Appendix J: Dynamic Response Analysis

Fundo Tailings Dam Review Panel Report on the Immediate Causes of the Failure of the Fundo Dam
APPENDIX J
Dynamic Response Analysis
August 25, 2016

Appendix J
Dynamic Response Analysis
TABLE OF CONTENTS
J1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................. 1
J2 EARTHQUAKE TIME HISTORIES ..................................................................................................... 1
J3 MODEL AND INPUT DATA FOR SITE RESPONSE ANALYSIS ........................................................... 4
J3.1 General ............................................................................................................................. 4
J3.2 Shear Wave Velocity ......................................................................................................... 6
J3.3 Modulus Reduction and Damping .................................................................................... 9
J4 RESULTS OF SITE RESPONSE ANALYSES ...................................................................................... 10
J4.1 Weathered Rock Profile at Samarco Office Site ............................................................. 10
J4.2 Tailings Dam Profiles at Fundo Dam Site ...................................................................... 12
J5 CYCLIC LIQUEFACTION TRIGGERING ........................................................................................... 14
J6 SEISMIC DISPLACEMENTS ........................................................................................................... 16
List of Tables
Table J2-1 Summary of time histories provided for analysis by Atkinson (2016) ............................. 2
Table J2-2 PGA values in bedrock of estimated November 5, 2015 time histories at Samarco ....... 3
Table J4-1 Computed amplification factors from SHAKE analyses .................................................. 12
List of Figures
Figure J2-1 Estimated time histories of November 5, 2015 earthquakes from Atkinson (2016).
(BC1 median-level motions on left; BC2 median-level motions on right) ........................ 3
Figure J2-2 Response spectra of BC1 (mainshock) and BC2 ground motions provided by Atkinson
(2016) ................................................................................................................................ 4
Figure J3-1 Aerial image showing locations of Samarco office and Fundo Dam .............................. 5
Figure J3-2 Shear wave velocity data in weathered phyllite at Samarco office site........................... 6
Figure J3-3 Selected soil columns at Fundo Dam for 1D site response analysis ............................... 7
Figure J3-4 Shear wave velocity data in tailings at Fundo and Germano ......................................... 8
Figure J3-5 Shear wave velocity data in compacted sand .................................................................. 9
Figure J3-6 Three soil columns used in SHAKE2000 analyses ............................................................. 9
Figure J3-7 Modulus reduction and damping curves for tailings sands, slimes and soft rock ......... 10
Figure J4-1 Computed peak accelerations from SHAKE2000 analyses of weathered rock column . 11
Figure J4-2 Comparison of output and input response spectra from SHAKE2000 analyses ............ 11
Figure J4-3 Results of SHAKE analyses for crest and toe soil columns at Fundo Dam.................... 13
Figure J4-4 Comparison of cyclic stress ratios induced by CD1 and CD2 ground motions ............... 14
August 25, 2016 Page J-i

Appendix J - Dynamic Response Analysis
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Figure J5-1 Pore pressure development in laboratory test following lateral extrusion mechanism
and then cyclic loading (test ID TX-31) very loose sample (=+0.05) ......................... 15
Figure J5-2 Laboratory test following lateral extrusion mechanism and then cyclic loading (test
ID TX-31) very loose sample (=+0.05) ....................................................................... 16
Figure J6-1 Calculation of yield acceleration for Newmark-type displacement analysis ................. 17
Figure J6-2 Estimated displacements ................................................................................................ 18
List of Attachments
Attachment J1 Ground Motion Time Histories used in Newmark Displacement Analysis
August 25, 2016 Page J-ii

