Dynamic Calculation of Geothecnical Structures

Pablo Castillo Falcón
Tutors: Antonio Morales-Esteban, Percy Durand Neyra
Civil Engineering Final Project:
Dynamic Calculation of
Geotechnical Structures
Cálculo Dinámico de Obras Geotécnicas
2014
Department of Building Structures and Geotechnical Engineering

E.T.S.I.
University of Seville
Abstract
Abstract
The Aznalcóllar dam failure has caused that the authorities pay
attention to mining deposits. Almagrera tailings dam holds one
of the largest mining waste deposits in Andalucía. Thus, a
project for its dry closure has been done and partially
executed. The project includes drainage, water drawdown,
filling the reservoir with surrounding contaminate material and
reinforcing the dam.
In these papers, a dynamic calculation based on real

accelerograms has been performed for the dam. First, real
accelerograms have been selected by means of the uniform
seismic hazard acceleration response spectrum at Almagrera.
Then, a finite element model has been made and calibrated.
Finally, calculation results have been analysed.
La rotura de la presa de residuos minerales de Aznalcóllar ha

hecho que las autoridades presten atención a los depósitos
mineros. Dado que la presa de Almagrera encierra uno de los
depósitos de residuos mineros tóxicos más importantes de
Andalucía, se ha realizado y ejecutado parcialmente un plan de
clausura. El proyecto incluye labores de drenaje, bombeo de
agua estancada en su interior, un relleno con material
contaminado de los alrededores y un refuerzo en la presa.
En este estudio se ha llevado a realizado un cálculo dinámico

para la presa basado en acelerogramas reales. En primer
lugar se han seleccionado los acelerogramas, usando para ello
el espectro de peligrosidad sísmica uniforme para Almagrera.
Posteriormente se ha desarrollado un modelo con elementos
finitos y, por último, los resultados del cálculo han sido
analizados e interpretados.
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements
I would first like to recognize Antonio Morales-Esteban, the main supervisor, for
his great work editing and guiding this thesis despite the many difficulties. His
unquestionable knowledge about seismicity and dynamic calculations has made
possible this work. I would also like to thank Percy Durand, the second
supervisor, for his valuable and constructive suggestions during the development
of this study.
I wish also to acknowledge the help given by José Luís de Justo, for being
available when it has been necessary to provide all his knowledge and
documentation.
My grateful thanks are also extended to the whole Department of Building

Structures and Geotechnical Engineering of University of Seville, for providing
the necessary software to carry out this work.
Finally, I wish to thank my family, friends and girlfriend, for their support and
encouragement throughout my study.
Keywords
Keywords
Dynamic calculation, tailings dam, finite element, accelerogram, earthquake,

mining.
CONTENTS
CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................... v
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................... vii
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
2. ALMAGRERA TAILINGS DAM ................................................................ 3
2.1. Introduction............................................................................................... 3
2.2. Location .................................................................................................... 3
2.3. Geology..................................................................................................... 4
2.4. The dam .................................................................................................... 5
3. THE DRY CLOSURE ................................................................................... 9
3.1. Initial situation .......................................................................................... 9
3.2. Spanish regulation about mining tailings deposits ................................. 11
3.3. Types of materials................................................................................... 12
3.4. Closure phases ........................................................................................ 12
3.5. Mohr-Coulomb model calibration. Simulation of closure operations. ... 16
3.6. Tailings ................................................................................................... 18
3.7. Calculations ............................................................................................ 20
i
CONTENTS
4. SEISMICITY AND SEISMIC INPUT DATA .......................................... 23
4.1. Seismicity in the Iberian Peninsula ........................................................ 23
4.2. Seismicity at Almagrera site ................................................................... 27
4.3. Spanish legislation .................................................................................. 28
4.4. Definition of the accelerograms ............................................................. 32
5. DYNAMIC CALCULATION ..................................................................... 43
5.1. Finite element model .............................................................................. 43
5.1.1. Material models ............................................................................... 44
5.1.2. Sources of energy dissipation .......................................................... 48
5.1.2.1. Material damping ..................................................................... 48
5.1.2.2. Numerical damping .................................................................. 51
5.1.2.3. Boundary conditions ................................................................ 53
5.1.3. Calculation steps ............................................................................. 54
6. CALCULATION RESULTS ...................................................................... 55
6.1. Analysis of stress .................................................................................... 55
6.2. Analysis of deformations ........................................................................ 57
7. ANALYSIS OF LIQUEFACTION ............................................................ 59
7.1. Liquefaction hazard at Almagrera .......................................................... 60
7.2. Conclusions ............................................................................................ 62
ii
CONTENTS
8. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH LINES ........................... 63
8.1. Final conclusions .................................................................................... 63
8.2. Future research lines ............................................................................... 64
REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 65
ANNEX 1: OUTPUTS......................................................................................... 69
ANNEX 2: CURVES ........................................................................................... 89
ANNEX 3: PLANS AND SECTIONS ............................................................. 105
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1. Aznalcóllar dam failure......................................................................... 2
Figure 2.1. Huelva province .................................................................................... 4
Figure 2.2. Iberian Pyrite Belt. ................................................................................ 5
Figure 2.3. Central cross-section of Almagrera dam before closure. ...................... 6
Figure 2.4. Central cross-section with rockfill reinforcement. ................................ 7
Figure 3.1. Aerial view of Almagrera site before closure (2005). ........................ 10
Figure 3.2 Aerial view of Almagrera site (2009). ................................................. 13
Figure 3.3. Aerial view of Almagrera site before closure (2005). ........................ 15
Figure 3.4. Mohr Coulomb yield surface in principal stress space. ...................... 17
Figure 3.5. Tailings and Las Viñas material thicknesses inside the reservoir. ...... 19
Figure. 4.1. Axis orientation, regime of stress, maximum magnitude and
predominant type of faulting for the seismogenic areas of the Iberian
Peninsula. .................................................................................................. 27
Figure. 4.2. Annual rate of earthquakes by km2 and b-value for the seismogenic.28
Figure 4.3. Seismic hazard map (NCSE-02).......................................................... 29
Figure 4.4. Seismogenic areas of Spain and Portugal. .......................................... 33
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.5. Real example of seismic hazard plot of the acceleration response
spectrum. ................................................................................................... 37
Figure 4.6. Scheme of construction of an uniform seismic hazard response
spectrum from the seismic hazard plots. ................................................... 37
Figure 5.1. Total yield contour of the hardening soil model in principal stress
space for cohesionless soil. ....................................................................... 46
Figure 5.2. Characteristic stiffness-strain behaviour of soil with typical strain
ranges for laboratory test and structures. .................................................. 47
Figure 7.1. Liquefaction effects. ........................................................................... 59
Figure 7.2. Cumulative distribution of liquefaction occurrence fitted to a 4-
parameter Beta probability distribution. ................................................... 61
vi
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1. Inventory of tailings dams and ponds in Spain ..................................... 1
Table 3.1. Tailings deposits classification according to Spanish legislation ....... 11
Table 3.2. Safety factors required according to Spanish legislation. .................... 11
Table 3.3. Materials ............................................................................................... 12
Table 3.4. Calculation parameters. ........................................................................ 18
Table 3.5. Maximum settlements in tailings ......................................................... 19
Table 3.6. Final displacements and safety factors with finite element method..... 21
Table 4.1 Seismogenic areas of Spain and Portugal ............................................. 25
Table 4.2 Axis orientation, regime of stress, maximum magnitude and
Peninsula. .................................................................................................. 26
Table 4.3. Related values of intensity and basic acceleration .............................. 29
Table 4.4. Soil coefficient. .................................................................................... 31
Table 4.5. Annual rate of earthquakes, a-value and b-value for the seismogenegic
areas........................................................................................................... 34
Table 4.6. Selected accelerograms ....................................................................... 39
Table 4.7. Accelerogram 358 information ............................................................ 39
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.8. Accelerogram 385 information ........................................................... 39
Table 4.9. Accelerogram 607 information ............................................................ 40
Table 4.10. Accelerogram 4341 information ........................................................ 40
Table 5.1. Minimum average element size and model average element size in
every case .................................................................................................. 44
Table 5.2. Basic characteristics of the hardening soil model. ............................... 45
Table 5.3. Equivalent layer. Section 1. ................................................................. 49
Table 5.6. Rayleigh coefficients. ........................................................................... 50
viii
INTRODUCTION
1. INTRODUCTION
Sensitivity towards the safety of mineral waste deposits in Spain has increased in
recent years. Specially after the catastrophic failure of Los Frailes dam at
Aznalcóllar (Sevilla), where a toxic spill of approximately 4.5 hm3 happened on
April 25th 1998 (Simón et al., 1998). Figure 1.1 shows the broken dam. This has
caused that, in current legislation, mining companies are required to submit a plan
for mine closure in advance. A lack of prevision of previous legislation has caused
that today the Spanish regional governments are forced to solve the problem of
the closure of abandoned mines and mining waste dams, like Almagrera.
According to the “Plan Nacional de Residuos de Industrias Extractivas” (PNRIE,

2007), in Spain there are 610 tailings ponds and 378 tailings dams, with a total
volume of 325.878.800 m3. All these tailings, most of them toxic, were generated
due to mineral processes. Andalucía, with a total volume of 153 million m3 (122
ponds and 4 tailings dams), has 47% of the total volume. Table 1.1 shows an
inventory and classification of these structures (IGME, 2006).
Number of structures 988

Dams 610
Structures
Ponds 378
Active 39 %
Abandoned 53%
Present state
Restored 7%
Closed 1%
Table 1.1. Inventory of tailings dams and ponds in Spain
1
INTRODUCTION
The dry closure of Almagrera tailings dam is currently at an advanced stage.

