Sustainable and Safe Dams Around the World – Tournier, Bennett & Bibeau (Eds)

© 2019 Canadian Dam Association, ISBN 978-0-367-33422-2

Comparison of cyclic resistance ratios of tailings estimated using

standard empirical methods and cyclic direct simple shear tests

G. Nadarajah & D. Bleiker

Wood Environmental and Infrastructure Solutions, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

S. Sivathayalan
Department of Civil Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

ABSTRACT: Liquefaction resistance of cohesionless soils (cyclic resistance ratio, CRR) is

generally estimated using empirical methods utilizing in-situ test data such as SPT, CPT, and
Vs. These methods were developed based on back analyses of case histories, mostly in natural
soils, and require various correction factors including fines content correction. It is routine
practice to use these same empirical methods and correction factors to assess CRR of tailings
as well. As most hard rock mine tailings are sandy silt to silt in composition, fines content
correction has a significant effect on the liquefaction assessment. Thus, whether a fines con-
tent correction is applied or not has major cost/risk implication for tailings storage facilities.
This paper presents data from four different tailings dam sites and compares CRR estimated
using (i) SPT and CPT data considering fines content correction, (ii) SPT and CPT data with-
out considering fines content correction, and (iii) laboratory cyclic direct simple shear (CDSS)
testing of Shelby tube piston samples and reconstituted samples. Comparison of estimated
CRRs using the standard empirical methods against the CDSS test data indicate that applica-
tion of full fine content correction may yield un-conservative CRR estimates for tailings while
not considering any correction for fines content may lead to overly conservative designs.

RÉSUMÉ: La résistance à la liquéfaction pour sols fins (rapport de résistance cyclique CRR)
est généralement estimée à l’aide de méthodes empiriques utilisant des données d’essais in situ
telles que SPT, CPT et Vs. Ces méthodes ont été mises au point à partir d’analyses d’études de
cas, portant principalement sur des sols naturels nécessitant diverses corrections, dont celle pour
la teneur en fines. Il est pratique courante d’utiliser ces mêmes méthodes empiriques et facteurs
de correction pour évaluer également le CRR des résidus miniers. Comme la composition de la
plupart des résidus miniers en roche dure varie de « silt sableux » à « silt », l’application d’une
correction pour la teneur en fines a un effet important sur l’évaluation de la liquéfaction, influ-
ençant les coûts et risques d’entreposage des résidus. Cet article présente des données provenant
de quatre différents sites miniers et compare les valeurs de CRR estimées à l’aide (i) de données
SPT et CPT en tenant compte de la correction pour la teneur en fines, (ii) de données SPT et
CPT sans tenir compte de la correction pour la teneur en fines, et (iii) d’essais de cisaillement
cyclique simple appliqués directement (CDSS) en laboratoire sur des échantillons intacts
(Shelby) ou remaniés. La comparaison des CRR estimés à l’aide des méthodes empiriques
standard et des essais de CDSS indique que l’application d’une correction pour la teneur en
fines peut donner des estimations non conservatrices de CRR pour les résidus miniers, alors que
l’absence de celle-ci peut mener à une conception trop prudente.

1 INTRODUCTION

There are a large number of tailings storage facilities across Canada and worldwide. These
tailings storage facilities can generally be grouped into slurry tailings disposal facilities

