hmax, Dmin & M
 Volumetric Coupling to capture dilatancy in the Flow Rule, N = 0 in CamClay
 Dmin = max dilatancy, where D = ev/eq & e = ep + ee (plastic & elastic components)
 hmax = max stress ratio, where h = q/p’
 G = Shear modulus, used to model elastic behaviour
 Determined from shear wave velocity from geophysics, or bender element tests
 Can be determined by load/unload cycles during triaxial shear but requires care
 Dependent on initial stress level po
39
 With both Ir & n assumed constant, G becomes stress dependent
NorSand – Parameters and Ranges

40
NorSand - Typical Soil Parameters Sets

41
Jefferies & Been (2006, 2016)
 Liquefaction explained by way of NorSand CSSM framework
 Allows undrained simultaneous & equal plastic/elastic volumetric strains
 No requirements for collapse type mechanism to generate pore pressures

 Liquefaction Susceptibility:
 Based on state parameter: 𝜓 = 𝑒 − 𝑒𝑐𝑠 “How far from CS/SS & on which side”
 Simplified: + indicates contractive response, i.e. liquefiable
-  indicates dilative response
 Dilative/contractive boundary varies from  > -0.05 (strong) to  > -0.08 (mild)
 The in situ state parameter  is determined from CPTu test results
Q = ƒ(initial state  & compressibility k, m)
 Qp = normalised cone resistance
 k & m rigidity functions (compressibility) linked to cavity expansion theory
 Plewes et al. (1991) screening method, assumes F(cone friction ratio) & M = 1.25
 Shuttle & Jefferies (1998), k & m ito l for drained CPTs (F < 1.5% & -0.02 < Bq < 0.02)
 Shuttle & Cunning (2007), 𝑘 & 𝑚 ito l & M for undrained CPTs (F > 1%)
 Full-monty NorSand: M, N, H, l, n, Gref & n (Gexp)

42
Screening Level
Susceptibility

Dilative

Contractive &
Liquefiable

43
 Triger Analysis:
 J&B use the CRR vs. CSR concept to check the FoS against a Seismic Trigger
 CRR is determined from
  Estimates based on  for example:

  Cyclic simple shear laboratory tests

  NCEER Robertson & Wride (1998): Q, Ic & modifications factors (Kc, Km, Ks & Ka)
 CSR based on
 The work of Seed, Youd, Idriss etc. as before,
 Typically Seed Simplified as described in Youd et al. (2001)

 Post-trigger Stability:
 su(yield)/s’vo from CPTu as per usual using
 f’ for Ic ≤ 2.5 for silts and sands, where f’ can be derived from 
 Nkt for Ic > 2.5 for clayey soils and clays, Nkt = 15 typically used

 su(liq)/s’vo from CPTu data and the Nor-Sand Model



 or based on Case History, see next slide 44

Susceptibility Trigger FoS Post-Liq

45
 Clean SAND
Silty SAND
Sandy SILT

Liquefied strength
based on case histories -0.05 46
Been & Jefferies Testing Recipe
 General Approach
 Define the soil Profile
 Define the Boundary Conditions
 Define the Water Table and Pore Pressure Regime
 Define variability and identify Anomalies
 Determine the in situ state from CPTu testing
 Determine the required Soil Parameters from lab testing
 Predict liquefaction
 Scope of Field and Lab Investigations
 CPTu Penetration Testing: In situ state, profile, pore pressures, water table etc.
 Sampling through Core Drilling or using MOSTAP window sampler on CPTu
 Shear wave velocities for G via SCPTu or Bender Element Tests
 Lab Tests on Reconstituted Samples: Composition & CSSM parameters
 Indicator Tests including emin and emax
 Critical State
 Stress-Dilatancy & State-Dilatancy
 Plastic Shear Hardening (requires some modelling to compute)
47
 Elastic properties
 Laboratory Triaxial Testing Programme
 You need 10kg of each material for 10 to 15 Triaxial tests
 Test specimens are prepared by moist tamping
 5xTest A & 2xTest B - Determine the CSL: G, l & M
 3xTest C - Determine the Stress-Dilatancy: M & N
Determine State-Dilatancy: 
 Gmax as ƒ(Gref & Gexp) by guess & fit or bender element & assume n (0.2)
 Determine the hardening parameter by IFM: H (best fit model)
 Hr is not required but can be determined via cyclic simple shear

48
 Seismic Analysis Only

49
Commercial Laboratories
 Efforts should be made to:
 ‘Educate’ Laboratories/Consultants/Clients on the requirements for liquefaction
testing and appropriate methods/procedures
 Develop/Agree on a Standard Set of tests for liquefaction parameters
 Convince the labs to offer this as a Lump Sum Suite

50
6. CHALLENGES

51
Major Uncertainties
 CPTu
 when is the probe response drained / undrained / de-saturated [F & Bq]
 when is an ANOMALY ( ‘blip’ in cone data) considered ANOMALOUS
 how do I interpret the CPTu data above the water table

 Material Types
 do I have 2 types, i.e. fine & coarse tailings e.g. cyclone over/under flow
 when can I test 1 mixed sample vs. a bandwidth of PSDs

 Trigger Mechanisms
 have I considered all possible or plausible mechanisms

 Strength
 when and where do I use the undrained shear strength
 can I mix D and UD strength models in the same stability calculation
52
Major Uncertainties
 Liquefaction Risk
 is there a limiting depth to liquefaction, say 20m deep
 can liquefaction occur above the water table
 and in sub-hydrostatic pore pressure regimes
 does increased fines content (silt) reduce liquefaction potential

 Seismic response of raised TSF

 liquefaction traditionally associated with sands below ground level
 what happens in a TSF raised above ground: damping/amplification?
 what are amax, rd and CM in, on top of or in the slopes of a TSF?

 Dam Break Analysis

 What makes a liquefaction failure stop or flow widely
 The next slides illustrate liquefaction type failures with increasing
volumes of mobilised material . . .
53
Sullivan Mine, British Columbia
“fortunately, another tailings dyke contained the flow”
54
Saaiplaas, South Africa
Relatively small mud-flow 55
Merriespruit, South Africa
Small volume, BIG mud-flow 56
 Hungary
Moderate volume & mud-flow

57
Mount Polley, British Columbia
BIG volume & BIG mud-flow

58
Baffokeng, South Africa
Massive volume discharged

59
Main Liquefaction Risks / Drivers for a TSF
 Overtopping – surface water management
 Do not use TSF to store excess water
 Collect, manage and discharge surface water quickly and safely
 Maintain adequate freeboard, check water balance
 Build-in redundancy, what if the penstock fails?
 Piping & Backwards Erosion – day wall construction
 Tailings can be susceptible to suffusion, internal and back erosion
 Weak spots in the day wall can trigger piping
 Check for boils at the toe of the embankment slope
 Upstream Day Wall Construction – the sins of the past
 Don’t build a starter wall dam
 Don’t burry weak soft tailings below the future embankment wall
 Environmental & Economic Pressures
 Go-higher & Go-faster may lead to Go-no-more or Go-ne
 Upstream construction => short term gain for long term pain
60
 Construction over liner systems still a big ?
 Water Management

Don’t drown the angels Pool Management 61

FIN
62