Static Liquefaction Analysis of the Fundão Dam Failure

Guillermo A. Riveros, Abouzar Sadrekarimi

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering – The University of Western
Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada

ABSTRACT
On November 5 2015, roughly 32 million cubic metres of iron mine tailings were accidentally released in the catastrophic
collapse of the Fundão dam in Minas Gerais, Brazil. A comprehensive static liquefaction analysis is performed in this study
on a section of the Fundão dam's left abutment prior to failure in order to determine the dam's susceptibility to liquefaction
and undrained strength loss under its ultimate loading condition. The method implemented accounts for variations in mode
of shear and anisotropic consolidation along the failure surface, as well as for the plane-strain boundary condition normally
encountered in the field. After convergence in this iterative method, all slices in the LEA model are found to have liquefied,
and the factor of safety for liquefaction flow failure in that section of the dam is determined to be 0.73.

RESUME
Le 5 novembre 2015, environ 32 millions de mètres cubes de résidus miniers de fer ont été relâchés accidentellement lors
de l'effondrement catastrophique du barrage Fundão à Minas Gerais, au Brésil. Une analyse exhaustive du déclenchement
de la liquéfaction statique est effectuée dans cette étude sur une section du pilier gauche du barrage de Fundão avant
l'échec afin de déterminer la susceptibilité du barrage à la liquéfaction et à la perte de résistance non drainée dans son
état de chargement ultime. La méthode mise en œuvre explique les variations de mode de cisaillement et de consolidation
anisotropique le long de la surface de défaillance, ainsi que pour les conditions limite de contrainte plane normalement
rencontrées sur le terrain. Après la convergence dans cette méthode itérative, toutes les tranches du modèle de l’analyse
d’équilibre limite se sont révélées liquéfiées et le facteur de sécurité pour l'échec du flux de liquéfaction dans cette section
du barrage est déterminé comme étant de 0.73.

1 INTRODUCTION liquefaction when loose and saturated; and slimes, which

Continued failure of tailings dams around the world in the
last few decades has brought about many interrelated
implications to the global mining community. Statistics
taken from 1970 to 2001 indicate that 1 in every 700 tailings
dams failed every year during that time period (LePoudre
2015). The fatal and costly consequences of many of these
disasters have undoubtedly increased a negative publicity,
undermining the credibility of the mining industry and
jeopardizing its social license to operate (Blight 2010). By
focusing on the case history of the Fundão dam failure, one
of the costliest tailings dam disasters in recent years, the
objective of this study is to investigate the static liquefaction
phenomenon hypothesized to have caused the dam’s
collapse, and demonstrate the need to implement a static
liquefaction analysis method that accounts for true field
conditions. The stability of the Fundão dam’s failing slope
is evaluated using a static liquefaction triggering and flow
failure analyses method developed by Sadrekarimi (2016),
in combination with the dam’s geotechnical
characterization and advanced testing data obtained by
Morgenstern et al. (2016).
1.1 History of Fundão Dam
Fundão dam was an iron tailings embankment built in the
state of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Due to the use of separation
by gravity and later flotation concentration methods in iron
mining (Vick 2005), two types of tailings were produced
and delivered separately in a slurry form to the dam. Sand
tailings, which consisted of a mixture of sand-sized and
finer silt particles that were free-draining but susceptible to
in contrast were much finer and clay-like in nature with low
permeability (Morgenstern et al. 2016).
Initial design of the embankment made use of a
compacted earthfill starter dam that was to be raised by the
upstream method, depositing sand tailings behind it. The
sands would in turn retain slimes deposited on the opposite
side of the dam and maintain a beach distance of not less
than 200 m to prevent the water-borne slimes from being
deposited in the sands near the crest (Morgenstern et al.
2016). A very important feature of the design was the high-
capacity drainage system at the base of the starter dam
that would allow water to drain from the sands to prevent
saturation.
A series of incidents, beginning shortly after
construction in 2009, required certain modifications to the
initial plans and promoted the eventual triggering of static
liquefaction in the sands (Morgenstern et al. 2016). The
first of these was the discovery of construction defects in
the base drain, which forced the closure of the entire
drainage system. The revised design made use of a
blanket drain that, due to the existing elevation of the dam
at the time, had to be built at a higher elevation, thus
allowing more widespread saturation of the sands. The
second incident involved the mismanagement of the sand-
slime beach required to prevent slime deposits and water
encroachment near the crest of the embankment, which
allowed slimes to settle out in areas where they were not
intended to exist. The third and last incident was the
structural deficiency of the concrete conduit beneath the
dam's left abutment, which was found incapable of
sustaining any further loading generated by raising of the
dam. Consequently, the alignment of the embankment’s
crest was set back towards the tailings pool in order to characterize the shearing behaviour of loose saturated
maintain operations during the remedial work, placing the sand tailings in embankments such as the Fundão dam, a
embankment directly over previously-deposited slimes. more thorough analysis is undertaken using a procedure
The Fundão dam failed on November 5, 2015, in a that incorporates variations in mode of shear and initial
liquefaction flowslide that began at the embankment's left stress anisotropy in an empirical formulation based on in-
abutment where the alignment setback had been built. The situ penetration tests, with the goal of determining the
slide of saturated tailings swept away the nearby town of method’s applicability in the evaluation of static liquefaction
Bento Rodriguez, killing 19 villagers, burying the town for hard-rock mine tailings impoundments.
completely, and causing a major environmental disaster by
polluting the local water system down to its mouth into the
Atlantic Ocean (da Fonseca and da Fonseca 2016). 2 STATIC LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS

1.2 Problem Statement and Objective Liquefaction triggering analysis of the left abutment of the
Fundão embankment is carried out in this study by means
Static liquefaction, the cause of failure for the Fundão dam of a series of Limit Equilibrium Analyses (LEA) using
as noted by Morgenstern et al. (2016), occurs when the GeoSlope's SLOPE/W®. The main goal was to
shear stress applied by a monotonic triggering load demonstrate the attainment of an accurate and refined
exceeds the undrained yield strength of a saturated factor of safety for the embankment prior to its failure in
liquefiable cohesionless material (Sadrekarimi 2016). 2015. This section describes the analysis of the
Figure 1 shows effective stress paths from two undrained characterization and strength parameters of Fundão’s
triaxial compression tests on loose Monterey #0 sand tailings required for computer modelling of the failing slope
specimens (Riemer 1992). The specimens were and the static liquefaction analysis conducted. No attempt
consolidated to similar void ratios (ec), but at different is made to determine strains or displacements as this
consolidation stress ratios (Kc = '3c/'1c) of 1 (isotropic would require a more sophisticated Finite Element Analysis
consolidation) and 0.5 (anisotropic consolidation). As (FEA), which currently falls outside the scope of this
illustrated in Figure 1, undrained strength loss occurs once investigation.
an undrained yield strength, su(yield) is overcome for each
specimen. Therefore, su(yield) marks the triggering 2.1 Fundão Tailings Material Properties and
condition for static liquefaction. Strain softening continues Deposition Cycle
with further shear displacement until an undrained post-
liquefaction strength, su(liq) is reached. A liquefaction flow As mentioned earlier, the tailings materials found in
failure would result if su(liq) drops below the applied shear Fundão dam consisted of two different types, namely sand
stress. and slime tailings. The sand was a silty sand (SM) with a
bulk unit weight of 19 kN/m3 that showed no cohesion, was
free-draining in nature, and depending on its density and
300 saturation level was susceptible to liquefaction. In contrast,
Undrained TxC tests on Monterey #0 sand the iron slimes consisted of a low-plastic silt and clay (CL-
(based on data from Riemer 1992)
Undrained strength, su (kPa)

250 su(yield) ML) with liquid and plastic limits of 26% and 19%,
Kc = 0.5, ec = 0.822 CSL IL respectively, and with low permeability that impeded the
200 free flow of water. Figure 2 shows the average particle size
su(liq)
distributions of these materials.
150
tc = 176 kPa

100
100
50
Kc = 1.0, ec = 0.832
0 80
0 75 150 225 300 375 450
Minor effective principal stress, '3 (kPa)
Figure 1: Effective stress paths from undrained triaxial
Finer (%)