3470
contained by embankment dams and natural topography, thickened tailings disposal facilities
contained by modest-sized to no embankment dams, and dry stack facilities which may not
require any embankment containment structures. The tailings management technology and
the type of storage facility are generally selected by considering numerous factors including,
process requirements of the ore, water balance, site conditions, availability of fresh water,
availability of material for construction of the tailings storage facility, cost of developing and
maintaining the tailings storage facility and closure considerations. Due to relatively lower ini-
tial capital cost, many historical and operating mines produce slurry tailings and store and
manage the slurry tailings within embankment dams.
The dry stack tailings storage option has often been adopted for mine sites with limited
freshwater supply and/or low precipitation leading to negative water balance. The dry stack
option is also preferred at sites with high seismicity as if dry stacked tailings are unsaturated
and compacted they will not be susceptible to liquefaction. These dry staked tailings facilities
are generally developed by placing tailings with limited moisture content and compacting
them resulting in generally loose to compact consistency of the tailings.
The embankment tailings dams are generally constructed in stages starting with construc-
tion of starter dams. The subsequent dam raises typically follow upstream raise, centerline
raise or downstream raise construction. The upstream method of dam raise construction has
been the commonly used method of tailings dam construction due to its relatively lower cost.
While many of these upstream tailings dams are historical and closed, there are still several
operating tailings dams which are being raised by the upstream construction method mainly
due to its lower cost and as a continuation of previous site concept and practices.
The upstream raise method involves construction of staged dam raises over a previously
deposited tailings beach. As the tailings in these facilities are deposited by means of spigotting
or end discharge, the tailings are generally at very loose to loose state and thus highly suscep-
tible to static and seismic liquefaction. The seismic liquefaction of tailings at these upstream
raised facilities has not been much of a concern at regions with low seismic hazard. However,
over the last decade, many regions with perceived low seismicity have seen their seismic
hazard increase as the seismicity of these regions being updated with more data. This has trig-
gered concern of seismic liquefaction of tailings at these upstream raised tailings storage facil-
ities. Even, in the case of dry stack tailings facilities, under conditions where the moisture
content of the tailings become high leading to saturated conditions, seismic liquefaction of
tailings becomes a concern.
Assessment of liquefaction potential of soils involves estimating the liquefaction resistance
(referred to as the Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR) and comparing it against the seismic
demand of the design earthquake represented by Cyclic Stress ratio (CSR). It is routine prac-
tice to estimate CRR of tailings using the standard empirical equations developed based on
back analyses of case histories mostly involving natural soils. Some of the widely used empir-
ical methods are Seed and Idriss (1982), Youd et al (2001), Idriss & Boulanger (2008) and
Boulanger & Idriss (2014).
Hard rock mine tailings are generally low to non-plastic with relatively high fines content
and tend to be stronger than naturally occurring soils of similar gradation because of their
mineralogy, higher degree of angularity and particle strength (Vick 1990). Several researchers,
including McKee et al. (1979), Ishihara et al. (1980, 1981), Moriwaki et al. (1982), Vick
(1990), Poulos et al. (1985), Garga and McKay (1984), Troncoso and Verdugo (1985), Ulrich
and Hughes (1994), Wijewickreme et al. (2005) and James et al (2011) have investigated the
liquefaction potential of tailings and have made significant contributions. However, limita-
tions and applicability of the widely used standard empirical methods to the hard rock mine
tailings is not well understood.
The estimation of CRR from Cone Penetration Test (CPT) and Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) data involves application of several correction factors including correction for fines
content. As the hard rock mine tailings generally have very high fines contents, the empirical
methods suggest significant to maximum correction. This correction for fines content has a
significant impact on CRR estimates of slurry and thickened tailings deposits as those tailings
have very low to low SPT and CPT penetration resistances.

3471
 This paper presents information and data from four different tailings management facilities
involving spigotted slurry tailings, end discharged thickened tailings and dry stacked tailings.
For each tailings facility, CRR values were estimated from CPT and SPT data with and without
considering the correction for fines content. These CRR values were compared against CRR
values obtained from results of laboratory Cyclic Direct Simple Shear (CDSS) Tests performed
on intact and reconstituted samples from each site.

2 CHARATERISTICS OF TAILINGS AND STORAGE FACILITIES

2.1 Tailings Characteristics

This study considers information and data from four different tailings storage/management
facilities (referred here as Site #1, 2, 3, and 4) which store/manage hard rock mine tailings.
The tailings at these four sites are non-plastic to low plastic fine tailings typically containing
greater than 80% fines content. Typical range of fines content, liquid limit, plasticity index
and in-situ moisture content (of settled tailings at the tailings storage/management facility) are
summarized in Table 1 below. Screening level assessment of liquefaction potential of these tail-
ings using the method proposed by Bray et al (2006) is shown on Figure 1. This assessment
generally indicates that these tailings are “susceptible” or as requiring advanced laboratory
testing to assess liquefaction potential. Note that some of the data points of Site #4 falls
under “Not Susceptible” region due to lower water content (thus unsaturated condition). The
screening level method proposed by Andrews and Martin (2002) also indicates that these tail-
ings as liquefiable or as requiring advanced laboratory testing.

