Evaluation of flow liquefaction susceptibility and liquefied

strength – a case study

Mauro Pio dos Santos Junior & André de Oliveira Faria

Pimenta de Ávila Consultoria, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
Marcus Vinícius Lima Dias
Vale, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
Felipe Barros Dias
STATUM, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil

ABSTRACT: This paper presents an evaluation of the susceptibility of an iron ore tailings to
flow liquefaction using three methodologies based on the CPTu test: i) Plewes et al. (1992), ii)
Shuttle and Cunning (2008) and iii) Robertson (2016). Additionally, it was determined the lique-
fied undrained strength ratio of the tailings using the equations proposed by i) Olson (2001), ii)
Robertson (2010) modified by Jefferies and Been (2016) and iii) Robertson (2020). The main
results shows that the equation proposed by Robertson (2020) yielded higher values of liquefied
undrained strength ratio compared with the other authors for the region of the tailings profile
classified as a sand-like and transitional behavior. In the clay-like portion of the tailings profile,
the equations suggested by Robertson (2010) modified by Jefferies and Been (2016) and the equa-
tion proposed by Robertson (2020) exhibited higher scattering compared to the equations pro-
posed by Olson (2001).

1 INTRODUCTION

Flow liquefaction is a behavior observed in saturated or nearly saturated geomaterials that show
a strain softening response during undrained shear due to its tendency to contract (under drained
shear), mostly observed in very loose sands and silts as well as very sensitive clays.
The careful study of the susceptibility to flow liquefaction and the calculation of the liquefied
strength is very important for structures constructed with sand-like contractive soils. In the mining
industry, flow liquefaction is particularly relevant due to the geotechnical characteristics of the
hydraulically deposited non-plastic tailings, which tend to exhibit high saturation and void ratios,
making them susceptible to flow liquefaction.
Recent tailings dam failures in Brazil, like B-I Dam in Brumadinho (2019) and Fundão in Mar-
iana (2015), highlighted the importance of the subject. Many methodologies have been developed
to evaluate the flow liquefaction susceptibility and to calculate the liquefied strength of soils. As
a screening tool, the CPTu test can be used for that purpose, as suggested by Jefferies and Been
(2016). The CPTu test has been the preferred in situ test since it provides high accuracy, good
repeatability, low operator dependence and detailed information of the stratigraphy.
This paper aims to present the geotechnical characterization of an iron ore tailings deposited in
a tailings storage facility (TSF) in Minas Gerais, Brazil. A seismic cone penetration test with pore-
pressure measurements (SCPTu) coupled with dissipation test was used to evaluate: i) the porewa-
ter pressure profile throughout the test, ii) the existence of microstructure (using shear wave ve-
locity), iii) the susceptibility to flow liquefaction, using the methodologies suggested by a) Plewes
et al. (1992), b) Shuttle and Cunning (2008) and Robertson (2016) and v) the liquefied undrained
strength ratio of the tailings, using the equations suggested by a) Olson (2001), b) Robertson
(2010) modified by Jefferies and Been (2016), and (c) Robertson (2020).
 2 MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION

2.1 Geotechnical Characterization

The tailings evaluated in this study is the byproduct of the mining of iron ore in the state of Minas
Gerais/Brazil. The geotechnical characterization of the tailings was conducted by performing i)
the grain size distribution curve, ii) the water content, iii) the specific gravity of soil solids (Gs),
iv) the liquid limit (LL) and v) the plastic limit (PL).
The grain size distribution curves (ASTM D422) obtained from disturbed samples collected
near the CPTu are indicated in Figure 1. As can be seen, between 0.0 - 13.0 m the tailings com-
position is, in average, 81.9% of silt-sized particles, 10.4% of sand and 7.7% clay. Between 15.0
- 22.0 m the fraction of fine sand is reduced with an increase in clay-sized particles and the com-
position is 82.9% of silt-sized particles, 1.3% of sand and 15.7% of clay. At 24.0 m, the sample
collected has a composition of 61.8% of silt-sized particles and 37.8% of clay, showing a very
distinctive composition compared to the other samples.

Figure 1 - Grain size distribution curves from disturbed samples - (ASTM D422).

A summary of the results of the grain size distribution curves from the samples collected in the
tailings are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 - Summary: Grain size distribution curves from disturbed samples.

