Reid and Fourie 2023 Development and Outcomes of A Tailings Slope

Page 1 of 55
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record. Canadian Geotechnical Journal (Author Accepted Manuscript)
Development and outcomes of a tailings slope stability comparative
design exercise
David Reid, PhD (Corresponding author)
ORCID: 0000-0002-1867-1676
The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by University of Western Australia on 11/21/23
david.reid@uwa.edu.au
Andy Fourie, PhD
ORCID: 0000-0001-7250-2104
The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
© The Author(s) or their Institution(s)

Canadian Geotechnical Journal (Author Accepted Manuscript) Page 2 of 55
ABSTRACT
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record.
Tailings storage facilities (TSFs) have undergone an unacceptably high failure rate for
decades, leading to an increased focus on improving the safety of these structures. One
aspect that has not received sufficient attention is examining how reliably and consistently
engineers analyse the stability of TSFs. An understanding of the current state of practice is
needed as there are a range of analytical methods available to engineers, while the high
failure rate of these structures strongly points to some deficiencies in practice. To examine
some of these issues, a tailings-focussed slope stability comparative design exercise was
organised to compare the methods and results used by tailings engineers to analyse the
same slope within which the phreatic surface was to rise under a specified pattern. Twenty-
eight practitioners participated in the exercise to predict at what phreatic surface level the
slope would fail. A wide range of predictions were made, ranging from assuming the slope
would liquefy and fail instantly (i.e. before any rise in phreatic surface), to a range of
techniques based on (i) yield strength ratios, (ii) stress path methods, and (iii) numerical
analyses, each predicting various failure levels, and finally some predictors who applied
drained strengths, resulting in predictions that the slope would not fail.
Keywords: slope stability, tailings, liquefaction

Page 3 of 55 Canadian Geotechnical Journal (Author Accepted Manuscript)
INTRODUCTION
A number of significant tailings storage facility (TSF) failures - with subsequent investigations
of the causes - have occurred over the past decade, including Fundão (Morgenstern et al.
2016), Cadia (Jefferies et al. 2019) and Feijão (Robertson et al. 2019, Arroyo and Gens
2021). In each of these failures, a static rather than a seismic trigger was identified as the
primary cause. The specific causes of static triggering were identified by subsequent
investigations - being the stress path induced in contractive tailings from the deformation of
underlying materials (Fundão and Cadia), and for Feijão, one investigation suggesting loss
of near-surface suction and drained creep (Robertson et al. 2019), with the second indicating
drilling activities (Arroyo and Gens 2021). Importantly, for all the TSF failures listed, pre-
failure stability analyses had been carried out. While not all these pre-failure analyses are
publicly available, it seems reasonable to infer from the activities underway at each site that
imminent failure and subsequent loss of containment was not expected by site personnel, or
the engineers involved. This raises important questions about the current state of practice of
TSF stability analyses, a point highlighted by Jefferies (2021).
In order to assess the current state of practice of a particular sub-discipline of geotechnical
engineering, including how practitioners approach the inherent uncertainties required in
many different forms of analysis, comparative design exercises have proven useful
(Schweiger 1998, 2006, Orr et al. 2011, Bolzon et al. 2021). Given the current state of
practice for the analysis of TSF slope stability evidenced by the high failure rate, and the
ongoing focus on the improvement of TSF safety (ICMM 2020, Morrison 2022), it seems
clear that further investigation of the state of practice and comparison of techniques adopted
by engineers would be useful. To this end, the current paper presents the development,
organisation and results of a TSF slope stability comparative design exercise that was
recently carried out to assess some aspects of the current state of practice to infer the in situ
state of TSFs and analyse their stability.

PROBLEM DEVELOPMENT
General approach and trigger mechanism
Common features across many recent TSF failures include: (i) loose/contractive, saturated
tailings, (ii) static triggering of contractive undrained shearing (i.e. static liquefaction) leading
to flow. Static triggering herein refers to events preceding the flow event (often referred to
as the “trigger mechanism”) wherein the in situ stress ratio 𝜂=q/p' increased to an instability
value 𝜂IL for at least some portions of the in situ loose saturated tailings, leading to the
initiation of instability and resulting transition from drained to undrained conditions, brittle
strain softening and subsequent flow (Jefferies and Been 2015, Been 2016, Jefferies 2021).
Owing to the prevalence of these general features in recent failures, the comparative design
exercise was developed to allow a focus on design and analysis tools relevant to predicting
the initiation of instability and slope stability of loose contractive tailings. While there has
been much study of the potential for pre-failure instability of loose soils, including static
liquefaction, over the preceding decades (Sladen et al. 1985, Lade 1992, Sasitharan et al.
1993, Yamamuro and Lade 1997, Andrade 2009, Monkul et al. 2011, Jefferies and Been
2015) the authors’ hypothesis in commencing this exercise was that some aspects of
instability – particularly of sandy tailings – are insufficiently appreciated in tailings
engineering practice.
In terms of static triggers leading to the initiation of instability and transition from drained to
undrained conditions, three commonly discussed mechanisms include (i) placement of
additional fill, often at a high rate of placement such that increments of undrained loading
occur in underlying saturated materials, (ii) a rising phreatic surface, i.e. a constant shear
drained (CSD) stress path (Brand 1985, Anderson and Riemer 1995, di Prisco and
Imposimato 1997, Chu et al. 2012), and (iii) underlying deformations (Casagrande 1965,
Smith 1969, Hicks and Boughrarou 1998), often referred to as basal or lateral extrusion
(Jefferies and Been 2015, Morgenstern et al. 2016). Of course, while it is useful to

conceptualise these mechanisms in isolation, each may be contributing to the stress path
followed by in situ elements of contractive and saturated tailings within a TSF over their
typically decades-long development.
In this exercise, the CSD stress path resulting from a rising phreatic surface was selected as
the trigger mechanism because of the ease with which the changing phreatic surface could
be defined unambiguously for participants and used as a discrete value for the point at which
failure was predicted by participants. This selection was further informed by the authors’
experience as third party reviewers of TSF stability analysis works, where we have seen
significant uncertainty and doubts raised regarding the plausibility of static liquefaction of
sandy soils, particularly on a CSD stress path - an issue which appears to be common (e.g.
Jefferies 2021). The scepticism remains despite decades of evidence, including element
tests (Sasitharan et al. 1993, Skopek et al. 1994, Wanatowski et al. 2010, Chu et al. 2012,
Reid and Fourie 2019, Fanni et al. 2022), documented case histories (Olson et al. 2000,
France et al. 2021), physical models (Eckersley 1990) and their interrogation through
numerical analysis (e.g. Cuomo et al. 2019) – all of which unambiguously point to the ability
of loose saturated soils to undergo pre-failure instability on a CSD stress path at values of η
lower than the critical state stress ratio M.
Scenario development
Various options as to the form of the exercise were available, including back-analysis of a
documented failure, use of existing 1g or centrifuge model failures (Take et al. 2004, Zhang
and Askarinejad 2020), or development of a hypothetical scenario. Direct analysis of a
documented failure case history was avoided, as the available data and conclusions of
published investigations would invariably influence the outcome. While 1g or centrifuge
models brought to failure are appealing given their directly observed behaviour, it was
desired that the participants would be required to infer in situ state and strengths based on
cone penetration test (CPT) results – by far the most common in situ test currently used in

the investigation of TSFs. This further ruled out the use of available centrifuge or model
studies of the CSD stress path, which generally do not include CPT data of the failed slopes.
Therefore, development of a hypothetical TSF slope that incorporated many salient features
of real TSFs was selected as the basis of the exercise.
The geometry of the idealised TSF used in this exercise is presented in Figure 1. Although
this is an idealised geometry rather than a real slope, the general features of the slope are
typical of many TSFs. The slope was 50 m high with 1V:3H side slopes. A 10m wide bench
was included at a height of 25m, making the overall average slope 1V:3.2H. An initial
phreatic surface slope of 1V:9.2H was present in the “initial conditions” of the slope,
commencing from 30 m upstream of the toe. This is a common situation for fallow TSFs
after the end of deposition. However, while a slow decrease in phreatic surface following
closure is common to TSFs in arid or semi-arid climates, several conceivable subsequent
events such as recommissioning of the facility or a degradation of surface water
management structures leading to an increased presence of surface water could result in a
subsequent rise in the phreatic surface. Indeed, the Simmergo TSF (Blight 2010) was an
inactive facility that, following recommissioning, underwent a rapid rise in phreatic surface
and subsequent failure, plausibly involving a CSD stress path.
Included in Figure 1b is the final phreatic surface profile of relevance to the exercise. The
outline of the program provided to participants indicated that the phreatic surface would rise
steadily (without quantifying the actual time over which this would occur) from the initial to
the final profiles shown in Figure 1b. To enable a simple definition of the phreatic surface
conditions and level, it was to be assumed that the phreatic surface at X=230m would not
change, this point would thus act as a “pivot”. For example, the initial conditions being a
phreatic surface level of Y=25m, and the final conditions Y=77m. It is further noted, as
highlighted in Figure 1b, that while the phreatic surface slope would be extrapolated up to
values of Y=77m, the pore pressures would be capped as 0 kPa at the surface of the TSF,

