Additional Analyses of the Fundão Tailings Storage

Facility: In Situ State and Triggering Conditions

David Reid, Ph.D. 1

Abstract: On November 5, 2015, the Fundão tailings storage facility (TSF) failed, resulting in significant tailings release and 19 deaths.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 08/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Following the failure, a review panel was established to investigate the cause of the failure. This investigation suggested that the failure
involved static liquefaction triggered by deformations in slimes underlying loose, saturated, sandy tailings. This conclusion was reached by
interpretation of cone penetration tests (CPTu), laboratory testing of deformation-induced stress paths, and numerical modeling. However,
the report did not clearly indicate what method was used to infer the in situ state Ψ from the CPTu probes, and electronic data are not
currently publicly available. To remedy both of these limitations, the CPTu data presented by the Panel were digitized to enable their more
widespread use and to assess which methods likely were used to interpret the state. As part of this process, a zone of looser sandy tailings at
the location where liquefaction was likely to have triggered was identified. Comparison of the state of this material to the overall sandy
tailings state indicates that this loose zone may have played a role in the initiation of static liquefaction. Examination of historical data
indicated a potential source for this loose material. This examination provides a slightly different perspective of the factors contributing to
the initiation of static liquefaction at Fundão. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002123. © 2019 American Society of Civil
Engineers.

Introduction Fundão Summary and Investigation Outcome

General
On November 5, 2015, the Fundão tailings storage facility (TSF)
in Mariana, Minas Gerais, Brazil failed, resulting in the release of
a significant volume of tailings and 19 deaths. Following the
failure, a review panel was established to investigate the cause
of the failure, issuing a report in August 2016 (e.g., Morgenstern
et al. 2016). These investigations identified the cause of failure
as static liquefaction of sandy tailings below and behind the left
abutment of the TSF, triggered by deformations of a lower slimes
(i.e., fine-grained, more compressible) layer of tailings. This defor-
mation pattern, referred to as lateral extrusion by the Panel, was
shown through deformation modelling of the TSF history to have
increased the stress ratio (η ¼ q=p 0 ) of overlying contractive sandy
tailings until a portion below the embankment reached its instabil-
ity stress ratio (ηIL ) through drained loading (Chu et al. 2003; Been
2016).
An idealized schematic showing the lateral extrusion (LE) stress
path investigated by the Panel is presented in Fig. 1, along with
what would likely be considered more typical triggering stress
paths—those caused by rapid undrained loading, and the constant
shear drained (CSD) path resulting from an increasing phreatic sur-
face. Static liquefaction triggering under a range of stress paths was
discussed by, among others, Sasitharan et al. (1993), Davies et al.
(2002), Olson and Stark (2002), Chu et al. (2003), Jefferies and
Been (2015), and Been (2016).
1
Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering, Univ. of Western
Australia, Crawley 6009, Australia. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002
-1867-1676. Email: david.reid@uwa.edu.au
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 9, 2018; approved
on April 9, 2019; published online on August 16, 2019. Discussion period
open until January 16, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241.
The layout of the Fundão TSF in July 2015 is shown in Fig. 2 as
a satellite image. The left abutment included a setback, resulting in
a lower overall slope angle compared with the right abutment.
Although much of the history of the TSF is outside the scope of
this work, of relevance here are two issues during the history of
the TSF: (1) the development of the left abutment setback, and
(2) previous deposition behavior on the TSF that led to slimes tail-
ings being deposited closer to embankment crest than originally
planned. The original design for the Fundão TSF called for sepa-
ration to be maintained between the slimes tailings and the sandier
tailings near the perimeter, to assist in drainage within the sands.
According to records and aerial images investigated by the Panel,
this apparently was not maintained. Secondly, owing to issues with
drainage features below the left abutment area, the setback was
implemented to avoid additional loading on these drainage features.
These two events resulted in the left abutment being raised over
slimes layers.
One of the primary areas of focus of the Panel was investigating
why the static liquefaction event initiated on the left abutment,
which was indicated clearly by eyewitness accounts. Initiation
on the left abutment occurred despite it having a lower overall
slope than the right abutment—a geometry difference that, in the
Panel’s limit equilibrium static liquefaction triggering analyses,
resulted in the left abutment having a higher triggering factor of
safety (FoS) than the right abutment based on the method outlined
by Sadrekarimi (2014). The layers of slimes tailings noted previ-
ously were hypothesized by the Panel to have contributed to trig-
gering, and as a result numerical modeling of the left abutment
was conducted by the panel using the Nor-Sand constitutive model
(Jefferies 1993; Jefferies and Been 2015). This indicated that, based
on the characteristic state (80th percentile, i.e., 80% of values
denser) of the tailings inferred from cone penetration tests (CPTu),
the stress ratio that developed in areas below the left abutment
was consistent with conditions leading to the triggering of static
liquefaction based on laboratory samples of sandy tailings with
a similar state parameter Ψ (Been and Jefferies 1985) to the inferred

© ASCE 04019088-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(11): 04019088


