Ground improvement for tailing dam

remediation and design.

Trabajo realizado por:

Daniel Alejandro Burbano Barzallo

Dirigido por:
Marcos Arroyo Alvarez de Toledo
Giovanni Spagnoli
Máster en:
Ingeniería del Terreno

Barcelona, Junio 2021

Departamento de Ingeniería Civil y Ambiental

Abstract
Tailings are the residue of crushed and chemically treated rock ores, typically ranging
from coarse sand to fine silt. The most common method for tailings management is the
hydraulic transportation of waste material to big impoundments in which they are stored.
These deposits present geotechnical characteristics which make them susceptible to
liquefaction flow failure. The risk implications of this trait have only been recently
appreciated in full. It is therefore of current interest to study possible remediation
techniques for existing deposits. This dissertation contributes to this end focusing on the
possibilities of tailing treatment by permeation of cementing agents.
The thesis starts by presenting an overview of tailing disposal methods and geotechnical
properties of tailing deposits. Special attention is paid to permeability, examining the
equations proposed to predict tailing permeability based on grain size distribution. In
particular an equation proposed by Chapuis and Aubertin (2003) is checked using a
database of tailings properties provided by the Geology and Mine Institute of Spain
(Instituto Geológico y Minero de España). As a result, the original equation is recalibrated
and then verified using permeability values from other published studies.
Possible ground treatment methods for tailings are then reviewed. Three broad categories
of ground improvement methods are considered (densification, consolidation, and
chemical treatments). It is thus determined that the permeation grout injection technique
is the one best adapted for most tailings.
The design process for permeation grouting treatment is then described in detail and later
applied using different injection products and tailing properties. Two different types of
injection products are considered: ultra-fine micro cement and colloidal silica (CS). Ultra-
fine micro cement does not pass a groutability condition, hence two products of colloidal
silica (MP320 & MP325) are finally selected for further study. These products differ in
key properties such as viscosity and silica solid concentration.
A pre-design and evaluation of ground improvement treatment for a tailing dam is then
carried on for these two products. The case corresponds closely to the Merriespruit tailing
dam, which failed by overtopping-induced liquefaction. Different geometrical injection
arrangements are considered and the dam slope stability resulting from the different
treatments is then evaluated using limit equilibrium analysis. It is found that stabilization
with the more viscous CS MP320 is slow, but effective in terms of safety. Treatment
with the less viscous CS MP325 is faster but results in no safety increase.
This dissertation can open the door for further investigations of grouting injection
techniques with products like the colloidal silica on tailings deposits by carrying complete
tests in the laboratory and refined models to obtain more precise results.
Keywords: tailings, hydraulic conductivity, grout injections, colloidal silica, slope
stability
Resumen
Los relaves son el residuo de los minerales rocosos triturados y tratados químicamente, que suelen
ir desde la arena gruesa hasta el limo fino. El método más común para la gestión de los relaves es
el transporte hidráulico del material de desecho a grandes embalses en los que se almacenan. Estos
depósitos presentan unas características geotécnicas que los hacen susceptibles de sufrir falla por
licuefacción. Las implicaciones de riesgo de esta característica sólo se han apreciado en su
totalidad recientemente. Por ello, es de interés actual estudiar las posibles técnicas de remediación
de los depósitos existentes. Esta tesis contribuye a este fin, centrándose en las posibilidades de
tratamiento de los relaves mediante inyecciones de permeación por agentes cementantes.
La tesis comienza presentando una visión general de los métodos de eliminación de residuos y de
las propiedades geotécnicas de los depósitos de residuos. Se presta especial atención a la
permeabilidad, examinando las ecuaciones propuestas para predecir la permeabilidad de los
relaves en función de la distribución granulométrica. En particular, se comprueba una ecuación
propuesta por Chapuis y Aubertin (2003) utilizando una base de datos de propiedades de relaves
proporcionada por el Instituto Geológico y Minero de España. Como resultado, se recalibra la
ecuación original y se verifica utilizando los valores de permeabilidad de otros estudios
publicados.
A continuación, se revisan los posibles métodos de tratamiento para los residuos mineros. Se
consideran tres grandes categorías de métodos de mejora del terreno (densificación, consolidación
y tratamientos químicos). Se determina así que la técnica de inyección de agentes cementantes
por permeación es la que mejor se adapta a la mayoría de los relaves.
Consecuentemente se describe en detalle el proceso de diseño del tratamiento con inyecciones
por permeación y se aplica utilizando diferentes productos de inyección con diferentes
propiedades de los relaves. Se consideran dos tipos de productos de inyección: microcemento
ultrafino y sílice coloidal (SC). El microcemento ultrafino no supera una condición de inyección,
por lo que finalmente se seleccionan dos productos de sílice coloidal (MP320 y MP325) para su
estudio. Estos productos difieren en propiedades clave como la viscosidad y la concentración de
sólidos de sílice.
Finalmente, se lleva a cabo un prediseño y una evaluación del tratamiento de mejora del suelo
para una presa de residuos para estos dos productos. El caso se corresponde estrechamente con la
presa de residuos de Merriespruit, que falló por licuefacción inducida por el desbordamiento. Se
consideran diferentes disposiciones geométricas de la inyección y se evalúa la estabilidad del
talud de la presa resultante de los diferentes tratamientos mediante un análisis de equilibrio límite.
Se observa que la estabilización con el CS MP320 con viscosidad alta, es lenta, pero eficaz en
términos de factor de seguridad. El tratamiento con el CS MP325, que es menos viscoso, es más
rápido, pero no supone un aumento de en el factor de seguridad.
Esta tesis puede abrir la puerta a nuevas investigaciones sobre las técnicas de inyección en el
terreno con productos como la sílice coloidal en los depósitos de relaves, a través de la realización
de pruebas completas en el laboratorio y el perfeccionamiento de los modelos para obtener
resultados más precisos.
Palabras clave: relaves, permeabilidad, sílice coloidal, estabilidad de taludes, factor de
seguridad, inyecciones de grout.
Agradecimientos
Es de mi gran aprecio poder compartir esta tesina de máster y de antemano poder
agradecer a las personas que influyeron para la culminación de este trabajo. Primero
agradecido con Dios, por ser mi guía espiritual en todo este trayecto académico. A mis
padres, Guillermo Burbano Jarrín y María del Carmen Barzallo Valdivieso que, gracias a
su arduo trabajo y sacrificio en su vida, me han ofrecido esta gran oportunidad académica
además de su formación llena de valores y respeto. A mi prometida, Alejandra
Villavicencio Reinoso que con su amor y apoyo incondicional ha sido cómplice de este
hito académico. A mi hermano Guillermo Burbano, a mi abuela Lila Valdivieso y todos
mis familiares por su gran apoyo a la distancia.
A mis tutores Marcos Arroyo y Giovanni Spagnoli (miembro de MBCC Group) por sus
oportunas opiniones, correcciones y aclaraciones en el trabajo realizado. A Davide Grassi
(miembro de MBCC Group) y a Roberto Rodríguez Pacheco (IGME) por proveerme de
la información necesaria para completar este trabajo.
A mis compañeros de máster que han hecho que esta experiencia sea llena de gratos
momentos y mucho más amena a pesar de los tiempos de pandemia que llevamos.
A todos, muchas gracias de corazón.
Table of contents
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 6
1.1. Background of the study ................................................................................. 6
1.2. Objectives of the study..................................................................................... 6
1.3. Structure of the study ...................................................................................... 7
2. Tailings: disposal methods and geotechnical properties ........................................ 8
2.1. Origin and nature of tailings deposits ............................................................ 8
2.2. Disposal methods for tailings .......................................................................... 9
2.2.1. Conventional wet disposal of tailings................................................................................. 9
2.2.2. Alternative tailings disposal methods ............................................................................... 13

2.3. Geotechnical properties of some tailings materials .................................... 16

2.3.1. Iron ore ............................................................................................................................. 16
2.3.2. Lead-Zinc ore ................................................................................................................... 18
2.3.3. Copper .............................................................................................................................. 21
2.3.4. Coal .................................................................................................................................. 23
2.3.5. Gold ore............................................................................................................................ 26
2.3.6. Summary .......................................................................................................................... 29

3. Hydraulic conductivity of tailings materials. ........................................................ 31

3.1. An empirical equation for predicted permeability values.......................... 31
3.2. Compilation of information and results ....................................................... 33
3.3. Analysis of results .......................................................................................... 34
3.3.1. Checking the existing KC equation with the IGME dataset ............................................. 34
3.3.2. Recalibration of Chapuis & Aubertin equation. ............................................................... 38
3.3.3. Verification of the recalibrated equation with independent data ...................................... 41

3.4. Final comments .............................................................................................. 43

4. Ground treatment methods for tailings dams ........................................................ 46
4.1. Densification ................................................................................................... 46
4.1.1. Vibro-compaction............................................................................................................. 46
4.1.2. Vibro-replacement (Stone columns)................................................................................. 47
4.1.3. Dynamic compaction........................................................................................................ 48
4.1.4. Applicability ..................................................................................................................... 49

4.2. Consolidation .................................................................................................. 50

4.2.1. Preloading (with and without vertical drains) .................................................................. 50
4.2.2. Applicability ..................................................................................................................... 50

4.3. Chemical treatments ...................................................................................... 51

4.3.1. Soil mixing ....................................................................................................................... 51
4.3.2. Grouting ........................................................................................................................... 52
4.3.3. Applicability ..................................................................................................................... 54

5. Permeation grouting method for tailing deposits. ................................................. 55

5.1. Grout properties and design method for permeation grouting materials 55
5.1.1. Permeation grout materials and properties ....................................................................... 55
5.1.2. Design method for permeation grouting injections. ......................................................... 59
 5.2. Applicability of permeation methods for tailings deposits ......................... 62
5.3. Final comments .............................................................................................. 68
6. Stabilization of a tailings dam by permeation grouting. ....................................... 70
6.1. Case study: Merriespruit tailing dam .......................................................... 70
6.2. Limit equilibrium analysis ............................................................................ 72
6.2.1. Merriespruit tailing dam prior to failure ........................................................................... 72
6.2.2. Permeation treatment method proposal ............................................................................ 73
6.2.3. Stabilization effect of proposed treatments ...................................................................... 76

6.3. Grout execution feasibility and costs............................................................ 77

7. Discussions ............................................................................................................. 79
8. Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 82
9. References ............................................................................................................... 83
10. Appendix ............................................................................................................. 88
10.1. Appendix A: Permeability values for tailings deposits. .......................... 88
10.2. Appendix B: Safety factor analysis. .......................................................... 90
10.3. Appendix C: Grout execution and costs ................................................. 102
 1. Introduction
1.1. Background of the study
At the present time, the mining industry is thriving driven by increased demand for raw
materials. However, the mining industry has not yet solved entirely the problems
associated with management and deposition of waste material (tailings), which include
water conservation, massive exploitation of the ecosystem, and, sometimes, catastrophic
failures that leave behind death and destruction.

As the rate of extraction increases, the rate of production of tailing increases as well, thus
the waste material must be emplaced somewhere. Wet disposal and alternative tailing
disposal are two available options for waste management. After processing the material,
tailings are partially dewatered and stored in large embankments. According to the rate of
production the stack of waste material increases, hence the embankment must raise in
height as well. The most common methods for wet disposal tailings storage are upstream,
downstream, and centerline methods. Another type of tailings production is the creation
of thickened, paste (used for underground mining), dry, and filtered disposal which are
new alternative waste disposal options. Even thought that wet-disposal methods are more
susceptible to flow liquefaction failure than the other alternative methods, they still are
the most common type of deposition due to economic reasons.

The geotechnical behavior of tailing materials is difficult to evaluate and usually

misunderstood, this, as well as poor managerial and engineering practices, has led to
several catastrophic failures over the years. According to Lyu et. al. (2019), from 1928 to
2015, 40 tailing storage facilities failed due to various reasons such as overtopping,
earthquake, seepage, and foundation failure which triggered static liquefaction mainly on
embankments built by the upstream method. The last catastrophic failure occurred in 2019
in Minas Gerais, Brazil at the Brumadinho iron tailings dam which spread almost 11x106
m3 of waste and killing almost 259 people and destroying everything in its path for almost
10 km downhill. (Silva et. al., 2020)

This study attempts to understand the physical, hydraulic, and geomechanic nature of
tailings and especially to evaluate the most suitable ground improvement technique that
can be designed and applied for tailings deposits according to their properties in order to
create stable structures of existing tailing deposits. (Silva Rotta, y otros, 2020)

1.2. Objectives of the study

The main objective of the study is to identify and evaluate suitable ground improvement
technologies for dam remediation, taking into account the geotechnical characteristics of
the tailings.

Specifically, the work aims at the following aspects:

• Understand the tailing nature and the processes carried out during the ore
extraction.
• Present the main types of tailing waste disposal.

6
 • Describe physical and geomechanical characteristics of tailing deposits
• Explore the relation between hydraulic conductivity and grain size distribution of
tailings.
• Examine different types of ground improvement from the point of view of tailing
stabilization
• Evaluate different ground improvement designs for a specific case of tailing dam.

1.3. Structure of the study

This study is divided into four sections which are presented briefly.

The first topic of this study addresses the different types of tailing disposal and their
physical, mechanical, and hydraulic properties. The first section discusses the origin of
tailing deposits such as the extraction process and further creation of waste. In addition,
waste disposal methods are presented such as wet and alternate disposal methods.
Furthermore, it is presented the characterization of a few tailing materials such as iron,
gold, zinc, lead, to give an idea of their main properties.

The second topic of discussion is focused on the relation between hydraulic conductivity
and grain size distribution for tailings. The starting point is given by the equation proposed
by Chapuis & Aubertin (2003), which is applied to a tailing dataset provided by the
Geology and Mining Institute of Spain (Instituto Geológico y Minero de España) IGME.
As a result, the original equation is recalibrated and then verified using permeability
values from other published studies.

The third topic presents the different ground improvement methods and their applicability
for tailing deposits. Permeation grouting is identified as the most suitable and a design
procedure for this ground treatment method is presented in detail.

The last topic of discussion evaluates the selected ground improvement with a slope
stability analysis for a case inspired by the Merriespruit tailings dam. The results of the
analysis are presented along with execution feasibility and costs of execution.

7
 2. Tailings: disposal methods and geotechnical properties
2.1. Origin and nature of tailings deposits
A large part of the mining industry focuses on the extraction of metallic ores such as iron,
gold, copper, etc. The proportion of ore is extracted raw materials has decreased over time
and, for most metallic materials is typically not above a few percentual points in most
exploited deposits. Consequently, a large part of that extracted material is considered as
waste material which has to be disposed of after processing for ore extraction. This waste
is also known as tailings.
Typically, the first step in ore processing is crushing the mother rock into a smaller size.
Large size rocks are delivered to a crushing station to reduce the rock diameter. Typically,
a secondary crushing stage also takes place to reduce the material nearly down to mesh
No. 20 (0.85 mm).
After the crushing process, the ore is still trapped into the mother rock matrix, therefore,
a grinding machine is used to produce a smaller size material. This process produces
materials typically lower than 2.0 mm and 0.425 mm (mesh No.10 and No. 40). It must
be emphasized that the gradation of the tailing will depend on the grinding result and the
clay content of the original ore. Thus, the resultant materials are usually divided into two
types: sands, which represent the material greater than 0.075 mm (sieve No.200) while the
slimes represent the material lesser than 0.075 mm. (clays and silts). (Vick, 1990)
As presented in Figure 1, the crushed and grinded rock still has the mineral component,
hence, there are three types of separation procedures: leaching, concentration, and heating.
After these processes, the material is dewatered and then becomes tailings material.

Figure. 1. Ore extraction process until they become tailings. (Vick, 1990).

Leaching is basically the process of mixing strong acid or alkaline solution to remove and
separate ore particles. Usually, sulfuric acid is commonly used for uranium and copper,
and sodium cyanide for gold and silver. On the other hand, the concentration procedure
separates the particles using gravity (relying on the higher specific gravity of metals),
8
magnetic separation, or froth flotation in which mineral particles get attached to a froth.
Finally, heating or calcinating the material may also be used for ore extraction, especially
used in oil sands. (Vick, 1990)
The final process is dewatering the treated material in which involves the partial extraction
of water from the tailings material. The recovered water is usually recycled for reuse when
is possible. Is important to notice that this procedure is not possible in the presence of high
contaminants since it can reduce extraction efficiency. (Vick, 1990).

Figure. 2. Mix composition of tailings (Burden, Williams, Wilson, & Jacobs, 2019)

2.2. Disposal methods for tailings

After ore extraction, tailings are now waste material that must be disposed of carefully, as
it typically contains highly contaminant chemicals that could harm the environment.
Methods for tailings disposal are classified into conventional wet disposal and alternative
tailings disposal.
The “conventional method” is still so because is generally less expensive than other
methods. However, the stability of the dam, water usage, production rates, and other
aspects are determining factors to use alternative methods of solid waste disposal. This
section will review conventional wet disposal of tailings and alternative tailing disposal.

2.2.1. Conventional wet disposal of tailings

As said before, conventional disposal of tailings is the most widely used in the industry
due to economic reasons and the ability to deal with high processing rates. Tailings
deposits are usually formed into valleys or side valleys with an embankment for retention.
This configuration allows the construction of confining walls according to the natural
slope of a valley. Another method is the creation of a paddock which is a perimeter
construction that confines the tailings deposit. This construction is idealized for flat lands
where no natural valleys or natural slopes can be used. Finally, in-pit storage allows to use
of any void or excavated point that could be used as a deposit. (Cambridge, 2018) These
procedures are presented in Figure 3.

9
 Figure. 3: Typical arrangements of mine waste facilities. (Cambridge, 2018)

Water retention dams

Water retention dams are built for tailings disposal when there is a need for a high-water
capacity due to external factors such as heavy rainfall situations or where is unable to
recirculate the discharged mill effluent, therefore a large water volume storage is required.
(Vick, 1990).
The dam is constructed before its full height to start filling the impoundment. As seen in
Figure. 4, water retention dams are arranged basically with an impervious-compacted
clayey core, a filter system, and finally a drainage zone.

Figure. 4. Water retention arrangement for tailings disposal. (Vick, 1990)

Water retention dams are an appropriate technique for tailings disposal in terms of
operation and management, however, further issues may develop over time such as
material deterioration and poor seepage control. (Cambridge, 2018)
Upstream method
Most tailings dams involve a staged structure such as the upstream method where the main
idea is the construction of raised embankments as seen in Figure 5.

