Characterizing Mine Tailings For Geotechnical Design
Characterizing Mine Tailings For Geotechnical Design
Characterizing Mine Tailings For Geotechnical Design
https://www.issmge.org/publications/online-library
ABSTRACT: Mine tailings are ground up rock and generally consist of sand and silt size particles, without clay
minerals. Tailings “storage” (actually disposal) facilities are some of the largest constructed works, with seismic
design an integral component. High value mines are frequently in earthquake prone areas and tailings liquefac-
tion is an ever-present concern. A screening level liquefaction assessment based on the CPTu is a needed first
step, but cannot be accurate because the fines content of tailings can be high, and engineering behaviour is only
loosely related to fines content. An engineering mechanics based procedure is laid out in this paper which is
applicable regardless of the fines content. It is anchored to the eighty year old principles of critical state soil
mechanics originated by the Corp of Engineers. The state parameter provides the practical engineer an entry to
this framework, as well as insight into a simple stability principle that sets the strategy for a tailings character-
ization project aimed at the analyses that a tailings engineer needs. The approach requires systematic in situ and
laboratory testing to determine the soil mechanics properties of the tailings.
41
sign/assessment: soil strength (drained and un- silts found in western Canada. The same testing is-
drained), soil stiffness, and cyclic softening. Assump- sues arise.
tions that engineering behaviour can be satisfactorily Silts, whether tailings or natural rock flour soils,
related to fines content are avoided as tailings may can be sampled successfully using a thin-wall un-
consist of 100% fines. Underlying the
0.9
Void ratio
Void ratio, e
42
3 CRITICAL STATE SOIL MECHANICS The trends in sand behaviour reported by Been &
Jefferies resurrected CSSM. The basic theoretical in-
The critical void ratio was identified from the practi- sight that followed from Figure 3 was that yield sur-
cal concern of avoiding static liquefaction failures of faces (the limits of elastic behaviour) in general do
hydraulic fill dams in the late 19th and early 20th cen- not lie on the CSL but rather evolve to the CSL with
turies. “Critical” really meant what it said – it was the shear strain. This insight produced two strands of
criterion of a safe density in constructed engineering
48
work, with the practical concern to avoid sudden tran-
sitioning of drained construction with no excess pore
44
pressure, into an undrained liquefaction failure. The
Tailings: φc = 35.5°
critical void ratio developed from engineering by the
40
43
800 600
DRAINED TESTS UNDRAINED
600
400
NorSand
400 CIU_G103
NorSand CIU_G105
200
CID_G156
CID_G157
0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10
Axial strain (%) Axial strain (%)
2 600
CSL
Mtx = 1.27
0 φ′ = 31.6
Volumetric strain (%)
400
‐2 q (kPa)
‐4
200
ψo
‐6 Tes t
CID‐G151
p 0 (kPa )
201
e0
0.694 ‐0.050
CID‐G156 201 0.640 ‐0.104
CID‐G157 204 0.572 ‐0.172
‐8
CIU‐G103 500 0.793 0.068
CIU‐G105 500 0.757 0.032
0
CIU‐G107 700 0.727 0.009 0 200 400 600 800
‐10 p' (kPa)
Figure 4. Match between CSSM model for sand (NorSand) and triaxial test data from Nerlerk hydraulic fill. Results are
compared at a range of ψ for drained (dense) and undrained (loose) specimens.
44
ing zero excess pore pressure at the instant of lique- effective stress is constant (temporarily) at peak
faction. The reason for the instantaneous transition is strength. In undrained loading of loose soils, the mean
that the potential rate of excess pore pressure genera- effective stress is changing at its greatest rate because
tion is infinite under load-controlled situations if the of pore pressure changes at peak strength. This effect
current undrained strength of the soil is exceeded of rapidly changing mean effective stress on soil be-
even though the loading path to that limit is perfectly haviour is intrinsic to the good soil models mentioned
drained. This undrained strength is called the “insta- earlier, with good models accurately capturing both
bility limit” in effective stress terms. drained and undrained soil behaviour using the same
The path from point B1 to point B2 on Figure 5 properties.