Nowadays, some final operations are needed. José Luís De Justo Alpañés (US) is
the responsible of the project.
A dynamic calculation has been proposed for this project (Justo et al., 2013) and it
is introduced herein. First, the probabilistic hazard equation for the site is solved.
Based on the hazard curves obtained, the Uniform Seismic Hazard Acceleration
Response Spectrum (hereinafter, USHARS) is constructed for the location,
according to the type of soil and the required hazard level (exposure time and
probability of failure). Then, calculation accelerograms are selected. Based on this
methodology, real accelerograms, for a return period close to 1000 years, have
been obtained. Later, the calibration of the dynamic parameters is presented, and
finally, the dynamic calculation is performed and the results analyzed. Three
sections have been studied for the 2D analysis.
Figure 1.1. Aznalcóllar dam failure.
2
ALMAGRERA TAILINGS DAM
2. ALMAGRERA TAILINGS DAM
2.1. Introduction
Almagrera dam contains mining waste from the mine that was exploited by
“Minas Almagrera S.A.” between 1976 and 1981. Later it was abandoned, as so
was its tailings dam. This mining company has extracted and processed
polymetallic sulphides, producing concentrates of copper, zinc and lead by
flotation process. The pyrite obtained as a result of this treatment was used for the
production of sulphuric acid, copper and sulphate pentahydrate.
2.2. Location
Almagrera site is located at the southwest of Spain, in Huelva province, the

westernmost province of Andalucía.
In Huelva, Almagrera site is located near Calañas town, in the eastern part of the
province. On Figure 2.1, the white arrow marks Almagrera and a red circle shows
the location of Aznalcóllar. Boths are close, which makes the security of
Almagrera tailings even more important.
3
Figure 2.1. Huelva province
2.3. Geology
Regarding the geological aspect, this zone is comprised in the Iberian Pyrite Belt.
The Pyrite Belt is a vast geographical area with particular geological features that
stretches along much of the south of the Iberian Peninsula, from Portugal to
Spain. It is about 250 km long and between 30 and 50 wide, running northwest to
southeast.
It is one of the most outstanding ore provinces of the world, and probably hosts
the largest concentration of volcanogenic massive sulphide deposits worldwide
4
(Tornos, 2008). This fact has produced in the area an important mining activity
for thousands of years.
The Belt was formed in the Devonian Period, connected to active and
hydrothermal volcanism that led to the formation of a volcanic-sedimentary
complex. Volcanic activity in the region led to eight giant volcanogenic massive
sulphide ore deposits, associated with polymetallic massive flanks of volcanic
cones in the form of pyrite, and also chalcopyrite, sphalerite, galena and
cassiterite. The deposits of the Iberian Pyrite Belt are notable examples of
volcanic and sediment-hosted massive sulphide deposits. Over 250 deposits are
known in the belt. Figure 2.2 shows a geological map of the area.
Figure 2.2. Iberian Pyrite Belt.
2.4. The dam
Almagrera tailings dam has a height of 37.3 m at axis above the lowest foundation
level. It has been raised up to five times adding material in the downstream slope,
5
which was 1.7 (H): 1(V) up to the third phase, when it was changed to 2 (H): 1
(V). The original central cross-section can be observed in Figure 2.3.
The dam, corresponding to the downstream borrow material type, has an upstream
sloping core. Its foundations is formed by alternation of volcanic an inter-
stratified sedimentary rocks, including lava, clayey phylite and shale.
According to a report delivered before the 5th phase, the filter criterion to avoid
fines migration was not fulfilled because of the sand coarse. Thus, the dam really
behaved as a homogeneous dam. During the 5th phase, an inclined sand and gravel
filter was placed between the 4th and 5th phase shells, fulfilling filter criteria, in
addition to a downstream foot drain below it and the downstream shell. Leaks up
to 16 m3/h appeared in the downstream slope.
Figure 2.3. Central cross-section of Almagrera dam before closure.
Regarding the tailings, in accordance with the owners their density was 1.61
g/cm3 and the main mineral was pyrite, with small quantities of other minerals.
In the closure works, the original section was modified (as will be explained in the
next section) by putting a rockfill reinforcement. In addition, a drawdown has
been carried out and more material has been placed above tailings. Figure 2.4
shows the final central cross-section.
6
Plans 3, 4 and 5 give a detailed view of the three final cross-sections that have
been calculated in this paper. Meanwhile, Plans 1 and 2 are scaled plans of
Almagrera tailings deposit and dam.
Figure 2.4. Central cross-section with rockfill reinforcement.
7
THE DRY CLOSURE
3. THE DRY CLOSURE
In 2006, José Luís De Justo Alpañés was put in charge of a project to carry out the
dry closure of Almagrera tailings dam. This project belonged to a national plan of
the Ministry of Science and Innovation of the Spanish Government. A brief
description of this project is expounded herein.
3.1. Initial situation
At the beginning of the project, a large portion of the toxic deposits was several
meters underwater. The accumulated water, absolutely contaminated by the toxic
tailings, reached 209 meters above sea level. Figure 2.3 shows the initial situation
at the central cross-section.
On Figure 3.1 it can be observed an aerial view of 2005 before the closure. On the
right of the picture appears the tailings deposit and the dam, running southwest to
northeast. Deeper the water, darker the colour. Meanwhile, on the left of the
image is the mining plant, currently abandoned.
9
THE DRY CLOSURE
Figure 3.1. Aerial view of Almagrera site before closure (2005).
10
THE DRY CLOSURE
3.2. Spanish regulation about mining tailings

deposits
The annex “Depósitos de Lodos en Procesos de Tratamiento de Industrias

Extractivas” (herein ITC 2000) belonging to the “Reglamento General de
Normas Básicas de Seguridad Minera (RD 863/1985)” establishes the different
types of tailings deposits, the actions to consider for each one and the safety
factors required.
Table 3.1 shows the deposits classification and Table 3.2 the required safety
factors.
Storage Spillway Lives and

Height Length
Class Capacity Capacity Category Damage Properties
(m) (m)
(m3) (m3/s) affected
Urban cores
Serious
>15 Any Any Any or essential
1-Dam A services
Very Risk
10-15 >500 >106 >2000
important elements
Important Risk
2-Dam 5-15 Not included in Class 1 B elements
Yes Homes
Moderate Risk
elements
3-Dam <5 C
Only
Lives
incidentally
Risk
4-Pond Any D Scarce
elements
Table 3.1. Tailings deposits classification according to Spanish legislation
Actions
Class or Category
Normal Accidental Extreme
Class 1, categories A and B 1.4 1.3 1.2
Class 2, categories C and D 1.3 1.2 1.1
Class 3, categories C and D 1.2 1.1 1.0
Table 3.2. Safety factors required according to Spanish legislation.
11
THE DRY CLOSURE
3.3. Types of materials
In order to study the different kinds of materials and their properties, several on-
site and laboratory tests were executed, including five boreholes (one on the top,
two in the downstream slope and two in the upstream slope) in each one of the
three cross-sections analysed, spaced about 50 meters. The boreholes distribution
in the central section can be observed in Figure 2.3.
Finally, the following materials have been considered:
Roadway of dam
Clay core
Filters
Quarry run material
Rockfill
Selected rockfill
Weathered rock foundation
Fractured and sound rock
Table 3.3. Materials
3.4. Closure phases
The closure of Almagrera dam consists of several phases, which can be organized
as follows:
Phase 1
A. Perimeter drainage.
B. Pumping and depuration of the reservoir toxic water before discharge into
the river.
By means of pumping and drainage, water level was lowered several meters,
which improved the dam safety and made easier the closure works. In addition, it
substantially decreased the final pumping volume at the end of the closure.
12
THE DRY CLOSURE
Figure 3.2 Aerial view of Almagrera site (2009).
13
THE DRY CLOSURE
Figure 3.2 shows an another aerial view taken in 2009, when this phase was quite
advanced. The great mass of water which appeared on Figure 3.1 (2005) is no
longer in the reservoir, and the characteristic colours of the mining waste can be
observed.
Phase 2
Several works can be included in this phase:
A. Dumping 653.000 m3 of coarse toxic waste material, from Las Viñas mine,
on the reservoir tailings.
B. Levelling the surface and placing on the top a 10 cm thick clayey layer.
C. In some place where the machinery had difficulties to ride on the tailings,
a geotextile was placed on the top.
D. Construction of some drainage wells and water extractions.
E. Construction of dam reinforcement.
It is the main phase of the closure and it is already finished.
Phase 3
This phase contains a final cap. It has not started yet.
Phase 4
The last phase will consist of collecting surface and underground toxic water in
order to carry it to a passive treatment plant.
Figure 3.3 shows the present situation at Almagrera tailings deposit and dam. It
can be noted the brown colour corresponding to Las Viñas material. However,
darker colours due to the minerals can also be observed on the right of the image.
In addition, a row of drainage wells goes through the reservoir. Finally, the
rockfill reinforcement on the dam is clearly finished.
14
THE DRY CLOSURE
Figure 3.3. Aerial view of Almagrera site before closure (2005).
15
THE DRY CLOSURE
3.5. Mohr-Coulomb model calibration. Simulation