10
 Figure. 5. Upstream method arrangement. (Klohn Crippen Berger, 2017)

Tailings will be deposited from the crest of the dam creating a long-wide beach until they
reach nearly full capacity of the starter dam. Subsequently, this previously deposited
tailings beach will become the principal foundation for the next raising lifts in the
upstream direction. This process will continue as the production rate of tailings is
completed.
Construction of perimeter dikes by the upstream method could result in a simple and
ongoing operation where a minimal volume of mechanically placed fill is required, there
is an ease in reaching desired heights, and minimal equipment and personnel are
necessary. However, this method has some disadvantages such as phreatic surface control,
water storage capacity, and liquefaction risk (static and dynamic). (Vick, 1990).
Martin and McRoberts (1999) report four key fundamental rules for the upstream design.
(Martin & McRoberts, 1999)
- Sufficient wide beach relative to the ultimate height of the dam. This is to achieve
segregation of the coarser fraction of tailing for shear in drained and undrained
conditions.
- Fine tailings are not meant to be deposited beneath the slope dike. This could
contribute to an undrained shear in a crucial part of the dam.
- Seepage Control on the dam face.
Having a well-drained foundation to reach further and competent heights.
Downstream method
The downstream method, as seen in Figures 6 and 7, involves the construction of
subsequent embankments in the downstream section controlling height and drainage. At
first, tailings are deposited at the back slope of the embankment until they reach full
capacity, subsequently starts the construction of a new embankment until waste
production ends.
This method results in dams that are more reliable than those obtained using the upstream
method since structural measures can be assured, such as impervious cores and internal
drainage when building subsequent embankments, therefore, the phreatic surface can be
controlled and be drawn down. (Cambridge, 2018)

11
 Figure. 6. Downstream method arrangement. (Klohn Crippen Berger, 2017)

Figure. 7. Downstream sequential construction arrangement. (Vick, 1990)

The disadvantages of this method derive from the embankment growth. One of them is
the large volume of embankment fill required which is related to the high cost and
therefore to high production rates of fill material necessary for later embankment stages.
Another issue is the progressive growth of the front toe outwards as the height increases.
Sufficient space must be planned before tailing construction to prevent an invasion of the
dam toe over properties, roads, otherwise the dam height will be determined by these
restrictions. (Vick, 1990)
Centerline method
The centerline method may be seen as the combination of the downstream and upstream
methods, considering the advantages of both methods. Tailings are deposited in a
succession of conventionally placed fill embankments in the centerline of an initial dam
symmetrical arranged to provide a competent foundation and effective retention of solid
waste as seen in Figure 8. (Cambridge, 2018)

Figure. 8. Centerline method arrangement. (Klohn Crippen Berger, 2017)

In many designs, an impervious core with core support is constructed, followed by a

conventional drainage system such as a filter to provide pore pressure dissipation as seen
in Figure 9. Is important to take into consideration that centerline methods could allow a

12
temporary rise of the water table during floods without affecting structural stability
especially in the downstream and central fill. (Vick, 1990)

Figure. 9. Centerline sequential construction. (Vick, 1990)

2.2.2. Alternative tailings disposal methods

Water management, particularly in arid environments is a challenge for many mining
projects, this has motivated alternative disposal methods to create tailings deposits.
Alternative tailing disposal methods help to reduce water usage and promise a reduction
of the environmental impact with fewer risks. (Watson et. al., 2010) Thickened, paste, dry
and filtered disposals are some of the new alternatives for waste management. (Watson,
Corser, Garces Pardo, Lopez, & Vandekeybus, 2010) (Burden, Williams, Wilson, & Jacobs, 2019)

Figure. 10. Relation between yield stress vs solid content density for various types of tailings (Burden et.
al., 2019)

Thickened disposal
Thickened tailings are the result of a significant dewatering process until they become a
homogeneous mass with a high pulp density. (Welch, 2003). This high pulp density slurry
usually behaves more like a highly viscous fluid capable of being pumped at the disposal
site as a conical shape pile; also, the expelled water achieved from desiccation and

13
consolidation of the slurry is collected at the toe of a small dam. This procedure can be
observed in Figure 11 (Vick, 1990)

Figure. 11. Thickened tailings disposal method. (Vick, 1990)

Thickened tailings are mainly chosen due to 3 important factors (among others). The first,
and the most important is the water savings as the water is recovered when the tailings are
deposited, and it may then be reused for further processes. The second reason is the
reduced requirements for containment structures since thickened tailings have the
potential to obtain higher beach slopes than conventional deposits. And the last one is the
reduced environmental impact due to the less use of water and material for retaining
structures. (Watson, Corser, Garces Pardo, Lopez, & Vandekeybus, 2010)
To achieve thickened tailing material up to 70% of solids by weight, some requirements
must be taken into consideration. One of them is the usage of conventional, high-rate, and
high-density thickeners that assure from 50% to 70% of solid density. To improve the
sedimentation of the tailing, flocculants are added to the mix. High yield stress may
develop on thickened tailings that could impede transport to the deposit, therefore, a
centrifugal pump system agitates the mix for further transportation. (Watson, Corser,
Garces Pardo, Lopez, & Vandekeybus, 2010)
However, this method has its limitations as explained by Fourie (2012). Strength increase
in the deposit is not demonstrated even though there are some cases where high stacking
height has been achieved. Finally, flow liquefaction failure has not been demonstrated
since thickened tailings are produced with synthetic polymeric flocculants which tend to
degrade over time. (Fourie, 2012)
Paste disposal.
Other technical disposal presented are paste tailings. Essentially, paste is a material that
has a fluid and viscous consistency just like toothpaste. This type of tailings deposits are
mainly used in underground mining and by mixing this material with cement, cemented
paste backfill is produced to obtain a stable mix, with enough strength for underground
purposes. (Fitton & Jewell, 2015) The cut-off value for yield stress paste is between 100

14
Pa and 200 Pa, however, it must be emphasized that the yield stress of thickener underflow
tailings and the material deposited differ considerably due to the shear stress applied
during transport (Fourie, 2012). This mix is added consequently to the tailings material
after mineral processing. The binding material usually used is cement, however, fly ash
more often used than cement because is less expensive. (Adiguzel & Bascetin, 2019) The
material thus treated becomes more like a mortar with predictable structural properties;
therefore, this material will develop some strength (represented as yield stress) in which
will help to create more efficient material. (Watson et. al., 2010).
Chongchong & Fourie (2019) presents the main advantages for cemented paste backfill.
The principal advantage is the limited use of water, process reagents, and energy to create
a paste tailing. The second advantage is the maximization of the density of the tailings,
minimizing the footprint of the tailing. As for the same reason before, high density will
enhance tailing strength response, hence, a minimized risk of tailing ponds failure. Ore
recovery rate and decreased ore dilution during the process and finally an increased mining
safety, efficiency, and productivity due to stability of underground voids. (Chongchong &
Fourie, 2019)

Figure. 12. Schematic diagram representing several factors that influence cemented paste backfills (CPB)
strength. (Chongchong & Fourie, 2019)

However, some other factors make paste material impractical. The first aspect is that paste
tailings are virtually nonapplicable for ground surface storage since during deposition the
material could stack up under the discharge point producing steeper beaches which are
dangerous and impractical thus it must be moved frequently to avoid any failure in the
slump. (Fitton & Jewell, 2015) Another aspect is that although paste tailings increase in
strength and density, their resistance to liquefaction failure still needs to be demonstrated
since reclaim ponds are still required to capture runoff. Another limitation of this process
is that paste technology is still addressed for underground backfilling, therefore, surface
disposal can be more difficult and even more expensive. (Watson et. al., 2010) (Watson,
Corser, Garces Pardo, Lopez, & Vandekeybus, 2010)

15
Filtered disposal.
Filtered tailings on the other hand are a more solid material (typically above the liquid
limit) resulting from a dewatering process using high pressure or vacuum filters, which
are applied until the material becomes sort of a “cake” in which the natural water content
by weight can vary from 50% to less than 20%. This “cake” material is not pumpable and
therefore must be transported either in a truck or in belt transportation to the site disposal.
(Cambridge, 2018)
One of the main advantages of this method is water control when the dewatering process
is applied. Once this process is completed, the material becomes unsaturated, thus it can
be stockpiled and treated with compaction control (if needed), having a smaller footprint,
and enhancing its mechanical and hydraulic properties.
Even though this method has notable improvements, there are still many studies that must
be made to reach a definitive conclusion about the mechanical response. Vick (1990),
states that “although the tailings are in solid form during handling and placement, their
residual content of 20-30% will still result in near-complete saturation at typical in-place
void ratios”.

2.3. Geotechnical properties of some tailings materials

The geotechnical properties of tailings vary depending on the type of extracted ore and
the adopted deposition method Throughout this section, the geotechnical properties of
various tailings types, selected as being representative of some important classes will be
presented for further understanding.

2.3.1. Iron ore

Iron is one of the most common metallic types of ore material extracted. The ores that can
be found are hematite and magnetite. (Minerals Education Coalition, 2021). Hu et. al
(2017) presented various geotechnical properties of two tailings mines: an iron tailing
(coarse and fine) in Yuhezhai, China and copper tailing (coarse and fine) in Bahuerachi,
Mexico. (Hu, Wu, Zhang, Zhang, & Wen, 2017)

16
The physical properties of the iron ore are presented in Table 1.

Iron Tailing: Yuhezhai, China

Properties Symbol Coarse Fine Units
Specific Gravity Gs 3.23 3.08 -
Natural water content w% 43-54 43 %
Liquid limit LL - 28 %
Plastic limit PL - 19 %
Plasticity index IP - 9 %
Coefficient of uniformity Cu 3.11 8.82 -
Coefficient of curvature Cc 1.05 0.59 -
Natural unit weight n 22.82 18.63 kN/m3
Void ratio e0 0.74 1.41 -

Table 1. Physical properties of iron tailings (Hu et. al., 2017)

The specific gravity of the tailing is greater than 3 in both cases, which is due to a heavy
ore matrix. Water contents in both cases (48.5% mean and 43%) is way beyond the liquid
limit, which can explain the soft and unstable nature of tailings. Coefficients of curvature
and uniformity present in both tailings as poorly graded soil as seen in Figure 13.

100

90
Coarse
80 tailings
Percentage passing (%)

70 Fine
tailings
60

50

40

30

20

10

0
10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle size (mm)

Figure. 13. Sieve analysis of iron coarser and finer tailings (Hu et. al., 2017)

The initial void ratio in both cases has high values, (especially for the finer fraction)
resulting in a highly compressible soil under self-weight increase during deposition. This
is reflected on the compression index, which for the coarse fraction is Cc=0.046 and for
the finer fraction is Cc=0.26, respectively. As for the coefficient of consolidation, the value
for the iron fine content is cv= 3.3x10-6 m2/s.
The coefficient of permeability for the coarse iron tailings is k=1.0x10-6 m/s and for the
fine tailings is nearly 2.0x10-8 m/s when the void ratio is nearly 0.98; after high

17
compression, permeability becomes lower with nearly k=2.2x10-9 m/s with a void ratio
approximately of 0.65.
Hu et. al. (2017) also presented resistance values for iron tailings. Consolidated undrained
and drained tests were performed for both coarse and fine materials. Table 2 presents the
obtained results.

Iron Tailing: Yuhezhai, China

CU Tests CD Tests
CU c CU ' c'  CD c CD
Type material
(°) (kPa) (°) (kPa) (°) (kPa)
Coarse 25.0 194.0 41.0 8.8 40.0 30.1
Fine 16.0 13.8 32.0 7.4 35.0 28.5
Table 2. Triaxial test was performed for iron tailings. Friction angle () and cohesion (c) are presented for
both undrained and drained tests. (Hu et. al., 2017)

For the undrained test, results are in terms of total stresses (cu and ccu) and effective
stresses (’ and c’). For the drained test, only effective stress parameters are reported. It
is unclear to which conditions the parameters apply, although it is likely that they
correspond to peak conditions.

2.3.2. Lead-Zinc ore

Lead and zinc ores are often extracted together with mechanical and chemical processes.
Usually, lead and zinc ores present hard and angular tailings due to quartz and dolomite
composition in the host rock. Quille & O’Kelly (2010) presents the geotechnical properties
of coarser and finer tailings of zinc/lead ore from Tara Mines in County Meath, Ireland.
(Quille & O'Kelly, 2010)
The physical properties of the Tara Mines are presented in Table 3.

Zinc-Lead Tailing: Tara Mines, Ireland

Properties Symbol Coarse Fine Units
Specific Gravity Gs 2.78 2.82 -
Natural water content w% 15.0 20.0 %
Liquid limit LL - 75.0 %
Plastic limit PL - 60.0 %
Plasticity index PI - 15.0 %
Void ratio e0 0.63 0.61 -
Max void ratio emax 0.71 0.64 -
Min void ratio emin 0.47 0.43 -
Natural unit weight n 20.5 22.0 kN/m3
Dry unit weight d 17.8 18.3 kN/m3
Relative Density Dr% 33.3 - %

Table 3. Physical properties of zinc-lead tailings. (Quille & O'Kelly, 2010)

The specific gravity of the tailings presents similar values between the coarse and fine
tailings. Vick (1990) reported similar specific gravity values emphasizing the possible

18
presence of much higher values (>3) due to the presence of pyrite. Liquid limit and plastic
limit are according to Vick (1990) who states that “lead-zinc tailings are generally of low
plasticity and clay content, even for the slime fraction” (p. 18)
The authors provide values of maximum and minimum void ratio, thus relative density for
coarser material (Dr%) is obtained with a value of 33.3% which makes a loose material.
Figure 14 exhibits that in both cases (coarse and fine tailings), high content of silt and clay
is presented.

100
90
Coarse graded
80 tailings
Percentage passing (%)

70 Finer graded
tailings
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle size (mm)

Figure. 14. Gradation analysis of zinc-lead tailings. (Quille & O'Kelly, 2010)

A consolidation test was performed in the finer tailings material presenting a compression
index Cc = 0.09, therefore little variations in the initial void ratio will occur upon
consolidation. The coefficient of consolidation was not presented in the paper, however,
Vick (1990) presents for lead-zinc slimes values in between cv= 1.0x10-6 – 1.0x10-8 m2/s
Quille & O’Kelly (2010) also presented permeability values for both tailings materials.
Coarser tailings present k= 6.0x10-6 m/s and for the finer tailings k= 2.0x10-8 m/s which
are values for silty sands and inorganic silts, silty/clayey fine sands. (Geotechdata.info,
2013). These permeability values are similar to the ones presented by Vick (1990), in
which for a void ratio of 0.60, the average value is approximately k= 8.0x10-7 m/s.
Unconfined undrained triaxial test (UU) for previously Proctor compacted specimens
were also performed for both materials; hence, the values are presented in Figure 15.
Deviatoric stress value in both cases reaches nearly 400 kPa when w% is approximately
20% with a marked behavior in both cases. These values depend mainly on matric suction
that is present in the samples during the test. In Figure 16, horizontal displacement vs
vertical displacement is presented.

19
 450
w=10%
400
w=13%
350
Deviatoric stress (kPa)

300 w=17%

250 w=20%

200 w=6%

150 w=10%
100
w=15%
50
w=18%
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Axial strain (%)

Figure. 15. Deviatoric stress vs axial strain for zinc-lead tailings. Coarser material (square) and fine
material (triangle). (Quille & O'Kelly, 2010)

Horizontal displacement (mm)

0 2 4 6 8 10
0

0.05

0.1
Vertical displacement (mm)

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

50 kPa Fine 100 kPa Fine 200 kPa Fine

50 kPa Coarse 100 kPa Coarse 200 kPa Coarse

Figure. 16. Horizontal vs vertical displacements for zinc-lead tailings. (Quille & O'Kelly, 2010)

Deformations for the coarser tailings present a contractant behavior in mostly all the
samples, however, for higher applied normal stress dilatant behavior is presented when
large deformations have occurred. On the other hand, slimes present a contractant
behavior in all applied normal stresses.

20
Direct shear test was also performed on fully saturated samples at 50, 100 and 200 kPa of
normal stress. The friction angles obtained during shear test values are ’=37° and ’=32°.
Vick (1990) presents similar values for drained friction angles of lead-zinc tailings. These
values are ’=33.5° - 35° for sands and ’=30° - 36° for slimes. In both cases, no cohesion
values were obtained.

2.3.3. Copper
Copper tailings are generally composed of a coarser fraction; however, finer fractions can
be found when other ores are processed. (Vick, 1990). This section contains the copper
tailings in the reviewed article presented by Hu et. al. (2017) for the Bahuerachi copper
mine. Furthermore, Shamsai et. al. (2007) presents also geotechnical data from a copper
mine in Jiroft, Iran. Physical values of both studies are presented in Table 4 (Shamsai,
Pak, Bateni, & Ayatollahi, 2007)
Bahuerachi, Sarcheshmeh,
Mexico Iran
Properties Symbol Coarse Fine Coarse Fine Units
Specific Gravity Gs 2.77 2.76 2.79 2.79 -
Natural water content w% 39 67 Not reported %
Liquid limit LL - 28 - 26-39 %
Plastic limit PL - 13 - 4-12 %
Plasticity index PI - 15 22-27 %
Coefficient of
Cu 2.15 14.8 2 22 -
uniformity
Coefficient of curvature Cc 0.89 2.12 Not reported -
Void ratio e0 0.84 1.03 0.40 1.00 -

Table 4. Physical properties of copper tailings of Bahuerachi, Mexico and Sarcheshmeh, Iran. (Shamsai et.
al., 2007)

The Sarcheshmeh tailings present 55% of the retained content in sieve No. 200 (0.075
mm). The USCS classification for the finer fraction is low plasticity clay (CL); the
classification for the entire tailings is silty sands. Sieve analysis is presented in Figure 17.

21
 100
Bahuerachi: Fine
90 tailings
Bahuerachi: Coarse
80 tailings
Sarcheshmeh tailings
Percentage passing (%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
Particle size (mm)

Figure. 17. Sieve analysis of copper coarser and finer tailings for the Bahuerachi tailings and whole
tailings for Sarcheshmeh. (Hu et. al., 2017)

Compression indexes for the Bahuerachi tailings are Cc=0.025 for the coarse tailings and
Cc=0.085 for the fines. Vick (1990) report compression index values for copper slimes of
0.20-0.27 meanwhile for copper sands from 0.05 to 0.28. These values present moderate
compressibility, however, Vick (1990) emphasizes that tailings deposit will depend on the
state in which they are deposited, therefore, a looser or softer material created during
deposition could result in higher void ratios with higher deformations under loading.
Consolidation coefficient for the Bahuerachi and Sarcheshmeh tailings are cv= 4.4x10-6
m2/s and cv=2.0x10-6 m2/s respectively.
The average coefficient of permeability in both studies is different. For the Bahuerachi
tailings, values obtained are k= 2.1x10-5 m/s for the coarser tailings and approximately k=
1.0x10-7 m/s for the finer tailings. On the other hand, Sarcheshmeh tailings present
permeabilities from nearly 1.0x10-9 – 1.0x10-10 m/s. According to the author, the average
permeability coefficient was obtained through the parameters obtained from an oedometer
test (Oedometric modulus Eoed, coefficient of consolidation cv and unit weight of water
w).

A triaxial consolidated-undrained test (CU) was performed in both studies to obtain shear
strength parameters in terms of effective stress. In the study, sample details are not
explicitly explained, but they were presumably tested previously by the Proctor
compaction test, obtaining molded samples decent to perform and triaxial test. The values
of both studies are presented in Table 5.