0.0 - 13.0 m 15.0 - 22.0 m 24.0 - 25.0 m
Sand 10.4% 1.3% 0.4%
Silt 81.9% 82.9% 61.8%
Clay 7.7% 15.7% 37.8%

According to ABNT NBR 6457, the tailings show an average natural moisture content of
19.1%, varying from 6.9% in the surface to 26.9% at 25 m. The Atterberg Limits were also eval-
uated, according to ABNT NBR 6459 and ABNT NBR 7180. The sample collected at 15.0 - 16.0
m indicated a Liquid Limit of 16.0% and a Plastic Limit of 10.0% (Plasticity Index of 6.0%) and
the sample collected at 24.0 - 25.0 m indicated a Liquid Limit of 26.0% and Plastic Limit of 18.0%
(Plasticity Index of 8.0%). All the other samples were non-plastic. The average value of the spe-
cific gravity of soil solids (Gs) is 3.8.
Using the grain size distribution curves and the Atterberg Limits the samples were classified
according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS - ASTM D2487). The first sample (0.0
- 1.0 m) is classified as silt with sand (Group Symbol ML), the samples from 3.0 - 13.0 m and
those from 18.0 - 22.0 m are classified as silt (Group Symbol ML), the sample at 15.0 - 16.0 m is
classified as silty clay (Group Symbol CL-ML) and the sample from 24.0 - 25.0 m is classified as
lean clay (Group Symbol CL).
ICOLD Bulletin 181 (ICOLD, 2021) presents a system for classifying tailings into five broad
categories based on its grain size distribution curve and the Atterberg Limits. Using this sugges-
tion, the samples from 0.0 - 13.0 m was classified as Hard Rock Tailings (HRT) and the samples
from 15.0 - 25.0 m was classified as Altered Rock Tailings (ART)
 The samples at 15.0 - 16.0 m and 24.0 - 25.0 m were also classified based on the plasticity chart
suggested by ICOLD Bulletin 181 (ICOLD, 2021). The classification for the sample at 15.0 - 16.0
m is Hard Rock Tailings (HRT) and Altered Rock Tailings (ART) for the sample at 24.0 - 25.0
m.
The results of the classification of the disturbed samples based on the USCS (ASTM D2487)
and on the system proposed by ICOLD Bulletin 181 (ICOLD, 2021) are presented in Table 2.

Table 2 - Classification of the tailings following USCS and ICOLD (2021).

ICOLD (2021)
Depth (m) USCS Grain-Size Distri-
Plasticity Chart
bution
0.0 - 1.0 Silt with sand (ML)
3.0 - 4.0
Hard Rock Tail-
6.0 - 7.0 -
Silt (ML) ings (HRT)
9.0 - 10.0
12.0 - 13.0
Hard Rock Tailings
15.0 - 16.0 Silty clay (CL-ML)
(HRT)
18.0 - 19.0 Altered Rock Tail-
Silt (ML) -
21.0 - 22.0 ings (ART)
Altered Rock Tailings
24.0 - 25.0 Lean clay (CL)
(ART)

2.2 SCPTu Test

An SCPTu test was performed in the tailings with a total depth of 25.4 m. Figure 2 shows the
porewater pressure profile of the tailings along with a summary of the SCPTu normalized param-
eters (Qt, Fr and Bq), which are defined in Equation 1 to Equation 3. The penetration porewater
pressure (u2) was plotted along with the equilibrium porewater pressure profile (u0) from the dis-
sipation test, showing a condition of 100% hydrostatic.

qt −σv0
Qt = (1)
σ′v0
s f
Fr = q −σ (2)
t v0
(u −u )
Bq = (q 2−σ 0 ) (3)
t v0

where:

qt = corrected cone resistance

σv0 = total vertical stress
σ’v0 = effective vertical stress
fs = sleeve friction resistance
u2 = porewater pressure measured behind the cone
u0 = equilibrium porewater pressure

The evaluation of microstructure in the tailing was preformed using the shear wave velocity
from the SCPTu (performed at elevations 3.0 m, 6.0 m, 9.0 m, 12.0 m, 15.0 m, 18.0 m and 21.0
m) and the methodology suggested by Robertson (2016). The results obtained showed that the
tailings classify as an ideal soil (no microstructure) for most of the elevations, with only one ele-
vation in the structured region (18.0 m).
Using the data from the SCPTu test the tailings was separated into different regions of similar
behavior and geotechnical characteristics. The classification of the behavior of the tailing was
performed using the soil behavior type index (Ic) suggested by Robertson and Wride (1998) and
the modified version (IB) suggested by Robertson (2016), defined according to Equation 4 and 5,
respectively.

