STATIC AND CYCLIC LIQUEFACTION OF

MINE TAILINGS
Lecture 3
Properties of Mine Tailings for Static Liquefaction Assessment

Jorge Macedo, PhD, PE

Frederick Olmsted Early Career Professor
Georgia Institute of Technology
 GRADUATE STUDENTS
(responsible for the work)

Luis Vergaray Cody Arnold

MINE TAILINGS
 UNDRAINED LOADING INSTABILITY

Lade (1999)
 DRAINED LOADING INSTABILITY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q8cyF3hQpo

Morgenstern et al. (2016)

Mechanical response?
 STRENGTH AS TWO COMPONENTS
“Strength” = “Friction” + “Interlocking”

𝜏𝜏 𝜏𝜏 𝑓𝑓 𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿 0 at CS
= +
σ
𝜎𝜎𝑛𝑛 𝜎𝜎𝑛𝑛 𝛿𝛿∆
3
q

Dilatancy Dense
σ
1
CS

Loose

εa

Taylor-Bishop, 1948-50 Jefferies, 2020

 DIFFERENT BEHAVIORS
1 1.2 Full
Full Softening
Softening 1
0.9 Partial
0.8 Partial
Softening
CSL Material 1 Softening

Void Ratio (e)

0.6
0.8
Limited

∆u/σ0
0.4
CSL Material 11 Flow
0.7 0.2
Non Flow
0
Limited
0.6 Flow -0.2 Non Flow

-0.4
0.5

1 10 100 1000 0 5 10 15 20 25
Mean Effective Stress (p) Axial Strain (%)
4.5 4.5
Non Flow
4 4

3.5 𝑀𝑀𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 3.5

3 3

2.5 2.5
Limited

q/p0
q/p0

2 2
Flow

1.5 1.5
Full Softening
1 1
Partial
0.5 0.5 Softening

0 0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 5 10 15 20 25

Mean Effective Stress (p) Axial Strain (%)
Macedo and Vergaray (2021)
 DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS OF STATE

What controls gas behavior?

• Pressure
• Volume
• Temperature

Definitions of state parameter 𝜓𝜓 , state pressure index 𝐼𝐼𝑝𝑝0 , modified state parameter 𝜓𝜓𝑚𝑚
and volumetric strain-based state parameter (𝜓𝜓𝑣𝑣 )
Macedo and Vergaray (2021)
 GENERAL CONCEPTS
• The state-dilatancy parameter η

Δ𝜀𝜀𝑣𝑣 εa
𝐷𝐷 = �Δ𝛾𝛾 𝐷𝐷𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 𝜒𝜒𝜒𝜒 ε
v
q M tc
This test Loose

Dense

D
• Stress ratio at critical state a) εa b) c)

𝑞𝑞𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐
𝑀𝑀𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 = a)
𝑝𝑝𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 0.8 900

800
0.75
700
1

600 Mtc
• Critical State Line
0.7

Void Ratio (e)

500

q
0.65
𝑐𝑐 400
𝑝𝑝
𝑒𝑒𝑐𝑐 = 𝛤𝛤 − 𝜆𝜆𝑒𝑒 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑝𝑝 𝑒𝑒𝑐𝑐 = 𝑎𝑎 − 𝑏𝑏 0.6 300

𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 200
0.55
100

0.5 0

1 10 100 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

e) p
d) Mean Pressure (p)

Macedo and Vergaray (2021)

 GENERAL CONCEPTS
• Stiffness-confinement dependence
parameters
1.5 ψ@D
min
-0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0

0
1.49

1.48 -0.05

𝑝𝑝 𝛽𝛽 1-N

ηmax
𝐵𝐵 𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠 = 𝛼𝛼
𝐺𝐺 = 𝐴𝐴. 𝐹𝐹(𝑒𝑒). 𝑝𝑝 1 1.47

1𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘

Dmin
-0.1

1.46
χ
Mtc≈1.46 -0.15
1
1.45

-0.15 -0.125 -0.1 -0.075 -0.05 -0.025 0

a) Dmin b) -0.2

• Plastic Modulus (H) and Loading index 100

Elastic shear modulus, Gmax (MPa)

(L)
90

80

70

1 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 60

q
𝐿𝐿 = : 𝜎𝜎̇ 50

𝐻𝐻 𝜕𝜕𝜎𝜎 40

30

20

10

c) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

d) εa
Mean Pressure (p)

Macedo and Vergaray (2021)

DATA IS IMPORTANT! BUT WE ALSO NEED A FRAMEWORK

Imagine you have this data

Which one is the best model?

CSSM AS A FRAMEWORK

Niche topic !