Appendix J Dynamic Response Analysis
J1 INTRODUCTION
This appendix presents the results of dynamic response analyses of the November 5, 2015
earthquakes at Samarco, using the one-dimensional ground response analysis software SHAKE2000.
The November 5, 2015 earthquake time histories were estimated by seismologist Dr. Gail Atkinson
(Atkinson 2016) and used as input ground motions in our site response analyses. The analyses were
performed at two locations, namely:
1. at the Samarco office site to evaluate potential amplification of ground motions through the
weathered rock profile; and
2. at the Fundo Dam site to estimate the likely earthquake-induced shear stresses in the tailings
dam profile.
Section J2 summarizes the input earthquake time histories. Section J3 describes the soil models and
input data used in our site response analyses. Section J4 presents the results of the SHAKE2000
analyses. Finally, Sections J5 and J6 present the results of assessments to identify whether pore
pressures or displacements significant to the triggering of liquefaction could result from the
computed ground motions.
J2 EARTHQUAKE TIME HISTORIES

Atkinson (2016) analyzed the ground motions from the November 5, 2015 earthquake sequence near
Fundo Dam. The analysis considered data from the following sources:
seismographic data obtained from the regional Brazilian network (www.rsbr.gov.br);
felt (intensity) reports of the November 5 earthquakes at the Samarco office site;
data collected on a local accelerometer that was installed on November 11, 2015 following
the dam failure, and
ground motion data collected to May 20, 2016 on a six-station local broadband array installed
by Nanometrics Inc. at the end of April, 2016.
Note that the nearest Brazilian regional seismographic stations that recorded the November 5, 2015
earthquakes near Fundo Dam were more than 150 km away from the dam, hence ground motion
prediction equations were used by Atkinson (2016) to estimate the likely ground motions at Samarco.
Atkinson (2016) used the above data to develop a time history of motions that represents those that
likely occurred at the Samarco site on November 5, 2015 prior to the dam failure at approximately
15:45 (local time). The time history sequence includes three earthquakes closely spaced in time:
M 2.2 at 14:12:15 (foreshock)
M 2.6 at 14:13:51 (mainshock)
M 1.8 at 14:16:03 (aftershock)
where M is moment magnitude, estimated from local magnitudes reported by RSBR, and all
times noted are local Brazilian time.
August 25, 2016 Page J-1

As a result of the ground motions analysis, Atkinson (2016) provided time histories on rock that can
be used to evaluate the response of the structures at Samarco due to the November 5, 2015
earthquake. The time histories provided are summarized in Table J2-1.
Table J2-1 Summary of time histories provided for analysis by Atkinson (2016)
Time History Confidence Events NEHRP Site

Directional Components
Sequence Name Interval Represented Classification
Mainshock
2 x Horizontal (H1 & H2)
Median Foreshock
1 x Vertical (V)
BC1 (18 individual event time Aftershock
histories) Mainshock
84th Percentile Foreshock B/C vs30 = 760
1 x Vertical (V)
Aftershock m/s
Median Composite
1 x Vertical (V)
BC2 (6 time histories)
84th Percentile Composite
1 x Vertical (V)
The time histories were provided for three directional components, i.e. two horizontal and a vertical,
and for a reference NEHRP B/C site condition (soft rock) with near-surface average shear wave
velocity, vs30, of 760 m/s. Since the vs30 values of the weathered rock at Samarco are lower, at about
340 m/s to 400 m/s based on Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW) measurements
(Appendix C), which corresponds to NEHRP site class C/D (stiff soil), Atkinson (2016) proposes an
amplification factor of 1.4 (multiplication factor) to convert the site class B/C ground motions to site
class C/D ground motions.
To account for both aleatory and epistemic uncertainties, Atkinson (2016) used a factor of 3.2 times
the median (50th percentile) ground motions to obtain the 84th percentile confidence-level (mean
plus one standard deviation) ground motions.
Figure J2-1 shows the two sets of median-level time histories provided by Atkinson (2016). The BC1
time histories contained the estimated foreshock, mainshock and aftershock sequence of
November 5, 2015, whereas the alternative BC2 time histories were scaled up from a M3 earthquake
that occurred about 70 km west of Samarco on May 2, 2016, and was recorded on the Nanometrics
local array. Note the very long duration of the BC2 ground motion due to its original recording at
70 km distance from Samarco. As noted by Atkinson (2016), the BC2 time history sequence was
intended to represent a composite of the foreshock-mainshock-aftershock events of November 5.
Even so, the duration of the BC2 record is expected to be longer than the combined duration
expected of the November 5, 2015 earthquake sequence.