22
 Copper Tailings
Bahuerachi, Sarcheshmeh,
Mexico Iran
CU Tests CU Tests
' c' ' c'
Type material
(°) (kPa) (°) (kPa)
Coarse 40.0 32.0 8-29. 30 - 97
Fine 38.0 0 24-37 8 - 21

Table 5. Consolidated-Undrained shear strength values were obtained for both studies. Hu et. al (2017)
and Shamsai et. al. (2007)

2.3.4. Coal
Coal ore processing results in two types of waste: coarse refuse which is processed by
gravity separation and delivered dry and fine refuse processed by froth flotation,
producing a waste slurry also commonly called sludge. Coal refuse is generally a fine-
grained material formed by coal particles and silt-clay particles. (Vick, 1990)
Hegazy et. al. (2004) and Yu et. al (2019) present the geotechnical properties of coal
tailing samples from Western Pennsylvania and Kentucky-West Virginia, resumed in the
following Table 6.
Coal refuse tailings.
Western Pennsylvania Kentucky West Virginia
Mixed Mixed
Properties Symbol Coarse Fine Units
refuse refuse
Specific Gravity Gs 2.02 1.52 2.03 2.14 -
Water content w% 6.4 33 Variated %
Liquid limit LL - 31.2 38.1 42.5 %
Plastic limit PL - 20.1 28.3 27.8 %
Plasticity index PI - 11.1 9.8 14.7 %
Natural unit
n 18.5 13.0 Not reported kN/m3
weight
Void ratio e0 Not reported 1.65-0.62 1.80-0.79 -

Table 6. Physical properties of coal refuse tailings of both studies from Western Pennsylvania (Hegazy et.
al (2004)) and Kentucky-West Virginia (Yu et. al. (2019) )

Low specific gravity values are observed in both studies, especially in the finer refuse. For
the tailings from Western Pennsylvania, USCS classification is low plasticity clay (CL)
and for Kentucky (KY) -West Virginia (WV), both samples are low plasticity silt (ML).
Average grain distribution can be observed in Figure 18. Fine contents are between 20%
and 60% (finer than 0.075 mm); as a reference, Vick (1990) indicated that they can be
higher than 30%.

23
 100

90
West Virginia
80 tailings
Kentucky tailings
Percentage passing (%)
70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
Particle size (mm)

Figure. 18. Average gradation for coal tailings. (Vick, 1990)

According to Vick (1990), void ratio values can oscillate from 0.5 to 1.1. In this case, Yu
et. al. (2019) reported values from 0.62 to 1.80 in coal sludge samples obtained directly
from the processing plant before they were transported and hydraulically placed in the
impoundment. These samples were later desiccated in order to perform different tests such
as consolidation and direct shear at different water contents. Hegazy et. al. (2004)
collected disturbed samples from bucket sampling (sludge) and using Shelby and Denison
tube samplers.
As for the compressibility behavior, the consolidation coefficient for coal tailings
according to Vick (1990), is between 3x10-6 – 3x10-7 m2/s. The compression index
proposed by Yu et. al. (2019) varies with natural water content (w%) with values from
Cc=0.217-0.278 with w%=64-62% to Cc=0.152-0.176 with w%=44-45%, which are similar
to the values presented by Vick (1990).
Hegazy et. al (2004) presented CPTu consolidation curves in coal sludge (fine tailings)
which are reproduced in Figure 19. From these curves, they interpreted horizontal
coefficients of permeability, with values from k=2.4x10-6 m/s to k=3.0x10-9 m/s.
Yu et. al. (2019) performed permeameter tests for different water content levels. For the
Kentucky tailings, the permeability coefficient is k=1x10-7 m/s meanwhile for the West
Virginia tailings is k=9.1x10-7 m/s. The coefficient of permeability of coal tailings tends
to vary with saturated natural water content when the void ratio decreases. This behavior
is presented in Figure 20

24
 1.2 CPT 19.15 m

CPT 13.3 m.

Excess pore water pressure decay

1 CPT 22.85

CPT 21.9 m.

0.8 CPT 7.85 m.

(u/ui)

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0.01 1 100 10000 1000000
Dissipation time (s)

Figure. 19. Excess pore water pressure decay (u/ui) is represented by several CPTu tests in situ over
dissipation time.(Hegazy et. al.,2004).

(Hegazy, Cushing, & Lewis, 2004)

Figure. 20. Variation of the coefficient of permeability with natural water content and void ratio. (Yu et.
al., 2019)

Even though permeability increases with natural water content, is important to consider
that these values are still low, therefore under loading, coal refuse will tend to produce
pore water excess and consequently an effective stress reduction. As in other soft soils,
consolidation produces an increase in undrained strength. This process can be observed in
Figure 21. As a result, the natural water content and void ratio (w%) will be negatively
correlated with undrained shear strength in coal refuse. (Yu, Zeng, & Michael, 2019).

25
Figure. 21. Variation of the undrained shear strength with water content and void ratio. (Yu et. al., 2019)

70
KY Sample
w=33% c'=12.0
60 kPa f'=38.5°
KY Sample
w=46% c'=7.1
50
Shear stress t (kPa)

kPa f'=33.5°
KY Sample
40 w=80% c'=1.9
kPa f'=10.5°
WV Sample
30
w=30% c'=26
kPa f'=38.1°
20 WV Sample
w=52% c'=2.1
kPa f'=25.5°
10
WV Sample
w=76% c'=0 kPa
0 f'=13.5°
0 10 20 30 40 50
Normal stress s' (kPa)

Figure. 22. CD Test performed on both KY Sample and WV Sample to obtain the variation of Mohr-
Coulomb parameters with natural water content. (Yu et. al., 2019)

Figure 22 presents strength values of effective friction angles (’) and cohesion (c’). Under
a minimum natural water content (30-33%) friction angles are between 38°-33° and
meanwhile for cohesion, values are between 11-26 kPa, respectively. It must be
emphasized that these cohesion values might represent an apparent cohesion due to an
increase in matric suction during water content loss, thus, if natural water content
increases, effective parameters will decrease significantly, especially cohesion.

2.3.5. Gold ore

Gold ore is frequently found in orebodies of two types: lode deposits which are found in
veins in rock and a placer deposit in which is formed by moving water bodies with high
erosive capacity. (Minerals Education Coalition, 2021). According to Vick (1990), gold
tailings have little clay content and little to no plasticity. For placer deposits, gold ore is

26
usually obtained by hydraulic methods in which coarser material is accumulated while
finer particles, such as silt sand are released into the stream.
Geotechnical data from two gold mines are presented in Table 7. One from Fazenda
Brasileira in Northern Brazil presented by Li et. al. (2018), and the second one from
Johannesburg, South Africa presented by Chang et. al (2011). (Chang, Heymann, & Clayton,
2011) (Li, Coop, Senetakis, & Schnaid, 2018)

Johannesburg tailings, South Africa

Properties Symbol Upper Middle Pond Units
Specific Gravity Gs 2.72 2.69 2.75 -
Natural water
w% 7.5 15 25 %
content
Liquid limit LL 25 30 51 %
Plastic limit PL Nonplastic Nonplastic 39 %
Plasticity index PI N/A N/A 14.7 %
Void ratio e0 0.7 1.10 1.60 -

Table 7. Physical properties of coal refuse tailings of gold ore. (Chang et. al., 2011)

In the case examined by Li et. al. (2018), gold ore is mostly composed of quartz, albite,
chlorite, and calcite. The finer material, however, did not present any plasticity in their
samples even though they presented a high percentage of chlorite (47.1%). Nevertheless,
gold tailings can present low plasticity or even non-plasticity values. However, according
to Chang N. et. al. (2011), materials deposited in the pond presents considerable plasticity
and high void ratio values. Bedin J. et. al (2012) and Li W. et. al (2018) presents higher
specific gravity values between 2.89 and 3.20 which can be attributed to pyrite. Particle
gradation of both studies is presented in Figure 23. (Bedin, Schnaid, Da Fonseca, & Costa,
2012)
100
Li W. et. Al (2018)
90
Chang N. et. Al (2011):
80 Upper beach
Percentage Passing (%)

70 Chang N. et. Al (2011):

Middle beach
60 Chang N. et. Al (2011):
Pond
50
Bedin J. et. Al. (2012)
40
30
20
10
0
1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
Particle Size (mm)

Figure. 23. Particle size distribution of tailings from Fazenda Brasileira (Li et. al. (2018)), Johannesburg
from various samples taken (Chang et. al. (2011)), and data from Bedin et. al. (2012).

27
The sieve analysis for the Johannesburg tailings presents a poor gradation of particle
distribution during tailings deposition. Samples from the upper and middle beaches
present a high accumulation of coarser particles similar to the samples presented by Bedin
et. al (2012). On the other hand, samples of the pond present similar distribution with data
Li et. al. (2018), which have more particle accumulation finer than 0.075 mm. Therefore,
gold tailings will most likely contain poorly graded sand particles with a considerable
amount of fine such as silts and occasionally clay particles.
Chang et. al (2011) analyzed SEM images and founded that gold tailings material is
usually composed of three types of particles: large, angular, and bulky particles, platy
particles, and flocks which is a collection of clay-sized bulky and platy particles. As
expected, large and angular particles are founded in the upper and middle beach, while
platy and flocks particles in the pond. (Chang, Heymann, & Clayton, 2011)
Compressibility behavior will depend on the amount of platy and flock particle
composition. The void ratio for gold tailings can present values from 0.7 to almost 2.0.
Consolidation tests were performed for samples from Bedin et. al. (2018) study and Li. et
al. (2018), therefore, Figure 24 presents the variation of void ratio e0 vs. vertical effective
stress (s’).

2.3 Bedin et. Al. (2012),

e=2.0
Bedin et. Al. (2012),
e=1.5
Bedin et. Al. (2012),
1.8 e=0.9
Li W. (2018) - Slurry
sample
Li W. (2018) -
Void ratio e0

Compacted sample
NCL Bedin
1.3

0.8

0.3
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Vertical efective stress s' (kPa)

Figure. 24. Oedometer test for gold tailings from both studies. (Bedin et. al., 2012) (Li et. al., 2018)

The compression coefficient for gold tailings is between Cc=0.13-0.30. The consolidation
coefficient of gold tailings presented by Chang et. al. (2011) describes a higher rate of
consolidation for the upper and middle due to the existence of coarser and bulky particles.
On the other hand, the pond will experience a lower rate of consolidation because of the
silty-clayey particles in the tailings matrix. Among all the studies, the only value of
permeability is provided by Bedin J. et. al. (2012) of k=2.0x10-6 m/s. Table 8 presents the
values of the consolidation coefficients. (Li, Coop, Senetakis, & Schnaid, 2018)

28
 Consolidation coefficient cv (m2/s)
Pond Middle Beach Upper Beach
-6 -5
3.04x10 2.21x10 9.08x10-5
5.71x10-6 4.33x10-5 1.06x10-4

Table 8. Variation of the consolidation coefficients values collected samples. (Chang, Heymann, &
Clayton, 2011)

As commented before, gold tailings present a mix of sand grains with a considerable
amount of silt particles which define the overall compressibility of the soil skeleton.
Undrained shear stress behavior in gold tailings with high void ratios and low confining
pressures will present a large contractive volumetric strain response and therefore, a high
excess pore pressure that will easily generate liquefaction failure. According to Bedin et.
al. (2012), drained shear stress also presents a contractive behavior in confining stress
from 15 kPa to 100 kPa same as the undrained response. Also, Chang et. al. (2011), reports
that after the samples presented a contractant behavior, samples tend to dilate upon failure.
1200
1,167 200
kPa
1000
Deviatoric stress q (s1-s3) (kPa)

400
800 kPa
802 600
600 kPa
535 800
400 404 kPa
1000
200 206 kPa
1200
24 kPa
0
0 5 10 15 20
Strain ea

Figure. 25. Deviatoric stress vs strain deformation under undrained shear stress. (Bedin et. al., 2012)

Finally, critical state friction angle values are approximately between 31.1°-34.8°
according to both studies. (Bedin, Schnaid, Da Fonseca, & Costa, 2012)

2.3.6. Summary
Specific gravity values may vary due to ore composition. Except for iron and fine coal,
the presented values are very much like those of normal soils. On the other hand, the void
ratio presents high values, on occasions, above 1.00, which makes them generally
compressible. Likewise, tailings also present predominantly low permeability values (k ≈
1.0x10-6 m/s to 2.0x10-10 m/s) in their matrix that will be reduced when consolidation
starts, therefore, if fast loading is produced, contraction and high pore water pressure
development is likely, reducing effective stress in particles which could lead to a dramatic
reduction of shear strength. The particle shape of tailings is very angular, thus, relatively
high values of the effective friction angle (’≈ 24°-41°) can be encountered.

29
It is important to take note that tailings start as a slurry of silt and sand particles which are
later discharged into an impoundment. The process of accumulation and sedimentation
will create a heterogeneous mix of sand and silt particles with a unique and sensitive initial
state. When core sampling of tailings starts, the process of extrusion, sample
transportation, trimming, and setting the sample into the laboratory will create a densified
sample (which implies that the test is stronger than the soil perse) which modifies
completely their in-field strength and physical parameters such as void ratio. Therefore,
obtaining undisturbed samples that emulate the in-field behavior of tailings is practically
impossible. (Been, 2016)

Geotechnical. properties of tailings will strongly vary due to their heterogeneous nature;
therefore, design parameters must be evaluated in-situ to observe the real behavior of
tailings.

30
 3. Hydraulic conductivity of tailings materials.
3.1. An empirical equation for predicted permeability values.
One of the most important parameters for soils is the hydraulic conductivity also known
as permeability coefficient “k”. This parameter controls the rate of seepage in porous
media and the dissipation of pore water pressure; therefore, an extensive study of the
permeability coefficient must be performed to comprehend the nature and thus, apply a
convenient ground improvement method.
The permeability coefficient can be obtained either in tests” in-situ” or in the laboratory
(constant head and falling head tests). However, academia has always tried to develop an
equation that can predict this coefficient from certain parameters. The coefficient depends
on the dynamic viscosity and the unit weight of the fluid. The intrinsic permeability also
is considered since it depends on the physical properties of the porous media, such as void
ratio, rugosity, tortuosity, pore size, etc.
As a starting point, it is considered the Kozeny-Carman (KC) equation. This model
proposes a model of interconnected voids, visualized as a series of capillary tubes, where
the fluid (water) can flow through. (Das, 2008). Thus, the KC equation is:
𝑔 𝑒3 (1)
𝑘=𝐶
𝜇𝑤 𝜌𝑤 𝑆 2 𝐷𝑅2 (1 + 𝑒)

Where, C (≈0.2) is a material constant, g as the gravitational constant (g=9.81 m/s2 ≈ 10

m/s2), w is the dynamic viscosity of the fluid, w is the density of water, DR (s/w) the
specific weight of solids (or specific gravity of solids Gs), S the specific surface area
(m2/Kg) and e as the void ratio. From this equation, there is a non-linear relationship
between permeability (k) and void ratio e as:
𝑒3 (2)
𝑘∝
(1 + 𝑒)

The Kozeny-Carman equation offers a way to predict the permeability coefficient,

however, the difficulty of using equation (1), lies in obtaining the specific surface area of
the soil. Chapuis R. and Legaré PP. (1976) proposed a method to estimate the specific
surface area only by geometrical considerations. The equation is as follows:
6 (3)
𝑆𝑠 (𝑑) =
𝑑𝜌𝑠

Where d is the diameter of a spherical particle or the length of a cube; s is the solid density
of particles. This equation (3) is only considered for coarse-grained non-plastic soils,
therefore, another solution based on the use of fillers in bituminous mixes is used for fine-
grained non-plastic soils and is presented as follows:
6 𝑃𝑁𝑜.𝐷 − 𝑃𝑁𝑜.𝑑 (4)
𝑆= ∑( )
𝜌𝑠 𝑑

31
Where (PNo.D- PNo.d) is the percentage by weight smaller than size D and larger than size
d. (Chapuis & Légaré, 1976). According to Chapuis & Aubertin (2003), grain size curves
established by conventional methods (e.g. sieving & sedimentation) have a minimum
measurable particle size, Dmin, thus an equivalent size deq must be proposed for the fraction
of grains in which Dmin is smaller than 0.005 mm. This value corresponds to the mean size
of the particle length concerning the specific surface area and is defined as follows:
𝐷𝑚𝑖𝑛 2
2
1 2
𝐷𝑚𝑖𝑛 (5)
𝑑𝑒𝑞 = ∫ 𝑦 𝑑𝑦 =
𝐷𝑚𝑖𝑛 0 3

For tailings deposits, equations (4) and (5) have been used to determine the specific
surface using complete gradation curves. However, the estimation of the coefficient of
permeability using the KC equation (1), has not always been succesful. According to
Chapuis & Aubertin (2003), this phenomenon is because the shape of fine tailings particles
is sometimes very angular and even acicular, therefore, the effect of tortuosity is very
different and more influential than in natural soils. Also, during consolidation, tailings
particles tend to break, creating new fine particles, altering, and differing from the
predicted permeability values. (Chapuis & Aubertin, 2003)

Aubertin, Bussière & Chapuis (1996), adapted the KC equation to obtain the coefficient
of permeability of four tailings. The equation is idealized for homogenized and saturated
tailings and is presented as follows. (Aubertin, Bussière, & Chapuis, 1996)
𝛾𝑤 2 13 𝑒 3+𝑥 (6)
𝑘=𝑐 𝐷 𝐶
𝜇 10 𝑢 (1 + 𝑒)

Where c (≈0.02) is a material constant, w the unit weight of water,  the dynamic viscosity
of water, D10 is the effective diameter, Cu is the coefficient of uniformity, e is the void
ratio, and x was a new material parameter. Using (x≈2.16), this equation estimated
decently k values for the analyzed tailings.

A new proposal is presented by Chapuis & Aubertin (2003), where the predicted
permeability is as follows:
𝑒3 (7)
log[𝑘𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 ] = 𝐴 + log [ 2 2 ]
𝑆 𝐷𝑅 (1 + 𝑒)

A new value introduced is A, which is equal to 0.29-0.51, similar to the values of C

(material constant from Kozeny-Carman eq.1). This equation was evaluated for sands,
gravels, tills and silty sands, and other non-cohesive soils. Predicted and measured values
of permeability presented variations when samples were not fully saturated. For tailing
deposits, equation (7) is harder to apply due to its natural heterogeneity during deposition.
Thus, according to Chapuis & Aubertin (2003), the best-fit equation for tailings is
presented as follows:

log[𝑘𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 ] = 1.5 log 𝑘𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 + 2 (8)

32
 𝑘 𝑒3 (9)
log [ ] = 1.5 {0.5 + log [ 2 2 ]} + 2
1 𝑚/𝑠 𝑆 𝐷𝑅 (1 + 𝑒)

This equation will be used to compare the results from obtained data in the following
section.

