G-2P1J-01-0 ODTSF Parameters Calibration F - AOS - 0-0

Level 1, 10 Richardson Street
West Perth WA 6005, Australia
PO Box 943
West Perth WA 6872, Australia
T: +61 8 9288 2000

F: +61 8 9288 2001
E: perth@srk.com.au
www.asia-pacific.srk.com
Project Memo
Client: SRK Australasia Date: 11/08/2020
Attention: C. Prinsloo, H. Thomson, J. Rola From: M. Sottile, A. Sfriso
Project No: G-2P1J Revision No: 0
Project Name: Olympic Dam TSF5 numerical modelling
Subject: Constitutive models selection and calibration
1 Introduction
1.1 Project background
BHP Olympic Dam Corporation Pty Ltd (BHPOD) operates the Olympic Dam polymetallic mine located
approximately 580 km north of Adelaide in South Australia. The tailings stream is deposited in two
active tailings storage facilities (TSFs), Cell 4 and Cell 5, which are raised by upstream staged lift
construction. BHPOD recently appointed SRK Consulting (Australasia) Pty Ltd (SRK) to design a
stabilizing buttress and drain for the North, East and South walls of TSF 5.
The most recent TSF stability assessment by limit equilibrium analyses predicted that the FoS in some
areas of the TSF5 embankment will be inadequate following the routine FY2021 wall raises. As a
result, the TSF5 North, East and South walls will require reinforcement in FY2021 (North and East)
and FY2022 (South) to achieve the minimum factor of safety stability requirements. The key objective
is to reinforce the TSF5 by building a reinforcing buttress to ensure a compliant FoS following the 2021
regular wall -and subsequent tailings level- raise to an embankment crest height of approximately
RL124.2 m. Given TSF5 is proposed to be raised to a final maximum crest elevation of RL 132 m,
additional buttressing (Phase 2) is likely to be required in the future (Figure 1-1). The current study is
only required to achieve an adequate stability FoS for an embankment crest height up to RL 124.2 m
(Phase 1).
Currently, SRK Australia is undertaking trade-off studies for the buttress and drain configurations.
Several buttress and drain geometries are being analysed by means of static and post-seismic limit
equilibrium analyses. One of these configurations will be selected for deformation analysis.
SRKAU contacted SRK Argentina to undertake a numerical deformation assessment with the aim of
assessing an adequate construction rate for the reinforcement buttress and to estimate the post-
seismic configuration after three Safety Evaluation Earthquakes (SEE) earthquakes defined by
AECOM (2018), such that ANCOLD (2019) guideline is complied. This document presents the
calibrations of the constitutive models to be used in the subsequent deformation modelling.
Can SRK confirm AECOM (2018) complies with the requirements of ANCOLD (2019) Guidelines on Design
of Dams and Appurtenant Structures for Earthquake and ANCOLD (2019) Guidelines on Tailings Dams
Planning, Design, Construction,
Figure Operation
1-1: Conceptual andcross-section.
buttress Closure. A recent review has indicated the Norwest fault (100
km west of Olympic Dam at nearest point) is included in the Australian Neotectonic Features Database and
SOTTILE/SFRISO G-2P1J-01-0 ODTSF Parameters Calibration F_AOS.docx 11 August 2020
is probably capable of producing earthquakes of Mw 7.5 or larger, but was not included in NSHA18 or
AECOM 2018. Norwest fault was not included in NSHA18 but may have been added to the neotectonics
SRK Consulting Page 2
1.2 Objective and scope

The aim of this document is to present the calibrations of the constitutive models that will be used to
simulate the staged construction of the TSF5 buttress and subsequent dynamic deformation modelling.
The scope of works is limited to the calibration itself and does not include modelling at this stage.
1.3 Reviewed information
This study is mainly supported by the following documents:
• AECOM, 2018: ODE4520-RPE-0236_0-0 Ground motion response spectra and time histories,
Olympic Dam.
• Golder, 2014: Golder Associates_ODE4520-RPE-0179_0-0_2014_July_Laboratory Testing and
Analysis - Liquefaction Assessment;
• Golder, 2017: Golder Associates_ODE4520-RPE-1128_2017_Mar_Laboratory Testing of
Olympic Dam Tailings Piston Sample;
• SRK, 2018a: BHP205_TSF4 Reinforcement Buttress Numerical Modelling Stability
Assessment_Rev1
• SRK, 2018b: BHP210_MEMO_West Section - Pore Pressure Response Assessment_Rev0
• SRK, 2019: BHP213_Assessment of embankment raise rate of construction_Rev3
• SRK, 2020a: BHP237 - BHPOD Statistical Strength_Rev0;
• SRK, 2020b: BHP237_OD EoR Tailings Fundamental Behaviour Stage 1_Rev0;
• BHP, 2020: BHP282 - Basis of Design Document_RevC
2 Selected constitutive models