2.2 Characteristics of Storage Facilities

The Sites #1 and #2 produce conventional slurry tailings which are spigotted within the Tailings
Storage Facility confined by several Perimeter Dams. These Perimeter Dams were constructed
in stages with the Starter Dams founded on native competent foundation. However, the subse-
quent dam raises involved upstream raise construction method over the beached tailings. As
such, liquefaction of the tailings is of concern for the dam safety at Sites #1 and 2.
The Site #3 produces thickened tailings which is end discharged within a Tailings Manage-
ment Facility confined by a Ring Dam. The Starter Dam was constructed on previously
deposited tailings and the subsequent dam raises were constructed as upstream raise construc-
tion over tailings. Considering that the entire dam is on tailings, liquefaction of tailings is a
dam safety concern for Tailings Storage Facility at the Site#3 as well.
The Site #4 produces filtered tailings which is placed and compacted in lifts within a “dry
stack” Tailings Management Facility. Even though the tailings management concept is to pro-
duce tailings at or below optimum moisture content ensuring unsaturated to dry conditions,
increased production rates, precipitation and other issues resulted in tailings with higher than
expected moisture content levels and close to saturation. Conditions close to saturation raises
concerns of liquefaction and overall stability of the “dry stack”.

Table 1. Summary of Properties of Tailings

Fines Content Liquid Limit Plasticity Index Moisture Content
Site (%) (%) (%) (%)

Site #1 80 - 100 (90) 12 - 18 (15) 0 (0) 12 - 22 (18)

Site #2 95 - 100 (98) - 0 (0) 19 – 44 (32)
Site #3 80 - 100 (90) 20 - 31 (27) 0 - 3 (1) 23 - 38 (30)
Site #4 70 – 88 (82) 23 - 33 (27) 13 – 21 (17) 15 – 22 (19)

Note: average values in parenthesis.

3472
Figure 1. Screening Level Liquefaction Potential Assessment (after Bray et al, 2006)

3 SITE INVESTIGATIONS AND CYCLIC SIMPLE SHEAR TESTING

3.1 Site Investigation Programs

Detailed site investigation and laboratory testing programs were conducted for all four of these
tailings storage facilities to assess liquefaction potential of the tailings deposits. The site investi-
gation programs included in-situ testing such as borehole drilling with Standard Penetration
Testing (SPT), Shelby Tube Piston sampling for laboratory cyclic direct simple shear (CDSS)
testing, Nilcon Vane testing and Cone Penetration Testing (CPT). Standard procedures were
followed for the field investigation and in-situ testing programs. The laboratory testing included
moisture contents, Atterberg Limits, Gradations and Cyclic Direct Simple Shear (CDSS) Test-
ing. The CDSS tests were conducted on “undisturbed” Shelby samples and on samples reconsti-
tuted in the laboratory using slurry deposition or tamping method. Different reconstitution
techniques were chosen to mimic the tailing deposition process in-situ (in order to minimize the
effects of fabric on the measured liquefaction resistance).

3.2 Cyclic Direct Simple Shear Testing

CDSS tests on the tailings samples were performed using an NGI type simple shear device
(Bjerrum & Landva, 1966) at the geotechnical research laboratory at Carleton University.
This device uses a steel-wire reinforced rubber membrane to enclose the soil sample and as a
result essentially K0 conditions prevail in the sample during consolidation. Shear loading is
applied while maintaining the sample height constant, and thus constant volume conditions
prevail during shear.
Vertical, horizontal loads and displacements are monitored using an automated data
acquisition system, and these readings enable calculation of the resulting stresses and strains.
The drop in vertical load during constant volume loading (Finn et al. 1978, Finn, W.D.L.,
1985) is considered equivalent to the excess pore pressure generated (Dyvik et al. 1987) in
typical undrained tests, and the excess pore pressure data is derived from the changes in the
vertical stress.
Data acquisition and control systems are fully automated, and measurement resolutions of
about 0.02% (in strain measurements) and 0.25 kPa (in stress measurements) are achieved by
the appropriate signal conditioning, data acquisition and control hardware used during these
tests. The control program also ensures that constant amplitude sinusoidal shear stresses are

3473
applied during all stages of the cyclic loading. Ribbed end platens are used to ensure proper
transfer of shear stresses.

