Physics-Based Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Tailing Dams/ Embankments Using Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics (

National Workshop on "Tailing Dam Safety"
October 12 - 13, 2023
Physics-based seismic vulnerability assessment of tailing

dams/ embankments using smooth particle hydrodynamics
(Site-specific, failure mechanism, run-out, plastic strains, fragility analyses, and reliability analyses)
Ritesh Kumar
Assistant Professor, Department of Earthquake Engineering, IIT Roorkee, India
OUTLINE
Physics-based seismic vulnerability assessment of tailing dams/ embankments using smooth
particle hydrodynamics
 Introduction
 A novel numerical modeling scheme
 Site-specific ground response analysis
 Mapping of failure mechanism
 Fragility analyses
 Risk and reliability analyses
National Workshop on "Tailing Dam Safety", 12th - 13th October 2023 : : Prof. Ritesh Kumar : : IIT Roorkee 2
INTRODUCTION
Tailings are finely ground muddy or sandy mine wastes left behind after the valuable metals and
minerals have been extracted from the ore. Industrial-scale mining generates billions of tons of
tailings waste every year worldwide.
Source: minings.com
INTRODUCTION
Mine tailings can also create extensive damage when the dams that hold them in place fail and
release a powerful wave of waste and contaminated water that destroys communities and
ecosystems.
Some famous tailings dam failures

• 2010- Aluminium sludge spill at the Ajka
mine, Hungary
• 2012- Philex Padcal, Philippines
• 2014- Mount Polley mine, Canada
• 2015- Bento Rodrigues tailings dam
• 2018- Cadia mine, Australia
• 2019- Córrego do Feijão iron ore mine,
Brazil (230 people died)
Tailings flow cutting through farms and residential areas.
Photo by Reuters/Washington Alves
Source: minings.com
INTRODUCTION
Mine tailings can also create extensive damage when the dams that hold them in place fail and
release a powerful wave of waste and contaminated water that destroys communities and
ecosystems.
“On Tuesday afternoon, the boundary wall of the

caustic pond created by Hindalco Ltd to dispose of
red mud recovered in the process of extracting
aluminum collapsed thus leading to a landslide like
situation in Muri near the railway tracks. “As an
impact of the boundary breach, a few dumpers, earth
movers and tractors which were parked in the area
were buried in the mudslide.”
Source: AGU Blogsphere
INTRODUCTION
https://www.reuters.com/graphics/MINING-TAILINGS1/0100B4S72K1/index.html
SPH SCHEME
Initiation point
kernel function
CONFIDENTIAL
i
r h
Modeling of Daguangbao Rishiganga terrain
Landslide of China
smoothing length 𝒇𝒇 𝒙𝒙 = � 𝒇𝒇 𝒙𝒙′ 𝑾𝑾 𝒙𝒙 − 𝒙𝒙′ , 𝒉𝒉 𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅

𝜴𝜴
Support domain of SPH particle i
A general framework for modeling of large Numerical modeling of debris flows using
deformations and validation SPH
FAILURE MECHANICS
ZONES OF MAX. PLASTIC STRAIN

FAILURE INITIATION
SLIP SURFACE Seismic shaking direction
CAPTURING RUN-OUT Seismic Hazard
Many damages reported from

Bhuj Earthquake
Wenchuan Earthquake
Failure mechanics Tohoku Earthquake
NUMERICAL MDOEL
Embankment (Well graded sand with fines):
Embankment design and Numerical Modeling
Soil property Value adopted
Dry density (t/m3) 1.72
Elastic Modulus (kPa) 25e3
Cohesion (kPa) 10
Friction angle (⁰) 36
Poisson’s ratio 0.35
CONFIDENTIAL
Foundation (Silty sand):
Soil property Value adopted

Dry density (t/m3) 1.8
Elastic Modulus (kPa) 50e3
Cohesion (kPa) 5.0
Friction angle (⁰) 38
Poisson’s ratio 0.35
NUMERICAL MDOEL
Ground response analysis is vital for assessing seismic hazards and establishing site-
specific design criteria considering local soil conditions and the expected ground
motions.
 Ground response analysis is used to predict site natural periods
 Assess ground motion amplification
 Provides ground motions for development of design response spectra
 Evaluate potential for liquefaction
 Determine the forces induced due to an earthquake which can lead to
instability of dams and earth slopes
NUMERICAL MDOEL
1985 Mexico City Earthquake
METHODOLOGY
Magnit
Tag Earthquake Station Year PGA (g)
ude
Site-specific Ground Response Analysis
GM 1 Kern County Taft Lincoln School 1952 7.36 0.15
2.5 Northern
GM 1 - GM 11
GM 2 Ferndale City Hall 1954 6.5 0.16
California
Mean ±σ
GM 3 San Fernando LA- Hollywood Stor FF 1971 6.61 0.22
Peak spectral acceleration (PSA)/g
2.0 Arithmetic mean PSA/g

