TAILLIQ Slope Stability Round Robin

The University of Western Australia

Prepared by David Reid

Introduction

This document outlines a “Slope Stability Round Robin”, the purpose of which is to assess
how much variability exists across the industry in the methods used, and results obtained, in
the task of assessing when a hypothetical tailings storage facility (TSF) will fail. The purpose
of this exercise is not to estimate if and when the hypothetical slope in question should
have been buttressed, or other more general questions that could be asked related to the
slope. The only purpose of the exercise is to assess when failure will occur.

Situation being analysed

A closed TSF has a phreatic surface that is generally at a significant depth. The TSF has been
closed with the current phreatic surface for a period of years. Owing to outside factors, it is
expected that this phreatic surface is going to rise, and predictions as to the geometry of the
phreatic surface as it rises are available. A limited quantity of in situ and laboratory test
data for the TSF are also available. Participants are tasked with estimating, with the
available information, when the given TSF will fail. This is to be a deterministic result – as in
a single “best guess” is to be submitted by each participant.

There are two scenarios in this exercise that can be analysed by participants. Participants
can make a submission for one or both of the scenarios. For each scenario the geometry
and the phreatic conditions are identical. The only variation is in the tailings in situ and
laboratory data.

Geometry and phreatic evolution

The geometry of the problem is outlined below in Figure 1. This is provided both as a DXF
file for direct use by participants and as X-Y coordinates in a spreadsheet. The location of
piezocone penetration test (CPTu) locations is also provided in both formats. The
hypothetical TSF is 50m high, with a single bench on the outer slope. Participants are to
assume that the embankment crest length is sufficient such that the problem can be
satisfactorily analysed in a 2D framework – in other words, this is a plane strain problem.
Figure 1: Geometry of the hypothetical TSF and initial phreatic surface definition

Figure 2: Geometry of the hypothetical TSF and final phreatic surface definition

The predicted change to the phreatic surface over time to is indicated schematically in
Figures 1 and 2. The phreatic surface location below the slope (at X=230) will not change,
only an increase in the slope of the phreatic surface “inside” this location.

The initial phreatic surface level at the left side of the model is at Y=25m on the X=0 axis. It
will then, for the purposes of this exercise, rise until it reaches a (projected) level of Y=77m
on the X=0 axis. The initial phreatic surface is shown in Figure 1, with the final configuration
in Figure 2. It is the job of participants to identify when the slope would fail, with the
phreatic level at the X=0 axis forming the simplest descriptor of when this occurs.
Alternatively, if the participant is of the view that the slope will be stable at all times up to
the final phreatic level outlined, that is an acceptable submission answer as well (i.e. “will
not fail”).

It is noted that the phreatic surface evolution described will result eventually in portions of
the phreatic surface extending above the top surface (Y=50) of the TSF – e.g. as shown in
Figure 2. Where this occurs, it is to be assumed that in areas where the phreatic surface is
higher than the TSF surface, a pore pressure of 0 is present at the TSF surface, with a
hydrostatic pore pressure profile below the surface, as indicated in Figure 2.

Finally, it is emphasised that the hydrostatic pore pressure profile below the phreatic
surface to be assumed by participants as the phreatic surface rises does not incorporate any
potential shear-induced pore pressures, should they occur. Should participants be of the
view that such shear-induced pore pressures will be generated they are to account for the
potential generation of such pore pressures in the manner the participant sees as being
most appropriate.

Assumptions to be adopted by all participants

Clearly, a part of this exercise is to assess what assumptions are made by participants, given
the limited information available. However, to enable a clear comparison between entries,
a few key assumptions are to be made by all participants:

- The pore pressure conditions below the phreatic surface are to be assumed to be
hydrostatic, with an increase in pore pressure of 9.81 kPa per metre below the
phreatic surface. In others words, regardless of how steep the phreatic surface has
become, no calculation of equipotential lines or seepage profile below the phreatic
surface is to be made other than an assumption of 9.81 kPa pore pressure increase
per metre of depth. It is acknowledged that under phreatic surfaces with steep
gradients this assumption becomes questionable. However, this assumption it will
enable a more practical comparison of different entries.
- For the purposes of the exercise, no seismic activity or mine blasting of any kind will
occur over the period being considered near the TSF.
- The dissolved solids of the TSF pore fluid are sufficiently low that a Specific Gravity of
deionised water can be assumed.
- The foundation soils are extremely stiff in comparison to the overlying tailings, and
are of essentially infinite strength compared to the tailings.
- Quality control on wall raise works during historic construction was limited, with no
as-built documentation available. Locally won tailings were used for wall raise
construction. Observations on site suggest that a 5m wide zone at the perimeter can
be assumed to have received some nominal compactive effort.

Available data

The following data is made available to all participants

- Geometry data as a DXF file

- CPTu data for the two scenarios. Unfortunately, no dissipation tests were carried
out during the CPTu investigation. However, as noted previously, in situ pore
pressures below the phreatic surface are to be assumed to be hydrostatic, including
at the time when CPTu probing occurred. In terms of drainage conditions during
probing, the following is to be assumed:
o Fully drained conditions for Scenario 1
o Fully undrained conditions for Scenario 2
- A summary of laboratory test data for the two scenarios. The limited amount of
laboratory data was carried out on samples obtained from the TSF surface as bulk
samples. No laboratory testing was carried out on samples recovered from depth.

Anonymity

Submissions for this exercise will be anonymous. The primary goal is to have a sufficient
number of entries such that statistics regarding the results and the methods used can be
made. While the entries are to be anonymous, the following information is to be submitted,
to allow statistics regarding the types of participants to be developed:

- Country of primary work/residence

 - Years of relevant work experience.
- Primary job role (i.e. tailings engineers, more general geotechnical engineer, other).
- Job type (i.e. consultant, academic, government, other).

While the anonymity of participants is to be maintained at all times, if you wish to have a
further level of assurance of anonymity you are welcome to create a “burner” email address
for providing your submission. In other words, you do not need to reveal your identity in
order to participate, provided you supply the other required information.

Handling of questions from participants

Inevitably in the running of such programs participants will ask questions or request
clarifications. To ensure all participants receive any information that is provided in such a
manner, questions and their respective answers will be posted on a document that can be
viewed by all participants. The questions will be posted in an anonymous manner, to
prevent their revealing who may be participating in the program.

Required data and sample entry table

The minimum information is required from each participant:

- Brief description of methods used for analysis

- Phreatic level at which failure is predicted for a minimum of one of the scenarios
- General information regarding the person submitting the entry, as per the
requirements outlined previously

A sample table that would capture the required information is outlined below. Additional
information beyond this is welcomed.

Methods used
To interpret in situ data
To analyse when failure would occur
Prediction
Scenario 1, Phreatic level at X=0 at the time of failure
Scenario 2, Phreatic level at X=0 at the time of failure
Participant information
Country of primary work/residence
Years of relevant work experience
Primary job role (i.e. tailings engineer, more general geotechnical
engineer, other)
Job type (i.e. consultant, academic, government, other)
Due data and use of data

A publication will be prepared outlining the program and the results of all participants. The
format of the paper (conference or journal) will depend somewhat on the number of
participants that join, and the timing of events in the coming ~6 months. Submissions for
this program are due 16 March 2020.

Data and entry details

The data for this program is available to download here: https://dl.orangedox.com/ijEaD3

Submissions should be made by email to slope.stability.rr@gmail.com. Please email that

address to let me know your contact email, if you are participating, as important updates
and information my require distribution as the program occurs.