3.2.1 Test Procedure and Interpretation

Preparation of Intact samples: Each soil sample was extruded from the Shelby tube directly
into a lubricated stainless steel specimen ring with a tapered cutting edge using a motorized
hydraulic extruder. Sufficient soil was discarded from the edges to minimize the risk of testing
disturbed soils. The soil specimen within the stainless steel ring was trimmed off the top and
bottom using a wire-saw and then transferred into a membrane lined cavity, and sealed with
O-rings and then transferred to the CDSS device. A seating load of about 10–15 kPa was
applied before taking an initial height reading.
Preparation of Reconstituted samples: Soil extruded from the Shelby tube was allowed to
air dry for at least 48 hours prior to testing. An appropriate amount of water was then
added to the air-dried soil and thoroughly mixed producing a uniform tailings slurry
sample. The tailings slurry was then placed in the membrane lined cavity using a spoon and
allowed to settle under self-weight. The top was covered to minimize evaporation and avoid
drying of the material. The top loading cap was placed after about twenty four hours and
the sample was sealed using the top O-ring and transferred to the testing device. Seating
load of 10–15 kPa was then incrementally applied keeping track of sample height. This
sample preparation procedure was followed for preparing reconstituted samples of tailings
from Sites #1, 2 and 3.
For Site #4, due to use of non-standard Shelby tube size and concerns of significant sample
disturbance, CDSS tests were performed only on reconstituted samples. The wet/moist tailings
soil extruded from the Shelby tube was air dried for at least 48 hours prior to testing. The
required amount of water was then added to the air-dried tailings in stages and mixed to yield
a uniform material at appropriate target moisture content. The moist soil was placed in two
layers of approximately equal thickness. The first layer was scarified to a depth of about one
millimetre after compaction and prior to placing the second layer. A tamper weighing about
8N was dropped through about 1” to compact the soil. The number of blows applied per layer
was adjusted to reach the target density range. Following compaction, the top cap was placed
and the specimen was moved to the loading frame. The initial height of the sample was
recorded under a seating load of about 15 kPa to determine the preparation density.
Consolidation and Cyclic Shearing: Following the initial seating load, consolidation stress
is applied in increments to yield a load increment ratio of about two and allowing limited
time for consolidation between the intermediate load increments. Following the application
of final consolidation stress, the sample is allowed to consolidate overnight. Constant
volume conditions are imposed at the end of consolidation by arresting the vertical displace-
ment. A sinusoidal cyclic shear stress is applied at a frequency of 0.1 Hz, and care is taken
to maintain the cyclic shear stress amplitude at essentially constant value throughout the
loading. Cyclic loading is applied until the sample exceeded 3.75% single amplitude shear
strain. In addition, the sample height is continually monitored to ensure constant volume
conditions are maintained during the loading. Avoiding the reduction of the cyclic stress
amplitude during the final cycles (typically seen in most laboratory cyclic tests), and verifica-
tion of the constant volume condition were considered essential to obtain reliable data. In
tests where the initial cyclic shear stress did not lead to liquefaction after large number of
cycles, the cyclic shear stress magnitude was increased based on available information/data
from previously completed tests.
Cyclic Resistance Ratio: The plot of the cyclic shear stress ratio (CSR, cyclic shear stress
amplitude divided by consolidation stress) with number of cycles to liquefaction (i.e., number
of cycles required to exceed 3.75% single amplitude shear strain), called the cyclic resistance
curve, was developed using the CDSS test results for each Site. Data from CDSS tests per-
formed at 100 kPa vertical effective stress were used to develop the cyclic resistance curve. The
CSR values were reduced by 10% to account for in-situ/field conditions. The cyclic resistance
ratio (CRR) corresponding to magnitude 7.5 earthquake and vertical effective consolidation
stress of 100 kPa (CRR1,7.5) was determined from the cyclic resistance curve.

3474
4 CYCLIC RESISTANCE RATIO FROM CPT/SPT DATA AND CDSS TEST DATA

4.1 Site #1
A total of three boreholes with SPT testing and two CPT test holes were completed from the
upstream beach, existing dam crest and lower benches at a select critical dam section. The loca-
tions of CPT and SPT holes were selected such that the data are comparable and to ensure the
CDSS laboratory testing is performed on corresponding tailings samples. Additional CPTs and
SPTs were completed at several other locations which are not incorporated in this paper. The
SPT data generally indicated very loose tailings with corrected SPT blow count (N1)60 values
ranging between 0 and 4. The CPT data also indicated very loose consistency with normalized
cone penetration resistance qc1N ranging between 5 and 35 and high excess pore pressures.
The CRR1,7.5 profiles at these SPT and CPT holes were estimated using the method proposed
by Idriss and Boulanger (2014) with and without the correction for fines content. Due to very
high fines content (greater than 80%), the correction for fine content for the SPT data, Δ(N1)60,
is about 5.5 and for the CPT data, Δqc1N, is about 50. That is, clean sand equivalent SPT and
CPT penetration resistances are significantly higher than the uncorrected penetration resist-
ances. The calculated CRR values from the SPT and CPT data with and without the fines con-
tent correction are shown in Figure 2. It can be noted that application of fine content correction
increases the CRR values from about 0.05–0.07 to 0.09–0.11, an increase of more than 55%.
A total of 10 CDSS tests were conducted on intact Shelby tube samples retrieved from
depths between 6 and 14 m. A total of 4 CDSS tests were also completed on reconstituted
slurry samples using tailings from the same Shelby tube samples. The CRR of the tailings
sample was inferred by plotting the CSR against the number of cycles to liquefaction for both
the intact and reconstituted samples. The CDSS test results indicated CRR of 0.11 for the
intact samples and 0.09 for the reconstituted samples and are shown in Figure 2. Higher CRR
value of the intact samples can be attributed to possible sample disturbance during sampling
and transportation. The CRR of the reconstituted slurry samples could be assumed as the

