minerals
Article
Tailings Behavior Assessment Using Piezocone Penetration Test
Magdalena Wróżyńska
Citation: Wróżyńska, M. Tailings
Behavior Assessment Using
Piezocone Penetration Test. Minerals
2024, 14, 208. https://doi.org/
10.3390/min14020208
Academic Editors: Luis A. Cisternas
and Michael Hitch
Received: 16 January 2024
Revised: 31 January 2024
Accepted: 17 February 2024
Published: 18 February 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the author.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Minerals 2024, 14, 208. https://doi.org/10.3390/min14020208
Department of Construction and Geoengineering, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 28,
60-637 Poznań, Poland; magdalena.wrozynska@up.poznan.pl
Abstract: Intensive economic development is associated with an increasing demand for raw materials,
including minerals. An illustrative example of this issue is the development of the copper industry. A
significant problem arising from the scale of copper production is the management of an ever-growing
amount of post-flotation tailings. This necessitates the need to ensure the continuity of safe storage.
This study presents the results of studies on the behavior of deposits in the Żelazny Most Tailings
Storage Facility (Poland). The primary objective of this study was to estimate the settlements of
tailings under variable deposition conditions. The results were assessed using two methods: indirect
and direct; this was based on cone penetration test (CPTU) results. The results were verified using
Modified Cam Clay (MCC) modeling. Depending on the type of test, settlements ranged from several
dozen centimeters to over three meters. Despite the observed differences, the results of both CPTU
methods indicate a convergent trend in tailings behavior. Conversely, the results estimated using the
direct method and numerical modeling demonstrate a high level of agreement.
Keywords: post-flotation tailings; tailings storage facility; settlements; TSF; CPTU; MCC
1. Introduction
The intense economic development of the country is associated with a growing de-
mand for resources, including minerals. An illustrative example of this issue is the devel-
opment of the copper industry in Poland. The main national producer of copper is KGHM
Polska Miedź S.A. Over a period of more than 50 years of operation, KGHM Polska Miedź
S.A. has produced approximately 20 million tons of copper for the domestic and export
markets. The mass of extracted rock is estimated to be around 1 billion tons. Based on the
assessment of deposit resources, the exploitation of copper ore can continue for another
50 years. In light of such extensive exploitation, a significant problem arises in the manage-
ment of a large amount of post-flotation tailings generated in the copper production process.
In a historical context, this issue was addressed through the construction of specialized
facilities called wet storage facilities. The utilized storage facilities underwent reclamation.
Currently, the only active repository for all post-flotation tailings from the copper mines is
the Żelazny Most Tailings Storage Facility (TSF). The construction of the TSF took place
between 1974 and 1977. This type of hydrotechnical structure serves as both an integral part
of continuous exploitation and is susceptible to damage and even catastrophic failures [1,2].
Therefore, to ensure safe operation, the facility undergoes comprehensive monitoring, both
technical and environmental. As part of technical monitoring, geotechnical monitoring is
conducted, including non-invasive in situ testing. This allows for the assessment of the
behavior of tailings, both deposited in the facility and those used in the upstream method of
its dam construction. Geotechnical research includes, among others, the Cone Penetration
Test—CPT [3,4]. The knowledge compendium on this test is provided by the “Guide to
Cone Penetration Testing” [5]. The test standard is not complicated, but the interpretation of
test results can be problematic. The issue arises because the mentioned standard pertains to
natural soils, not anthropogenic soils, which include tailings. Nevertheless, CPT has many
advantages: testing is conducted in the current stress state, various soil characteristics are
preserved (including structure, cementation, pre-consolidation), the test is repeatable, and
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/minerals
 cause the mentioned standard pertains to natural soils, not anthropogenic soils, which
include tailings. Nevertheless, CPT has many advantages: testing is conducted in the cur-
rent stress state, various soil characteristics are preserved (including structure, cementa-
tion, pre-consolidation), the test is repeatable, and it is comprehensive (various independ-
Minerals 2024, 14, 208 2 of 21
ent parameters are obtained). Most interpretative procedures and classification systems
are based on a four-step scheme: registration of parameters, correction of registered pa-
rameters, normalization of corrected parameters, and the final determination of geotech-
itnical
is comprehensive
soil parameters. (various independent parameters are obtained). Most interpretative
procedures and classification
The first penetration tests, systems
conducted are based
using on a four-stepcone,
a mechanical scheme:
wereregistration
carried out of in
parameters, correction of registered parameters, normalization
the 1930s [5,6]. Over the subsequent decades, cones underwent improvements of corrected parameters,
and nu-
and the final
merous determination
modifications [7,8]. of
Thegeotechnical
modern cone soilisparameters.
dated to 1963, and the current nomencla-
The first penetration tests, conducted
ture, CPT (Cone Penetration Test), has been applied using a mechanical cone,
since 1965. Thewere carriedand
geometry outdimen-
in the
1930s [5,6]. Over the subsequent decades, cones underwent improvements
sions of the electric cone (1965) formed the basis for the construction of modern cones, and numerous
modifications [7,8]. The modern
which were standardized. cone
In 1974, is piezocone
the dated to 1963, and the current
(piezoelectric cone) nomenclature,
was introducedCPT [5].
(Cone Penetration Test), has been applied since 1965. The geometry and dimensions of
Cones vary in dimensions, from mini cones with a cross-sectional area of 2 cm2, used for
the electric cone (1965) formed the basis for the construction of modern cones, which were
shallow investigations, through standard and commonly used cones with cross-sectional
standardized. In 1974, the piezocone (piezoelectric cone) was introduced [5]. Cones vary in
areas of 10 cm2 or 15 cm2, to special cones with a cross-sectional area of 40 cm2, used for
dimensions, from mini cones with a cross-sectional area of 2 cm2 , used for shallow investi-
investigations of coarse-grained and rocky soils. The primary objectives of the Cone Pen-
gations, through standard and commonly used cones with cross-sectional areas of 10 cm2
etration Test include geological, hydrogeological, and geo-environmental characteristics.
or 15 cm2 , to special cones with a cross-sectional area of 40 cm2 , used for investigations
Additionally, the results of piezocone penetration tests are used to determine a wide range
of coarse-grained and rocky soils. The primary objectives of the Cone Penetration Test
of geotechnical parameters utilized in conducting various analyses, including liquefaction
include geological, hydrogeological, and geo-environmental characteristics. Additionally,
analysis [9,10].
the results of piezocone penetration tests are used to determine a wide range of geotechnical
In the standard Cone Penetration Test, the cone is pushed into the ground at a con-
parameters utilized in conducting various analyses, including liquefaction analysis [9,10].
stant rate of 2 cm/s (allowing for the investigation of approximately 20 m of the profile in
In the standard Cone Penetration Test, the cone is pushed into the ground at a constant
half of
rate an2hour). CPT can be
cm/s (allowing forconducted both from
the investigation of the ground surface
approximately 20 mand within
of the ponds.
profile in half
The main goal
an hour). CPT can be conducted both from the ground surface and within ponds. the sub-
of this study is to elucidate the interaction occurring between
soil, The
composed
main goalof post-flotation
of this studytailings, and thethe
is to elucidate additional load
interaction structurebetween
occurring also constructed
the sub-
from tailings. To achieve this objective, Cone Penetration Tests were conducted.
soil, composed of post-flotation tailings, and the additional load structure also constructed The inter-
pretation of CPTU results was carried out using three methods: (1) a
from tailings. To achieve this objective, Cone Penetration Tests were conducted. The inter-direct method and
(2) an unconventional indirect method. The unconventional interpretation
pretation of CPTU results was carried out using three methods: (1) a direct method and involved the
development of new empirical formulas that can be used to estimate
(2) an unconventional indirect method. The unconventional interpretation involved the de- the settlements of
tailings. The results of the conducted research were further verified (3)
velopment of new empirical formulas that can be used to estimate the settlements of tailings. using MCC mod-
eling.
The results of the conducted research were further verified (3) using MCC modeling.

2. Materials
2. Materials and
and Methods
Methods
2.1. Study Site
2.1. Study Site
The
The Żelazny
Żelazny Most
Most Tailings
Tailings Storage
Storage Facility
Facility (Figure
(Figure 1)
1) was
was put
put into
into operation
operation onon 12
12
February 1977, during the final phase of the Gilów storage operation. The storage
February 1977, during the final phase of the Gilów storage operation. The storage facility facility is
located within the territories of three municipalities belonging to two counties in
is located within the territories of three municipalities belonging to two counties in thethe Lower
Silesian Voivodeship
Lower Silesian (51.515634
Voivodeship N, 16.207030
(51.515634 E).
N, 16.207030 E).

Figure 1. Three-dimensional graphic presentation of Żelazny Most TSF (excessive vertical scaling).

The Żelazny Most TSF is currently the largest hydrotechnical structure of its kind in
Europe and the second-largest globally [11]. It covers an area of over 2000 hectares. The
storage facility is surrounded on all sides by earthen embankments with a total length
exceeding 20 km and heights ranging from 54 m to 76 m. Approximately 30 million tons
of post-flotation tailings, equivalent to about 94% of the extracted rock, is deposited into
 Figure 1. Three-dimensional graphic presentation of Żelazny Most TSF (excessive vertical scaling).