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 08/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Static liquefaction triggering stress path schematic.
characteristic Ψ. The Panel’s numerical modeling showed that
stress states indicative of triggering occurred below and behind
the left abutment crest at an elevation ranging from 850 to
865 m, possibly consistent with the first observable event in the
failure—an explosion of a jet of dirty water out of a drainage fea-
ture on the left abutment at an elevation of 860 m.
Owing to the significant loss of volume of tailings, no postfai-
lure in situ investigations could be carried out by the Panel in the
left abutment area where the failure initiated. Therefore, for the as-
sessment of the tailings state at the time of failure, the Panel focused
on five CPTu probes (F01–F05) carried out between January and
March 2015, i.e., approximately 9 months before the failure. The
plan locations of these probes are included in Fig. 2.
As noted previously, the Panel indicated that they selected the
80th percentile Ψ to characterize the sandy tailings in deformation
modeling, on the basis of the recommendations of Jefferies and
Been (2015) regarding selection of a characteristic Ψ value in a
Fig. 2. July 2015 Fundão TSF layout, including relevant site investigation locations. (Map data from Google, DigitalGlobe.)
© ASCE
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(11): 04019088
variable stratum. However, the Panel report did not explicitly indi-
cate which method was used to infer Ψ. For example, the CPT in-
terpretation sheets provided as appendixes include both the Plewes
method (Plewes et al. 1992) in all sheets and that of Robertson
(2010a) in some sheets. The Robertson (2010a) method is referred
to in the Panel report appendixes as Robertson (2012b), which is a
subsequent paper including reiteration of the method. Furthermore,
although only these two screening methods are provided, the Panel
had sufficient information from the postfailure laboratory testing
program to potentially supplement and refine the state estimates
from the CPTu in a variety of ways (e.g., Jefferies and Been 2015).
Importantly, any of the available screening-level methods incorpo-
rate uncertainty on the basis of the difficulty in inferring compress-
ibility from CPTu data (Reid 2015a). Therefore, where available,
independently measured values of compressibility from CSL testing
are useful—and were available to the Panel.
Although the work of the Panel represents the most comprehen-
sive examination of the lateral extrusion trigger mechanism, the
propensity for underlying softer materials to increase the stress ratio
of overlying sandy materials has been acknowledged for some time.
Perhaps the first discussion of this trigger mechanism was in refer-
ence to the Fort Peck failure (e.g., Casagrande 1965). The potential
for foundation spreading to trigger liquefaction was also discussed
by Smith (1969). The first numerical investigation of this behavior
was likely that by Hicks and Boughrarou (1998), who showed how
undrained failure of an underlying clay contributed to the initiation
of static liquefaction of the Nerlerk Berm. A summary and further
discussion on these case histories was provided by Jefferies and
Been (2015) who referred to the phenomenon as basal extrusion.
Relevance of Case History
The Fundão failure represents an extremely important case history
for the mining industry and geotechnical profession, a source of use-
ful data for the refinement of trigger assessments, and, in general, a
well-described application of deformation modeling to carry out
a triggering analysis. It has previously been argued that an increase
04019088-2 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 in the use of deformation modeling in the assessment of stability is
critical, given the limitations of limit equilibrium in this regard
(e.g., Jefferies and Been 2015). Furthermore, it has been argued that
the accompanying video demonstration of static liquefaction trig-
gered from drained loading produced by the Panel will in itself in-
crease awareness of the risks of this phenomenon in the mining
industry (Jefferies 2016).
A good example of the benefits of publicly available electronic
CPTu from TSF failures is the use of Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA) Kingston investigation data (AECOM 2009) by Robertson
(2012a) to confirm the validity of the Robertson (2010b) method
for assessing dilative/contractive states of a fly ash material. Be-
cause fly ash is of quite different origin and mineralogy to most
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 08/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
liquefaction case histories with reliable data, use of this publicly
available data enabled increased confidence in assessing the state
of ash deposits. Another example of the benefits of publicly avail-
able data is the work of Jefferies and Been (2015), which involves
examination of data from various liquefaction case histories to re-
fine and develop a synthesis between field-scale, laboratory, and
numerical modeling of liquefaction behavior. Finally, many empir-
ical triggering methods that have been developed incrementally
over the last 20 years are based on the data available from flow
liquefaction events (Olson and Stark 2003; Sadrekarimi 2014, 2016).
Clearly, the more data that are made publicly available from lique-
faction case histories, the better.
The data made available by the Panel have already been used to
provide critical assessments of semiempirical static liquefaction
triggering analysis methods. For example, Riveros and Sadrekarimi
(2017) reassessed the left abutment, and suggested that static lique-
faction triggering could be expected at the time of failure if the
analysis incorporated the updated method of Sadrekarimi (2016),
which includes the effects of plane-strain boundary conditions and
initial stress anisotropy. Riveros and Sadrekarimi adopted the 70th
percentile tip resistance (i.e., 70% of tip resistance values higher)
as input into empirical yield strength correlations in their reanaly-
sis. In this revised triggering analysis, the potential contribution
to increased stress ratio from slimes was unnecessary to indicate
liquefaction triggering—indeed, being limit equilibrium–based,
the contribution of deformations is not included at all. However,
Riveros and Sadrekarimi did not reanalyze the right abutment,
or discuss why failure initiated at the left abutment—a potentially
important consideration given that the Panel’s LE triggering FoS
estimated for the right abutment was significantly lower than that
for the left abutment. Clearly, further study of and dissemination of
the information from the Fundão failure would be useful to lique-
faction research efforts.
Purpose of This Work
The purpose of this work was to reanalyze the CPTu data preceding
the Fundão failure, and for the data produced in this manner to be
made available in electronic format for easy use by other workers.
This may be useful to workers in this area because requests directed
to the Panel for electronic CPTu data from Probes F01 and F05 by
the author were unsuccessful—indeed, it is unclear when, if ever,
such electronic data may be made publicly available. The digitiza-
tion and reinterpretation allowed investigation of which method the
Panel used to assess Ψ, and to further examine the inherent uncer-
tainty in estimating state in the sandy tailings with available meth-
ods. Although these steps were an end in themselves, as a result of
the digitization process and reanalysis, a particularly loose zone of
sandy tailings directly below the left abutment was noted. Review
of historical imagery was then carried out to investigate what might
have caused the presence of this loose layer, and to consider if
© ASCE 04019088-3
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(11): 04019088
its location below the left abutment may have played a role in the
initiation of static liquefaction.
CPTu Reinterpretation
Data Interpretation and Methods
To obtain a usable set of data from these probes, the tip resistance qt
and friction ratio (Rf ) records provided in graphical form in the
Panel Appendix C were transferred into AutoCAD version 2018
software and scaled, and then data from the probes were extracted
at 0.25-m intervals. From this, the range of relevant CPTu calcula-
tions to estimate various engineering properties could be made—in
particular in this case, Ψ.
To estimate Ψ from CPTu data, a number of different methods
are available to assess the in situ state. As discussed by Jefferies and
Been (2015), the CPTu represents an inverse boundary value prob-
lem, because the tip resistance is itself a result of different properties
and the state of the soil. This was established early in the theoretical
investigation of the CPTu (e.g., Robertson and Campanella 1983),
in which compressibility was seen to be a key factor, in addition to
state, in the response of the CPTu. Subsequent investigations sug-
gested that CSL slope (referred to by λ10 herein) was a good mea-
sure to capture the intrinsic compressibility of the soil (Been et al.
1987), and hence improved estimates of state could be obtained if
incorporated into the calculation framework λ10 . This led to various
means to assess in situ compressibility from CPTu results and
account for it in solutions for Ψ.
Relevant methods to infer Ψ in current use, accounting primarily
for soil compressibility (and sometimes other factors) based on
available information for the sandy tailings, are outlined as follows:
1. Methods proposed by Plewes et al. (1992), i.e., the Plewes
method, and Been and Jefferies (1992), which are based on
Eqs. (1)–(4). Although both of these methods use these equa-
tions, the difference between the two lies in the empirical meth-
ods with which λ10 is estimated. The Plewes method uses
friction ratio, whereas the method of Been and Jefferies uses
material behavior type index I c;BJ . The Plewes method is likely
to perform better for the relatively low-compressibility sandy
materials relevant to the Fundão failure—for example, as indi-
cated by their respective performance during the Canadian
Liquefaction Experiment (CANLEX) project (Robertson et al.
2000; Reid 2015a)
lnððQp ð1 − Bq Þ=k̄
ψ¼ ð1Þ
m̄
qt − po
Qp ¼ ð2Þ
po0
 