Mayne (2014)
 DEFINING PROPERTIES
Going from “typical” properties CSSM-Based Properties
Property Description
Critical state
Altitude of the CSL in the e-log(p), defined at
𝛤𝛤
Failure envelop 𝑝𝑝𝑝 = 1𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
Slope of the CSL in the e-log(p), defined on base
𝜏𝜏 = 𝑐𝑐 + 𝜎𝜎 tan 𝜙𝜙 𝜆𝜆10
10 logarithm
𝑀𝑀 Critical state stress ratio (same idea as 𝜙𝜙𝑐𝑐 )
Dilatancy
Nova's volumetric coupling parameter in stress
𝑁𝑁
dilatancy
𝜒𝜒
Controls the limiting dilatancy

Plastic Hardening
Dimensionless plastic modulus (may depend on
𝐻𝐻 𝜓𝜓):
𝐻𝐻 = 2/𝜆𝜆
Elasticity
Mohr Coulomb properties 𝐺𝐺𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 The elastic shear modulus
𝑣𝑣 Poisson's ratio

Strength = Baseline Strength + Dilatancy

 EXAMPLE
1200 800 600

Material S1 S2 S3
CSL 900 p= 350 kPa 600 p= 350 kPa p= 350 kPa
e= 0.710 e= 0.682 400 e= 0.670
𝛤𝛤 / 𝜆𝜆𝑒𝑒 1.013 / 0.045 0.876 / 0.033 0.86 / 0.033

q (kPa)
600 Experimetal 400
𝑎𝑎 0.924 0.865 0.742 Simulation
200
𝑏𝑏 0.096 0.123 0.022 300 200
p= 375 kPa p= 285 kPa p= 400 kPa
𝑐𝑐 0.421 0.275 0.856 e= 0.880 e= 0.880 e= 0.707

Elasticity 0 0 0

0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
125 95 90 a) Axial Strain (%) b) Axial Strain (%) c) Axial Strain (%)
𝐺𝐺0
1200 800 600
𝐵𝐵 0.58 0.63 0.69
𝑣𝑣 0.15 0.15 0.15 900 600

Plasticity 400

q (kPa)
𝑀𝑀𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 1.55 1.54 1.49 600 400

𝑁𝑁 0.3 0.3 0.3 200

300 200
𝜒𝜒𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 4 4 4
𝐻𝐻0 253 117 108 0 0 0

𝐻𝐻𝜓𝜓 1617 984 1206 d)

0 300 600 900
e)
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
p (kPa) p (kPa) f) p (kPa)

S1 S2 S3

Vergaray et al. 2022

 NORSAND
• AXIOM 1: A unique critical state exists
- In the critical state D = 0 & dD/dεq=0
- Uniqueness: ec = C(σ1, σ2, σ3, a, b, c...) …where C() single valued
- Critical state is a ‘dynamic’ condition

• AXIOM 2: Soil moves to its critical state with distortional strain

- “Particulate” idealization inspired by Reynolds 1885
- Simple statement of Casagrande’s canonical figure

Courtesy M. Jefferies
Basic premise of Cam Clay (OCC & MCC)

Courtesy M. Jefferies
Soil behavior in isotropic compression

Been and Jefferies, 2000

 1.4
NOT CRITICAL STATE
1.2 Plastic work
1

e
shear stress, q

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

pi
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
mean effective stress, p ln(p)

Image condition… Dp = 0 aka ‘pseudo steady state’

(violates ∆Dp/∆εq=0) ‘phase change’
Courtesy M. Jefferies
 NorSand: Working Scheme
• Image point is the pseudo – critical state point on the yield surface where 𝐷𝐷 = 0 but 𝐷𝐷̇ ≠ 0
• Image stress (𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖 ) defines the size of the yield surface
• Dilatancy is limited to maximum value 𝐷𝐷𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 and it changes as state parameter evolves.
• 𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖,𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 corresponds to the 𝐷𝐷𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 and serves as 𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖,𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
internal cap to the yield surface. More 𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖
𝑞𝑞
importantly, controls the hardening/softening 𝑑𝑑𝜀𝜀 𝑝𝑝
behavior of yield surface.
𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖,𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 − 𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖 > 0 (Hardening) Softening
Yield surface
𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖,𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 − 𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖 < 0 (Softening) 𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖

• At critical state, 𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖 = 𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖,𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 𝑝𝑝𝑐𝑐 Hardening Yield surface

• Obeying normality, the plastic strains evolve
perpendicular to the yield surface. 𝑝𝑝
ORIGINAL CamClay vs NorSand
ORIGINAL CamClay vs NorSand
 NorSand- Drained triaxial test on loose soil

Visualization by Vivek Srinivas

 NorSand- Undrained triaxial test on loose soil

Visualization by Vivek Srinivas

 MINE TAILINGS DATABASE
Class A
• Index tests: (𝑤𝑤𝑐𝑐 , 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃, PSD, X-ray diffraction, 𝑒𝑒𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 , 𝑒𝑒𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 ).
• Compressibility: 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶/ 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼.
• Strength (Static): Monotonic TX 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶, CU, E, drained and constant-volume direct
simple shear (𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷) tests.
• Strength (Cyclic): Cyclic 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 or cyclic 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 tests
• Piezocone penetration test (𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶) results, preferably with dissipation tests
• 𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠 measurements using bender element tests or field geophysical tests
• Small-scale (laboratory) and large-scale (field) vane shear tests
• Seepage-induced consolidations tests
• Soil water characteristic curves (SWCC)
 Examples of
tested materials

Reconstitution

CSS Tests CRS, Benders Triaxials

 MINE TAILINGS DATABASE

Fine Intermediate Coarse

Macedo and Vergaray (2021)
 CRITICAL STATE LINE &STIFFNESS
1.2
500
Void Ratio - Material 32 (Brumadinho)
0.6 to 0.8 0.8 to 1.0 1 to 1.2

Elastic shear modulus, Gmax (MPa)

1 400 Brumadinho
(Bender Elements)
Robertson et al. 2019

Brumadinho
300 (Seismic Dilatometer)
0.8 Robertson et al. 2019
e

200
0.6

100
01 04 06
0.4 02 05 07
03
Ticino Sand
Bellotti et al. 1996
0

0 200 400 600 800 1000

10 1000
Mean effective stress, p (kPa)
Log (p)
CSL ROUND ROBIN PROGRAM

All Test MT Screened

CSL entries

All ~ ± 0.02 Screened CSL

Screened entries with
CSL entries EOTSF

Reid et al. (2021)

Chart from Jefferies (2016)
Variation of CSL Parameters

Figures from Lade et al (1998)

 Variation of CSL Parameters

1.5 0.15
Roundness<0.4 Macedo and Vergaray (2022)
S1
S2
1 0.1 S3
Γ100

λe
0.5 0.05
Roundness>0.7

Li et al. (2014) - DEM Li et al. (2014) - HS

Li et al. (2014) - GB Cho et al (2006)

0 0

1 10 1 10
a) Cu b) Cu

Vergaray et al. (2022)

 Variation of CSL Parameters

100
Cu<8
90
Cu>8
Percent Finer By Mass (%)

80
Smooth Ideal PSD
70
Theorical - Lade et al. (1998)
60
Experimental - McGeary (1961)
50

40

30

20

10

1000 100 10 1
D/d
Vergaray et al. (2022)
 STRENGTH AND STIFFNESS 200
15 15
Sands: (Cho et al., 2006)
Functional Form: 175 Mine Tailings: (This study)
10 Pestana & Whittle (1995)

Frequency
150
5
10 Tailings 125
Sand
0
Frequency

100

α
0 20 40 60 80
15 A 75

5 Functional Form:
10 50
Hardin & Richart (1963)

Frequency
25
5

0
0 0
1 10 100
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 0 20 40 60 80 100
a) Cu
a) Mtc b) A
0.5
10 0.5
Functional Form:
Pestana & Whittle (1995) 0.4
Frequency

5
0.25

0.3
0

β
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0
0
ψ

0.2
10 B
Functional Form:
Hardin & Richart (1963)
Frequency

-0.25 0.1
5

0
0 -0.5
1 10 100

c)
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 20 40 60
b) Cu
B d) A=G100kpa (Mpa)

𝒑𝒑 𝜷𝜷
𝑩𝑩
𝒑𝒑 𝑽𝑽𝒔𝒔 = 𝜶𝜶
𝑮𝑮 = 𝑨𝑨. 𝑭𝑭 𝒆𝒆 . 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏
𝒑𝒑𝒂𝒂
Macedo and Vergaray (2022)
 COMPRENSIBILITY EFFECT ON STRENGHT

Sands
Silts, Tailings

Macedo and Vergaray (2021)

SCREENING INDEXES FOR STATIC LIQUEFACTION

Macedo and
Vergaray (2021)
 DILATANCY
ψ
0
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1

-0.2

χ=3 -0.4

Dmin
-0.6

χ =4
-0.8

-1
c) d)
a)
10 10
8

8 8
7
Material 31
6 6 6

χ
χ
5 Material 26
4 4

4
χ

2 2
3

2 0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

1
e) R f) S

1 10 100 1000 1000

b) Cu/D50
Macedo and Vergaray (2021)
 CLOSING REMARKS
• Understanding the mechanical properties of mine tailings is key for
assessing static liquefaction in an informed manner.
• Tailings seem to fit the same CSSM-based framework for natural soil, with
the key difference of a much larger M and somewhat larger X, both
attributed to underlying particle shape, which then affects standard
correlations.
• CSSM provides framework to understand the response of particulate
materials, including mine tailings, at a different scale. It is a framework of
understanding.
• Spatial variability and layering effects are important and should be explored
further.