The Żelazny Most TSF is currently the largest hydrotechnical structure of its kind in
Europe and the second-largest globally [11]. It covers an area of over 2000 hectares. The
Minerals 2024, 14, 208 3 of 21
storage facility is surrounded on all sides by earthen embankments with a total length
exceeding 20 km and heights ranging from 54 m to 76 m. Approximately 30 million tons
of post-flotation tailings, equivalent to about 94% of the extracted rock, is deposited into
the
the facility
facility each
each year
year [12].
[12]. The
The tailings
tailings are
are transported
transported hydraulically
hydraulically through
through pipelines
pipelines
(Figure 2). By the year 2038, approximately 950 million cubic meters
(Figure 2). By the year 2038, approximately 950 million cubic meters of tailings can of tailings can be de-
be
posited in the storage facility. Due to complex hydrogeological, geological,
deposited in the storage facility. Due to complex hydrogeological, geological, and ge- and geotechnical
conditions prevailing in
otechnical conditions the facility
prevailing subsoil,
in the thesubsoil,
facility facility the
is characterized as exceptionally
facility is characterized as ex-
intricate. The TSF is classified as an aboveground earth structure, constructed
ceptionally intricate. The TSF is classified as an aboveground earth structure, constructed in stages
with selectively
in stages fractionated
with selectively tailings, primarily
fractionated composedcomposed
tailings, primarily of sandy tailings
of sandyfractions. The
tailings frac-
continuous expansion expansion
tions. The continuous of the facility is carried
of the facilityout using the
is carried outupstream
using the method,
upstreamwhile the
method,
recently constructed part of the facility is built using the downstream method.
while the recently constructed part of the facility is built using the downstream method.

(a) (b)
Figure 2.2.Żelazny
Figure ŻelaznyMost
MostTSF:TSF:(a)(a)
wetwet deposition
deposition of tailings,
of tailings, photo:
photo: KGHM
KGHM Polska
Polska Miedź;
Miedź; (b) dia-
(b) diagram-
grammatic section: 1—coarse tailings (fine sands), 2—transitional zone (silt and sand), 3—fine tail-
matic section: 1—coarse tailings (fine sands), 2—transitional zone (silt and sand), 3—fine tailings and
ings and slimes (clay and silt) [1].
slimes (clay and silt) [1].

The simultaneous
The simultaneous expansion
expansion and and operation
operation ofof the
the storage
storage require
require continuous
continuous moni-
moni-
toring, including the prevention of failures. The Żelazny Most TSF
toring, including the prevention of failures. The Żelazny Most TSF is currently one of is currently one of the
the
best-monitored structures
best-monitored structures of of its
its kind
kind globally.
globally. Multi-directional
Multi-directional monitoring
monitoring enables
enables thethe
acquisition of a very large amount of data and
acquisition of a very large amount of data and observations. observations.
The elements
The elements of of geotechnical
geotechnical monitoring
monitoring mainly
mainly consist
consist ofof specialized
specialized in in situ
situ tests,
tests,
deep drilling, a geodetic network, GPS stations, an inclinometer network,
deep drilling, a geodetic network, GPS stations, an inclinometer network, a seismometric a seismometric
network, aa piezometer
network, piezometer network,
network, and and others
others [13–17].
[13–17]. An
An extensive
extensive monitoring
monitoring database
database
allows for
allows for the
the assessment
assessment of of the
the actual
actual response
response of of the
the storage
storage facility
facility to
to the
the substrate.
substrate.
Any change
Any change inin the
the operation
operation of of the
the storage
storage facility,
facility, such
such as
as further
further expansion,
expansion, maymay initiate
initiate
negative processes. To simulate such a change in the storage facility,
negative processes. To simulate such a change in the storage facility, an embankment was an embankment was
constructed. It serves the function of additional loading, utilizing selected
constructed. serves the function of additional loading, utilizing selected sandy tailings sandy tailings
previously deposited on
previously on the
thestorage
storagefacility’s
facility’sbeach.
beach.The Thelength of the
length embankment
of the embankment is ap-
is
proximately 1 km,
approximately 1 km,andand its width
its widthis 15ism.
15Due to these
m. Due parameters,
to these the embankment
parameters, the embankment loads
all three
loads all zones of the of
three zones storage facility.facility.
the storage These zones
These were
zonesdelineated, among among
were delineated, other factors,
other
based on
factors, grain
based onsize distribution:
grain the beach,
size distribution: the transitional
the beach, zone zone
the transitional between the beach
between and
the beach
the tailings
and pondpond
the tailings (transitional zone),zone),
(transitional and theandtailings pond (Figure
the tailings 2). A detailed
pond (Figure charac-
2). A detailed
terization of the of
characterization embankment
the embankment was presented in [18].in [18].
was presented

2.2. Tailings Characteristics

The flotation process relies on recovering mainly copper and other minerals from
the ore, which are characterized by high floatability. Since the content of these minerals
in the ore is low, their petrographic, mineral, and chemical composition resembles that
of tailings material, but they still contain trace amounts of chemicals used during the
flotation process [19]. Research on the chemical composition shows that the tailings exhibit
high variability in chemical composition. The chemical composition of the tailings is
predominantly composed of SiO2 and CaO. The tailings exhibited an alkaline pH, with
 The flotation process relies on recovering mainly copper and other minerals from the
ore, which are characterized by high floatability. Since the content of these minerals in the
ore is low, their petrographic, mineral, and chemical composition resembles that of tail-
ings material, but they still contain trace amounts of chemicals used during the flotation
Minerals 2024, 14, 208 process [19]. Research on the chemical composition shows that the tailings exhibit high 4 of 21
variability in chemical composition. The chemical composition of the tailings is predomi-
nantly composed of SiO2 and CaO. The tailings exhibited an alkaline pH, with values
ranging
valuesfrom 8.07 from
ranging to 8.20, and
8.07 revealed
to 8.20, and arevealed
high content
a highofcontent
calcium of carbonate, ranging from
calcium carbonate, ranging
7.56from
to 16.23%. A high calcium carbonate content may affect
7.56 to 16.23%. A high calcium carbonate content may affect the structure the structure of the tailings
of the
by tailings
formingby aggregates. As a result,Asthe
forming aggregates. basic physical
a result, the basiccharacteristic of the tailings,
physical characteristic of thegrain
tailings,
sizegrain
distribution, may change.
size distribution, mayAdditionally, this may impact
change. Additionally, this may theimpact
permeability of the tail- of
the permeability
ings.
the tailings.
OnOn thethe
storage
storage facility beach,
facility beach, thethe
coarsest
coarsest fractions
fractionssettle, exhibiting
settle, exhibitingsand-like
sand-likeprop-
proper-
erties. Sandy tailings are used in the construction of TSF dams and can
ties. Sandy tailings are used in the construction of TSF dams and can also be successfully also be successfully
applied
appliedin earthworks
in earthworks andandthetheproduction
production of of
geopolymers
geopolymers [20–22].
[20–22].As Asoneonemoves
movesawayaway
from thethe
from beach,
beach,thethevolume
volume of fine fractions
of fine fractionsincreases, while
increases, thethe
while silty fraction
silty migrates
fraction migrates to to
thethe
third zone.
third In the
zone. tailings
In the pond,
tailings pond,thethe
finest tailings
finest particles
tailings settle
particles freely
settle (Figure
freely 3). 3).
(Figure This This
implies that
implies thethe
that properties
properties change
changewith withdistance
distancefrom
fromthethedam.
dam.These
These properties
properties depend on
on factors
factors such
such asas the
the type
type of of rock
rock andand the
theprocesses
processesthe therock
rockhas
hasundergone:
undergone:fragmentation,
fragmenta-
grinding,
tion, grinding, flotation.
flotation.The TSFTSF
The receives
receivestailings from
tailings three
from different
three differentmining facilities:
mining Lubin,
facilities:
Polkowice–Sieroszowice,
Lubin, Polkowice–Sieroszowice, and andRudna (Table
Rudna 1). Understanding
(Table 1). Understanding the properties of tailings
the properties of
playsplays
tailings a crucial role inrole
a crucial assessing their behavior,
in assessing response
their behavior, to loads,
response and paraseismic
to loads, shock re-
and paraseismic
actions.
shock More More
reactions. information about about
information the tailings and their
the tailings anddetailed characteristics
their detailed are provided
characteristics are
in the bibliography
provided concerning
in the bibliography ŻelaznyŻelazny
concerning Most TSF [1,18].
Most TSF [1,18].