Figure 2. Comparison of CRR values from SPT/CPT Data and CDSS Tests Data (Site #1)

3475
loosest state of the consolidated tailings slurry and as a representative CRR value for this tail-
ings deposit. As can be seen in Figure 2, the CRR from the CDSS tests data is closer to the
CRR estimates from CPT and SPT data considering the fines content correction. That is, it
would be overly conservative if fines content correction is not considered in the liquefaction
assessment of this tailings deposit. It is also noted that applying full correction for the fines
content may lead to slightly un-conservative CRR values.

4.2 Site #2
A detailed site investigation program involving several boreholes with SPT testing and sam-
pling, boreholes with Shelby Tube Piston sampling, CPT test holes, and Nilcon vane test
holes was performed at this Tailings Dam Site to assess the native foundation conditions
and tailings. However, only select SPT data from three boreholes, CPT data from two test-
holes and corresponding CDSS test results are presented in this paper. The SPT data at
these three boreholes generally indicated very loose tailings with corrected SPT blow count
(N1)60 values ranging between 0 and 6. The CPT data also indicated very loose conditions
with normalized cone penetration resistance qc1N ranging between 5 and 40 with very high
excess pore pressures.
The CRR1,7.5 values were estimated using the SPT data from three boreholes and CPT data
from the two test holes noted above. As for the Site #1, the method proposed by Idriss and
Boulanger (2014) was used to estimate the CRR considering correction for fines content. Simi-
lar to Site #1, due to very high fines content of greater than 95%, the correction for fine con-
tent for the SPT data, Δ(N1)60, is 5.5 and for the CPT data, Δqc1N, is about 55. That is, clean
sand equivalent SPT and CPT data are notably higher than the uncorrected penetration resist-
ances. The calculated CRR values with and without the fines correction are shown in
Figure 3. It can be noted that application of fine content correction increases the CRR values
from about 0.06–0.08 to 0.09–0.12, an increase of more than 50%.

Figure 3. Comparison of CRR values from SPT/CPT Data and CDSS Tests Data (Site #2)

3476
 A total of 4 CDSS tests were conducted on intact Shelby tube samples obtained from about 11
m depth. A total of and 4 CDSS tests were also completed on reconstituted slurry samples from
the same Shelby tube samples. The CRR of the tailings sample was inferred for both the intact
and reconstituted samples. The inferred CRR value from the intact samples’ results indicated not-
ably higher CRR and were assumed not representative because the in-situ density is believed to be
lower than the density of the consolidated densities of the intact samples. The CDSS test results of
the slurry reconstituted samples indicated CRR of 0.11 and are shown in Figure 3 with the range
of CRR values estimated from CPT and SPT data with and with fines content correction.
These results indicate that estimated CRR values without considering the correction for
fines content are considerably lower than the CRR inferred from the CDSS tests data on
slurry consolidated tests samples.

4.3 Site #3
An extensive site investigation program which included CPT test holes, boreholes with SPT
testing and Shelby Tube Piston sampling was completed at this site. However, data and results
of only three CPT test holes and three boreholes with SPT data and Shelby Tube Piston sam-
pling are discussed here. The Shelby Tube Piston samples obtained from two of these bore-
holes were used for the CDSS laboratory testing.
The SPT data generally indicated very loose tailings with corrected SPT blow count (N1)60
values ranging between 0 and 4. The CPT data also indicated very loose tailings with normalized
cone penetration resistance qc1N ranging between 5 and over 30 with very high excess pore
pressures.
Similar to Sites #1 and 2, the CRR1,7.5 profiles were estimated using the SPT and CPT data
with and without applying the correction for fines content. As with the previous two Sites, the
correction for fine content is significant: for the SPT data, Δ(N1)60, it is 5.5 and for the CPT
data, Δ qc1N, is 55 due to very high fines content. As such, the clean sand equivalent SPT and
CPT penetration resistances are notably higher than the uncorrected penetration resistances.
The calculated CRR values with and without the correction for fines content are shown in
Figure 4. It can be noted that application of fine content correction increases the CRR values
from about 0.06–0.07 to 0.10–0.12, an increase of greater than 60%.
A total of 4 CDSS tests were conducted on intact Shelby tube samples obtained from depths of
5 to 6 m and 4 CDSS tests were completed on reconstituted slurry samples. The CDSS results
indicated similar cyclic response for both intact and reconstituted samples which is consistent with
the similar range of samples’ consolidated densities. It was noted that the consolidated densities of
the reconstituted samples are higher than expected density range. This is reflected on the CDSS
test results indicating CRR of 0.135 for both the intact and reconstituted samples as shown in
Figure 4 with the range of CRR values estimated from CPT and SPT data with and without fines
content correction. In contrast to the observations at Site #1 and 2, the CRR from the reconsti-
tuted samples are higher than the estimated CRR considering the fines content correction. This is
believed to be due to higher densities of the slurry samples than the in-situ density.