60
compression tests on Monterey #0 sand

40
An evaluation of the Fundão investigation report by
Morgenstern et al. (2016) indicates that a typical
20 Sands
liquefaction triggering analysis was conducted, whereby
undrained yield strengths of the cohesionless tailings were Slimes
determined by empirical correlations based on in-situ 0
penetration tests. However, as noted by Sadrekarimi 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
(2016), these correlations do not account for the effects of Particle size (mm)
anisotropic consolidation, intermediate principal stress, Figure 2: Average particle size distributions of sand and
and modes of shear in the degree of strain-softening and slime tailings at Fundão dam
brittleness of cohesionless soils. Hence, to accurately

Because of their contrasting features, the main design
basis for Fundão dam was to maintain the separation of
these two materials. Characterization and strength
properties for both materials were obtained from laboratory
and in-situ test results conducted by Morgenstern et al.
(2016). Cone penetration test (CPT) readings from the
investigation report were primarily used to determine the
in-situ undrained strength of the tailings in conjunction with
the analytical method described in a later section.
2.2 Dam Geometry
A key element in the reconstruction of the dam's geometry
and its materials for LEA is the determination of the
deposition cycles and layers of slimes and sands. In order
to estimate the extent of slimes, the combination of data
collected by Morgenstern et al. (2016) is used. The slimes
boundaries identified represented areas where slime
layers could have been present due to the ingress of pond
water over the sloping sand deposit. A mass balance
analysis conducted by Morgenstern et al. (2016) better
defines the stratigraphy of the slimes, with a gradual
transition from predominantly slimes to isolated slimes
moving upslope towards the crest.
The slope geometry, geotechnical and hydrogeological
parameters, dam-raise and deposition time histories, and
CPT results were obtained from Morgenstern et al. (2016).
This information was used for the development of the
computer model for Fundão dam’s left abutment profile
prior to failure as shown in Figure 3. GeoSlope’s
SLOPE/W® software was used to define the dam section
and carry out the set of analyses.
Figure 3: Fundão dam's left abutment LEA Model (yellow:
sands; green: slimes; brown: original ground)
Another important element in modelling the dam for a
liquefaction triggering analysis is the identification of the
phreatic surface at the left setback where failure was
described to have initiated. For this purpose, piezometric
readings from nine piezometers were used by Morgenstern
et al. (2016). As noted in the investigation report, despite a
steeply sloped stripped ground surface moving away from
the left abutment, the piezometric records show a relatively
flat phreatic surface, implying there was an obstruction for
drainage towards the blanket drain and supporting the
believed presence of slimes below the dam fill
(Morgenstern et al. 2016).
2.3 Static Liquefaction Triggering Analysis Method
A liquefaction triggering analysis assists in determining
whether an undrained strength loss could occur in a loose
cohesionless soil under a given loading condition
(Sadrekarimi 2016). This is accomplished by comparing
field loading conditions with su(yield) under which strain-
softening occurs.
The undrained strength of loose tailings is conveniently
characterized by undrained strength ratios: the undrained
yield strength ratio (su(yield)/'vo) and the undrained post-
liquefaction strength ratio (su(liq)/'vo). These ratios, which
consist of the respective undrained strength normalized by
the in-situ effective vertical stress prior to failure ('vo), have
found great use in the characterization of shear strength in
laboratory testing and back-calculation of shear strength in
liquefaction case studies (Been and Jeffries 1985; Olson
and Stark 2003; Stark and Mesri 1992; Robertson 2010;
Sadrekarimi and Olson 2011). Using the geotechnical data
assessed from Morgenstern et al. (2016), this study
employs the method of analysis proposed by Sadrekarimi
(2016) to estimate su(yield)/'vo and su(liq)/'vo and the
factor of safety (FS) for liquefaction flow failure analysis of
Fundão dam. This method consists of an iterative LEA
procedure, in which the mobilized shear stresses are
compared against the undrained shear strength for slices
below the water level, accounting for the effects of mode of
shear, plane-strain boundary conditions, and initial stress
anisotropy (Kc). Where slices of a particular LEA mobilize
stresses lower than the base su(yield), the estimated
su(yield) is assigned at the base of that slice. If slices
mobilize stresses higher that the base s u(yield), static
liquefaction is deemed to have occurred and su(liq)
estimated from a correlation with in-situ test results is
assigned. Drained strength using a critical state friction
angle ('cs) of 29o determined from direct simple shear tests
on Fundão dam iron sand and slimes tailings (Morgenstern
et al. 2016) are assigned to slices above the water table.
Using the newly assigned values of undrained strength, the
LEA model is repeated to incorporate these values along
the failure surface, and the LEA is run iteratively in the
same manner, maintaining the liquefied slices as such until
no other slices liquefy. The factor of safety calculated in the
final LEA is the FS for liquefaction flow failure. For a more
detailed description of the method and the different
parameters used in this analysis, readers are encouraged
to see Sadrekarimi (2016).
2.4 Prediction of Mobilized Undrained Strengths
There are presently several methods for determining the
undrained strength of cohesionless soils. These include
expensive sets of laboratory shear tests, numerical
analysis of constitutive models, and using empirical
correlations with in-situ penetration tests. As the more
common approach in practice, empirical correlations with
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Cone Penetration
Test (CPT) have been developed from previous
liquefaction flow failures by Mesri (2007), Olson and Stark
(2003), and Stark and Mesri (1992). These are often used
for estimating the in-situ triggering strength due to their
simplicity, convenience, low cost, and nearly continuous
measurements. However, these methods estimate the
same value of undrained shear strength for a given
penetration resistance, irrespective of the mode of shear,
stress-induced anisotropy and boundary conditions
(Sadrekarimi 2016). For the case of sloping grounds (such
as in a tailings dam), the angle of a failure plane with
respect to the horizontal () varies as shown in Figure 4.
This variation produces further variations in principal stress
directions, thus producing different modes of shear along
the failure plane, ranging from compression near the crest,
simple shear towards the seat, and extension near the toe.
In Figure 4, different modes of shear are approximately
given based on the counter-clockwise angle of the failure
plane to the horizontal (θ). For angles with θ > 15, 15 > θ >
-15, and θ < -15 degrees, compression, simple shear, and
extension shear modes are respectively assigned. These
ranges provide a simplified approach to relate the
geometry of a failure surface to the load conditions found
in the field, while the in-situ shearing mode will typically
change smoothly along a slip surface (Sadrekarimi 2016).
be a testing error. The 30th percentile is selected because
of uncertainties with selecting a representative qc1 value for
liquefiable soil layers.
In the LEA model, su(liq)/'vo values for simple shearing
mode were estimated based on q c1 readings using
Equation 1 (from Sadrekarimi 2016) and contoured along
the dam’s section on SLOPE/W®. The equation used was
developed for loose liquefiable soils with qc1 < 8 MPa. Next,
using the graph in Figure 6, values of s u(liq)/'vo for
compression and extension shear modes are estimated for
the same brittleness index (IB) equal to that of the simple
shear case. The brittleness index gives an indication of the
amount of strain softening and has a statistical correlation
with Kc in Sadrekarimi (2016).
𝑠𝑢 (𝑙𝑖𝑞) ⁄𝜎′𝑣𝑜 = 0.22 + 0.017𝑞𝑐1 (𝑀𝑃𝑎) ± 0.021 [1]