(a) (b)
Figure 3. (a)
Figure 3. Generalized grain
(a) Generalized sizesize
grain distribution of tailings
distribution deposited
of tailings in the
deposited TSF;TSF;
in the (b) (b)
an an
example
example
cross-section through the storage facility, where OZG—coarse tailings used for dam construction,
cross-section through the storage facility, where OZG—coarse tailings used for dam construction,
OZS—coarse tailings with some amount of fines, OZD—fine tailings deposited in the pond: OZD–
OZS—coarse tailings with some amount of fines, OZD—fine tailings deposited in the pond: OZD–a—
a—fine tailings in liquid state, and OZD–b—consolidated fine tailings.
fine tailings in liquid state, and OZD–b—consolidated fine tailings.
Table 1. Approximate composition of post-flotation tailings from various mining plants.
Table 1. Approximate composition of post-flotation tailings from various mining plants.
Mining Plant Lubin Polkowice–Sieroszowice Rudna
Mining Plant Lubin Polkowice–Sieroszowice Rudna
sandstones
65–70 4–14sandstones 79
65–70 4–14 79
Type of rock and its dolomites
dolomites
Type of rock[%]
content and its content 20–23
[%] 75–86 75–86 1717
20–23
shalesshales
10–12
10–12 10–11 10–11 4 4
Average content of sandysandy
59 16 42
fraction [%] 59 16 42
silty
Average content of fraction [%]
29 79 56
clay
12 5 2

2.3. Research Method

2.3.1. Cone Penetration Test
According to the standard for the Cone Penetration Test, two main types of test are
distinguished: CPT—without measuring pore water pressure in soil, and CPTU—with
 2.3.1. Cone Penetration Test
According to the standard for the Cone Penetration Test, two main types of test are
distinguished: CPT—without measuring pore water pressure in soil, and CPTU—with the
measurement of this pressure. Below are three steps leading to the determination of
Minerals 2024, 14, 208 geotechnical soil parameters. 5 of 21
1. Parameter recording
During the test, fundamental penetration characteristics are continuously recorded:
the measurement
measured cone ofresistance—q
this pressure.c and
Below aresleeve
unit three friction
steps leading to the determination
resistance—f of
s (Equations (1)
geotechnical soil parameters.
and (2), Figure 4).
1. Parameter recording During the test, fundamental penetration characteristics are con-
– measured cone resistance qc = Qc/Ac (1)
tinuously recorded: measured cone resistance—qc and unit sleeve friction resistance—
fs (Equations (1) and (2), Figure 4).
– unit sleeve friction resistance fs = Qs/As (2)
where: Qc—total force -acting
measured cone
on the cone;resistance
Ac—cross-sectional areaqc = Q
ofc /A (1)
thec cone; Qs—total
force acting on friction sleeve; As—friction sleeve surface area.
- unit sleeve friction resistance f = Qs /As (2)
The third characteristic that distinguishes CPTU from CPT issthe pore water pressure,
where: QItc —total
uc (measured). force acting
is measured using aonfilter cone; Ac —cross-sectional
the embedded areaofofthree
in the cone at one the cone; Qs —
standard
totaluforce
locations: 1—poreacting on friction
pressure sleeve;
measured onAthe
s —friction
cone; u2sleeve
—poresurface area.
pressure measured behind
the cone; and u3—pore pressure measured behind the friction sleeve (Figure 4a).

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure4.4.(a)
(a)Cone
Coneused
usedfor
forpenetration
penetrationtest,
test,author’s
author’sown
owndrawing;
drawing;(b)(b)the
theinfluence
influenceofofpore
porewater
water
pressure on measured penetration parameters [8], where An, Ast, Asb—cross-sectional areas.
pressure on measured penetration parameters [8], where An , Ast , Asb —cross-sectional areas.

The third characteristic

2. Correction that distinguishes CPTU from CPT is the pore water pressure,
of recorded parameters
uc (measured).
The recorded parameters using
It is measured of the aqcfilter
and embedded in the cone
fs tests are subject at one of three
to correction, among standard
other
locations: u1 —pore pressure measured on the cone; u 2 —pore pressure measured
things, due to the cone design (Figure 4b) and its susceptibility to the influence of behind
the cone;
excessand
poreu3water
—porepressure
pressureinduced
measured behind
during the friction
penetration sleeve (Figure
(Equations (3)–(5),4a).
Figure 4b)
2. Correction of recorded parameters The recorded parameters of the qc and fs tests
are subject to correction, among other things, due to the cone design (Figure 4b)
and its susceptibility to the influence of excess pore water pressure induced during
penetration (Equations (3)–(5), Figure 4b) [5,8,23]. Another type of correction results
from the stress state (Equation (7)) or a reduction in the parameters to the form of
effective parameters (Equations (6) and (8)). The group of corrected parameters also
includes the friction ratio—Rf (Equation (9)), which is used in the SBCS (Soil Behavior
Classification System).

- corrected cone resistance qt = qc + (1 − an ) u2 (3)

where: an = An /Ac , (4)

- corrected sleeve friction ft = fs − (u2 ·Asb − u3 ·Ast )/As (5)
- excess of pore water pressure ∆u = uc − u0 (6)
Minerals 2024, 14, 208 6 of 21

- net cone resistance qn = qt − σv0 (7)

- effective cone resistance qe = qt − u2 (8)
- friction ratio Rf = (ft /qt ) × 100% (9)
where: an —net area ratio of the cone, u0 —in situ pore pressure, σv0 —total overbur-
den stress.
3. Normalization of corrected parameters In the next step of the interpretative procedure,
the corrected parameters undergo normalization to obtain dimensionless coefficients.
The normalizing parameter is usually the vertical component of effective or total
geostatic stress (Equations (10)–(14)) or the hydrostatic pressure of groundwater
(Equations (15) and (16)). Formally, this parameter can also be the reference pressure–
atmospheric pressure (Equation (11)).

- normalized cone resistance Qt = (qt − σv0 ) σ′ v0 (10)

- normalized cone resistance, dimensionless qc1 = (qc /pa )(pa /σ′ v0 )0.5 (11)
- normalized friction ratio Fr = [fs /(qt − σv0 )] × 100% (12)
- normalized pore water pressure ut = (uc − u0 )/σ′ v0 (13)
- normalized, effective cone resistance Qe = (qt − uc )/σ′ v0 (14)
- pore pressure parameter Bq = (u2 − u0 )/qn (15)
- normalized pore water pressure difference NPPD = (u1 − u2 )/u0 (16)
where: σ′ v0 —effective overburden stress, pa —reference stress (≈100 kPa).
Predicting settlements of natural soils based on CPTU is often recommended [4,24–34].
The recommendation typically pertains to estimating settlements according to Equation (17).
The constrained modulus M (MCPTU ) is determined using the method proposed by
Mayne [26] according to Equation (18).

sCPTU = Σ(∆σν /MCPTU ) ∆z (17)

M = α (qt − σv0 ) (18)

where: sCPTU —settlements (from CPTU), σν —total vertical stress, z—depth.
CPTU tests conducted at Żelazny Most TSF (Figure 5) were carried out in two stages:
(I) reconnaissance of the geological (engineering) conditions of the embankment subsoil
during the initial loading period (control tests), and (II) continuation of the tests: refining
the scope and purpose of the research based on the results obtained in stage I.

2.3.2. Modified Cam Clay

A solution to engineering problems is the application of numerical methods using FEM
(Finite Element Method). Currently, there are many more or less advanced computational
methods in use. Among them, some allow for the analysis of the evolution of deformation
in the subsoil. Obtaining all the required input data for the model is often a recurring
difficulty. To conduct an analysis of embankment–subsoil interaction, the constitutive
model for continuum MCC was employed. Most of the tailings’ geotechnical parameters
were obtained through CPTU testing. Additional parameters were determined in laboratory
conditions using the TXT (Triaxial Test) [35]. The less advanced CM (Coulomb–Mohr)
model does not require additional parameters. The choice of the MCC model is justified by
the fact that, unlike the CM model, this model is usually applied to analyze weak cohesive
soils. Although post-flotation tailings are not natural soils, they are most similar to this type
of soil. Numerical calculations were performed using the ZSoil 2023 v23.54 multi–purpose
finite element software for geotechnical professionals (see https://zsoil.com (accessed on
Minerals 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 22

Minerals 2024, 14, 208 7 of 21

CPTU tests conducted at Żelazny Most TSF (Figure 5) were carried out in two stages:
(I) reconnaissance of the geological (engineering) conditions of the embankment subsoil
24 September
during 2023)).
the initial ZSoil
loading is Windows-based
period (control tests),finite element
and (II) software,
continuation of offering
the tests:arefining
unified
approach to the numerical simulation of soil and rock mechanics.
the scope and purpose of the research based on the results obtained in stage I.

(a)

(b) (c)
Figure
Figure 5.5.(a)
(a)Hyson
Hyson200200 kN track-truck
kN track-truck type bytype by den
a.p. van a.p. Berg
van company
den Berg(Heerenveen,
company (Heerenveen,
Netherlands);
Netherlands); (b) touch screen by a.p. van den Berg company (Heerenveen, Netherlands); (c)
(b) touch screen by a.p. van den Berg company (Heerenveen, Netherlands); (c) interior of the Hyson,
interior of the Hyson, photo: KGHM Polska Miedź (Lubin, Poland).
photo: KGHM Polska Miedź (Lubin, Poland).