4.4 Site #4
A limited site investigation program involving boreholes with SPT testing and sampling and
boreholes with Shelby Tube sampling was performed at this Tailings Dry Stack Site to assess
the liquefaction potential of the tailings which were placed and compacted in lifts. The SPT
data from five boreholes and corresponding CDSS test results are presented in this paper. The
SPT data at these boreholes generally indicated compact tailings with corrected SPT blow
count (N1)60 values ranging from 8 to greater than 15 with an average of 10.
The SPT data from these 5 boreholes were used to estimate the CRR profiles using the
method proposed by Idriss and Boulanger (2014). Due to very high fines content of greater
than 70%, the correction for fine content for the SPT data, Δ(N1)60, is 5.5 leading to notably
higher resistance than the uncorrected penetration resistances. The calculated CRR values with
and without the correction for fines content are shown in Figure 5. It can be noted that

3477
 Figure 4. Comparison of CRR values from SPT/CPT Data and CDSS Tests Data (Site #3)

Figure 5. Comparison of CRR values from SPT Data and CDSS Tests Data (Site #4)

3478
application of fine content correction increases the CRR values from about 0.09–0.15 to
0.14–0.20, an increase of about 50%.
A total of 12 CDSS tests were conducted on reconstituted tailings samples. As discussed
earlier, these reconstituted samples were prepared by moist tamping method which is repre-
sentative of the field placement and compaction of the tailings at the “dry stack”. The dens-
ity of the lab sample was controlled to represent the actual field density data. The CDSS test
results indicated CRR of about 0.14 - 0.16 for these reconstituted samples and are shown in
Figure 5 with the range of CRR values estimated from the SPT data with and with fines
content correction. As observed with the data from the other Sites, the estimated CRR from
SPT data without fines content correction is considerably lower than the laboratory based
CRR values. It should be noted that estimated CRR from SPT data considering fines con-
tent correction is closer to or somewhat higher than the laboratory based CRR value. That
is, application of fine content correction may yield un-conservative CRR estimates for tail-
ings while not considering any correction for fines content may lead to overly conservative
designs.

5 DISCUSSIONS

Based on information and data from literature and the tests results presented above, the fol-
lowing may be observed:
• There are several versions/revisions of empirical charts/equations to estimate CRR values
from in-situ tests data such as SPT, CPT, Vs, etc. All of these empirical charts/equations
were developed based on back analyses of case histories mostly involving natural soils.
Some of the widely used methods are Seed and Idriss (1982), Youd and Idriss (1997), Youd
et al (2001), Idriss & Boulanger (2008) and Boulanger & Idriss (2014).
• These empirical charts/equations relate the CRR to normalized equivalent clean sand pene-
trations resistances such as (N1)60cs and qc1Ncs. These normalized clean sand equivalent
penetration resistances are calculated by applying several corrections factors. The SPT data
is generally corrected for energy ratio, borehole diameter, rod length, sampler, overburden
stress and fine content. The CPT penetration data is corrected for area ratio, overburden
stress and fine content. It is routine practice to use these same empirical methods and cor-
rection factors to estimate CRR of hard rock tailings as well.
• Data from case histories indicates apparent increase of liquefaction resistance of soils with
increasing fines content. The empirical charts/equations derived from the case histories pro-
vide equivalent clean sand adjustments for SPT and CPT data, Δ(N1)60 and Δqc1N, with
respect to percent fines content of the soils. As such, the normalized penetration resistances
(N1)60 and qc1N are corrected for fines content by adding Δ(N1)60 and Δqc1N, respectively,
to account for the effects of fines content on liquefaction resistance and penetration resist-
ance of SPT and CPT data.
• It is routine practice to use these empirical charts/equations, correction factors and proced-
ures discussed above to estimate the CRR of hard rock tailings as there are no empirical
charts/equations specific to tailings.
• As most hard rock mine tailings are sandy silt to silt composition with very high fines con-
tent, related correction for fines content (Δ(N1)60 and Δqc1N) is significant especially for the
slurry/thickened slurry deposited tailings which are generally of very loose to loose consist-
ency with low penetration resistance.
• These slurry/thickened slurry deposited hard rock mine tailings presented in this paper typ-
ically have normalized SPT penetration resistance (N1)60 of 0 to 5. Considering very high
fines content of these tailings, the correction for fines content Δ(N1)60 would be about 5.5
which increases the penetration resistance by about 100% at minimum. The corresponding
increase of the CRR is generally 50% or higher.
• Normalized CPT resistance, qc1N, of the tailings presented in this paper typically ranges
between 5 and 50. The corresponding fines content correction, Δqc1N, would be about 50 or

