## 4 Results and Discussion
### Drainage Analysis  
Drainage conditions were analyzed using three different parameters: \(\text{B}_{\text{q}}\), \(\text{Q}_{\text{tn}}\) and V. The histograms shown in Figure 8 emphasize the count of recorded parameters that indicate partial drainage, highlighted within the shaded grey region. According to the \(\text{B}_{\text{q}}\) analysis, 40% of the readings suggested partial drainage conditions, based on the \(\text{Q}_{\text{tn}}\) analysis, 62%, and as per the V analysis, 37%. As such, it is evident that the three methodologies yielded divergent results from each other.  
Figure 8: Results of the drainage conditions analysis using (**a**) \(\text{B}_{\text{q}}\), (**b**) \(\text{Q}_{\text{tn}}\) and (**c**) V parameters. The histogram highlights, within the shaded grey region, the count of records obtained from SCPTu tests indicating partial drainage conditions according to three distinct methodologies.  
Figure 7: Results of the classification method proposed by [PERSON], [PERSON] and [PERSON] [28; 29; 30] applied to the investigated tailings (structures). Ninety-seven percent of the data are situated within the non-plastic zone, implying a prevailing granular characteristic within the tailings.  
To apply the correction to \(q_{t}\) using the methodology proposed by [PERSON], [PERSON] and [PERSON] (2019, 2020), triaxial tests were conducted on undisturbed samples collected from the tailing dams. The analysis revealed a mean friction angle of 35.23\({}^{\circ}\) for Structure 1, 22.25\({}^{\circ}\) for Structure 2, and 36.55\({}^{\circ}\) for Structure 3. Consequently, the \(q_{ID}\)/\(q_{UD}\) ratios adopted for each structure were 8.50, 4.69, and 9.02, respectively, using the upper limit of the approach outlined by [PERSON], [PERSON] and [PERSON] (2019), as previously illustrated in Figure 2.  
Figure 9 shows the tip resistance (\(q_{t}\)) after applying the correction outlined in Equation (4), juxtaposed with the uncorrected parameter for the same borehole shown in Figure 4. Due to the limited number of dissipation tests conducted, the analysis involving the V parameter presented the smallest number of \(q_{t}\) corrections. Furthermore, the classification index (\(I_{c}\)) was recalibrated using the corrected \(q_{t}\) values. Figure 10 provides a comparative view of \(I_{c}\) (Equation (6)) before and after the \(q_{t}\) adjustment for the same SCPTu test illustrated in Figure 4. The adjusted \(I_{c}\) changes noticeably to the left, signifying a more granular behavior compared to the initial classification. This realignment agrees with the methodology proposed by [PERSON], [PERSON] and [PERSON] (2019, 2020); [PERSON] (2020) and is consistent with the results of laboratory tests.  
Based on the original data from the SCPTu test presented in Figure 4, it is noteworthy that at depths where excess pore pressure (\(u_{2}\)) was recorded, the corrections resulted in higher \(q_{t}\) values, corresponding to a drained condition. It is also observed that at depths below 30 m, the original results indicated peaks in the generation of excess pore pressure and \(B_{q}\) values. Consequently, the corrected \(q_{t}\) values exhibited peaks, distinguishing themselves from the uncorrected test results. The increase in \(q_{t}\) values with corrections directly affected \(I_{c}\) values, altering the soil behavior classification. Higher values of excess pore pressure led to more pronounced changes, particularly at depths below 30 m, where peaks in the generation of excess pore pressure and \(B_{q}\) were observed.  
Figure 9: SCPTu results are displayed with \(q_{t}\) plotted against standard velocity, followed by the application of drainage corrections based on (a) \(B_{q}\), (b) \(Q_{m}\) and (c) V.