Ic(R&W) = [(3.47 − log Q t )2 + (log Fr + 1.22)2 ]0.5 (4)

100(Qtn +10)
IB = (Qtn Fr +70)
(5)
where,

(qt −σv0 ) p n
Q tn = [ pa
] (σ′a ) (6)
v0

σ′
n = 0.381[Ic(R&W) ] + 0.05 ( pv0 ) − 0.15 (7)
a

where n ≤ 1.0.

Figure 2 - Results of the dissipation test and normalized SCPTu parameters.

Based on the soil behavior type indexes used and on the grain size distribution of the tailings
along the profile five different regions were identified (Figure 3). Region I (0.0 - 3.7 m) is com-
posed predominantly of sand-like tailings, with IB > 32 and Ic(R&W) < 2.60. The clay-size fraction
in this region is less than 10.0 % and the sand fraction is around 16.0%.
Region II (3.6 - 8.2 m) is composed predominantly of transitional behavior, with 22< IB <32
and 2.60< Ic(R&W) < 2.95. The clay-size fraction in this region is around 10%.
Region III (8.2 - 13.7 m) is also a region with a predominant transitional behavior (22< IB <32).
In this region the clay-size fraction is smaller (less than 10%) and the soil behavior type index is
smaller than the Region II, with the presence of layers of Ic(R&W) < 2.60.
Region IV (13.7 - 24.0 m) is composed of a predominantly clay-like tailings, with IB < 22 and
2.95< Ic(R&W) < 3.60. In this region the clay-size fraction of the tailings is above 10% (nearly 15%).
Region V (24.0 - 25.0 m) is composed of a predominantly clay-like tailings, with IB < 22 and
2.95< Ic(R&W) < 3.60. This region presented almost 38% of clay-sized particles and a Plasticity
Index of 8.0%.
Figure 3 - Modified soil behavior type index (IB) suggested by Robertson (2016), soil behavior type sug-
gested by Robertson and Wride (1998) and grain size characteristics of the tailings.

3 SUSCEPTIBILITY TO FLOW LIQUEFACTION

This paper is going to evaluate the susceptibility of the tailings to flow liquefaction using the
results of a Seismic Cone Penetration Testing (SCPTu) performed inside a Tailings Storage Fa-
cility (TSF) located in Minas Gerais/Brazil. Three methodologies will be used herein to evaluate
the state of the tailings: i) Plewes et al. (1992), Shuttle and Cunning (2008) and Robertson (2016).

3.1 Plewes et al. (1992)

Plewes et al. (1992) suggested a relationship between the slope of the critical state line (λ 10) and
the normalized friction ratio (Fr) as shown by Equation 8.

F
λ10 = 10r (8)
s f
Fr = (q −σ × 100% (9)
t v0 )

where:

fs = sleeve friction resistance

Once the slope of the critical state line (λ10) is determined, the state parameter (ψ) can be cal-
culated using the equation suggested by Shuttle and Cunning (2007).

Q p (1 − Bq ) + 1 = k̅e−m
̅ψ
(10)

Where Qp is the tip resistance normalized by the mean effective stress (p’0) and Bq is the pore
pressure ratio, defined as shown below.
 (qt −p0 )
Qp = (11)
p′0
(u −u0 )
Bq = (q 2 (12)
t −σv0 )

where:

u2= pore pressure measured behind the cone

u0 = in situ pore pressure

As a screening-level assessment, Jefferies and Been (2016) suggested that the effective inver-
sion coefficients, k̅ and m
̅ , could be determined using Equation 13 and Equation 14, as a function
of the slope of the critical state line.

̅
k 0.85
Μ
=3+ λ10
(13)

m
̅ = 11.9 − 13.3λ10 (14)

where Μ is the critical friction ratio (Μ=qc/p’c) and λ10 is the slope of the critical state line (CSL)
measured in log10 p’ - e space. It was assumed Μtc=1,45 herein, using the average value of the
range suggested by Jefferies and Been (2016) for sand and silt tailings.