3479
 higher considering high fines content and low qc1N. This significant increase in qc1N results
into 50% or higher increase in CRR.
• Given no specific or concise guidelines for estimating CRR of hard rock tailings, some
practitioners estimate CRR ignoring the correction for fines content to be conservative
while others apply the corrections for fines content as recommended by widely used
methods. As discussed above, ignoring or incorporating the fines content correction can
have significant impact on the design of upstream tailings storage facility, related costs and
potential risks.
• Given the significant influence of potential liquefaction of tailings in upstream raised tail-
ings facilities, more practitioners are turning to CDSS testing to obtain more site specific
data rather than relying on the empirical methods alone.
• While CDSS tests provides valuable additional and site specific data, care must be taken to
consider possible sample disturbances which would lead to unreasonably higher CRR
values. Given the non-plastic to low plastic nature and very loose to loose consistency of
the tailings, minimizing sample disturbance is a challenge. As such, where possible, it
would be good practice to incorporate representative reconstituted samples into any CDSS
laboratory test program. Considerations must be given to sample preparation methods,
relevance to the actual tailings deposition/placement at the tailings storage facility and
resulting consolidated sample densities prior cyclic loading.
• The data, results and observations made from the four tailings storage facilities clearly
show the influence of correction for fines content on CRR estimates. At all four sites, the
CRR values estimated using the empirical method increased by at least 50% when corrected
for fine content. It is noted that SPT and CPT penetration resistances of tailings observed
at Sites #1, 2 and 3 are typical of any slurry deposited tailings storage facility.
• For all four Sites, CRR values inferred from the CDSS tests data are found to be notably
higher than the CRR values estimated using the empirical method ignoring the correction
for fines content. The CRR values inferred from CDSS data of intact samples are found to
be higher than the CRR values estimated considering the fines content correction. How-
ever, CRR values inferred from the reconstituted samples are found to be generally closer
to the CRR values estimated considering the fines content correction.
• The higher CRR values of the intact samples may be attributed to sample disturbance. It
is noted that the reconstituted samples were prepared with appropriate initial slurry
water content and consolidated incrementally to minimize disturbance and to produce
loosest samples. In the case of Site #4 (dry stack), samples were prepared to a target dens-
ity which was measured at site as part of the construction quality assurance testing
program.

6 CONCLUDING REMARKS

The liquefaction resistance (CRR) of hard rock mine tailings is estimated from SPT and
CPT data gathered at four different tailings storage facilities. Sites #1 and 2 tailings
facilities involve spigotting of slurry tailings, Site #3 involves end discharge of thickened
tailings and Site #4 involves placement and compaction of tailings in lifts into a dry
stack. The CRR values were estimated using a widely used standard empirical method
with and without considering the correction for fines content. Series of CDSS tests were
also performed on representative intact and reconstituted tailings samples obtained from
each Site.
Comparison of CRR values estimated from SPT and CPT data using the standard empirical
methods against CRR values inferred from CDSS test data indicates that ignoring the correc-
tion for fines content would lead to overly conservative designs. Conversely, application of
fine content correction, as prescribed in the current literature, may yield somewhat un-conser-
vative CRR estimates for the hard rock mine tailings.