3.2. Compilation of information and results.

Each study referred to in section 2.3 presented permeability values for each tailing deposit
as well as grain size distribution data. Therefore, that information could be used to check
the modified Kozeny-Carman equations of Chapuis & Aubertin (2003) (Equation 9).

In addition, we also obtained data provided by the Geological and Mines Institute of Spain
(Instituto Geológico y Minero de España) IGME. This data compilation contains the
information of several tailings deposits which present complete gradation curves,
measured permeability coefficients based on triaxial tests, and specific gravity. The IGME
data had the advantage of having a more coherent testing and reporting practice across the
database than what was available from the literature search.

Values literature studies are presented in Table 9 and the laboratory data from IGME is
presented in Table 10.
Measured
Study Test
permeability
(m/s)
Iron
Coarse Hu et. al. ASTM 1.00E-06
Fine -2017 D5084-10 6.27E-07
Lead-Zinc
Coarse Quille & O’Kelly BS 1377 6.00E-06
Fine -2010 -1990 8.00E-07
Copper
Shamsai et. Al. Terzagui’s
Mixed 1.00E-09
-2007 Equation
Coarse Hu et. al. ASTM 2.10E-05
Fine -2017 D5084-10 2.60E-07
Coal
Hegazy et. Al.
Fine CPTu 2.40E-06
-2004
Mixed 1 Yu et. al. ASTM 9.10E-07
Mixed 2 -2019 D5084-10 1.00E-07
Gold Combination of
studies.
UB 2.00E-06
Oedometer
Chang et. al.
Cell
MB (2011), Bedin et. al. Constant head 2.00E-06
Pond -2012 2.00E-06

Table 9. Comparison of permeability between the measured values from each study with the equation
proposed by Chapuis & Aubertin (2003)

33
 %
Silt Clay
Finer
Void content content Permeability
than
Ratio >0.06 <0.06 laboratory
0.075
mm mm
mm
e0 P% Ps% Pc% k lab (m/s)
1.325 97.79 64.25 33.54 1.35E-07
1.671 39.87 31.42 8.45 1.35E-05
0.533 83.42 59.56 23.86 9.38E-08
1.067 39.98 27.39 12.59 2.94E-06
1.011 92.44 58.52 33.92 2.05E-07
1.275 34.22 25.73 8.49 5.84E-06
1.225 96.6 56.9 39.7 6.00E-08
1.163 26.54 19.61 6.93 4.54E-05
1.213 93.32 53.66 39.66 1.50E-08
1.188 24.4 17.81 6.59 6.34E-05
1.225 96.38 58.5 37.88 1.35E-07
1.225 26.7 22.11 4.59 3.84E-04
1.188 29.63 23.08 6.55 3.75E-05
1.213 96.53 64 32.53 2.40E-07
1.288 99.86 64.41 35.45 2.40E-07
1.400 98.28 72.92 25.36 5.40E-07
1.150 26.98 20.92 6.06 1.22E-04
1.213 97.74 48.38 49.36 3.38E-08
1.213 21.49 16.68 4.81 1.22E-04
1.238 99.63 62.77 36.86 1.84E-07
1.225 98.35 68.16 30.19 2.40E-07

Table 10. Data compilation of the IGME institute with information based on gradation curves and
consolidated-drained test from which permeability values are obtained.

3.3. Analysis of results

3.3.1. Checking the existing KC equation with the IGME dataset

The first approach is the evaluation of both equation 7 and equation 9 with the IGME data.
This evaluation calculates the new permeability coefficient values which are presented in
Table 11.
Permeability
Permeability Permeability Specific
calculated
laboratory calculated surface
corrected
(IGME) Eq. 7 area
Eq. 9
k lab (m/s) k pred (m/s) k corr (m/s) m2/Kg
1.35E-07 1.16E-06 1.24E-07 578.24
1.35E-05 2.84E-05 1.51E-05 153.71
9.38E-08 2.39E-07 1.17E-08 402.97
2.94E-06 5.64E-06 1.34E-06 200.63
2.05E-07 8.07E-07 7.25E-08 505.00

34
 5.84E-06 1.17E-05 3.98E-06 176.26
6.00E-08 7.70E-07 6.76E-08 662.44
4.54E-05 2.19E-05 1.03E-05 118.54
1.50E-08 1.15E-06 1.24E-07 536.64
6.34E-05 2.89E-05 1.55E-05 105.26
1.35E-07 1.12E-06 1.18E-07 549.86
3.84E-04 3.42E-05 2.00E-05 99.46
3.75E-05 1.78E-05 7.49E-06 134.21
2.40E-07 1.18E-06 1.28E-07 530.71
2.40E-07 7.36E-07 6.32E-08 707.29
5.40E-07 1.18E-06 1.29E-07 598.54
1.22E-04 3.09E-05 1.72E-05 98.84
3.38E-08 5.69E-07 4.29E-08 763.94
1.22E-04 2.71E-05 1.41E-05 110.73
1.84E-07 1.20E-06 1.31E-07 536.38
2.40E-07 1.00E-06 1.00E-07 580.55

Table 11. Permeability coefficient results by evaluating both equation 7 and equation 9 .

At first glance, the calculated permeability coefficient values are slightly underestimated
compared with the measured permeabilities. Both measured and calculated present low
permeabilities attributed to fine grain sand and silt. In Figure 26, a comparison between
the measured (laboratory) values versus the calculated and calculated-corrected values is
presented.

1.E+00

1.E-01 Calculated Eq. 7

Calculated-Corrected Eq. 9
Calculated Permeabiliy kc (m/s)

1.E-02

1.E-03

1.E-04

1.E-05

1.E-06

1.E-07

1.E-08

1.E-09
1.E-09 1.E-08 1.E-07 1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
Measured Permeability k lab (m/s)

Figure. 26. Comparison between predicted/predicted corrected, and measured values of the permeability
coefficient.

In Figure 26, the equality line is plotted since it would represent the exact correlation
between both values. What can be interpreted from Figure 26 is that there is a decent
correlation between both measured and calculated. Equation 9 present a slight
improvement in comparison with equation 7, thus the equation proposed by Chapuis &
35
Aubertin (2003) predicts fairy well independent data. Since equation 9 predicts fairly the
permeability lab values with the calculated, more information can be inquired from the
obtained values.

1.E-03 Finer than

0.075 mm
KC calculated - corrected permeability k (m/s)

1.E-04
Silt fraction

1.E-05
Clay
fraction
1.E-06
Sand
fraction
1.E-07
(>0.075
mm)
1.E-08

1.E-09

1.E-10
0 20 40 60 80 100
Fines content (%)

Figure. 27. Correlation of the permeability coefficient with the granulometric fraction data.

By plotting the calculated-corrected permeability with the granulometric fraction, as

observed in Figure 27, it is observed that there is a correlation between the granulometric
fine fraction and permeability. This might indicate that permeability is subjected to change
drastically if higher percentages of silt and most important clay are present. On the other
hand, sand content does not have any influence on permeability, thus sand fraction might
not be represented as the finer fraction.

36
 1000
R² = 0.8764
Specific surface area SSA (m2/Kg)
900
R² = 0.8655
800
700
600 Silt content

500 Clay content

400 Sand content
300
200
100
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Granulometric fraction (%)

Figure. 28. Correlation of the specific surface area with the granulometric fraction.

Figure 28 reflects the relationship between the specific surface area (SSA) and the
granulometric fraction for silt and clay. Same as presented in the earlier Figure 27, the
influence of sand fraction has minimal or even almost no influence over the SSA, unlike
clay and silt fraction. If it is observed, SSA will increase importantly when the silt and
especially the clay fraction increases. Since the SSA is the ratio between the surface area
of the particle and the weighted particle, is understandable that clay fraction produces
higher values of SSA. This assertion is corroborated by Petersen et. al (1996), which state
that the magnitude of the SSA depends mainly on the clay content in the soil and more
specifically on the type of encountered mineral (such as illite, smectite, kaolinite,
montmorillonite). Therefore, the granulometric fine fraction controls the specific surface
area. Since the fines fraction has a notorious influence, Figure 29 reflects the behavior of
the SSA with permeability. (Petersen, Moldrup, Jacobsen, & Rolston, 1996)

37
 1.E-03
Permeability coefficient k (m/s) Predicted
1.E-04
Measured

1.E-05

1.E-06

1.E-07 R² = 0.928

1.E-08 R² = 0.37

1.E-09
0 200 400 600 800 1,000
2
Specific surface area SSA (m /Kg)

Figure. 29. Variation of the permeability coefficient of predicted and measured values with the specific
surface area.

As a consequence, the permeability will also have a strong relationship with the SSA as
seen in Figure 29. In equation 7 and 9, the specific surface area is inversely proportional
to the permeability thus is understandable that for low permeabilities, higher values of
SSA are obtained. This behavior is also verified by the measured values (laboratory),
therefore, special care must be made for the fines content, especially clay size particles.
The permeability coefficient thus can be obtained by the equation proposed by Chapuis &
Aubertin (2003) (Equation 9). According to Figure 26, a recalibration of equation 9 can
be performed to observe if improves the obtained values or not.

3.3.2. Recalibration of Chapuis & Aubertin equation.

By starting from the IGME data and equation 7, a simple recalibration is performed to
obtain a new equation that provides new corrected values of permeabilities. By using the
measured (laboratory) values of permeability and information of void ratio e, specific
gravity Gs and Specific surface area SSA, a new recalibration equation can be acquired.
Table 12 presents the new permeability values.

38
 Chapuis &
Permeabilit Log Permeabilit
Second term Aubertin
y measured y
(2003)
Permeabilit Calculated
Measured Eq. 7 Eq 7
y Recalibrated
e3
k log k 0.5+logB k recal
𝐷𝑠 2 𝑆𝑠 2 (1 + 𝑒)
m/s - - - m/s
1 1.35E-07 3.66E-07 -6.87 -5.94 2.23E-07
2 1.35E-05 8.98E-06 -4.87 -4.55 6.32E-05
3 9.38E-08 7.55E-08 -7.03 -6.62 1.38E-08
4 2.94E-06 1.78E-06 -5.53 -5.25 3.65E-06
5 2.05E-07 2.55E-07 -6.69 -6.09 1.18E-07
6 5.84E-06 3.69E-06 -5.23 -4.93 1.31E-05
7 6.00E-08 2.44E-07 -7.22 -6.11 1.09E-07
8 4.54E-05 6.94E-06 -4.34 -4.66 4.01E-05
9 1.50E-08 3.65E-07 -7.82 -5.94 2.21E-07
10 6.34E-05 9.14E-06 -4.20 -4.54 6.51E-05
11 1.35E-07 3.54E-07 -6.87 -5.95 2.10E-07
12 3.84E-04 1.08E-05 -3.42 -4.47 8.76E-05
13 3.75E-05 5.62E-06 -4.43 -4.75 2.76E-05
14 2.40E-07 3.73E-07 -6.62 -5.93 2.30E-07
15 2.40E-07 2.33E-07 -6.62 -6.13 1.00E-07
16 5.40E-07 3.74E-07 -6.27 -5.93 2.32E-07
17 1.22E-04 9.79E-06 -3.92 -4.51 7.35E-05
18 3.38E-08 1.80E-07 -7.47 -6.24 6.36E-08
19 1.22E-04 8.56E-06 -3.92 -4.57 5.81E-05
20 1.84E-07 3.78E-07 -6.74 -5.92 2.36E-07
21 2.40E-07 3.17E-07 -6.62 -6.00 1.73E-07

Table 12. Used parameters and recalibration permeability coefficients.

In equation 7, parameter A is preferable to use 0.5 since is a material constant suggested

by the authors. By plotting then the variation of equation 7 vs the logarithm of the
measured permeability, Figure 30 is obtained as follows.

39
 0.5+log (e3/Gs2 Ss2 (1+e))
-7 -7 -6 -6 -5 -5 -4 -4 -3
-3

-4

log k (measured)
-5

-6
y = 1.7647x + 3.8242
R² = 0.8973
-7

-8

-9

Figure. 30. Evaluation of equation 7 with measured permeability values.

If a comparison is made, equation 9 presents two correction values which are 1.5 and 2.
In the new recalibration equation, according to the IGME data, the new values change
from 1.5 to 1.7647 and from 2 to 3.8242. Thus, the new recalibration model is presented
in equation 10.
𝑘 𝑒3 (10)
log [ ] = 1.7647 {0.5 + log [ 2 2 ]} + 3.8242
1 𝑚/𝑠 𝑆 𝐷𝑅 (1 + 𝑒)

This new recalibration is used to perform the same previous analysis and observe if the
new corrected values are close to the measured values. In Figure 31, a comparison is
performed with equation 9.

40
 1.E+00
Calculated Eq. 9
1.E-01 Recalibration Eq. 10

1.E-02
Calculated Permeabiliy kc (m/s)

1.E-03

1.E-04

1.E-05

1.E-06

1.E-07

1.E-08

1.E-09
1.E-09 1.E-08 1.E-07 1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
Measued Permeability km (m/s)

Figure. 31. Comparison between the recalibrated values with the corrected values of permeability.

In Figure 31, both calculated-corrected and recalibrated values are adjusted to the equality
line. At first, recalibrated values appear to get closer to the equality line than the corrected
values (Equation 9). Nevertheless, both obtained values (Eq 9 and Eq 10) still have a
scattered tendency on the whole data. This evaluation shall be performed in independent
data which are the permeability coefficients from the reviewed studies.

3.3.3. Verification of the recalibrated equation with independent

data
To observe the behavior of the recalibrated equation (10), an evaluation must be
performed with independent data. Previously, few tailing deposits were introduced by
presenting their physical, mechanic, and hydraulic characteristics. Each study presented
its hydraulic conductivities, therefore it is compilated and evaluated by both equations
(Eq. 9 and Eq. 10). The obtained values are presented in the following Table 13.
Permeability coefficient
Measured Corrected Recalibrated
(papers) Eq.9 Eq. 10
m/s m/s m/s
Iron
Coarse 1.00E-06 5.68E-05 3.00E-04
Fine 6.27E-07 5.33E-06 1.85E-05
Copper
Coarse ASTM 2.10E-05 2.70E-05 1.25E-04
Fine D5084-10 2.60E-07 7.28E-08 1.19E-07
Coal
Mixed 1 9.10E-07 1.62E-07 1.30E-07
Mixed 2 1.00E-07 1.14E-07 2.00E-07

41
 Lead-Zinc
BS 1377
Coarse 6.00E-06 4.68E-07 1.06E-06
(1990)
Fine 8.00E-07 6.59E-08 1.05E-07
Gold
UB Constant 2.00E-06 5.78E-06 2.04E-05
MB head 2.00E-06 3.70E-05 1.81E-04
Pond 2.00E-06 6.53E-07 1.56E-06
Copper
Mixed Oedoemeter 1.00E-09 3.10E-06 5.45E-07
Coal
CPTu
Fine 2.40E-06 1.13E-06 2.99E-06

Table 13. Permeability coefficient values presented by reviewed studies. Each value is organized by test.

In this case, is evident that most of the permeability values fail to predict correctly or at
least fairly like the other data compilation. This compilation of permeabilities is also
plotted with the equality line to observe the behavior of both equations. The results are
presented in Figure 32.
1.E+00
ASTM
D5084-10
1.E-01 BS 1377
Calculated Permeability kc (m/s)

(1990)
1.E-02 OED

1.E-03 CPTu
ASTM
1.E-04
D5084-10
BS 1377
1.E-05 (1990)
OED
1.E-06
CPTu
1.E-07
.
1.E-08
1.E-09 1.E-07 1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01
Measured Permeability km (m/s)

Figure. 32. Comparison between the recalibrated values with the corrected values of permeability for the
previously reviewed studies. Hollow points represent the values from eq. 9 and full points are from eq. 10.

The main observation of Figure 32 is the lack of accuracy of both Equations 9 and 10.
Presented values are highly scattered from the equality line. What is certain is that
equation 10 (recalibrated) did not evaluate successfully nor presented improved values
compared to the equation from Chapuis & Aubertin (2003). The values were also
separated by the performed test but there is no conclusive evidence to determine if the
recalibration is most relevant on a certain test than others. This conclusion also applies to
Equation 9. A permeability value of almost k=1x10-9 m/s is presented in Figure 32. This
value underestimates the measured values, and this is because according to Shamsai et. al.
(2007), the permeability coefficient was obtained indirectly from Terzaghi’s consolidation
theory which relates the permeability with the oedometric module and the coefficient of

42
consolidation. This approximation can result in massive discrepancies with the calculated
and recalibrated values.

3.4. Final comments

The first approach made with the information provided by the IGME institute delivered
permeability values from the 21 samples. These samples are based on triaxial tests CD by
constant head. The evaluation of Equation 7 and equation 9 proposed by Chapuis &
Aubertin (2003), calculated and calculated-corrected values were obtained and evaluated
in Figure 26. This first evaluation of both equations produced a fairly good approximation
between the measured values with the calculated values.
This first evaluation of equation 9 suggests that a recalibration can be performed in order
to obtain more precise values. In fact, the new recalibrated data showed a better approach
to the equality line from the IGME data compared to Equation 9. Both Equations 9 and 10
were used to evaluate independent information obtained by the previously reviewed
studies. However, the new recalibration did not yield an improvement of predicted
permeabilities. Moreover, Equation 9 had a better performance when it was evaluated with
the independent data, meanwhile, the recalibrated values departed from the equality line.
But if it is observed, the predicted permeability values are in the expected range. Some
values may be over or underestimated by one magnitude in some of the cases, but most of
the values are very close to the measured values. Table 14 presents a statistical summary
of the measured, corrected (Eq. 9), and recalibrated (Eq.10) permeability coefficient
values when the finer fraction is <35%.
Predicted
Percentage of Predicted
Measured Corrected
fines Recalibrated
Eq. 9
% m/s m/s m/s
Average 86.94 2.06E-06 2.09E-06 8.69E-06
Min 39.87 1.50E-08 1.17E-08 1.38E-08
Mean 96.53 2.40E-07 1.24E-07 2.21E-07
Max 100.00 2.10E-05 2.70E-05 1.25E-04
RI 1.84 1.89
RD 2.21 6.60

Table 14. A summary of the measured, predicted-corrected, and recalibrated permeability values for fines
fraction.

The average measured and calculated (Eq. 9) values or permeability is between k=2x10-6
- 8x10-6 m/s with an average fines content of 86%. The ranking distance (RD) and ranking
index (RI) present more accurate and precise information concerning the measured values
for Equation (9) than Equation (10). Table 15 presents the permeability values when the
finer fraction is >35% according to the USCS

43
 Predicted
Percentage of Predicted
Measured Corrected
fines Recalibrated
Eq. 9
% m/s m/s m/s
Average 25.18 9.75E-05 1.82E-05 8.31E-05
Min 11.47 1.00E-06 3.98E-06 1.31E-05
Mean 26.62 5.44E-05 1.48E-05 6.16E-05
Max 34.22 3.84E-04 5.68E-05 3.00E-04
RI 3.03 2.96
RD 20.99 112.05

Table 15. A summary of the measured, predicted-corrected, and recalibrated permeability values for the
coarse fraction.