3.2 Shuttle e Cunning (2008)

Shuttle and Cunning (2007) presented a very detailed study using finite element analysis with
cavity expansion and using the NorSand Model to evaluate the liquefaction potential of a very
loose silt tailings (Rose Creek silt tailings). Following discussions with Peter K. Robertson, Shut-
tle and Cunning (2008) presented a contour to distinguish between contractive and dilative be-
havior using the soil behavior chart suggested by Jefferies and Davies (1991). dos Santos Junior
et al. (2022) suggested the use of Equation 15 to represent the contour proposed by the authors:
93.15
[Q(1 − Bq ) + 1] = 2.35 + 9.93 (15)
Fr 0.634
[1+(25.40 ) ]

where,
(qt −σv0 )
Q or Q t = (16)
σ′v0

To characterize the behavior of the soil with depth the parameter α will be used, defined by
Equation 17. Following this definition, positive values of α will indicate that [Q(1-Bq)+1]Con-
tour>[Q(1-Bq)+1]Measured, meaning that the measured value is located below the envelope and is,
therefore, in a contractive state.

α = [Q(1 − Bq ) + 1] − [Q(1 − Bq ) + 1] (17)

𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑜𝑢𝑟 Measured

3.3 Robertson (2016)

Robertson (2016) updated the CPT-based normalized soil behavior type (SBTn) classification
system proposed by Robertson (2009) to use behavior-based instead of textural-based descrip-
tions. The author suggested the use of the contour CD=70 to differentiate soils that are contractive
and dilative at large strains. The CD=70 boundary combines two different criteria: i) Qtn,cs=70 for
sand-like soils and ii) OCR=4 for transitional and clay-like soils. Equation 18 is suggested to
represent the contour CD=70.

CD = 70 = (Q tn − 11)(1 + 0.06Fr )17 (18)

3.4 Results – Susceptibility to Flow Liquefaction
The results of the evaluation of the susceptibility of the tailings to flow liquefaction is shown in
Figure 4. As can be seen, the initial portion of the profile showed a dilatant behavior in the partially
saturated tailings. The extent of the dilatant region varied according to the different methods used
in this paper ranging from 3.6m, according to the state parameter calculated using the Plewes et
al. 1992 method, to 2.0 m using the boundary CD=70 suggested by Robertson (2016).
The region between 8.2-13.7m and the region between 17.8-20.0 m indicate the existence of a
very interbedded tailings, showing layers of contractive and dilative behavior according to Plewes
et al. (1992) method, which was not observed by the other methods.
Except from the initial dilatant portion of the profile, the contour suggested by Shuttle and
Cunning (2008) and by Robertson (2016) classified the tailings as contractive throughout the pro-
file.

Figure 4 - Evaluation of flow liquefaction susceptibility based on (a) Plewes et al. (1992), (b) Shuttle and
Cunning (2008) and (c) Robertson (2016).

4 LIQUEFIED UNDRAINED STRENGTH RATIO

This section will present the results of the liquefied undrained strength ratio of the tailings using
the equations proposed by i) Olson (2001), ii) Robertson (2010) modified by Jefferies and Been
(2016) and iii) Robertson (2020).

4.1 Olson (2001)

Olson (2001) developed a linear relationship between the liquefied undrained strength ratio and
the normalized CPT tip resistance (qc1), based on the back-analyzes of 33 case histories of lique-
faction failures, as shown by Equation 19.

Su (liq)
σ′v0
= 0.03 + 0.0143(𝑞𝑐1 ) ± 0.03 (19)

for 𝑞𝑐1 ≤ 6.5 𝑀𝑃𝑎,

The corrected CPT tip resistance, qc1, is defined as follows:

qc1 = qc × Cq (20)
 where Cq is the CPT-based overburden correction factor suggested by Kayen et al. (1992), de-
fined by Equation 21.

1.8
Cq = σ ′ (21)
0.8+( v0 )
P a

4.2 Robertson (2010) modified by Jefferies & Been (2016)

Jefferies and Been (2016) modified the equation suggested by Robertson (2010) to calculate the
liquefied undrained strength ratio using an equivalent clean sand cone resistance (Qtn,cs) to fit an
exponential trend defined by Equation 22.