0.85
k̄ ¼ 3þ M tc ð3Þ
λ10
m̄ ¼ 11.9 − 13.3λ10 ð4Þ
where Qp = tip resistance normalized by mean effective stress;
Bq = normalized excess pore pressure; M tc = critical state fric-
tion ratio for triaxial compression loading; and k̄ and m̄ =
soil-specific coefficients. The use of Qp requires an estimate of
geostatic stress ratio K 0 . The Panel indicated that a K 0 value of
0.5 was selected, and this was adopted in the present work.
Eq. (1) was subsequently refined slightly with respect to how Bq
is incorporated (Shuttle and Cunning 2007). However, this is not
relevant to the Fundão sandy tailings because CPTu penetration
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 was drained, resulting in the 1 − Bq part of the expression re-
turning unity.
2. Application of Eqs. (1)–(3), but with the incorporation of site and
material-specific inputs as derived from (usually) reconstituted
laboratory testing. For example, CSL testing as carried out by the
Panel provided values for both λ10 and the critical state friction
ratio (M tc ). Use of such material-specific parameters is likely to
increase the accuracy of the Plewes method if it is applied to
relevant material in situ. The key consideration in this attempt at
refinement based on site specific λ10 is which CSL is to be ap-
plied to the CPTu data. This is discussed subsequently. Although
this method is largely derived from Method 1, it is differentiated
here by the fundamentally different source of compressibility
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 08/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The results summarized in Table 1 indicate that the Panel-
reported 80th percentile value is between those obtained from the
Plewes method with site-specific λ10 and that of Robertson (2010a).
The summary also suggests that, regardless of method used, the
right abutment appears to have been (in aggregate) looser than the
left abutment, further suggesting that an additional mechanism or
contributing factor likely was relevant to the initial triggering occur-
ring in the left abutment. However, with respect to the initial purpose
of this reanalysis, the comparison does not clearly indicate which
method was used by the Panel. Therefore, an additional comparison
was made between the two likely methods and the Panels’ results
(Fig. 3). Although the number of occurrences for the Panel’s original
data was much higher than the reinterpreted values prepared in this

estimates, which are a key input to the calculation of Ψ. work through digitization at 0.25-m intervals, the qualitative com-
3. Robertson’s (2010a) method, an update based on insights from parison of the histograms suggested that the Panel used the method
the CANLEX results and the work of Shuttle and Cunning
(2007). The application of this method to calculate Ψ is sum-
marized in Eqs. (5)–(8), with further detail on the development
and calculation procedure provided by Zhang et al. (2002) and
Robertson (2009)
ψ ¼ 0.56 − 0.33 log Qtn;cs ð5Þ

Qtn;cs ¼ Qtn K c ð6Þ

K c ¼ 1.0 if I c;RW ≤ 1.64 ð7Þ

K c ¼ 5.581I 3c;RW − 0.403I 4c;RW − 21.63I 2c;RW

þ 33.75I c;RW − 17.88 if I c;RW > 1.64 ð8Þ
(a)
where Qtn = stress-normalized tip resistance; and K c = correc-
tion factor based on soil behavior type index I c ;RW , which in-
corporates a proxy for (primarily) compressibility and other
factors to the resulting calculation for λ10 —i.e., the same logic
applied in the Plewes method.

Presentation of Data
As noted previously, with respect to the specific method applied by
the Panel, the report appendixes provided estimates of Ψ based on
the Plewes method for all CPTu data and on Robertson (2010a) for
some of the data. However, the report does not explicitly state which
method was used to develop the characteristic value for use in
numerical modeling. Therefore, attempts to identify which method
was used by the Panel were the first focus when reinterpreting the (b)
data. To this end, 80th percentile values for the CPTu data digitized
from CPTu probes F01 to F05 are summarized in Table 1 for each of
the previously outlined methods. For the Plewes method, M tc was
taken as 1.2 as suggested in the original publication, because the
Panel report does not indicate that a different value was selected.
Alternatively, for the site-specific application of the Plewes method,
an M tc of 1.3 was applied based on the Panel CSL testing and the
general expectation of higher Mtc for angular tailings (e.g., Reid
2015a).

Table 1. Summary of CPTu data

80th percentile Ψ
Method Right abutment Left abutment Overall (c)
Panel — — +0.012
Plewes method −0.015 −0.062 −0.029 Fig. 3. Statistical comparison of (a) Panel Ψ estimates; (b) Plewes
Plewes method—Panel λ10 +0.037 −0.009 +0.025 method with λ10 taken from Panel CSL testing; and (c) Robertson
Robertson (2010a) +0.013 −0.008 +0.005 (2010a).

© ASCE 04019088-4 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(11): 04019088