2.3.2. Modified Cam Clay

3. Results
3.1. Preliminary
A solution Assumptions
to engineering problems is the application of numerical methods using
FEM An (Finite Element
important factor Method).
influencingCurrently, there ofare
the analysis many results
research more is ortheless advanced
adopted em-
computational methods in use. Among them, some allow for
bankment construction technology and the methodology of control tests. According the analysis of the evolution
to the
of deformation
adopted concept, in the
thesubsoil.
researchObtaining all the required
was conducted on a formed inputanddata for the model
stabilized is often
embankment.
aBased
recurring
on thedifficulty.
analysis ofTotailings
conduct an analysis
reactions of embankment–subsoil
to additional loading (stage I ofinteraction,
the research), theit
constitutive
was observed model for consolidation
that the continuum MCC wasvaried
process employed. Most ofzones
in different the tailings’ geotechnical
of the storage facility.
parameters were were
Minor settlements obtained
observed through CPTU
in the beach area,testing.
resulting Additional
from volumetricparameters were
deformations
determined
of the subsoil.in laboratory
In contrast,conditions
the largestusing the TXT (Triaxial
deformations were found Test)
in[35]. The lesspond
the tailings advanced
zone,
CM (Coulomb–Mohr)
indicating a high excessmodelof pore does
waternotpressure
require in additional parameters.
the tailings. This suggestsThe anchoice of the
unfinished
MCC model is justified
consolidation process. by the fact
These that, unlikeinfluenced
observations the CM model, this model
the research is usually
program for applied
stage II.
Therefore,
to the research
analyze weak cohesivewas limited
soils. to thepost-flotation
Although transitional tailings
zone and arethenottailings
naturalpond,
soils, from
they
chainage
are 0+600 to
most similar to1+100.
this typeCPTU wasNumerical
of soil. complemented by the collection
calculations were performedof threeusing
hundredthe
tailings
ZSoil cores
2023 using
v23.54 the MOSTAP finite
multi–purpose sampler. The collection
element software for of cores was conducted
geotechnical using
professionals
the Hyson
(see 200 kN produced
https://zsoil.com (accessed by on
a.p.24van den Berg.2023)).
September The penetration rate was standardly
ZSoil is Windows-based finite
set at 2 cm/s (Figure 6a). CPTU was performed using electric cones,
element software, offering a unified approach to the numerical simulation of soil and rock enabling continuous
recording of characteristics: qc , fs , and u2 as a function of depth (Figure 6b). To understand
mechanics.
the subsoil reaction to additional loading, research continuity was maintained. CPTU was
conducted a minimum of two and a maximum of seven times (test series: a–f) at the same
research points. All test series were conducted at one point—1+000.
 penetration rate was standardly set at 2 cm/s (Figure 6a). CPTU was performed using
electric cones, enabling continuous recording of characteristics: qc, fs, and u2 as a function
of depth (Figure 6b). To understand the subsoil reaction to additional loading, research
continuity was maintained. CPTU was conducted a minimum of two and a maximum of
Minerals 2024, 14, 208 seven times (test series: a–f) at the same research points. All test series were conducted
8 of 21at
one point—1+000.

(a)

(b)
Figure 6. (a) Hyson 200 kN during test conducted from a barge within the Żelazny Most TSF pond;
(b) CPTU characteristics at the point 1+000.

3.2. Assessing the Settlements of Tailings Based on the Interpretation of CPTU Results.
The recommendation for conducting CPTU testing raises no objections; however,
an open issue pertains to the selection of reliable interpretative procedures. The chosen
procedures should enable obtaining soil characteristics that correspond to real conditions. In
the case of a specific material, such as post-flotation tailings, commonly used interpretative
procedures were subjected to verification. This is due to the fact, as mentioned earlier, that
standard procedures were developed for natural soils. In the context of using CPTU for
identifying the behavior of loaded tailings, two methods can be applied:
– Direct method: this involves assessing qualitative changes in penetration curves—
graphical method,
– Indirect method: this relies on the quantitative assessment of geotechnical parameters—
analytical method.

3.2.1. Direct Method

The direct method compares the penetration characteristics obtained from at least
two independent CPTU tests conducted at the same location. The method is based on the
 The recommendation for conducting CPTU testing raises no objections; however, an
open issue pertains to the selection of reliable interpretative procedures. The chosen
procedures should enable obtaining soil characteristics that correspond to real conditions.
In the case of a specific material, such as post-flotation tailings, commonly used
Minerals 2024, 14, 208 interpretative procedures were subjected to verification. This is due to the 9fact, of 21 as
mentioned earlier, that standard procedures were developed for natural soils. In the
context of using CPTU for identifying the behavior of loaded tailings, two methods can
analysis
be of the cone resistance–depth curve, identifying locations referred to as “indicators”.
applied:
Indicators are points of abrupt changes in cone resistance. Additional dissipation tests
–enable
Direct method: this involves assessing qualitative changes in penetration curves—
the determination of pore water pressure excess in tailings and the assessment of
the dispersion method,
graphical of this excess over time.
– Indirect method:
The settlement thisof relies
analysis tailings on thedirect
by the quantitative
method wasassessment
carried out atoffivegeotechnical
research
parameters—analytical
points. method.
The results of the analysis are presented in Figures 7 and 8, as well as in Table 2.
The results indicate variations in the values of tailings settlement at different research
3.2.1.
pointsDirect Method
(Figure 7): from 0.5 m at point 0+600 (nearest to the beach) to 3.0 m at point 1+000.
Theoretically,
The directthe largest compares
method settlementstheshould occur at characteristics
penetration point 1+100 (theobtained
point closest
fromtoattheleast
center of the tailings pond). As mentioned earlier, all test series were conducted
two independent CPTU tests conducted at the same location. The method is based on the only at
point 1+000
analysis of (Table 2). This
the cone fact justifies the highest
resistance–depth curve, settlements
identifyingat locations
this point (Figure
referred8). to
In as
addition to fewer test series conducted at point 1+100, their duration was approximately
“indicators”. Indicators are points of abrupt changes in cone resistance. Additional
half of that in point 1+000.
dissipation tests enable the determination of pore water pressure excess in tailings and the
assessment of the dispersion of this excess over time.
Table 2. Summary of tailings settlements determined by the direct method [m].
The settlement analysis of tailings by the direct method was carried out at five
research
Pointpoints. The0+600
results of the0+800
analysis are presented
0+900 in Figures
1+000 7 and 8,1+100
as well as in
TableSeries
2. The results indicate variations in the valuess [m] of tailings settlement at different
research points (Figure
start 0.07): from 0.5 m0.0at point 0+600
0.0(nearest to the
0.0 beach) to 3.0-m at point
1+000. Theoretically,
a the
- largest settlements
- should
0.4occur at point1.3 1+100 (the point
0.0 closest
b
to the center of the tailings
- pond).0.5
As mentioned0.6earlier, all test
1.8 series were0.2conducted
c - 0.6 0.7 2.1 2.1
only at point 1+000 (Table 2). This fact justifies the highest settlements at this point (Figure
d 0.5 0.7 0.9 2.7 2.2
8). In addition
e
to fewer
-
test series
-
conducted- at point 1+100, 2.9
their duration
-
was
approximately
f half of -that in point 1+000.
- - 3.0 -

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure7.7.Graphical
Graphical interpretation ofsettlements
interpretation of settlementsdetermined
determinedbyby
thethe direct
direct method:
method: (a) (a) points
points 0+600–
0+600–
1+100;
1+100;(b)
(b)point
point 1+000.
1+000.
 b - 0.5 0.6 1.8 0.2
c - 0.6 0.7 2.1 2.1
d 0.5 0.7 0.9 2.7 2.2
e - - - 2.9 -
Minerals 2024, 14, 208 f - - - 3.0 - 10 of 21

(a)

(b)
Figure
Figure 8. 8.(a)(a)The
Thesettlements
settlementsassessed
assessedbybythe
thegraphical
graphicaldirect
direct method
method at at point
point 1+000 over aa period
1+000 over period of
of more
more thanthan 2 years:
2 years: qc curves;
qc curves; (b)(b) dissipationcurves
dissipation curves uucc. The
The dashed
dashedline linecorresponds
corresponds to to
a value
a valueof of
s =s =0.0
0.0m,
m,and andthethedistance
distance between
between the
the dashed
dashedline
lineand
andthe thesolid
solidline
linerepresents thethe
represents value of sof[m].
value s [m].

3.2.2.
3.2.2.Indirect
IndirectMethod
Method
InInthe
theindirect
indirectmethod,
method,values
valuesofof geotechnicalparameters
geotechnical parametersare
areidentified.
identified.Equation
Equation(19)
(19)used
was was toused to estimate
estimate total settlements.
total settlements. Calculations
Calculations werewere conducted
conducted at allatpoints
all points
where
wheretests
CPTU CPTU tests
were were performed.
performed.
s =s Σ[(σ vi ·𝑣𝑖h·h
= Σ[(𝜎 i )/M ]
𝑖)/𝑀𝑖i] (19)(19)
where:h—layer
where: h—layerthickness.
thickness.
The
Theresults
resultsofofthe
theCPTU
CPTU tests
tests were used,among
were used, amongothers,others,totodetermine
determine M.M. Due
Due to to
thethe
specificity
specificityofofthe
thetailings,
tailings,this
this required conductingcalibration
required conducting calibrationtests.
tests.InIn this
this case,
case, oedometer
oedometer
tests
testswere
wereperformed
performed[36].
[36]. It
It should be noted
should be notedthat
thatititisiscrucial
crucialtotoaccurately
accurately determine
determine thethe
parameters
parametersfrom frompenetration
penetration curves at the
curves at the same
samedepth
depthfrom fromwhich
whichtailings
tailings samples
samples were
were
taken
takenfor
foroedometer
oedometertests.
tests.
The relationship between the dependent variable M and the independent variable
(from the CPTU), qc , qt , and qn , demonstrates linear dependency. For each cone resistance,
a relationship was formulated, assuming that M is proportional to the cone resistance.
The relationship is expressed as follows: M = f (qc ), M = f (qt ), M = f (qn ). The results of
the analysis and additional statistics, obtained using tools available in the Statistica by
StatSoft (https://www.statsoft.pl (accessed on 16 August 2023)), are presented graphically
and tabulated.
• qc
The value of M determined for the tested series of tailings is presented using Equation
(20) (Figure 9a, Table 3).
M = 4.97 qc (20)
• qt
Taking into account the factor determining the cone characteristics (the influence of the
recorded excess of pore water pressure of the tailings on the measured value of cone
 M = 4.97 qc (20)