Type 2 ( IS 1893) Cholame Shandon Array
CONFIDENTIAL
GM 4 Parkfield 1966 6.19 0.25
#8
1.5 GM 5 Fruili, Italy-02 Forgaria Cornino 1976 5.91 0.26
Imperial
GM 6 Calexico Fire Station 1979 6.53 0.28
1.0 Valley
GM 7 San Fernando Castaic- Old Ridge Route 1971 6.61 0.32
0.5 GM 8 Parkfield Temblor pre-1969 1966 6.19 0.35
GM 9 Friuli, Italy-01 Tolmezzo 1976 6.5 0.36

0.0 Imperial
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 GM 10 El Centro Array #11 1979 6.53 0.37
Valley
Time period (s)
GM 11 San Fernando Lake Hughes #12 1971 6.61 0.38
METHODOLOGY
Site-specific Ground Response Analysis

1.00
GM1-11
E1
E2
0.75 E3
CONFIDENTIAL
F1
F2
Median PSA/g
F3
0.50 F4
F5
0.25
0.00
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2
Time period (s)
VALIDATION
SPH-based numerical modelling

validation of the numerical model
CONFIDENTIAL
Computational domain
RESULTS & DISCUSSION
CONFIDENTIAL
Imperial Valley ground motion
recorded at Calexico fire station (1979)
CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
8 1.6
Δmax= 1.568 m
Max. vertical displacement (m)

εmax = 7.3
6 1.2
Max. plastic strain
Before simulation
4 0.8 r2 = 0.123
2 r2 = 0.136 0.4
εmin = 0.36 Δmin= 0.26 m
CONFIDENTIAL
0 0.0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
PGA (g) of input ground motions
CONFIDENTIAL
HAZARD DAMAGE
FRAGILITY
Permanent vertical ground displacement CURVE
Damage level
(m)
exceedance of a DL
(DL)
Min. Max. Adopted Serviceability
Probability of
DL1 Minor 0.01 0.05 0.05 Open, low speed
DL2 Moderate 0.05 0.1 0.1 Closed, repair
Closed,
DL3 Extensive 0.1 0.3 0.2 Hazard intensity
reconstruction
CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
Deterministic values adopted for analysis
Component Vs30 (m/s)
• Soil variability is implemented with Embankment 300

stochastic realizations around the mean Foundation 180
value of shear wave velocity (Vs30) of the
embankment and the foundation.
• Shear modulus is determined based on 80 (a) Deterministic (0.326 m) 80 (b) Deterministic (0.9)
shear wave velocity using,
CONFIDENTIAL
60 60 Fitted curve
Probability (%)
Fitted curve
G = ρVs2 40 40
20 20
• Shear modulus (G) values based on Vs30 is
found between 13.8E7 kPa to 17E7 kPa for 0 0
the embankment and 55.7E6 kPa to 68.6E6
kPa for the foundation. -1 0 1 2 3 0 4 8 12
Deviation in PVD (m) Deviation in plastic strain
(a) (b) GM1-GM11
100
Envelope
80 +ve side
-ve side
Probability (%)
• Graphs showing high deviation on positive 60
sides for both. Plastic strain and vertical 40

displacement, with a high degree of
CONFIDENTIAL
confidence. 20
• The possibility of these values being 0

greater than the deterministic value is pretty -1.40 -1.05 -0.70 -0.35 0.000.0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4
high. Region of anomaly Deviation in PVD (m)
• Importance of carrying out stochastic 100

(c) (d)
analysis for better engineering judgment.
+ve side
80 -ve side
Probability (%)
60
40
20
0
-6.0 -4.5 -3.0 -1.5 0.0 0 5 10 15 20
Deviation in plastic strain
THANK YOU
Objective 3 : : Research progress seminar : : Nadia Mubarak : : October 06, 2023 25

Physics-Based Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Tailing Dams/ Embankments Using Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics (

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Physics-Based Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Tailing Dams/ Embankments Using Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics (

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Workshop on "Tailing Dam Safety"

October 12 - 13, 2023

Physics-based seismic vulnerability assessment of tailing

Some famous tailings dam failures

“On Tuesday afternoon, the boundary wall of the

Source: AGU Blogsphere

smoothing length 𝒇𝒇 𝒙𝒙 = � 𝒇𝒇 𝒙𝒙′ 𝑾𝑾 𝒙𝒙 − 𝒙𝒙′ , 𝒉𝒉 𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅

Support domain of SPH particle i

ZONES OF MAX. PLASTIC STRAIN

SLIP SURFACE Seismic shaking direction

CAPTURING RUN-OUT Seismic Hazard

Many damages reported from

Soil property Value adopted

1985 Mexico City Earthquake

2.0 Arithmetic mean PSA/g

GM 9 Friuli, Italy-01 Tolmezzo 1976 6.5 0.36

Site-specific Ground Response Analysis

SPH-based numerical modelling

Max. vertical displacement (m)

εmin = 0.36 Δmin= 0.26 m

Component Vs30 (m/s)

• Soil variability is implemented with Embankment 300

sides for both. Plastic strain and vertical 40

• The possibility of these values being 0

high. Region of anomaly Deviation in PVD (m)

• Importance of carrying out stochastic 100

Objective 3 : : Research progress seminar : : Nadia Mubarak : : October 06, 2023 25

You might also like