A benchmarking study of four numerical runout models for the simulation of tailings flows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerical runout models are important tools for predicting the potential downstream impacts of tailings dam breaches that generate tailings flows, which is a crucial step in emergency preparedness and planning, and risk management. Most existing runout models were originally developed for the analysis of water floods or flow-like landslides (e.g. debris flows). In this study, we back-analyze two well-documented historical tailings dam breaches (1985 Stava, Italy and 1994 Merriespruit, South Africa) using four numerical models (DAN3D, MADflow, FLO-2D and FLOW-3D). The main objective of this multi-case, multi-model benchmarking exercise is to identify collective opportunities to adapt these types of models and associated modelling methods to tailings dam breach runout applications. Comparing best-fit simulation results, we find that all four models are capable of reproducing the bulk behaviour of the real events; however, (i) multiple sets of rheological parameters may produce very similar output results, (ii) the best-fit input parameter combinations are non-transferable between models and inconsistent with independently measured rheological properties of stored tailings, and (iii) choosing an appropriate set requires sufficient understanding of material rheological properties and expert judgment. Using a systematic sensitivity analysis with the First-Order Second-Moment (FOSM) approach, we also find that each model is sensitive to different input parameters, although the total released volume is among the main high-influence parameters in every scenario. We conclude that more case study back-analyses are needed to enhance our understanding of these sensitivities and develop better guidance on the use of these types of numerical models for tailings flow runout prediction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".