Advertisement

Flows of Liquefied Filtered Tailings: Laboratory-Scale Physical and Numerical Modeling

  • John A. Sánchez-Peralta
  • Lorena N. Beltrán-Rodríguez
  • Mario G. Trujillo-Vela
  • Joan M. LarrahondoEmail author
Research paper
  • 34 Downloads

Abstract

The numerical prediction of the runout and spread of liquefied-tailings flows is a complex problem that depends on many factors, including the rheological properties of the liquefied tailings. However, published benchmark problems specific to tailings flows, useful for validation and calibration of numerical models, are virtually nonexistent. This paper presents a laboratory-scale benchmark problem of liquefied-tailings flow. Gold filtered tailings were characterized via rheological measurements, geotechnical index tests, and toxicity chemical analysis. Physical flow experiments of the liquefied-tailings paste, at 70% solids concentration, were carried out in an instrumented laboratory flume with high-speed video and direct measurements of the at-rest “footprint” (lobe) dimensions. Subsequently, using the measured physical parameters, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) tools were used to solve the three-dimensional, rheology-dependent Navier–Stokes equations via the finite-volume method and a multiphase volume-of-fluid (VOF) technique. Thus, the at-rest lobe of the spilled tailings was numerically reproduced. Results show that the liquefied tailings bear nearly zero-yield stress and low viscosity, thereby practically behaving as a Newtonian fluid despite their high solid concentration. In addition, good agreement (within 14% of the main dimensions) was found between the physical and numerically simulated at-rest lobes. Hence, the use of a Navier–Stokes approach, supported on a finite-volume/VOF technique, and a Newtonian-fluid constitutive rheological model, simulates well the at-rest shape of liquefied tailings at laboratory scale. This benchmark problem will aid numerical research specific to tailings flows.

Keywords

Filtered tailings Rheology Viscosity Benchmark problem Computational fluid dynamics Finite-volume method 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Pontificia Universidad Javeriana (Vicerrectoría de Investigación) provided partial support for this research through the research Grant No. 6575. The Department of Civil Engineering of Pontificia Universidad Javeriana also provided partial support. The sponsors had no involvement in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the article for publication. The authors are also grateful for the support of Dr. Diego Cobos from Dynami Geoconsulting, Colombia, who provided the tailings and valuable technical comments. Likewise, they would like to thank the comments of Dr. Alfonso M. Ramos-Cañón and Dr. Jorge A. Escobar-Vargas of Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, and Dr. Miguel A. Cabrera of Universidad de Los Andes.

