https://www.scipedia.com/wd/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Faria_et_al_2024a 2026-05-06T07:30:04Z Revision history for this page on the wiki MediaWiki 1.27.0-wmf.10 https://www.scipedia.com/wd/index.php?title=Faria_et_al_2024a&diff=301941&oldid=prev 2024-06-07T11:42:30Z

<p>JSanchez moved page <a href="/public/Draft_Sanchez_Pinedo_479479287" class="mw-redirect" title="Draft Sanchez Pinedo 479479287">Draft Sanchez Pinedo 479479287</a> to <a href="/public/Faria_et_al_2024a" title="Faria et al 2024a">Faria et al 2024a</a></p> <table class="diff diff-contentalign-left" data-mw="interface"> <tr style='vertical-align: top;' lang='en'> <td colspan='1' style="background-color: white; color:black; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan='1' style="background-color: white; color:black; text-align: center;">Revision as of 11:42, 7 June 2024</td> </tr><tr><td colspan='2' style='text-align: center;' lang='en'><div class="mw-diff-empty">(No difference)</div> </td></tr></table>

JSanchez https://www.scipedia.com/wd/index.php?title=Faria_et_al_2024a&diff=301940&oldid=prev 2024-06-07T11:42:23Z

<p></p> <table class="diff diff-contentalign-left" data-mw="interface"> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <tr style='vertical-align: top;' lang='en'> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black; text-align: center;">Revision as of 11:42, 7 June 2024</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l3" >Line 3:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 3:</td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Flow liquefaction is observed in saturated or nearly saturated geomaterials, showing a strain-softening response during undrained shear, primarily in very loose sands and silts, as well as in very sensitive clays. The Cone Penetration Test (CPTu) has been gaining popularity among the geotechnical community to evaluate the state of a soil profile due to its good repeatability, detailed information on the soil stratigraphy and extensive detailed scientific studies to guide the application of the test results. Susceptibility to flow liquefaction is typically evaluated by estimating the in-situ state parameter (𝜓) since it directly correlates to the soil behaviour at large strain, as shown by Jefferies &amp;amp; Been (2016). Mayne &amp;amp; Sharp (2019) suggested using the yield-stress-ratio (YSR = σp’/σv0’) to estimate the soil state using a threshold of YSR ≈ 3. Currently, in the Brazilian Mining Industry, it is common to find the application of different approaches to evaluating the susceptibility of mining tailings to flow liquefaction (e.g., Plewes et al., 1992; Olson, 2001; Shuttle &amp;amp; Cunning, 2008; Robertson, 2016). This paper presents an evaluation of the susceptibility of an iron ore tailings (IOTs) to flow liquefaction using the following recently published approaches:&#160; i) Mayne and Sharp (2019), using the yield stress ratio (YSR) approach; ii) Smith et al. (2021), using a generalised CPTu state parameter inversion method based on the NorSand Widget; and iii) Robertson (2022), with the updated Kc. The main results show a good convergence between the three methodologies used.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Flow liquefaction is observed in saturated or nearly saturated geomaterials, showing a strain-softening response during undrained shear, primarily in very loose sands and silts, as well as in very sensitive clays. The Cone Penetration Test (CPTu) has been gaining popularity among the geotechnical community to evaluate the state of a soil profile due to its good repeatability, detailed information on the soil stratigraphy and extensive detailed scientific studies to guide the application of the test results. Susceptibility to flow liquefaction is typically evaluated by estimating the in-situ state parameter (𝜓) since it directly correlates to the soil behaviour at large strain, as shown by Jefferies &amp;amp; Been (2016). Mayne &amp;amp; Sharp (2019) suggested using the yield-stress-ratio (YSR = σp’/σv0’) to estimate the soil state using a threshold of YSR ≈ 3. Currently, in the Brazilian Mining Industry, it is common to find the application of different approaches to evaluating the susceptibility of mining tailings to flow liquefaction (e.g., Plewes et al., 1992; Olson, 2001; Shuttle &amp;amp; Cunning, 2008; Robertson, 2016). This paper presents an evaluation of the susceptibility of an iron ore tailings (IOTs) to flow liquefaction using the following recently published approaches:&#160; i) Mayne and Sharp (2019), using the yield stress ratio (YSR) approach; ii) Smith et al. (2021), using a generalised CPTu state parameter inversion method based on the NorSand Widget; and iii) Robertson (2022), with the updated Kc. The main results show a good convergence between the three methodologies used.</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color:black; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color:black; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">== Full Paper ==</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color:black; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">&lt;pdf&gt;Media:Draft_Sanchez Pinedo_479479287193.pdf&lt;/pdf&gt;</ins></div></td></tr> </table>

JSanchez https://www.scipedia.com/wd/index.php?title=Faria_et_al_2024a&diff=301938&oldid=prev 2024-06-07T11:42:21Z

<p></p> <table class="diff diff-contentalign-left" data-mw="interface"> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <tr style='vertical-align: top;' lang='en'> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black; text-align: center;">Revision as of 11:42, 7 June 2024</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l1" >Line 1:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color:black; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">&#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color:black; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">==Abstract==</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'>&#160;</td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2">&#160;</td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color:black; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Flow liquefaction is observed in saturated or nearly saturated geomaterials, showing a strain-softening response during undrained shear, primarily in very loose sands and silts, as well as in very sensitive clays. The Cone Penetration Test (CPTu) has been gaining popularity among the geotechnical community to evaluate the state of a soil profile due to its good repeatability, detailed information on the soil stratigraphy and extensive detailed scientific studies to guide the application of the test results. Susceptibility to flow liquefaction is typically evaluated by estimating the in-situ state parameter (𝜓) since it directly correlates to the soil behaviour at large strain, as shown by Jefferies &amp;amp; Been (2016). Mayne &amp;amp; Sharp (2019) suggested using the yield-stress-ratio (YSR = σp’/σv0’) to estimate the soil state using a threshold of YSR ≈ 3. Currently, in the Brazilian Mining Industry, it is common to find the application of different approaches to evaluating the susceptibility of mining tailings to flow liquefaction (e.g., Plewes et al., 1992; Olson, 2001; Shuttle &amp;amp; Cunning, 2008; Robertson, 2016). This paper presents an evaluation of the susceptibility of an iron ore tailings (IOTs) to flow liquefaction using the following recently published approaches:&#160; i) Mayne and Sharp (2019), using the yield stress ratio (YSR) approach; ii) Smith et al. (2021), using a generalised CPTu state parameter inversion method based on the NorSand Widget; and iii) Robertson (2022), with the updated Kc. The main results show a good convergence between the three methodologies used.</ins></div></td></tr> <!-- diff cache key mw_drafts_scipedia-sc_mwd_:diff:version:1.11a:oldid:301937:newid:301938 --> </table>

JSanchez https://www.scipedia.com/wd/index.php?title=Faria_et_al_2024a&diff=301937&oldid=prev 2024-06-07T11:42:19Z

<p>Created blank page</p> <p><b>New page</b></p><div></div>

JSanchez