 qt
Taking into account the factor determining the cone characteristics (the influence of
Minerals 2024, 14, 208 the recorded excess of pore water pressure of the tailings on the measured value of cone 11 of 21
resistance) leads to the determination of another equation (Equation (21), Figure 9b, Table
3).
resistance) leads to the determination of another equation (Equation (21), Figure 9b,
M = 4.24 qt (21)
Table 3).
 qn M = 4.24 qt (21)
•The next
qn step involves considering two factors determining the cone characteristics:
both the The next step
influence involves
of the considering
recorded excess oftwoporefactors
waterdetermining
pressure ofthethecone characteristics:
tailing on the
measuredboth theofinfluence
value of the recorded
cone resistance and the excess
influenceof pore water
of the pressure
stress state inofthe
thesubsoil
tailingon
on the
measured value of cone resistance and the influence of the stress state
the cone resistance. This approach leads to the determination of a more complex but, at in the subsoil
the same on thebetter-fitted
time, cone resistance. This approach
relationship (Equationleads toFigure
(22), the determination
9c, Table 3). of a more complex
but, at the same time, better-fitted relationship (Equation (22), Figure 9c, Table 3).
o qn > 200 kPa
# qn > 200 kPa
M = 5.03 M + 1260.71
qn = 5.03 qn + 1260.71 (22) (22)

o #
qn < 200qnkPa
< 200 kPa
The above results of linear regression analysis pertain to the part of the qn vari-
The above results of linear regression analysis pertain to the part of the qn variable
able population, where qn > 200 kPa. However, in the range where 0 < qn < 200 kPa,
population, where qn > 200 kPa. However, in the range where 0 < qn < 200 kPa, the function
the function takes the form presented by Equation (23) (Figure 9c).
takes the form presented by Equation (23) (Figure 9c).
M=
M = 160.34 qn160.34
0.5 qn 0.5 (23) (23)
Based on the
Based onresults of the
the results ofconducted analysis,
the conducted it canit be
analysis, canobserved that that
be observed in the
incase of of
the case
the weakest tailings,
the weakest where
tailings, wherethe theconsolidation
consolidation process
process has has not
notyet
yet been
been completed
completed (under-
(underconsolidated tailings),
consolidated tailings), thethe relationship
relationship MM = f=(qf(q ) for
n ) nfor qnq< n < 200kPa
200 kPaisisnonlinear.
nonlinear.This
Thisis not
is not typical
typical forfor natural
natural soils.This
soils. Thismay
may indicate
indicate that
that if if
qnq<n <200
200kPa,
kPa,the
theexcess
excessofof pore
pore water
water pressure
pressure ofof
thethe tailings
tailings is is proportional
proportional to to
thethe
netnetconecone resistance
resistance value.
value.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure
Figure 9. Relationship
9. Relationship between
between M andM(a)
and (b)qcq;t;(b)
qc;(a) (c) qqtn;.(c) qn .

Table 3. Results of the statistical analysis of cone resistance from CPTU.

Standard
Intercept b* b Standard Error b t1 p
Error b*

qc - - 0.00 340.25 0.00 1.00

0.88 0.06 4.97 0.35 13.95 0.00
qt - - 0.00 380.07 0.00 1.00
0.86 0.07 4.24 0.33 12.54 0.00
qn - - 1260.71 252.71 4.99 0.00
0.90 0.06 5.03 0.33 15.13 0.00
Regression model is statistically significant at the p-level of α = 0.05
qc qt qn
Correlation coefficient R 0.88 0.86 0.90
Coefficient of determination R2 0.78 0.74 0.81
Coefficient of determination (adjusted) R2 0.77 0.73 0.80
Standard error of estimation Se ±1292 ±1402 ±1212
where: b* —standardized regression coefficient, b—unstandardized regression coefficient, p—probability value
(p-value), α—level of significance. 1 55 for qc , 55 for qt , and 47 for qn .
 qc qt qn
Correlation coefficient R 0.88 0.86 0.90
Coefficient of determination R2 0.78 0.74 0.81
Coefficient of determination (adjusted) R2 0.77 0.73 0.80
Standard error of estimation Se ±1292 ±1402 ±1212
Minerals 2024, 14, 208
where: b* —standardized regression coefficient, b—unstandardized regression coefficient, 12 p—of 21
probability value (p-value), α—level of significance. 1 55 for qc, 55 for qt, and 47 for qn.

Forpurposes
For the the purposes of settlement
of settlement calculationsusing
calculations using Equation
Equation (19),
(19),the
thevalue
valueof of
MM forfor
each layer of the profile was determined based on cone resistances. The discretization
each layer of the profile was determined based on cone resistances. The discretization of of
the subsoil into layers with a thickness of 0.5 m was performed using cone penetration test
the subsoil into layers with a thickness of 0.5 m was performed using cone penetration test
curves. Equations (22) and (23) were used to estimate the values of M. The results are
curves. Equations (22) and (23) were used to estimate the values of M. The results are pre-
presented in Table 4. Settlements estimated by this method are significantly smaller than
sentedthose
in Table 4. Settlements
determined by otherestimated
methods andby range
this method
from 11 are significantly
cm to 68 cm. Suchsmaller than those
small settlement
determined by other methods and range from 11 cm to 68 cm. Such small settlement
results can be justified, on the one hand, by neglecting the effect of the long-term results
can beconsolidation
justified, on process
the one and,
hand,onbythe
neglecting the effect
other hand, of the
by not long-term
accounting forconsolidation
significant
process and, on the other hand, by not accounting for significant deformations.
deformations.

Table
Table 4. 4. Settlements
Settlements comparison
comparison at points
at points 0+200
0+200 toto1+100.
1+100.

Number σ σv
Number s s
PointPoint of
v
layers[kPa]
[kPa] [cm]
of layers [cm]
0+200 119 50 11.10
0+200 119 50 11.10
0+300 152 50 12.05
0+300 152 50 12.05
0+4000+400 153 153 70 70 15.19
15.19
0+5000+500 148 148 75 75 26.18
26.18
0+6000+600 160 160 80 80 30.15
30.15
0+7000+700 187 187 75 75 40.19
40.19
0+8000+800 186 186 80 80 52.59
52.59
0+9000+900 181 181 85 85 58.57
58.57
1+0001+000 159 159 93 93 68.15
68.15
1+100 85 115 46.87
1+100 85 115 46.87
where: σ v —overburden
where: stress, s—settlements.
σv—overburden stress, s—settlements.

3.3. Modified Cam Cam

3.3. Modified ClayClay
Verification Model
Verification Model
The input parameters
The input for thefor
parameters MCCthe model consistconsist
MCC model of physical, mechanical,
of physical, and filtration
mechanical, and
parameters of tailings,
filtration parameters determined
of tailings,based on the based
determined resultsonofthe
CPTU (Table
results 5, columns
of CPTU (Table5–17).
5,
As mentioned
columns earlier,
5–17). Asthementioned
application of thethe
earlier, MCC model requires
application of the MCCadditional
modelparameters,
requires
whichadditional parameters,
were compiled basedwhich were
on the TXTcompiled based on
tests (Table the TXT tests
5, columns (TableThe
18–20). 5, columns
analysis 18–was
20). The
conducted analysis
based on thewas conducted
results of thebased
tests on the results
carried out atofpoint
the tests carried
1+000. Theout at point
layer 1+000.
arrangement
The layer
is presented byarrangement is presented
the cone resistance curveby (Figure
the cone 10a).
resistance curve (Figure
The profile 10a). Theinto
was divided profile
seven
was divided into seven layers (Figure 10b), and the geotechnical parameters
layers (Figure 10b), and the geotechnical parameters of the tailings are compiled in Table 5.of the tailings
are compiled in Table 5. The computational grid was built with 4268 elements (Figure 10c).
The computational grid was built with 4268 elements (Figure 10c). Due to the symmetry of
Due to the symmetry of the model, only one half was analyzed.
the model, only one half was analyzed.
A three-stage loading scheme was adopted:
Stage I—loading progressively increased over 3 weeks to 50 kPa after the completion
of Stage I settlement shapes at a level of 165 cm (Figure 11a). Additionally, the largest
horizontal displacements, reaching up to 60 cm, are generated in the less-deformable zone
of the tailings subsoil (Figure 11b). The greatest total deformations occur in the axis of the
embankment and in the slope (Figure 11c).

Table 5. Comparison of input parameter values for the MCC model.