i.e. a phreatic surface at ground level on the TSF beach represents the maximum condition,
and a depth of standing water was not to be considered.
TAILINGS MATERIAL PROPERTIES
General
The use of data from recent failures was selected for the exercise, as opposed to more
general tailings data from the geotechnical literature, as the failure case histories are
particularly relevant to the investigation of tailings stability analyses. Further, their use may
serve to avoid subsequent debates as to whether the tailings material properties provided
are consistent with those likely to, when saturated and loose, undergo pre-failure instability,
static liquefaction, and flow. The publicly available data from the Fundão and Cadia TSF
failure investigations were therefore utilised for this exercise. These data were relevant as
(i) they represent a reasonable spectrum of tailings gradations, and (ii) the Fundão CPT
probing conditions were drained, whereas probing at Cadia was undrained, enabling both
types of behaviour to be examined in the study while avoiding partially drained CPT data
which otherwise introduces additional uncertainties in interpretation (e.g. Reid and Smith
2021).
Element test data
To avoid complications related to interpretation of laboratory data and thus retain a greater
focus on slope stability analysis methods, laboratory data was provided as critical state
parameters and other inputs to the NorSand constitutive model (Jefferies 1993) similar to
those developed by the Fundão and Cadia Panels as outlined in Table 1. These inputs were
slightly modified from those developed by the failure panels to obscure their origins. The
NorSand constitutive model was selected as the “vehicle” to provide the laboratory data as
there are publicly-available NorSand tools to examine predicted element behaviour (the
“VBA spreadsheet”) and to develop material-specific relationships between CPTu results
and the state parameter - for example, see Jefferies and Been (2015) and Shuttle and

Jefferies (2016). It is emphasised that this form of data provision was not to specifically
promote the use of NorSand in the exercise, but rather was a consequence of NorSand’s
common usage in TSF engineering practice and availability of a simple tool to extract
various element test data from provided numerical model fits. As will be seen, the use of
NorSand in this context did not appear to lead to those who elected to use advanced
numerical models favouring NorSand over other alternatives.

The element behaviour predicted by NorSand for the parameters listed in Table 2 is
presented in Figure 2 for isotropically consolidated undrained (CIU) triaxial compression
element simulations with p’c= 100 kPa and initial state parameter Ψ0 = +0.05. The greater
initial stiffness for Scenario A and more brittle behaviour (primarily from a less compressible
CSL slope λe) are clear. This contrast in stress-strain behaviour, particularly post-peak
brittleness, was explicitly sought for the purposes of this study to examine how different
participants would approach the two scenarios.
By carrying out a number of element simulations as per Figure 2, and adopting the initial
peak as yield strength su(yield) and either the quasi steady-state QSS (where relevant), or
final critical state as liquefied shear strength su(LIQ), trends obtained for both scenarios are
presented as a function of Ψ0 in Figure 3. For specimens exhibiting QSS, the strength at
this point has been taken as representing su(LIQ) owing to frequent arguments as to the
likely inability for in situ soils to undergo post-QSS dilation, and thus the relevance of the
QSS measured in element tests to field-scale behaviour (Meneses-Loja Jorge et al. 2000,
Reid and Fourie 2014, Sadrekarimi 2014, Jefferies and Been 2015, Reid et al. 2022) – also
consistent with observations of flow liquefaction in deposits such as Nerlerk and Fundão with
significant proportions of in situ Ψ < 0 . The expected tendency of increasing strength and
reduced brittleness with decreasing Ψ0 are clear from the results. Also evident is the lower
magnitude of brittleness produced by Scenario B, and the greater propensity for QSS
behaviour to extend to lower (i.e. slightly negative, in this case) values of Ψ0 for Scenario A.

In situ penetration test data - development

The CPT data from both case histories were processed for the exercise through (i) use of
stress-normalised tip resistance Q, Friction ratio Fr, and normalised excess pore pressure Bq
from the original datasets to allow calculation of entire CPT soundings across the range of
stresses relevant to each hypothetical CPT in the exercise, (ii) application of a small random-
number scaling to slightly modify the values (while maintaining the same approximate
characteristic values as the source data), and (iii) increase of the tip resistance values above
the phreatic surface owing to the likely effects of suction/partial saturation (e.g. Russell et al.
2022) – with the source CPTs having been almost entirely saturated, therefore requiring this
modification given the specified initial phreatic surface for this exercise. The produced
results for CPTu 1 are presented in Figure 4 for both scenarios. Further details on the data
processing of the CPT data, along with the electronic data provided to participants, is
included in a project-specific data repository as indicated in the paper’s data availability
statement.
The data developed for both scenarios is compared in terms of state parameter Ψ (Been and
Jefferies 1985) in Figure 5 for all three CPTu probes (see Figure 1 for probe
locations). State parameter is estimated using the approach outlined by Plewes et al. (1992)
(i.e. the “Plewes Method”) for the purpose of this comparison, with a site-specific value of Mtc
of 1.45 and an assumed K0 of 0.7. Results from above the phreatic surface are presented in
Figure 5 also using the Plewes method, simply to show what range of values would be
obtained if one applied this method to unsaturated conditions without further consideration of
the method’s inapplicability under such conditions. The data for both scenarios are also
presented in a Q(1-Bq)+1 vs Fr plot in Figure 6 as average values of the saturated and
unsaturated portions of each sounding for comparison purposes.
SCREENING-LEVEL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
To assess the characteristics of the slope for initial benchmarking and illustration, a series of
limit equilibrium (LE) stability analyses were carried out using the Rocscience Slide2 code,

with optimised failure surface search routines using the Morgenstern-Price method of slices.
Figure 7a shows the slope with a yield strength ratio (su(yield)/σ’vc) required to produce a
FoS of unity for the slope, indicating a value of 0.16 is required – this being below that
inferred from back analysis of any static slope failures of which the authors are aware (e.g.
Olson and Stark 2003). This suggests that stability analyses using su(yield)/σ’vc -based
approaches would be unlikely to suggest failure until at least some phreatic surface increase
had occurred. Figure 7b presents the maximum height of the phreatic surface with the
corresponding su(yield)/σ’vc that will produce a FoS of unity. Failure of the slope - using this
screening-level approach - is therefore suggested for any su(yield)/σ’vc below 0.32. This
su(yield)/σ’vc is higher than essentially all the back analysed failures of which the authors are
aware. Therefore, participants who recognised the contractive nature of the tailings and
carried out some form of stability analysis using su(yield)/σ’vc – based approaches were likely
to conclude that the slope will fail prior to the final phreatic surface being reached.
An additional analysis carried out with the final phreatic surface (77m at X=0) using the
critical state friction angle of 36 degrees (i.e. a drained analysis) produced a FoS of 1.9 as
shown in Figure 7c, thus suggesting that participants who selected such a strength input for
the tailings would conclude that the slope would not fail. In other words, if the slope were
analysed solely in terms of drained strength parameters, failure was unlikely to be predicted,
even for the maximum height of phreatic surface.
PARTICIPANT SUBMISSIONS
A total of 28 participants made submissions for the round robin: 23 for Scenario A, and 25
for Scenario B. Participant information, along with the nominated failure values submitted by
each of the participants are listed in Table 3 and summarised in histogram format in Figure
8. A wide range of results for both scenarios is apparent, with some participants suggesting
the slope would fail under initial conditions (Y = 25m), while others concluded the slope
would not fail even upon reaching the highest level relevant to the exercise

(Y=77m). Clearly, this represents a significant variation in results, suggesting that different
methods and assumptions were applied by participants.
To organise the results in a rational framework, the entries are classified into the following
categories based on the analysis method and/or strength input values assigned in a
particular method, as also indicated in Table 3.

- LE Analyses:
o Drained strengths
o Yield strength ratios, su(yield)/σ’vc
o Liquefied strength ratios, su(LIQ)/σ’vc
- “Stress path” analyses, where in situ stresses were estimated either using
spreadsheet-based methods or carrying out a relatively simple elastic analysis of the
slope geometry to allow interrogation of in situ η values and their proximity to
potential triggering ηIL values.
- Finite element / finite different (FE/FD) analyses, where participants attempted to
model the entire process of phreatic surface rise, potential initiation of instability, and
post-peak shearing response in a single FE/FD analysis.
However, prior to interrogation of the different methods adopted, the technique used by
participants to assess Ψ are discussed, given the prevalence of such approaches by
participants and to frame the discussion in a similar order to the analysis steps taken by
many.
State parameter estimates
State parameter was analysed by 21 of the participants, either for direct use in numerical
models, stress path calculations, to provide an input to Ψ vs strength profiles, or simply to
give a screening-level understanding of the in situ state of the tailings. The state parameter
methods applied are outlined as follows:

 Been et al. 1987 method, based on comparison of CPTu calibration chamber results
to laboratory derived CSLs for the same sands. In this approach, a fit between mean
stress normalised tip resistance Qp and Ψ is developed using the CSL slope for the
material under consideration, drawing on the calibration chamber data for other
sands. In this method, the CSL slope relevant to the CPTu data being examined is
required.
 The Plewes et al. (1992) screening method (often referred to as the “Plewes
Method”), which extends the previous work of Been et al. (1987) to include both
partially drained and undrained penetration. In this method, the required input of
CSL slope λ10 can be taken either from available laboratory testing or is inferred
through empirical correlations to Fr. A value of Mtc is also required, which while
initially taken as 1.2 in the development of this method is more commonly now taken
as a site-specific value or estimate, given the generally higher values of Mtc relevant
to tailings (e.g. Reid 2014).
 The Robertson (2010a) screening method, where Ψ is calculated based on a
relationship to clean sand corrected dimensionless penetration resistance Qtn,cs, the
derivation of which is described by Robertson (2009). It is noted that this method
was developed with a focus on sandy soils where CPTu probing will be drained, and
that in analyses of TSFs that include both drained and undrained probing conditions
it is common to omit use of this method for undrained soundings (e.g. Robertson et
al. 2019).
 Cavity expansion techniques, where NorSand is used to simulate cavity expansion to
obtain the limiting cavity pressure under either drained (Shuttle and Jefferies 1998,
Ghafghazi and Shuttle 2008) or undrained (Shuttle and Cunning 2007, Shuttle and
Jefferies 2016) conditions, and the results are scaled to those of the CPT using the
Cq scaling factor as outlined by Shuttle and Jefferies (2016).