2.1 Introduction
The HS-Small (HSS) constitutive model is selected to simulate the staged construction of the TSF5
buttressing sequence. The model is chosen based on its capabilities to capture the pore pressure
generation under monotonic compressive and deviatoric loadings. The model calibration was validated
in previous studies on TSF4 using VWP data for the buttress construction along the west flank (SRK,
2018b) and for the construction of pads that were built to evaluate the rate of rise (SRK, 2019).
The PM4Sand constitutive model is used to simulate the dynamic performance of the TSF5 under
seismic loadings. The model is chosen because it can reproduce the generation of excess pore
pressure during cyclic loading and can nicely capture the N-CSR curves for different states of the
material.
2.2 HSS model description
HSS is an effective stress hardening plasticity model, able to represent the behaviour of materials
undergoing plastic compression, consolidation and monotonic shear.
The model has a shear hardening yield surface that evolves with plastic shear strain and a volumetric
cap surface that evolves with plastic volumetric and shear strains (Figure 2-1a). The former is used to
model plastic strains due to primary deviatoric loading, while the latter is used to model plastic strains
due to primary 1D compression loading and isotropic loading.
When the soil is subjected to primary deviatoric loading, a reduction of tangent stiffness is observed,
and plastic strains develop. For drained triaxial tests, the observed relationship between axial strain
and the deviatoric stress can be approximated by a hyperbola. The evolution of the stress-strain
behaviour is reproduced by the tangent, secant and unload-reload stiffnesses, which depend on the
mean effective stress (Figure 2-1b). The model parameters are:
• 𝛾𝑠𝑎𝑡 : saturated unit weight;
𝑟𝑒𝑓
• 𝐸50 : secant stiffness at 50% of the TX failure deviatoric stress at a confining pressure 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑓 ;
𝑟𝑒𝑓
• 𝐸𝑜𝑒𝑑 : tangent stiffness for primary oedometer loading at a confining pressure 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑓 ;
𝑟𝑒𝑓
• 𝐸𝑢𝑟 : elastic unloading / reloading stiffness at a confining pressure 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑓 ;;
𝑟𝑒𝑓
• 𝐺0 : reference shear modulus at small strain at a confining pressure 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑓 ;;
• 𝛾0.7 : threshold shear strain at which 𝐺𝑠 = 0.722 𝐺0 ;
• 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑓 : reference pressure;
• 𝑚: stress dependent stiffness exponent according to a power law;
• 𝑐′: Mohr-Coulomb effective cohesion;
• 𝜙′: Mohr-Coulomb effective friction angle;

• 𝜓𝑎 : dilatancy angle;
• 𝐾0𝑛𝑐 : stress ratio at oedometer compression in normally consolidated regime;
• 𝜈𝑢𝑟 : elastic unloading / reloading stiffness;
• 𝑂𝐶𝑅: overconsolidation ratio;
• 𝐾0 : Lateral stress coefficient.
Figure 2-1: a) Yield surfaces of HSS model in p-q plane. b) Stiffness parameters 𝑬𝟎 , 𝑬𝒖𝒓 and
𝑬𝟓𝟎 of HSS model in a triaxial test. (Plaxis Manual, 2020).
2.3 PM4Sand model description
PM4Sand is based on the constitutive model for sands developed by Dafalias & Manzari (2004), which
is a bounding surface plasticity model formulated in the stress-ratio controlled framework and is critical
state compatible. It is worth noting that many modifications were incorporated, with the most significant
one being the formulation for just 2D plane strain loading conditions. As it will be shown in next section,
the calibration can be extended for non-plastic/low-plasticity sandy/silty tailings as well, as the model
can reproduce the generation of excess pore pressure during cyclic loading and can nicely capture
the N-CSR curves for different states of the material.
The model is based on the Critical State Soil Mechanics framework. It uses a relative state parameter
index (𝜉𝑅 ), defined as the difference between the relative density at critical state (𝐷𝑅,𝐶𝑆 ) and the current
relative density (𝐷𝑅 ), for a certain mean effective pressure ratio (𝑝′/𝑝𝐴 )(Figure 2-2). This is analogous
to the definition of the well-known state parameter (𝜓) proposed by Been & Jefferies (1985), with the
difference that the Critical State Line (CSL) is defined in terms of relative density - rather than void
ratio - based on Bolton (1986), as:
𝐷𝑅,𝐶𝑆 = 𝑅/[𝑄 − ln(100 ∙ 𝑝′/𝑝𝐴 )]
In addition, the model defines the behaviour in the 𝑝′ − 𝑞 space by means of four surfaces: bounding,
dilatancy, critical and yield (Figure 2-3). The bounding and dilatancy ratios are related to the critical
stress ratio (𝑀) as:
𝑀 = 2 ∙ sin 𝜙𝑐𝑣
𝑀𝑏 = 𝑀 ∙ exp(−𝑛𝑏 𝜉𝑅 )
𝑀𝑑 = 𝑀 ∙ exp(𝑛𝑑 𝜉𝑅 )
The bounding surface controls the relationship between the peak friction angle and the relative state;
this surface cannot be surpassed, and for a given stress state (𝑞/𝑝′ ) the distance to the critical surface
can be measured with the aim of computing plastic deformations. The dilatancy surface defines the
location where the contractive to dilative behaviour occurs; under cyclic loading, this translates to the
generation of positive/negative pore pressures. During shearing, both surfaces (bounding and
dilatancy) approach the critical surface, as the state parameter approaches the critical state line (𝜉𝑅 →
0). It is worth illustrating that when 𝜉𝑅 is negative (state denser than critical), the bounding and dilatancy
surfaces are located above and below the critical surface, respectively; and the opposite happens for
a positive 𝜉𝑅 (state looser than critical), such that the dilatation surface locates above the critical
surface and only compression occurs.
The yield surface (Figure 2-3) is formulated as a small cone in the stress space, with a back-stress
ratio tensor (𝛼) that defines its position in the deviatoric stress-ratio space, and 𝑚 that defines the
radius of the cone. The deviatoric unit normal to the yield surface (𝑛) is used to define the general

