https://www.scipedia.com/wd/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Visagie%2A_du_Plessis_2024a Visagie* du Plessis 2024a - Revision history 2026-05-07T18:30:12Z Revision history for this page on the wiki MediaWiki 1.27.0-wmf.10 https://www.scipedia.com/wd/index.php?title=Visagie*_du_Plessis_2024a&diff=302928&oldid=prev JSanchez: JSanchez moved page Draft Sanchez Pinedo 312362831 to Visagie* du Plessis 2024a 2024-06-10T10:53:07Z <p>JSanchez moved page <a href="/public/Draft_Sanchez_Pinedo_312362831" class="mw-redirect" title="Draft Sanchez Pinedo 312362831">Draft Sanchez Pinedo 312362831</a> to <a href="/public/Visagie*_du_Plessis_2024a" title="Visagie* du Plessis 2024a">Visagie* du Plessis 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 10:53, 10 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=Visagie*_du_Plessis_2024a&diff=302927&oldid=prev JSanchez at 10:53, 10 June 2024 2024-06-10T10:53:01Z <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 10:53, 10 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>There is a large reliance on piezometric cone penetration testing (CPTu) in the tailings industry to estimate strength parameters for assessing the stability of tailings storage facilities (TSFs). It is common practice to assess the post-liquefied stability of a TSF using a residual undrained shear strength ratio (USSR). In such an assessment the residual USSR is typically applied to all saturated tailings. The current methods available to analyse CPTu data, are largely based on correlations and assumptions, and therefore contain limitations.&#160; Due to the limitations of the methods, this could lead to either over- or un-conservative estimates of stability. In this study, three methods for determining liquefaction potential and residual undrained shear strength ratio (USSR) are compared, namely: Robertson (2022), Been and Jefferies (2016), and Olsen and Stark (2002). These methods differ in the way in which they apply cone resistance, sleeve friction, and dynamic pore pressure response to estimate residual USSR. Their limitations are highlighted and discussed. A hybrid method is proposed for applying the results to post-liquefaction stability analyses. The hybrid interpretation approach uses a combination of the methods to account for different ranges of effective overburden stress and to identify weaker and stronger layers in the tailings profile based on state parameter, residual USSR, and pore pressure response. This hybrid method was applied to a stability assessment of a decommissioned platinum tailings storage facility in South Africa. The results indicated that the hybrid interpretation resulted in a more realistic phreatic surface location and a more accurate failure plane than conventional interpretations.</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>There is a large reliance on piezometric cone penetration testing (CPTu) in the tailings industry to estimate strength parameters for assessing the stability of tailings storage facilities (TSFs). It is common practice to assess the post-liquefied stability of a TSF using a residual undrained shear strength ratio (USSR). In such an assessment the residual USSR is typically applied to all saturated tailings. The current methods available to analyse CPTu data, are largely based on correlations and assumptions, and therefore contain limitations.&#160; Due to the limitations of the methods, this could lead to either over- or un-conservative estimates of stability. In this study, three methods for determining liquefaction potential and residual undrained shear strength ratio (USSR) are compared, namely: Robertson (2022), Been and Jefferies (2016), and Olsen and Stark (2002). These methods differ in the way in which they apply cone resistance, sleeve friction, and dynamic pore pressure response to estimate residual USSR. Their limitations are highlighted and discussed. A hybrid method is proposed for applying the results to post-liquefaction stability analyses. The hybrid interpretation approach uses a combination of the methods to account for different ranges of effective overburden stress and to identify weaker and stronger layers in the tailings profile based on state parameter, residual USSR, and pore pressure response. This hybrid method was applied to a stability assessment of a decommissioned platinum tailings storage facility in South Africa. The results indicated that the hybrid interpretation resulted in a more realistic phreatic surface location and a more accurate failure plane than conventional interpretations.</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_312362831151.pdf&lt;/pdf&gt;</ins></div></td></tr> <!-- diff cache key mw_drafts_scipedia-sc_mwd_:diff:version:1.11a:oldid:302925:newid:302927 --> </table> JSanchez https://www.scipedia.com/wd/index.php?title=Visagie*_du_Plessis_2024a&diff=302925&oldid=prev JSanchez at 10:52, 10 June 2024 2024-06-10T10:52:59Z <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 10:52, 10 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;">There is a large reliance on piezometric cone penetration testing (CPTu) in the tailings industry to estimate strength parameters for assessing the stability of tailings storage facilities (TSFs). It is common practice to assess the post-liquefied stability of a TSF using a residual undrained shear strength ratio (USSR). In such an assessment the residual USSR is typically applied to all saturated tailings. The current methods available to analyse CPTu data, are largely based on correlations and assumptions, and therefore contain limitations.&#160; Due to the limitations of the methods, this could lead to either over- or un-conservative estimates of stability. In this study, three methods for determining liquefaction potential and residual undrained shear strength ratio (USSR) are compared, namely: Robertson (2022), Been and Jefferies (2016), and Olsen and Stark (2002). These methods differ in the way in which they apply cone resistance, sleeve friction, and dynamic pore pressure response to estimate residual USSR. Their limitations are highlighted and discussed. A hybrid method is proposed for applying the results to post-liquefaction stability analyses. The hybrid interpretation approach uses a combination of the methods to account for different ranges of effective overburden stress and to identify weaker and stronger layers in the tailings profile based on state parameter, residual USSR, and pore pressure response. This hybrid method was applied to a stability assessment of a decommissioned platinum tailings storage facility in South Africa. The results indicated that the hybrid interpretation resulted in a more realistic phreatic surface location and a more accurate failure plane than conventional interpretations.</ins></div></td></tr> <!-- diff cache key mw_drafts_scipedia-sc_mwd_:diff:version:1.11a:oldid:302924:newid:302925 --> </table> JSanchez https://www.scipedia.com/wd/index.php?title=Visagie*_du_Plessis_2024a&diff=302924&oldid=prev JSanchez: Created blank page 2024-06-10T10:52:57Z <p>Created blank page</p> <p><b>New page</b></p><div></div> JSanchez