Figure J2-1 Estimated time histories of November 5, 2015 earthquakes from Atkinson (2016).
(BC1 median-level motions on left; BC2 median-level motions on right)
Table J2-2 summarizes the peak ground acceleration (PGA) values of the two sets of records, i.e. BC1
and alternative BC2, for both median-level and 84th percentile horizontal ground motions, as well as
the corresponding ground motions for C/D site conditions using the amplification factor of 1.4
proposed by Atkinson (2016). Note: only the horizontal component time histories are used in the
dynamic response analyses.
Table J2-2 PGA values in bedrock of estimated November 5, 2015 time histories at Samarco
Mw used in Equivalent C/D Equivalent C/D
Horizontal B/C PGA (%g) B/C PGA (%g)
Scaling by PGA (%g) PGA (%g)
Components Median 84th %
Atkinson (2016) Median 84th %
BC1-H1 Foreshock 2.2 2.0 2.8 8.4 9.0
BC1-H2 Foreshock 2.2 1.9 2.7 6.1 8.5
BC1-H1 Mainshock 2.5 2.5 3.5 8.0 11.2
BC1-H2 Mainshock 2.5 2.4 3.4 7.7 10.8
BC1-H1 Aftershock 1.8 1.2 1.7 3.8 5.4
BC1-H2 Aftershock 1.8 1.7 2.4 5.4 7.6
BC2-East 2.5 2.4 3.4 7.9 11.1
BC2-North 2.5 2.2 3.1 7.1 9.9

Figure J2-2 shows the response spectra of the BC1 (mainshock) and alternative BC2 median ground
motions, for both horizontal components. As shown, the BC2 records are generally larger in
amplitudes across most of the periods of interest (or frequencies) than the BC1 records.
Figure J2-2 Response spectra of BC1 (mainshock) and BC2 ground motions provided by Atkinson
(2016)
J3 MODEL AND INPUT DATA FOR SITE RESPONSE ANALYSIS
J3.1 General
We used the computer program SHAKE2000 to perform one-dimensional equivalent-linear site
response analyses at the following two sites in Samarco:
1. weathered rock profile at Samarco office site.
2. tailings dam profiles at Fundo Dam site.
Figure J3-1 shows the plan locations of these two sites.

Figure J3-1 Aerial image showing locations of Samarco office and Fundo Dam
The key inputs needed for one-dimensional dynamic response analysis of a site profile, or soil
column, in addition to the input earthquake time histories, are:
shear wave velocity profile of the ground; and
shear modulus and damping variations with shear strain.
These input data for SHAKE2000 analyses are described in the following subsections.

J3.2 Shear Wave Velocity

Figure J3-2 shows our estimated shear wave velocity (vs) profile for the residual soil/weathered
phyllite rock at the Samarco office. The vs profile was estimated based on vs measurements in the top
36 m depth from a geophysical survey (MASW survey conducted by AFC Geofisica Ltda., see June,
2016 report in Appendix C Attachment C3) and extrapolated to 180 m depth by gradually increasing
vs to a value of 760 m/s, based on a typical weathered rock profile in California for which extensive vs
measurements were available. The vs value of 760 m/s at the base of the model corresponds to site
class B/C soft rock conditions, for which the November 5, 2015 earthquake ground motions were
developed by Atkinson (2016). The vs value of the top 30 m (vs30) of the weathered rock profile is
about 350 m/s, which corresponds to site class C/D stiff soil condition near the surface.
Shear Wave Velocity (m/s))

0 200 400 600 800
0
20
40
60 Vs-Section 3 - MASW
80 Survey
Depth (m)
Vs-Depth Relationship
100
Vs= 1500*0.17D0.21
120
140
160
180
200
Figure J3-2 Shear wave velocity data in weathered phyllite at Samarco office site
At the Fundo tailings dam, we modeled a typical soil profile at the crest of the dam and one at the
toe. Figure J3-3 illustrates these two soil columns relative to a cross-section of the dam. The crest soil
column is 88 m deep, consisting of a surface layer of compacted sand, overlying uncompacted tailings
sands and slimes. The toe soil column is 17 m deep and comprises compacted sand overlying only
sand tailings. Both soil columns overlie weathered phyllite (C/D soft rock condition) at the original
ground surface.