of closure operations.
The simulation of the closure operations was carried out using a Finite Element
(FE) model and the software Plaxis 2D v9.02. Triangular 15-nodes elements were
utilized.
To simulate the behaviour of the materials, a Mohr-Coulomb model was used,

which is a model of perfect, non-associated plasticity. The six yield functions (1)
describe a hexagonal cone in principal stress space, shown in Figure 3.4.
Being .
The six plastic potential functions are:
In both expressions .
Stress states within the yield surface have elastic behaviours, being all the strains
reversible.
16
THE DRY CLOSURE
.
Figure 3.4. Mohr Coulomb yield surface in principal stress space.
The yield functions (1) are governed by the two classic parameters: friction angle
( ) and cohesion ( ). Contrary, the plastic potential functions contain a third
plasticity parameter, the dilatancy angle ( ). This parameter models positive
plastic volumetric increments or dilatancy, specially observed for dense grounds.
For the model allows for tension, being the following the functions which
define this behaviour.
Where .
When needed, the dilatancy angle is calculated according to Plaxis

recommendation:
17
THE DRY CLOSURE
The soil parameters, obtained by on-site and laboratory tests, are shown in the
next table:
Soil type USCS c’ [kPa] [ 0] [kN/m3] K [m/s] E [MPa]

Core SC 18 30 19.8 10-8 50
Filter SP-SM 1 35 20 10-5 50
Quarry run GC 6 33 20.2 6.5·10-5 30
Rockfill SC 15 31 21.9 9.5·10-7 60
Selected Rockfill 1 35 20 5.1·10-3 60
Weathered Rockfill SC 50 20 20.5 1.4·10-6 300
Rock 250 20 21.4 1.3·10-7 104
Soft tailings ML 1 29 13.2 5.1·10-9 0.52
Medium Tailings ML 1 32 19.7 5.1·10-10 1
Las Viñas material 1 30 20 1.2·10-4 10
Table 3.4. Calculation parameters.
The simulation of the closure operations consisted of the following phases:
1. Finding the initial safety factor.
2. Upstream water drawdown produced by pumping the contaminated

reservoir water.
3. Upstream filling with coarse waste material.
4. Long term stability. Calculation of tailings settlements.
5. Seismic calculations, including considerations for tailings liquefaction.
6. Finding the new safety factors with the reinforcement from step 3.
3.6. Tailings
The tailings thickness inside the reservoir and the thickness of Las Viñas material
that has been placed above are shown in Figure 3.5.
18
THE DRY CLOSURE
Figure 3.5. Tailings and Las Viñas material thicknesses inside the reservoir.
Settlements in tailings were calculated by means of several hypotheses, Table 3.5

shows the different results after one year. Tailings allowable settlements were
considered about 0.5 meters. Considering this criterion and the obtained results it
was decided to place band-shaped drains where the tailings thickness exceeded 15
meters, what can be also observed on Figure 3.5.
Fill Remainder settlement 1

Tailings Maximum
Test thickness year after construction
thickness [m] settlement [m]
[m] No Drains Drains
25 5.5 3.3 2.5 0.42
Oedometer
20 7 3.4 2.4 0.19
Piezocones 25 5.5 2.5 1.9 0.32
Soft Tailings 20 7 2.6 2.6 0.15
Piezocones 25 5.5 1.3 1.0 0.16
Medium 20 7 1.3 0.9 0.07
tailings
Table 3.5. Maximum settlements in tailings
19
THE DRY CLOSURE
3.7. Calculations
According to the Spanish legislation (Table 3.1), Almagrera tailings dam is

included in Class 1 due to its height and in Category C (moderate damage).
Considering the dam class, safety factors contained in the first row of Table 3.2
must be fulfilled.
In order to fulfil these conditions, a compacted rockfill reinforcement was

projected, which may be noted in Figure 2.4. The phases that were simulated are
the following ones:
1. Initial Phase: The layers corresponding to Las Viñas, introduced in the

discretization, are removed because not appearing at the beginning. The
initial water table is introduced and drainage behaviour is supposed for all
the materials. Calculations were carried out referring to the piezometric
levels.
2. Gravity Loading: Proper weight is applied to the soils. The materials are
assumed drained.
3. Drawdown to elevation 207.5: The piezometric level measured on the

22/07/08 is introduced.
4. Total drawdown: Total drawdown has been simulated considering the

following type of calculation: final water table is used for all materials
except the core. For this it is assumed the initial piezometric level reduced
by the height of water on the upstream slope. The materials follows a
consolidation process of 45 days.
5. Fill: Filling is simulated by three layers of Las Viñas material

characterised by almost the same thickness. Since each layer is instantly
applied consolidation times of 72, 36 and 12 days were considered.
20
THE DRY CLOSURE
6. Long Term. Starting from phase 2, considering the filled material and the
final piezometric level.
Phase max (mm) Safety Factor

Initial 1.44
Reservoir at 207.5 level 1.43
Drawdown 193 1.47
Fill 1300 1.36
Long term 2060 1.79
Earthquake & liquefaction 278 1.19 (inside tailings)
Table 3.6. Final displacements and safety factors with FE method
Table 3.6 shows the results of the calculation with the Finite Element Method
(FEM). It must be noticed that it is not necessary to reach the safety factors inside
the tailings. This fact would mean a tailings movement and not a dam failure.
21
SEISMICITY AND SEISMIC INPUT DATA
4. SEISMICITY AND SEISMIC

INPUT DATA
In order to understand the seismic activity at Almagrera site, it is important to

know the seismicity in the Iberian Peninsula and its causes. In this section,
seismicity of the Iberian Peninsula and at Almagrera area are briefly described.
Then, necessary seismic input data are calculated, first as Spanish legislation
requires, next as it is needed for the dynamic calculation.
4.1. Seismicity in the Iberian Peninsula
According to Morales-Esteban et al. (2012), the convergence directed NWSE

between Africa and Eurasia, throughout this part of the limit between plates, is
responsible for the deformation of the crust of the Iberian Peninsula, the Maghreb,
and the adjacent coastal areas of the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. The plates
limit is not homogenous, with consecutive oceanic and continental areas in
contact and progressive changes in the stress direction. The area corresponding to
the Iberian Peninsula and the northwest of Africa can be considered the most
complicated contact area, with a moderate seismicity in relation to the magnitude
of the earthquakes. This area is surrounded at both sides by a frequent seismic
activity with very large earthquakes. The seismic activity of this area is of great
23
importance as large earthquakes have been produced in the past such as the
Lisbon 1755 earthquake. The coexistence of compressive and extensive tectonics,
and the interference of the Iberian micro-plate, makes the understanding of the
area very complicated.
The regional seismicity is diffuse and not clearly aligned with the current limit
between the plate of Eurasia and Africa, at the south of the Iberian Peninsula. The
seismic activity extends to far away inter-plate areas, such as the northeast and the
centre of the Iberian Peninsula.
The seismicity in Spain and Portugal is characterised by the occurrence of