'1 Prevailing mode of shear

Compression Compression
Simple shear
'3 '3
Extension
t  = 15o a '3
'1
'1
Failure plane '3 '1
'1
 = 15o
'1 = major principal stress  = -15o
Extension
'3 = minor principal stress '3 '3
t = shear stress '1
Simple shear
Figure 4: Variation of mode of shear along a failure surface
(Sadrekarimi 2016)

Besides mode of shear, the magnitudes of major and

minor principal stresses vary along a failure plane, leading
to changes in the initial static shear (tc) and a principal
stress anisotropy characterized by the principal stress ratio
Kc. As demonstrated in Figure 1, Kc can have a profound
effect on su(yield) and su(liq). Field strain conditions in Figure 5: Cone tip resistances from CPT readings at
slopes are also typically in two dimensions (plane-strain). Fundão dam
A comprehensive liquefaction triggering analysis must
consider the combined effects of Kc, mode of shear, and
0.3
boundary conditions as these mechanisms produce
microstructural strains and an induced anisotropy in the soil PSC: su (liq)/'1c = 0.045(IB)2 - 0.320IB + 0.275
R2 = 0.986
(Sadrekarimi 2016).
HCTS: su (liq)/'1c = 0.053(IB)2 - 0.309IB + 0.251
0.2 R2 = 0.949
su(liq)/'1c