corresponds to a rapid loading event, which could be The idea of triggering undrained instability is
a quickly placed berm raise, an earthquake, or even sometimes difficult to appreciate as it involves the
simply an increase in phreatic level within the tail- balance between drainage time and strain rates, with
other hydraulic fill dams. Let us now consider this in- 0.2
45
Figure 8: Example CPTu in a TSF showing segregation of coarse and fine layers. The tailings are TCS and TCB materials used
for illustration of the CSSM techniques in the paper
46
Tip resistance, qt (MPa) Pore Pressure (MPa) Friction ratio, F (%) Bq State parameter,
0 2 4 6 8 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 ‐0.2 0.0 0.2
0
Sub‐aerial
thickened
tailings
Depth below ground (m)
10 Earlier sub‐
aerial sand
beaches
Sub‐aqueous
silt (slimes)
20
State parameter
profile from soil
uo defined by Note high Bq specific calibration
dissipation tests values of CPTu
measurements in approximately the same way for (Shuttle & Cunning, 2008)
most materials and we are able to deal with that if we
know the properties of each material.
Gravelly
This aspect is illustrated in Figure 8, a CPTu show- Sub‐aerially deposited
ing there are two interbedded materials within the 100 beach materials
47
Shuttle & Cunning (2007) next examined what
for the state parameter by Shuttle & Cunning (2008) would happen with undrained behaviour in tail-
using their effective stress cavity expansion simula- ings, bringing in the effective stress dimension-
tions, discussion with Robertson (2008) and the less parameter grouping to tip resistance intro-
Plewes et al. (1992) equations, which give a guide to duced by Houlsby (1988). Besides their method
soil state as well as the soil behaviour type. The ex- of analysis, they entered a discussion (Shuttle &
ample sounding has the beached sands plotting only Cunning, 2008) with Robertson (2008) and iden-
slightly contractive (-0.05 < ψ < 0.0) and thus prone tified the contractive/dilatant boundary for all
to liquefaction. The sub-aqeous silts (ψ > +0.05, and soils (= - 0.05, which is essentially equivalent
very low CPTu resistance) are exceedingly loose and to offset between drained behaviour and the insta-
raise interesting questions about their potential bility limit shown on Figure 6; see Figure 10).
strength loss following liquefaction. Thickened tail- Robertson (2009, 2010, 2012) has continued to
ings in this instance (0.0 < ψ < +0.05) would require publish more information, pulling together what
careful engineering to avoid liquefaction flow failures he sees as the state-of-the-practice.
on slopes.
For comparison, TCS sand (from 28.5 to 36m 5.2.1 Data reduction in sand
depth) and TCB silt strata (36 to 49.5 m depth) are In the case of sands, which are fully drained sound-
also shown on Figure 10, and maybe not surprisingly ings, the relationship between ψ and the CPTu re-
the three sub-aerially deposited tailings show up as sistance was originally determined from calibration
the same soil behaviour type and in situ state. chamber tests. Such tests, which are in effect a giant
triaxial cell, involve pushing a CPTu into a sand of
5.2 Interpreting in situ ψ for tailings known void ratio and under known stress. Repeating
the procedure with many samples provides a mapping
Interpretation of ψ from CPTu data has been in the between tip resistance, soil state, and stress level.
geotechnical literature for almost 30 years now, start- Most in the in situ testing community regard chamber
ing with Been et al. (1986 & 1987). A more recent calibration of the CPTu as the gold standard to be
publication specifically for tailings deposits is in used. The only catch in this is that each chamber test
Been et al. (2012). However, there are numerous ref- involves careful placement of 2 tonnes of sand so is
erences leading from 1986 to the present. An issue not commercially viable for most projects. Chamber
was that the early work was based on large calibration tests tend to be research programs by universities.
chamber tests of the CPTu in sand, and Sladen (1989) The starting point for determining the state param-
identified a potentially significant stress-level bias.