moderate earthquakes, with a magnitude generally less than 5. Large earthquakes
are separated by long periods of time. Many of the earthquakes are located at the
east of the Gibraltar Arch and spread over a diffuse area, of approximately 500
km wide, centred at the Alboran Sea, containing parts of the southeast of Spain,
the north of Morocco and Algeria. The limit between the plates of Africa and
Eurasia is, currently, a matter under investigation. At the west of Gibraltar, most
earthquakes happen in the southern coast of Portugal next to the limit between the
plates of Azores and Gibraltar. Other seismic sources include the northwest of
Spain and the Pyrenees. Earthquakes rarely happen in other location. This
seismicity so widespread happens over geo-tectonic areas with different structure
and rheology. At the Iberian Peninsula, at least three different tectonic regimes
can be differentiated: stable blocks, alpine mountain belts and extension basin.
In this work, seismogenic areas defined by Martín (1984) have been used (Table
4.1). Morales-Esteban (2010) has studied the faulting mechanism for the
seismogenic areas of the Iberian Peninsula. Table 4.2 and Figure 4.1 show these
mechanism for every one of the 27 seismogenic areas.
24
Area Description
1 Granada basin
2 Penibetic area
3 Area to the East of the Betic system
4 Quaternary Guadix-Baza basin
5 Area of moderate seismicity to the North of the Betic System
6 Area of moderate seismicity including the Valencia basin
7 Sub-betic area
8 Tertiary basin in the Guadalquivir depression
9 Algarve area
10 South-Portuguese unit
11 Ossa Morena tectonic unit
12 Lower Tagus Basin
13 West Portuguese fringe
14 North Portugal
15 West Galicia
16 East Galicia
17 Iberian mountain mass
18 West of the Pyrenees
19 Mountain range of the coast of Catalonia
20 Eastern Pyrenees
21 Southern Pyrenees
22 North Pyrenees
23 North-Eastern Pyrenees
24 Eastern part of Azores-Gibraltar fault
25 North Morocco and Gibraltar field
26 Alboran Sea
27 Western Azores-Gibraltar fault
Table 4.1 Seismogenic areas of Spain and Portugal
25
Area Regime Axis Orientation Predominant type of Faulting Mmax

1 Compressive P≈N1700E Normal 7.0
0
2 Compressive P≈N170 E Normal 6.5
3 Compressive P≈N1700E Strike-slip 7.0
0
4 Compressive P≈N170 E Strike-slip 6.0
0
0
0
8 Compressive P≈N1700E Thrust 6.5
0
9 Compressive P≈N170 E Thrust 6.0
0
0
0
0
0
17 Compressive T≈N450E Strike-slip 5.5
0
19 Compressive P≈N00E Normal 5.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table 4.2 Axis orientation, regime of stress, maximum magnitude and
Peninsula.
26
Figure. 4.1. Axis orientation, regime of stress, maximum magnitude and predominant type of
faulting for the seismogenic areas of the Iberian Peninsula.
4.2. Seismicity at Almagrera site
Located at the seismogenic area 10, Almagrera tailings dam belongs to the South-
Portuguese unit.
Area 10 is characterized by thrust faults with a NW-SE orientation in compressive

regime. Regarding the maximum magnitude (Mmax), it is 5.5, the lowest value in
the Iberian Peninsula. Moreover, as can be observed on the next chart, the annual
rate of earthquake by km2 is also low (about 1.6E-4/km2). Thereby, it can be
concluded that Almagrera tailings dam is not situated in a critical seismic zone.
27
Figure. 4.2. Annual rate of earthquakes by km2 and b-value for the seismogenic.
4.3. Spanish legislation
In order to describe the importance of an earthquake, the following criteria are

considered:
 Magnitude: It is the released energy at the hypocentre of the earthquake.

Richter scale is used.
 Intensity: The Mercalli modified scale, the MSK, or the European

Macroseismic Scale (EMS) are the usually used scales to measure the
effects of an earthquake at a point. They are organized in degrees (I-XII).
 Basic seismic acceleration : Acceleration applied on the centre

of gravity (hereinafter c.o.g.) of a structure at a specific place. It is
expressed as a coefficient ( ) multiplying the gravity value. It acts as a
two-components vector (horizontal and vertical) and in both directions.
28
The basic acceleration and the intensity of an earthquake are related as follows:
Being the intensity according to the EMS. Table 4.3 shows some illustrative
examples (Vallarino, 2006):
I ab
VI. Slightly damaging 0.04g
VII. Damaging 0.08g
VIII. Heavily damaging 0.15g
IX. Destructive 0.31g
Table 4.3. Related values of intensity and basic acceleration
The Spanish Regulation that states the criteria and calculation methods about
seismicity is called “Norma Sismorresistente, 2002” (NCSE-02). This regulation
provides a Seismic hazard map (Figure 4.3), with basic acceleration isolines. In
addition, it supplies a list of the basic seismic accelerations for every town or city.
Figure 4.3. Seismic hazard map (NCSE-02)
29
An important issue is that the provided accelerations have been calculated for a
return period of 500 years. However, the NCSE-02 considers that large dams (as
Almagrera tailings dam) are construction of special importance, and states that
these ones should be calculated for a return period of 1000 years. To adapt the
basic acceleration to this return period, a coefficient of 1.3 must be applied.
Furthermore, for category A dams, an extreme earthquake (up to 10000 years of
return period) should be consider (“Reglamento Técnico sobre Seguridad de
Presas y Embalses”, 1996. Hereinafter Reglamento).
According to the regulation, the seismicity at a location can be classified as:
 Low: A seismic verification is not necessary.
 Medium: . Pseudo-statics methods can be used.

Technical Guides (2 and 3) of the Spanish Committee on Large Dams
(SPANCOLD) consider constant forces acting on the c.o.g. The horizontal
component is produced by the basic acceleration, the vertical one is
reduced by 0.7.
 High: . A dynamic calculation based on accelerograms must

be submitted.
As said before, basic seismic acceleration has to be modified depending on the

specific case. NCSE-02 method to obtain the value for calculation is explained
herein.
Where:
: basic seismic acceleration.
: dimensionless coefficient which has into account the return period.

When construction of special importance it becomes 1.3 (what means
return period of 1000 years).
30
: soil amplification coefficient.
if
if
if
: Soil coefficient that depends on the geotechnical characteristics of the

foundation soil. Table 4.4 shows them.
Type of soil Characteristics Coefficient C

I vs > 750 m/s 1.0
II 400 < vs < 750 m/s 1.3
III 200 < vs < 400 m/s 1.6
IV vs < 200 m/s 2.0
Table 4.4. Soil coefficient.
Where vs is the shear wave velocity of the layer. For multilayer foundation
soils, the first 30 meters should be taken into account. In this case, C is
calculated as a weighted average,
Being the layer thickness.
At the location of Almagrera dam:
 (Provided by NCSE-02)
 (Special importance, Tr=1000 years)
 (Basically sound rock)
 ( )
So,
31
Considering the ITC (2000) seismic forces should be calculated as accidental

actions, so a safety factor of 1.3 has to be fulfilled (see Table 3.2). Once
calculated the acceleration to apply ( ), Justo et al. (2010) carried out the
pseudo-static calculation. After the reinforcement was placed, a safety factor of
1.19 was reached (see Table 3.6). However, this value took place inside the
tailings and the engineers considered the dam safe enough.
It is important to note that, located in a medium-seismicity area, a dynamic

calculation for Almagrera is not required by the Spanish legislation.
4.4. Definition of the accelerograms
The first step in a dynamic analysis is the definition of the accelerograms that will
be applied. Where many accelerograms have been recorded for years,
accelerograms near the site could be used after a probabilistic calculation.
Meanwhile, where no so much data is available, using visco-elastic response
spectra is usually a better option.
A probabilistic method for selecting calculation accelerograms was proposed by

Carrasco in 2001. This method was developed to select the accelerograms for
Almagrera (Justo de et al., 2013) and it is detailed herein. The seismogenic areas
defined by Martin (1984) were used. Figure 4.4 shows the seismogenic areas, and
the arrow inside this picture marks the location of Almagrera site, inside
seismogenic area number 10.
32
Figure 4.4. Seismogenic areas of Spain and Portugal.
The Gutenberg-Ritcher law relates the cumulative number of events with