Figure J3-3 Selected soil columns at Fundo Dam for 1D site response analysis
For characterizing the tailings, we compiled the vs data measured by Fugro in 2015 at Fundo (see
Appendix C), and recent measurements carried out by ConeTec (see Appendix C, Attachment C2) at
the Germano Dam and Germano Pit Dam tailings sites. Figure J3-4 shows the compiled vs data from
various test locations at Fundo and Germano, and the average vs trend line used to characterize the
tailings deposit for our dynamic response analyses. Note the narrow band of data from the various
sets of vs measurements in the tailings at Samarco.

Shear Wave Velocity, Vs (m/s)

0 200 400 600 800
0.00 Germano Pit Dam-
GCCP16-03-Sand
Fundao Dam - F01-Sand

10.00
Fundao Dam - F03 - Sand
20.00
Depth (m)

30.00
Germano Dam - GSCPT16-

02-Sand
40.00
Germano Dam - GSCPT16-
02B - Interbedded Sand
and Slimes
Germano Dam- GSCPT16-
50.00
05-Slimes
Vs= 410 + (D/100)0.36
60.00
Figure J3-4 Shear wave velocity data in tailings at Fundo and Germano
An average vs of 265 m/s was estimated for the compacted tailings sand at the crest, based on
measurements in test hole GSCPT16-06 by ConeTec (Appendix C, Attachment C2) at the Germano
Buttress, as shown on Figure J3-5. For the residual soil/soft rock that underlies the tailings deposit, an
average vs of 400 m/s was estimated based on measurements in GSCPT16-03 by ConeTec
(Appendix C, Attachment C2) at the Germano Pit Dam.

Shear Wave Velocity, Vs (m/s) - Compacted Sand

0 200 400 600 800
0
10 GSCPT16-06 -
Compacted Sand
Depth (m)
15
20
25
30
Figure J3-5 Shear wave velocity data in compacted sand
Figure J3-6 shows the three soil columns and corresponding input shear wave velocity profiles used in
our dynamic response analyses.
Figure J3-6 Three soil columns used in SHAKE2000 analyses
J3.3 Modulus Reduction and Damping

The shear modulus reduction and damping curves used in the dynamic response analyses are shown
on Figure J3-7 for tailings sands, slimes and weathered rock. These curves were adopted based on the
following data sources:
For tailings sands, relationships proposed by Winckler et al. (2014) that vary with effective
stress and are based on laboratory test data on tailings.

For tailings slimes, with measured plasticity index values between about 7 and 11,
relationships proposed by Vucetic and Dobry (1991).
For weathered rock, relationships proposed by Silva et al. (1997).
A total unit weight of 22 kN/m3 was used for all tailings and soft rock in the dynamic response
analyses.
Figure J3-7 Modulus reduction and damping curves for tailings sands, slimes and soft rock
J4 RESULTS OF SITE RESPONSE ANALYSES
J4.1 Weathered Rock Profile at Samarco Office Site

We used the two horizontal components of the BC1 median-level and BC1 84th percentile mainshock
records as outcrop input ground motions in the site response analyses of the weathered rock
profile at the Samarco office site, in order to evaluate potential site amplification. Figure J4-1 shows
the depth profiles of the computed PGAs from the SHAKE2000 analyses of the November 5, 2015
mainshock ground motions. The results indicate some amplification in PGAs in the top 10 m to 20 m
of the ground profile. The maximum shear strains generated in the ground vary between
approximately 0.0002% and 0.0007%.