A summary of the methods applied by participants in this study is outlined in Table 4. The
Robertson (2010a) method was adopted by eight participants, 11 adopted the Plewes
method (Plewes et al. 1992), one used the method proposed by Been et al. (1987), and
three carried out cavity expansion simulations and development of material-specific
calibration as per the methods of Shuttle and Jefferies (2016). It is noteworthy that six
participants applied the Robertson (2010a) method to Scenario B, despite this scenario
featuring undrained penetration conditions likely outside the range of applicability of the
method. Another interesting observation is that all the participants who used the Plewes
method adopted a site-specific value of Mtc sourced from the available laboratory data, which
appears likely to be common industry practice and should produce more accurate results.
Another aspect of inferring Ψ that warrants discussion is the assumed value of K0, as this is
required for the use of Been et al. (1987), the Plewes method, or cavity expansion
approaches, as all are formulated in terms of Qp. There are persuasive arguments for taking
a value of 0.7 as a first assumption (Jefferies and Been 2015), based on geological
processes that occur in situ that are not reproduced in typical normally consolidated
laboratory element tests. As indicated by the results in Table 4, there does appear to be a
tendency for participants to adopt values higher than the ~0.5 that a reconstituted K0 test or
the Jaky equation would suggest.
Limit equilibrium methods

Drained strengths
All participants made use of drained strengths in their analyses in some form - most
commonly derived on the basis of the laboratory-measured value of Mtc, and then assigned
to material above the phreatic surface. However, of note are five participants who adopted
drained strengths for their analyses of Scenario A - including for saturated contractive
material below the phreatic surface (refer Table 5). This outcome with respect to Scenario A
is arguably one of the most important insights from this exercise. It is yet again emphasised
that in the program description it was made clear that the term “drained”, where used, was

only relevant to the CPTu probing conditions. This important outcome was expected by the
authors and seems consistent with other commentaries on the state of geotechnical practice
related to tailings (Davies et al. 2002, Jefferies 2021).
Yield strength ratios
Analysis of slopes comprising saturated contractive materials using a su(yield)/σ’vc approach
has a long history. For example, clayey soils have been characterised using undrained
strength ratios for decades (e.g. Ladd and Foott 1974), while a method for carrying out
triggering assessments for static triggers (such as the CSD stress path) was formalised by
Olson and Stark (2003) with various refinements incorporating loading direction (Sadrekarimi
2014) and more complex methods to incorporate brittle strength redistribution later proposed
by Sadrekarimi (2016). The use of an su(yield)/σ’vc approach was adopted by 11
participants, with their specific methods outlined in Table 5.
The primary input required for use of this approach is a su(yield)/σ’vc value. Three
techniques were adopted by participants using a su(yield)/σ’vc approach:
 Use of empirical CPTu techniques based either on Olson and Stark (2003) or
Sadrekarimi (2014). It is noted that the case histories used to develop these
correlations are dominated by drained CPTu soundings, and thus are likely to be
more directly applicable to Scenario A.
 Use of the “Nkt” method to estimate su(yield)/σ’vc directly from the CPTu. It is
emphasised that the Nkt method is only relevant (at least in its common form) to
undrained CPTu penetration.
 Estimating Ψ in situ from the CPTu results and developing a Ψ vs su(yield)/σ’vc
relationship by means of NorSand element simulations.
As indicated in Table 5 the application of these methods was broadly similar across those
participants adopting a su(yield)/σ’vc approach. There is a logical tendency by the
participants to adopt the Olson and Stark (2003) and Sadrekarimi (2014) approaches more

commonly when analysing Scenario A and the Nkt for Scenario B, consistent with the CPTu
drainage conditions and applicability of the two techniques to each scenario. Where the Nkt
method was adopted for Scenario B, Nkt values ranging from 14 to 16 were adopted,
consistent with typical recommendations when other data to calibrate this value is not
available (e.g. Robertson 2009). Finally, as the Ψ -based methods are conceptually
independent of CPTu drainage conditions, they find application in both scenarios.

The entries adopting LE techniques with su(yield)/σ’vc strengths are summarised in Figure 9
for both scenarios. Where participants adopted a range of strengths, either to accommodate
shearing mode or variation in in situ conditions, a range and average value are indicated.
Participants who only applied a particular strength to small zones within the saturated
tailings or did not select strengths on the basis of stress-normalised format, are excluded for
clarity. Included in Figure 9 are benchmarking analyses carried out by the authors wherein
strengths were iteratively adjusted for all tailings below the phreatic surface to obtain FoS=1
(using both circular and composite/optimised failure surfaces) for a range of phreatic
surfaces. While the results of the entries included in Figure 9 share the same trend,
generally, to the benchmarking curves, there is appreciable scatter. Examination of the
entries indicates that this variation is largely a result of participants either adopting a range of
su(yield)/σ’vc values (either from CPT analysis, loading mode, or both) or through differing
assumptions regarding the exact extent of where contractive material was located (e.g.
including zones above the phreatic surface, or extending the contractive zone closer to the
toe). Additional information on the geometric strength assumptions of participants, where
available, is included in the paper’s data repository.
It is finally noted that for certain cases with a low phreatic surface and low strength the
provided geometry was of insufficient width to avoid constraining circular failure surfaces.
Both the constrained (using provided geometry) and an extended geometry (to avoid
constraints) benchmarking curves are provided in Figure 9. Fortuitously, this geometric
constraint did not affect the outcome of any of entries received.

For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record. Canadian Geotechnical Journal (Author Accepted Manuscript) Page 16 of 55
Liquefied strength ratios
It is increasingly advocated that, given the clear risk posed by failure of brittle, contractive
materials such as tailings, ensuring stability of the structure even if liquefied strengths are
mobilised is essential. For example, Robertson (2010b) makes this case, with reference to
previous arguments put forward by Silvis and de Groot (1995) regarding loose sand
deposits. Morgenstern (2018) argues that for the purpose of preliminary design, liquefaction
(and thus mobilisation of a su(LIQ)/σ’vc) should be assumed. Similarly, Been (2016) and
Jefferies (2018) make similar points on the basis of the difficulty in accounting for post-peak
brittle stress redistribution in engineering practice. Recently published international
guidelines on tailings standards can also be interpreted to generally advocate this position
(ICMM 2020).
In the current study, three participants indicated failure under the initial phreatic surface
(Y=25m) because the slope, in this initial condition, had a FoS less than 1.0 when analysed
with their estimates of su(LIQ)/σ’vc applied to tailings below the phreatic surface. These
entries are distinct from those who analysed the slope adopting liquefied strengths as an
outcome of a stress path analysis (discussed subsequently). While, as noted previously,
adopting such an assumption in the design of high-risk structures containing loose, brittle
materials may be prudent, a distinction must be drawn with the explicit stated purpose of this
exercise - which was to identify when participants thought the slope would actually fail. It
could therefore be concluded that the increasing advocacy of design methods based on the
assumption of liquefied strength mobilisation has led participants to assume that liquefaction
will occur always, regardless of whether in situ stress conditions have reached a state where
triggering is likely to occur or not.
Table 5 includes the techniques adopted by participants who used su(LIQ)/σ’vc in LE analysis
solely on the basis of the contractive nature of the tailings highlighted. Liquefied strengths

were inferred either using empirical relationships to CPTu data (Olson and Stark 2002,
Robertson 2010b, Sadrekarimi 2014) or adopting friction sleeve measurements as
remoulded strength for fine-grained soils (e.g. Robertson 2010, 2021). It is noted that
essentially any assumed value of su(LIQ)/σ’vc would produce a FoS < 1.0 at Y=25m if applied
to all tailings below the phreatic surface, which accounts for this answer provided by three of
the participants (17, 18, and 20) adopting su(LIQ)/σ’vc. Participant 25 assumed liquefaction
on the basis of the contractive state of the tailings but predicted a much higher phreatic
surface as being required for failure owing to applying liquefied strengths to limited, discrete
portions of the tailings.
Stress path methods
Stress path methods (e.g. Yamamuro and Lade 1997) were adopted by six participants,
wherein using either spreadsheet-based analytical calculations or simple elastic models of
the TSF, the in situ stress state was estimated and its proximity to ηIL was estimated It is
important to first note that there are a number of important assumptions required when
carrying out this type of analysis, many of which can have a significant effect on the outcome
(e.g. Reid et al. 2021):
 What in situ stress conditions are assumed and/or produced (for example by use of a
particular constitutive model inputs), in terms of geostatic stress ratio K0 (at a
minimum) or, more broadly, intermediate principal stress ratio b and principal stress
angle 𝛼 below the slope in areas where an assumption of axisymmetric conditions
with vertical principal stress angle is no longer reasonable.
 Will liquefied strengths be assumed in all contractive zones once one element has
reached the selected value of 𝜂IL, some proportion/quantity of elements, or direct
modelling of brittle stress redistribution as different elements are triggered and shed
their shear stress to adjacent elements, potentially generating a progressive failure.

