2020
DOI: 10.28927/sr.433369
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Guidelines and recommendations on minimum factors of safety for slope stability of tailings dams

Abstract: Recent major upstream raised tailings dam failures have led to a reopening of the discussion of the validity of some of the existing routine practices within the profession. Despite its many shortcomings, deterministic slope stability limit equilibrium analysis is and will continue to be, at least for some time ahead, an important tool for tailings dams' safety assessment. Within this context, this paper presents a contribution to the postulation of minimum factors of safety required for tailings dams' slope s… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The general guidelines suggest the minimum values of FS as 1.3, 1.5 and 1.3 for the End of construction stage, steady seepage condition and sudden draw down condition respectively for the tailing dam design without seismic force. Considering seismic force the minimum FS may be 1.1 [16]. The values of FS for phase 1 and phase 2 dam constructions are observed to fall within these limits.…”
Section: Rapid Draw Down Conditionmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…The general guidelines suggest the minimum values of FS as 1.3, 1.5 and 1.3 for the End of construction stage, steady seepage condition and sudden draw down condition respectively for the tailing dam design without seismic force. Considering seismic force the minimum FS may be 1.1 [16]. The values of FS for phase 1 and phase 2 dam constructions are observed to fall within these limits.…”
Section: Rapid Draw Down Conditionmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…Currently stable areas close to the unstable state (1 ≤ FS < 1.5-2) which require a more detailed and comprehensive investigation. This FS range was selected as a compromise between different approaches to separate between the stable and unstable state of the slope (Kramer 1996;Silva et al 2008;Stark and Ruffing 2017;Herza et al 2018; 1 3 Schnaid et al 2020). Parts of the slopes at St. Niklausen, Weggis, Kastanienbaum, and Muota sites belong to this group (Fig.…”
Section: Static One-dimensional Infinite Slope Stability Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, the minimum factor of safety (FS) which is considered a boundary between the stable and unstable states depends on the goals of a study. Generally, it is selected between 1 and 1.5 or even more (Kramer 1996;Silva et al 2008;Duncan et al 2014;Stark and Ruffing 2017;Herza et al 2018;Schnaid et al 2020).…”
Section: Slope Stability Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, PF was calculated by 3519/10,000 = 0.3519 (35.190%) However, the safety factor was calculated by the probabilistic analysis with random variables in a critical scenario. The recommended international standard presents the minimum factor required for safety for embankments and foundations, which are 1.3 for endof-construction conditions and 1.1-1.2 for the rapid drawdown condition [29]. The sensitivity analysis results in Figures 8-10 were guidelines for improving the strength properties of the Bang-Ban-Bang-Sai Road embankment.…”
Section: Random Variables Without a Floodwatermentioning
confidence: 99%