formulation of the bounding and dilatancy surfaces, and to compute the plastic modulus (𝐾𝑝 ) and the
amount of dilatancy and contractancy (𝐷).
The model parameters are:
• 𝐷𝑅 : relative density;
• 𝐺0 : shear modulus coefficient, that defines small-strain shear modulus as 𝐺 = 𝐺0 ∙ 𝑝𝐴 ∙ √𝑝′ /𝑝𝐴
• ℎ𝑝0 : contraction rate parameter, that adjust contractiveness and allows to calibrate 𝐶𝑅𝑅;
• 𝑝𝐴 : atmospheric pressure;
• 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛 and 𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 : minimum and maximum void ratio;
• 𝑛𝑏 : bounding surface parameter, that controls relative position of bounding to critical state
surface;
• 𝑛𝑑 : dilatancy surface parameter, that controls the stress ratio of contraction-dilation transition;
• 𝜙𝑐𝑣 : critical state friction angle, that defines the critical state surface (i.e. value of 𝑀);
• 𝜈: Poisson’s ratio;
• 𝑄 and 𝑅: Bolton’s parameters used to define the CSL in 𝐷𝑅 − log 𝑝′ space;
• 𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑆ℎ𝑎𝑘𝑒: used to activate the reduction of elastic stiffness to simulate the post-shaking
reconsolidation.
Figure 2-2: Definition of the critical state line in the 𝑫𝒓 – 𝒍𝒐𝒈[𝒑/𝒑𝒂 ] space; example for 𝑸 = 𝟏𝟎
and 𝑹 = 𝟏. 𝟓 (Plaxis PM4Sand manual, 2018).
Figure 2-3: Yield, critical, dilatancy and bounding surface in 𝒑’ − 𝒒 space (left). Yield,
dilatancy and bounding surface in 𝒓𝒙𝒚 − 𝒓𝒚𝒚 space (Boulanger & Ziotopoulou,
2015).

3 Calibration of HSS model

The HSS model has been used previously at TSF4 to perform effective stress deformation analyses,
and so, to predict the excess pore pressure generation under monotonic loadings. At this stage, the
application for TSF5 will be focused on studying the generation of pore pressures due to the Stage 1
buttress construction, such that pore pressures ratios can be computed, and safe construction rates
can be defined. It must be mentioned that no numerical safety analyses by means of the strength
reduction technique will be performed at this stage.
The ongoing study (SRK, 2020b) shows that tailings from TSF4 and TSF5 entail very similar
characterization test results (i.e. 𝐺𝑠 , PSD, Atterberg Limits); therefore, the fundamental behavior of the
material is expected to be similar. Based on this hypothesis, the same HSS parameters used
previously for TSF4 are adopted to model the staged construction of TSF5, with exception of the
permeability values that were updated in agreement to the TSF5 BoD (BHP, 2020). A summary of the
model parameters is shown in Table 3-1, and the following observations are made:
• the friction angle of the tailings is adopted as 33°, in agreement with the values reported from
current CSL testing (SRK, 2020a);
• the sandy clay foundation is conservatively assumed to be saturated and normally consolidated
(after SRK, 2018b); therefore, the drained strength parameters are adjusted to predict more
realistic values of undrained shear strengths using the HSS model;
• the embankment raises strength parameters are adjusted in agreement to the current BoD
(BHP, 2020);
• the drains strength parameters are assumed to be the same as for the buttress material, and the
permeability is chosen after the BoD document (BHP, 2020);
• HSS material parameters not explicitly defined below are the same as those reported from SRK
(2018a);
Given that the subsequent deformation modelling will evaluate the adequacy of the buttress
construction rate, sensitivity analyses will be performed on the permeabilities of the most relevant
geotechnical units. The values proposed are summarized in Table 3-2 and are based on the following
two independent studies performed on TSF4:
• Two sections located in TSF4 western flank were analyzed (SRK, 2018b). This study allowed to
improve the calibration of the limestone and the embankment raise permeabilities based on
VWP measurements (Figure 3-1);
• The adjusted permeabilities were validated by means of a full-scale in-situ test (SRK,2019) that
was done along the eastern flank of TSF 4, and entailed the construction of trial pads at different
rates (Figure 3-2).
Table 3-1: Summary of HSS model parameters.
Geotechnica Const. 𝜸𝒔𝒂𝒕 𝒄’ 𝝓′ 𝝍∗𝒂 𝑬𝟓𝟎