Su (liq)
= 0.0055e(0.05Qtn,cs) (22)
σ′v0

where,

Q tn,cs = K c Q tn (23)

The correction factor Kc is suggested by Robertson and Wride (1998) according to the follow-
ing equation:

Kc = 1 if Ic ≤ 1.64 (24)

K c = −0.403Ic4 + 5.581Ic3 − 21,63Ic2 + 33.751Ic − 17,88 if Ic > 1.64 (25)

4.3 Robertson (2020)

Robertson (2020) suggested an update in the equation to calculate the correction factor (Kc) sug-
gested by Robertson and Wride (1998) to account for the effect of partial drainage in transition
soils with 2.6< Ic <3.0, as shown by Equation 26:

𝐾𝑐 = 1.8346𝐼𝑐5 − 23.673𝐼𝑐4 + 124.02𝐼𝑐3 − 320.616𝐼𝑐2 + 405.821𝐼𝑐 − 199.97 (26)

when Ic<1.7, Kc=1.0 (i.e., no correction in clean sands).

Robertson (2020) also updated the equation to calculate the liquefied undrained strength ratio
for sand-like and transition soils (Ic<3.0) applied for Qtn,cs<80, as indicated in Equation 27:

Su(liq) 0.3
σ′v0
= 0.0007e0.084Qtn,cs + Q when Ic≤3.0 (27)
tn,cs

For clay-like soils, the liquefied undrained shear strength is essentially the same as the remolded
shear strength, which can be correlated to the sleeve friction of the CPT, as indicated in Equation
28:

Su(liq) f Fr Qtn
σ′v0
= σ′s = 100
when Ic>3.0 (28)
v0
4.4 Results - Liquefied Undrained Strength Ratio
The equations presented in sections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of this paper were used to calculate the liq-
uefied undrained strength ratio of the tailings. The profile of the SCPTu was divided into two
different regions to calculate the liquefied undrained strength ratio based on the geotechnical char-
acterization of the tailings. The first region is comprised between 3.6 and 13.7 m. As was demon-
strated in Figure 1 and Figure 3, this portion of the tailings presents a higher percentage of fine
sand compared to the lower portion of the profile and showed a soil-behavior type classification
of sand-like to transition soils, with Ic(R&W) predominantly below 3.0. The second region, is com-
prised between 13.7 and 24.0 m. In this region, the grain size distribution curves show very fine
tailings with almost the entire composition finer then the #200 sieve. The tailings also presented
higher values of clay-sized particles (usually higher than 10%) compared to the initial portion and
the soil behavior type classification indicated a clay-like material, with Ic(R&W) predominantly
above 3.0.
To compare the different equations evaluated in this study the histogram of the liquefied un-
drained strength ratio was plotted and it was determined the statistical distribution that best fits
the data, between i) Normal Distribution, ii) Log-Normal Distribution and iii) Three-Parameter
Log-Normal Distribution. As can be seen in Figure 5 and Figure 6, the Three-Parameter Log-
Normal Distribution was the statistical distribution that presented a better fit to the data and was,
therefore, used in this paper.
For the first region (between 3.6 and 13.7m) the soil behavior type index Ic (R&W) is predomi-
nantly below 3.0 and therefore the equation based on the equivalent clean sand cone resistance is
mostly used in the region to calculate the liquefied undrained strength ratio for the Robertson
(2020) method. The statistical distribution, shown in Figure 5, shows that the equation proposed
by Robertson (2020) yielded higher values compared to the other methods and exhibited higher
scattering (indicated by the higher standard deviation).
In the second region, between 13.7 and 24.0m, the soil behavior type index Ic (R&W) is predom-
inantly above 3.0 and the liquefied undrained strength ratio was calculated using the correlation
to the sleeve friction (Equation 28) for the Robertson (2020) method. In this portion, the equations
suggested by Robertson (2010) modified by Jefferies and Been (2016) and the equation from
Robertson (2020) exhibited higher scattering (as can be seen by the higher values of the standard
deviation in Table 3).

Figure 5 – Statistical distribution of the liquefied undrained strength ratio calculated using i) Olson (2001),
ii) Robertson (2010) modified by Jefferies and Been (2016) and iii) Robertson (2020) - elevation between
3.6 m and 13.7 m.
Figure 6 - Statistical distribution of the liquefied undrained strength ratio calculated using i) Olson (2001),
ii) Robertson (2010) modified by Jefferies and Been (2016) and iii) Robertson (2020) - elevation between
13.7 m and 24.0 m.