Weathered Bedrock Peak Ground Accelleration (g)
0 0.05 0.1 0.15

-5
-25
-45
-65
Depth (m)
-85
-105
-125
-145
-165
-185
BC1-H1-MS-Median BC1-H2-MS-Median
BC1-H1-MS-84th-Percentile BC1-H2-MS-84th Percentile
Figure J4-1 Computed peak accelerations from SHAKE2000 analyses of weathered rock column
Figure J4-2 compares the response spectra of the input BC1 ground motions and the output or
computed motions at ground surface (labeled as -surface layer 1 on Figure J4-2) from the site
response analyses, for both median and 84th percentile mainshock events. Note the site period of the
180 m deep soft rock column computed from the SHAKE2000 analyses is approximately 1.14 sec.
Pseudo Acceleration Response Spectra - Weathered Bedrock -BC1- H1-Mainshock Pseudo Acceleration Response Spectra - Weathered Bedrock -BC1- H2-Mainshock
0.30 0.30
0.25 0.25
H1-MS-Median H2-MS-Median
0.20 0.20
H1-MS-Median-Surface Layer 1 H2-MS-Median-Surface Layer 1

SA(g)
SA(g)
0.15 0.15 H2-MS-84th

H1-MS-84th
H1-MS-84th - Surafce Layer 1 H2-MS-84th - Surafce Layer 1

0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Period (s) Period (s)
Figure J4-2 Comparison of output and input response spectra from SHAKE2000 analyses

Table J4-1 summarizes the range in amplification factors, defined as the ratio of the output motion
(i.e. computed surface response spectrum) to input motion (i.e. BC1 response spectrum), across all
periods for the two horizontal components (H1 and H2) of the mainshock. As shown in Table J4-1, the
SHAKE2000 results compare well with Atkinsons proposed amplification factor of 1.4 to convert site
class B/C ground motions to site class C/D ground motions.
Table J4-1 Computed amplification factors from SHAKE analyses
Ratio of Output to Input Motion Response Spectra
Minimum Median Maximum
BC1-H1 Median 0.83 1.25 1.59
BC1-H2 Median 0.90 1.25 1.67
th
BC1-H1 84 Percentile 0.97 1.34 1.64
th
BC1-H2 84 Percentile 0.96 1.28 1.50
Sensitivity analyses were performed with different modulus reduction and damping curves, and the
results were very similar to the above. The B/C ground motions amplified by a factor of 1.4 were
carried forward into the dynamic response analyses of the Fundo Dam. The amplified versions of the
BC1 and BC2 time history sequences are termed CD1 and CD2, respectively.
J4.2 Tailings Dam Profiles at Fundo Dam Site

We used the two horizontal components of the CD1 median-level and CD1 84th percentile records as
outcrop input ground motions in the site response analyses of both the crest and toe soil columns
at Fundo Dam. Figure J4-3 presents the results of the SHAKE2000 analyses for the CD1 mainshock
analyses of the crest and toe soil columns. The figure shows the input vs profile, computed PGA,
maximum shear stresses, and cyclic stress ratios (CSR), defined as 0.65 times maximum shear stress
divided by vertical effective stress at the depth of interest. The site period of the 88 m deep crest soil
column is 1.15 sec, and the site period of the 17 m deep toe soil column is 0.42 sec.
The maximum shear strains developed in the mainshock analyses of the crest soil column vary from
0.0005% to 0.002% for the median motions and from 0.002% to 0.011% for the 84th percentile
motions. At the toe soil column, the maximum shear strains vary from 0.002% to 0.009% for median
motions and from 0.005% to 0.034% for 84th percentile motions.
As shown on Figure J4-3 for the crest soil column, the estimated CSR in the sand near the top of the
slimes deposit at 58 m depth is about 0.0014 for the median ground motion and 0.004 for the 84th
percentile ground motion. The estimated number of equivalent uniform cycles of the irregular shear
stress time histories extracted at the sand-slimes interface is about 6 to 8. This information was used
for the laboratory cyclic testing described in Appendix D, and discussed further in Section J5.