𝒓𝒆𝒇 |𝑬 𝒌𝒉 𝒌𝒗
l units model [kN/m3] [kPa] [o ] [o ] [MPa] [m/day] [m/day]
Tailings HSS 22 0 33(*) -2 10 3.0E-2 4.3E-3

Foundation –
HSS 19 0(**) 25(**) 0 20 4.3E-2 4.3E-3
Sandy clay
Foundation –
MC 20 100 40 0 200 8.6E-2 1.7E-3
Limestone
Starter
MC 20 0 30 0 15 0.86 0.17
embankment
Embankment
MC 20 27(***) 24(***) 0 15 4.3E-3 8.6E-4
raises
Buttress MC 20 5 32 0 20 4.3E-3 8.6E-4
Drains MC 20 5 32 0 20 8.6E2 8.6E2
Note: (*) Adjusted from ongoing critical state testing (SRK, 2020a); (**) Adjusted from the hypothesis of a saturated normally
consolidated material (SRK,2018b); (***) Adjusted from BHP (2020).
Is this the base drain?
Includes heel drain? Does it assume sand or gravel? Should
use sand as per current design?

Table 3-2: Proposed permeability values for sensitivity analyses.
Geotechnica 𝒌𝒉 𝒌𝒗
l units [m/day] [m/day]
Tailings 8.0E-4 1.6E-4

Foundation –
8.6E-3 8.6E-3
Sandy clay
Foundation –
8.6E-3 8.6E-3
Limestone
Embankment
8.6E-3 8.6E-3
raises
Figure 3-1: TSF4 West section piezometer assessment. Comparison between measured
excess pore pressure and Plaxis results. (SRK, 2018b).
Figure 3-2: TSF4 Rate of rise assessment. Comparison between measured excess pore
pressures and Plaxis results at Pad A – VWP01. (SRK, 2020).

4 Calibration of PM4Sand model

4.1 Calibration of the Critical State Line (CSL)
SRK is conducting a critical state testing program on three reconstituted tailings samples: PT29, PT20
and PT30; which represent a coarse, intermediate and fine PSDs, respectively. Although the work is
still in progress, some draft semi-log CSL were proposed based on the triaxial testing conducted on
the samples (SRK, 2020a); a summary of the three sets of parameters is shown in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1: Draft CSL parameters 𝚪 and 𝝀𝟏𝟎 for reconstituted samples (SRK, 2020a)
Sample PSD 𝚪[−] 𝝀𝟏𝟎 [−] 𝐌𝐭𝐜 [−]

PT29 Coarse 0.962 0.129 1.39
PT20 Intermediate 0.940 0.144 1.32
PT30 Fine 1.126 0.191 1.34
PM4Sand formulates the CSL in terms of relative density rather than void ratio; therefore, an estimation
of minimum and maximum void ratios is necessary. Within this context, 𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 and 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛 are just model
parameters which, put together with the other parameters, produce a reasonable and realistic
calibration of the material behaviour. The ongoing laboratory testing suggests a void ratio range
between 0.50 and 0.90; the first representative of samples sheared at higher confining stresses and
the second representative of loose samples at their initial configuration. On the other hand,
Cubrinovsky & Ishihara (1999) suggest that the void ratio amplitude (𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛 ) for silty soils can
vary between 0.60 and 0.90. A void ratio amplitude of 0.70 is chosen for this case, which is evenly
distributed to achieve 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.35 and 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 1.05.
In addition to the minimum and maximum void ratio, the CSL is calibrated with two additional
parameters, 𝑄 and 𝑅. Figure 4-1 shows the CSL calibrated using 𝑄 = 10, 𝑅 = 2.4, 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.35 and
𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 1.05. A comparison is presented with respect to the three draft semi-log CSL obtained from the
ongoing testing program, which is expressed in terms of relative density as:
𝑒𝐶𝑆 = Γ − 𝜆10 ∙ log 𝑝′
𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑒𝐶𝑆
𝐷𝑅,𝐶𝑆 =
𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛
Using these relative densities at critical state (𝐷𝑅,𝐶𝑆 ), the CSL is back computed as:
𝑅
𝑝 ′ = exp (𝑄 − )
𝐷𝑅,𝐶𝑆
In addition to the CSL, a line with a constant state parameter of 𝜓 = 0.10 is plotted using the expression
shown below. This representative state parameter value was chosen from the statistical interpretation
from CPTu data (SRK, 2020a), for which Plewes (1992) and Been & Jefferies (1992) screening
methods were used. This line is important, as it will define the values of initial relative densities for a
given mean effective stress, representative of the in-situ state of the material.
𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 − (𝑒𝐶𝑆 + 0.10)
𝐷𝑅,𝜓 =
𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛
It must be noted that a good agreement is achieved between the PM4Sand CSL and those obtained
for the PT29 and PT30 semi-log CSL, for the expected mean effective pressure range of 𝑝′ =
50|300𝑘𝑃𝑎.