magnitude greater or equal to with the seismic activity , and the size
distribution factor, .
Morales-Esteban (2010) calculated the annual rate of earthquakes by km2, and the
equation’s parameters for each seismogenic area. The following table shows
these values.
33
Annual rate of
Area a b
earthquakes by km2
1 1.34E-03 4.95 1.41
2 5.59E-04 4.45 1.18
3 3.29E-04 4.50 1.29
4 1.89E-04 4.18 1.27
5 1.24E-04 4.80 1.62
6 1.42E-04 6.66 2.17
7 3.10E-04 5.18 1.52
8 6.63E-05 2.91 0.92
9 1.21E-04 3.49 1.20
10 1.63E-04 7.40 2.33
11 8.47E-05 4.69 1.44
12 5.08E-05 2.73 1.01
13 1.09E-04 4.01 1.29
14 6.71E-05 4.43 1.40
15 1.78E-04 6.81 2.07
16 1.85E-04 5.08 1.54
17 3.96E-05 5.28 1.75
18 3.70E-05 4.40 1.54
19 7.35E-05 5.78 1.90
20 1.58E-04 5.11 1.63
21 1.32E-04 5.01 1.53
22 5.51E-04 5.52 1.48
23 4.78E-04 4.68 1.45
24 2.92E-04 4.02 0.96
25 2.38E-04 3.64 0.96
26 3.74E-04 4.67 1.14
27 3.89E-04 3.27 0.69
Table 4.5. Annual rate of earthquakes, a-value and b-value for the seismogenegic areas
34
A basic tool for the estimation of the seismic hazard are the equations for the
estimation of the parameters of the soil movement. In this way, attenuation laws
are functions that relates a parameter of the soil movement with the magnitude,
the distance to the source, etc. The characteristic parameter of the soil movement
that has been used is the spectral acceleration (SA). It is accepted to be the most
suitable parameter to select the accelerograms because it is the soil movement
parameter better related to the structural response. The equations for the estimate
of ground motions from shallow crustal earthquakes from Morales-Esteban (2010)
have been used.
The arrival at the site of earthquakes that exceed a reference value ( ) is

modelled as a Poisson stationary process, defined by the Gutenberg-Ritcher law.
In this way, for source , the average number of events per year is determined as:
Where:
 : The seismic rate of the punctual source.
 : Reference value.
 : Magnitude.
 : Distance.
 : The probability for to exceed the reference value , for an

earthquake of magnitude M that occurs at a distance D.
 : The magnitude probability density function between the minimum

and maximum magnitudes considered.
Where several sources can hit simultaneously the site, the rate is calculated as:
35
And the return period is obtained as the inverse of the rate:
The probability of exceeding the threshold during a time , because of the

simultaneous action of punctual seismic sources is:
As seismogenic areas have been modelled as areas and not as punctual seismic
sources, equation cannot be applied. Due to this fact, the seismogenic areas
were divided into elements small enough to be assimilated to punctual seismic
sources (Carrasco, 2001).
With this method, the probability of exceeding a value of the acceleration

response spectra for an established time of exposure can be calculated. A plot of
the seismic hazard is obtained and Figure 4.5 shows a real example. This plot, that
compares the seismic hazard plot of the acceleration response spectrum for
different exposure times, is created for a specific type of soil, period of the
structure and relative dumping. Varying each parameter, a different curve is
created.
Repeating this process several times for different periods of the structure and for
every seismic hazard plot, the value of the spectrum for the same probability is
obtained. Figure 4.6 shows a scheme of this method.
For the construction of the USHARS for Almagrera, the period of exposure of the
structure was taken according to its estimated lifetime, 50 years. Meanwhile, the
probability of exceeding the threshold value was established according to the
seismic hazard required. In this case, using a return period (1000 years), the
probability was obtained from and .
36
Figure 4.5. Real example of seismic hazard plot of the acceleration response spectrum.
Figure 4.6. Scheme of construction of an uniform seismic hazard response spectrum from the
seismic hazard plots.
37
The next step is to compare the real accelerograms recorded in the same type of
soil with the calculated ones. Then, the standard deviation is calculated as:
Where:
: Response spectrum correspondent to the real register.
: Calculated response spectrum.
: Number of interval considered in the calculation.
: The scale factor that minimizes the standard deviation, equal to:
For Almagrera site, this methodology was applied considering the following
features and parameters:
 Founded on sound rock.

 Damping ratio of 5%.
 Return period close to 1000 years.
The database from which the real accelerograms have been obtained is the
European Strong Motion Database. It is available on the Internet at
http://www.isesd.hi.is/. The accelerograms with a scale factor ( ) close to 1 and
smaller standard deviation have been selected. Table 4.6 shows the selected
accelerograms.
38
Accelerograms f
358 1.08
385 0.915
607 1.043
4341 1.006
6261 1.050
6269 0.964
6274 0.923
Table 4.6. Selected accelerograms
for Almagrera tailings dam.
On Tables 4.7-4.13 some general information about each one of these

accelerograms can be observed.
Earthquake record 358

Earthquake Umbria (Central Italy)
Date 29/04/1984
Magnitude (Mw) 5.6
Station Peglio (Italy)
Fault distance (km) 45
Duration (s) 10.27
Table 4.7. Accelerogram 358 information

Earthquake Lazion Abruzzo (southern Italy)
Date 11/05/1984
Magnitude (Mw) 5.5
Station Atina-Pretura Piano Terra (Italy)
Duration (s) 13.32
39

Earthquake Umbria Marche (Central Italy)
Date 26/09/1997
Magnitude (Mw) 6
Station Forca Canapine (Italy)
Duration (s) 12.39

Earthquake Izmit (Turkey)
Date 17/08/1999
Magnitude (Mw) 7.6
Station Istanbul-Maslak (Turkey)
Duration (s) 35.896

Earthquake South Iceland (Iceland)
Date 17/06/2000
Magnitude (Mw) 6.5
Station Reykjavik-University (VR-II) (Iceland)
Duration (s) 10.71

Date 17/06/2000
Magnitude (Mw) 6.5
Station Irafoss-Hydroelectric Power Station (Iceland)
Duration (s) 20.36
40

Date 17/06/2000
Magnitude (Mw) 6.5
Station Reykjavik-Hus Verslunarinnar (Iceland)
Duration (s) 20.278
In Annex 2: Curves, comparison graphs between real accelerograms spectra and

Almagrera USHARS are included.
41
DYNAMIC CALCULATION
5. DYNAMIC CALCULATION
Once the accelerograms have been selected, the dynamic calculation has been
carried out for Almagrera tailings dam. Several sections have been analysed. In
this case, 3 sections spaced about 50 meters have been calcualted. The dynamic
calculation is detailed in this section.
5.1. Finite element model
Dynamic FE analyses can be considered the most complete tool for the prediction
of the seismic response of a geotechnical system, since they can give detailed
information of both the soil stress distribution and deformation (Visione et al.,
2009).
Nevertheless, a proper soil constitutive model, a reliable soil characterisation and

a correct definition of the seismic input are absolutely necessary. In addition,
several parameters responsible of numerical damping are very important. The
damping that a FEM shows depends on: the constitutive model (material
damping), the integration scheme of the equations (numerical damping), and the
boundary conditions. The calculations have been performed under drained
conditions.
43
DYNAMIC CALCULATION
While soil characterisation was carried out by Justo et al. (2010) and exposed
above (Table 3.4), this section deals with the rest of these issues below.
For meshing in Plaxis, 6-noded or 15-noded basic elements can be used. In the
present study, 15-noded triangular elements are utilised due to their higher
accuracy. This kind of elements provides 12 Gauss stress point. Outputs 1, 7 and
13 show the three FE models.
As far as the mesh refinement is concerned, the Average Element Size (AES) has
been considered as the control parameter. According to Kuhlmeyer and Lysmer
(1973), the element size should not be larger than , being the
wave length with the maximum frequency of interest ( ). Table 5.1 shows every
case. Later it is explained how and have been calculated (see Section
5.1.2.1.). Mesh coarseness has been chosen as fine, and it has been refined in the
dam. Outputs 2, 8 and 14 show the elements area for the models.
Section S1. M-C. S1. HS-S. S2. M-C. S2. HS-S. S3. M-C. S3. HS-S.
1737.70 1737.70 2822.29 2822.29 1782.38 1782.38
25 25 40 40 28 28
AESmin (m) 8.69 8.69 8.82 8.82 7.95 7.95
AESmodel (m) 5.39 2.84 6.29 3.31 5.33 3.00
Table 5.1. AESmin and AESmodel in every case. M-C=Mohr-Coulomb model. HS-S=HS-Small
model.
5.1.1. Material models
In order to develop the dynamic calculation, two models have been used: Mohr-
Coulomb and HS-Small. Plaxis 2D V9.02 has been used.
First, a Mohr-Coulomb model has been created, due to the calculation time
required by HS-Small. By means of the Mohr-Coulomb analysis, the available
accelerograms have been applied to the three considered sections. Once the
stresses have been examined, the critical accelerogram for each section has been
44
DYNAMIC CALCULATION
selected. Then, the most critical cases have also been calculated by means of HS-
Small model.
As stated above, Mohr-Coulomb is a model of perfect, non-associated plasticity

(see Section 3.5). Contrary, the HS-Small (based on the Hardening Soil model) is
a hardening plasticity model.
In contrast to an elastic perfect-plastic model, the yield surface of a hardening

plasticity model is not fixed in principal stress space, but it can expand due to
plastic straining. The Hardening Soil model uses the theory of plasticity rather
than the theory of elasticity, includes soil dilatancy and introduces a yield cap. A
representation of the total yield contour is shown in Figure 5.1. Table 5.2 shows
some basic characteristics of the model.
Characteristics Related parameters

Stress dependent stiffness according to a power law
Plastic straining due to primary deviatoric loading
Plastic straining due to primary compression
Elastic unloading/reloading ,
Failure according to the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion , and
Table 5.2. Basic characteristics of the hardening soil model.
As stated before, the Hardening Soil model with Small-Strain Stiffness (HS-
Small) is based on the Hardening Soil model, using only two additional
parameters:
 : Initial or very small-strain shear modulus.