A summary of the assumptions and methods made by each of the five participants who
adopted stress path approaches are outlined in Table 6, along with the method for liquefied
strength estimation in triggered zones for subsequent LE stability analyses, where relevant.
Axisymmetric conditions are used for the presentation in Table 6 as most participants made
such a simplifying assumption in spreadsheet-based analyses they carried out.
The assumptions made by participants adopting the stress path approach clearly vary
widely. For example, the K0 values, either explicitly assumed, or resulting from an input of
Poisson’s ratio to an elastic model, varied from 0.41 to 0.80. This assumption itself
drastically affects how much phreatic surface rise is required for the predicted stress path to
reach ηIL. To highlight this distinction, the initial stress state and selected value of 𝜂IL for four
participants using stress path approaches is outlined in Figure 10 (Participant 24 is excluded
as they adopted a mobilised su(yield)/σ’vc trigger criterion).
Also contrasted in Figure 10 are the stress paths the participants assumed – with most
adopting a constant deviator stress (CSD stress path), whereas one assumed a stress path
“perpendicular” to the critical state friction line (Mtc = 1.45) - i.e., assuming that the rising
phreatic surface led to some additional evolution of stresses beyond simply a reduction in
mean effective stress. In addition to the initial stress state and stress path assumptions, the
values of 𝜂IL adopted vary significantly - for example, for Scenario B from 0.82 to 1.45 (i.e.
Mtc), with this variation appearing to result not from different inferred Ψ values but owing to
different fundamental views by these participants as to whether instability would occur at η
lower than critical on a CSD path. Owing to the variation seen in each of these forms of
inputs, a meaningful trend of predicted failure phreatic surface and any single input is not
discernible in the stress-path method results.
It is interesting that the assumption by some participants of Mtc as the stress ratio wherein
instability would initiate, was despite the saturated material within both scenarios clearly
being contractive, and therefore having the potential to undergo instability at lower values of

η. Further, adoption of Mtc ignores the likely effects of b on critical friction ratio M in below-
slope plane strain conditions (Wanatowski et al. 2010, Jefferies and Shuttle 2011, Reid
2020, Shuttle et al. 2021). Clearly, current engineering practice has not developed a
consensus as to the application of the stress path approach for triggering analyses.
FE/FD analyses – Models other than NorSand
Four participants made use of constitutive models other than NorSand, namely the Plastic
Hardening and Strain softening models included with FLAC and the Sanisand model
(Dafalias and Manzari 2004, Taiebat and Dafalias 2007) implemented as a user defined
model in Plaxis. A summary of the methods used by these four participants are outlined in
Table 7. One participant (Entry 26) carried out undrained perturbations of the model by
increasing gravity after each phreatic surface increase to check model equilibrium, while the
remainder increased the phreatic surface while continuously monitoring model equilibrium
without applying an undrained perturbation. The stress-strain behaviour of the calibrated
models used by these participants for Scenario B are presented in Figure 11 for an
undrained simple shear element test from an isotropic consolidation effective stress of 100
kPa.
The element behaviour shown in Figure 11 indicates significant differences in the calibrated
model behaviours, both with respect to yield/liquefied strengths and the rate of post-peak
strength loss. Indeed, the Plastic Hardening model – at least as calibrated by the participant
adopting this model - exhibited perfectly plastic behaviour without strain softening. Similar
contrast is also seen in the K0 values that would develop in the model using the selected
inputs, ranging from 0.25 to 0.60, the importance of which in the context of such analyses
was highlighted previously. The variation in methods adopted were manifested in the results
from those adopting these techniques, with failure indicated anywhere from Y=25m to
Y=70m for Scenario B, for example.

The intricacies of FE/FD modelling and the merits of different available constitutive models
are beyond the primary scope of this paper. However, the comparison provided here
indicates that significant variation can occur with different approaches that were all based on
the same source data and problem statement, and points to the critical need for the
functionality and calibration of advanced constitutive models to be well understood and
carried out when applied in engineering practice (Brinkgreve and Engin 2013, Lees 2016).
FE/FD analyses – NorSand constitutive model
Two participants (5 and 28) made use of the NorSand constitutive model, with details
provided in Table 8. An important first point regarding these two entries is that in neither
case did the participant identify “failure” in the sense of significant deformations such that the
grid geometry of their model became unusable, a criterion that is often used to designate
onset of failure for such a model. Rather, the failures identified by the participants were
selected as the point when the observed displacement rate at the crest increased
significantly. However, in both cases, the maximum crest displacement reached less than
0.5 m, with the model still achieving equilibrium. This is inconsistent with a flow event and
warrants further investigation both with respect to these two entries, and to provide more
context on element behaviour on a CSD stress path.
Both NorSand users did so with the commercially available software FLAC 2D 8.1 (Itasca
2019a) or FLAC3D v7.0 (Itasca 2019b) - the 3D version being used with a single element
width model to simulate plane strain conditions. Although NorSand has shown promising
potential to simulate soil response on a CSD path (Jefferies and Been 2015), several
important considerations are relevant to its use to identify failure of a slope. First, and
perhaps most importantly, NorSand will only provide a reasonable simulation of the
behaviour of loose soil on a CSD stress path if the implementation used includes yielding on
the inner cap (Jefferies 1997) – i.e. where plastic yielding can occur during mean effective
stress reduction. It is therefore interesting to note that inclusion of the inner cap in the
FLAC/FLAC3D implementation of NorSand only occurred in May 2020 as an “experimental”

feature, and the first of the two NorSand entries - being completed prior to this date –
therefore did not include the inner cap. It is also noteworthy that it appears neither
participant adopting NorSand carried out, or at least indicated, element simulations to
examine the behaviour of the model on a CSD stress path.
To provide further background on the use of NorSand in the context of the CSD stress path,
Figure 12 presents two single element triaxial simulations carried out using FLAC v8.1,
where the inner cap is activated in only one of the simulations. The Scenario B parameters
are adopted, with the CSD stress path commencing from initial conditions of p’ = 160 kPa
and q = 60 kPa. As can be seen in Figure 12, the model without the inner cap only
undergoes elastic swelling during unloading, with the stress ratio achieved far exceeding Mtc
- indeed, 𝝈’2 and 𝝈’3 cross into tension - before numerical instability occurs. This element
behaviour, without an inner cap, is therefore consistent with the prediction of no failure by
Entry 5 for Scenario B.
Turning to element behaviour with the inner cap, contraction is seen to commence when a
stress ratio of 0.97 is achieved. Eventually, at a stress ratio of 1.31, the stress path can no
longer be maintained in the simulation and numerical instability occurs. This more closely
aligns to experimental observations of the CSD path. However, it still suggests a relatively
high value of 𝜂 can be sustained in a saturated element above the CSL while the specimen
has begun contracting towards the CSL - something that seems inconsistent with available
experimental evidence for loose soils (Sasitharan et al. 1993, Reid and Fourie 2019, Fanni
et al. 2022).
Experimental data is useful to provide context around element behaviour up to and at
instability. The test programs carried out by Sasitharan et al. (1993) and Skopek et al.
(1994) on Ottawa sand both involved triaxial CSD tests, where deviator stress was applied
using dead weights. This is an important distinction, as the deviator stress applied with
weights is “relentless” - it is not dependent on the speed at which an actuator can apply load

as, for example, the specimen’s deformation rate begins to increase. If the specimen cannot
bear the deviator stress being applied, rapid failure will occur. The work of Sasitharan et al.
involved specimens saturated using standard triaxial methods, whereas that of Skopek et al.
used dry sand. The response of one test from each of these programs are contrasted in
Figure 13, as both a Cambridge plot and state diagram in the same form as Figure
12. Although no two tests from these programs had identical density and stress conditions,
the two presented in Figure 13 are sufficiently close that comparisons can be made.
In the test by Sasitharan et al. (1993), once a particular stress ratio is reached, essentially
instant collapse of the specimen occurs - the authors of that work describe the dramatic
effect of the falling weights at failure. Prior to this occurrence, only slight volumetric
expansion is seen, consistent with what might be expected from elastic
unloading. Alternatively, for the Skopek et al. (1994) test, at a similar stress ratio to where
the Sasitharan et al. test failed, the specimen begins to contract rapidly, with the authors
using the term “structural collapse”. The range of ηIL seen in these tests where either
collapse of the sample (falling of weights) or rapid contraction occurs are consistent with
those seen in other element studies of the CSD stress path, and which importantly are
significantly lower than the Mtc of Ottawa sand. For the purposes of the current work, and
field-scale CSD behaviour more generally, the critical aspect of these works as summarised
in Figures 12 and 13 is that it is quite unclear as to whether - in a field scale, stress-
controlled situation - in situ elements of soil would be able to sustain the CSD stress path
beyond the point at which contraction has commenced. Physical model evidence suggests
that the rate of contraction is such that drainage cannot occur fast enough, even in coarse
grained soils (Eckersley 1990). This is consistent with field-scale behaviour of the CSD
stress path on similarly sandy materials (Olson et al. 2000, France et al. 2021).
The various element and model data outlined therefore raise important questions as to
whether the behaviour of the NorSand model with inner cap - where the CSD stress path
can be successfully followed up to an η of 1.31 while contraction is occurring - is a realistic