Vs (m/s) PGA (g) Max. Shear Stress (kPa) CSR

CREST 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
0 200 400 600 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
0 0 0 0 0
Compacted Sand
-10 -10 -10 -10 -10
-20 -20 -20 -20 -20
-30 -30 -30 -30 -30

Sand
-40 -40 -40 -40 -40
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
-50 -50 -50 -50 -50 Range CSR 0.00139 - 0.0014 CD1- Median
Range CSR 0.0041 - 0.0042 CD1-84th
-60 -60 -60 -60 -60
-70 -70 -70 -70 -70

Slimes
-80 -80 -80 -80 -80
-90 -90 -90 -90 -90

Soft Rock Vs=400 m/s
-100 -100 -100 -100 -100
Compacted Sand
CD1-H1-MS-Median CD1-H1-MS-Median CD1-H1-MS-Median
Sand
CD1-H2-MS-Median CD1-H2-MS-Median CD1-H2-MS-Median
Slimes
Water Table CD1-H1-MS-84th Percentile CD1-H1-MS 84th Percentile CD1-H1-MS 84th Percentile
Original ground CD1-H2-MS 84th Percentile CD1-H2-MS-84thPercentile CD1-H2-MS-84thPercentile
Vs (m/s) PGA (g) Max. Shear Stress (kPa) CSR

TOE 0 200 400 600 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
0 0 0 0 0
-2 Compacted Sand -2 -2 -2 -2
-4 -4 -4 -4 -4
-6 -6 -6 -6 -6
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
-8 -8 -8 -8 -8
-10 Sand -10 -10 -10 -10
-12 -12 -12 -12 -12
-14 -14 -14 -14 -14
-16 -16 -16 -16 -16
-18 -18 -18 -18 -18
-20 -20 -20 -20 -20
Water Table CD1-H1-MS-Median CD1-H1-MS-Median CD1-H1-MS-Median
Sand CD1-H2-MS-Median CD1-H2-MS-Median CD1-H2-MS-Median
Compacted Sand CD1-H1- MS 84th Percentile CD1-H1-MS - 84th Percentile CD1-H1-MS - 84th Percentile
Original ground CD1-H2-MS 84th Percentile CD1-H2-MS 84th Percentile CD1-H2-MS 84th Percentile
Figure J4-3 Results of SHAKE analyses for crest and toe soil columns at Fundo Dam
For the crest and toe soil columns at Fundo Dam, we also ran SHAKE2000 analyses using the
alternative CD2 input ground motions. The cyclic stress ratios induced by the CD2 time histories are
compared to those from the CD1 time histories on Figure J4-4, for both median and 84th percentile
horizontal ground motions. In general, the higher-amplitude alternative CD2 ground motions
generated CSRs about 40% higher than those of the CD1 ground motions. Also, the earthquake-
induced cyclic stresses at the toe soil column are higher than at the crest soil column, due to
amplification of ground motions.

CSR CSR
CREST
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
0 0 0
Compacted Sand
-10 -10 -10
-20 -20 -20
-30 -30 -30
Sand
-40 -40 -40
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
-50 -50 -50
-60 -60 -60
-70 -70 -70
Slimes
-80 -80 -80
-90 -90 -90
Soft Rock Vs=400m/s
-100 -100 -100
CD1-H1-MS-Median CD1-H1-MS 84th Percentile
CD1-H2-MS-Median CD1-H2-MS-84thPercentile
CD2-East-Median CD2-East-84th Percentile
CD2-North-Median CD2-North-84th Percentile
CSR CSR
TOE
CREST 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
0 0 0
Compacted Sand
-2 -2 -2
-4 -4 -4
-6 -6 -6
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
-8 Sand -8 -8
-10 -10 -10
-12 -12 -12
-14 -14 -14
-16 -16 -16
-18 -18 -18
Soft Rock Vs=400 m/s
-20 -20 -20
CD1-H1-MS-Median CD1-H1-MS - 84th Percentile
CD1-H2-MS-Median CD1-H2-MS 84th Percentile
CD2- East - Median CD2-East-84th Percentile
CD2-North-Median CD2-North-84th Percentile
Figure J4-4 Comparison of cyclic stress ratios induced by CD1 and CD2 ground motions
J5 CYCLIC LIQUEFACTION TRIGGERING