The average permeability coefficients for the sand fraction are between k=2x10-5 m/s to
almost k=9x10-5 m/s with an average sand fraction content of 25%. The ranking index
(RI) and ranking distance (RD) present a notorious discrepancy between both values;
hence the predicted permeabilities from Equation 9 present more precise or accurate
information than the recalibrated values. Nevertheless, statistical information varies
slightly between the methods. An important conclusion that can be made from Table 16
is that the fine fraction has a big influence over the values of permeability, even with low
percentages of silt and especially clay, significantly reduce the values of permeability.
The evaluation of the permeability coefficient is mainly to understand the hydraulic nature
of tailing deposits, however, there are a few important pieces of information that must be
taken into consideration. Vick (1990) emphasizes some important facts about the behavior
of the permeability coefficient in tailing deposits. First of all, for this study tailings
deposits are considered homogeneous in the whole composition, however, for hydraulic
filled tailings this is not true when the material is deposited. Tailings tend to create a
layered nature during deposition, therefore, there is a high anisotropy in the tailing matrix,
affecting both vertical and horizontal permeability, presenting ratios kh/kv from 2 to 10 in
uniform slimes beaches. Another important factor is the distance of discharge which
creates specific permeability zones as seen in Figure 33.

Figure. 33. Permeability variation during discharge. (Vick, 1990).

44
Wide variation of permeability is due to the wide range of particle size, a low pulp density
during deposition, and the spacing between spigots during deposition (preferable closer
spigots to minimize the slimes layers near the beach). (Vick, 1990)

Although these are important considerations, it can be observed that the permeability
values of the whole tailings sample (studies and compiled data) present a decent
approximation between measured, predicted, and recalibrated values. The Equations (7)
and (9) presented by Chapuis & Aubertin (2003) based on the Kozeny-Carman equation
and the recalibration (Equation 10) offers interesting results that can be extended with an
extended sample with more representative and controlled values. It must be emphasized
that the equations had been tested assuming a homogenized tailing, and in most of the
cases, tailings impoundments are highly heterogeneous. Still, Equation (9) and Equation
(10) present good results to evaluate the permeability even for tailing deposits. What is
certain is that tailings deposits present fairly low permeabilities in all cases, therefore,
tailings improvement method will depend mostly on this parameter.

45
 4. Ground treatment methods for tailings dams
Over the years, ground improvement methods have been developed to solve geotechnical
problems during design and construction. Usually, this ground improvement can be
understood as the modification to both physical and mechanical properties, in order to
obtain a more enhanced and safe permanent solution. There are many soil improvement
techniques with applications in aspects such as drainage, densification, cementation,
reinforcement, drying, and heating/freezing. However, for this investigation, we will focus
only on those techniques that might be suitable for the treatment of tailing dams created
through hydraulic fill placement. Deposits formed by pre-conditioned materials, such as
paste, and filtered tailings are therefore out of scope.

4.1. Densification
4.1.1. Vibro-compaction
This method (also known as vibro-flotation) consists of the densification of the ground
from a vibrating probe that is inserted into the ground. Once the probe reaches the desired
depth, the probe will immediately perform rotation and vibrations while being displaced
in the upwards direction. Through the process, the treated material will be densified, thus
major volume loss will happen. To remediate this settlement produced by densification,
sand is added as the probe is withdrawn towards the surface. This method can be observed
in Figure 34.

Figure. 34. Vibro compaction operation sequence. (Kirsch & Bell, 2013).

This method is commonly used to increase the bearing capacity of foundations, reduce the
settlement, and prevent liquefaction failure. The method applies to sands below the water
table (complete saturation) even though it can be used also for unsaturated conditions,
however, the efficiency of the improvement will be compromised. By using this method,
the relative density of the sand will improve significantly, typically reaching values of up
to 70% to 80%. Special care must be made in the spacing between treatment points to
achieve good coverage.
One of the main parameters that control the efficiency of this method is the predominant
particle size. Coarser materials with permeability values higher than 10-2 m/s are excellent

46
materials for densification, however, they tend to present issues when the probe is inserted
in the soil due to friction. On the other hand, silty and clayey materials, which present
lower permeabilities (<10-5 m/s), the effectiveness of the method is reduced remarkably
due to the percentage of fine particles, thus, it must be reduced to less than 5% to obtain
the best performance. (Kirsch & Bell, 2013)
From the previously presented data compilation from the IGME institute, several
gradation curves are plotted in Figure 35, including the limit range to apply the vibro-
compaction or vibro-displacement technique.

100
90
Vibro-displacement
80
Percentage passing (%)

70
60
50 Vibro-flotation

40
30
20
10
0
10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
Particle size (mm)

Figure. 35. Gradation curves from IGME tailings information based on Uhlig C.A. (2015)
(Uhlig, 2015)
In Figure 35, green lines correspond to a coarser predominant fraction (with a small but
relevant content of fines) meanwhile the blue lines represent a fine fraction such as silt
and clays. For the green lines, the vibro-flotation technique may be applicable, however,
the fines fraction is higher than 5% as commented earlier, thus this method may not present
effective results. On the other hand, for the blue lines, the vibro-displacement method
could be applied in order to obtain an improved material. This method may prove useful
for vibro-displacement technique due to the high fines content even in the coarser fraction,
but vibro-flotation might not be suitable unless is properly tested in the field.

4.1.2. Vibro-replacement (Stone columns)

This method uses the same idea as the vibro-compaction, but, as the name suggests,
coarse-grained material (i.e., gravel) is now added, creating a new densified stone column
as presented in Figure 36. This new stone column will not only provide higher load-
bearing capacity and shear strength but also reduce the time for consolidation and effective
pore water dissipation under rapidly applied loads. (Kirsch & Bell, 2013)

47
 Figure. 36. Vibro replacement method sequence. (Nicholson, 2015)

This method is employed for shallow foundations or slope stability, and it can be either
used in clean sands or silty/clayey soils since the stone columns can act as a drainage path
for the dissipation of pore pressure. Stone columns are successfully used to avoid
liquefaction failure and, interestingly it has been observed that liquefaction susceptibility
is actually increased in the area adjacent to the treatment as presented in Figure 37.

Figure. 37. Limitation of vibroreplacement method. (Kirsch & Bell, 2013).

4.1.3. Dynamic compaction

The dynamic compaction (DC) involves the main principle of dropping a heavyweight at
a specific height to the ground, therefore the transmitted energy from the impact will
produce higher densification of the soil. The heavyweights are usually made from steel or
concrete and usually, their weights oscillate from 10 tons to almost 50 tons (exceptional
cases 170 tons in France) in the United States and the United Kingdom. The transmitted
energy from impact depends on weight but also on height to obtain higher densification,
thus heights may oscillate from 10 to almost 40 meters of free fall. The depth of the
improvement will depend on the mentioned variables, therefore effective depth is typically
from 1/2 to 2/3. (Kirsch & Bell, 2013). The dynamic compaction process can be observed
in Figure 38.

48
 Figure. 38. Operation sequence of DC method. (Nicholson, 2015).

The main objective of this method is to improve the strength and compressibility
characteristics of the treated soil, hence reduce settlements by creating a uniform densified
grid of soil. The DC method works best in well-drained high permeability soils preferably
with low saturation. For silty soils, this method must be carried with caution (including
piezometers for monitoring) since excess pore water pressure excess can develop failure;
in saturated clays, this method is not convenient to perform (Nicholson, 2015)
Plewes et. al. (2010) presented a study of dynamic compaction applied in the foundations
of two tailing deposits. The first improvement was performed to control settlement in a
waste rock dump foundation for a processing plant meanwhile the second improvement
was developed at the toe of an existing embankment to prevent seismic liquefaction. In
both cases, the dynamic compaction was successful to reduce/prevent settlements and
liquefaction especially for the foundations of an existing tailing deposit facility. (Plewes
et. al., 2010). (Plewes, Chambers, Friedel, Jibiki, & Sy, 2010)

4.1.4. Applicability
Densification methods can be very useful when it comes to improving physical and
mechanical properties of tailings. Is important to remember that tailings can present a
predominant coarser fraction like sands or on the other hand slimes, which is a
composition of fines such as silt and clay. Therefore, this method will depend on the
percentage of fines content, especially for vibro-compaction and dynamic compaction.

If the cycloned process is performed in tailings deposit, then the coarser material will be
deposited near the embankment, leaving almost no fines presence, therefore, vibro-
compaction may be achieved. However, over time due to decantation, layers of fines can
be deposited, thus vibro-compaction may be affected. Furthermore, dynamic compaction
may not be suited for tailings deposit since finer particles like silts and occasionally clays
could develop an undrained failure when the weight impacts the deposit, nevertheless, this
method can present good results when is applied either in the foundations of the storage
facility or improvements in locations nearby the TSF. On the other hand, vibro-

49
replacement could be a great improvement for tailings since a coarser material is
deposited, therefore, consolidation process can be achieved rapidly by obtaining a stiffer
material.
4.2. Consolidation
4.2.1. Preloading (with and without vertical drains)
Preloading is one of the most used methods for the improvement of silty and soft clayey
soils. This method relies on consolidating the ground by placing a designed load
(embankments, temporary water tanks, etc), and therefore reduce settlements, dissipate
pore water excess over time and increase the effective stress in soil.

This method is mainly used to improve the foundations of buildings, embankments,

highways, runways, etc. However, when the time of consolidation is not sufficient during
construction, vertical drains may be installed to shorten the time for consolidation,
therefore, the primary consolidation can be achieved more rapidly. Vertical drains are
often used in any type of soft soil (Figure 39); nevertheless, more remarkable effects can
be observed in inorganic clays and silts with little secondary compression. (Mitchell,
1981)

Figure. 39. Example of preloading with vertical drains. (Nicholson, 2015)

4.2.2. Applicability
Preloading, by itself, is not easily adaptable for tailing remediation since the construction
of a tailings dam implies a continuous increase of earth load, and -if remediation is needed-
it means that adding extra load would not be desirable. On the other hand, the installation
of vertical drains to accelerate the consolidation process, particularly of slimes may be
useful.
Sale-Mbemba et. al. (2019) tested waste rock inclusion during the deposition of a tailings
impoundment as presented in Figure 40. This improvement is based on the installation of
coarse rock (with a permeability coefficient between 10-3 m/s and 10-5 m/s) constructed
previously and during the deposition of waste material. According to this study, tailing
waste contained more than 80% of fines with a hydraulic conductivity between 10-6 m/s
and 10-7 m/s and the interaction between both materials was studied to obtain an analytic
solution with the waste rock inclusion. Results were promising thus the construction of
50
coarser material along the tailings impoundment, to improve the consolidation behavior
and pore pressure dissipation of tailings deposits have been proven successful. (Saleh-
Mbemba, Aubertin, & Boudrias, 2019)

Figure. 40. Waste rock inclusion for a tailing deposit. (Saleh-Mbemba, Aubertin, & Boudrias, 2019)

4.3. Chemical treatments

4.3.1. Soil mixing
Chemical products are nowadays used to mix them with the ground in situ to improve
their physical and mechanical properties. The soil mixing method uses binders that
chemically react with the groundwater in the soil, to obtain higher strengths, lower
permeabilities, and lower compressibility. Usually, these used binders are mostly cement,
limes, blast-furnace slag, gypsum, ashes, etc. (Kirsch & Bell, 2013) The process of this
method is to use a mixing tool capable of injecting the product at the tip and
simultaneously rotate to blend both binder and soil material as presented in Figure 41.
(Nicholson, 2015).

Figure. 41. In-situ soil mixing method. (Nicholson, 2015)

51
This method can be subdivided into two categories: deep mixing method (DMM) and
shallow mixing method (SMM) and has the same idea with the difference of the depth of
improvement. Both methods have shown good performances in mostly all types of soils,
like soft clays, silts, and fine-grained sands. Organic soils such as peat and sludges are
also possible but more difficult and require designed binders and precise procedures.
Binders used to mix with the soil can be injected in dry slurry conditions. (Kirsch & Bell,
2013).

Masengo et. al (2019) reported the use of the DSM (Deep soil mixing) method directly
applied to an upstream tailing deposit to evaluate the possible raising of a new
embankment from 242 m to almost 246 m of height in two phases as seen in Figure 42.
The TSF geotechnical characteristics described a non-plastic material composed of sand
and mainly silts with water content between 36% and 64%. The soil mixing method was
executed with the dry mixing method which consists of mixing the tailing material with
dry binder directly in situ. This procedure is performed so groundwater and soil moisture
can react with the dry chemical, in this case, Portland cement and sulfate resistant cement
was used.

Figure. 42. Illustration of the TSF improvement by DSM method.

For the DSM procedure, it was considered a column diameter of 0.7 m and a column
spacing of 1.2 m. The performance of the DSM method was evaluated by using the CPTu
test and Vane test to observe the improvement in undrained shear strength, hence, the
result of this method did produce good outcomes by obtaining a stiffer material
Nevertheless, the authors mentioned some issues with the reached strengths because of
the lower temperatures in surface and the high concentration of sulfates in the TSF.
(Masengo et. al., 2019) (Masengo, y otros, 2019)
4.3.2. Grouting
Grouting consists basically of the insertion of material to fill either crack, fissures, or voids
in the natural soil. This material employed in grouting is fluid slurries. There are three
main modes of injection, as presented in Figure 43: permeation, which is when the grouted
product fills soil pores with no volume change; displacement grouting where a stiff
mixture fills the voids and expands, compressing their surroundings; finally, encapsulation

52
where high-pressure grout is inserted, fracturing the ground structure forming a card house
form. (Mitchell, 1981)

Figure. 43. Grouting methods. (Mitchell, 1981)

There are two types of materials used for grouting injection, particulate grouts, and
chemical grouts. Particulate grouts are suspensions, typically of neat cement or soil
cement with marked variations in water-cement ratios. Low water: cement ratios would
produce less segregation and filtering with higher strength; however, the less water is used,
the more viscous will be the mixture, and the harder it to inject into the soil. Particulate
grouts have a limited reach in terms of permeability with partial use for permeation,
though micro-cement, which is the same component with a finer particle can be a more
attractive alternative to reach finer soils without breaking the soil structure. On the other
hand, chemical grouts, which are essentially solutions, have the advantage to penetrate
finer soils than particulate grouts as they have lower viscosity. The injected product reacts
in the ground to rapidly gain strength. Costs and potential toxicity are major disadvantages
of chemical grouts. Common chemical grouts are silicates, lignans, resins, acrylamides,
and urethanes (Figure 44). (Mitchell, 1981).

53
 Figure. 44. Range of particulate and chemical grouting for different types of particle sizes from MBCC
Group.

4.3.3. Applicability
Chemical procedures may be perhaps the most convenient method for tailings treatment.
Deep soil mixing can be the most adequate procedure with dry admixtures since tailings
are fully saturated, thus more representative combinations can be acquired. However, this
method is performed in the whole depth, hence large quantities of admixture shall be
mixed making it a huge investment.
On the other hand, grout injections present a more promising process since the injected
improvement can either increase strength, reduce permeability, and mitigate failure in the
grouted section. Permeation, displacement, or encapsulation (fracture) methods are used
depending on the desired improvement. For tailing deposits, the permeation method may
present better suitability since the grouting improvement can reach lower permeabilities
without affecting the tailing structure (such as displacement or fracture), enhancing
strength, and controlling flow by reducing the permeability. Consequently, the permeation
method shall be analyzed as a ground improvement for tailings deposits.

54
 5. Permeation grouting method for tailing deposits.
5.1. Grout properties and design method for permeation grouting
materials
5.1.1. Permeation grout materials and properties
Permeation grouting is often used in cohesionless soils such as sands and silts. As
presented earlier, this grouting process pressurizes a slurry into the soil matrix, filling
almost all of the voids. Three main categories of grout material are employed in
permeation, including suspensions of cementitious mixes, colloidal solutions based on
sodium silicate, and finally pure solutions such as resins, acrylics, lignosulfites, and
phenoplasts as the injected material.

Mostly these products are mainly characterized by different properties, but the main ones
are penetrability, strength, and setting time.

• Penetrability

Permeation of suspensions is typically evaluated using a groutability ratio. This parameter

evaluates the ability of the suspension grouting material to enter or penetrate the ground
voids, creating a modified and improved soil. For suspensions, the groutability ratio
depends mainly on the soil and grout particle size. Portland cement and pozzolanic
materials (such as pozzolanic fly ash, silica fume, rice husk ash, etc.) (Chung, 2017) are
the most common types of binders used for grouting.

Microfine cement, with a nominal maximum grain size particle of dmax= 10 m and a
Blaine specific surface over 800 m2/Kg is the one more likely to permeate finer structures.
The viscosity of the microfine grout depends directly on its water/cement ratio (W/C).
Suspensions with W/C>3 would produce large bleeding, long setting times, and low
strengths, on the other hand, W/C<1 would result in higher viscosities making it almost
impossible for field applicability; W/C=1 enhanced with superplasticizers can improve
apparent viscosity with little variation in setting times. (Markou et. al., 2018). Normally
W/C ratios for ordinary Portland cement are usually between 0.8 to 1.5, meanwhile for
microfine cement W/C round between 1.1 to 2.0. (Kirsch & Bell, 2013) (Markou &
Litsiou, 2019) (Markou, Christodoulou, Petala, & Atmatzidis, 2018)

Markou & Litsiou (2019), reviewed several groutability criteria from various authors and
their conclusions determined that most of the criteria were mostly unsuccessful, except
for the criteria proposed by Miltiadou & Tassios (2013) (equation 10) and Krizek et. al.
(1992) (equation 11) which had good performances. Therefore, the groutability criteria of
both studies are presented below. (Miltiadou & Tassios, 2013) (Krizek, Liao, & Borden,
1992)
(𝑑15 )𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 (𝑑10 )𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 (11)
𝑁1 = ; 𝑁2 = ; 𝑁1 > 15 & 𝑁2 > 8
(𝑑85 )𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡 (𝑑95 )𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡

55
 0.15 ∙ (𝑑15 )𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 0.15 ∙ (𝑑15 )𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 (12)
𝑁5 ≈ ; 𝑁6 ≈ ; 𝑁5 > 5 & 𝑁6 > 2
(𝑑85 )𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡 (𝑑99 )𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡

For equations (11) and (12), soil grain sizes and grout grain sizes are represented with “d”.
A strong limitation of these groutability criteria is that they do not consider the effects of
grout viscosity either directly or indirectly through the W/C ratio.

Solutions such as colloidal silica and pure chemical solutions like acrylics, lignosulfites,
and phenoplasts present lower viscosities than suspension mixes, however, most of the
chemical solutions present high toxicity, thus their use must be justified. The dynamic
viscosity varies on the concentration of percentage of solids, therefore, lower viscosity
values can be achieved by significantly lowering the percentage of solids, however, this
will impact the strength of the solidified grout. This variation is observed in Figure 45.