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 08/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
Fig. 4. State estimates of F01–F05 CPTu probes based on Robertson (2010a) method: (a) left abutment; and (b) right abutment.
of Robertson (2010a) to develop a characteristic Ψ value for sub-
sequent modeling.
With the Panel’s interpretation method now established, the Ψ
results for each of the CPTu Probes F01–F05 are outlined in Fig. 4.
(The Data Availability Statement provides a link to the full CPTu
data produced from the digitization process.) In general, the results
of F01 and F05 were fairly uniform, with Ψ generally ranging from
−0.05 to þ0.02. This is consistent with the range of states often
seen on subaerially deposited nonplastic sandy silts and silty sands
(e.g., Reid and Jefferies 2017). However, one zone of particularly
loose material was present at CPTu F01 between depths of 23 and
25 m. Because of the looser state in this zone, and the fact that
CPTu F01 likely was the most critical location with respect to static
liquefaction triggering of the left abutment, CPTu F01 is discussed
further subsequently.
Further Analysis of CPTu F01
Although it appears that the method of Robertson (2010a) was
used by the Panel, there is no clear evidence that this method
provides the most reliable estimate of Ψ for the Fundão sandy tail-
ings, given the inherent uncertainty in any screening-level method.
Therefore, the results of CPTu F01, and particularly those of the
loose zone identified, were analyzed in further detail to assess
the range of states produced by different available methods.
Because it appears that the Panel did not use the CSL testing of
the sandy tailings to potentially refine Ψ estimates—or to investigate
different conceivable ranges of Ψ that might apply, given the inher-
ent uncertainty in any screening method—this approach was in-
cluded in the assessment of CPTu F01. However, although the use
of site- and material-specific data is appealing, care must be taken in
the applicability of a given CSL to CPTu probing locations. For ex-
ample, the CSL testing by the Panel was carried out on sandy tail-
ings sourced from remaining portions of the postfailure Fundão TSF
and processed to produce a gradation similar to the average in the
left abutment. This was required because the area where static lique-
faction triggering occurred was clearly not available for sampling.
This means that the CSL may not be directly applicable to any por-
tion of the CPTu F01 sounding.
© ASCE 04019088-5
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(11): 04019088
(b)
The sandy tailings used for the Panel CSL testing had a fines
content (FC) of 51%, whereas historic sampling of the TSF beach
indicated a range from about 35% to 75%. The potential effect of
such gradation variation is outlined in Fig. 5, which plots CSL
slopes of different gradations of tailings from the same TSF (and
hence geological origin and processing method) against FC (Fourie
and Papageorgiou 2001; Reid 2015b; Reid et al. 2019). In general,
for a tailings material from a single source, λ10 typically varies with
FC, with the least-compressible gradation of FC often in the range
of 50%–60%. The results of the Fundão Panel CSL testing are in-
cluded in Fig. 5. Comparison of the two data sets in Fig. 5 suggests
that the gradation tested by the Panel (FC 51%) was likely to be the
least-compressible material relevant to the sandy tailings beach
(i.e., CPTu F01–F05). Therefore, to account for the potential range
of λ10 in the sandy tailings suggested by Fig. 5, two λ10 values were
used in the analysis of CPTu F01 outlined here (1) λ10 ¼ 0.053,
based directly on CSL testing by Panel; and (2) λ10 ¼ 0.090, which
is the likely maximum plausible λ10 , assuming a FC of 35% based
on the range indicated in Fig. 5. As is discussed subsequently, the
use of the suggested maximum likely value of λ10 within the loose
zone may be supported based on observations of the probable
source of the loose material.
The results of the method proposed by Robertson (2010a),
the Plewes method (without site-specific considerations), and es-
timates with the range of λ10 values outlined previously for CPTu
F01 are presented in Fig. 6. Perhaps the most significant obser-
vation in Fig. 6 is the significant difference obtained between the
different approaches. Each of these methods would therefore re-
sult in quite different 80th percentile values of Ψ (Table 1). This
suggests that the application of a single screening method by the
Panel would result in considerable uncertainty in engineering
performance of the sandy fill when attempting to relate an in situ
characteristic state to the performance of a particular laboratory
test.
The loose zone noted previously was indicated by all the meth-
ods used. The inferred Ψ of this zone (þ0.05 to þ0.15) is looser
than typical for subaerially deposited sandy silts and silty sands,
and instead is comparable to a state more common from quiescent
pluviation (Shuttle and Cunning 2007; Reid and Jefferies 2017;
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 08/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Effect of gradation on CSL slope λ10 for some tailings.
Fig. 6. CPTu F01 various methods, with loose zone indicated.
Reid et al. 2018) or perhaps placement without compaction—
i.e., analogous to laboratory moist tamping, a sample preparation
method specifically designed to produce loose states. The loose
zone showed drained penetration (i.e., Bq ¼ 0) similar to the re-
mainder of the sandy tailings—i.e., the material did not appear
to be a siltier zone of tailings.
Some specific differences in the methods applied in Fig. 6, and
their potential relevance, particularly to the loose zone, warrant
further discussion
• The stress-normalization used in the Plewes method (and
site-specific variants) is based on an exponent (n) of 1 in the
© ASCE 04019088-6
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(11): 04019088
terminology of Robertson and Wride (1998). Assumption of
such a stress normalization exponent has been argued to provide
potentially significant effects when the normalization is used
at very high or low effective stresses (Robertson 2012b). This
potentially is of relevance to the loose zone, which was at a ver-
tical effective stress of about 340 kPa at the time of the CPTu
sounding. However, the exponent n within the loose zone was
calculated as 1 in this work, and as 0.7 for the entire saturation
portion of CPTu F01 above the loose zone, based on the calcu-
lation methods outlined by Zhang et al. (2002) and Robertson
(2009), thus suggesting that any effect of the implicit stress
normalization procedures of the Plewes method is likely to be
minimal.
• Any method taking a single λ10 input is implicitly assuming a
linear CSL in logarithmic mean effective stress versus void ratio
space. This is consistent with the era in which these methods
were developed, when the focus was often on the 50–500 kPa
range of mean effective stress (in which even CSLs with curva-
ture at high and low stresses are often reasonably approximated
as linear), and when the topic of the curvature of the CSL itself
had not been studied in as much detail—with much of this work
being conducted subsequently (e.g., Verdugo and Ishihara 1996).
Therefore, additional uncertainty in estimates of state is poten-
tially relevant if the CSL exhibits curvature. However, the Panel
CSL testing of the 51% FC sample exhibited negligible curva-
ture, suggesting that this factor likely was not a major considera-
tion for estimating Ψ here. However, the effects of curvature and
higher stresses on the potential brittleness of the loose zone iden-
tified are discussed subsequently in this paper.
• If it is relevant to both the loose zone and other materials, ap-
plication of an actually-measured λ10 is preferable to methods
using either I c;RW or Fr to infer compressibility. For example,
comparisons of soils before and after explosive compaction
works suggest that such densification results in changes to both
I c;RW and Fr (e.g., Robertson 2012a). This is not ideal to the
application of either I c;RW or Fr as a proxy of intrinsic compres-
sibility because explosive compaction, unless it resulted in grain
crushing, would not be expected to change the intrinsic com-
pressibility λ10 of a material.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 08/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Location of loose material at left abutment/CPTu F01 area: (a) October 2011; and (b) July 2015. (Map data from Google, DigitalGlobe.)

Regardless of the method selected and the inherent limitations
of screening methods, it is clear that there was a zone of signifi-
cantly looser material at about 23–25 m depth. Its source and
potential extent are investigated subsequently.
Cause/Source of Loose Material
The identification the zone loose material at CPTu F01, as pre-
sented previously, raises questions about the causes and extent of
such a loose zone, because it suggests a different deposition mecha-
nism. It also raises questions about the potential effect of this loose
zone on the triggering of static liquefaction—particularly because
the loose zone was coincident with the zone having the highest
stress ratios in the Panel’s numerical modeling. To assess the pos-
sible sources of the loose zone, historic satellite data imagery that
covered the CPTu F01 area obtained from Google Earth and the
images included in the Panel report were reviewed. Particular focus
was given to periods which, based on historic crest elevation data
presented by the Panel and adjacent topography elevations, were
likely to be relevant to the depths of 23–25 m—which at CPTu F01
represented an elevation of about 860.5–862.5 m.
The findings of this review are summarized in Fig. 7, which
presents imagery from early October 2011 and July 2015 that was
obtained from Google Earth. In the October 2011 image at the F01
location, there is an approximately 60 × 60-m zone of what appears
to be placed fill (i.e., not hydraulically deposited). This fill may
have been at least partially related to slimes control efforts, because
the location of the fill was directly adjacent to where slimes were
present, and the Panel report mentions that such features (sand dikes)
were used historically on the beach to inhibit the advance of slimes.
Indeed, the fill material appears to be preventing slimes from migrat-
ing closer to the embankment crest. Although the use of historical
satellite imagery to infer compaction effort is clearly speculative, it is
noted that in mining works, placement of fill for a temporary struc-
ture onto a tailings, ∼350 m from the embankment crest, would not

© ASCE 04019088-7 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(11): 04019088