Table 3 - Statistical Evaluation of the Liquefied Undrained Strength Ratio

Robertson (2010) mod.
Parameters Olson (2001) Robertson (2020)
J&B (2016)
Depth 3.6-13.7 m 13.7-24.0 m 3.6-13.7 m 13.7-24.0 m 3.6-13.7 m 13.7-24.0 m
P20 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.09 0.03
Q1 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.11 0.03
P33 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.12 0.04
Median 0.06 0.04 0.09 0.04 0.16 0.06
Mean 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.05 0.17 0.10
Q3 0.07 0.05 0.11 0.07 0.21 0.14
Standard Deviation 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.09 0.10
Coefficient of Variation
25% 20% 42% 70% 54% 98%
(CV)

To further evaluate the higher values obtained to the liquefied undrained strength ratio using
the equation suggested by Robertson (2020) in the portion between 3.6-13.7 m the equation pro-
posed by the author was applied along different lines of equal soil behavior−type index (Ic) as
defined by Robertson and Wride (1998). The equation suggested by Robertson (2010) and later
modified by Jefferies and Been (2016) was also used to compare the results. The final evaluation
is shown in Figure 7, where red dots indicate higher than 50% deviation between the methods and
green dots indicate less than 50% deviation, calculated according to the Equation 29. Figure 7
also shows the liquefied undrained strength ratio calculated using the equation suggested by Rob-
ertson (2020) for those points that exhibited larger than 50% deviation.

Su(LIQ),Robertson (2020) −Su(LIQ),Robertson (2010) mod. by J&B(2016)

Deviation (%) = Su(LIQ),Robertson (2010)mod. by J&B(2016)
× 100 (29)

As can be seen in Figure 7, the high deviation occurs in the central part of the SBTn chart
proposed by Robertson (2009), in the region where 2.60< Ic <3.0. The equation proposed by Rob-
ertson (2020) tends to increase the liquefied undrained strength ration in this region, since the
modified correction factor (Kc) increases (causing an increase in the equivalent clean sand cone
resistance, Qtn,cs).
Figure 7 – (a) Region with more than 50% deviation between the Robertson (2020) and the Robertson
(2010) modified by Jefferies and Been (2016) equation for the liquefied undrained strength ratio [values
indicate the Su(liq)/σ’v0 obtained using the Robertson (2020) proposal] and (b) points of the SCPTu where
deviations higher than 50% where observed.

5 CONCLUSION

This paper presented a case study of the evaluation of the susceptibility of an iron ore tailings to
flow liquefaction and the calculation of its liquefied strength ratio.
The geotechnical characterization of the tailings was conducted by performing i) grain size
distribution curve, ii) the water content, iii) the specific gravity of soil solids (Gs), iv) the liquid
limit (LL) and v) the plastic limit (PL). The classification of the tailings using the Unified Soil
Classification System (ASTM D2487) indicated that the tailings is predominantly classified as
silt (group symbol ML) and the classification using the proposal from ICOLD (ICOLD 2021)
indicated a tailings type varying from Hard Rock Tailings (HRT) and Altered Rock Tailings
(ART).
An SCPTu test, performed inside the TSF was used to evaluate the susceptibility of the tailings
to flow liquefaction and to calculate its liquefied strength. Based on the behavior characteristics
of the tailings and on the grain size distribution curves, five distinct regions were identified along
the profile. The susceptibility of the tailings to flow liquefaction was performed using the contours
suggested by i) Plewes et al. (1992), Shuttle and Cunning (2008) and Robertson (2016). Except
from a small layer of dilatant region on the top surface, all the profile of the tailings was classified
in a contractive state using the contours suggested by Shuttle and Cunning (2008) and Robertson
(2016). The state parameter calculated using the Plewes et al. (1992) method indicates the exist-
ence of a very interbedded tailings, showing layers of contractive and dilative behavior in the
elevations of 8.2-13.7m and between 17.8-20.0 m. To calculate the liquefied undrained strength
ration, the contour CD=70, suggested by Robertson (2016), was used to distinguish the contrac-
tive/dilative region.
The liquefied undrained strength ratio was calculated for the contractive region of the SCPTu
for two different portions of the profile: i) the region comprised between 3.6 and 13.7 m, where
the tailings exhibited a predominantly sand-like to transitional behavior with Ic(R&W) typically be-
low 3.0 and ii) the region between 13.7 and 24.0 m where it was identified a clay-like behavior
with Ic(R&W) predominantly above 3.0.
The results obtained, using the equations proposed by Olson (2001), Robertson (2010) modified
by Jefferies and Been (2016) and Robertson (2020) showed that for the sand-like and transitional
region the values obtained using the updated equation proposed by Robertson (2020) yielded
higher values and coefficient of variation, especially in the central part of the SBTn chart (region
of normally consolidated soils) where 2.60< Ic(R&W) < 3.00 due to the suggested increase in the
correction factor (Kc) which also increases the equivalent clean sand cone resistance (Qtn,cs).
In the clay-like portion (between 13.7 and 24.0 m) the equations suggested by Robertson (2010)
modified by Jefferies and Been (2016) and the equation from Robertson (2020) exhibited higher
scattering compared to the Olson (2001).
Due to the higher values observed in the sand-like and transitional region (between 3.6 and 13.7
m) using the Robertson (2020) equation, the authors advise caution when applying this equation
for transitional soils (specially for silts and silt-size tailings).