Figure. 45. The viscosity of chemical products according to percentage of solids. Heavy lines describe the
concentrations used in the field. (Karol, 2003)

According to Karol (2003), a conservative criterion for chemical grout penetrability is

based on soil permeability, in which grouts with viscosities lower than 2 cP (1 cP=0.001
Pa s) can be pumped easily in permeabilities as low as k=1x10-6 m/s. Chromelignins and
phenoplasts may be easily injected for permeabilities nearly to k=1x10-5 m/s with a
viscosity of 5 cP, while for silicate-based solutions at 10 cP, soils with permeabilities less
than k=1x10-4 m/s might not be penetrable. The relationship between viscosity and
permeability is presented in Figure 46. (Karol, 2003)

56
 Figure. 46. Limits of injectability of various grouts in terms of permeability. (Thorburn & Littlejohn,
1993)

• Strength

Grout strength will depend mainly on the type of material used for the grouting injection.
Cement grouts usually provide very high strengths compared to chemical grouts.
However, indifferent to the type of material used to provide stability to the soil structure
and groundwater control. When the product is injected, the grout binds with the soil grain
creating a thin film that is resistant to relative motion. This binding is most likely to be a
cohesion and it depends on the type of applied chemical. (Thorburn & Littlejohn, 1993).

What is certain is that grout injections tend to improve their strength over time and also
improve groundwater control. For example, for cementitious grouts, as is commonly
known, full strength is gained mostly over 28 days. Colloidal silica is also time-dependent,
for example, Butron (2005) reported higher strengths were obtained over 100 days,
nevertheless, brittle behavior is reported at the initial 20 days since mixing.

Spagnoli et. al (2021) performed unconfined compressive strength (UCS) tests for
colloidal silica (CS), micro-cement, and geopolymer in clean sands with a permeability
coefficient of k=7.67x10-4 m/s. For micro-cement, UCS values reached almost 14000 kPa
at 28 days with a W/C ratio of 1:1. For colloidal silica (CS), UCS values reached 337 kPa
at 28 days. The strength of colloidal silica is proportional to the concentration or
percentage of solids of the additive as presented in Figure 47, thus, to obtain higher
strengths, more percentage concentration of solids must be applied into the ground.
(Mingzhi et. al., 2019). This variation of the concentration will also have an impact on the
viscosity of the product as seen earlier, and thus on the penetrability of the product in
lower permeabilities. (Mingzhi, Gang, Chong, Wenbo, & Qiang, 2019) (Spagnoli, y otros,
2021) (Butron, 2005)

57
 450

Unconfined compresive strength (kPa)

400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Percentage of solids (%)

Figure. 47. Variation of the UCS with the percentage of solids for the colloidal silica. (Mingzhi et. al.,
2019).

However, once the material is injected into the ground, chemical components either from
the soil or the water may deteriorate the grout structure, compromising the integrity and
strength of the solidified grout. For cement grouts, aggressive soil components or
groundwater can attack and deteriorate substantially grout strength. The main chemical
components are soluble chlorides, carbonates, pyrite, hydrogen sulfide, phosphates,
among others. (Boyd & Skalny, 2007). Same problem for silicate solutions which are
proven to be effective when a strong alkali environment is present (pH>11). In fact, tailing
deposits might contain aggressive agents either produced from the leaching process of the
waste or the ore components that might react with the groundwater and damage the grout
structure. Either way, this scope of the effect of chemical agents on the grout materials
must be studied furthermore.

• Setting time

The time between the initial mixing injection and the formation and solidification of a
specific grout is called setting time. Grout materials vary from time to set, for example,
cement grouts are usually manufactured to set after 4 to 5 hours, if no other additives were
added. On the other hand, setting in chemical grouts usually occurs suddenly since is a
product of an exothermic reaction. (Cambefort, 1977)

During grout injection, the viscosity of all injection are time-dependent, thus the
solidification of the mix increases as the product reacts. Thus, the ability to penetrate the
soil reduces in time, as the reaction takes place. This effect can be observed in Figure 48
and Figure 49.

58
 Figure. 48. Variation viscosity and penetration length of colloidal solution over time. (Funehag, 2012).

140
120
Viscosity (cP/10)

100
80
60
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time after mixing (min)

Figure. 49. Setting time for colloidal silica. Tested and owned by MBCC Group.

According to Karol (2003), for chemical grouts after catalyzation, the viscosity remains
constant until the injection is finished, few moments later the mix becomes solid. This
grout behavior is desired during injection, however sometimes other grouts tend to not
maintain constant viscosity, thus grout pumping may not be possible.

5.1.2. Design method for permeation grouting injections.

Han (2015) presents some equations to help design permeation grouting. It is assumed that
the grout is a Newtonian fluid, injected from the soil surface to the treated depth within a
saturated, uniform isotropic soil to create a spherical improvement in the ground. The
model of injection is based on Figure 50.

59
 Figure. 50. Geometric sketch of grout injection design. (Han, 2015)

Where hmax is the height from the grout to the injection point, hw is the height of the water
table to the injection point. R is the radius of the grout injection, r0 is the injection source
radius and r is the advancing grout through the porous media. The parameter r0 is
sometimes difficult to understand, hence, a sketch is presented in Figure 51.

Figure. 51. Sketch of the injection source radius. Obtained from Hislam (2010) and modified.

During the injection, the advancing grout is assumed to be spherical, thus by assuming a
radius R, the injected grout volume can be estimated using the following equation.
4 3 (13)
𝑉𝑔 = 𝜋𝑅 𝑛𝑝
3

60
R is represented as the injected grout radius per pass and np is the soil porosity. To
penetrate the ground voids, the grout requires a hydraulic head which can be obtained as
follows.
𝑄𝑔 1 1 1 (14)
Δℎ𝑤 = [𝛽𝑔 ( + )+ ]
4𝜋𝑘 0.5√𝐿𝑑 𝑅 𝑅

Where Qg (m3/s) is the rate of grout injection, k (m/s) as the soil permeability, g a grout
to water viscosity ratio, r0 is defined as the ratio between the length of the probe (L) and
diameter of the probe (d) of the injection source and it can be obtained by the following
equation.

𝐿𝑑 0.5 (15)
𝑟0 = ( )
4
Rod lengths are usually between 300 mm and 1000 mm meanwhile 45 mm to 54 mm of
diameter are found in the rod injection source, hence, r0 values oscillate between 58 mm
and 116 mm. (Hislam, 2010). Furthermore, the required grout pressure at the injection
point is presented as follows.
𝑝𝑔 = 𝛾𝑤 (ℎ𝑤 + Δℎ𝑤 ) − 𝛾𝑔 ℎ𝑔𝑝 (16)

The unit weight of water and grout is represented with w and g, hw is the height from the
water table to the injection point and hgp is the height of the grout to the injection point.

During the injection, the grout radius increases over time, thus the time of grout
penetration through the porous media can also be obtained as follows.
𝑛𝑝 𝑟 2 𝛽𝑔 𝑅 3 𝛽𝑔 − 1 𝑅 2 (17)
𝑡= [ ( 3 − 1) − ( 2 − 1)]
𝑘Δℎ𝑤 3 𝑟0 2 𝑟0

Where np is the porosity of the soil and r is the advancing radius created by the grout. Han
J. (2015) recommends that the fines content shall be less than 15%, else, grout injection
times may take much longer. Nevertheless, equation (17) can be simplified by neglecting
the whole second term in brackets. This modification according to Hislam (2010) is
performed since r0 is smaller than R, therefore the equation can be rewritten as follows:
(Hislam, 2010)
𝑛𝑝 𝑟 2 (18)
𝑡=
3𝑘Δℎ𝑤

Since cementitious grouts (which are Bingham fluids) require higher grout pressures, an
allowable maximum grout pressure must be calculated to avoid a ground lift. Therefore,
the allowable grout pressure (kPa) may be obtained as follows.

𝑝𝑔𝑎 = 100 (𝛼𝑝 𝑝 + 𝐶𝑔𝑠 𝛽𝑔𝑚 𝜆𝑆𝐶 𝑧) (19)

Where p is a surcharge factor that varies between 1 and 3, p is defined as a surface

surcharge (kPa), Cgs is a grouting sequence factor (1 for primary grouting, 1.25 for

61
secondary, and 1.5 for tertiary grouting), gm is grouting sequence factor, 0.8 for
downstage and 0.6 for upstage, SC is a soil characteristic factor where 0.5 are for
permeable soils (sands) and 1.5 for less permeable soils (dense sand, medium silts), and
finally, z (m) which is the depth of the injection point from the ground surface.

Finally, the spacing between grouting improvements can be calculated based on the grout
penetration radius. In the field, grout holes can be arranged in a row pattern as a
convenience. Therefore, the spacing between injections is defined as.
(20)
𝑠2 𝑏2
𝑏 = 2√𝑅 2 − 𝑜𝑟 𝑠 = 2√𝑅 2 −
4 4

Figure. 52. Spacing between injections, either for s or b. (Han, 2015)

According to Han (2015) typical grout spacing holes for various soils within 25 m. depths
are: for fine sands 0.8 to 1.3 m, coarse sand and gravels 1.0 to 2.0 m, predominant gravels
from 2 to 4 m.

5.2. Applicability of permeation methods for tailings deposits

For this section ultra-micro cement MC900 and two types of colloidal silica (referred to
as CS) (MP320 and MP325) are evaluated by the design parameters presented in the
previous section. The geometric configuration of the radius of the injection is assumed to
be 0.40 m meanwhile for the rod length and diameter are assumed 0.5 m and 0.045 m. The
flow rate assumed for the design is 0.06 m3/h and the maximum pressure is 1000 kPa (10
Bar).

The main soil properties to use in the design are the average permeability coefficient k
between the measured, Eq.9 values and Eq. 10 values obtained in the previous section, the
tailings porosity, and the effective grain size d15 and d10 from the IGME gradation curves
of random sandy grain tailings and slimes.

The properties of the grout are the dynamic viscosity and unit weight for the colloidal
silica meanwhile for the ultrafine micro cement the effective grain size d85, d95, and d99,
unit weight and dynamic viscosity. These values are presented in Table 16.

62
 MC900 MP320 MP325
Dynamic
cP 43.9 16.0 5.0
viscosity
Unit weight kN/m3 22.0 13.0 10.8

Table 16. Physical properties of the selected products

Groutability by MC900 ultrafine micro-cement.

For the ultrafine micro cement, the groutability ratio must be obtained to observe if the
grout can enter into the tailing voids. Thus, the effective grain size of soil is presented in
Table 17 and the grain size of the grout in Table 18.

Tailings Values Units

Fine sands Slimes
Permeability k 6.63E-05 4.28E-06 m/s
Grain size d15 0.0290 0.0011 mm
Grain size d10 0.0079 5.00E-04 mm

Table 17. Grain size values according to permeability coefficient.

Grout MC900 Values Units

Grain size d85 0.007 mm
Grain size d95 0.015 mm
Grain size d99 0.020 mm

Table 18. Effective grain size of grout MC900. (Markou & Litsiou, 2019)

In Table 19, the groutability coefficients for the ultrafine micro cement do not fulfill the
criteria since the effective particle size of tailings is very small, hence the effective particle
of the cement would not be able to enter into the tailings structure.
MC900
Fine sands Slimes
Permeability 6.63E-05 4.28E-06
N1>15 4.46 0.17
N2>8 0.53 0.03

N5>5 0.67 0.03

N6>2 0.22 0.01

Table 19. Groutability coefficients for MC900

In contrast, according to Figure 53, colloidal silica presents a much finer structure capable
of penetrating the tailing voids.

63
 Figure. 53. Grain size comparison between various types of products. (BASF Corporation, 2015)

The size of the colloidal silica (CS) particle is almost 0.015 mm while the lowest value of
tailings grain size (d10) found in Table 18 is almost 0.0005 mm. This may indicate that
colloidal silica MP320 and MP325 could penetrate very low permeabilities. Still, this
assumption must be corroborated in the laboratory to confirm, however, it will be assumed
to be true that colloidal silica penetrates lower permeabilities.

The groutability of the ultrafine micro-cement must be tested before in the laboratory to
corroborate the values of the coefficients and observe if the grout injection is capable or
not to penetrate lower permeabilities. Meanwhile, these coefficient values will be assumed
to be true, hence ultrafine micro-cement will not be considered in further calculations.

Required Hydraulic Head and Allowable Grout Pressure

The required hydraulic head is considered as the needed pressure to help the grout
penetrate the soil structure. Table 20 and Table 21 present the parameters used to obtain
the hydraulic head.
CS MP320
IGME Tailings
Soil Fine sands Slimes
Permeability k m/s 6.63E-05 4.28E-06
Grout viscosity grout cP 16.0 16.0
Grout/water
g 16.0 16.0
viscosity ratio
Cylindrical injection
r0 m 0.0750 0.0750
source
Radius R m 0.40 0.40
Flow rate Qg m3/s 1.67E-05 1.67E-05
Injection pressure
head hw m 5.12 79.34

Table 20. Required hydraulic head for the CS MP320.

64
 MP325
IGME Tailings
Soil Fine sands Slimes
Permeability k m/s 6.63E-05 4.28E-06
Grout viscosity grout cP 5.0 5.0
Grout/water
g 5.0 5.0
viscosity ratio
Cylindrical injection
source
r0 m 0.0750 0.0750
Radius R m 0.40 0.40
Flow rate Qg m3/s 1.67E-05 1.67E-05
Injection pressure
head hw m 1.63 25.33

Table 21. Required hydraulic head for the CS MP325

The value of the hydraulic head is needed to obtain the required grout pressure and
compare it with the allowable pressure. Figure 54 is present an assumed geometry to
evaluate the grout pressure.

Figure. 54. Assumed geometry to obtain the required grout pressure.

Figure 54 assumes a horizontal geometry with a unique layer of tailings and a stationary
water table (no flow). To obtain the allowable grout pressure, it is assumed a surcharge
factor (p) of 1; since it is considered a nonoperational TSF, thus no surcharge (p) is
considered. The grouting sequence factor (Cgs) is 1.0 since it is considered as primary
grouting; the grouting method factor (gm) of 0.8 for downstage method and the soil
characteristic factor (sc) of 1 for mid-low permeability. Therefore, the required grout
pressure and the allowable pressure to inject colloidal silica products are presented in
Table 22.

65
 Allowable Grout Allowable
Required Grout Pressure
Pressure >
Depth MP320 MP325 P Required
m kPa kPa kPa MP320 MP325
2 774 241 160 N/A N/A
4 768 239 320 N/A Ok
6 762 238 480 N/A Ok
8 756 236 640 N/A Ok
10 750 235 800 Ok Ok
12 744 233 960 Ok Ok
14 738 232 1120 Ok Ok
16 732 230 1280 Ok Ok
18 726 228 1440 Ok Ok
20 720 227 1600 Ok Ok

Table 22. Required and allowable grout pressure for the colloidal silica.

For the colloidal silica MP320, ground heave (G/H) or claquage (ground fracturing) will
not occur below 10 meters of depth, meanwhile for MP325 will not occur below 4 meters.
This is due to the physical properties of the grout especially dynamic viscosity ( is
MP320>MP325) and the existing ground confinement throughout the entire depth. (Less
confinement stress at the surface).

Time of grout penetration

To obtain the time of grout penetration is assumed a radius of injection R of 0.40 m and
the maximum pressure of 10 Bar (1000 kPa). Once starts injecting, the grout travel will
travel from r0 ending at 0.40 m. The time is evaluated by equations 17 and 18 to confirm
the obtained values, and permeability coefficients are for fine sand and slimes tailings.
The penetration time is presented in Table 23 and Table 24.

MP320
Fine sands Slimes Fine sands Slimes
Permeability 6.63E-05 4.28E-06 6.63E-05 4.28E-06
Grout travel Time Time
distance (Eq. 18) (Eq. 17)
D (m) T (s) T (s)
0.075 2 24 0 0
0.108 7 71 1 11
0.141 16 158 5 50
0.174 31 298 13 127
0.207 52 501 27 256
0.240 81 782 47 448
0.273 120 1150 74 716
0.306 168 1620 111 1071
0.339 229 2203 159 1527

66
 0.372 303 2910 218 2095
0.405 391 3756 290 2787
Time (min) 6.51 62.60 4.83 46.46

Table 23. Grout time penetration evaluation for MP320 by eq (17) and eq (18) for only one point of
application.

MP325
Fine sands Slimes Fine sands Slimes
Permeability 6.63E-05 4.28E-06 6.63E-05 4.28E-06
Grout travel Time Time
distance (Eq. 18) (Eq. 17)
D (m) T (s) T (s)
0.075 1 7 0 0
0.108 2 22 1 5
0.141 5 50 2 19
0.174 10 93 5 46
0.207 16 157 9 90
0.240 25 244 16 154
0.273 37 359 25 242
0.306 53 506 37 359
0.339 72 688 53 507
0.372 95 910 72 691
0.405 122 1174 95 914
Time (min) 2.03 19.56 1.59 15.24

Table 24. Grout time penetration evaluation for MP325 by eq (17) and eq (18) for only one point of
application.

The first aspect that can be observed in both tables is that both Equation 17 and 18 predict
comparatively similar values of time, thus the influence of the cylindrical injection source
(r0) can be ignored.
Another important aspect is that since the CS MP320 has been assumed more viscous (16
cP) than MP325 (5 cP), MP320 has higher times for penetration especially for
permeabilities under k=1x10-6 m/s with almost an hour of injection. Meanwhile for
MP325, for the same lower permeabilities, will only take almost 20 minutes of injection.
For permeabilities higher than k=1x10-5 m/s, the time of injection will be executed rapidly
for both products. Figure 55 presents the variation of the radial grout travel versus the
time.

67
 0.5
k= 6.63x10-5 m/s|
0.4
Radial grout travel distance D (m)

0.4 MP320
Fine
0.3 Sand
0.3 MP325
Fine
0.2 Sand
MP320
0.2 Slimes

0.1
MP325
0.1 k= 4.28x10-6 m/s Slimes

0.0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Time (min)

Figure. 55. Radial grout travel during the time for a higher and lower permeability

Volume injected and injection distribution.

To evaluate the injected grout volume, the following parameters are taken into
consideration: the porosity of fine sand is 0.55 while for slimes is 0.34; the assumed radius
is 0.40 m. By using equation 13, the injected volume is presented in Table 25.

Injected Volume
Fine sands Slimes
Porosity n - 0.55 0.34
Radius R m 0.40 0.40
Volume Vg m3 0.15 0.09

Table 25. Injected grout volume for fine sands and slime tailings.

5.3. Final comments

Permeation grouting is a promising method to remediate soils with permeability
coefficients as low as k=1x10-6 m/s. This procedure can be acquired with the right products
such as the colloidal silica. The properties of the CS MP320 is resumed as a product with
a high percentage of solids (40%) with low viscosity (16 cP) and decent UCS values of
qu= 337 kPa (according to Spagnoli & Cambridge (2021)) but with very high execution
times (almost 1 hour/per point of injection). On the other hand, CS MP325 presents a low
percentage of solids (almost 5%), with a much lower viscosity than MP320 (5 cP) and
lower execution times but presenting lower strengths than the MP320 (approx. qu=75 kPa).