Figure 4-1: PM4Sand Critical State Line (CSL) calibration. Comparison with linear CSL, from
SRK 2020.
4.2 Calibration of the remaining parameters
The remaining parameters of PM4Sand are calibrated based on the cyclic direct simple shear tests
(CDSS) performed on tailings samples. In addition, a sensitivity analysis is undertaken to assess the
influence of some parameters on the overall model response.
Two testing programs were undertaken by Golder. The first one was conducted in 2014 and entailed
eighteen CDSS tests performed on tailings reconstituted samples that were prepared from slurry in 1D
columns under a load of 75 kPa (Golder, 2014). The second one was conducted in 2017 and entailed
six CDSS tests performed on tailings intact piston tube samples (Golder, 2017). Unfortunately, the
void ratio was not measured with enough accuracy, therefore it is not possible to quantitively define a
state parameter of the material. However, both samples (i.e. slurry-reconstituted and indisturbed)
reasonably represent the range of states expected in situ, and sensitivity analyses will be performed
in the subsequent modelling to account for this uncertainty.
A summary of the tests is shown in Table 4-2, and the full test data is presented in Appendix A.
Table 4-2: Summary of Golder CDSS testing.
Test Test SRK ID σ'vc Ncyc

CSR(1)
Year Sample ID Type Number [kPa] Failure(2)
[-]
[-]
2017 CPTu9 9.25-9.75 PT C1 2017-C01 503 0.14 62.3
2017 CPTu9 9.25-9.75 PT C2 2017-C02 302 0.16 33.3
2017 CPTu2 16.5-17.0 PT C3 2017-C03 503 0.14 36.3
2017 CPTu2 16.5-17.0 PT C4 2017-C04 503 0.17 29.3
2017 CPTu7 14.5-15.0 PT C7 2017-C07 602 0.14 >100
2017 CPTu7 14.5-15.0 PT C8 2017-C08 602 0.18 18.3
2014 Sample A R-1D C-01 2014A-C01 100 0.23 1.3
2014 Sample A R-1D C-02 2014A-C02 100 0.15 18.3
2014 Sample A R-1D C-03 2014A-C03 100 0.10 >100
2014 Sample A R-1D C-04 2014A-C04 100 0.12 49.3
2014 Sample A R-1D C-05 2014A-C05 100 0.18 3.3

2014 Sample A R-1D C-06 2014A-C06 250 0.24 1.3

2014 Sample A R-1D C-07 2014A-C07 250 0.19 5.3
2014 Sample A R-1D C-08 2014A-C08 250 0.12 >100
2014 Sample A R-1D C-09 2014A-C09 250 0.14 22.3
2014 Sample B R-1D C-01 2014B-C01 100 0.26 1.23
2014 Sample B R-1D C-02 2014B-C02 100 0.18 4.3
2014 Sample B R-1D C-03 2014B-C03 100 0.14 23.3
2014 Sample B R-1D C-04 2014B-C04 100 0.11 58.3
2014 Sample B R-1D C-05 2014B-C05 100 0.07 >100
2014 Sample B R-1D C-06 2014B-C06 100 0.11 24.3
2014 Sample B R-1D C-07 2014B-C07 250 0.16 9.3
2014 Sample B R-1D C-08 2014B-C08 250 0.13 37.3
2014 Sample B R-1D C-09 2014B-C09 250 0.21 2.23
Note: (1) Average CSR were computed from the data. (2) Computed for a shear strain of 3%. PT = Piston Tube. R-1D =
Reconsolidated 1D column.
The shear modulus coefficient (𝐺0 ) is calibrated for a reference pressure of 100 kPa, where 𝐺 [𝑘𝑃𝑎] =
100 ∙ 𝐺0 ∙ √𝑝′ /100 𝑘𝑃𝑎. A value of 𝐺0 = 110 was calibrated using the CDSS data; however, a much
higher value (about 𝐺0 = 550) is expected for the field conditions, as previously shown for TSF4 where
SCPTu data was used (SRK, 2018a). A sensitivity analysis will be done on 𝐺0 to account for this
variation.
The friction angle at critical state was already calibrated for HSS model, for which a value of 𝜙𝑐𝑣 = 33°
was chosen. Default values 𝑛𝑏 = 0.50 and 𝑛𝑑 = 0.20 are adopted for these parameters.
With all parameters already calibrated, only the contraction rate parameter (ℎ𝑝0 ) is left, which defines
the rate of plastic volumetric strains in contraction and allows to calibrate 𝐶𝑆𝑅 − 𝑁𝑓 curves. This
parameter is calibrated by means elemental test simulations in Plaxis with the initial test conditions
specified in Table 4-3. The following comments are made:
i. an initial vertical effective stress of 200 kPa was chosen for the simulations; sensitivity
analyses will be later shown for a different value;
ii. a K0 value of 0.60 was chosen, assuming that samples are normally consolidated;
iii. two values of state parameters were chosen -0.00 and 0.10- representing the expected range
of variation in the field (SRK,2020a), for which the correspondent relative densities were
computed.
A comparison in terms 𝐶𝑆𝑅 − 𝑁𝑓 curves between CDSS elemental test simulations and laboratory
testing results is shown in Figure 4-2. The following observations are made:
i. the 2014 testing represent a lower bound of cyclic strength, which is nicely represented by the
simulations with the loosest configuration (i.e. 𝜓 = 0.10);
ii. the 2017 testing represent an upper bound of cyclic strength, that is well captured by the
densest configuration (i.e. 𝜓 = 0.00);
iii. six subsets were chosen to show a detailed stress-strain comparison in the next section.
Table 4-3: Initial conditions for CDSS simulations in Plaxis.
Simulation 𝝈′𝒗 [𝒌𝑷𝒂] 𝒑′𝟎 [𝒌𝑷𝒂] 𝒉𝒑𝟎 [−] 𝝍 [−] 𝑫𝒓 [−] 𝑪𝑺𝑹 [−] 𝑵𝒇 [−]
A 0.125 32
B 0.140 19
C 200 146.6 15 0.10 0.336 0.160 11
D 0.175 7
E 0.200 3