eter from the CPTu was this worldwide set of cham-
Shuttle & Jefferies (1998) eventually modeled this
ber tests, with samples of the sands then tested to de-
bias and showed how the elastic zone outside of the
termine their CSL. This process showed that (Been et
plastic zone caused this effect. Evaluation of CPTu
al, 1986):
data needs to include the in situ Gmax. In the mean-
time, various engineers had been working on other Qp = k exp (-m ψ) or in its correct inverted form
ways to progress the understanding and the methods ψ = - ln (Qp / k) / m (2)
adopted are rather varied. Some of the main contribu-
tions and their features are: where Qp= (qt - p)/pʹ and is the dimensionless CPTu
resistance (note use of mean, not vertical, stress). The
Been et al. (1987) methods are appropriate if there coefficients k, m are soil-specific, depending on the
is indeed a calibration chamber test program, for soil properties. It was acknowledged that the CPTu
which there is good data. This is not common. resistance depended on soil compressibility, which
Plewes et at. (1992) developed a screening level Been et al. (1987) formalized by relating k, m to
method to provide the in situ state of tailings, in (the slope of the CSL). The method recovers with
which λ (the slope of the CSL) is related to the a precision ±0.05 across the range of available cali-
CPTu friction ratio F%. This method is still fairly bration chamber results at the time. They were mainly
robust, as expounded by Reid (2015) showing clean sands, and nearly all quartz sands, which is a
how λ10 and F compare on Figure 11. big limitation for tailings.
Shuttle & Jefferies (1998) carried out detailed,
large strain, numerical analyses of the CPTu in
sand. They identified both the elastic and plastic
components of the resistance, and identified a
simplified method to determine ψ (of course, only
after knowing the CSL and the complete set of
soil properties including Gmax)
48
1 CPTu soundings in silts are undrained, often with ra-
Original data
ther large excess pore pressures (Figure 9). What
Original proposed correlation
should be done?
New data ‐ discrete value
In the case of clays, undrained CPTu are evaluated
New data ‐ with uncertainty range on the basis of total, not effective, stress by compar-
ing the undrained strength su inferred from the CPTu
to some reference strength to establish the calibration
λ10
49
point for any earthquake ground response study as
Gra Sand size
Medium Fine Silt Clay well.
100 vel Coarse
Mtx = 1.45
less compressible than the TCS sand, in the case of
0.6 these two tailings gradations. This is an important ob-
servation that illustrates the significant limitations of
0.5 relying on fines content as a proxy for compressibility
in the interpretation of CPTu results. The additional
fines content fills up more of the pore space providing
0.4 less opportunity for particle movement during shear
0.7 TCB Silt (note that the CSL of the TCB silt is also at a lower
(70/51) Tailings void ratio than the TCS sand with 22% fines).
Γ1 = 0.713
0.6 λ10 = 0.086
Table 2 summarizes the parameters developed for
Mtx = 1.44 the full interpretation of the in situ state. The average
Void ratio
0.5
in situ state of both materials based on the CPTu turns
out to be about = 0.02. Now we have measured
the in situ we only need the soil behaviour at that
0.4 CSL
state.
CS (end of undrained tests)
CS (from drained tests)
Figure 14 shows the corresponding stress-strain
0.3 behaviour of the drained and undrained specimens
10 100 1000 10000 closest to this state for each material. Their behaviour
Mean effective stress, p', kPa is comparable, as it should be at the same . There is
some strain softening, and large strains, but maybe
Figure 13: Critical state lines for TCS sand (180/22) and TCB not the very brittle behaviour that may be expected in
sandy silt (70/51) tailings. Black lines represent state paths – sands without fines.
horizontal lines are undrained tests while hooked lines are
drained tests.
5.4 Soil samples and laboratory testing
essence measuring both horizontal coefficient of con- Moving ahead to a full assessment of the behaviour
solidation (ch) in situ and the current pore pressure of the soil for both static and earthquake loading
(uo) using the CPTu pore pressure sensor. needs samples in addition to those needed for soil in-
The elastic shear modulus Gmax was discussed ear- dex testing and CSL determination. These do not
lier in the context of k, m values in (2) but it is also a have to be undisturbed as soil properties can be meas-
sensitive indicator of fabric as it captures how the par- ured on reconstituted samples. Tests on undisturbed
ticle contacts can transmit elastic shear waves. We would be misleading as to in situ behaviour because
should always include at least some seismic CPTu they are practically impossible with silts (see Figure
soundings in any field program; about 1 test in 5 2).
