4.2 A Systemic View on Tailings Dams Failure Processes
45
Table 4.3 Recorded cause of failure, attributed causality scenario and related recorded failures
number (Azam and Li 2010, Fig. 4.5)
Recorded cause of failure Attributed causality scenario
Recorded failures number
Slope stability
Engineering error and omission,
excessive audacity
9
50% unusual weather
Engineering error and omission,
excessive audacity
23
Engineering error and omission,
excessive audacity
Total of 2 lines = 32
Management
Poor management (mostly considered
in this example as a life time flaw
rather than an initial one)
21
Over-topping
Poor management (mostly considered
in this example as a life time flaw
rather than an initial one)
9
50% unusual weather
Poor management (mostly considered
in this example as a life time flaw
rather than an initial one)
23
Poor management
Total of 3 lines = 53
Foundation subsidence
Poor investigation
Total of 1 line = 12
Structural defects
Poor construction
14
Seepage
Poor construction
34
Poor construction
Total of 2 lines = 48
Total = 145
Fig. 4.6 In case (B) the base case is mitigated with M1 = peer review during engineering
• M1: Engineering performance can be enhanced with an independent peer review
(including sensible RBDM procedures and risk assessment from project inception). Engineering and peer review become a parallel subsystem (Eq. 4.2,
Fig. 4.6) possibly fraught by common cause failure (CCF).
• M2: Monitoring, Management, Water balance function can be enhanced with
Inspections paired to sensible risk based decision-making procedures and risk
assessment from project inception. Again CCF has nefarious potential on this
additional parallel subsystem (Eq. 4.2, Fig. 4.7).
45
Table 4.3 Recorded cause of failure, attributed causality scenario and related recorded failures
number (Azam and Li 2010, Fig. 4.5)
Recorded cause of failure Attributed causality scenario
Recorded failures number
Slope stability
Engineering error and omission,
excessive audacity
9
50% unusual weather
Engineering error and omission,
excessive audacity
23
Engineering error and omission,
excessive audacity
Total of 2 lines = 32
Management
Poor management (mostly considered
in this example as a life time flaw
rather than an initial one)
21
Over-topping
Poor management (mostly considered
in this example as a life time flaw
rather than an initial one)
9
50% unusual weather
Poor management (mostly considered
in this example as a life time flaw
rather than an initial one)
23
Poor management
Total of 3 lines = 53
Foundation subsidence
Poor investigation
Total of 1 line = 12
Structural defects
Poor construction
14
Seepage
Poor construction
34
Poor construction
Total of 2 lines = 48
Total = 145
Fig. 4.6 In case (B) the base case is mitigated with M1 = peer review during engineering
• M1: Engineering performance can be enhanced with an independent peer review
(including sensible RBDM procedures and risk assessment from project inception). Engineering and peer review become a parallel subsystem (Eq. 4.2,
Fig. 4.6) possibly fraught by common cause failure (CCF).
• M2: Monitoring, Management, Water balance function can be enhanced with
Inspections paired to sensible risk based decision-making procedures and risk
assessment from project inception. Again CCF has nefarious potential on this
additional parallel subsystem (Eq. 4.2, Fig. 4.7).