The calculated ground motions are not sufficient to trigger seismic liquefaction under ordinary
conditions; however, in light of the collapse behavior observed in the laboratory tests (see
Appendix D), and the likelihood of similar stress conditions having developed in the field (see
Appendix I), it was deemed necessary to assess whether these motions could induce collapse in an
already fragile sample. This was investigated by completing an additional stress controlled extrusion
collapse triaxial test. In this test (TX-31), a very loose sample (=+0.05) was brought to a condition of
incipient failure, identified by the axial strain response to an increment of unloading, before closing
the drainage valves and then subjecting the sample to cyclic loading. We intended to apply the CSR

calculated at the sand/slimes interface beneath the crest, since that is the region of the dam cross
section where the lateral extrusion mechanism would initiate static liquefaction. The cyclic loading
calculated for the sand slimes interface beneath the crest is a CSR of 0.001 to 0.004. It was not
practical to apply such a low load in the laboratory testing; therefore, a CSR of 0.01 was applied. The
sample did not fail under this load after applying 525 cycles. The load was increased to a CSR of 0.02
and cycled for a further 521 cycles. The sample still did not fail, so the CSR was increased to 0.03 and
the sample failed after a further 209 cycles. Very little pore pressure was developed during the cyclic
loading. This shows that the loading from the earthquake would be insufficient to induce liquefaction
in even a very fragile sample. The results from this test are shown on Figure J5-1 and Figure J5-2.
Refer to the cyclic direct simple shear tests shown in Appendix D for further examples of the
insignificant effect that this level of shaking would have on pore pressure development in other
samples of sand tested along an alternate stress path.
The higher cyclic loads calculated close to the surface occur (Figure J4-3) in compacted material that
would not be susceptible to liquefaction.
CSR = 0.03
CSR = 0.02
CSR = 0.01
Figure J5-1 Pore pressure development in laboratory test following lateral extrusion mechanism
and then cyclic loading (test ID TX-31) very loose sample (=+0.05)

Start of cyclic loading
525 cycles at CSR=0.01,

followed by 521 cycles at
CSR=0.02 then 209 cycles
at CSR=0.03 then
collapse
Figure J5-2 Laboratory test following lateral extrusion mechanism and then cyclic loading (test
ID TX-31) very loose sample (=+0.05)
J6 SEISMIC DISPLACEMENTS
Having established that the seismic loading on November 5, 2015 would be insufficient to trigger
liquefaction through development of cyclic pore pressure, an analysis was completed to identify
whether the seismic loading could have contributed to the lateral extrusion triggering mechanism by
generating lateral displacements. We assessed this by completing Newmark-type displacement
calculations using acceleration time histories extracted from the sand/slimes interface in the
SHAKE2000 models. The displacement calculations were made using the software SLAMMER.

The displacement calculations involve the identification of a seismic yield acceleration (ay) from limit
equilibrium analyses. The calculation within SLAMMER then identifies portions of the acceleration
time histories that exceed the yield acceleration. The displacements are then calculated by double
integration of the accelerations > ay, and then summation of the displacements resulting from the
integration.
The yield acceleration was calculated in this analysis for the cross section used in the deformation
and stability analyses (Section 01 - see Appendices H and I) assuming that the dam was on the verge
of collapse due to lateral extrusion. Consistent with this assumption, an su/'v strength ratio of 0.14
was used in the calculations because this is the mobilized strength necessary to initiate liquefaction
due to lateral extrusion (see Appendix I). The ay value calculated in this analysis was 0.01 g.
Strengths: Slimes-Rich Layers = su/'v (0.13); Sand = ' = 33; Compacted Sand = ' = 35 & c' = 5 kPa
Horizontal seismic coefficient = 0.01 g
Figure J6-1 Calculation of yield acceleration for Newmark-type displacement analysis
The displacement analyses were run using the 84th percentile time histories in order to understand
the upper-bound of potential displacements. Analyses were run for both the crest and toe columns,
and using both the CD1 and CD2 time history sequences. For the CD1 time history sequence, the
displacements were calculated as the sum of those from the foreshock, mainshock and aftershock.
The results shown on Figure J6-2 indicate small displacements, ranging from 2 mm to 8 mm, with an
average of 5 mm.
Time histories extracted from the SHAKE2000 models, used in this analysis, are shown in
Attachment J1.