seems sufficient to greatly add to the understanding Most CPTu equipment is now available with a
of any site. A Gmax profile is, of course, the starting form of piston sampler (MOSTAP or similar) that is
deployed using the CPTu system itself. The sampler
50
1500 1500
Silty sand (180/22)
In situ ψ approx. ‐0.02
Test CID T2
CID T2 (silty sand 180/22)
= 0.617
p'o = 345 kPa
Deviator stress , q (kPa)
q, (kPa)
p'o = 240 kPa
ψ = ‐0.062 CIU T7 (sandy silt 70/51)
CSL
500 500
Sandy silt (70/51) Silty sand (180/22)
Test CIU T7 Test CIU T3
eo = 0.477 eo = 0.615
p'o = 1016 kPa p'o = 825 kPa
ψ = 0.023 ψ = + 0.036
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Mean effective stress, p' (kPa)
Axial strain (%)
0.70
2.0
0.65
1.5 0.60
Stress ratio, η
Void ratio
0.55
180/22
1.0
0.50 CID T2 (silty sand 180/22)
CIU T3 (silty sand 180/22)
0.45 CID T7 (sandy silt 70/51)
0.5 CIU T7 (sandy silt 70/51) 70/51
0.40 CSL
0.0 0.35
0 5 10 15 20 1 10 100 1000 10000
Mean effective stress, p' (kPa)
Axial strain (%)
Figure 14: Stress strain curves for drained and undrained triaxial tests on TCS sand and TCB silt tailings at the estimated
average in situ state ψ ~ -0.02
is pushed to the test depth and then opened to recover 2 Data on the cyclic behaviour as it seems inevitable
the soil in the target zone. Sampling does not need to that high-value mines will be in earthquake prone
be at every CPTu sounding, but once the characteris- area; and,
tic soils have been identified, sufficient samples need 3 Index tests to document the soils tested.
to be recovered to characterize the variability of the
This testing is really quite modest (and certainly in
materials (grain size). Then you need to look at CPTu
the context of the recent tailings failures) but is suffi-
in conjunction with the grain sizes. How many mate-
cient to allow us to define the material behaviour as a
rials do you really have? Often you can boil it down
function of the in situ state ψ.
to just two or three characteristic gradations.
Assuming a semi-log CSL is used (and this will
This provides the basis for laboratory testing on
often be adequate) there are only five soil properties:
disturbed, blended samples that provide a base of
which define the CSL; M, N, which define the
measuring engineering properties that support the in
stress-dilatancy behaviour; and which defines the
situ test interpretation of the CPTu, with distinction
effect of on strength. ( defines the slope of the
between different material types. trend line in Figure 3, which varies slightly from one
So, what testing is needed to support the charac- soil to another. This was not considered in 1985).
terization of tailings behaviour? These properties are simply obtained by plotting test
data in the appropriate form. The properties are all di-
mensionless (although has a convention of being
6 ENGINEERING PROPERTIES defined at 1 kPa) and do not imply any particular con-
6.1 Laboratory test program stitutive model. They capture the fundamental behav-
iour of any particulate material. Table 1 indicates
Characterizing the soils in a TSF requires enough
which tests provide which properties.
testing on each representative material. Table 1 pro-
The discussion so far has been directed to strength,
vides a basic minimum set of tests with the purpose
but generally we will need to know tailings consoli-
of measuring:
dation behaviour. First, consolidation affects the ca-
1 Static strengths, brittleness and so forth and with pacity of the TSF, a business consideration. Second,
sufficient data to calibrate any of the good soil because mine life is commonly about 25 years there
models;
51
during the saturation step and that densification is dif-
Table 1. Suggested laboratory testing program per representa- ficult to measure accurately. This issue of accurate
tive sample of tailings void ratio measurement has plagued CSSM since the
Test type No of Purpose early work of Casagrande in 1935 until it was re-
Tests solved in the mid 1980s during work in the Canadian
Particle size 20 Define heterogeneity of material, Arctic.
distribution identify representative materials
Specific grav- 2 Basic property to calculate void The required technique for accurate void ratio
ity ratio measurement is to shut the drainage and pore pressure
Max. & min. 2 Not part of CSL framework, but measurement lines on the specimen immediately
density helpful to laboratory technicians shearing is terminated. The cell is then depressurized
for sample preparation before moving the entire specimen at its end-of-test
Triaxial 5-8 Define CSL, undrained strength,
consolidated brittleness ()
water content to a freezer. A few hours of freezing is
undrained sufficient to allow the specimen to be demounted
Triaxial 5–8 Define CSL, stress-dilatancy,, from the test equipment which had to be frozen
consolidated state-dilatancy (M, N,). Also (mainly the platens) without loss of any water. The
drained provide the basic stress-strain water content of the entire sample is then measured
data for calibrating constitutive by standard oven drying, and converted to void ratio
models.
