MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4387270608 · doi:10.36487/acg_repo/2315_046

Risk considerations for Brazilian tailings dam closure

2023· article· en· W4387270608 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
D. A. Ritchie, Zeke Baumgardner

Notice bibliographique

RevueMine closure · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueTailings Management and Properties
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTailingsClosure (psychology)Tailings damComputer sciencePolitical scienceMaterials scienceLawMetallurgy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The January 25, 2019 failure of the Corrego de Feijao tailings dam in Brumandinho, Brazil owned by Vale S.A. resulted in 270 lives lost along with significant environmental and cultural heritage impacts. Pursuant to this failure the Public Ministry of the State of Minas Gerais (MPMG) initiated a series of dam safety audits to enhance dam safety oversight and effect change within the Brazilian mining industry, concurrently with the Brazilian National Mining Agency (ANM) issuing legislation in February 2019 requiring the removal or stabilization and decharacterization (deregistration) of all upstream tailings dams. This paper discusses the dam closure risk considerations and experience on various dam safety audits carried out by SLR Consulting (Canada) on behalf of MPMG. The audits involved dams raised by a variety of methods including the upstream method founded on deposited tailings. In general, the focus of the technical audits included geotechnical characterization of the dam and foundation, dam design and construction stewardship, public and worker safety, and emergency preparedness, from the perspectives of both Brazilian regulations and international tailings and dam safety practice. Case studies are presented within three groupings to highlight various experiences: modifications introduced for works that had been carried out prior to commencing the audits, works designed and executed during the audit oversight, and design and planning considerations for closure works that are in progress for high-risk upstream-raised tailings dams. For all cases, the long-term risks, credible failure modes, and operational controls during construction are discussed. The Group 1 case studies highlight the importance of a holistic, long-term risk management perspective. The dam discussed was decharacterized as a mining dam prior to commencing the dam safety audits but was deemed susceptible to credible failure modes including slope instability, erosion, and spillway downcutting. In 2022 the Brazilian national mining agency updated the administration of mining dams to include a minimum of two years of monitoring after completion of the closure works. Notwithstanding, Vale is implementing improvements to the dam as part of their evolving dam safety governance practices in response to audit recommendations. Closure activities for the two dams in Group 2 involved low risk. Closure was planned and successfully completed within the period of the audits. For these dams, design decisions were made after comparing alternative closure scenarios by long-term objectives, constructability, dam safety during construction, and environmental and social considerations. Construction vibration testing was carried out to ensure construction-induced vibrations did not impact adjacent dams. The Group 3 case studies discuss design and planning decisions related to decharacterization of three upstream-raised tailings dams, two of which are at emergency levels. Prior to commencing construction dam breach inundation studies were carried out, emergency preparedness and response plans updated, and citizens in the potential inundation zone were evacuated and/or back-up or emergency containment dams were built. Construction planning included consideration of remotely-operated construction equipment, dam instrumentation (geophones, seismographs and piezometers) to detect construction-induce vibrations that could trigger tailings liquefaction, water management, and planning of staged excavations.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,039
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,655

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,020
Tête enseignante GPT0,229
Écart entre enseignants0,210 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueMine closureMême sujetTailings Management and PropertiesTravaux en français237 207