References

  1. 1.
    McDermott RK, Sibley JM (2000) The Aznalcóllar tailings dam accident—a case study. Miner Resour Eng 9:101–118.  https://doi.org/10.1142/S0950609800000111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rico M, Benito G, Díez Herrero A (2008) Floods from tailings dam failures. J Hazard Mater 154:79–87.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.09.110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Santamarina JC, Torres-Cruz LA, Bachus RC (2019) Why coal ash and tailings dam disasters occur. Science 364:526–528.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax1927 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blight GE, Fourie AB (2005) Catastrophe revisited—disastrous flow failures of mine and municipal solid waste. Geotech Geol Eng 23:219–248.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-004-7067-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ICOLD (2001) Tailings Dams—Risk of dangerous occurrences. Lessons learnt from practical experiences—Bulletin 121, International Commission on Large Dams, Paris. ISBN: 9280720538 9789280720532Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Marr A (2019) Geotechnical aspects of tailings dams & their failures. https://tinyurl.com/Marr-Slides. Accessed 5 Sept 2019
  7. 7.
    Eriksson N, Adamek P (2000) The tailings pond failure at the Aznalcóllar mine, Spain. In: Sixth international symposium on environmental issues and management of waste in energy and mineral production, pp 109–116Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zabala F, Alonso EE (2011) Progressive failure of Aznalcollar dam using the material point method. Geotechnique 61:795–808.  https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.9.P.134 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gens A, Alonso EE (2006) Aznalcóllar dam failure. Part 2: Stability conditions and failure mechanism. Geotechnique 56:185–201.  https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2006.56.3.185 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alonso EE, Gens A (2006) Aznalcóllar dam failure. Part 1: Field observations and material properties. Geotechnique 56:165–183.  https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2006.56.3.165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Olalla C, Cuellar V (2001) Failure mechanism of the Aznalcollar Dam, Seville, Spain. Geotechnique 51:399–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alonso EE, Gens A (2006) Aznalcóllar dam failure. Part 3: Dynamics of the motion. Geotechnique 56:203–210.  https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2006.56.3.203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Blight GE, Fourie AB (2003) A review of catastrophic flow failures of deposits of mine waste and municipal refuse. In: Introductory report of the international workshop on occurrence and mechanisms of flows in natural slopes and earthfills, IW- FLOWS2003, Associazione Geotecnica Italiana (AGI), Sorrento, Italy, 14–16 May 2003.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Morgenstern N, Vick SG, Viotti C, Watts BD (2016) Fundao tailings dam review panel: Report in the immediate causes of the failure of the Fundao Dam, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reid D (2019) Additional analyses of the fundão tailings storage facility in situ state and triggering conditions. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 145:04019088.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0002123 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hudson-Edwards K (2016) Tackling mine wastes. Science 352:288–290.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf3354 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clayton S, Grice TG, Boger DV (2003) Analysis of the slump test for on-site yield stress measurement of mineral suspensions. Int J Miner Process 70:3–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-7516(02)00148-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gao J, Fourie A (2015) Using the flume test for yield stress measurement of thickened tailings. Miner Eng 81:116–127.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2015.07.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Julien PY, León CS (2000) Mudfloods, mudflows and debris flows, classification in rheology and structural design. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on the debris flow disaster of December 1999 in Venezuela, Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas, Venezuela, p 15Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhang S, Zhang L, Qi Q, Li Q, Shi P (2015) Numerical simulation of the characteristics of debris flow. Int J Heat Technol 33:127–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nguyen QD, Boger DV (1998) Application of rheology to solving tailings disposal problems. Int J Miner Process 54:217–233.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-7516(98)00011-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Versteeg HK, Malalasekera W (1995) An introduction to computational fluid dynamics: the finite method, 2nd edn. Longman Scientific & Technical, EssexGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gao J, Fourie A (2015) Spread is better: an investigation of the mini-slump test. Miner Eng 71:120–132.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2014.11.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Satpathy K, Velusamy K, Patnaik BSV, Chellapandi P (2011) Numerical investigation of vortex shedding past a finite circular cylinder mounted on a flat plate. Numer Heat Transf Part A Appl 59:882–909.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10407782.2011.578012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lin T, Liu GR (2017) A development of a GSM-CFD solver for non-Newtonian flows. Comput Fluids 142:57–71.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2016.09.009 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yabusaki SB, Şengör SS, Fang Y (2015) A uranium bioremediation reactive transport benchmark. Comput Geosci 19:551–567.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-015-9474-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mayer KU, Alt-Epping P, Jacques D, Arora B, Steefel CI (2015) Benchmark problems for reactive transport modeling of the generation and attenuation of acid rock drainage. Comput Geosci 19:599–611.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-015-9476-9 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Robertson PK (2010) Evaluation of flow liquefaction and liquefied strength using the cone penetration test. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 136:842–853.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000286 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pastor M, Quecedo M, Fernández Merodo JA, Herrores MI, González E, Mira P (2002) Modelling tailings dams and mine waste dumps failures. Géotechnique 52:579–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Highter WH, Tobin RF (1980) Flow slides and the undrained brittleness index of some mine tailings. Eng Geol 16:71–82.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7952(80)90008-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hungr O (2008) Simplified models of spreading flow of dry granular material. Can Geotech J 1:1–26Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hungr O, Mcdougall S (2009) Two numerical models for landslide dynamic analysis. Comput Geosci 35:978–992.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2007.12.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hutter K, Wang Y, Pudasaini SP (2005) The Savage-Hutter avalanche model: How far can it be pushed? Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 363:1507–1528.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2005.1594 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gheshlaghi ME, Goharrizi AS, Shahrivar AA (2013) Simulation of a semi-industrial pilot plant thickener using CFD approach. Int J Min Sci Technol 23:63–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chen L, Duan Y, Pu W, Zhao C (2009) CFD simulation of coal-water slurry flowing in horizontal pipelines. Korean J Chem Eng 26:1144–1154.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11814-009-0190-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jeong SW, Locat J, Torrance JK, Leroueil S (2015) Thixotropic and anti-thixotropic behaviors of fine-grained soils in various flocculated systems. Eng Geol 196:119–125.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.07.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Niroshan N, Sivakugan N, Veenstra RL (2018) Flow characteristics of cemented paste backfill. Geotech Geol Eng 36:2261–2272.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-018-0460-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dai Z, Huang Y, Jiang F, Huang M (2016) Modeling the flow behavior of a simulated municipal solid waste. Bull Eng Geol Environ 75:275–291.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-015-0735-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Huang Y, Mao W, Zheng H, Li G (2012) Computational fluid dynamics modeling of post-liquefaction soil flow using the volume of fluid method. Bull Eng Geol Environ 71:359–366.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-011-0386-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    O’Brien BJS, Fullerton WT (1993) Two-dimensional water flood and mudflow simulation. J Hydraul Eng 119:244–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Environmental Protection Agency (1992) Method 1331—Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure. 1311-1–1311-35. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-12/documents/1311.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2017
  43. 43.
    Inc Brookfield Engineering Laboratories (2007) Brookfield digital rheometer model DV-III operating instructions manual. Brookfield Engineering Laboratories, Inc., MiddleboroGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Valencia-Galindo MD, Beltrán-Rodriguez LN, Sánchez-Peralta JA, Tituaña-Puente JS, Trujillo-Vela MG, Larrahondo JM, Prada-Sarmiento LF, Ramos-Cañón AM (2018) A two-dimensional laser-scanner system for geotechnical processes monitoring. In: McNamara et al. (ed) Physical modelling in geotechnics. Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 865–870Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Clemente JLM, Snow RE, Bernedo C, Strachan CL, Fourie A (2013) Dam break analysis applied to tailings dams: USSD workshop summary and perspectives. In: 33rd Annual USSD Conference. U.S. Society on Dams, Phoenix, Arizona, pp 273–297Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ye T, Mittal R, Udaykumar HS, Shyy W (1999) An accurate cartesian grid method for viscous incompressible flows with complex immersed boundaries. J Comput Phys 156:209–240MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wang Y, Su K, Wu HG, Qian ZD (2017) Flow characteristics of large hydropower bifurcation under structure rounding optimization. Int J Civ Eng 15:515–529.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-016-0091-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Jeong W, Seong J (2014) Comparison of effects on technical variances of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software based on finite element and finite volume methods. Int J Mech Sci 78:19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Environmental Protection Agency (2006) 40 CFR—Part 261.24—Toxicity characteristic. 59–60. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2004-title40-vol24/pdf/CFR-2004-title40-vol24-sec261-24.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2017
  50. 50.
    Li W, Coop MR, Senetakis K, Schnaid F (2018) The mechanics of a silt-sized gold tailing. Eng Geol 241:97–108.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2018.05.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Iran University of Science and Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, School of EngineeringPontificia Universidad JaverianaBogotáColombia

Personalised recommendations