Analysis of Uncertainty and Sensitivity in Tailings Dam Breach-Runout Numerical Modelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tailings dam breaches (TDBs) and subsequent flows can pose significant risk to public safety, the environment, and the economy. Numerical runout models are used to simulate potential tailings flows and understand their downstream impacts. Due to the complex nature of the breach-runout processes, the mobility and downstream impacts of these types of failures are highly uncertain. We applied the first-order second-moment (FOSM) methodology to a database of 11 back-analyzed historical tailings flows to evaluate uncertainties in TDB runout modelling and conducted a sensitivity analysis to identify key factors contributing to the variability of the HEC-RAS model output, including at different locations along the runout path. The results indicate that prioritizing resources toward advancements in estimating the values of primary contributors to the sensitivity of the selected model outputs is necessary for more reliable model results. We found that the total released volume is among the top contributors to the sensitivity of modelled inundation area and maximum flow depth, while surface roughness is among the top contributors to the sensitivity of modelled maximum flow velocity and flow front arrival time. However, the primary contributors to the sensitivity of the model outputs varied depending on the case study; therefore, the selection of appropriate rheological models and consideration of site-specific conditions are crucial for accurate predictions. The study proposes and demonstrates the FOSM methodology as an approximate probabilistic approach to model-based tailings flow runout prediction, which can help improve the accuracy of risk assessments and emergency response plans. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10230-024-00970-w.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".