2.5 Estimation of su(liq)/'vo PSC

HCTS
Figure 5 shows corrected cone penetration resistances TxE
(qc1) from four CPT readings (Morgenstern et al. 2016) 0.1

adjacent to the section of the Fundão dam analyzed in this

study from highest to lowest locations down the slope. TxE: su (liq)/'1c = 0.120(IB)2 - 0.345IB + 0.228
Evaluation of these CPT readings led to the rough R2 = 0.975
0
classification of tailings with respect to the USCS ranging 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
from silty-sand to sand, as well as the estimation of the IB
su(liq)/'vo in accordance with Sadrekarimi (2016). All else Figure 6: Undrained strength ratios for simple shear,
being equal, the layer with the lowest qc1 will have the least compression, and extension modes of shear as a function
resistance to liquefaction. However, the lowest value may of brittleness index (Sadrekarimi 2016)

2.6 Estimation of su(yield)/'vo
To estimate su(yield)/'vo, Kc values for each slice in the
LEA model are first determined from the mobilized base
stresses. Estimation of the maximum excess pore water
pressure ratio (ru=u/'vo) in relation to the mode of shear
identified for each slice follows, based on correlations
found by Sadrekarimi (2016) to estimate IB for each of the
slices. Since the value of IB is dependent on the estimated
su(liq)/'vo and the unknown su(yield)/'vo, by definition
su(yield)/'vo is determined at the base of each slice by
solving the following equation:
segments along the failure surface also display the highest
values of Kc, exhibiting the maximum effects of anisotropy.
This observation is consistent with the results of liquefied
slices, as increasing anisotropic consolidation promotes
strain-softening (Sadrekarimi 2016). Additionally, as shown
in Figure 9, the undrained shear strength begins to
decrease with each iteration, indicating the triggering of
static liquefaction along the failure surface, and implying
the need for the tailings to redistribute the applied stresses
based on the mobilized shear strength in certain slices
along the slip surface after liquefaction has taken place.
1.00

′ −𝑠 (𝑙𝑖𝑞)⁄𝜎 ′
𝑠𝑢 (𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑)⁄𝜎𝑣𝑜 𝑢 𝑣𝑜
𝐼𝐵 = ′ [2]
𝑠𝑢 (𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑)⁄𝜎𝑣𝑜
0.90

3 RESULTS

Kc
0.80
The results from the static liquefaction analysis of Fundão
dam are presented in this section. The FS and the slip Iteration 1
surface for liquefaction flow failure based on the final LEA
0.70 Iteration 2
of the analysis is presented along with the summarized
changes in FS from iteration to iteration, and the mobilized Iteration 3
undrained shear strength along the slip surface. Iteration 4
As an initial reference analysis, a drained LEA of the 0.60
selected cross section was conducted using the -50 50 150 250
Morgenstern-Price method in SLOPE/W® to compare its Distance from Dam Crest [m]
results with those in Morgenstern et al. (2016) and confirm
Figure 7: Variations of Kc along the slip surface for each
the adequate reconstruction of the dam’s cross section. By
LEA iteration
comparing the results of the drained reference LEA with
those reported by Morgenstern et al. (2016), the
reconstructed computer model using the dam’s slimes
depositional information and crest raising records are 1.0
confirmed to be similar to that used in the official
investigation report. With both models yielding the same
Factor of Safety

FS of 2.47, this step serves as a reference point for the

subsequent contrast between the FS for liquefaction flow 0.9
failure provided by Morgenstern et al. (2016) and that
obtained in this study.