 : The shear strain level at which the secant shear modulus is
reduced to about 70% of .
45
DYNAMIC CALCULATION
Figure 5.1. Total yield contour of the hardening soil model in principal stress space for
cohesionless soil.
The original Hardening Soil model assumes elastic material behaviour during
unloading and reloading. However, the strain range in which soils can be
considered truly elastic is very small. With increasing strain amplitude, soil
stiffness decays nonlinearly. Figure 5.2 is an example of this fact. It can also be
noted that at the minimum strain which can be measured in classical laboratory
test, soil stiffness has often decreased to less half its initial value.
Therefore, very small-strain stiffness and its non-linear dependency on strain

amplitude should be properly take into account. The HS-Small gives the
possibility to do so.
46
DYNAMIC CALCULATION
Figure 5.2. Characteristic stiffness-strain behaviour of soil with typical strain ranges for
laboratory test and structures.
In adition, the HS-Small model shows hysteresis in cyclic loading. The amount of
hysteresis depends on the magnitude of the corresponding strain amplitude.
Nevertheless, the model does not generate accumulated strains with multiple
loading cycles. When it is applied in dynamic calculations, this hysteretic
behaviour leads to damping (depending on the applied load and their
corresponding strains amplitudes).
All these facts make the HS-Small an appropriate model to be used in dynamic
calculations, especially in order to obtain remanent deformations.
47
DYNAMIC CALCULATION
5.1.2. Sources of energy dissipation
5.1.2.1. Material damping
The hysteresis that shows a model as the HS-Small leads to an important material
damping. However, in linear-elastic conditions (as in the Mohr-Coulomb model)
hysteretic damping is zero. Nevertheless, many laboratory tests have
demonstrated the presence of damping, even at very small strains (Hardin and
Drnevich, 1972; Tatsuoka et al., 1978). In Plaxis, this problem is overcome by
using a visco-elastic model, based on the Rayleigh formulation:
Where:
: Damping matrix.
: Mass matrix.
: Stiffness matrix
: Rayleigh coefficients.
For a soil layer with a constant value of the damping parameter ( ), the linear
system of equations that provides the Rayleigh coefficients is:
Being:
Constant damping ratio.
Circular natural frequencies of the layer.
48
DYNAMIC CALCULATION
A damping ratio of 2% has been used according to Visone et al. (2009), who took
this value as the damping ratio for a visco-elastic homogeneous layer lying on
rigid bedrock.
Regarding the natural frequencies and periods, they can be calculated as:
: order number of the calculated natural frequency.
To overcome the fact of having several layers, a unique equivalent layer over rigid
bedrock has been used (EERA, 2000). So, a uniform shear wave velocity has been
calculated as a weighted average:
Therefore, the natural period ( ) of the equivalent soil layer is calculated as:
Tables below show the different equivalent layer for each section.
Soil H (m)  (kN/m3) Vs (m/s)

Core 3.30 19.80 95.74
Filter 1.10 20.00 95.26
Quarry-run 18.90 20.20 73.42
Wheathered Rock 9.05 20.50 225.60
Rockfill 7.95 21.90 99.72
Rock 27.47 21.40 4118
Equivalent layer 67.77 20.90 1737.71
Table 5.3. Equivalent layer. Section 1.
49
DYNAMIC CALCULATION

Core 3.9 19.8 95.74
Filter 1.1 20 95.26
Quarry-run 13.7 20.2 73.42
Rock 46 21.4 4118

Core 3.9 19.8 95.74
Filter 2.06 20 95.26
Quarry-run 17.32 20.2 73.42
Rockfill 11.56 21.9 99.72
Rock 26.56 21.4 4118
Finally, by means of equations, input parameters and are

calculated.
Section 1 Section 2 Section 3

R 1.20831 1.95873 1.32696
R 0.00025 0.00015 0.00023
Table 5.6. Rayleigh coefficients.
The amplification function for a soil layer on rigid bedrock (Roesset, 1970), gives
an illustrative graph of amplification against frequency (Curves 8, 9 and 10).
On these it curves can be observed that the fundamental period varies depending
on the section. Meanwhile sections 1 and 3 (rather similar) have almost the same
fundamental period, section 2, which has a larger rock portion, has a lower one.
50
DYNAMIC CALCULATION
This fact may be very important, because the most critical accelerogram can be
different for each section.
5.1.2.2. Numerical damping
The formulation of the time integration is an important factor of the calculation

process in the numerical implementation of dynamic problems. It strongly affects
the stability and accuracy of the process. Plaxis code implements the Newmark
type implicit time integration scheme (Brinkgreve, 2002). In this method,
displacement and velocity of any point at are expressed as:
The parameters that control the accuracy of the integration are and , or
Newmark coefficients. In 1977, Hilbert et al. expressed these coefficients
introducing a new parameter (that could be between 0 and 1/3):
There are two general cases:
1) . The modified method coincides with the original Newmark method

with constant average acceleration. No numerical damping is introduced.
2) . The efficiency of the calculation improves. However, this method
introduces numerical damping into the model.
In order to avoid introducing numerical damping, the first option has been taken,
that is:
51
DYNAMIC CALCULATION
It is important to note that, while and are material inputs, and are
calculation inputs.
Another important parameter in the accuracy control is the integration time step.
The following formula (Brinkgreve, 2002) gives the critical time step in a
dynamic calculation for a single mesh element:
Where:
 depends on the element type. For 15-nodes element

being (Zienkiewicz and Taylor, 1991).
 and depends on the type of soil. Compression waves velocity and
Poisson ratio respectively.
 and are the average length and the surface of the element.
For a FE model, the critical time is the minimum of the individual critical times.
For every FE model, Plaxis calculates and set the parameter control
dynamic substeps in order to respect it. Accuracy of the calculation and
calculation time are strongly affected by this parameter. In this study, when
calculation time was too high assuming , the time step has been raised.
Nevertheless, the accuracy of the calculation has always been checked.
52
DYNAMIC CALCULATION
5.1.2.3. Boundary conditions
A FE model needs boundary conditions able to simulate the energy dissipation by

the wave propagation in the ground beyond the model borders. In this way, Plaxis
provides viscous absorbent boundaries, based on Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer’s
(1969) method. In this case, normal and tangential stress components are
described as follows:
, and are material properties: compressions and shear waves, and density.
In order to chose the boundary parameters and (relaxation coefficients),

standard settings have been taken. These values, proposed by Brinkgreve (2012),
are:
However, it is not possible to state that shear waves are fully absorbed, and there
are not clear criteria to determine and . In order to overcome these
uncertainties, Morales-Esteban et al. (2010) suggested moving away the borders
sufficiently far away from the region of interest. In fact, the dam model has been
widen up to thrice the original width.
53
DYNAMIC CALCULATION
5.1.3. Calculation steps
As stated above, the calculation has been carried out under drained conditions.
Being a finished structure, no construction stages have been considered, but the
finished dam.
In the three Mohr-Coulomb models, all the available accelerograms were applied.
Meanwhile, the HS-Small model was only calculated with the most critical
accelerogram.
The calculation phases are:
1. Own weight.
2. Own weight and accelerogram application.
54
CALCULATION RESULTS
6. CALCULATION RESULTS
Once the critical accelerogram has been selected and applied, the results have
been studied. Firstly, simulations of relative shear stress and plastic points have
been made and used to find the critical moment of the earthquake for each section.
Then, a depth study of these cases has been carried out.
Firstly, it has been implemented an analysis of stress, followed by a plastic points