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 08/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8. Left abutment schematic section, including inferred loose zone and zone of highest deformation-induced stress ratios. (Data from Morgenstern
et al. 2016; Riveros and Sadrekarimi 2017.)
typically involve significant compaction. Indeed, when placing and
advancing fill materials onto a beach, compaction is often imprac-
tical owing to the condition of the underlying tailings.
Supporting the hypothesis that the loose zone indicated by
CPTu F01 was a result of fill placement on the tailings beach in late
2011 are the elevations of nearby adjacent natural ground, which
were consistent with the elevation of the loose material at elevations
of 860.5–862.5 m in CPTu F01. Although the use of Google Earth
historic data to infer past elevation data is difficult because new
features on a TSF are generally not captured, elevation data ob-
tained from nearby natural features has been used to successfully
infer TSF development in the past (e.g., Reid and Fourie 2017).
In terms of the source of the loose material, this appears to be
borrow zones along the crest of the left abutment—excavation
works are present in that area in the Google Earth imagery for
2011, along with truck traffic between the two locations. This is
a logical fill source, because material nearest to the crest of TSF
is often the driest tailings available, and hence is easiest to excavate
and handle. Furthermore, the infrastructure to enable accessing
the beach to obtain material is most common in this part of a TSF
owing to ongoing wall raising activities. Importantly, although this
area of a TSF beach is often the driest, it is likely that the material
would retain appreciable moisture given the feasible drying/cycling
times and the rate of rise (RoR) relevant to the Fundão TSF. This
means that the moisture conditions of the fill won in this area may
closely resemble that used to prepare moist tamped specimens,
which, combined with minimal compaction, is likely to result in
a very loose state.
The probable borrow location also is likely to represent the
coarsest material on the TSF beach owing to segregation. This
is a relevant factor in assessing the likely in situ state of the loose
material. For example, referring back to Fig. 5, coarser material
than that used for the Panel’s CSL testing may have a more com-
pressible CSL with higher λ10. Therefore, the maximum likely λ10
plot in Fig. 6 could potentially provide the best estimate of the state
of the truck-placed fill.
A schematic section of the loose zone, based on the elevation
and thickness indicated by CPTu F01 and the dimensions measured
from Google Earth imagery, is provided as Fig. 8. This indicates the
loose material was directly within the zone of tailings estimated to
have the highest stress ratios in the Panel’s modeling.
The thickness of the loose zone used for illustration in Fig. 8
is about 2 m, baesd on the the CPTu F01 results. In contrast,
the batter lengths of the fill material [Fig. 7(a)] hypothesized to
have produced this loose zone ranged from above 4 to 8 m. Such
a batter length is longer than would be expected based on the thick-
ness inferred from CPTu F01, assuming typical construction slopes.
© ASCE 04019088-8
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(11): 04019088
However, closer inspection of the CPTu F01 location indicates that
it was located on one of the batters of the fill material, and hence
probably did not pass through the full thickness. This suggests that
the thickness of the loose material may have been greater than that
indicated by the CPTu F01 results. Given the RoR relevant through
much of the Fundão TSF history, it seems probable that such a fea-
ture would be constructed to a greater thickness than 2 m (as im-
plied by CPTu results), given how quickly such a depth would be
inundated by hydraulically deposited tailings. Indeed, there is evi-
dence in the aerial images presented by the Panel that the fill was
not inundated in March 2012. Given the RoR occurring at Fundão,
the fact that the loose fill was visible ∼6 months after October 2011
implies a thickness greater than 2 m.
Potential Effect of Loose Material on Static
Liquefaction Triggering
Although adopting a characteristic state is a means to account for
variability, and the 80th percentile value has support based on de-
tailed analyses of variable deposits (Popescu et al. 1997), it may not
sufficiently characterize behavior of a deposit if discrete looser
zones are located in a highly stressed area (Rowe and Craig 1976;
Jefferies and Been 2015). The loose material identified at CPTu
F01 was essentially at the location where triggering was inferred
in the Panel’s numerical modeling, with the highest deformation-
induced stress ratios.
To examine the potential implications of this looser zone on the
triggering of static liquefaction under drained conditions, a synthe-
sis of data is presented in Fig. 9(a) based on a presentation frame-
work used by Chu et al. (2003), in which ηIL is plotted against Ψ,
where ηIL is the stress condition at the initiation of significant plas-
tic volumetric strains in servocontrolled tests (e.g., Chu et al. 2003)
or of rapid collapse of the specimen in tests using weights for de-
viator load application. The Ψ values presented are those relevant
to the stress conditions and density at the initiation of instability
(i.e., either collapse of sample under weights or rapid increase in
volumetric strains). A similar form of comparison was previously
used by Imam et al. (2002) for organizing and analyzing the results
of CSD tests. The importance of soil behavior at or above the in-
stability limit on the stability of loose, saturated fills was discussed
in more detail with theoretical background by Been (2016), with
particular reference to drained stress paths.
The results summarized in Fig. 9(a) are the Panel tests carried
out on the Fundão sandy tailings along with Changi, Toyoura, and
Ottawa sands. The sources of the data used to develop this synthesis
are summarized in Table 2. The three sands used in addition to the
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 08/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 9. Comparison of laboratory instability ratios and results of Panel modelling stress ratio target, 80th percentile inferred state, and the inferred
state of the loose zone at CPTu F01: (a) CSD and LE drained tests; and (b) including both drained and undrained tests.

Table 2. Data sources used to provide Ψ − ηIL relationships for other
sands
Material Data source
Toyuora Verdugo and Ishihara (1996) and Dong et al. (2016)
Ottawa Sasitharan et al. (1993), Sasitharan (1994), Skopek
(1994), and Skopek et al. (1994)
Changi Chu et al. (2003), Wanatowski and Chu (2007), and
Chu et al. (2015)
Panel Fundão data were selected because each included both CSD
testing and determination of the sand’s CSL, therefore enabling
plotting of the initiation of instability values in terms of Ψ. Along
with this laboratory-based data, to provide further insight into the
potential for liquefaction triggering at Fundão, because of the
identified loose zone, Fig. 9(a) also includes the following addi-
tional information: (1) the 80th percentile Ψ inferred by the Panel,
likely based on Robertson (2010a) as discussed previously; (2) the
range of states likely for the zone of loose material developed as
part of this work; (3) the stress ratio achieved in the Panel base-case
numerical deformation model of the left abutment; and (4) the
stress ratio of 1.33 that was selected as the target for triggering by
the Panel based on laboratory tests at a Ψ value corresponding to
the 80th percentile state from their CPTu interpretation.
The results outlined in Fig. 9(a) point toward the much lower
stress ratios required to trigger static liquefaction for sandy materi-
als at values of Ψ in the range of the loose zone identified at CPTu
F01 at the left abutment. However, because the available Fundão
data for drained triggering tests did not extend to such loose states,
to provide further context to the effect of Ψ on ηIL for looser