3.1 Static Liquefaction Triggering Analysis 0.8

The first undrained stability analysis (USA) (Iteration 0 in

Figure 8) was conducted using su(yield)/'vo values
calculated from Sadrekarimi (2016) analytical method for 0.7
each slice to determine the triggering of static liquefaction. 0 1 2 3 4
The initial gravitational stresses calculated in the drained Iteration Number
analysis were used to determine Kc. The results show a FS
= 0.962, which indicates the occurrence of static Figure 8: Variation in factor of safety for each iteration
liquefaction failure. This corresponds to an approximate
61% reduction in FS from the drained LEA because of the
lower undrained shear strength of the tailings below the
phreatic surface in contrast to the drained shear strength
assigned before.
Figures 7 and 8 show the variations of Kc and FS for
each iterative LEA. After the liquefaction triggering
analysis, liquefaction was manifested in the sand tailings at
the break-out point of the slip surface where there is an
extension mode of shear. As shown in Figure 7, these
 0.40
USR1 Iteration 1
(Morgenstern)
Iteration 2
0.30
Iteration 3
su/'vo
Iteration 4
0.20
Trigger
0.10
Post-liquefaction
(Morgenstern)
0.00
-50 150 350 550
Distance from dam crest (m)
Figure 9: Variations in undrained strength ratios mobilized
along the failure plane for static liquefaction at each
iteration
3.2 Analysis of Liquefaction Flow Failure
As shown in Figure 8, the factor of safety for undrained
stability analysis continuously changes for iterations 1
through 4, reflecting strength reduction in liquefied slices
and stress redistribution among liquefied and non-liquefied
slices. Convergence was reached at the 5th iteration when
about 30% of the slices below the water level had liquefied
as shown in red in Figure 10. No new slices liquefied
beyond this iteration, reaching a FS for liquefaction flow
failure of 0.728. This demonstrates the imminent
susceptibility of the Fundão dam's left abutment to flow
liquefaction, which ultimately led to its collapse.
Figure 10: Zones of liquefaction and non-liquefiable slices
following fifth LEA iteration for Fundão dam failure
4 COMPARISON WITH MORGENSTERN ET AL.
(2016)
A summary of the undrained stability analysis (USA)
conducted by the investigation panel on the same section
of Fundão dam (labelled Section 01) based on field data
from June 2015 and using undrained strength ratios can be
found in Appendix H of Morgenstern et al. (2016). In the
first USA reported, drained strength was assigned to
tailings above the phreatic surface and a constant
su(yield)/'vo of 0.31 based on some other CPT empirical
correlations (Olson and Stark 2003; Robertson 2010) was
assigned to those below the water phreatic surface. This
approach ignored the effects of the different modes of
shear along the failure surface and the natural anisotropy
found in the field. As such, an overestimated FS of 1.48
was calculated due to the high value of the constant
su(yield)/'vo. When compared with the undrained yield
strength ratios determined in this study, the magnitudes
used by Morgenstern et al. (2016) are found to be about
17% higher in the compression zone, 66% in the horizontal
zone, and 190% in the extension zone as shown in Figure
9. Taking the FS for static liquefaction triggering
determined in this study (FS=0.962) as that accurately
assessing the abutment's susceptibility to static
liquefaction, an overestimation of 53% (for FS = 0.962 vs.
1.48) was obtained. Furthermore, the FS reported by the
investigation panel is higher than unity, thus being unable
to predict the triggering of static liquefaction and strength
loss.
In the second liquefaction triggering analysis, modified
su(yield)/'vo were assigned to tailings below the phreatic
surface estimated based on empirical correlations by
Sadrekarimi (2014) from field data obtained in June 2015.
For the backscarp, su(yield)/'vo = 0.30; for the horizontal
zone, su(yield)/'vo = 0.22; and for the breakout zone,
su(yield)/'vo = 0.14 were assigned. Although an attempt
was made to incorporate modes of shear into the analysis
by modifying the assigned undrained strength ratios, the
effects of anisotropic consolidation were still left out,
leading to a FS of 1.14, which overestimates the FS
determined here. A comparison between the individual
undrained strength ratios in each of the zones used by
Morgenstern et al. (2016) and those determined in this
study indicates that the strength was overestimated by
13% in the backscarp zone, by 18% in the horizontal zone,
and by 21% in the breakout zone. Assuming the FS
determined in this study (FS=0.962) accurately assesses
the abutment’s susceptibility to static liquefaction
triggering, the FS reported by Morgenstern et al. (2016) is
still overestimated by 19% (for FS = 0.962 vs. 1.14). As
before, this FS is also higher than unity, and consequently
does not predict the triggering of static liquefaction.
Finally, in a third USA reported by Morgenstern et al.
(2016), a post-liquefaction stability analysis was conducted