examinations. Special attention has been paid to the appearance of a slip or failure
surface.
Finally, deformations and total displacements have been observed and interpreted.
6.1. Analysis of stress
In order to analyse the stability of the dam, relative shear stress has been used. It
is defined as follows:
Where:
 : Shear stress
 Shear strength
55
CALCULATION RESULTS
Outputs 4, 10 and 16 show the critical case for every one of the three sections.
Examining the outputs, it can be stated that the bedrock is resistant enough to
overcome the earthquake. Thereby, bigger the bedrock part in the dam body,
lesser the failure risk. So, comparing relative shear stress in section 2 (Output 10),
which has a large presence of bedrock, to in the other sections, it is clear that
this is not the critical section.
Although section 1 is the most extreme case, no failure surface seems to cross the
dam body. Neither appears a slip surface in the other two cases.
In order to make sure the dam resistant, Mohr-Coulomb and cut-off points have
been analysed (Outputs 5, 6, 11 ,12 ,17 and 18).
A point is denoted as Mohr-Coulomb point if, due to its stress state, it is currently
on the Mohr-Coulomb envelope. However, may happen that one point is later
unloaded, it drops below the Mohr-Coulomb envelope and it is no longer a plastic
failure point. Meanwhile, tension cut-off points are those which have reached the
tension cut-off criterion. In this case, the tension cut-off criterion is equal to zero.
As it has been proved by means of the shear relative stress outputs, it can be noted
that no slip surface appears.
Nevertheless, the dynamic load is not negligible at all. For example, output 6
shows several plastic zones in the first section at the same time. If two or more
zones get together, a failure surface may appear, or the dam could even collapse.
56
CALCULATION RESULTS
6.2. Analysis of deformations
Taking advantage of Plaxis tool to create animations, different simulations have

been made in order to know the displacement along the time. Outputs 3, 9 and 15
show the deformed meshes.
It can be observed that vertical displacements are negligible in the dam body and
that it remains almost unaltered.
The permanent deformation at a point can be obtain as the difference between its
displacement and the displacement at the base (which is fixed). HS-Small model
gives as reliable values of these deformations. The final deformation values
obtained are quite small: 2 mm in section 1; 3 mm in section 2; and 2.5 mm in
section 3.
In addition, a comparison curve has been included in Annex 2. On Curve 11 can

be observed the differences between Mohr-Coulomb and HS-Small
displacements. There are not important differences, but HS-Small provides the
remanent deformation.
57
ANALYSIS OF LIQUEFACTION
7. ANALYSIS OF
LIQUEFACTION
Soil liquefaction can imply great damages when an earthquake takes place. This
physical phenomenon, which occurs during some earthquakes, leads the soil to a
temporary loss of strength. Consequently, loose cohensionless saturated sandy
(even silty) soils behave like a viscous liquid.
Pore pressure may increase when shear waves pass through a saturated sandy soil.
This can make the effective stress drop to zero and consequently eliminating the
shear strength. If the pore pressure has increased enough to drop the shear strength
to zero, the soil is no longer able to support whatever is above (overlying soil
layers, buildings, etc.) and it flows like a liquid. Figure 7.1 shows how it can
affect an embankment such as Almagrera tailings dam.
Figure 7.1. Liquefaction effect.
59
7.1. Liquefaction hazard at Almagrera
According to Eurocode 8 part 5 article 4.1.4 (2):
“An evaluation of the liquefaction susceptibility shall be made when the

foundation soils include extended layers or thick lenses of loose sand, with or
without silt/clay fines, beneath the water table level, and when the water table
level is close to the ground surface. This evaluation shall be performed for the
free-field site conditions (ground surface elevation, water table elevation)
prevailing during the lifetime of the structure”.
In this case, foundation soils do not include extend layers of thick lenses of loose
sand at all (see Section 3.5). Instead, the dam lays over rigid bedrock and the
materials inside the dam are quite compacted.
However, this is not the only way of liquefaction to affect Almagrera tailings
dam. Although there are not materials susceptible to liquefy below or inside the
dam, either tailings and Las Viñas materials may fail by liquefaction. A priori, a
fail inside the reservoir is not so important. However, if the fill behaves like a
liquid it can greatly increase the pressure on the upstream dam side.
In 2014, Justo et al. published a thorough study about these tailings and Las Viñas
material. In that study, Las Viñas material is classified between silty sand and
sandy silt. Meanwhile, the mining tailings are quite heterogeneous and may vary
among sandy tailings without plasticity (ML), silt with a high liquid limit (MH)
and silty clay (CL). Since there are no plastic zones and loose materials and some
of them are under water table, liquefaction could happen inside the reservoir.
Nevertheless, although some materials inside the reservoir are susceptible to

liquefy, a soil liquefaction would only occurs under certain seismic conditions
(magnitude, peak acceleration, earthquake duration etc.). As stated before,
Almagrera dam is not located at a critical seismic zone.
60
Santucci de Magistris et al. (2013), published a database for peak ground

acceleration (PGA) threshold in liquefaction occurrence. The database includes
201 liquefaction cases caused by earthquake. In the database, 40% of the data
were associated with earthquakes with moment magnitudes from 6.8 to 7.1, 13%
were associated with very large events (magnitudes of 8 or more), and 2% were
associated with magnitudes within the range of 5.9 to 6.2. As mentioned in
Section 4.1 a magnitude larger than 5.5 inside the seismogenic area (10) where
Almagrera is located, is improbable.
Figure 7.2. Cumulative distribution of liquefaction occurrence fitted to a 4-parameter Beta

probability distribution.
That paper provides a graph of the cumulative distribution of liquefaction

occurrence, empirical and fitted to a beta probability distribution (Figure 7.2).
Finally, it fixes a threshold of PGA equal to 0.09 g at the site surface as the limit
below which no liquefaction occurs (a typical threshold acceleration is 0.1g).
Thereby, taking advantage of the dynamic calculations, some curves of tailings

acceleration have been included in Annex 2. Curves 12, 13 and 14 provide
acceleration-against-time graphs at one point on the reservoir surface
61
(accelerogram 607). It can be observed that the threshold value of 0.09 g has not
been exceeded at the site surface.
7.2. Conclusions
Since no one of the constitutive models provided by Plaxis is able to simulate soil
liquefaction, the dynamic calculation carried out in Section 5 does not include a
liquefaction analysis. However, as stated above in this section, it is not necessary
for Almagrera tailings dam.
Regarding the materials characteristics, it is very improbable that liquefaction

occurs in the foundation soil or the dam body. With regard to the upstream
materials, they could be susceptible to liquefaction. However, the seismicity at the
site is quite low. Evaluating the acceleration on the deposits surface, it is well
below the established PGA thresholds.
In addition, the tailings drainage will continue, what means that water table should
drop below the tailings, reducing the liquefaction possibility.
In conclusion, after evaluating Almagrera tailings dam and comparing it with

some liquefaction cases, it can be stated that the risk of liquefaction is negligible.
62
CONCLUSIONS
8. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE

RESEARCH LINES
8.1. Final conclusions
Based on real accelerograms and FE models, the dynamic calculation provides a

reliable simulation of the dam state during an earthquake. The results show that
the dam is safe enough. However, this does not mean that unnecessary material
has been used on its construction. In fact, the provided results demonstrate that, at
some moments, the dam body is close to its limit. Moreover, Las Viñas fill and
the tailings may break.
In short, the perform of a dynamic calculation by means of the FEM gives a

valuable simulation that allows a thorough analysis of results.
By analysing the different sections results, it can be stated that the dam is safer
when the portion of bedrock in the dam body is larger (section 2). This fact
means that the central part of the dam (where the height above foundations is
bigger) is the most critical.
Regarding the liquefaction, it cannot be simulated with Plaxis. A priori, no

liquefaction will occur in the foundation or the dam body. Nevertheless, the fill
upstream could suffer liquefaction.
63
CONCLUSIONS
8.2. Future research lines
In order to improve dynamic calculations, future researches could attempt to

perform a dynamic calculation able to include a liquefaction analysis. Plaxis does
not allow to work out liquefaction. However, there are some incipient models that
solve that shortcoming (García, 2007).
There are also very few references regarding real values for soil damping.
64
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
Brinkgreve, R. B. J. (2002) Plaxis 2D version 8. A. A. Balkema Publisher, Lisse.
Brinkgreve, R. B. J. (2012) Plaxis 2D 2012. A. A. Balkema Publisher, Lisse.
Carrasco R. (2001). Estimación de acelerogramas de cálculo en

cumplazamientos de Andalucía basados en espectros de respuesta de
peligrosidad sísmica uniforme. (Doctoral dissertation, Spanish). Universidad de
Sevilla, 2001.
EERA (2000). Equivalent-linear Earthquake site Response Analyses code.
García JR (2007). Análisis comparativo del fenómeno de licuación en arenas.