Oedome- 3-5 Consolidation behaviour (Cc, cv) using the measured Gs (the void ratio is accurate,
ter/Rowe Cell since the test procedure was to saturate the sample
Bender element 2 sets Measure Gmax as function of with back pressure at the start of the test).
tests of 8 stress level at 2 initial void ratios. The costs and effort of this freezing technique is
Measure consolidation curves minimal. It is simply a question of taking care to make
Cyclic simple 8 Two sets of 4 tests. Each set at
shear tests same ψ. Include post-liquefaction
sure it is done.
settlement if possible.
Resonant col- 2 Optional, but avoids reliance on
umn testing published curves for G and Dr
6.3 Soil properties from laboratory tests
The soil properties are independent of
any constitutive model but, on their own, will usually
will be substantial strength gain in this time. Thus not be quite sufficient to capture soil behaviour. The
some oedometer or Rowe Cell tests are needed. missing property is some measure of plastic shear
The elastic soil stiffness is also important, both for stiffness analogous to Gmax for elasticity. The concept
improved precision in determining from CPTu and of plastic shear hardening may be common, but there
for seismic response assessments. We have found it is no agreed standard soil property for plastic modu-
is helpful to use bender elements within a set of triax- lus and each constitutive model generally defines its
ial consolidation tests. This defines the relationship own property. The approach we use to determine
between Gmax, void ratio and stress level better than plastic modulus from the triaxial testing is Iterative
the field measurement of Gmax, since we have a better Forward Modelling (IFM) in which the soil behav-
measurement of void ratio in the laboratory sample iour in a test is computed using the chosen constitu-
than in the field. It also defines consolidation proper- tive model and estimated properties, with the com-
ties of the tailings. puted behaviour being visually compared to that
In the case of static strength and stiffness there are measured. Then, the plastic hardening is revised to
several good models that will closely predict the improve the fit and the process repeats until a good fit
soil’s behaviour from the tests discussed. This is, as is obtained. This can all be done in Excel as any good
yet, not true for cyclic softening during earthquakes, model is readily programmed using the VBA envi-
thus cyclic simple shear tests are needed for seismic ronment that is included with Excel. The modelling
work on tailings, and these are discussed in more de- also has the advantage of rapidly showing up ques-
tail in Section 6.4. tionable laboratory results as well as confirming the
appropriate plastic hardening. The earlier Figure 4
was developed just this way.
6.2 Accurate void ratio measurement
In the case of the NorSand model, plastic harden-
Geotechnical laboratories are familiar with accurate ing is represented by the dimensionless modulus H.
measurement of stress and strain. However, the es- This modulus is proportional to the plastic hardening
sence of CSSM is quantifying the effect of void ratio of Cam Clay with H ~ 1/(). The IFM procedure
on that stress-strain behaviour, which requires accu- generates the best-value of H for the entire test, and it
rate measurement of void ratio during laboratory tri- is common to find an effect of so that H = a + b
axial testing. And this causes a problem as the stand- where a, b become the true soil properties. It is also
ard procedures of most laboratories are inadequate for common to find that H scales with Gmax/p, which is
accurate void ratio measurement despite ISO 9000 analogous to a constant ratio often used in Cam
accreditation. The problem is that samples densify Clay.
52
shear specimens of tailings silts in Shelby tubes, in-
Table 2. Results of laboratory testing for CPTu interpretation cluding TCS sand and TCBy silt data
q shown( )
and soil behaviour
TCS sand TCB silt
D50 (mm) 180 70
Fines (%) 22 51
Γ1 0.914 0.713
λ10 0.115 0.086
Mtx 1.45 1.44
χtc 3.5 3.5
N 0.2 0.2
H 50 140
Gmax 50 32
S 160 160
n 0.65 0.65
v 0.25 0.25
H/Ir (Ir = G/pʹ) 0.74 3.22
Note: Ko = 0.7 assumed for calculation of mean effective stress
it is common to find an effect of so that H = a + Figure 15: Cyclic resistance ratio in simple shear for tailings
b where a, b become the true soil properties. It is
also common to find that H scales with Gmax/p, which
is analogous to a constant ratio often used in Cam on Figure 15. Once we get these samples into a labor-
Clay. atory, extruded and reconsolidated, we like to think
Table 2 shows a full set of properties measured on we have a sample at the in situ state with a semblance
TCS sand and TCB silt materials identified from the of in situ fabric. However, the void ratio will likely be
CPTu sounding. rather different, and we cannot assume the laboratory
sample will be the same as in situ, because that would
tend to overestimate the cyclic strength. We therefore
6.4 Cyclic Resistance Curves have two options:
A cyclic shear resistance curve is needed for a total 1 Do not try to obtain undisturbed samples, and pro-
stress analysis of seismic loading (whereas a pore duce strength curves from reconstituted samples at
pressure generation function is needed for an effec- the correct range of in situ states. This will likely
tive stress analysis, which is not covered here). For a be a low estimate of the cyclic strength because
cyclic resistance curve, the engineer needs data over field fabric would be lost.