by assigning a constant su(liq)/'vo of 0.07 based on in-situ
test correlations by Olson and Stark (2002) to the tailings
below the water surface. As in the first USA, this approach
did not include the effects of the different modes of shear
along the failure and assumed uniform liquefaction along
the slip surface. As such, an underestimated FS of 0.36
was calculated. When compared with the combination of
undrained yield and liquefied strength ratios mobilized in
this study, the magnitudes used by Morgenstern et al.
(2016) are found to be about 38% lower in the liquefied
compression zone, and 65% lower in the non-liquefied
horizontal zone as shown in Figure 9. Taking the FS for
post-liquefaction stability determined in this study (FS =
0.728) as that accurately assessing the abutment's
liquefied resistance, an underestimation of 50% was
obtained.
5 CONCLUSIONS
The results obtained in this study help to illustrate the
adequacy of the static liquefaction analysis method
developed by Sadrekarimi (2016) for iron sand tailings
embankments. By implementing this method, which
considers the important effects of plane-strain boundary
conditions, anisotropic consolidation, and the variation in
mode of shear along a failure surface, the left abutment of
Fundão dam was found to be imminently susceptible to
static liquefaction with factors of safety equal to 0.962 and
0.728 for liquefaction triggering and flow failure,
respectively.
In-situ test data were used in conjunction with an
empirical approach to estimate liquefaction triggering and
post-liquefaction undrained shear strengths for loose and
saturated tailings. Details on the causes of variations in the
results among individual iterations in the static liquefaction
triggering analysis are discussed, and several
comparisons with the findings in Morgenstern et al. (2016)
are presented to emphasize the method’s applicability for
iron tailings impoundments. For two undrained stability
analyses reported by Morgenstern et al. (2016), the factors
of safety for liquefaction triggering were found to be 53%
and 19% greater than that calculated in this study, and
remained above unity, unable to predict static liquefaction
that occurred at Fundão dam. Lastly, a third undrained
stability analysis by Morgenstern et al. (2016)
underestimated the factor of safety for liquefaction flow
failure by 50% from that obtained in this study. In
conclusion, as more studies are conducted and become
available, it is the authors’ aspiration that the application of
this analysis method for other hard-rock tailings such as
gold, silver and copper finds use and implementation in the
future.
Riemer, M., 1992. The effects of testing conditions on the
constitutive behavior of loose, saturated sand under
monotonic loading, University of California Berkeley,
California:.
Robertson, P., 2010. Evaluation of Flow Liquefaction and
Liquefied Strength. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
136(6): 842-853.
Sadrekarimi, A., 2014. Effect of the mode of shear on static
liquefaction analysis. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
ASCE, 04014069:1-12.
Sadrekarimi, A., 2016. Static Liquefaction Considering
Principal Stress Directions and Anisotropy. Geotech
Geol Eng., 1135-1154.
Sadrekarimi, A. and Olson, S., 2011. Yield strength ratios,
critical strength ratios, and brittleness of sandy soils
from laboratory tests. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
48: 493-510.
Stark, T. D. and Mesri, G., 1992. Undrained shear strength
of liquefied sands for stability analysis. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering ASCE, 118:1727-1747.
Stark, T. and Mesri, G., 1992. Undrained shear strength of
liquefied sands. J. Geotech. Engrg, 118(11): 1727-
1747.
Vick, S., 2005. Planning, Design and Analysis of Tailings
Dams, BiTech Publishers, Vancouver, Canada.

6 REFERENCES

Been, K. and Jeffries, M., 1985. A state parameter for

sands. Geotechnique 35:291-303.
Blight, G., 2010. Geotechnical Engineering for Mine Waste
Storage Facilities, CRC Press, London, UK.
da Fonseca, P. and da Fonseca, I., 2016. Brazil's Greatest
Environmental Catastrophe - Samarco's Fundão
Tailings Dam. Environmental Policy and Law:
Amsterdam, 46, 5: 334-337.
LePoudre, D., 2015. Examples, Statistics and Failure
Modes of Tailings Dams and Consequence of Failure.
Environmental Services Association of Alberta, 88.
Mesri, G., 2007. Yield strength and critical strength of
liquefiable sands in sloping ground. Geotechnique 57,
No. 3, 309–311.
Morgenstern, N., Vick, S. G., Viotti, C. B. and Watts, B. D.,
2016. Report on the Immediate Causes of the Failure
of the Fundão Dam, Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP.
Olson, S. M. and Stark, T. D., 2002. Liquefied strength
Ratio from liquefaction flow failure case histories.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39: 629-647.
Olson, S. and Stark, T., 2003. Use of laboratory data to
confirm yield and liquefied strength ratio concepts.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 40: 1164-1184.