representation of what will occur for a loose, saturated soil in situ. The importance of the
verification of numerical models, as noted previously, is again highlighted. Clearly, further
1g or centrifuge model investigation of the CSD stress path would be useful (e.g. Ng et al.
2023). It would also likely be of value for additional benchmarking exercises of this type to
be carried out in the future, perhaps under the auspices of relevant tailings- and dam-safety
international committees.
CONCLUSIONS
A comparative design exercise was organised to assess the different methods that would be
applied, and results obtained, to the analysis of an idealised TSF slope within which the
phreatic surface was rising. Two scenarios were developed to span much of the range of
gradation and CPTu drainage conditions relevant to recent prominent TSF failures. The
CPTu data and engineering behaviour of the two tailings were derived from those of the
recent Feijão and Cadia TSF failure investigations.
Despite all participants having identical information, a wide range of results were obtained -
from predictions that the slope would fail immediately, without any rise in phreatic surface, to
those indicating that the slope would remain stable under the maximum phreatic surface
prediction relevant to the exercise. The submissions to the exercise and general outcomes
are summarised as follows:
 For Scenario A, in particular, widely divergent views were seen:
o Five participants used drained strengths and concluded that the slope would
not fail up to the final phreatic surface profile of Y=77m. The implicit (and in
this case incorrect) assumption was that if the CPT sounding was drained,
only drained stability analyses were required.
o Alternatively, two participants assumed mobilisation of liquefied strengths for
Scenario A under initial phreatic conditions (Y=25m) for all saturated tailings.

 Five participants adopted stress path approaches with initial stress states based on
K0 ranging from 0.41 to 0.80 and 𝜂IL inferred to be anywhere from 0.82 to 1.45,
resulting in a wide range of outcomes with this approach. This demonstrates both
the significant uncertainty in the estimation of in situ stresses, and the different views
on selecting representative values of 𝜂IL from an identical dataset.
 A wide range of constitutive models were adopted by different participants who

analysed the exercise using FE/FD techniques (strain softening, Plastic Hardening,
SaniSand and NorSand). A wide range of outcomes were seen with the different
approaches, further pointing to the importance of validation of geotechnical numerical
models, with a particular need for such work focussed on the CSD stress path.
The results of the exercise would suggest that further study of the CSD stress path by
means of 1g and centrifuge experiments would be of value. Similarly, additional
comparative design exercises of this kind, perhaps held at regular intervals under the
auspices of an appropriate international organisation, could be beneficial.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors express their significant appreciation to all the participants for their contributions
to this work, which would not have been possible without such efforts. This work forms part
of TAILLIQ (Tailings Liquefaction), which is an Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage
Project supported by financial and in-kind contributions from Anglo American, BHP,
Freeport-McMoRan, Newmont, Rio Tinto, and Teck. The TAILLIQ project is being carried
out at The University of New South Wales (UNSW), The University of South Australia, The
University of Western Australia (lead university), and The University of Wollongong.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Data provided to participants of the program at the initiation of this study are available in the
OSF repository at https://osf.io/p4v37/?view_only=ec3aa0115e8b4feba0e4de6ca5739a3c.

Additional data generated or analysis during the study after receiving participant entries are
available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
COMPETING INTERESTS STATEMENT
Competing interests: The authors declare there are no competing interests.
REFERENCES
Anderson SA, Riemer MF. 1995. Collapse of Saturated Soil Due to Reduction in
Confinement. Journal of geotechnical engineering 121: 216–220.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1995)121:2(216)
Andrade JE. 2009. A predictive framework for liquefaction instability. Géotechnique 59: 673–
682. http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.7.00087
Arroyo M, Gens A. 2021. Computational analyses of Dam I at the Corrego de Feijao mine in
Brumadinho - Final Report.
Been K. 2016. Characterizing mine tailings for geotechnical design. Australian
Geomechanics Journal 51(4).
Been K, Jefferies MG. 1985. A state parameter for sands. Géotechnique 35: 99–112.
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1985.35.2.99
Been K, Jefferies MG, Crooks JHA, Rothenburg L. 1987. The cone penetration test in sands:
part II, general inference of state. Géotechnique 37: 285–299.
Blight GE. 2010. Geotechnical Engineering for Mine Waste Storage Facilities. CRC Press.
Bolzon, G., Sterpi, D., Mazza, G, Frigerio, A. 2021. Numerical analysis of dams –
Proceedings of the 15th ICOLD International Benchmark Worksop. Springer.
Brand EW. 1985. Some thoughts on rainfall induced slope failures. Proceedings 10th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. p. 373–376.
Brinkgreve RBJ, Engin E. 2013. Validation of geotechnical finite element analysis.
Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering. p. 677–682.
Casagrande A. 1965. Roll of the “Calculated Risk” in Earthwork and Foundation
Engineering. Proceedings, American Society of Civil Engineers 91: 1–40.
Chu J, Leong WK, Loke WL, Wanatowski D. 2012. Instability of Loose Sand under Drained
Conditions. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 138: 207–216.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000574
Cuomo S, Ghasemi P, Martinelli M, Calvello M. 2019. Simulation of Liquefaction and
Retrogressive Slope Failure in Loose Coarse-Grained Material. International Journal of
Geomechanics 19: 04019116. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001500

Davies MP, McRoberts EC, Martin TE. 2002. Static liquefaction of tailings - fundamentals
and case histories. Tailings Dam 2002: Proceedings of the Joint ASDSO/USSD Specialty
Conference. p. 233–255.
Eckersley D. 1990. Instrumented laboratory flowslides. Géotechnique 40: 489–502.
Fanni R, Reid D, Fourie AB. 2022. Effect of principal stress direction on the instability of
sand under the constant shear drained stress path. Geotechnique Ahead of print.
https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.22.00062
France JW, Alvia I, Williams JL, Miller A, Higinbotham S. 2021. Investigation of failures of
Edenville and Sandford Dams - Interim Report.

Ghafghazi M, Shuttle D. 2008. Interpretation of sand state from cone penetration resistance.
Géotechnique 58: 623–634. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2008.58.8.623
Hicks MA, Boughrarou R. 1998. Finite element analysis of the Nerlerk underwater berm
failures. Géotechnique 48: 169–185. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1998.48.2.169
ICMM. 2020. Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management.
Idriss IM, Boulanger RW. 2008. Soil Liquefaction during Earthquakes. EERI MNO-12
Itasca. 2019a. Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua (FLAC), v8.1 User’s Guide.
Itasca. 2019b. Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua (FLAC) 3D v7.0, User’s Guide.
Jefferies M. 1997. Plastic work and isotropic softening in unloading. Géotechnique 47: 1037–
1042. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1997.47.5.1037
Jefferies M. 2018. Critical state soil mechanics: 125 years of history to current use. Jenning
Lecture 2018.
Jefferies M. 2022. Improving governance will not be sufficient to avoid dam failures.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering 1–46.
https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeen.21.00105
Jefferies M, Been K. 2015. Soil Liquefaction: A Critical State Approach, Second Edition.
CRC Press.
Jefferies M, Morgenstern NR, Van Zyl DV, Wates J. 2019. Report on NTSF Embankment
Failure, Cadia Valley Operations, for Ashurst Australia.
Jefferies MG. 1993. Nor-Sand: a simple critical state model for sand. Géotechnique 43: 91–
103. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1993.43.1.91
Kulhawy FH, Mayne PW. 1990. Manual on estimating soil properties for foundation design.
EPRI EL-6800
Ladd CC, Foott R. 1974. New Design Procedure for Stability of Soft Clays. Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division 100: 763–786. https://doi.org/10.1061/AJGEB6.0000066
Lade PV. 1992. Static Instability and Liquefaction of Loose Fine Sandy Slopes. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering 118: 51–71. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9410(1992)118:1(51)
Lees A. 2016. Geotechnical Finite Element Analysis. ICE.

Meneses-Loja Jorge, Ishihara Kenji, Towhata Ikuo. 2000. Flow Failure of Saturated Sand
under Simultaneous Monotonic and Cyclic Stresses. Journal of Geotechnical and

Geoenvironmental Engineering 126: 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0241(2000)126:2(131)
Monkul MM, Yamamuro JA, Lade PV. 2011. Failure, instability, and the second work
increment in loose silty sand. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 48: 943–955.
https://doi.org/10.1139/t11-013
Morgenstern N. 2018. Geotechnical Risk, Regulation, and Public Policy (Victor de Mello
Lecture). Soils and Rocks 41: 107–129.
Morgenstern NR, Vick SG, Viotti CB, Watts BD. 2016. Fundão Tailings Dam Review Panel:
Report on the immediate causes of the failure of the Fundão Dam.
Morrison KF. 2022. Tailings Management Handbook: A LifeCycle Approach. Society for
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration. SME.
Ng CWW, Crous PA, Jacobsz SW. 2023. Centrifuge and Numerical Modeling of Liquefied
Flow and Nonliquefied Slide Failures of Tailings Dams. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 149: 04023075. https://doi.org/10.1061/JGGEFK.GTENG-
10800
Olson SM, Stark TD. 2002. Liquefied strength ratio from liquefaction flow failure case
histories. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 39: 629–647. https://doi.org/10.1139/t02-001
Olson SM, Stark TD. 2003. Yield Strength Ratio and Liquefaction Analysis of Slopes and
Embankments. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 129: 727–737.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:8(727)
Olson SM, Stark TD, H. WW, Castro G. 2000. 1907 Static Liquefaction Flow Failure of the
North Dike of Wachusett Dam. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
126: 1184–1193. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:12(1184)
Orr TLL, Bond AJ, Scarpelli G. 2011. Findings from the 2nd Set of Eurocode 7 Design
Examples. p. 537–547. ISGSR, Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on
Geotechnical Safety and Risk. Munich, Germany.
Plewes HD, Davies MP, Jefferies MG. 1992. CPT based screening procedure for evaluation
liquefaction susceptibility. 45th Canadian Geotechnical Conference. p. 41–49.
di Prisco C, Imposimato S. 1997. Experimental analysis and theoretical interpretation of
triaxial load controlled loose sand specimen collapses. Mechanics of Cohesive‐frictional
Materials: An International Journal on Experiments, Modelling and Computation of Materials
and Structures 2: 93–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1484(199704)2:2%3C93::AID-
CFM22%3E3.0.CO;2-Z
Reid D, Chiaro G, Fanni R, Fourie AB. 2022. Arguments for increasing the use of hollow
cylinder testing in the characterization of tailings. Tailings and Mine Waste 2022. Denver,
Colorado.
Reid D, Dickinson S, Mital U, Fanni R, Fourie A. 2021. On some uncertainties related to
static liquefaction triggering assessments. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers -
Geotechnical Engineering 175(2): 181-199. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeen.21.00054

Reid D, Fourie A. 2019. A direct simple shear device for static liquefaction triggering under
constant shear drained loading. Géotechnique Letters 9: 142–146.

https://doi.org/10.1680/jgele.19.00011
Reid D, Fourie AB. 2014. Assessing the post-liquefaction shear strength of thickened tailings
in the design stage - a review and update. 17th International Seminar on Paste and
Thickened Tailings. p. 429–444. Vancouver, B.C.
Reid D, Smith K. 2021. Interpretation of state parameter in partially drained tailings – a case
history examination. Géotechnique Letters 11: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgele.21.00066
Robertson PK. 2009. Interpretation of cone penetration tests — a unified approach.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 46: 1337–1355. https://doi.org/10.1139/T09-065

Robertson PK. 2010a. Estimating in-situ state parameter and friction angle in sandy soils
from the CPT. 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing.
Robertson PK. 2010b. Evaluation of Flow Liquefaction and Liquefied Strength Using the
Cone Penetration Test. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 136:
842–853. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000286
Robertson PK, Campanella RG. 1983. Interpretation of cone penetration tests. Part I: Sand.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 20: 718–733. https://doi.org/10.1139/t83-078
Robertson PK, de Melo L, Williams DJ, Wilson GW. 2019. Report of the Expert Panel on the
technical causes of the Failure of Feijão Dam I.
Russell AR, Vo T, Ayala J, Wang Y, Reid D, Fourie AB. 2022. Cone penetration tests in
saturated and unsaturated silty tailings. Géotechnique 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.21.00261
Sadrekarimi A. 2014. Effect of the Mode of Shear on Static Liquefaction Analysis. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 140(12).
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001182
Sadrekarimi A. 2016. Static Liquefaction Analysis Considering Principal Stress Directions
and Anisotropy. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 34: 1135–1154.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-016-0033-7
Sasitharan S, Robertson PK, Sego DC, Morgenstern NR. 1993. Collapse behavior of sand.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 30: 569–577. https://doi.org/10.1139/t93-049
Schweiger HF. 1998. Results from Two Geotechnical Benchmark Problems. A p. 645–654.
Application of Numerical Methods to Geotechnical Problems. Proceedings of the Fourth
European Conference on Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering Numge98. Udine,
Italy October 14–16, 1998
Schweiger HF. 2006. Results from the ERTC7 benchmark exercise. 7th European
Conference on Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering - Trondheim, Norway. p. 3–
8.
Shuttle D, Jefferies M. 1998. Dimensionless and unbiased CPT interpretation in sand.
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 22: 351–391.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9853(199805)22:5%3C351::AID-NAG921%3E3.0.CO;2-8
Shuttle D, Jefferies M. 2016. Determining silt state from CPTu. Geotechnical Research 3:
90–118. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgere.16.00008

Shuttle DA, Cunning J. 2007. Liquefaction potential of silts from CPTu. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 44: 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1139/t06-086

Silvis F, de Groot MB. 1995. Flow slides in the Netherlands: experience and engineering
practice. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 32: 1086–1092. https://doi.org/10.1139/t95-107
Skopek P, Morgenstern NR, Robertson PK, Sego DC. 1994. Collapse of dry sand. Canadian
Sladen JA, D’Hollander RD, Krahn J. 1985. The liquefaction of sands, a collapse surface
approach. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 22: 564–578. https://doi.org/10.1139/t85-076
Smith ES. 1969. Tailings disposal and liquefaction. Transactions, Society of Mining
Engineers, AIME 244: 179–187.
Take WA, Bolton MD, Wong PCP, Yeung FJ. 2004. Evaluation of landslide triggering
mechanisms in model fill slopes. Landslides 1: 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-
004-0025-1
Wanatowski D, Chu J, Loke WL. 2010. Drained instability of sand in plane strain. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 47: 400–412. https://doi.org/10.1139/T09-111
Yamamuro JA, Lade PV. 1997. Static liquefaction of very loose sands. Canadian
Zhang W, Askarinejad A. 2020. Centrifuge modelling of static liquefaction in submarine
slopes: scaling law dilemma. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 58: 200–209.
https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2019-0417

FIGURE CAPTIONS
Figure 1: Idealised TSF geometry, (a) CPTu locations and initial phreatic
surface, (b) final phreatic surface level for consideration by participants
Figure 2: Triaxial compression element test data produced using NorSand VBA
for Scenario A and B, CIU p’c= 100 kPa, Ψ0 = +0.05: (a) deviator stress vs. axial
strain (with inset) and (b) deviator stress vs mean effective stress
Figure 3: Peak and minimum post-peak strengths for both scenarios as a
function of Ψ0 as predicted through NorSand triaxial compression element
simulations outlined in Figure 2

Figure 4: Normalised CPTu data for CPTu1: (a) Scenario A, (b) Scenario B
Figure 5: State parameters based on Plewes Method with material-specific Mtc
of 1.45: (a) CPTu1, (b) CPTu2, (c) CPTu 3. Both scenarios are shown for each
CPTu. Phreatic surface shown is that relevant for initial conditions (Y=25m)
relevant to the fictional CPTu probing.
Figure 6: Summary of provided CPT data for the exercise in Q(1-Bq)+1 vs Fr
format after Shuttle and Jefferies (2016, average values for saturated and
unsaturated portions of the CPT soundings show for clarity
Figure 7: LE stability analyses of the idealised slope, all using optimised
failure surface geometry, Morgenstern-Price method: (a) Back-analysed
su(yield)/σ’vc required to produce a FoS of unity for initial phreatic surface
conditions, (b) Back-analysed su(yield)/σ’vc required to produce a FoS for unity
for final phreatic surface conditions, and (c) Stability analysis assuming
effective friction strengths for the saturated tailings under final phreatic
surface conditions.
Figure 8: Predicted failure phreatic surface heights histogram: (a) Scenario A,
(b) Scenario B
Figure 9: Comparison of adopted strength ratios (and ranges, where relevant)
with predicted failure phreatic surface elevation (at X=0m), including reference
values produced by authors adopting circular and optimised failure surfaces
where strength ratio is applied to all tailings below phreatic surface and
friction angle of 36 degrees above phreatic surface
Figure 10: Schematic stress path representation of the implications of different
K0 and ηIL assumptions made by participants. All idealised stress paths
assume initial vertical effective stress of 200 kPa and axisymmetric conditions,
for illustration purposes.
Figure 11: Element simulation stress-strain behaviour of three participants
adopting constitutive models other than NorSand for FE/FD analysis
Figure 12: NorSand element simulation of axisymmetric CSD test, adopting
Scenario B parameters: (a) Cambridge space, (b) state diagram.