© ASCE 04019088-9 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(11): 04019088

 samples, additional data were obtained from undrained testing on
the same materials and are plotted with the drained test data in
Fig. 9(b). In the undrained tests, ηIL was selected as the stress ratio
at the peak during undrained shearing of loose samples (Chu et al.
2003; Jefferies and Been 2015). In this particular form, ηIL repre-
sents the same value as the flow instability line proposed by Yang
(2002). However, the instability line ηIL , representing the sudden
onset of increasing plastic strains, is a more fundamental descrip-
tion of this condition (Been 2016), and the initiation of instability
can occur through either drained or undrained loading paths.
The synthesis in Fig. 9(b) shows similar trends between the val-
ues obtained from drained and undrained tests for each particular
material when both were available at the same approximate state.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 08/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
However, the trends for each sand were different. Part of this may
be a result of the different critical stress ratio for each material—nIL
was normalized by M tc in some cases to develop a single trend
across different materials (e.g., Been 2016). However, in this case,
for loose samples the Changi and Fundao tests indicated different
magnitudes of nIL at a given state, despite the very similar values of
M tc for the two materials—1.35 and 1.33, respectively. The differ-
ence between the two soils at looser states, despite the same M tc , is
generally consistent with the outcome of numerical parametric
analyses by Jefferies and Been (2015), who showed how ηIL is
significantly affected by soil properties other than Ψ—particularly
the relationship between plastic and elastic modulus, which
clearly could be different for Changi sand and the Fundão sandy
tailings.
Regardless of the slight differences in the trends of the soils in
Fig. 9, the synthesis presented clearly demonstrates how the looser
zone of sandy material at CPTu F01 was much more susceptible to
the triggering of static liquefaction compared with the inferred 80th
percentile characteristic state for the overall sandy tailings. It is rel-
evant to this discussion that the likely range of instability stress
ratios present in the loose zone was similar to that obtained by
the Panel numerical modeling in their initial base-case runs—
i.e., before application of strain softening to underlying slimes ma-
terials. This suggests that much less strength reduction within the
slimes layer was necessary to trigger static liquefaction. This is im-
portant, because a significant amount of postpeak strength loss in
the slimes was required in the Panel’s modeling to produce stress
states in the sandy tailings that would indicate triggering if the stress
ratio criterion was based on laboratory samples with a state similar
to the in situ 80th percentile value. The magnitude of strain soften-
ing that was required to achieve this triggering stress ratio was not
confirmed by means of direct implementation of a strain-softening
model (at least in the Panel report), and instead relied on an assumed
postpeak strength reduction in the slimes—with the magnitude of
strength reduction itself used as a variable to assess which potential
conditions would have led to triggering.
Although the looser layer identified could clearly undergo trig-
gering at lower stress ratios than the overall sandy tailings mass, the
potential for this to affect actual field-scale triggering was also likely
dependent somewhat on 3D effects. For example, along the direc-
tion of the left abutment crest, the loose zone was approximately
60 m wide. This compares with an overall crest length of the left
abutment of about 230 m. This ratio of loose zone to overall slope
length likely reduced the effect of the loose zone, and resulted in
triggering occurring somewhere between the relevant stress ratios
for the loose zone and the remaining fill. However, static liquefac-
tion triggering analyses have rarely included three dimensional ef-
fects, and there is therefore some uncertainty about how issues of
brittle strength loss and stress redistribution from a loose zone to
adjacent denser areas would manifest and/or be accounted for in
a three-dimensional context.
© ASCE 04019088-10
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(11): 04019088
The presence of this loose zone would be relevant to the poten-
tial for static liquefaction to trigger under either a deformation-
based stress ratio increase as indicated by the Panel, or based on
analyses outlined by Riveros and Sadrekarimi (2017) based on the
method of Sadrekarimi (2016). In either case, initial triggering in
the loose zone would potentially cause brittle stress redistribution to
adjacent layers and lead to earlier triggering than an analysis of the
entire sandy tailings mass based on an 80th percentile Ψ or 70th
percentile tip resistance would imply. Indeed, the method of
Sadrekarimi (2016) includes methods to attempt to account for brit-
tle stress redistribution within the limitations of a LE framework.
Assessment of High Stress Effects on Loose Zone
Two additional aspects of the loose zone required assessment: the
change in vertical effective stress between the time of probing and
subsequent failure, and the relatively high stresses acting on the
loose zone (compared with most static liquefaction failures) at
initiation failure.
During probing, the loose zone was under a vertical effective
stress of approximately 340 kPa, which increased to perhaps
∼600 kPa by the time failure occurred—the significant increase
over a period of only 9 months was a result of the very high RoR
of the Fundao TSF. A change in vertical effective stress could result
in a change of Ψ if the normal consolidation line (NCL) and CSL
for the sandy tailings in the loose zone were not parallel. Exami-
nation of the Panel’s oedometer testing indicates a slope (λ10 ) of
∼0.065 from σV0 of 100–1,000 kPa, a slightly more compressible
slope than the CSL (λ10 ¼ 0.055). However, this slightly more
compressible NCL implies a decrease in Ψ of perhaps 0.015 across
this stress change. This value is less than the inherent uncertainty,
for example, in any of the methods used previously to infer Ψ. Fur-
thermore, an increase in stress between the time at which CPTu F01
was carried out and failure would similarly affect the sand fill in its
entirety. As such, the loose zone identified would remain the loos-
est zone of the fill, even if the value of Ψ decreased slightly overall.
In addition to potential changes to state, the magnitude of ver-
tical effective stress acting on the loose zone—if it is to be consid-
ered a candidate for the initiation of static liquefaction—requires
consideration. In particular, the vast majority of historic static lique-
faction events were under much lower vertical effective stresses
when triggered (e.g., Robertson 2017). As noted previously, the
loose zone that was probed by CPTu F01 was under a likely vertical
effective stress of ∼600 kPa at the time of failure. Other inferred
areas of the loose zone directly below the crest may have been under
vertical effective stresses as high as 675 kPa at failure, owing to
lower phreatic surface below the crest. Robertson (2017) discussed
the reduction in brittleness of some soils and tailings with increasing
effective stresses that results from curvature of the CSL in semilog-
arithmic space. When such curvature is present, two soils at the
same initial state (Ψ0 ) but different mean effective stresses will ex-