F 0.165 27
G 0.175 20
0.00 0.479
H 0.200 10
I 0.225 5
Figure 4-2: CSR – Nf curves. Comparison between CDSS elemental test simulations in Plaxis
using PM4Sand and Golder laboratory testing results.
4.3 Comparison at elemental level
A detailed comparison between CDSS elemental test results and laboratory results is presented for
the six subsets defined in Figure 4-2; subsets 1 to 4 correspond to the loosest material state (2014
testing), while subsets 5 and 6 correspond to the densest material state (2017 testing). The
comparisons are shown from Figure 4-3 to Figure 4-8; the following observations can be made:
• the comparison is made in terms of cyclic stress ratio (𝐶𝑆𝑅), cyclic shear strains (𝛾𝑥𝑦 ), number of
′
cycles (𝑁𝑐𝑦𝑐 ) and pore pressure ratio (𝑅𝑢 = 𝑝𝑒𝑥𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠 /𝜎𝑣0 );
• for subsets 1, 2, 3 and 4, two values of ℎ𝑝0 were chosen: 10 and 15 to evaluate how this impact on
the pore pressure built up. From Figure 4-3 to Figure 4-6, it is observed that: i) the PM4Sand
calibrations nicely captures the 𝛾𝑥𝑦 − 𝐶𝑆𝑅 and the 𝛾𝑥𝑦 − 𝑁𝑐𝑦𝑐 response; ii) the pore pressure built
up is in good agreement with the data, with a slight underestimation at early stages for the ℎ𝑝0 =
15 case; this is improved with a lower ℎ𝑝0 = 10, but also reduces the number of cycles to failure.
The latter aspect will be further evaluated in the sensitivity analysis;
• for subsets 5 and 6, only the case of ℎ𝑝0 = 15 is analyzed. Figure 4-7 and Figure 4-8 show that the
model reasonably represents the measured behavior, with a slight underestimation of pore
pressures and strains prior to failure.

Figure 4-3: Comparison between CDSS simulations and lab results; Subset 1.


4.4 Sensitivity analyses
Sensitivity analyses were performed on the loosest sample (i.e. 𝜓 = 0.10) to evaluate how ℎ𝑝0 , 𝐺0
′
and 𝜎𝑣0 affect the result in terms of 𝐶𝑆𝑅 − 𝑁𝑓 response. The following cases were analysed:
• ℎ𝑝0 = 10: the full response was shown in the previous section, where it was anticipated that a lower
value entails a better prediction of pore pressures at early stages but at the cost of decreasing the
number of cycles to failure; this is illustrated in Figure 4-9, where the whole curve is shifted towards
the left. It is recommended to use both values in the deformation modelling, to evaluate a range of
expected deformations;
• 𝐺0 = 550: this is a likely value expected in-situ. The response in terms of 𝐶𝑆𝑅 − 𝑁𝑓 remains the
same when compared to the base case with 𝐺0 = 110 (Figure 4-9). Nevertheless, a higher value
of 𝐺0 will entail lower shear strains prior to failure and also will improve the capacity of the model
to propagate higher shear wave velocities. Therefore, both values will be used in the deformation
modelling;

• ′
𝜎𝑉0 = 400 𝑘𝑃𝑎: this represents a value closer to the maximum expected in-situ. The state
parameter is the same as the base case (𝜓 = 0.10), therefore, the initial relative density is updated
to 0.413 because the confining stress is higher. The response in terms of 𝐶𝑆𝑅 − 𝑁𝑓 remains the
′
same when compared to the base case with 𝜎𝑉0 = 200 𝑘𝑃𝑎 and 𝐷𝑟 = 0.336. This is expected
because the PM4Sand response depends on the (relative) state parameter, which is the same for
′
both combinations of 𝜎𝑉0 − 𝐷𝑟.
Figure 4-9: Sensitivity analyses results in terms of CSR – Ncyc for the loosest sample
configuration.
5 Conclusions and recommendations