68
Since each product presents different viscosities, the allowable grout pressure is different
for each one. The injection of CS MP320 can be performed from 10 meters deeper, while
for the CS M325, the injection can be applied from 4 meters deep. These theoretical values
of injection pressure will determine the distribution of the boreholes, therefore it is crucial
to adapt the solution to the project of improvement, in this case, the remediation of a
tailings impoundment.

By contrasting both products (CS MP320 and MP325), it is possible to determine which
product is best suited (geotechnically and economically speaking) to improve hydraulic
filled nonoperational tailing storage facilities.

69
 6. Stabilization of a tailings dam by permeation grouting.
6.1. Case study: Merriespruit tailing dam
The following case of study is inspired by the Merriespruit tailings dam failure in South
Africa, which collapsed producing a breach of approximately 600,000 m3 of gold tailing
waste, causing 17 fatalities and unimaginable destruction of properties and environmental
damage. (Torres Cruz, 2016) (Fourie & Tshabalala, 2005)

The TSF of Merriespruit was initially constructed as an upstream paddock embankment,

with a drain blanket below the starter wall to reduce the phreatic surface. Surface water
was also extracted by embedded penstocks which had the function to deliver back the
decanted water to reuse into the plant. However, this procedure usually led to water storage
on top of the dam. A heavy rainstorm in 1994, produced almost 50 mm of rainfall which
was deposited on top of the tailings creating an overtopping event that invaded all berms
causing significant erosion. This process weakened the deeper slopes, producing failure
and creating new slip surfaces as a domino effect in the whole tailings structure. (Fourie
et. al. 2001). This process can be observed in Figure 56 and Figure 57. (Fourie, Blight, &
Papageorgiou, 2001)

Figure. 56. Retrogressive failure process: 1) Berms overtopping process 2) Lower berms starts an eroding
process 3) Tailings buttress start failure 4) Pool overtopping to the whole embankment and slope erosion
5) Lower slope fails (Fourie, Blight, & Papageorgiou, 2001)

Figure. 57. Retrogressive failure process after overtopping and washed material. (Fourie, Blight, &
Papageorgiou, 2001)

The geomechanical behavior in tailing deposits is a topic more than complex since they
present different characteristics than normal soils. Tailing deposits are conformed by fine
sands, silt, and occasionally in a low percentage, clay particles. The deposition of
hydraulic fills usually produces high particle decantation throughout the entire TSF, thus
the stratum is formed by multiple heterogeneous layers of different particles, creating a

70
very loose composition. This layered deposition creates a very brittle and heterogeneous
material with mid to low permeabilities. This tailings material presents very high ratios of
compressibility, creating a contractive behavior under different load effects such as rapid
application of a loading, loss of confinement, and the rapid rise of the phreatic surface.
This load effects cause an undrained softening response, creating high pore pressures and
consequently high deformation and a substantial loss of undrained shear strength. This
behavior is also known as static liquefaction. (Gens, 2019) However, static liquefaction
phenomena are beyond the scope of this study, hence the geomechanical characterization
will be modeled according to the Mohr-Coulomb criteria, thus only cohesion (c’) and
especially the friction angle (’) are defined according to the work of Fourie and
Tshabalala (2005). These parameters are presented in Table 26.
Merriespruit tailing deposit: Geotechnical parameters
Item Description Parameter Units Value
Tailings
Unit weight n kN/m3 20
Cohesion c' kPa 0
Anisotropic
Friction angle ' ° 24.4
Consolidated
Foundation
Unit weight n kN/m3 20
Cohesion c' kPa 40
Friction angle ' ° 40

Table 26. Geotechnical parameters for the safety factor analysis obtained from Fourie and Tshabalala
(2005) and Torrez Cruz (2016)

For the Merriespruit tailing deposit, Fourie and Tshabalala (2005) found that the internal
friction angle was nearly 24° for the peak shear strength obtained from the collapse line
after performing several laboratory tests. Also, during the investigation, they determined
that this tailing deposit is cohesionless (c’= 0 kPa).
On the other hand, Torrez Cruz (2016) presented cohesion and friction angle values for
the tailings foundations (c’=40 kPa and ’=40°). The author also states that the cohesion
and friction angle was obtained from an engineering firm that evaluated previously the
Merriespruit dam, thus these values are unknown to be either measured or assumed.
Despite this information, these values will be considered true.
Fourie and Tshabalala (2005) presented an approximate geometry of the Merriespruit
tailing dam previous failure presented in Figure 58. (Torres Cruz, 2016)

71
 Figure. 58 Merriespruit tailing dam previous failure. (Fourie and Tshabalala, 2005)

This geometry will be used to perform a new safety factor analysis in the program SLIDE2
from Rocscience. Once obtained the critical slip surface, a permeation injection
improvement is proposed with the colloidal silica products (MP320 and MP325) and then
reevaluate the safety factor and observe their results. Finally, it will be discussed the total
cost of the improvement of a tailing deposit.

6.2. Limit equilibrium analysis

6.2.1. Merriespruit tailing dam prior to failure

When the Merriespruit dam failed, the first created slip surface was produced nearly on
the toe of the dam as presented in Figure 55. Once the structure collapsed, deep slip
surfaces failed and produced massive failure and large displaced material, therefore, the
analysis will be focused on deep slip surfaces. By using the Bishop and the Morgenstern-
Price (GLE) method, along with the friction angle (’) obtained from Fourie & Tshabalala
(2005), the safety factor (SF) is then presented in Figure 59 and Table 27: (Fourie &
Tshabalala, 2005)

Figure. 59 Safety factor analysis with Bishop method (a) and GLE (b).

72
 Safety Factor
' (AC)
Method 24.4°
Bishop 1.02
GLE
1.03
M. Price

Table 27. Obtained safety factor values from both friction angles

A deep slip surface is obtained through the analysis, hence, the radius of the surface is
nearly 120 m. This critical surface will be considered as characteristic, hence the zones
improved with the colloidal silica will be disposed alongside the identified circle failure.

Figure. 60. Geometrical configuration of the slip surface.

6.2.2. Permeation treatment method proposal

To perform grout penetration in tailing deposits, TAM (tube à manchete) grouting pipes
are used to inject colloidal silica into the ground. The configuration of the injection can
be observed in Figure 61.

Figure. 61. TAM grout injection procedure. (Kazemian & Huat, 2009)

73
This injection performed with the TAM pipes produces three local treatments in one meter
of depth. The assumed injection shape is more like a sphere, hence, the injection radius is
0.40 m (commented in Section 5). The spacing between boreholes is 0.8 m. For the grout
distribution, it is considered an improvement section of 10 m. of width, 10 m. of depth,
and 1 m of length (10x10x1 m) as an example, and it is observed in Figure 62.

Figure. 62. Grout improvement section.

This grouting distribution is spread throughout the entire dam profile, creating three
improvement sections as presented in Figure 63.

Figure. 63. Grout injection distribution for the Merriespruit tailing dam.

The grout injection sections are distributed and identified along the dam. Section A is the
injected area near the toe of the slope. Section B is located at the middle section of the
dam and finally, section C is located at the head of the dam. Geometrical details for all
sections are presented throughout Figure 64-66.
74
 Figure. 64. Section A improvement section.

For section A, it is considered the following dimensions: 10 m of width, 14 m. of depth

(thickness of the grout), and 1 meter of length.

Figure. 65. Section B improvement section.

For section B, the grout dimensions are 10 m in width by 15 m of the thickness of grout
and 1 meter in length (10x15x1 m). Thus, the borehole depth (length) is 20 m. This section
is considered all the slip surfaces produced above the main slip surface.

75
 Figure. 66. Section C improvement section.

Finally, section C grout dimensions are 10 m of width by 10 m of depth by 1 meter of

length (10x10x1 m). This section pretends to improve the main critical slip surface
avoiding tension cracks in the surface. The length of the grout improvement is considered
1 m.

6.2.3. Stabilization effect of proposed treatments

Once defined the treatment sections along the dam, again is performed a safety factor
analysis for the following combinations.
• Section A
• Section B
• Section C
• Section AB
• Section AC
• Section BC
• Section ABC
These scenarios are evaluated for both improvement products MP320 and MP325. The
improvement strength of the CS is based on the UCS presented by Spagnoli et. al (2021)
and Mingzhi et. al. (2019), thus for the product MP320 with a percentage of solids of 40%
the undrained shear strength is cu=168.5 kPa meanwhile for the product MP325, with a
percentage of solids of 5%, the undrained shear strength is cu=37.5 kPa.
It should be noted that CS causes a considerable reduction in the permeability coefficient,
which makes likely the hypothesis of undrained response. According to Ciardi (2020),
hydraulic conductivity decreases drastically after CS treatment, even with low percentages
of dilution, causing a significant decrease in water flow rate. Also, the author found that
treated material with CS presented higher compressibility but with no further effect
increasing the CS percentage
The safety factor results for improvement with CS MP320 are presented in Table 28
meanwhile for results for the CS MP325 in Table 29. The safety factor analysis is
presented in more detail in Appendix B.

76
 Safety Factor: CS MP320
Combinations
Method No treatment
A B C AB AC BC ABC
Bishop 1.02 1.17 1.17 1.24 1.31 1.40 1.39 1.53
GLE
1.03 1.14 1.17 1.23 1.29 1.39 1.44 1.53
M. Price

Table 28. Safety factor results with the improvement of CS MP320.

Safety Factor: CS MP325

Combinations
Method No treatment
A B C AB AC BC ABC
Bishop 1.02 0.96 0.94 1.04 0.88 0.98 0.96 0.90
GLE
1.03 0.96 0.97 1.05 0.90 0.98 0.99 0.92
M. Price

Table 29. Safety factor results with the improvement of CS MP325.

The safety factor values with the CS MP320 provide a clear shear strength improvement
in all the combinations in the dam. By improving section, A and section B separately, the
SF reach values of 1.17, meanwhile, for only section C, SF is 1.24. This implies that better
outcomes are obtained if is only improved in the head of the dam. The combination of
section improvement did present better results than only one improvement, but not so
remarkable as expected. By improving sections A, B, and C, SF reaches 1.50 which may
be enough theoretically speaking.
On the other hand, the treatment with the CS MP325 did not improve the dam stability in
all the examined configurations. Since the CS MP325 has a low value of strength, there is
a minimal contribution to shear strength of tailings. Almost all of the combinations
presented in Table 29 present an SF below 1. This could be attributed to the low undrained
resistance of the treated material. Thus, improvement with CS MP325 may create weaker
and compressible material prone to a significant reduction in shear strength since its
strength contribution is minimal. (Ciardi, Bardotti, Vannucchi, & Madiai, 2020)

6.3. Grout execution feasibility and costs

The execution time and costs of the permeation ground improvement technique rely on
the type of material and the quantity of injection into the ground. Since colloidal silica is
a special product, treatment costs will be significantly high depending on the amount of
volume injected. For the execution of the ground improvement initially, a perforation must
be performed until the desired depth, thus according to the number of boreholes and the
borehole depth, the execution cost is then calculated. The next stage is the grout injection.
The total grout product is determined according to the total volume treated and by
assuming that the grout fills only 70% of ground voids (CS density is 1100 Kg/m3). The
price of the grout is 1.8 €/Kg, thus total costs of grout injection are obtained. The geometry
of improvement is therefore calculated per linear meter of embankment (which means 1
meter of length). This information is presented in much detail in Appendix C.

77
Table 30 presents the information about the injection volume, the cost per volume, and
the injected volume per hour. This information is co-related with the safety factor analysis
previously performed.
Total Injection
Cost per Colloidal silica
Volume volume
treatment MP320
treated per hour
Section m3 €/m3 m3/h Bishop GLE
A 140 871.70 0.102 1.17 1.14
B 150 954.37 0.095 1.17 1.17
C 100 871.70 0.102 1.24 1.23
AB 290 914.46 0.098 1.31 1.29
AC 240 871.70 0.102 1.40 1.39
BC 250 921.30 0.098 1.39 1.44
ABC 390 903.49 0.099 1.53 1.53

Table 30. Injection details by volume treated, costs, and time of execution according to the safety factor
analysis.

According to the presented results for the CS MP320, if only one improvement is
considered, section C is the most beneficial among the other two. Section C presents a
higher value of SF and less injected volume than the other two treatments, hence the
injection procedure takes less time and is less expensive. If it is considered two
improvement sections, combination AC is the most beneficial since the safety factor is
higher than only one improvement and the injected volume is less than the other two
combinations. If three sections are improved, the SF rises slightly from the combination
AC. Since the CS MP325 did not present SF beyond 1, hence the presented values are
only for the CS MP320. The total cost and time of execution are presented in Table 31.

Total Overview (ABC Improvement)

Total
Total Cost Execution
Grout
(€) Time
(h)
Colloidal silica 352,363.00 3,932

Table 31. Total overview of the CS MP320

Table 31 presents the total execution time and cost for a permeation grout improvement
of three sections (ABC) for an idealized tailings deposit (Merriespruit dam). The total cost
of the improvement depends mainly on the dimensions of the dam while the time for the
improvement will depend on the borehole depth, the total injection volume, and the
permeability of the soil.

78
 7. Discussions
Tailings are a unique type of material usually transported hydraulically to the field in open
embankments. While ore extraction increases, waste production increases as well and thus
tailings dam height rises. The most common wet-disposal methods are upstream,
downstream, and centerline disposal.

The geotechnical characteristics of tailings depend mainly on the local geology and the
deposition process in the embankments. Tailings are usually composed of coarse sand and
silt particles. Specific gravity values vary on the type of extracted ore, thus the expected
values are around 2.7 to 2.9 and in some cases slightly higher than 3.0 due to some ore
components such as pyrite.

Since tailings are disposed hydraulically into the impoundments, particle segregation
takes place by creating a layered heterogeneous material, with high void ratios (e=1),
presenting in some cases a very compressible behavior, susceptible to a contractive
response under loading which creates high pore pressures leading to failure. This poor
dissipation of pore pressure is due to low hydraulic conductivity, ranging from 10-6 m/s to
almost 10-10 m/s. As for strength parameters, reported friction angles are between 24° and
41° due to the particle shape (platy and very angular) meanwhile cohesion is likely not to
be considered due to the nature of tailings deposition. Is important to keep in mind that
taking undisturbed samples from the field is practically impossible. When samples are
taken into the laboratory (with such care) for testing, the results usually do not represent
the real behavior of tailings, but rather an approximation, hence geotechnical properties
of tailings must be evaluated with criterion.

The hydraulic conductivity of tailings was analyzed in detail by a selected database

provided by the Geology and Mining Institute of Spain (Instituto Geológico y Minero de
España) which relates the particle size distribution with the permeability coefficient. The
database was evaluated by equation 9 from Chapuis and Aubertin (2003) to obtain
predicted values of permeability. It was found that for tailings mainly composed of fine
sand fraction, permeability values are between 2x10-5 m/s to 9x10-5 m/s, meanwhile for
slimes (percentage of particles finer than 0.075 mm) values were between 2x10-6 to 8x10-
6
m/s. These values imply that hydraulic conductivity in tailings deposits has low values,
which vary little on the sand fraction, but it could change significantly if fine content
increases. However, is important to keep in mind that the permeability of tailings varies
along the length of the impoundment. When the material is deposited, the segregation
process starts creating a layered composition of fine sand particles right under the
discharge zone meanwhile in the beaches, finer particles sediments. This implies that
permeability will vary according to the section in the dam.

Nevertheless, the hydraulic conductivity of tailings opened the door to analyze the best
possible ground improvement techniques that can be applied. Densification, preloading,
and chemical improvement are considered for tailing dam remediation. Densification
methods aboard vibro-compaction, vibro-replacement, and dynamic compaction. Since
tailings are mainly composed of fine-grained particles (predominantly fine sands and
particle finer than 0.075 mm), vibro-compaction and vibro-replacement will depend

79
explicitly on the fines content thus is not considered for remediation. Dynamic compaction
is not considered as well since the process of weight dropping might develop high pore
pressures which could lead to failure rather than improvement. Preloading is an effective
ground improvement method during deposition and construction of tailings. By the
inclusion of wasted rock, drain paths can allow an effective dissipation of pore pressure,
however, this method is only applicable for tailings that are operational which is,
unfortunately, is not the case. Finally, chemical improvements such as deep soil mixing,
and grouting can be promising methods. Deep soil mixing (DSM) is an effective ground
improvement method proved and applied by Masengo et. al. (2019) with some difficulties
but a promising procedure. Since DSM is proven to be effective, grouting injections are
left to be analyzed. Permeation grouting injection is considered since it does not disturb
the material composition, but rather the grout fills the voids.

Since tailings present low hydraulic conductivities, the grout improvement must be
capable of permeate into the ground voids, hence ultra-fine microcement (MP900) and
colloidal silica (CS) were chosen. According to the groutability ratio, the ultra-fine micro
cement will not be able to enter into the ground voids. On the other hand, CS is usually
presented in low viscosities, hence is a product capable of permeating into the voids. For
the design parameters, it was considered two CS products. CS MP320 with high viscosity
(assumed 16 cP), a dilution percentage of 40%, and unconfined compressive strength
(UCS) of 337 kPa and CS MP325 with an assumed lower viscosity (5 cP) and a dilution
of 5% and a UCS of 75 kPa. These parameters were used to evaluate grout pressure and
time for injection. It was found that, for a soil with a permeability of 10-6 m/s, CS MP320
takes almost an hour per one point of treatment but the product gains higher strength over
28 days, meanwhile CS MP325 only 20 minutes for a grout injection but with low gained
strength over 28 days.

To evaluate the permeation grouting method, a slope stability analysis (based on limit
equilibrium) was performed in an idealized case such as the Merriespruit tailing dam
failure produced in 1994. The geometry and geotechnical parameters were determined
according to the study from Fourie and Tshabalala (2005). Three improvement sections
were determined (A, B, C) and thus evaluated obtaining the safety factor for each
combination (A, B, C, AB, AC, BC, and ABC) with both products CS MP320 and MP325.

According to the slope stability analysis, it was found that CS MP320 did increase the SF
from the previous state (SF=1) meanwhile CS MP325 did not improve at all. Improving
with CS MP320 in only section C, SF=1.17. Improving section AC also with CS MP320,
SF=1.39 and finally by improving section ABC, SF=1.53. For the CS MP325, SF values
were oscillating between 0.90 to 1.04. Is important to take into consideration the following
facts: the obtained safety factor values from the improvement analysis are only
considering a 2D slip surface failure, thus if a 3D model is used for evaluation, the
permeation ground improvement may increase in safety, creating more realistic conditions
in the dam.