perience different magnitudes of effective stress reduction when
sheared undrained. In such a scenario, the higher stress test is less
brittle owing to less effective stress reduction as it tends toward the
CSL. On the basis of this observation, it was suggested that the soil
state description of p00 =pcs
0 has potential improvements with respect
to inferring brittleness and undrained shearing behavior.
With respect to the Fundão sandy tailings, the CSL fit used by
the Panel was linear in semilogarithmic space. However, because of
the scatter seen in the inferred critical states for the Panel testing,
the inferred fit was not necessarily evidence in itself of a lack of
curvature. Arguably more importantly in this context, isotropic and
anisotropic triaxial specimens prepared by the Panel at loose states
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Table 3. Panel loose, undrained triaxial test summary
Consolidated
conditions Shear behavior
Peak Instability Final
Panel strength, stress ratio, strength,
test ID pc0 ec Ψ su =pc0 ηIL sr =pc0
TX 2 200 0.838 0.100 0.17 0.57 0 duce stress ratios consistent with triggering, based on the inferred
TX 4 600 0.796 0.085 0.19 0.60 0
TX 6 300 0.804 0.076 0.19 0.63 0
TX 25 400 0.790 0.069 0.41 0.81 0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 08/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(ψ ¼ 0.069–0.100) at mean effective stresses of 200, 300, 400, and
600 kPa each exhibited liquefaction during shear, i.e. with shear-
induced pore pressures approaching the initial effective confining
stress and the sample thus exhibiting essentially zero strength.
These tests are summarized in Table 3. This suggests that there is
no intrinsic reason, at least for the Fundão sandy tailings, why static
liquefaction could not initiate or occur at stresses up to at least
p 0 ¼ 600 kPa, which is greater than the range of conceivable mean
effective stresses in the loose zone at the time of failure.
Although static liquefaction case histories are generally trig-
gered by material under relatively low vertical effective stresses,
the Fort Peck failure is a potential outlier of this trend. For exam-
ple, some analyses of the liquefied zone suggested relatively high
vertical effective stresses of ∼520 kPa (Stark and Mesri 1992) or
400–530 kPa (Jefferies and Been 2015), whereas others indicated
∼350 kPa (Olson and Stark 2002). Arguably, the relatively large
zone of liquefaction for Fort Peck, which covered a wide range
of vertical effective stresses, makes it difficult to identify where
triggering occurred. However, because of the likely deformation-
induced triggering at Fort Peck—similar to that indicated at Fundão
by the Panel—the Fundão Panel’s numerical modeling indicating
the highest deformation-induced stress ratios directly above the
slimes may provide insight to Fort Peck. The zone identified by
the Panel’s modelling was upstream of the slope itself, and there-
fore in an area of relatively high vertical effective stresses, as noted
previously. This implies that deformation-induced triggering may
well have a propensity to occur under the deepest portion of a de-
posit when it overlies a softer material that is undergoing undrained
failure and/or deformation. The Panel’s numerical modeling repre-
sents the most detailed available analysis of the stress conditions
leading to deformation-induced static liquefaction. Such informa-
tion was not available to previous workers attempting to assess
which portion of the Fort Peck fill initiated static liquefaction.
Conclusion
The publicly available CPTu data preceding the Fundão TSF fail-
ure, which were provided in the Panel reports, were digitized and
interpreted to provide estimates of the state parameter using three
screening-level methods and potential refinements based on the
laboratory-measured CSL of a similar material. These assisted in
clarifying that the Panel likely used the method of Robertson
(2010a) to develop their characteristic state value for input into
numerical models of the failure.
A zone of particularly loose material was identified located be-
low the left abutment. A review of historical imagery suggested that
this loose material was a result of placement of trucked sandy fill to
that portion of the TSF beach, probably to form a temporary con-
tainment structure for slimes tailings. Owing to the subsequent
development of the left abutment, this loose zone eventually was
© ASCE 04019088-11
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(11): 04019088
located in a zone where the highest stress ratios were present, based
on the Panel’s deformation modeling. The state of this loose zone
was such that it would be much more susceptible to static liquefac-
tion triggering than the overall mass of sandy tailings. The Panel’s
numerical modeling suggests that static liquefaction triggering
would have occurred in this loose zone with much less strain soft-
ening of the slimes than was required in the Panel modeling to pro-
80th percentile state of the sandy tailings.
Data Availability Statement
The CPTu data that were digitized and interpreted as part of
this work are available at https://drive.google.com/drive/folders
/1mwVP3Bvp8H7XKQURa56CToyNieK35XDN?usp=sharing.
Acknowledgments
The author acknowledges the constructive feedback of Riccardo
Fanni.
References
AECOM (Architecture, Engineering, Consulting, Operations, and Mainte-
nance). 2009. Root cause analysis of TVA Kingston dredge pond failure
on December 22, 2008. Vernon Hills, IL: AECOM.
Been, K. 2016. “Characterizing mine tailings for geotechnical design.”
In Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Charac-
terisation, edited by A. McConnell, R. Kelly, and B. M. Lehane.
Sydney, Australia: Australian Geomechanics Society.
Been, K., and M. G. Jefferies. 1985. “A state parameter for sands.” Géo-
technique 35 (2): 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1985.35.2.99.
Been, K., and M. G. Jefferies. 1992. “Towards systematic CPT interpreta-
tion.” In Proc., Predictive Soil Mechanics: The Wroth Memorial Symp.,
121–134. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Been, K., M. G. Jefferies, J. H. A. Crooks, and L. Rothenburg. 1987.
“The cone penetration test in sands. Part II: General inference of state.”
Géotechnique 37 (3): 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1987.37
.3.285.
Casagrande, A. 1965. “Role of the ‘calculated risk’ in earthwork and foun-
dation engineering.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 91 (4): 1–40.
Chu, J., S. Leroueil, and W. K. Leong. 2003. “Unstable behaviour of
sand and its implication for slope instability.” Can. Geotech. J. 40 (5):
873–885. https://doi.org/10.1139/t03-039.
Chu, J., D. Wanatowski, W. K. Leong, W. L. Loke, and J. He. 2015.
“Instability of dilative sand.” Geotech. Res. 2 (1): 35–48. https://doi
.org/10.1680/gr.14.00015.
Davies, M. P., E. C. McRoberts, and T. E. Martin. 2002. “Static liquefaction
of tailings: Fundamentals and case histories.” In Proc., Joint ASDSO/
USSD Specialty Conf. on Tailings Dam 2002, 233–255. Westminster,
CO: United States Society on Dams.
Dong, Q., C. Xu, Y. Cai, H. Juang, J. Wang, Z. Yang, and C. Gu. 2016.
“Drained instability in loose granular material.” Int. J. Geomech. 16 (2):
04015043. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000524.
Fourie, A. B., and G. Papageorgiou. 2001. “Defining an appropriate steady
state line for Merriespruit gold tailings.” Can. Geotech. J. 38 (4):
695–706. https://doi.org/10.1139/t00-111.
Hicks, M. A., and R. Boughrarou. 1998. “Finite element analysis of the
Nerlerk underwater berm failures.” Géotechnique 48 (2): 169–185.