This memorandum presented the selection and calibration of constitutive models to be used in
subsequent TSF5 deformation modelling.
The HSS constitutive model is selected to simulate the staged construction of the TSF5 buttressing.
The parameters used for this model are chosen based on previous analyses done for TSF4, for which
the pore pressure monitoring during two independent studies allowed calibration/validation of the
adopted material parameters for the main geotechnical units (SRK, 2018b; SRK, 2019).
PM4Sand constitutive model is selected to simulate the dynamic performance of the TSF5 under
seismic loadings. The calibration was performed using CDSS tests data from 2014 and 2017 (Golder,
2014; Golder, 2017). The model shows a good predictive capability in terms of 𝐶𝑆𝑅 − 𝑁𝑓 and on the
stress-strain response. Moreover, sensitivity analyses were performed on some parameters that entail
some uncertainties, which will be incorporated in the subsequent deformation modelling to evaluate
how they impact on the seismic induced deformations.
6 References
ANCOLD (2012) Australian National committee on Large Dams. Guidelines on Tailings Dams.
Planning, Design, Construction, Operation and Closure.
ANCOLD (2019) Australian National committee on Large Dams. Guidelines on Tailings Dams.
Planning, Design, Construction, Operation and Closure. Addendum.
Been, K., Jefferies, M. G. (1985). “A state parameter for sands”. Geotechnique, 35(2), 99-112.
Bolton, M. (1986). “Strength and dilatancy of sands”. Geotechnique, 36(1), 65-78.
Boulanger, R.W., Ziotopoulou, K. (2015). “PM4Sand (version 3): A sand plasticity model for
earthquake engineering applications”. Report No. UCD/CGM-15/01, March.
Brinkgreve, R., B. J., Zampich, L. M., Ragi Manoj, N. (2020). “Plaxis Connect Edition V20 Manual”.
Netherlands.

Cubrinovski, M., Ishihara, K. (1999). “Empirical correlation between SPT N-value and relative density
for sandy soils”. Soils and Foundations, 39(5): 61-71.
Dafalias, Y.F., Manzari, M.T. (2004). “Simple plasticity sand model accounting for fabric change
effects”. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 130(6), 622–634.
Vilhar, G., Brinkgreve, R., B. J., Zampich, L. M. (2018). “PLAXIS The PM4Sand model 2018”.
Netherlands.
7 Closure
This memorandum presents the calibrations of the constitutive models that will be used to simulate
the staged construction of the TSF5 buttress and its subsequent dynamic deformation modelling.
Please contact the undersigned if you have any queries.
Yours faithfully
SRK Consulting
Signed by: Signed by:
Senior Consultant Practice Leader

Mauro Sottile Alejo O. Sfriso

SRK Consulting Appendix A
Appendix A
CDSS Raw Data

A.1 CDSS – Golder 2017
Figure A 1: CDSS Results. Golder 2017. Sample C1.
SOTTILE/ROLA G-2P1J-01-0 ODTSF Parameters Calibration F_AOS.docx 11 August

2020

2020

2020

2020

2020

2020
A.2 CDSS – Golder 2014
Figure A 7: CDSS Results. Golder 2014. Sample A – C1.

2020

2020

2020

2020

2020

2020

2020

2020

2020
Figure A 16: CDSS Results. Golder 2014. Sample B – C1.

2020

2020

2020

2020

2020

2020

2020

2020

2020
SRK Consulting Internal Document Control
SRK Internal Document Control

Project Number: G-2P1J
Memo Title: OD TSF5 – Constitutive model calibration
Date Issued: 11/08/2020
Document Distribution Details
Name/Title Company Item Type Quantity Rev No.
C. Prinsloo SRKAU 1 0
Document Revision Details

Rev No. Date Revised By Revision Details
SRK Peer Review Record

This document should be read in conjunction with the SRK AU Peer Review Guidelines. Before a
Contract/Proposal or deliverable is issued to the Client, it must be peer reviewed in accordance with the SRK
AU QMS.
Note that Peer Review information must be recorded on Admin Service Request on SharePoint site.
SOTTILE/ROLA G-2P1J-01-0 ODTSF Parameters Calibration F_AOS.docx 11 August 2020

G-2P1J-01-0 ODTSF Parameters Calibration F - AOS - 0-0

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G-2P1J-01-0 ODTSF Parameters Calibration F - AOS - 0-0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Level 1, 10 Richardson Street

West Perth WA 6005, Australia

T: +61 8 9288 2000

Attention: C. Prinsloo, H. Thomson, J. Rola From: M. Sottile, A. Sfriso

Project No: G-2P1J Revision No: 0

Project Name: Olympic Dam TSF5 numerical modelling

Subject: Constitutive models selection and calibration

1.2 Objective and scope

2 Selected constitutive models

SOTTILE/SFRISO G-2P1J-01-0 ODTSF Parameters Calibration F_AOS.docx 11 August 2020