For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record. Page 31 of 55

Skopek et al. (1994): (a) Cambridge plot, (b) State diagram
Canadian Geotechnical Journal (Author Accepted Manuscript)
Figure 13: CSD element tests carried out by Sasitharan et al. (1993) and
LIST OF NOTATIONS
𝜎2 ― 𝜎3
b intermediate principal stress ratio ( = 𝜎1 ― 𝜎3)
Bq dimensionless excess pore pressure ( = (𝑢2 ― 𝑢0)/(𝑞𝑡 ― 𝜎𝑣)
ecs Void ratio on critical state
Fr stress-normalised CPT friction ratio

𝜎′ℎ
K0 geostatic stress ratio ( = 𝜎′𝑣)
G elastic shear modulus
H0 Reference plastic hardening modulus at Ψ=0
Hy Change in plastic hardening modulus with Ψ
Mtc critical state friction ratio, triaxial compression conditions
N volumetric coupling parameter
p’ mean effective stress (= (𝜎′1 + 𝜎′2 + 𝜎′3)/3)
q deviator stress (= 𝜎1 ― 𝜎3)
Q normalised dimensionless tip resistance normalised by vertical stresses
Qp dimensionless tip resistance normalised by mean stresses
qt corrected cone tip resistance
u0 in situ equilibrium pore pressure
u2 CPT shoulder pore pressure
α principal stress angle

𝑞
η stress ratio ( = 𝑝′)
𝑞
ηIL instability stress ratio ( = 𝑝′ 𝑎𝑡 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦)
v Poisson’s ratio
σh total horizontal stress
σ’h effective horizontal stress
σv total vertical stress
σ’v effective vertical stress

σ’vo effective vertical overburden stress

φ'cs critical state friction angle
Γ CSL intercept at p’ = 1 kPa
λe slope of partial-logarithmic CSL, base e
Ψ state parameter
χ State dilatancy constant



Figure 1: Idealised TSF geometry, (a) CPTu locations and initial phreatic surface, (b) final phreatic surface level for consideration by participants
Page 34 of 55
Page 35 of 55
Figure 2: Triaxial compression element test data produced using NorSand VBA for Scenario A and B, CIU p’c= 100 kPa, Ψ0 = +0.05: (a) deviator stress vs. axial strain (with inset) and (b)
deviator stress vs mean effective stress

Figure 3: Peak and minimum post-peak strengths for both scenarios as a function of Ψ0 as predicted through NorSand triaxial compression element simulations outlined in Figure 2

Figure 4: Normalised CPTu data for CPTu1: (a) Scenario A, (b) Scenario B

Figure 5: State parameters based on Plewes Method with material-specific Mtc of 1.45: (a) CPTu1, (b) CPTu2, (c) CPTu 3. Both scenarios are shown for each CPTu. Phreatic surface
shown is that relevant for initial conditions (Y=25m) relevant to the fictional CPTu probing.

Page 39 of 55
Figure 6: Summary of provided CPT data for the exercise in Q(1-Bq)+1 vs Fr format after Shuttle and Jefferies (2016, average values for saturated and unsaturated portions of the CPT
soundings show for clarity

Figure 7: LE stability analyses of the idealised slope, all using optimised failure surface geometry, Morgenstern-Price method: (a) Back-analysed su(yield)/σ’vc required to produce a
FoS of unity for initial phreatic surface conditions, (b) Back-analysed su(yield)/σ’vc required to produce a FoS for unity for final phreatic surface conditions, and (c) Stability analysis
assuming effective friction strengths for the saturated tailings under final phreatic surface conditions.

Figure 8: Predicted failure phreatic surface heights histogram: (a) Scenario A, (b) Scenario B

Figure 9: Comparison of adopted strength ratios (and ranges, where relevant) with predicted failure phreatic surface elevation (at X=0m), including reference values produced by
authors adopting circular and optimised failure surfaces where strength ratio is applied to all tailings below phreatic surface and friction angle of 36 degrees above phreatic surface

Page 43 of 55
Figure 10: Schematic stress path representation of the implications of different K0 and ηIL assumptions made by participants. All idealised stress paths assume initial vertical effective
stress of 200 kPa and axisymmetric conditions, for illustration purposes.


Figure 11: Element simulation stress-strain behaviour of three participants adopting constitutive models other than NorSand for FE/FD analysis
Page 44 of 55

Figure 12: NorSand element simulation of axisymmetric CSD test, adopting Scenario B parameters: (a) Cambridge space, (b) state diagram.
diagram

Figure 13: CSD element tests carried out by Sasitharan et al. (1993) and Skopek et al. (1994): (a) Cambridge plot, (b) State
Page 46 of 55
Table 1: Critical state and NorSand parameters provided to participants
Value
Parameter
Scenario A Scenario B
Γ 0.920 0.740
λe 0.021 0.050
Mtc 1.45 1.45
φ'cs 36 36
N 0.30 0.25
χ 6.3 7.2
H 125 - 690 ψ 45 - 350 ψ

G* 50 * (p'/100)0.42 15*(p'/100)0.72
*p' input in kPa, G result in MPa

Table 2: 20th, 50th, and 80th percentile Ψ values, Plewes Method with Mtc = 1.45, λ10 based on each Scenario’s specific CSL
slope, and K0 = 0.7
CPT 1 CPT 2 CPT 3

Scenario A B A B A B
20th -0.016 +0.085 -0.008 +0.064 -0.036 +0.064
Percentile 50th +0.014 +0.121 +0.004 +0.121 +0.000 +0.098
80th +0.050 +0.153 +0.032 +0.153 +0.029 +0.147

Table 3: Program and participant summary

Team description Scenario A Scenario B
Failure Failure
No. of Academics / phreatic phreatic
Entry Analysis
team consultants / surface surface Analysis type
type
members operators identified (at identified (at
X=0) X=0)
1 2 Consultants No entry 46 Stress path
2 1 Consultants 41 LE 75 LE
3 2 Consultants No entry 43 LE
5 1 Consultants 69 FE/FD Does not fail FE/FD

6 1 Consultants Does not fail LE 47 Stress path
7 1 Consultants Does not fail LE No entry
9 3 Consultants 60 FE/FD 70 FE/FD
10 2 Consultants Does not fail LE No entry
11 1 Consultants 60 Stress path 40 LE
13 2 Consultants 55 LE Does not fail LE
14 2 Consultants 50 Stress path 40 Stress path

15 1 Consultants 63 LE* 60 LE
16** 1 Academic Synthesis of Scenario 1 and 2, Y=55m, LE
19 2 Academic Does not fail LE* 50 FE/FD
21** 4 Consultants Various analyses under different conditions without single entry
22 2 Consultants 36 LE No entry
23 1 Consultants Does not fail LE 50 LE
24 3 Operators No entry 25 Stress path
28 1 Consultants Does not fail FE/FD 65 FE/FD
*Used SSR rather than LE, but groups with LE entries for simplicity
**Not included in subsequent analyses owing to varied techniques and/or synthesis of the two scenarios

Table 4: Comparison of methods used by participants to estimate state parameter
Methods Assumed Ψ Ψ value or range

Entry K0 (when λ source Mtc source selection
Scenario A Scenario B required) process A B
Direct
1 - Robertson (2010a) n/a n/a n/a from CPT - Varied with depth
data
50 - 80th
2 Cavity expansion widget (Shuttle and Jefferies 2016) 0.70 CSL provided Mtc provided percentile Unknown Unknown
("by eye")
80th
4 Plewes et al. (1992) - 0.70 λ10 = Fr /10 Mtc provided +0.04 Did not use Ψ
percentile
50th Various ranges applied in sensitivity
5 Robertson (2010a) n/a λ10 = Fr /10 n/a
percentile analyses
50th Examined only to screen for
6 Robertson (2010a) n/a n/a n/a
percentile contractive behaviour
Plewes et al. (1992) and 50th
8 - 0.80 λ10 = Fr /10 Mtc provided - +0.04
Robertson (2010a) percentile
Scenario
A - 0.48 80th
9 Plewes et al. (1992) λ10 = Fr /10 Mtc provided Unknown Unknown

Scenario percentile
B - 0.54
Examined only
Plewes et al. (1992)
50th to screen for
11 and Robertson - 0.70 λ10 = Fr /10 Mtc provided -
percentile contractive
(2010a)
behaviour
+0.06 (0-25m Dilative (0-25m
85th depth) depth)
12 Cavity expansion widget (Shuttle and Jefferies 2016) 0.70 CSL provided Mtc provided
percentile +0.11 (>25m +0.05 (>25m
depth) depth)
50th
13 Robertson (2010a) n/a n/a n/a Unknown Unknown
percentile
Direct
14 Robertson (2010a) n/a n/a n/a from CPT Varied with depth
data
Examined only to
Cavity expansion widget 80th screen for
18 - 0.45 CSL provided Mtc provided -
(Shuttle and Jefferies 2016) percentile contractive
behaviour
50th
19 Plewes et al. (1992) - 0.50 λ10 = Fr /10 Mtc provided Unknown -
percentile
Examined only
50th
to screen for
20 Plewes et al. (1992) - 0.60 λ10 = Fr /10 Mtc provided percetile -
contractive
("by eye")
behaviour
50th
22 Plewes et al. (1992) - 0.80 λ10 = Fr /10 Mtc provided Unknown -
percentile
80th Examined only to screen for
23 - Plewes et al. (1992) 0.70 λ10 = Fr /10 Mtc provided
percentile contractive behaviour
Examined only to
50th
screen for
24 Plewes et al. (1992) 0.67 CSL provided Mtc provided percetile -
contractive
("by eye")
- behaviour
Examined only
to screen for
25 Robertson (2010a) - n/a n/a n/a n/a -
contractive
behaviour
λ10 = Fr /10, 50th
26 Plewes et al. (1992) 0.6 - 0.7 and CSL Mtc provided percetile Unknown Unknown
provided ("by eye")
λ10 = Fr /10, 50th
27 Plewes et al. (1992) 0.6 - 0.7 and CSL Mtc provided percetile +0.07 +0.13
provided ("by eye")
Direct input of 50th percentile
50th
28 Been et al. (1987) 0.50 CSL provided Mtc provided value in incremental depth "bins"
percentile
into FLAC