the range of in situ states encountered for each iden- 2 Test the undisturbed samples consolidated back to
tified material. This likely means at least two curves the in situ stress level, but then make an adjustment
of cyclic shear stress ratio (τ/σʹv) versus number of to account for the post-sampling void ratio change.
cycles to liquefaction (NL). A liquefaction strength
(stress ratio) can be picked for a number of cycles of In order to make the correction to the strength of the
loading from each curve to provide a “strength vs undisturbed sample, you need two pieces of infor-
state” relationship. mation. First information is an estimate of the reduc-
Cyclic simple shear tests are preferred, as they are tion in void ratio during sample handling and consol-
most representative of seismic loading. (If only cyclic idation. The second piece of information is how much
triaxial testing is available, a reduction of about 0.65 this void ratio reduction affects the value of ψ and
on the cyclic shear stress ratio may be needed to “cor- how this change in ψ affects the cyclic resistance. The
rect” for simple shear conditions.) Figure 15 shows actual procedure used is not important, but it does
cyclic resistance data for five tailings materials, in- need to be done.
cluding TCS sand, TCB silt and a couple of pure silts. The approach used for TCS sand and TCS silt is
The results cover a wide range of conditions, but in- illustrated on Figure 16. We first used the available
terestingly fall within a rather narrow band, which at data to show CSR10 (τ/σʹv at which liquefaction oc-
this stage is likely coincidental rather than a reliable curs in 10 cycles) variation with ψ. This needed cyclic
trend. triaxial data from earlier work, adjusted to simple
The key to cyclic simple shear testing is to have shear conditions. Our simple shear tests on undis-
tests at the in situ state, or at least to be able to adjust turbed samples were at ψ = -0.06 with CSR10 of
the cyclic resistance to the in situ state. We have been 0.145. The characteristic in situ state to use for lique-
able to achieve something close to undisturbed simple faction is ψ = 0 (this is looser than the average in situ
53
ψ) so the adjusted CSR10 is 0.125, as illustrated on cyclic behaviour and stability of the existing and fu-
Figure 16. ture geometries.
All of the above looks satisfactory. Yet, as an in-
dustry, we have seen three tailings dam failures in the
last decade each with huge environmental and human
Golder CSR10 ‐ TCS 180/22 tailings consequences. The news media likes to portray these
0.3 dam failures as careless (verging on negligent) man-
Cyclic Txl adjusted to CSS (old data)
agement or shareholder greed. But, each of the three
Compacted adjusted cyclic txl (old data) big failures had geotechnical engineers involved and
0.2 at least two of the three had engineering review. How
CSR10
54
was one of the founders of Geotechnique, instilled and Calibration, 204-236, eds. J.A. Yamamuro and V.N.
strong values of sharing within Golder Associates. Kaliakin.
Jefferies, M. & Been, K. (2015). Soil liquefaction: a critical
The Golder Foundation has been established to reach state approach, 2nd ed. CRC Press.
outside the company as well. We make our data and Manzari, M.T., & Dafalias, Y.F. (1997). A critical state two-
models freely available under the GNU Open Soft- surface plasticity model for sands. Géotechnique 47, 255-
ware license. Do visit www.golderfoundation.org/ 272.
and then do get up to speed with CSSM. Of course Mohajeri, M. & Ghafghazi, M. (2012). Ground sampling and la-
reading “Soil Liquefaction: a critical state approach” boratory testing on low plasticity clays. Proc. 15th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon.
may also help. Plewes H.D., Davies M.P., & Jefferies M.G. (1992). CPT based
screening procedure for evaluating liquefaction susceptibil-
ity. Proc 45th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Toronto.