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1998.48.2.169.
Imam, S. M. R., N. R. Morgenstern, P. K. Robertson, and D. H. Chan. 2002.
“Yielding and flow liquefaction of loose sand.” Soils Found. 42 (3):
19–31. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.42.3_19.
Jefferies, M. 2016. “Editorial.” Geotech. Res. 3 (3): 65–66. https://doi.org
/10.1680/jgere.2016.3.3.65.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Jefferies, M. G. 1993. “Nor-Sand: A simple critical state model for sand.”
Géotechnique 43 (1): 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1993.43
.1.91.
Jefferies, M. G., and K. Been. 2015. Soil liquefaction: A critical state
approach. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Morgenstern, N. R., S. G. Vick, C. B. Viotti, and B. D. Watts. 2016. Fundão
tailings dam review panel: Report in the immediate causes of the failure
of the Fundão Dam. New York: Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP.
Olson, S. M., and T. D. Stark. 2002. “Liquefied strength ratio from lique-
faction flow failure case histories.” Can. Geotech. J. 39 (3): 629–647.
https://doi.org/10.1139/t02-001.
Olson, S. M., and T. D. Stark. 2003. “Yield strength ratio and liquefaction
analysis of slopes and embankments.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
129 (8): 727–737. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 08/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
129:8(727).
Plewes, H. D., M. P. Davies, and M. G. Jefferies. 1992. “CPT based
screening procedure for evaluation liquefaction susceptibility.” In
Proc., 45th Canadian Geotechnical Conf., 41–49. Toronto: Canadian
Geotechnical Society.
Popescu, R., J. H. Prevost, and G. Deodatis. 1997. “Effects of spatial vari-
ability on soil liquefaction: Some design recommendations.” Géotech-
nique 47 (5): 1019–1036. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1997.47.5.1019.
Reid, D. 2015a. “Estimating slope of critical state line from cone penetra-
tion test: An update.” Can. Geotech. J. 52 (1): 46–57. https://doi.org/10
.1139/cgj-2014-0068.
Reid, D. 2015b. “Observations on the behaviour of a gold tailings with
hypersaline pore fluid.” In Tailings and mine waste management for
the 21st century, edited by F. R. Nejad, 191–200. Sydney, Australia:
AUSIMM.
Reid, D., R. Fanni, K. Koh, and I. Orea. 2018. “Characterisation of a
subaqueously deposited silt iron ore tailings.” Géotech. Lett. 8 (4):
278–283. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgele.18.00105.
Reid, D., and A. B. Fourie. 2017. “Back analyses of the August 2016
Luoyang red mud tailings facility failure.” In Proc., Tailing and Mine
Waste 2017. Edmonton, Canada: Univ. of Alberta Geotechnical Center.
Reid, D., A. B. Fourie, and S. Moggach. 2019. “Characterization of a gold
tailings with hypersaline pore fluid.” Can. Geotech. J. https://doi.org/10
.1139/cgj-2018-0579.
Reid, D., and M. Jefferies. 2017. “State parameter as a geological principle
in tailings.” In Proc., Tailings and Mine Waste 2017. Edmonton,
Canada: Univ. of Alberta Geotechnical Centre.
Riveros, G., and A. Sadrekarimi. 2017. “Static liquefaction analysis of the
Fundao Dam failure.” In Proc., 70th Canadian Geotechnical Conf.
GeoOttawa 2017. Ottawa: Canadian Geotechnical Society.
Robertson, P. K., et al. 2000. “The CANLEX project: Summary and con-
clusions.” Can. Geotech. J. 37 (3): 563–591. https://doi.org/10.1139/t00
-046.
Robertson, P. K. 2009. “Interpretation of cone penetration tests: A unified
approach.” Can. Geotech. J. 46 (11): 1337–1355. https://doi.org/10
.1139/T09-065.
Robertson, P. K. 2010a. “Estimating in-situ state parameter and friction
angle in sandy soils from the CPT.” In Proc., 2nd Int. Symp. on Cone
Penetration Testing. Huntington Beach, CA.
Robertson, P. K. 2010b. “Evaluation of flow liquefaction and liquefied
strength using the cone penetration test.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng. 136 (6): 842–853. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606
.0000286.
© ASCE 04019088-12
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(11): 04019088
Robertson, P. K. 2012a. “Evaluating flow (static) liquefaction using the
CPT: An update.” In Proc., 16th Int. Conf. on Tailings and Mine Waste.
Keystone, CO: Information Technology, Creative Media, Univ. of
British Columbia.
Robertson, P. K. 2012b. “Mitchell Lecture: Interpretation of in-situ tests—
Some insights.” In Geotechnical and geophysical site characterization 4,
edited by R. Coutinho and P. W. Mayne, 3–24. Pernambuco, Brazil:
CRC Press.
Robertson, P. K. 2017. “Evaluation of flow liquefaction: Influence of high
stresses.” In Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. on Performance-based design in
Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering (PBD-III). Vancouver, Canada.
Robertson, P. K., and R. G. Campanella. 1983. “Interpretation of cone
penetration tests. Part I: Sand.” Can. Geotech. J. 20 (4): 718–733.
https://doi.org/10.1139/t83-078.
Robertson, P. K., and C. E. Wride. 1998. “Evaluating cyclic liquefaction
potential using the cone penetration test.” Can. Geotech. J. 35 (3):
442–459. https://doi.org/10.1139/t98-017.
Rowe, P. W., and W. H. Craig. 1976. “Studies of offshore caissons founded
on Oosterschelde sand.” In Design and construction of offshore struc-
tures, edited by J. P. Blanc, and M. Monro, 49–55. London: Institute of
Civil Engineers.
Sadrekarimi, A. 2014. “Effect of the mode of shear on static liquefaction
analysis.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 140 (12): 04014069. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001182.
Sadrekarimi, A. 2016. “Static liquefaction analysis considering principal
stress directions and anisotropy.” Geotech. Geol. Eng. 34 (4): 1135–
1154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-016-0033-7.
Sasitharan, S. 1994. “Collapse behavior of very loose sand.” Ph.D. thesis,
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Alberta.
Sasitharan, S., P. K. Robertson, D. C. Sego, and N. R. Morgenstern. 1993.
“Collapse behavior of sand.” Can. Geotech. J. 30 (4): 569–577. https://
doi.org/10.1139/t93-049.
Shuttle, D. A., and J. Cunning. 2007. “Liquefaction potential of silts from
CPTu.” Can. Geotech. J. 44 (1): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1139/t06-086.
Skopek, P. 1994. “Collapse behavior of very loose dry sand.” Ph.D. thesis,
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Alberta.
Skopek, P., N. R. Morgenstern, P. K. Robertson, and D. C. Sego. 1994.
“Collapse of dry sand.” Can. Geotech. J. 31 (6): 1008–1014. https://doi
.org/10.1139/t94-115.
Smith, E. S. 1969. “Tailings disposal and liquefaction.” Trans. Soc. Min.
Eng. AIME 244: 179–187.
Stark, T. D., and G. Mesri. 1992. “Undrained shear strength of liquefied
sands for stability analysis.” J. Geotech. Eng. 118 (11): 1727–1747.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1992)118:11(1727).
Verdugo, R., and K. Ishihara. 1996. “The steady state of sandy soils.” Soils
Found. 36 (2): 81–91. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.36.2_81.
Wanatowski, D., and J. Chu. 2007. “Static liquefaction of sand in plane
strain.” Can. Geotech. J. 44 (3): 299–313. https://doi.org/10.1139/t06
-078.
Yang, J. 2002. “Non-uniqueness of flow liquefaction line for loose sand.”
Géotechnique 52 (10): 757–760. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2002.52
.10.757.
Zhang, G., P. K. Robertson, and R. W. I. Brachman. 2002. “Estimating
liquefaction-induced ground settlements from CPT for level ground.”
Can. Geotech. J. 39 (5): 1168–1180. https://doi.org/10.1139/t02-047.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.