Layer Layer: Layer φ ψ c ν E βf

Soil Type
No. from-to [m] Thickness [m] [◦ ] [◦ ] [kPa] [-] [MPa] [kPa]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I 0.0–1.3 1.3 41 18 - 0.22 65 -
II 1.3–3.5 2.2 Tailings: 35 9 - 0.24 32
embankment
III 3.5–10.0 6.5 29 0 - 0.30 12
IV 10.0–26.5 16.5 10 0 5 0.25 1.9
2.2 × 107
V 26.5–31.3 4.8 Tailings: 30 5 - 0.25 35
VI 31.3–35.0 3.7 subsoil 19 0 7 0.22 14
VII 35.0–42.2 7.2 34 8 - 0.24 50
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I 0.0–1.3 1.3 41 18 - 0.22 65 -
Tailings:
II 1.3–3.5 2.2 35 9 - 0.24 32
embankment
III 3.5–10.0 6.5 29 0 - 0.30 12

2.2 × 107
Minerals 2024, 14, 208 13 of 21
IV 10.0–26.5 16.5 10 0 5 0.25 1.9
V 26.5–31.3 4.8 Tailings: 30 5 - 0.25 35
VI 31.3–35.0 3.7 subsoil 19 0 7 0.22 14
Table 5. Cont.
VII 35.0–42.2 7.2 34 8 - 0.24 50
Layer kkx x kkyy Sr
Sr α
α ρρ ρρ
dd ee λ λ κ κ MM c c
Layer
No.
No. [m/s] [m/s] [-] [m −1 3 3
[m/s] [m/s] [‐] [m−1]] [g/cm
[g/cm3]] [g/cm
[g/cm]3] [-]
[‐] [-][‐] [-] [‐] [-][‐]
11 11
11 12
12 13
13 14 15
15 16
16 17
17 1818 19 19 2020
II 0.9 ××10
0.9 10
−−5
5 0.9 × 10
0.9 × 10 −−55 0.14
0.14 12.5
12.5 1.86
1.86 1.68
1.68 0.59
0.59 0.021
0.021 0.0010.001 1.68
1.68
II
II
1.2 × 10
1.2 × 10−5
−5 1.1 × 10
1.1 × 10 −
−5
5 0.09
0.09
10.2
10.2
1.90
1.90
1.53
1.53
0.75
0.75
0.027
0.027 0.002
0.002 1.42
1.42
III 2.1 × 10 −6 2.5 × 10− −6 0.07 8.5 1.86 1.48 0.81 0.033 0.003 1.16
III 2.1 × 10−−9 6 2.5 × 10 6 0.07 8.5 1.86 1.48 0.81 0.033 0.003 1.16
IV 3.1 × 10 4.7 × 10−9 0.19 0.5 1.95 1.44 0.90 0.200 0.015 0.37
−9 − 9
IV
V 2.6××1010−6
3.1 4.7 ×
7.5 10 −7
× 10 0.19
0.09 0.5
6.8 1.95
1.89 1.44
1.53 0.90
0.74 0.200
0.056 0.0150.004 0.37
1.20
−−8
6 − 7
V
VI 1.1××1010
2.6 7.5 ×
9.1 10 −8
× 10 0.09
0.15 6.8
1.0 1.89
2.08 1.53
1.63 0.74
0.66 0.056
0.100 0.0040.008 1.20
0.49
VII
VI 2.2××1010
1.1 −−6
8 8.8 × 10
9.1 × −−78 0.10
0.15 7.0
1.0 1.91
2.08 1.57
1.63 0.69
0.66 0.046
0.100 0.0080.003 1.37
0.49
VII 2.2 × 10−6 8.8 ×where:
10−7 φ—friction
0.10 angle,
7.0 ψ—state 1.91
parameter,1.57 c—cohesion,0.69 v—Poisson‘s
0.046 ratio, E—modulus
0.003 1.37 of
elasticity, βf—model parameter, kx and ky—permeability coefficient in the x and y directions, Sr—
where: φ—friction angle, ψ—state parameter, c—cohesion, v—Poisson‘s ratio, E—modulus of elasticity, βf —model
degree of saturation, α—model parameter, ρ—density of soil, ρd—density of dry soil, e—void ratio,
parameter, kx and ky —permeability coefficient in the x and y directions, Sr—degree of saturation, α—model
λ—slope of the normal consolidation line, κ—slope of the swelling line, M c—slope of the critical
parameter, ρ—density of soil, ρd —density of dry soil, e—void ratio, λ—slope of the normal consolidation line,
state line.of the swelling line, Mc —slope of the critical state line.
κ—slope

(a) (b) (c)

Figure
Figure 10.
10. Point
Point1+000:
1+000:(a)(a)
cone resistance distribution qc; q(b) calculation scheme based on qc; (c)
cone resistance distribution c ; (b) calculation scheme based on qc ;
generated mesh of elements.
(c) generated mesh of elements.

A three-stage
Stage II—afterloading scheme
16 months, thewas
loadadopted:
was increased by 20 kPa, generating an increase
Stage
in load I—loading
over 2 weeks progressively increased
to a value of 70 over 3 weeks
kPa. Settlements to 50
in the kPa after theaxis
embankment completion
reached
of
207Stage I settlement
cm (Figure shapes at adisplacements
12a). Horizontal level of 165 cm (Figureto
increased 11a). Additionally,
a value the largest
of 81 cm (Figure 12b).
horizontal displacements,
The distribution reaching up to
of total deformations 60 cm, are
is shown generated
in Figure 12c. in the less-deformable zone
Stage III—after an additional 10 months, the loading from Stage II was repeated,
reaching a total load of 90 kPa. As a result, settlements in the embankment axis increased
to 326 cm (Figure 13a). The same trend applies to the distribution of horizontal (Figure 13b)
and total deformations (Figure 13c).
To validate the results, the distribution of pore water pressure excess in tailings
during the initial phase of Stage I (Figure 14a,b) was compared with the actual distribution,
determined based on CPTU with pore pressure measurements (Figure 14c). An analysis
of Figure 14a indicates that the highest excess of pore water pressure occurs in the highly
compressible silty layer, initially reaching 35 kPa (Figure 14a,b). The distribution of pore
water pressure excess, as demonstrated by the results of dissipation tests, exhibits a similar
shape with proportionally higher values (Figure 14c).
 Minerals 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 1

Minerals 2024, 14, 208 14 of 21

of the tailings subsoil (Figure 11b). The greatest total deformations occur in the axis
embankment and in the slope (Figure 11c).

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 11.inDisplacements
Figure 11. Displacements in Stage
Stage I: (a) vertical; (b)I:horizontal;
(a) vertical;(c)
(b) horizontal; (c) total.
total.
 Stage II—after 16 months, the load was increased by 20 kPa, generating an
in load over 2 weeks to a value of 70 kPa. Settlements in the embankment axis reac
Minerals 2024, 14, 208
cm (Figure 12a). Horizontal displacements increased to a value of 8115cm
of 21
(Figure 1
distribution of total deformations is shown in Figure 12c.

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 12. Displacements
Figure 12. Displacements in Stage(b)
in Stage II: (a) vertical; II:horizontal;
(a) vertical;
(c)(b) horizontal; (c) total.
total.
 Stage III—after an additional 10 months, the loading from Stage II was re
reaching a total load of 90 kPa. As a result, settlements in the embankment axis in
Minerals 2024, 14, 208
to 326 cm (Figure 13a). The same trend applies to the distribution 16 ofofhorizontal
21

13b) and total deformations (Figure 13c).

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 13. Displacements
Figure 13. Displacements in Stage III: (a) in Stage III:
vertical; (a) vertical;(c)
(b) horizontal; (b)total.
horizontal; (c) total.
 ing the initial phase of Stage I (Figure 14a,b) was compared with the actual distribu
determined based on CPTU with pore pressure measurements (Figure 14c). An ana
of Figure 14a indicates that the highest excess of pore water pressure occurs in the h
compressible silty layer, initially reaching 35 kPa (Figure 14a,b). The distribution of
Minerals 2024, 14, 208 17 ofexhibits
21
water pressure excess, as demonstrated by the results of dissipation tests, a
lar shape with proportionally higher values (Figure 14c).

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 14. Pore water pressure excess: (a) at the beginning of Stage I; (b) at the end of Stage I; (c) actual
distributions of pore water pressure (dissipation tests). The dashed line illustrates the hydrostatic
pressure distribution.
Minerals 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 22

Minerals 2024, 14, 208 18 of 21

Figure 14. Pore water pressure excess: (a) at the beginning of Stage I; (b) at the end of Stage I; (c)
actual distributions of pore water pressure (dissipation tests). The dashed line illustrates the hydro-
static pressure distribution.
Analysis of the figure indicates that at the end of Stage I, the degree of consolidation
Analysis55%,
will be of theand by the
figure end of
indicates Stage
that II, end
at the it will increase
of Stage to degree
I, the 65%. Itofisconsolidation
estimated that achieving
will be 55%,
a consolidation degree of 90% in Stage III would require a longer time (approximately
and by the end of Stage II, it will increase to 65%. It is estimated that achieving a consolidation
10 years,
degree Figure
of 90% 15). III
in Stage The figure
would also aillustrates
require that
longer time the maximum
(approximately settlements,
10 years, already
Figure 15). The
after the consolidation process, will be approximately 204 cm for 50 kN/m 2 , 260 cm for
figure also illustrates that the maximum settlements, already after the consolidation process, will be
70 kN/m2 , and
approximately 204326
cm cm forkN/m
for 50 90 kN/m 2 (Figure 15). 2
2, 260 cm for 70 kN/m , and 326 cm for 90 kN/m2 (Figure 15).