9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Peuchen, J, Vanden Berghe, J.F, & Coulais, C. (2010). Estima-
tion of u1/u2 conversion factor for piezocone. CPT'10, 2nd
International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Pa-
Mike Jefferies has been a tremendous help in pulling per 1-03.
this paper together with me. Many of our colleagues Reid, D. (2015). Estimating slope of critical state line from cone
at Golder Associates have used Mike and my brain penetration test – an update. Canadian Geotechnical Jour-
waves on CSSM, the state parameter and tailings be- nal, 52, 46 - 57
haviour over the years. The engineers we have Robertson, P.K. (2008). Discussion: Liquefaction potential of
worked with, and who have contributed significantly silts from CPTu. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 45, 1,
140-141.
in their own right, are too numerous to recognize in- Robertson, P.K. (2009). Interpretation of cone penetration tests
dividually but I acknowledgement all their input. Da- – a unified approach. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 46,
vid Reid specifically has carried out good research on 1337-1355
the issues and provided input and review of this pa- Robertson, P.K. (2010). Evaluation of flow liquefaction and liq-
per. uefied strength using the cone penetration test. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
136, 6, 842-853.
Robertson, P.K. (2012). Evaluating flow (static) liquefaction us-
10 REFERENCES ing the CPT: an update. Proceedings Tailings and Mine
Waste ’12, 14–17 October, Keystone, Co., USA.
Been, K. & Jefferies, M.G. (1985). A state parameter for sands. Schofield, A. & Wroth, C.P. (1968). Critical State Soil Mechan-
Géotechnique, 35, 2, 99-112. ics. London, McGraw-Hill.
Been, K, Crooks, J.H.A., Becker, D.E & Jefferies M.G. (1986). Shuttle, D.A., and Jefferies, M.G. (1998). Dimensionless and
The cone penetration test in sands: Part 1, State parameter unbiased CPT interpretation in sand. International Journal
interpretation. Géotechnique, 36, 2, 239-249. of Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 22,
Been K., Jefferies M.G., Crooks J.H.A. & Rothenberg L. (1987). 351-391.
The cone penetration test in sands: Part II, general inference Shuttle, D.A. & Cunning, J. (2007). Liquefaction Potential of
of state. Géotechnique, 37, 3, 285-299. Silts from CPTu. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 44, 1, 1-
Been K., Crooks J.H.A. & Jefferies M.G. (1988). Interpretation 19.
of material state from CPT in sands and clays. Proc. Conf. Shuttle, D.A. & Cunning, J. (2008). Reply to discussion: Lique-
Penetration Testing, 215-218. ISBN 0 7277 1377 9, pbl faction Potential of Silts from CPTu. Canadian Geotech-
Thomas Telford. nical Journal, 45, 1, 142-145.
Been, K., Jefferies, M.G. & Hachey, J.E. (1991). The critical Sladen, J.A. (1989). Problems with interpretation of sand state
state of sands. Géotechnique, 41, 3, 365-381. from cone penetration test. Géotechnique, 39, 2, 323-332.
Been, K, Romero, S., Obermeyer, J and Hebeler, G. (2012). De-
termining the in situ state of silt and sand tailings with the
CPT. Proc. Tailings and Mine Waste ’12, 14–17 October,
Keystone, Co., USA. pp. 325-333
Bolton, M.D., Gui, M. W., Garnier, J., Corte, J. F., Bagge, G.,
Laue, J. & Renzi, R. (1999). Centrifuge cone penetration
tests in sand. Geotechnique, 49, 4, 543-552.
Damavandi-Monfared, S. & Sadrekarimi, A. (2015). Develop-
ment of a miniature cone penetrometer for calibration cham-
ber testing. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 38, 6, 878-892.
Drucker, D.C., Gibson, R.E. & Henkel, D.J. (1957). Soil me-
chanics and work hardening theories of plasticity. Transac-
tions American Society of Civil Engineers, 122, 338-346.
Houlsby, G.T. (1988). Session Leader’s Introduction, Proc.
Conference on Penetration Testing in the U.K., Birmingham,
Thomas Telford, 141-146.
Jefferies, M.G. (1993). NorSand: a simple critical state model
for sand. Géotechnique 43, 91-103.
Jefferies, M.G. & D.A. Shuttle (2005). NorSand: features, cali-
bration and use. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication
No. 128, Soil Constitutive Models: Evaluation, Selection,
55