SOTTILE/SFRISO G-2P1J-01-0 ODTSF Parameters Calibration F_AOS.docx 11 August 2020

SOTTILE/SFRISO G-2P1J-01-0 ODTSF Parameters Calibration F_AOS.docx 11 August 2020

3 Calibration of HSS model

Geotechnica Const. 𝜸𝒔𝒂𝒕 𝒄’ 𝝓′ 𝝍∗𝒂 𝑬𝟓𝟎

Tailings HSS 22 0 33(*) -2 10 3.0E-2 4.3E-3

SOTTILE/SFRISO G-2P1J-01-0 ODTSF Parameters Calibration F_AOS.docx 11 August 2020

Table 3-2: Proposed permeability values for sensitivity analyses.

Tailings 8.0E-4 1.6E-4

SOTTILE/SFRISO G-2P1J-01-0 ODTSF Parameters Calibration F_AOS.docx 11 August 2020

4 Calibration of PM4Sand model

Sample PSD 𝚪[−] 𝝀𝟏𝟎 [−] 𝐌𝐭𝐜 [−]

SOTTILE/SFRISO G-2P1J-01-0 ODTSF Parameters Calibration F_AOS.docx 11 August 2020

Test Test SRK ID σ'vc Ncyc

SOTTILE/SFRISO G-2P1J-01-0 ODTSF Parameters Calibration F_AOS.docx 11 August 2020

2014 Sample A R-1D C-06 2014A-C06 250 0.24 1.3

SOTTILE/SFRISO G-2P1J-01-0 ODTSF Parameters Calibration F_AOS.docx 11 August 2020

SOTTILE/SFRISO G-2P1J-01-0 ODTSF Parameters Calibration F_AOS.docx 11 August 2020

SOTTILE/SFRISO G-2P1J-01-0 ODTSF Parameters Calibration F_AOS.docx 11 August 2020

SOTTILE/SFRISO G-2P1J-01-0 ODTSF Parameters Calibration F_AOS.docx 11 August 2020

SOTTILE/SFRISO G-2P1J-01-0 ODTSF Parameters Calibration F_AOS.docx 11 August 2020

5 Conclusions and recommendations

SOTTILE/SFRISO G-2P1J-01-0 ODTSF Parameters Calibration F_AOS.docx 11 August 2020

Signed by: Signed by:

Senior Consultant Practice Leader

SOTTILE/SFRISO G-2P1J-01-0 ODTSF Parameters Calibration F_AOS.docx 11 August 2020

SOTTILE/SFRISO G-2P1J-01-0 ODTSF Parameters Calibration F_AOS.docx 11 August 2020

A.1 CDSS – Golder 2017

Figure A 1: CDSS Results. Golder 2017. Sample C1.

SOTTILE/ROLA G-2P1J-01-0 ODTSF Parameters Calibration F_AOS.docx 11 August

Figure A 2: CDSS Results. Golder 2017. Sample C2.

SOTTILE/ROLA G-2P1J-01-0 ODTSF Parameters Calibration F_AOS.docx 11 August

Figure A 3: CDSS Results. Golder 2017. Sample C3.

SOTTILE/ROLA G-2P1J-01-0 ODTSF Parameters Calibration F_AOS.docx 11 August

Figure A 4: CDSS Results. Golder 2017. Sample C4.

SOTTILE/ROLA G-2P1J-01-0 ODTSF Parameters Calibration F_AOS.docx 11 August

Figure A 5: CDSS Results. Golder 2017. Sample C7.

SOTTILE/ROLA G-2P1J-01-0 ODTSF Parameters Calibration F_AOS.docx 11 August

Figure A 6: CDSS Results. Golder 2017. Sample C8.

SOTTILE/ROLA G-2P1J-01-0 ODTSF Parameters Calibration F_AOS.docx 11 August

A.2 CDSS – Golder 2014

Figure A 7: CDSS Results. Golder 2014. Sample A – C1.

SOTTILE/ROLA G-2P1J-01-0 ODTSF Parameters Calibration F_AOS.docx 11 August

Figure A 8: CDSS Results. Golder 2014. Sample A – C2.

SOTTILE/ROLA G-2P1J-01-0 ODTSF Parameters Calibration F_AOS.docx 11 August

Figure A 9: CDSS Results. Golder 2014. Sample A – C3.

SOTTILE/ROLA G-2P1J-01-0 ODTSF Parameters Calibration F_AOS.docx 11 August

Figure A 10: CDSS Results. Golder 2014. Sample A – C4.

SOTTILE/ROLA G-2P1J-01-0 ODTSF Parameters Calibration F_AOS.docx 11 August

Figure A 11: CDSS Results. Golder 2014. Sample A – C5.

SOTTILE/ROLA G-2P1J-01-0 ODTSF Parameters Calibration F_AOS.docx 11 August

Figure A 12: CDSS Results. Golder 2014. Sample A – C6.

SOTTILE/ROLA G-2P1J-01-0 ODTSF Parameters Calibration F_AOS.docx 11 August