3480
REFERENCES

Andrews, D.C. & Martin, G.R. 2000. Criteria for liquefaction of silty soils. In Proceedings of the 12th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering Research, Auckland, New Zealand. New Zealand Soci-
ety for Earthquake Engineering, Upper Hutt, New Zealand. Paper 0312, pp.1 8.
Bjerrum, L. & Landva, A. 1966. Direct simple shear tests on a Norwegian quick clay. Géotechnique, 16
(1):1–20.
Bray, J.D. & Sancio, R.B. 2006. Assessment of the liquefaction susceptibility of fine-grained soils.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132(9):1165–1177.
Dyvik, R., Berre, T., Lacasse, S. & Raadim, B. 1987. Comparison of truly undrained and constant
volume direct simple shear tests. Géotechnique, 37(1):3–10.
Finn, W.D.L., Vaid, Y.P. & Bhatia, S.K. 1978. Constant volume simple shear testing. In Proceedings of
the 2nd International Conference on Micro zonation for Safer Construction – Research and Applica-
tion, San Francisco, Calif., 26 November – 1 December 1978. Vol.2, pp.839–851.
Finn, W.D.L. 1985. Aspects of constant volume cyclic simple shear. In Proceedings of Advances in the
Art of Testing of Soils Under Cyclic Conditions, Detroit, Mich., 24 October 1985. American Society
of Civil Engineers, New York. pp.74–98.
Garga, V. & McKay, L.D. 1984. Cyclic triaxial strength of mine tailings. Journal of Geotechnical Engin-
eering, 110(8): 1091–1105. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1984)110:8(1091).
Idriss, I. M. & Boulanger, R. W. 2008. Soil liquefaction during earthquakes. Monograph MNO-12,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, 261 pp.
Ishihara, K., Troncoso, J., Kawase, Y. & Takahashi, Y. 1980. Cyclic strength characteristics of tailings
materials. Soils and Foundations, 20(4):127–142.
Ishihara, K., Sodekawa, M. & Tanaka, Y. 1981. Cyclic strength of undisturbed mine tailings. In Proceed-
ings of the International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering
and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, Mo., 26 April–3 May 1981. American Society of Civil Engineers,
New York. pp.53–58.
James, M., Aubertin, M., Wijewickreme, D. & Wilson, W. 2011. A laboratory investigation of the
dynamic properties of tailings. Can. Geotech. J. 48, No.11, 1587–1600.
McKee, B.E., Robinson, K.E. & Urlich, C.M. 1979. Upstream design for extension of an abandoned tail-
ings pond. In Tailings Disposal Today: Proceedings of the 2nd International Tailings Symposium,
Denver, Colo., May 1978. Edited by G.O. Argall. Miller Freeman Publications, San Francisco, Calif.
Vol. 2, pp. 210–233.
Moriwaki, Y., Akky, M.R., Ebeling, A.M., Idriss, I.M. & Ladd, R.S. 1982. Cyclic strength and proper-
ties of tailings slimes. Dynamic Stability of Tailings Dams. Preprint 82–539, American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE), New York.
Poulos, S.J., Robinsky, E.I. & Keller, T.O. 1985. Liquefaction resistance of thickened tailings. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 111(12): 1380–1394.
Seed, H.B. & Idriss, I.M. 1982. Ground motions and soil liquefaction during earthquakes. Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute (EERI) Monograph, Berkeley, Calif.
Troncoso, J.H. & Verdugo, R. 1985. Silt content and dynamic behavior of tailings sands. In Proceedings
of the 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 12–16 August
1985, San Francisco, Calif. pp. 1311–1314.
Ulrich, B.F. & Hughes, J.M.O. 1994. SPT/CPT correlations for mine tailings. In Proceedings of the Inter-
national Conference on Tailings and Mine Waste ’94, Fort Collins, Colo., 19–21 January 1994. A.A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. pp. 215–223.
Vick, S.G. 1990. Planning, design and analysis of tailings dams. BiTech Publishers Ltd., Vancouver, B.C.
Wijewickreme, D., Sanin, M.V. & Greenaway, G. 2005. Cyclic shear response of fine-grained mine tail-
ings. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 42(5): 1408–1421. doi:10.1139/t05-058.
Youd, T.L., and Idriss, I.M., eds. (1997). Proc., NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction
Resistance of Soils, Nat. Ctr. For Earthquake Engrg. Res., State Univ. of New York at Buffalo.
Youd, T. L., Idriss, I. M., Andrus, R. D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J. T., Dobry, R., Finn, W.
D. L., Harder, L. F., Hynes, M. E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J. P., Liao, S. S. C., Marcuson, W. F.,
Martin, G. R., Mitchell, J. K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M. S., Robertson, P. K., Seed, R. B. & Stokoe,
K. H. 2001. Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998
NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils, J. Geotechnical and Geoen-
vironmental Eng., ASCE 127(10),817–833.

3481