Figure15.
Figure Settlementsafter
15.Settlements afterthe
theconsolidation.
consolidation.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

4. Discussion and Conclusions
The ultimate goal of the interpretative procedures for the CPTU investigation is to
The ultimate goal of the interpretative procedures for the CPTU investigation is to
obtain reliable geotechnical information regarding the analyzed subsoil. Bibliographic
obtain reliable geotechnical information regarding the analyzed subsoil. Bibliographic
analysis indicates that, in the case of CPTU, there are broad possibilities for using the
analysis indicates that, in the case of CPTU, there are broad possibilities for using the re-
results [4,8,37–42]. Due to the complexity of the methods for interpreting CPTU results,
sults [4,8,37–42]. Due to the complexity of the methods for interpreting CPTU results, var-
various concepts of identifying geotechnical parameters can be presented, both for natural
ious concepts of identifying geotechnical parameters can be presented, both for natural
soils and flotation tailings.
soils and flotation tailings.
Estimates of soil settlements have been undertaken by many researchers who have
Estimates
pointed out bothof soil
thesettlements
advantageshave andbeen undertakenofbyCPTU
disadvantages manytests.researchers who have
Lambrechts and
pointed out both the advantages and disadvantages of CPTU
Leonards [43] demonstrated that additional loading on the soil can increase the value tests. Lambrechts and
Leonards
of M by even[43] demonstrated that additional
an order of magnitude, withloading
a slightonincrease
the soil incancone
increase the value
resistance of
values.
M by even anstudies
Robertson’s order ofalsomagnitude,
confirm the with a slight
above increaseindicating
statement, in cone resistance values. M
that estimating Robert-
solely
son’s
based on cone resistance values can be inaccurate and even subject to significant based
studies also confirm the above statement, indicating that estimating M solely errors.
on cone
This resistance
is most commonlyvaluesrelated
can betoinaccurate and even
pre-consolidated subject
soils [37]. to significant
According toerrors. This is
Jamiolkowski,
most commonly related to pre-consolidated soils [37]. According
without knowledge of the stress history, it is not possible to accurately estimate the to Jamiolkowski, with-M
out knowledge of the stress history, it is not possible to accurately
value based solely on cone resistance [44]. Leonards and Frost [45] draw attention to estimate the M value
based solelystresses,
secondary on cone which,
resistance [44]. Leonards
in turn, can contributeand Frost [45] draw attention
to overestimating to secondary
settlements based
stresses, which, in turn,
on the correlation betweencan cone
contribute to overestimating
resistance and M. An example settlements
of such based on the corre-is
overestimation
lation between
presented cone resistance
by Arroyo et al. [46].and M. An example
According of such aoverestimation
to the authors, solution to thisisproblem
presented by
could
Arroyo et al. [46]. According to the authors, a solution to this problem
involve the application of the local correlation method of CPTU and another test, providing could involve the
application
a more accurateof theestimation
local correlation method of CPTU and another test, providing a more
of settlements.
accurate
Been estimation of settlements.
et al. [3] states that to estimate the parameters necessary for determining settle-
ment Been et al.CPTU
values, [3] states
teststhat
mustto estimate the parameters
be complemented necessary for
with laboratory determining
tests settle-
or other research
ment values,
methods. CPTU tests
In contrast must beapproaches,
to previous complemented with
Bastani et laboratory tests or other
al. [38] recommends research
estimating set-
methods. In contrast
tlements using the M to previous
from approaches,
CPTU tests. Bastani etof
The effectiveness al.this
[38]method
recommends estimating
is demonstrated by
settlements using the M from CPTU tests. The effectiveness of
the results presented by the authors—the actual (measured) settlement value was 20.1 mm, this method is demon-
strated
while theby predicted
the resultsvalue
presented
based by on the
CPTU authors—the
was 19.3 mm. actual (measured) settlement value
was 20.1
Themm, while
essence the issue
of the predicted
related value
to the based on CPTU
appropriate was 19.3
selection ofmm.
the type of investigation
for subsoil composed of tailings and loaded with embankment is emphasized by the
fact that the reliability of assessing the results of these studies directly influences the
determination of the proper parameters of the tailings. A suitable method for a reliable
Minerals 2024, 14, 208 19 of 21

assessment of the geotechnical parameters of post-flotation tailings may be in situ testing

using CPTU penetration tests. The usefulness of this test is particularly evident when
conducting the following:
– Qualitative assessment, based on the analysis of penetration curve changes;
– Quantitative assessment, parametric assessment.
Both direct and indirect methods show a trend that settlements are greater the closer
they are to the center of the pond (Table 6). Additionally, just like in the direct method,
the highest settlements of tailings were estimated at the same point in the indirect method.
Disproportionately smaller settlements, estimated by the indirect method, may result in
immediate deformations, excluding the effect of long-term consolidation. The settlement
ratio (sindirect /sdirect ) ranges from 0.60 to 0.76 (points 0+600–0+900), sharply decreasing (from
0.21 to 0.23) as it approaches the center of the pond—points 1+000–1+100 (Table 6). This
indicates that estimating settlements for the weakest tailings is the most challenging and
requires further research and analysis. It can be assumed that higher settlement values
were estimated as a result of reducing M values of tailings under the embankment.

Table 6. A comparison of the settlements of tailings.

CPTU Methods
MCC Settlement Ratio
Point Indirect Direct
s [cm] sindirect /sdirect sindirect /sMCC sdirect /sMCC
0+600 30 50 - 0.60 - -
0+800 53 70 - 0.76 - -
0+900 59 90 - 0.66 - -
1+000 68 300 326 0.23 0.21 0.92
1+100 47 220 - 0.21 - -

The results obtained by the indirect and direct methods were verified using the MCC
model. The model is recommended for analyzing the behavior of even weak soils, including
tailings in this case. For the analysis of sandy tailings, for example, deposited on the beach
of the facility, the MC model appears to be sufficient. The results obtained using the MCC
model confirm the validity of estimating tailings settlements using the independent direct
method. In this case, the direct method (s = 300 cm) and the MCC method (s = 326 cm)
clearly indicate high agreement (settlement ratio = 0.92, Table 6). Nevertheless, using
the indirect method allows for determining the approximate and overall trend of tailings
settlement values, in line with the trend determined based on the direct method, especially
in the preliminary stage of the analysis. Based on the results of the conducted research,
it can be concluded that the CPTU test, recommended for determining the settlement of
natural soils, can also be used to estimate the settlement trend of post-flotation tailings.
The conducted analyses led to the following general conclusions being drawn:
– The lack of a single, universal model for the tailings storage facility arises from (1)
the zonal structure of the facility on a global scale and (2) the profile heterogeneity
of post-flotation tailings on a local scale. It should be noted that there is no universal
method for determining the behavior of tailings under variable conditions.
– Interpretation procedures for the CPTU test are intended for analyzing the results
of natural soil investigations. To enhance the validity of interpretative procedures,
the distinct characteristics of post-flotation tailings, such as alternative correlational
dependencies, should be considered.
– The recommended method for identifying tailings in their disposal site may be the
CPTU test; however, it is important to emphasize that this is not a universally applica-
ble method.
– Recommended methods for estimating tailings settlements include the following:
Minerals 2024, 14, 208 20 of 21

– Based on penetration characteristics from CPTU testing for rigid tailings;