Even though the product MP320 did satisfy the stability conditions, the overall time of
perforation and injection for both products did not, becoming a major issue as an
improvement method. The performed calculations were planned for unit length of

80
treatment (e.g., 10 m width x10 depth x1 length m), however, the time to perform the
improvement for three sections takes almost 3932 hours and almost 350,000 which is
ridiculously high regarding the treated volume, making it unrealistic from the operational
point of view.

However, execution times in the field may vary for the better or the worse due to the
following aspects. Permeability values can change from point to point due to the
heterogeneous characteristics of tailings, hence the time of injection can improve or even
worsen causing a significant economic loss. Tailings can also present in some places in
the dam unsaturated conditions due to a fluctuating change of water content. These
conditions may not be suitable for ground injections since matric suction could play a
major role during grouting penetration

The time to perform grout injection can become an issue that can mean the unfeasibility
of the method. For the chosen conditions (such as the Merriespruit dam), high treatment
volumes were required to stabilize a dam in a critical state. However, this method perhaps
can be applied in other more stable conditions, for example, a smaller dam with less
treatment volume or in a less critical initial state. Further studies must be performed in the
laboratory and especially in the field to confirm the obtained values.

81
 8. Conclusions
The lack of knowledge about the nature and management of tailings hydraulically placed
has led to many catastrophic failures over the years. Thus, this dissertation attempts to
study the best theoretically suited ground improvement technique and design for tailings
deposits according to their physical, hydraulic, and geomechanical characteristics, to
create a stable structure for existing tailing storage facilities.

Tailings material can be characterized as a fragile, heterogeneous material, with

considerable void ratios, a compressible nature, and a low hydraulic conductivity which
makes them very susceptible to high pore pressure development under monotonic and
cyclic loading.

Some ground improvement methods have been proven to be effective for tailings deposits.
For example, Sale-Mbemba et. al (2019) tested the preloading method with waste rock as
drain paths as the tailing was deposited. DSM method was also tested by Masengo et. al
(2019) presenting good results for tailing deposits. However, the grouting injection
method, specially permeation has not been proven yet for tailing deposits, thus for this
study colloidal silica might be suitable for tailing remediation.

Colloidal silica presents low viscosity values and a considerable strength gain over time
which makes a promising injection material. Two colloidal silica products were tested
(MP320 and MP325) in an idealized case (the Merriespruit tailing dam failure) in a slope
stability analysis (limit equilibrium) by combining three sections (A, B and C). In the
results, it was found that the product MP320 did improve the TSF with a safety factor of
almost 1.5. On the other hand, product MP325 did not show any improvement from the
previous state due to the low contribution on strength. Even though the product MP320
presented stability conditions in the dam, the overall volume and time of treatment are
excessive and probably unsuitable with more than 3000 hours considering only one meter
of unit length.
What can be concluded from this analysis is that, if a higher percentage of solids of
colloidal silica is used, then higher shear strengths are acquired, providing a noticeable
improvement (SF>1) from the initial critical state. On the other hand, a lower
concentration of colloidal silica will result in lower strengths, insufficient to improve a
tailings dam. This method can also be unsuitable due to the overall cost and time of
execution, presenting values that severely compromise the selected method. Nevertheless,
grout injections can be applied in other circumstances such as a smaller dam, in a less
critical initial state, where less treatment volume is required.
In this way, there must be a balance between the following aspects: time of penetration,
the concentration of solids of colloidal silica obtained shear strength after injection, and
finally feasible costs to perform on large volumes of treatment. If these variables are
optimized to obtain a reasonable product, the improvement with grout injections on tailing
deposits might be the key to avoid greater disasters.

82
 9. References
Adiguzel, D., & Bascetin, A. (2019). The investigation of effect of particle size
distribution on flow behavior of paste tailings. Journal of Envirnmental
Managment, pp. 393-401.
Aubertin, M. , Bussière, B., & Chapuis, R. P. (1996). Hydraulic conductivity of
homogenized tailings from hard rocks. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 33, pp.
470-482.
BASF Corporation. (2015). Injection Solutions for Underground Construction.
Retrieved from Master Builders Solution: http://www.master-builders-
solutions.basf.us/
Bedin, J., Schnaid, F., Da Fonseca, A. V., & Costa, L. D. (2012). Gold tailings
liquefaction under critical state soil mechanics. Géotechnique, pp. 263-267.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.10.P.037]
Been, K. (2016). Characterizing mine tailings for geotechnical design. Geotechnical and
Geophysical Site Characterisation, pp. 41-55.
Boyd, A. J., & Skalny, J. (2007). Environmental deterioration of concrete. WIT
Transactions on State of the Art in Science and Engineering, pp. 143-184.
Burden, R., Williams, D., Wilson, W., & Jacobs, M. (2019). The Geotechnical
Properties of Filtered Tailings and Waste Rock Blends. Tailings 2019: 6th
International Seminar on Tailings Management, pp. 34-45.
Butron, C. (2005). Mechanical Behaviour of Silica Sol: Laboratory studies under
controlled stress conditions during the first five months of hardening process.
Goteborg: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering: Division of
GeoEngineering and Geology.
Cambefort, H. (1977). The Principles and Aplications of Grouting. Quarterly Journal of
Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, pp. 57-95.
Cambridge, M. (2018). The Hydraulic Transport and Storage of Extractive Waste.
Ashford, United Kindom: Springer. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
69248-7
Chang, N., Heymann, G., & Clayton, C. (2011). The effect of fabric on the behaviour of
gold tailings. Géotechnique, pp. 187-197. doi:10.1680/geot.9.P.066
Chapuis, R. P., & Aubertin, M. (2003, June). On the use of the Kozeny-Carman equation
to predict the hydraulic conductivity of soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
40(3), pp. 616-628. doi:https://doi.org/10.1139/t03-013
Chapuis, R. P., & Légaré, P.-P. (1976). A simple method for determining the surface
area of fine aggregates and fillers in bituminous mixtures. American Society for
Testing and Materials, pp- 3-18.
Chongchong, Q., & Fourie, A. (2019). Cemented paste backfill for mineral tailings
management: Review andfuture perspectives. Minerals Engineering, p. 144.
83
Chung, D. D. (2017). 6 - Cement-Matrix Composites. In D. D. Chung, Carbon
Composites (pp. pp. 333-386). Buffalo: Butterworth-Heinemann.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804459-9.00006-3
Ciardi, G., Bardotti, R., Vannucchi, G., & Madiai, C. (2020). Effects of high-Diluted
Colloidal Silica Grouting on the Behaviour of a Liquefiable Sand. Florence:
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Florence.
Das, B. M. (2008). Advanced Soil Mechanics (Vol. Third edition). New York: Taylor &
Francis.
Fitton, T., & Jewell, R. (2015). The tailings continuum: Defining the boundaries. In R. J.
Jewell, & A. B. Fourie, Paste and Thickened Tailings - A Guide (pp. pp. 11-17).
Nedlands: Australian Center of Geomechanics.
Fourie, A. B. (2012). Perceived and realized benefits of paste and thickened tailings for
surface deposition. The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, pp. 919 - 926.
Fourie, A. B., & Tshabalala, L. (2005). Initiation of static liquefaction and the role of K0
consolidation. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, pp. 892-906.
Fourie, A. B., Blight, G. E., & Papageorgiou, G. (2001). Static liquefaction as a possible
explanation for the Merriespruit tailings dam failure. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal., pp. 707-719. doi:10.1139/cgj-38-4-707
Funehag, J. (2012). Guide to grouting with silica sol - for sealing in hard rock.
Stockholm: Stiftelsen Bergteknisk Forskning Rock Engineering Research
Foundation.
Gens, A. (2019). Hydraulic fills with special focus on liquefaction. Proceedings of the
XVII ECSMGE‐2019 , (pp. pp. 1-31). Barcelona.
Geotechdata.info. (2013, October 07). Soil permeability coefficient. Retrieved from
http://geotechdata.info/parameter/permeability.html
Han, J. (2015). Principles and Practices of Ground Improvement. New Jerysey: Wiley &
Sons.
Hegazy, Y. A., Cushing, A., & Lewis, C. J. (2004). Physical, mechanical, and hydraulic
properties of coal refuse for slurry impoundment design. Conference:
Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Geotechnical and
Geophysical Characterization (ISC-2).
Hislam, J. (2010). Ground treatment by grout injection. Ground Engineering, pp. 28-31.
Hu, L., Wu, H., Zhang, L., Zhang, P., & Wen, Q. (2017). Geotechnical Properties of
Mine Tailings. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 29(2), 04016220.
Karol, R. H. (2003). Chemical Grouting and Soil Stabilization. New York: Marcel
Deckker.

84
Kazemian, S., & Huat, B. B. (2009). Assessment and Comparison of Grouting and
Injection Methods in Geotechnical Engineering. European Journal of Scientific
Research (pp. pp. 234-247). EuroJournals Publishing, Inc.
Kirsch, K., & Bell, A. (2013). Ground Improvement (Vol. Third Edition). Boca Raton:
CRC Press.
Klohn Crippen Berger. (2017, September 7). Best Practices for Tailings Dam Design.
Retrieved from https://www.klohn.com/blog/best-practices-for-tailings-dam-
design/
Krizek, R. J., Liao, H. J., & Borden, R. H. (1992). Mechanical properties of microfine
cement / sodium silicate grouted san. Conf. on grouting, soil improvement and
geosynthetic, PP. 688-699.
Li, W., Coop, M. R., Senetakis, K., & Schnaid, F. (2018). The mechanics of a silt-sized
gold tailing. Engineering Geology, pp. 97-108.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2018.05.014
Lyu, Z., Chai, J., Xu, Z., Qin, Y., & Cao, J. (2019). A Comprehensive Review on
Reasons for Tailings Dam Failures Based on Case History. Advances in Civil
Engineering, pp. 1-18. doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4159306
Markou, I. N., & Litsiou, A. E. (2019). Efficiency of soil groutability criteria for cement
suspension grouting. Proceedings of the XVII ECSMGE-2019 (pp. pp. 1-9).
Reykjavik: XVII European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering.
Markou, I. N., Christodoulou, D. N., Petala, E. S., & Atmatzidis, D. K. (2018).
Injectability of microfine cement grouts into limestone sands with different
gradations: Experimental investigation and prediction. Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering, pp. 959-981.
Martin, T. E., & McRoberts, E. D. (1999). Some considerations in the stability analysis
of upstream tailings dams. Tailings and MineWaste '09, Proceedings 13th
International Conference OnTailings and MineWaste.
Masengo, E., Julien, M. R., Lavoie, P., Lépine, T., Nousiainen, J., Saukkoriipi, J., . . .
Karvo, J. (2019). Enhancement of contractive tailings using deep soil mixing
technique at Kittilä mine. Sustainable and Safe Dams Around the World, PP.
3406-3418.
Miltiadou, F. A., & Tassios, T. (2013). Penetrability of hydraulic grouts. Materials and
Structures, pp. 1653-1671. doi:https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-012-0005-1
Minerals Education Coalition. (2021). Mineral Database. Retrieved from
https://mineralseducationcoalition.org/minerals-database/iron/
Mingzhi, Z., Gang, L., Chong, Z. , Wenbo, G., & Qiang, L. (2019). State-of-the-Art of
Colloidal Silica-Based Soil Liquefaction Mitigation: An Emerging Technique for
Ground Improvement. Applied Science, pp. 1-31.

85
Mitchell, J. K. (1981). Soil Improvement — State-of-the Art Report. 10th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (pp. PP. 509-565).
Stockhol: ISSMGE.
Nicholson, P. G. (2015). Soil improvement and ground modification methods. Waltham:
Butterworth Heinemann.
Petersen, L. W., Moldrup, P., Jacobsen, O. H., & Rolston, D. E. (1996). Relations
Between Specific Surface Area and Soil Physical and Chemical Properties. Soil
Science, pp. 9-21. doi:10.1097/00010694-199601000-00003
Plewes, H. D., Chambers, R. W., Friedel, R. , Jibiki, T. , & Sy, A. (2010). Ground
improvement by dynamic compaction at a tailings disposal facility. Fifth
International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics. San Diego: Klohn Crippen Berger Ltd.
Quille, M. E., & O'Kelly, B. C. (2010). Geotechnical properties of zinc/lead mine
tailings from Tara Mines, Ireland. Engineering and Geotechnics: Progress in
Modeling and Applications, pp. 111-117.
Saleh-Mbemba, F., Aubertin, M., & Boudrias, G. (2019). Drainage and consolidation of
mine tailings near waste rock inclusions. Sustainable and Safe Dams Around the
World , pp. 3306-3314.
Shamsai, A., Pak, A., Bateni, M. S., & Ayatollahi, A. H. (2007, July 18). Geotechnical
Characteristics of Copper Mine Tailings: A Case Study. Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering, pp. 591-602.
Silva Rotta, L. H., Alcântara, E., Park, E. , Galante N., R. , Lin, Y. N., Bernardo, N., &
Gonçalves M., T. S. (2020). The 2019 Brumadinho tailings dam collapse:
Possible cause and impacts of the worst human and environmental disaster in
Brazil. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinformation, pp. 1-12.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2020.102119
Spagnoli, G., Seidl, W., Romero, E., Arroyo, M., Gómez, R., & López, J. (2021).
Unconfined compressive strength of sand-fines mixtures treated with chemical
grouts. Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground, pp.
829-835.
Thorburn, O. S., & Littlejohn, G. S. (1993). Underpinning and Retention. New Delhi:
Springer US.
Torres Cruz, L. A. (2016). Use of the cone penetration test to assess the liquefaction
potential of tailings storage facilitiesq. Johannesburg.
Uhlig, C. A. (2015). New Technological Developments in the Field of Vibro-
Compaction in the Lusatian Lignite Mining Area. Proc. of the 12th Int. Symp
Continuous Surface Mining (pp. pp. 117 - 126). Aachen: Springer Internationa.
Vick, S. G. (1990). Planning, Design, and Analysis of Tailings Dams. Vancouver,
Canada: BiTech Publishers LTD.

86
Watson, A. H., Corser, P. G., Garces Pardo, E. E., Lopez, T. E., & Vandekeybus, J.
(2010). A comparsion of alternative tailings disposal methods - the promises and
realities. Australian Centre for Geomechanics, pp. 499-514.
Welch, D. (2003). Advantages of Tailings Thickening and Paste Technology,
Responding to Change. Issues and Trends in Tailings Management.
Yu, H., Zeng, X., & Michael, P. R. (2019). Geotechnical Properties and Flow Behavior
of Coal Refuse under Static and Impact Loading. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 04019024. doi:doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-
5606.0002038

87
 10. Appendix
10.1. Appendix A: Permeability values for tailings deposits.
Permeability values for slimes:
Slimes
Predicted
Percentage of Predicted
Measured Corrected
fines Recalibrated
Eq. 9
% m/s m/s m/s
97.8 1.35E-07 1.24E-07 2.23E-07
39.9 1.35E-05 1.51E-05 6.32E-05
83.4 9.38E-08 1.17E-08 1.38E-08
40.0 2.94E-06 1.34E-06 3.65E-06
92.4 2.05E-07 7.25E-08 1.18E-07
96.6 6.00E-08 6.76E-08 1.09E-07
93.3 1.50E-08 1.24E-07 2.21E-07
96.4 1.35E-07 1.18E-07 2.10E-07
96.5 2.40E-07 1.28E-07 2.30E-07
99.9 2.40E-07 6.32E-08 1.00E-07
98.3 5.40E-07 1.29E-07 2.32E-07
97.7 3.38E-08 4.29E-08 6.36E-08
99.6 1.84E-07 1.31E-07 2.36E-07
98.4 2.40E-07 1.00E-07 1.73E-07
72.6 6.27E-07 5.33E-06 1.85E-05
68.9 6.00E-06 4.68E-07 1.06E-06
46.9 8.00E-07 6.59E-08 1.05E-07
99.8 2.10E-05 2.70E-05 1.25E-04
100.0 2.60E-07 7.28E-08 1.19E-07
55.5 2.40E-06 1.13E-06 2.99E-06
99.7 9.10E-07 1.62E-07 1.30E-07
99.7 1.00E-07 1.14E-07 2.00E-07
100.0 2.60E-07 7.28E-08 1.19E-07
100.0 2.60E-07 7.28E-08 1.19E-07
100.0 2.60E-07 7.28E-08 1.19E-07
Average 86.94 2.06E-06 2.09E-06 8.69E-06
Min 39.87 1.50E-08 1.17E-08 1.38E-08
Mean 96.53 2.40E-07 1.24E-07 2.21E-07
Max 100.00 2.10E-05 2.70E-05 1.25E-04
RI 1.84 1.89
RD 2.21 6.60

88
Permeability values for sand tailings:
Fine sands tailings
Predicted
Percentage of Predicted
Measured Corrected
fines Recalibrated
Eq. 9
% m/s m/s m/s
34.22 5.84E-06 3.98E-06 1.31E-05
26.54 4.54E-05 1.03E-05 4.01E-05
24.4 6.34E-05 1.55E-05 6.51E-05
26.7 3.84E-04 2.00E-05 8.76E-05
29.63 3.75E-05 7.49E-06 2.76E-05
26.98 1.22E-04 1.72E-05 7.35E-05
21.49 1.22E-04 1.41E-05 5.81E-05
11.47 1.00E-06 5.68E-05 3.00E-04
Average 25.18 9.75E-05 1.82E-05 8.31E-05
Min 11.47 1.00E-06 3.98E-06 1.31E-05
Mean 26.62 5.44E-05 1.48E-05 6.16E-05
Max 34.22 3.84E-04 5.68E-05 3.00E-04
RI 3.03 2.96
RD 20.99 112.05

89
 10.2. Appendix B: Safety factor analysis.

Prior to Failure
Bishop method

GLE method

90
Improvement with MP320
Bishop method

91
92
GLE Method

93
94
95
96
Improvement with MP325
Bishop method

97
98
GLE Method

99
100
101
 10.3. Appendix C: Grout execution and costs

Geometry of the improvement.

Geometry
Ground Ground Ground End
improvement improvement improvement point N. TAM
Section volume volume volume borehole Valves
Lenght Width Tickness depth (valve/meter)
(m) (m) (m) (m)
A 1 10 14 14 3
B 1 10 15 20 3
C 1 10 10 10 3

Execution and cost of perforations

Perforation
Cost per
injection
point:
Borehole N. Borehole Total Time for
Perforation,
Section Grout mesh Injection lenght Cost installation
TAM,
(m) points (m) (€) (h)
Mortar
shealt
(€/m)
A 0.80 31 434 80 34,720.00 289
Colloidal
B 0.80 31 620 80 49,600.00 413
silica
C 0.80 31 310 80 24,800.00 206

Execution and cost of perforations

Injection

Total N. of
Volume Quantity grout per Time for
Grout Cost Injection
Section treated m3 of soil treated injection
(€) Valves
(m3) (kg) (h)
(-)

A 140 48,510 87,318.00 1302 1085

B 150 51,975 93,555.00 1395 1163
C 100 34,650 62,370.00 930 775

102