6 REFERENCES

ABNT NBR 6457. 2016. “Soil samples - Preparation for compaction and characterization tests.”
ABNT NBR 6459. 2016. “Soil - Liquid limit determination.”
ABNT NBR 7180. 2016. “Soil - Plastic limit determination.”
ASTM D422-63(2007). 2014. “Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils (With-
drawn 2016).” West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM D2487. 2017. “Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes
(Unified Soil Classification System).”
International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD). 2021. Tailings Dam Design: Technology
Update.
Jefferies, M., and K. Been. 2016. Soil Liquefaction: A Critical State Apporach.
Jefferies, M. G., and M. P. Davies. 1991. “Soil classification by the cone penetration test: Discus-
sion.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 28 (1): 173–176. https://doi.org/10.1139/t91-023.
Kayen, R. E., J. K. Mitchell, R. B. Seed, A. Lodge, S. Nishio, and R. Coutinho. 1992. “Evaluation
of SPT, CPT and shear wave-based methods for liquefaction potential assessment using
Loma Prieta data.” Proceedings of the 4th Japan-U.S. Workshop on Earthquake Resistant
Design of Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures of Soil Liquefaction, 177–192.
Olson, S. M. 2001. “Liquefaction Analysis of Level and Sloping Ground Using Field Case Histo-
ries and Penetration Resistance.” Thesis. Illinois: University of Illinois at Urbana-Cham-
paign.
Plewes, H. D., M. P. Davies, and M. G. Jefferies. 1992. “CPT based screening procedure for
evaluating liquefaction susceptibility.” Proceedings of the 45th Canadian Geotechnical
Conference.
Robertson, P. K. 2009. “Interpretation of cone penetration tests - A unified approach.” Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 46 (11): 1337–1355. https://doi.org/10.1139/T09-065.
Robertson, P. K. 2010. “Evaluation of Flow Liquefaction and Liquefied Strength Using the Cone
Penetration Test.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 136 (6):
842–853. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000286.
Robertson, P. K. 2016. “Cone penetration test (CPT)-based soil behaviour type (SBT) classifica-
tion system — An update.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 53 (12): 1910–1927.
https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2016-0044.
Robertson, P. K. 2020. “Evaluation of Flow Liquefaction and Liquefied Strength Using CPT - An
Update.”
Robertson, P. K., and C. E. Wride. 1998. “Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone
penetration test.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35 (3): 442–459.
https://doi.org/10.1139/t99-102.
dos Santos Junior, M. P., R. César Gomes, S. G. Silva Ribeiro, and B. G. Delgado. 2022. “Eval-
uation of flow liquefaction susceptibility of a sandy-silt tailings using the CPTu.” Cone Pen-
etration Testing 2022, G. Gottardi and L. Tonni, eds., 913–919. Bologna: Taylor and Francis
Group.
Shuttle, D. A., and J. Cunning. 2007. “Liquefaction potential of silts from CPTu.” Canadian Ge-
otechnical Journal, 44 (1): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1139/T06-086.
Shuttle, D. A., and J. Cunning. 2008. “Reply to the discussion by Robertson on ‘Liquefaction
potential of silts from CPTu.’” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 45 (1): 142–145.
https://doi.org/10.1139/T07-119.