Aplicación Tumaco (Colombia). (doctoral dissertation, Spanish). Universidad
Politécnica de Cataluña. 2007.
Hardin, B. O. And Drnevich, V.P (1972). Shear modulus and damping in

sands, I. Measurement and parameter effects. Technical Report No. UKY 26-
70-CE2, University of Kentucky, College of Engineering, Soil Mechanics Series
No.1, Lexington, KY.
Hilber, H. M., Hughes, T. J. R., and Taylor, R. L. (1977). Improved numerical

dissipation for time integration algorithms in Structural dynamics. Earth
Engrg and Structural Dyns 5:283-353.
IGME (2006), Inventario nacional de residuos de actividades extractivas,

Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, Spain.
ITC 2000. Instrucción técnica complementaria 08.02.01 chap. XII of Reglamento

General de Normas Básicas de Seguridad Minera. Depósitos de lodos en
procesos de tratamiento de industrias extractivas. BOE 09/06/2000, 17235-
17244. Ministry of Industry and Energy (Spain).
65
REFERENCES
Justo JL, Jiménez F.A., Durand P, Vázquez-Boza M (2010). The dry closure of
Alamgrera tailings dams. International Symp. Dams and Sustainable Water
Resources Development, Hanoi, 2010.
Justo JL, Jiménez F.A., Vázquez-Boza M., Soriano C., Castilla J. (2014). Study
of tailings in Almagrera Dam by piezocones. Ingeniería Civil 173: 43-53.
Justo JL, Morales-Esteban A, Durand P, Vázquez-Boza M (2013). Dynamic

calculation for the dry closure of Almagrera tailings dam. Proceedings of the
18th international conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering.
Paris. Francia. 2013
Kuhlmeyer RL, Lysmer J (1973). Finite element method accuracy for wave
propagations problems. J for the Soil Mech and Foundation Division 99:5, 421-
427
Morales-Esteban A (2010). Seismic hazard. Attenuation laws and earthquake

time series analysis (doctoral dissertation, Spanish). University of Seville. 2010.
Morales-Esteban A, Justo JL, Martínez-Álvarez F, Azañón JM (2012).

Probabilistic method to select calculation accelerograms based on uniform
seismic hazard acceleration response spectra. Soil Dyn and Earthq Engrg
43:174-185
NCSR 2002. Norma de Construcción Sismorresistente NCSR-02. Parte

General y Edificación. BOE, 244: 35898-35967.
Roesset, J.M. (1970) Fundamentals of soil amplification, in Seismic Design for

Nuclear Power Plants, ed. R. J. Hansen (The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), pp.
183-244.
Santucci de Magistris F., Lanzano G., Forte G., Fabbrocino G. (2013). A

database for PGA threshold in liquefaction occurrence. Soil Dyn and Earthq
Engrg 54:17-19.
Simón M, Ortiz I, García I, Fernández E, Fernández J, Dorronsoro C, Aguilar J.

(1998). El desastre ecológico de Doñana. Edafología, 5, 153-161.
SPANCOLD. Guías Técnicas de Seguridad de Presas N02: Criterios para

proyectos de presas y obras anejas. CICCP, Madrid, Spain.
SPANCOLD. Guías Técnicas de Seguridad de Presas N03: Estudios

geológicos-geotécnicos y de prospección de materiales. CICCP, Madrid, Spain.
66
REFERENCES
Tatsuoka, F., Iwasaki, T., and Takagi, Y (1978). Hysteretic damping of sands
and its relation to shear modulus. Soils and foundations 18:2, 25-40.
Tornos Arroyo F (2008). La Geología y Metalogenia de la Faja Pirítica

Ibérica. Macla, 10: 13-23.
Vallarino E. (2006). Tratado básico de presas, 6th ed., vol. 1, Generalidades;

Presas de hormigón y materiales sueltos; Aliviaderos, Colegio de Ingenieros de
Caminos, Canales y Puertos, Madrid, Spain.
Visione C, Bilotta E, Santucci di Magistris F (2009). One-Dimensional Ground

Response as Preliminary Tool For Dynamic Analyses in Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 14:1, 131-162.
Zienkiewicz, O.C. and Taylor, R. L. (1991). The Finite Element Method, 4th ed.,
vol. 2, Solid and Fluid Mechanics, Dynamics and Non-Linearity, McGraw-Hill,
London, U.K.
67
OUTPUTS
ANNEX 1: OUTPUTS
69
OUTPUTS
70
OUTPUTS
Output 1
71
OUTPUTS
Output 2
72
OUTPUTS
Output 3
73
OUTPUTS
Output 4
74
OUTPUTS
Output 5
75
OUTPUTS
Output 6
76
OUTPUTS
Output 7
77
OUTPUTS
Output 8
78
OUTPUTS
Output 9
79
OUTPUTS
Output 10
80
OUTPUTS
Output 11
81
OUTPUTS
Output 12
82
OUTPUTS
Output 13
83
OUTPUTS
Output 14
84
OUTPUTS
Output 15
85
OUTPUTS
Output 16
86
OUTPUTS
Output 17
87
OUTPUTS
Output 18
88
CURVES
ANNEX 2: CURVES
89
CURVES
90
CURVES
Curve 1
91
CURVES
Curve 2
92
CURVES
Curve 3
93
CURVES
Curve 4
94
CURVES
Curve 5
95
CURVES
Curve 6
96
CURVES
Curve 7
97
CURVES
Curve 8
98
CURVES
Curve 9
99
CURVES
Curve 10
100
CURVES
Curve 11
101
CURVES
Curve 12
102
CURVES
Curve 13
103
CURVES
Curve 14
104
PLANS AND SECTIONS
ANNEX 3: PLANS AND SECTIONS
105

Dynamic Calculation of Geothecnical Structures

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Dynamic Calculation of Geothecnical Structures

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Pablo Castillo Falcón

Tutors: Antonio Morales-Esteban, Percy Durand Neyra

Civil Engineering Final Project:

Department of Building Structures and Geotechnical Engineering

In these papers, a dynamic calculation based on real

La rotura de la presa de residuos minerales de Aznalcóllar ha

En este estudio se ha llevado a realizado un cálculo dinámico

My grateful thanks are also extended to the whole Department of Building

Dynamic calculation, tailings dam, finite element, accelerogram, earthquake,

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................... vii

2. ALMAGRERA TAILINGS DAM ................................................................ 3

2.2. Location .................................................................................................... 3

2.4. The dam .................................................................................................... 5

3. THE DRY CLOSURE ................................................................................... 9

3.1. Initial situation .......................................................................................... 9

3.2. Spanish regulation about mining tailings deposits ................................. 11

3.3. Types of materials................................................................................... 12

3.4. Closure phases ........................................................................................ 12

3.5. Mohr-Coulomb model calibration. Simulation of closure operations. ... 16

3.6. Tailings ................................................................................................... 18

3.7. Calculations ............................................................................................ 20

4. SEISMICITY AND SEISMIC INPUT DATA .......................................... 23

4.1. Seismicity in the Iberian Peninsula ........................................................ 23

4.2. Seismicity at Almagrera site ................................................................... 27

4.3. Spanish legislation .................................................................................. 28

4.4. Definition of the accelerograms ............................................................. 32

5. DYNAMIC CALCULATION ..................................................................... 43

5.1. Finite element model .............................................................................. 43

5.1.1. Material models ............................................................................... 44

5.1.2. Sources of energy dissipation .......................................................... 48

5.1.2.1. Material damping ..................................................................... 48

5.1.2.2. Numerical damping .................................................................. 51

5.1.2.3. Boundary conditions ................................................................ 53

5.1.3. Calculation steps ............................................................................. 54

6. CALCULATION RESULTS ...................................................................... 55

6.1. Analysis of stress .................................................................................... 55

6.2. Analysis of deformations ........................................................................ 57

7. ANALYSIS OF LIQUEFACTION ............................................................ 59

7.1. Liquefaction hazard at Almagrera .......................................................... 60

7.2. Conclusions ............................................................................................ 62

8. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH LINES ........................... 63

8.1. Final conclusions .................................................................................... 63

8.2. Future research lines ............................................................................... 64

ANNEX 2: CURVES ........................................................................................... 89

ANNEX 3: PLANS AND SECTIONS ............................................................. 105

Figure 1.1. Aznalcóllar dam failure......................................................................... 2

Figure 2.1. Huelva province .................................................................................... 4

Figure 2.2. Iberian Pyrite Belt. ................................................................................ 5

Figure 2.3. Central cross-section of Almagrera dam before closure. ...................... 6

Figure 2.4. Central cross-section with rockfill reinforcement. ................................ 7

Figure 3.2 Aerial view of Almagrera site (2009). ................................................. 13

Figure. 4.1. Axis orientation, regime of stress, maximum magnitude and

predominant type of faulting for the seismogenic areas of the Iberian

Figure 4.3. Seismic hazard map (NCSE-02).......................................................... 29

Figure 4.4. Seismogenic areas of Spain and Portugal. .......................................... 33

Figure 4.6. Scheme of construction of an uniform seismic hazard response

spectrum from the seismic hazard plots. ................................................... 37

space for cohesionless soil. ....................................................................... 46

Figure 5.2. Characteristic stiffness-strain behaviour of soil with typical strain

ranges for laboratory test and structures. .................................................. 47

Figure 7.1. Liquefaction effects. ........................................................................... 59

Figure 7.2. Cumulative distribution of liquefaction occurrence fitted to a 4-

parameter Beta probability distribution. ................................................... 61