Table 5: Summary of LE methods adopted by participants

Saturated tailings strength input and Source for
Failure Saturated tailings strength input and methods Failure drained
methods
Entr phreatic phreatic strength,
y surface surface above
Method to su (yield) / σ'vc or Method to su (yield) / σ'vc or
identified Input type identified Input type phreatic
estimate su (LIQ) / σ'vc estimate su (LIQ) / σ'vc
(at X=0) (at X=0) surface
NorSand
NorSand
su (yield) / element
2 41 su (yield) / σ'vc element 0.17 - 0.25 75 0.24 Mtc provided
σ'vc simulation
simulations
s
su (yield) /
3 No entry 43 Nkt - 14 0.21 Mtc provided
σ'vc
Ψ-
YSR/USR 0.35 (TC) 0.25 (TC)
su (yield) /
4 67 su (yield) / σ'vc trends 0.26 (DSS) 39 Nkt - 15 0.19 (DSS) Mtc provided
σ'vc
from 0.18 (TE) 0.13 (TE)
literature
Does not Drained Mtc
6 n/a Not LE technique Mtc provided
fail strength provided

Robertson
Does not Drained
7 and Cabal n/a No entry Mtc provided
fail strength
(2015)
16 degrees
adopted
NorSand
based on
su (yield) / element
8 No entry 47 0.27 strain
σ'vc simulation
compatibility
s
consideration
s
Inferred
from CPTu
results, Inferred from
synthesis CPTu results,
of: synthesis of:
Robertson Robertson &
& Campanella
Does not Drained
10 Campanell n/a No entry (1983),
fail strength
a (1983), Kulhawy and
Kulhawy Mayne (1990)
and Mayne and Jefferies
(1990) and and Been
Jefferies (2015)
and Been
(2015)
0.22 at depth,
then linearly
su (yield) / transition to
11 Not LE technique 40 Nkt - 15 Mtc provided
σ'vc drained strength
at shallower
depths
NorSand
su (yield) /
12 48 su (yield) / σ'vc element 0.19 70 Nkt - 16 0.20 Mtc provided
σ'vc
simulations
NorSand
NorSand
Does not su (yield) / element
13 55 su (yield) / σ'vc element 0.27 0.48 Mtc provided
fail σ'vc simulation
simulations
s
NorSand
NorSand
Function of su (yield) / element Function of
15* 63 su (yield) / σ'vc element 60 Mtc provided
depth σ'vc simulation depth
simulations
s
Synthesis Estimated
of baesd on
33 degrees,
Robertson su (yield) / Qtn of 3-4
17 25 su (LIQ) / σ'vc 0.07 39 0.22 based on
(2010) and σ'vc (Robertson
Mayne (2006)
Sadrekarim and Cabal
i (2014) 2015)
Friction
18 No entry 25 su (LIQ) / σ'vc sleeve 0.12 Mtc provided
resistance

Does not Drained Mtc

19* n/a Not LE technique Mtc provided
fail strength provided
Friction Friction
20 25 su (LIQ) / σ'vc sleeve 0.15 25 su (LIQ) / σ'vc sleeve 0.15 Mtc provided
resistance resistance
Olson and
Stark
(2003) and
22 36 su (yield) / σ'vc 0.13** No entry Mtc provided
NorSand
element
simulations
Does not Drained Mtc su (yield) /
23 n/a 50 Nkt - 14 0.25 Mtc provided
fail strength provided σ'vc
Olson and
su (LIQ) / σ'vc su (yield) /
25 75 Stark 0.10** 26 Nkt - 14 0.15 - 0.26 Mtc provided
*** σ'vc
(2002)
*Used SSR rather than LE
**Reduced owing to inferred brittle nature of tailings
***Only applied to discrete zones of saturated tailings


Table 6: Summary of stress path methods adopted by participants

Method to estimate su (LIQ) / σ'vc

Predicted failure Initial K0 value Initial K0
Entry Method Trigger point Triggering criteria Stress path assumed in zones where triggering
adopted rationale
identified
Once one zone had
triggered, switch all
1 n/a 46 Spreadsheet 0.80 Assumed At CSL, ηIL = 1.45 CSD Robertson (2010b)
contractive zones to
liquefied strength
Once one zone had

Synthesis of Olson and Stark
triggered, switch all
6 n/a 47 Spreadsheet 0.41 Jaky Equation ηIL = 1.2 CSD (2002), Idriss and Boulanger
contractive zones to
(2008), Robertson (2010b)
liquefied strength
Assumed, Once one zone had

Jefferies and triggered, switch that
11 60 n/a Elastic FE/FD model 0.70 ηIL = 0.82 CSD Robertson (2010b)
Been (2015) zone to liquefied
recommendations strength
Move to LE stability
analyses with liquefied
Llano-Serna et al.
14 50 40 Spreadsheet 0.56 At CSL, ηIL = 1.45 strengths once 50% of Perpendicular to Mtc slope Robertson (2010b)
(2017)
elements along CPT
reach triggering criterion
Move to LE stability
Not applicable, as
Output of analyses with liquefied
elements already at
assumed su / σ'vc = 0.28 to strengths based on
24 n/a 25 Elastic FE/FD model 0.50 selected trigger under Robertson (2010b)
Poisson's ratio of 0.30 qualitative assessment of
initial phreatic surface
0.33 below-phreatic surface
condition
element stress conditions

Table 7: Details regarding other constitutive models applied by participants other than NorSand
Predicted failure Initial K0 value Initial K0

Entry Constitutive model adopted Failure criteria
Scenario A Scenario B adopted rationale
Output of
9 60 70 Plastic Hardening Model 0.48 - 0.54
model
Assumed
19 n/a 50 Scenario 2 - Strain softening 0.43 Poisson's ratio
of 0.3 Lack of
convergence
26 25 33 SaniSand 0.60 Assumed
Assumed
27 31 25 Strain Softening 0.25 Poisson's ratio
of 0.2

Table 8: Details of methods used by participants that adopted NorSand constitutive model
Predicted failure Software code K0 selection

Inner cap yielding in model
Entry used, and date Rationale for Failure criteria
Scenario A Scenario B implementation used? Initial value
released selection
FLAC 8.10.486, Lack of convergence
5 69 Does not fail No Unknown
13 February 2020 (where relevant)
Increased displacement
rate at slope crest.
FLAC3D 7.00.119,
28 Does not fail 65 Yes 0.50 Assumed However, maximum crest
13 May 2020
displacement of 0.3m at
"failure" (Scenario B)

Reid and Fourie 2023 Development and Outcomes of A Tailings Slope

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

Reid and Fourie 2023 Development and Outcomes of A Tailings Slope

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1 of 55

Development and outcomes of a tailings slope stability comparative

David Reid, PhD (Corresponding author)

The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

Andy Fourie, PhD

The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

© The Author(s) or their Institution(s)

Keywords: slope stability, tailings, liquefaction

© The Author(s) or their Institution(s)

TSF stability analyses, a point highlighted by Jefferies (2021).

In order to assess the current state of practice of a particular sub-discipline of geotechnical

engineering, including how practitioners approach the inherent uncertainties required in

state of TSFs and analyse their stability.

© The Author(s) or their Institution(s)

General approach and trigger mechanism

instability – particularly of sandy tailings – are insufficiently appreciated in tailings

undrained conditions, three commonly discussed mechanisms include (i) placement of

© The Author(s) or their Institution(s)

typically decades-long development.

lower than the critical state stress ratio M.

and Askarinejad 2020), or development of a hypothetical scenario. Direct analysis of a

published investigations would invariably influence the outcome. While 1g or centrifuge

© The Author(s) or their Institution(s)

of real TSFs was selected as the basis of the exercise.

closure is common to TSFs in arid or semi-arid climates, several conceivable subsequent

events such as recommissioning of the facility or a degradation of surface water

management structures leading to an increased presence of surface water could result in a

and subsequent failure, plausibly involving a CSD stress path.

© The Author(s) or their Institution(s)

and a depth of standing water was not to be considered.

TAILINGS MATERIAL PROPERTIES

Element test data

“VBA spreadsheet”) and to develop material-specific relationships between CPTu results

© The Author(s) or their Institution(s)

numerical models favouring NorSand over other alternatives.

presented in Figure 2 for isotropically consolidated undrained (CIU) triaxial compression

participants would approach the two scenarios.

presented as a function of Ψ0 in Figure 3. For specimens exhibiting QSS, the strength at

© The Author(s) or their Institution(s)

In situ penetration test data - development

included in a project-specific data repository as indicated in the paper’s data availability

presented in a Q(1-Bq)+1 vs Fr plot in Figure 6 as average values of the saturated and

unsaturated portions of each sounding for comparison purposes.

SCREENING-LEVEL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES

© The Author(s) or their Institution(s)

even for the maximum height of phreatic surface.

© The Author(s) or their Institution(s)

methods and assumptions were applied by participants.

particular method, as also indicated in Table 3.

o Yield strength ratios, su(yield)/σ’vc

o Liquefied strength ratios, su(LIQ)/σ’vc

spreadsheet-based methods or carrying out a relatively simple elastic analysis of the

slope geometry to allow interrogation of in situ η values and their proximity to

potential triggering ηIL values.

- Finite element / finite different (FE/FD) analyses, where participants attempted to

post-peak shearing response in a single FE/FD analysis.

participants to assess Ψ are discussed, given the prevalence of such approaches by

State parameter estimates

models, stress path calculations, to provide an input to Ψ vs strength profiles, or simply to

methods applied are outlined as follows:

© The Author(s) or their Institution(s)

to tailings (e.g. Reid 2014).