Calculated Displacements
9
8
Ay = 0.01
7
Sliding Displacement (mm)
0
CD1-H1-ALL-84th CD1-H2-ALL-84th CD1-H1-ALL-84th CD1-H2-ALL-84th CD2-H1-84th CD2-H2-84th
Percentile - Crest Percentile - Crest Percentile - Toe Percentile - Toe Percentile - Crest Percentile - Crest
Column Column Column Column Column Column
Figure J6-2 Estimated displacements

Appendix J: Dynamic Response Analysis

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Appendix J: Dynamic Response Analysis

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Fundo Tailings Dam Review Panel Report on the Immediate Causes of the Failure of the Fundo Dam

August 25, 2016

August 25, 2016 Page J-i

August 25, 2016 Page J-ii

J2 EARTHQUAKE TIME HISTORIES

August 25, 2016 Page J-1

Time History Confidence Events NEHRP Site

August 25, 2016 Page J-2

August 25, 2016 Page J-3

J3 MODEL AND INPUT DATA FOR SITE RESPONSE ANALYSIS

Figure J3-1 shows the plan locations of these two sites.

August 25, 2016 Page J-4

August 25, 2016 Page J-5

J3.2 Shear Wave Velocity

Shear Wave Velocity (m/s))

August 25, 2016 Page J-6

August 25, 2016 Page J-7

Shear Wave Velocity, Vs (m/s)

Fundao Dam - F01-Sand

Fundao Dam - F03 - Sand

Fundao Dam - F05 - Sand

Germano Dam - GSCPT16-

August 25, 2016 Page J-8

Shear Wave Velocity, Vs (m/s) - Compacted Sand

Figure J3-5 Shear wave velocity data in compacted sand

Figure J3-6 Three soil columns used in SHAKE2000 analyses

J3.3 Modulus Reduction and Damping

August 25, 2016 Page J-9

J4 RESULTS OF SITE RESPONSE ANALYSES

J4.1 Weathered Rock Profile at Samarco Office Site

August 25, 2016 Page J-10

Weathered Bedrock Peak Ground Accelleration (g)

0 0.05 0.1 0.15

BC1-H1-MS-84th-Percentile BC1-H2-MS-84th Percentile

H1-MS-Median-Surface Layer 1 H2-MS-Median-Surface Layer 1

0.15 0.15 H2-MS-84th

H1-MS-84th - Surafce Layer 1 H2-MS-84th - Surafce Layer 1

August 25, 2016 Page J-11

J4.2 Tailings Dam Profiles at Fundo Dam Site

August 25, 2016 Page J-12

Vs (m/s) PGA (g) Max. Shear Stress (kPa) CSR

-20 -20 -20 -20 -20

-30 -30 -30 -30 -30

-70 -70 -70 -70 -70

-90 -90 -90 -90 -90

Vs (m/s) PGA (g) Max. Shear Stress (kPa) CSR

August 25, 2016 Page J-13

J5 CYCLIC LIQUEFACTION TRIGGERING

August 25, 2016 Page J-14

August 25, 2016 Page J-15

Start of cyclic loading

525 cycles at CSR=0.01,

August 25, 2016 Page J-16

Figure J6-1 Calculation of yield acceleration for Newmark-type displacement analysis

August 25, 2016 Page J-17

Figure J6-2 Estimated displacements

August 25, 2016 Page J-18

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi