Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Statiac Liquefaction of Tailings - FUndamentals and Case of Histories
Statiac Liquefaction of Tailings - FUndamentals and Case of Histories
Abstract
Within the entire range of failure modes that have occurred at tailings impoundments static liquefaction is likely the most common, and at the same time likely the least
understood. As design practice in many mining regions has in fact discounted the possibility of the mechanisms and criteria for this failure mode, the possibility of its occurrence
has often been overlooked in the search for other causes of failure. Static liquefaction,
and the resulting flowslide of liquefied tailings materials, is shown to be a relatively common phenomenon among the more dramatic tailings impoundment failure case histories.
Static liquefaction can be a result of slope instability issues alone, or can be triggered as a
result of other mechanisms.
The fundamentals of the liquefaction phenomena are summarized. Liquefaction is
a term most often associated with seismic events. However, mine tailings impoundments
have demonstrated more static liquefaction events than seismic induced events. The
summary of the fundamentals includes particular emphasis on static liquefaction.
Several static liquefaction case histories are described to demonstrate various ways
in which this failure mechanism has manifested itself. From an understanding of the fundamentals and the lessons learned from the case histories, basic guidelines to minimize
the concern for tailings impoundments are presented.
Introduction
Classical soil mechanics as found in many textbooks still being used today, presents a simplistic and erroneous view of the loading of saturated cohesionless granular
particles (usually lumped together as sands) and water systems that is for example
most tailings. The simplistic view is that by defining the friction angle and pore pressure of
the sand we can predict the strength of that sand, the drained strength. The exception
these references allow for sands is during an earthquake when the sand may become liquefied. Clays on the other-hand are deemed to be cohesive and have an undrained
strength. Those readers who have benefited from a more enlightened geotechnical education may not find this a credible proposition, but it is clear to the authors that even as we
st
enter the 21 century, a range of educators, regulatory and quasi-governmental groups,
and an alarming number of geotechnical consultants still have not un-learned their first series of lectures in soil mechanics based on textbooks expounding the views noted above.
Until these simplistic models have been un-learned by all involved with the design, licensing, and construction of tailings impoundments, a major contributor to failures,
i.e. inappropriate and incorrect designs based upon a lack of understanding of the tailings
strength, will continue.
There is a wide range of specialized literature on the subject of the strength of cohesionless soils and their interactions with shear-induced pore pressures. However, little
of this is to be found in a few textbooks, it is mostly in technical journals and specialized
publications. Recent useful discussions can be found, for example, in Martin and
McRoberts (1999), Carrier (1991), and Been (1999). These are written from the perspective of geotechnical engineers with a thorough understanding of tailings materials and also
provide a starting point for the newcomer to the field of the considerable, and often misleading, literature that exists.
The most fundamental of the new lessons on cohesionless soil (sand and most
silts) strength is that like a clay, rapidly loaded saturated sand can have an undrained
strength, and like clay this strength can be stress and strain path dependent. Loose
sands/silts such as those deposited in an underwater tailings beach can have a very low
strength; they contract during shear just like a sensitive clay. However, unlike clays that
have a unique void ratio compression state, sand has wide ranges in its void ratio compression state. The wide ranges in the initial void ratio of sands, and of the fabric of fieldscale deposits of these sands, means that predictions of the in-situ undrained strength for
these materials is highly uncertain.
The undrained strength of sand becomes a fundamental issue whenever there is
rapid loading that triggers significant shear-induced pore pressure rise. Rapid loading is
subjectively defined as a rate of increase in shear stress and resulting pore pressures that
cannot drain or dissipate sufficient rapidly such that these higher pore pressures [and not
the pre-triggering event pore pressures measured in a piezometer] define the sand
strength. The most readily identified of these rapid loading conditions, at least from a design perspective, is the transient loading from seismic events. Whether limiteddeformation or eventual flowslide development, the effects of transient seismic loads on
mine tailings are well documented in the literature and well recognized by current engineering standards.
However, there are many other rapid or undrained shear loads that affect mine
tailings. These potential triggers of undrained response can be of equal importance to
seismic loads due to their more common occurrence at mine sites in comparison to seismic events. Included in these common loads are incremental impoundment raise construction and episodic tailings slurry placement. The former can lead to relatively rapid increases in stress levels and undrained conditions in susceptible materials while the latter
can cause temporary changes to the amount of tailings saturated in a given section of an
impoundment. Conversely, traditional static loads are taken to be those in place for a
considerable period. Other mechanisms, such as a transient saturation of the downstream shell of a tailings structure, can also trigger liquefaction due to rapid reductions in
effective stress.
Regardless of loading condition, the most dramatic effect a transient load can have
on mine tailings is to impart liquefaction of those tailings over a sufficient volume that then
leads to a failure event. Failure can mean different things but non-intentional release of
tailings solids or supernatant fluid(s) is the most dramatic failure mechanism and the one
most typically set as the design upset condition. The term transient load is chosen to
avoid the confusion between seismic and static liquefaction events because, though the
loading conditions are different, the resulting concern to the mine operator is identical.
The mechanisms at the root of either static or seismic liquefaction are the same. That
dams liquefy during the construction phase due to non-seismically induced transient loads
may belie the assurances offered in some cases as to the actual seismic stability of these
structures.
Liquefaction Fundamentals
Over the past two decades, issues related to liquefaction have become one of the
more heavily researched and published sub-disciplines of soil mechanics. Liquefaction
flow failures of mine tailings represent some of the more dramatic case history contributions to the database of actual liquefaction events that have occurred at full-scale. The
definition developed by the NRC (1985) for liquefaction and its related physical phenomena is both basic and complete and is the definition used in this paper. No attempt to duplicate the extensive literature on liquefaction will be attempted herein. Tailings will be assumed to have one of four characteristics upon shear loading:
1. Brittle strain softening (full liquefaction with the potential for limitless deformation) contractant behavior upon shear up to the steady-state condition.
2. Limited strain softening (limited liquefaction with limited deformation) some
initial contraction followed by dilation of the tailings skeleton;
3. Ductile behaviour with undrained shearing but no significant degree of strainsoftening (no liquefaction); and
4. Strain hardening (no appreciable liquefaction or deformation) - essentially pure
dilation.
The liquefaction equivalence noted above for each loading condition is consistent
with the NRC (1985) nomenclature.
Figure 1 presents schematic representations of strain softening response to both
monotonic and cyclic shear loading conditions. Identical ultimate responses, although with
more complex loading histories, can result from static and cyclic shear loading.
construction, or the cyclic loading of a seismic event, will cause the sand to engage the
collapse surface. Once so engaged, there is a dramatic and uncontrollable loss of
strength down to sus the steady state or residual strength. The collapse surface concept
provides a useful framework that provides linkage between the seismic and static stress
paths that can trigger liquefaction, and basically says that it does not matter how you get
there, the liquefied strength is the same.
There is debate regarding the position, linearity and even existence of a unique
collapse surface or a unique critical state line, see McRoberts and Sladen (1992) and
more recently Been (1999) for discussion. Laboratory work on stress paths recently summarized by Vaid and Sivathayalan (2000) show that both stress path and fabric heavily
control the low strain undrained strength of sand. This laboratory work indicates that the
way sand grains are packed together [the fabric] and the direction of the major principal
stress during shear relative to this fabric or grain imbrication can produce designsignificant variability in strength predictions. However, following Been (1999), this does
not mean that there is not a unique critical state line. Both McRoberts and Sladen (1992)
and Been (1998) have noted that the critical state may simply not have been reached in
low strain tests, a difficulty inherent in triaxial cell testing.
Experimental difficulties with accurate definition of moisture content [or void ratio]
re-distribution in globally undrained tests is a major problem on relying upon steady state
strength determination from laboratory tests carried out under both static and cyclic loading conditions. Ayoubian and Roberston (1998) report on a series of medium-loose extension tests on Ottawa sands in which undrained tests were frozen at different state of
shear and sectioned. The local void ratios were from 0.03 to 0.05 higher than the overall
or global value. This is a significant difference given that a void ratio change of 0.15 embraces the entire practical range of the critical state line for Ottawa sand. Desrues et. al
(1996) reports on shear band localization in triaxial compression tests for dense of critical
sands using tomography. These tests provide results that seriously question the validity of
relying on dilatant stress paths to establish the ultimate state. Drained tests in dense
sands indicated a difference in localized to global void ratio increase of about 0.10, a very
significant amount. Equivalent undrained tests are not yet reported, but it seems reasonable to infer that moisture content redistribution such that the usual procedure in interpretation of dilatant data is fundamentally flawed.
Figure 2 correlates a typical series of laboratory tests in which the void ratio of the
tailings sand at stress state st is plotted against the corresponding steady state strength.
From a design perspective a unique state line offers the possibility of measuring the sand
void ratio and then predicting the worst case strength and then using this to design
against this eventuality, and attempts to do this date back to at least Poulos et. al. (1985).
However, measuring the void ratio of sand to the precision required to make this a reliable
exercise is far from straight-forward as noted by McRoberts and Sladen (1992), Been and
Jefferies (1993), Jefferies and Davies (1993), and Martin and McRoberts (1998). Also
shown on Figure 2 is the definition of the state parameter (), per Been and Jefferies
(1985). The state parameter is a convenient way of expressing the soils relative stress
and density state relative to the steady state/ultimate state line. For example, the initial
state shown in Figure 2 is above the steady state line implying contractant behaviour and
a positive state (>0).
Ultimate State in
Undrained Loading
( e = 0)
CONTRACTANT
( >0)
Void Ratio
eus
DILATANT
( <0)
USL
( = 0)
p'us
pi'
Log (p')
Effective Stress
Figure 2 Typical Results of Steady-State Strength Testing on Cohesionless Materials
Figure 3 shows a schematic t (shear) vs. s (normal) stress plot as adapted from
Sladen et al. (1985). Three zones were indicated as A (liquefaction impossible),
B (liquefaction susceptibility under cyclic loading), and C (liquefaction susceptibility under
static loading).
ZONE
LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
A
B
C
Impossible
Possible Under Cyclic Loading
Possible Under 'Static' Loading
t= ( ' - ' ) /2
"Drained" Failure
Line t/s'=sin '
Potential Stress Path
Under Cyclic Loading
Steady State
Point
Unstable States
C
Collapse Surface
Stable States
t SS
aL
In Zone C, the static state of shear is above both the collapse surface and the
steady-state strength. Almost negligible undrained shear loading would be required to initiate liquefaction (e.g. Bjerrums experiments from the 1950s noted below). However,
material initially in zones B, and even A, could have a static liquefaction concern if the
state of static shear bias were to result in a change in state to Zone C. Note that brittle response at stress states above the collapse surface is common for either loading scenario. Once the loading path crosses the collapse surface, the resistance of the soil reduces with increasing strain until it drops below the driving stress, which, in turn, can
initiate a flow slide. The small increment of shear for Zone C tailings, or a change in state
from A or B tailings, can be termed the static liquefaction trigger, these are discussed subsequently.
Commenting retrospectively Casagrande (1970 and 1976) noted that the dam was
designed using the critical void ratio concept. Casagrande (1976) considered the pivotal
question faced by the designer (then, but the question is still relevant) of what happens
when a given sand is sheared undrained? He noted that this could not be directly answered in the laboratory, as the type of pore pressure measurement equipment the profession now takes for granted was not available at that time. The indirect answer was to
deduce that for in-situ void ratios dense of critical that shearing would result in dilation,
pore pressures would reduce and flow or liquefaction would not occur. After the failure of
the Fort Peck Dam a consulting board reported on extensive investigations as summarized
by Middlebrooks (1942). While the majority of the board concluded that the failure was
not caused by liquefaction based on the fact that in-situ densities were greater than the
minimum critical density observed (Middlebrooks, 1942), the minority opinion, including
Casagrande, was that liquefaction had occurred, but he was not at the time able to fully
elucidate the failure. Subsequently, Casagrande (1965) elaborated on his reasons and in
1965 noted "even today we have no laboratory tests that can measure reliably the susceptibility of a sand to liquefaction". This might well be applied to the current state of
practice.
Reference to standard textbooks from the 1960 to 70's makes it clear that the primary basis for consideration of loose sand was the critical void ratio concept. An exception was the work of Bjerrum et al. (1961) who reported that the US Corps of Engineers in
Vicksberg did the first undrained triaxial tests on loose sand that succeeded in reproducing
liquefaction. These tests never gained wide currency and have few citations in the literature of the time. Bjerrum reported on a fine-grained Norwegian sand and the impetus for
these test were the large subaqueous flow slides reported in the Norwegian fjords. These
tests reported the surprising observation that the mobilized friction angle at peak deviator
o
o
stress was as low as 11 well below the expected value of 35 or more.
It spite of this work and the many developments since them, static liquefaction is a
much less well recognized phenomenon than its seismic counterpart. There is limited
mention of static liquefaction in regulatory literature and a good portion of the publications
that refer to static liquefaction either do not explain the phenomenon being referred to or
use the term as an explanation for any non-seismically triggered flow failure with no other
common failure mechanism. Many designers do clearly not recognize the mechanism.
The fact that many more tailings dams have not failed due to this mechanism is in part
due to the designers taking measures to combat seismic loadings and have also unintentionally guarded against static liquefaction. However, designs in low seismic areas may
not have this co-incidental safeguard. Unfortunately, a number of tailings dam failures
have been mislabelled with other failure modes only to eventually have static liquefaction
correctly noted as the contributing mode of dam failure (e.g. Fourie et al, 2000).
One example would be the plethora of publications in the 1990s that presented any
explanation but static liquefaction for the 1994 failure of the Merriespruit tailings dam in
South Africa. However, Martin and McRoberts (1999) and (Davies et al., 2000) pointed
out that the flowslide nature of the failure clearly indicated undrained, contractant behavior, eliminating any need to grasp at any of the more exotic explanations previously offered. Fourie et al. (2001) subsequently suggested static liquefaction as a possible
mechanism for the Merriespruit failure. Fourie et al. (2001) noted, conventional stability
analysis carried out only a few months before the Merriespruit flow failure indicated a sat-
isfactory factor of safety (1.34) against slope instability. Clearly the two distinct manners
that monotonically sheared tailings can experience (see below) were not considered by
the designers in 1994. Only drained loading response was examined and peak frictional
strengths with hydrostatic pore pressures was the only framework considered. As this approach yielded limit-equilibrium values of greater than unity yet a liquefaction flow failure
clearly occurred, an unexplained phenomenon was said to have occurred.
When tailings materials are monotonically sheared, they can respond in two very
distinct manners:
1. The loading rate is slow enough so that irrespective of how contractant the tailings skeleton, any shear-induced pore pressure changes have no effect on
strength as they drain as quickly as they are induced. If the tailings are contractant, then shearing under drained conditions results in a decrease in the void
ratio, increasing their undrained shear strength.
2. The loading rate is quick enough, or the tailings of sufficiently low relative hydraulic conductivity, that shear-induced pore pressures are generated
(e.g. drainage potential is overwhelmed) and, as a result, effective stresses are
reduced and both stiffness and shear strength degrade.
The first scenario involves drained loading and response, whereas the second is
undrained. When undrained monotonic loading occurs, it should be automatic practice
to invoke undrained strength properties. Drained strength, e.g. Mohr-Coulomb relationships, could be used but accurately estimating the complex pore pressure regime at failure
is often very difficult. Consequently, to avoid this difficulty, it is more sensible to use
undrained strengths (su) in loading situations where significant pore pressures could develop. Undrained strength of contractant materials is typically characterized by an
undrained strength ratio with the ratio being the undrained strength to the effective overburden stress. The ratio, denoted su/p, ranges from very low values up to values equivalent to drained strengths. The range is dependent upon a number of factors; the most important of which is material density. The looser, more contractant, the tailings are, the
lower the value of su/p.
Tailings are usually cohesionless except for the fine fraction of ore bodies with substantial mineral clay content. Unless mechanically compacted, subjected to substantive
downward seepage gradients, and/or subjected to evaporative drying and desiccation,
tailings rarely achieve negative states (e.g. <0) and therefore often exhibit contractant
behaviour upon shear loading. The stress path involved in the shear loading is also important as the degree of static shear bias required to have the in-situ state in the unstable
zone depends upon that stress path.
Referring to Figure 3, there are a number of potential static liquefaction triggers in
tailings impoundments including:
Increased pore pressures induced by an increase in the piezometric surface,
and/or change of pore pressure conditions from below hydrostatic to hydrostatic,
or to higher than hydrostatic.
Excessive rate of loading due to rapid raising of the impoundment. Plewes et al.
(1986) note rapid rate of rise as the trigger for an upstream beach (beach below
water, BBW) static liquefaction failure.
Static shear stresses in excess of the collapse surface, leading to spontaneous liquefaction. This is described further below.
Removal of toe support from an overtopping event, lateral erosion from a watercourse encroachment or any other situation when the toe can be removed.
Foundation movements rapid enough to create undrained loading in tailings
material susceptible to spontaneous collapse.
At rest (K0) conditions create a static shear bias condition that is typically not that
far off the collapse surface. Initiating a spontaneous liquefaction event does not require
very much additional shear stress beyond that in place from the at-rest soil condition. If
there is a slope condition, i.e. the upstream constructed tailings impoundment shell, the
nature of the in-situ stresses are more complex than a K0 condition but are at least that
level.
Kramer and Seed (1988) demonstrated in the laboratory that there is a marked increase in static liquefaction susceptibility with increase in principal effective stress ratio.
This type of soil behaviour has been observed by many other researchers and described
in literature at least as far back as Bjerrum et al. (1961). Unfortunately, the literature on
seismic liquefaction (i.e., Seed and Lee, 1966) has on occasion wrongly asserted that resistance to liquefaction is actually increased where ground is sloping than where it is flat.
This conclusion was based on cyclic laboratory testing in which cyclic mobility behavior
could only be induced by cycling through a state of zero shear stress, which in turn could
only be induced in isotropically consolidated samples. However, in a critique of this approach, McRoberts and Sladen (1992) pointed out that in situ stress conditions are rarely,
if ever, isotropic, and summarized the numerous misgivings of Arthur Casagrande to this
concept. Considering this question in the context of Figure 3, it is graphically and intuitively obvious that the lower the static shear bias, the greater the distance from the collapse surface and therefore the lower the susceptibility to liquefaction, certainly under
static conditions.
While this paper is focused on static liquefaction it is necessary for completeness to
further discuss the inference that liquefaction resistance increases with principal stress ratio (i.e. below sloping ground). This misconception was the genesis of the K correction
term on the Simplified Liquefaction Assessment Charts (SLAC) approach for assessing
seismic liquefaction. This element of the SLAC approach was eventually corrected by
Rollins and Seed (1988) by recognizing that for loose sands liquefaction susceptibility increased with higher static shear bias. Even so, the K correction term was for so long an
integral part of the SLAC approach that it may have contributed to misperceptions regarding static liquefaction issues that still persist today.
Case Examples
Merriespruit Harmony Mine, South Africa, 1994
The Harmony Gold Mine in South Africa utilized a paddock system for tailings
management. Paddock systems are relatively common in South Africa and are essentially
upstream constructed tailings impoundments with little freeboard and relatively saturated
BBW dam shells. The mine was located near the town of Merriespruit. The Merriespruit
failure occurred on February 22, 1994 in the evening. A massive failure of the north wall
3
3
occurred following a heavy rainstorm. Over 600,000 m of tailings and 90,000 m of water
2
were released. The slurry traveled about 2 km covering nearly 500,000 m . Given the
downstream population, it is fortunate that not more than 17 people lost their lives in this
tragedy. A view of the aftermath of the failure is shown on Figure 5.
The Merriespruit case record provides a good example of field evidence being misinterpreted due to its apparent non-conformity with laboratory data. Blight (1997), produced figures illustrating dilatant behavior of gold tailings. He then describes field vane
tests, carried out slowly for the shear strengths to be representative of the drained condition. It is probably reasonable to assume that those tests were carried out under drained
to partially drained conditions. Blight then noted that the remoulded strengths correspond
to values of as low as 6, and that the undisturbed vane shear strengths are drained
and therefore should allow for the effect that dilation has of drawing water into the pores
on the failure surface to relieve the reduced pore pressure. It is thus difficult to explain
why the remoulded strengths are so much lower. Setting aside the dilatancy suggested
by the laboratory testing, it is the opinion of the authors that the explanation is clear and
self-evident: the vane rotation induced a significant level of strain softening, which was
clearly indicative of contractant response, consistent with the nature of the failure. Piezocone data was equally compelling in terms of the contractant nature of the tailings.
Sullivan Mine, Canada, 1991
Davies et al. (1998) describe the static liquefaction event that occurred to the Active
Iron Pond tailings impoundment at the Sullivan Mine in August of 1991.
1948 Scarp
Figure 7 Sullivan Tailings Pond Showing Approximate Outline of 1948 Failure Scarp
The Sullivan event resulted in extensive liquefaction and a flowslide but, fortunately,
another tailings dyke contained the flow and no off-site impact was experienced. The dam
had been built on a foundation of older tailings that were placed as BBW material. The
failure of the upstream constructed facility was triggered by the initiation of shear stresses
in the foundation tailings in excess of their shear strength. As the material strained, the
pore pressures rose and drainage was impeded leading to liquefaction event. The downstream slopes of the dyke average roughly 3H:1V, imposing stresses in excess of the collapse surface for the foundation tailings. The failure was very brittle and sand boils, water
expressed from standpipes and other classic liquefaction expressions were evident.
Figure 6 shows a ground view of the post-liquefaction appearance of the Sullivan tailings
dyke. The only trigger to the liquefaction failure was the slope geometry; a pre-failure
dyke slope of about 2.5 H to 3.5H:1V with a maximum dyke height of about 25 m.
Post failure investigations in the area of the liquefaction failure indicated very contractant in-situ states in the range of = +0.01 to +0.12. Back calculated strengths for the
liquefied tailings yielded an average Su/p of about 0.08.
The Sullivan failure also served to illustrate a phenomenon termed tailings dam
amnesia (TDA) in previous work by the authors (e.g. Davies et al., 2000). The 1991 failure bore a striking resemblance to a failure that occurred at the facility in 1948, during upstream raising (Figure 7). That event, unlike its 1991 descendant, involved significant offsite release from a flow failure, an obvious undrained event. However, the design analyses prior to the 1991 failure were based on peak-drained strengths with no regard for
shear-induced pore pressures. Here the site-specific lesson from 43 years before was
forgotten history did indeed repeat itself. As another example of TDA, the authors are
aware of a tailings impoundment in the United States where no fewer than three failures
involving static liquefaction have occurred in the same general area of the impoundment.
undrained response of the piezocone soundings, were sufficient to convince the designer
that the stability analysis approach adopting only drained strength parameters and neglecting shear-induced pore pressures needed rethinking, hence the endorsement of resumed operation. Ultimately, however, reason prevailed and the dam was not reactivated.
state parameter value itself (perhaps from a cone penetration test, see Martin et al.,
2002). From an approximation of state, both undrained strengths and potential strain at
failure are then estimated. For the amount of post liquefaction strain, the factor of safety
created by the application of the appropriate trigger governs the approximate severity of
potential deformation. Clearly, situations where a positive state and a very low post-trigger
limit equilibrium conditions exist are the most likely to create a flowslide or other massive
failure event.
Table 1 Static Liquefaction General Design Guidelines
(N1)60
**
04
4 10
10 15
15 20
>20
+0.12
+.05
0
-0.08
<-0.10
Su/(p)
0.05 0.10
0.10 0.20
0.15 0.4
0.3 0.5
>0.5 (< 0.68)*
F (%)
FTrigger 1.0
FTrigger 0.5
25 50
10 25
8 15
5 10
<5
>100
30 100
20 35
15 25
<15
Table 1 implies that materials with a state more dilatant than about <-0.1 will not be a
concern for undrained shear phenomena. This is purely from the authors experience and
has been noted elsewhere (e.g. Davies, 1999). It is interesting to note that independent
experience of others, e.g. Been (1999) and Jefferies (1999), suggest values of 0.08 and
0.10, respectively, as their practical limits of minimum state to ensure satisfactory engineering performance provided the drained strength of the material is sufficient for all
loading conditions. In more simple language, the best way to deal with a problem is to
avoid creating it in the first place.
Concluding Remarks
The concepts and lessons offered by this paper are not new and should not be
seen in that light. The fundamental soil mechanics related to static liquefaction have been
evident for decades. The list of case histories, both older and more recent, together with
the rate at which case histories continue to be added to the failure database, demonstrates that undrained shear response of mine tailings has not been appropriately appreciated by a sufficient number of tailings dam designers. A thorough understanding of the
fundamentals and the lessons offered by the case histories should be mandatory training
for all engineers working with tailings dams, or any other hydraulic fill structures. This
training will probably be at odds with some of their education and/or the literature they
have viewed as professionals; but is necessary to correct a trend that requires reversal
sooner rather than later.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
Desrues J., Chambon R., Mokni M. and Mazeroole F. (1996) Void ratio evaluation
inside shear bands in triaxial specimen studies by computed topography. Geotechnique 46 (3) 529-546.
Fourie A.B., G.E. Blight and G. Papageorgiou (2001). Static liquefaction as a possible explanation for the Merriespruit tailings dam failure. Canadian Journal Geotechnical Journal, Volume 38, pp. 707-719.
Fourie A.B., G. Papageorgiou and G.E. Blight (2000). Static liquefaction as an explanation for two catastrophic tailings dam failures in South Africa. In proceedings
Tailings and Mine Waste 00, Balkema, pp. 149-158.
Hazen, A. (1918). "A study of the slip in the Calaveras Dam" Engineering NewsRecord, 81, 26, 1158-1164.
Hazen, A. (1920). Hydraulic fill dams, Transactions, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 83, pp. 1713-1745.
Jefferies, M.G. (1999) A critical state view of liquefaction. Physics and Mechanics
of Soil Liquefaction, Lade and Yamamuro (eds) Balkema 221-235.
Jefferies, M.G. and M.P. Davies (1993). Use of CPTu to estimate equivalent SPT
N60. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM GT JODJ, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 458-468.
Kramer, S.L. and H.B. Seed (1988). Initiation of soil liquefaction under static
loading conditions. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 114, No. 4,
April, pp. 412-430.
Martin, T.E., McRoberts, E.C. and M.P. Davies (2002). A tale of four upstream
tailings dams, Proceedings, Tailings Dams 2002, ASDSO.
Martin, T.E. and E.C. McRoberts (1998) "Some considerations in the stability
analysis of upstream tailings dams. Tailings and Mine Waste 99, Fort Collins, Colorado, pp. 287-302.
McRoberts, E.C., and Sladen, J.A. (1992). "Observations on static and cyclic sand
liquefaction methodologies", Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 29, 4, 650-665.
Middlebrooks, T.A. (1940). "Fort Peck slide", with discussions by Messrs. J. Field,
J.D. Justin, W. Gerig, A.J. Ryan, G. Gilboy, F.E. Fahlquist, I.B. Crosby and T.A.
Middlebrooks, ASCE, Transactions, Paper No. 2144, 723-764.
Morgenstern N and Kpper A. (1988) Hydraulic fill structures - a perspective.
ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 21, van Zyl and Vick (eds) Fort Collins
Colo., pp1-31.
Morgenstern, N. (2001). Geotechnics and mine waste management update,
Seminar Proceedings, Safe Tailings Dam Constructions, Gallivare, Sweden, September.
NRC (1985). Liquefaction of Soils During Earthquakes. Committee on Earthquake
Engineering, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, 240 pp.
Poulos, S.G., G. Castro and J.W. France (1985). Liquefaction Evaluation Procedure, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, III.
Rollins, K. and H.B. Seed (1988). Influence of buildings on potential liquefaction
behavior, ASCE Journal of Geotech. Eng. Div., Vol. 116, pp. 165-195.
Seed, H.B. and K.L. Lee (1966). Liquefaction of saturated sands during cyclic
loading, ASCE Journal of the Soil Mech. and Found. Eng. Div., 92(6), pp. 105-134.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
Seed, H.B. and K.L. Lee (1966). Liquefaction of saturated sands during cyclic
loading, ASCE Journal of the Soil Mech. and Found. Eng. Div., 92(6), pp. 105-134.
Sladen, J.A., R.D. DHollander and J. Krahn (1985). The liquefaction of sands, a
collapse surface approach. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Volume 22, pp. 564578.
Smith, E.S. (1969). Tailings disposal and liquefaction, Transactions, American Institute of Mine, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, Vo. 244, pp. 179-187.
Smith, E.S. (1972). Tailings disposal failures and lessons, Tailings Disposal Tost
day, Proc. of 1 International Symposium, Tucson, Arizona, pp. 356-375.
Terzaghi, K. (1925). Structure and volume of voids of soils. Pages 10, 11 12 and
part of 13 of Erdbaumechanik auf Bodenphysickalisher Grundlage, translated by A.
Casagrande in From Theory to Practice in Soil Mechanics, John Wiley and Sons,
pp. 146-148.
Vaid, Y.P and S. Sivathayalan (2000). Fundamental factors affecting liquefaction
susceptibility of sands. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Volume 37, pp.592-606.