– Using the direct method based on CPTU and numerical modeling for weak
tailings. However, it should be noted that the direct method requires experience.
– It is crucial to consider the timeframe in which the tests were conducted. Firstly, the
analysis requires specifying a specific period for conducting the research. Secondly,
and more importantly, when conducting a comparative analysis, it is essential to
standardize the lengths of the periods during which the tests and observations were
carried out.
– Future research directions may involve attempting to integrate the results of differ-
ent, independent research methods, such as the outcomes of the CPTU test and the
Marchetti Dilatometer test.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Stefaniak, K.; Wróżyńska, M. On possibilities of using global monitoring in effective prevention of tailings storage facilities
failures. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 5280–5297. [CrossRef]
2. Lin, S.-Q.; Wang, G.-J.; Liu, W.-L.; Zhao, B.; Shen, Y.-M.; Wang, M.-L.; Li, X.-S. Regional Distribution and Causes of Global Mine
Tailings Dam Failures. Metals 2022, 12, 905. [CrossRef]
3. Been, K.; Quiñonez, A.; Sancio, R.B. Interpretation of the CPT in engineering practices. In Proceedings of the 2nd International
Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Huntington Beach, CA, USA, 9–11 May 2010; pp. 1–19.
4. Robertson, P.K. Interpretation of cone penetration tests—A unified approach. Can. Geotech. J. 2009, 46, 1337–1355. [CrossRef]
5. Robertson, P.K.; Cabal, K. Guide to Cone Penetration Testing, 7th ed.; Gregg Drilling LLC: Martinez, CA, USA, 2022; pp. 1–164.
6. Sanglerat, G. The Penetrometer and Soil Exploration, 1st ed.; Elsevier Science: Amsterdam, The Netherland, 1982; Volume 1,
pp. 1–464.
7. Begemann, H.K. Improved method of determining resistance to adhesion by sounding through a loose sleeve placed behind the
cone. In Proceedings of the 3rd ICSMFE, Zurich, Switzerland, 16–27 August 1953; Volume I, pp. 213–217.
8. Lunne, T.; Robertson, P.K.; Powell, J. Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice; Blackie Academic and Professional, CRC
Press: London, UK, 1997.
9. Duan, W.; Congress, S.S.C.; Cai, G.; Liu, S.; Dong, X.; Chen, R.; Liu, X. A hybrid GMDH neural network and logistic regression
framework for state parameter–based liquefaction evaluation. Can. Geotech. J. 2021, 58, 12. [CrossRef]
10. Duan, W.; Congress, S.S.C.; Cai, G.; Zhao, Z.; Pu, S.; Liu, S.; Dong, X.; Wu, M.; Chen, R. Characterizing the in-situ state of sandy
soils for liquefaction analysis using resistivity piezocone penetration test. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2023, 164, 107529. [CrossRef]
11. Jamiolkowski, M.; Carrier, W.D.; Chandler, R.J.; Høeg, K.; Świerczyński, W.; Wolski, W. The geotechnical problems of the second
world largest copper tailings pond at Zelazny Most, Poland. In Proceedings of the 17th SEAGC South East Asian Geotechnical
Conference, Taipei, Taiwan, 10–13 May 2010; Volume 2, pp. 12–27.
12. Jamiolkowski, M. Soil mechanics and the observational method: Challenges at the Zelazny Most copper tailings disposal facility.
Geotechnique 2014, 64, 590–618. [CrossRef]
13. Świdziński, W.; Tschuschke, W.; Świerczyński, W.; Wolski, W. Tailings Storage Facility Żelazny Most—Significant geotechnical
challenge. Mar. Eng. Geotech. 2015, 36, 186–193.
14. Kroll, M.; Stefaniak, K.; Walczak, M. Determination of efficiency of the circumferential drainage system. J. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 45,
68–74. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Leiva, E.; Cayazzo, M.; Dávila, L.; Torres, M.; Ledezma, C. Acid Mine Drainage Dynamics from a Paste Tailing Deposit: Effect of
Sulfate Content on the Consistency and Chemical Stability after Storage. Metals 2021, 11, 860. [CrossRef]
16. Tschuschke, W.; Gogolik, S.; Wróżyńska, M.; Kroll, M.; Stefanek, P. The Application of the Seismic Cone Penetration Test (SCPTU)
in Tailings Water Conditions Monitoring. Water 2020, 12, 737. [CrossRef]
17. Mazzanti, P.; Antonielli, B.; Sciortino, A.; Scancella, S.; Bozzano, F. Tracking Deformation Processes at the Legnica Glogow Copper
District (Poland) by Satellite InSAR—II: Zelazny Most Tailings Dam. Land 2021, 10, 654. [CrossRef]
18. Wróżyńska, M. Prediction of Postflotation Tailings Behavior in a Large Storage Facility. Minerals 2021, 11, 362. [CrossRef]
19. Baran, A.; Śliwka, M.; Lis, M. Selected properties of flotation tailings wastes deposited in the Gilów and Żelazny Most waste
reservoirs regarding their potential environmental management. Arch. Min. Sci. 2013, 58, 3. [CrossRef]
20. Stefaniak, K.; Wróżyńska, M.; Kroll, M. Application of postflotation tailings in hydroengineering structures. J. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 18,
113–118. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Yu, L.; Zhang, Z.; Huang, X.; Jiao, B.; Li, D. Enhancement Experiment on Cementitious Activity of Copper-Mine Tailings in a
Geopolymer System. Fibers 2017, 5, 47. [CrossRef]
Minerals 2024, 14, 208 21 of 21

22. Segui, P.; Safhi, A.e.M.; Amrani, M.; Benzaazoua, M. Mining Wastes as Road Construction Material: A Review. Minerals 2023,
13, 90. [CrossRef]
23. Tschuschke, W.; Wróżyńska, M.; Wierzbicki, J. Quality control for the construction of a tailings dam. Acta Geotech. Slov. 2017,
14, 3–9.
24. Kaggwa, W.S.; Jha, R.K.; Jaksa, M.B. Use of Dilatometer and Cone Penetration Tests to Estimate Settlements of Footings on
Calcareous Sand. In Proceedings of the 7th Australia New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics: Geomechanics in a Changing
World, Adelaide, Australia, 1–5 July 1996; pp. 909–914.
25. Tezcan, S.S.; Keceli, A.; Ozdemir, Z. Allowable bearing capacity of shallow foundations based on shear wave velocity. Geotech
Geol. Eng. 2006, 24, 203–218. [CrossRef]
26. Mayne, P.W. Georgia Institute of Technology. In Cone Penetration Testing State-of-Practice; NCHRP Project; Transportation Research
Board, National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
27. Mayne, P.W. In-situ test calibrations for evaluating soil parameters. In Characterization and Engineering Properties of Natural Soils;
Tan, T.S., Phoon, K.K., Hight, D.W., Leroueil, S., Eds.; Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2007; Volume 3, pp. 1601–1652.
28. Liu, S.; Cai, G.; Puppala, A.J.; Tu, Q. Prediction of embankment settlements over marine clay using piezocone penetration tests.
Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2011, 70, 401–409. [CrossRef]
29. Omar, M.N.; Abbiss, C.P.; Taha, M.R.; Nayan, K.A.M. Prediction of long-term settlement on soft clay using shear wave velocity
and damping characteristics. Eng. Geol. 2011, 123, 259–270. [CrossRef]
30. L’Heureux, J.S.; Long, M.; Vanneste, M.; Sauvin, G.; Hansen, L.; Polom, U.; Lecomte, I.; Dehls, J.; Janbu, N. On the prediction of
settlement from high-resolution shear-wave reflection seismic data: The Trondheim harbour case study, mid Norway. Eng. Geol.
2013, 167, 72–83. [CrossRef]
31. Abbiss, C.P. Calculation of elasticities and settlements for long periods of time and high strains from seismic measurements.
Geotechnique 2014, 33, 397–405. [CrossRef]
32. Tonni, L.; Gottard, G. Assessing compressibility characteristics of silty soils from CPTU: Lessons learnt from the Treporti Test Site,
Venetian Lagoon (Italy). AIMS Geosci. 2019, 5, 117–144. [CrossRef]
33. Islam, M.N.; Gnanendran, C.T.; Sivakumar, S.T. Interpretation of Cone Penetration Test Data of an Embankment for Coupled
Numerical Modeling. Appl. Mech. 2022, 3, 14–45. [CrossRef]
34. Mihálik, J.; Gago, F.; Vlček, J.; Drusa, M. Evaluation of Methods Based on CPTu Testing for Prediction of the Bearing Capacity of
CFA Piles. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2931. [CrossRef]
35. Lade, P.V. Triaxial Testing of Soils, 1st ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 2016.
36. Nelson, J.; Chao, K.C.; Overton, D.; Nelson, E. Oedometer Testing. In Foundation Engineering for Expansive Soils; John Wiley & Sons,
Inc: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 127–151. [CrossRef]
37. Robertson, P.K.; Campanella, R.G.; Gillespie, D.; Greig, J. Use of Piezometer Cone data. In Use of In-Situ Testing in Geotechnical
Engineering; In-Situ’86, GSP 6; ASCE: Reston, VA, USA, 1986; pp. 1263–1280.
38. Bastani, S.A.; Silver, G.P.; Atkinson, D.R. CPT based settlement prediction over California soft rock. In Proceedings of the 3rd
International Symposium on Cone Penetrometer Testing, CPT’14, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 12–14 May 2014; pp. 1113–1120.
39. Long, M.; Carrol, R. Application of CPTU and SDMT to the characterization of Irish silts. In Proceedings of the 5th International
Workshop CPTU and DMT in Soft Clays and Organic Soils, Poznan, Poland, 22–23 September 2024; pp. 45–63.
40. Shkodrani, N.; Anamali, E.; Dhimitri, L.; Gashi, S. In Situ Tests—Predicted vs. Observed Settlements: A Comparative Case Study.
J. Civil Eng. Archit. 2014, 8, 824–832. [CrossRef]
41. Tschuschke, W.; Kumor, M.K.; Walczak, M.; Tschuschke, M. Cone penetration test in assessment of soil stiffness. Geol. Q. 2015, 59,
419–425. [CrossRef]
42. Li, Y.; Shen, Y.; Wang, X.; Li, S.; Li, T.; Zhao, Q. Theoretical Studies and Implementation on the Temporary Data Storage Method
for Cone Penetration Test. Sensors 2021, 21, 575. [CrossRef]
43. Lambrechts, J.R.; Leonards, G.A. Effects of stress history on deformation of sand. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 1978, 104, 1371–1387.
[CrossRef]
44. Jamiolkowski, M.; Ghionna, V.; Lancellotta, R.; Pasqualini, E. New corrections of penetration tests for design practice. In
Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Penetration Testing, ISOPT I, Orlando, FL, USA, 20–24 March 1988; Balkema:
Orlando, FL, USA, 1988; Volume 1, pp. 263–296.
45. Leonards, G.A.; Frost, J.D. Settlements of Shallow Foundations on Granular Soils. J. Geotech. Eng. 1988, 114, 791–809. [CrossRef]
46. Arroyo, M.M.; Mateos, M.T.; Devincenzi, M.; Gómez-Escoubès, R.; Martínez, J.M. CPTu-DMT performance-based correlation
for settlement design. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Geotechnical Site Characterization ISC’2, Porto,
Portugal, 19–22 September 2004; pp. 1605–1611.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.