Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 11 – uploaded by Helena P A U L A Nierwinski

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Figure 9 - Unified classification chart (Shuttle & Cunning (2007 & 2008)).

Figure 9 - Unified classification chart (Shuttle & Cunning (2007 & 2008)).

Related Figures (12)

Figure 1 - Results from oedometer tests. Field tests are the preferable alternative to assess tail- ing properties and hydrogeologic conditions within the im- poundment. /n situ water content, unit weight and specific gravity in this bauxite tailings are shown in Fig. 3. Typical profiles from a series of SCPTU are shown in Fig. 4. Mea- sured cone resistance g,, sleeve friction f, and pore pressure u, are plotted against depth revealing a relatively homoge- neous profile down to about 16 m. Although the piezocone tests were conducted about 10 m away from each other, two profiles revealed lenses of granular materials that are not taken into consideration in the forgoing analysis. Shear Undrained triaxial tests were performed to evaluate the stress-strain-pore pressure response of bauxite tailings. Saturation of soil specimens was accomplished by applica- tion of a back pressure of around 500 kPa to produce B val-
Figure 1 - Results from oedometer tests. Field tests are the preferable alternative to assess tail- ing properties and hydrogeologic conditions within the im- poundment. /n situ water content, unit weight and specific gravity in this bauxite tailings are shown in Fig. 3. Typical profiles from a series of SCPTU are shown in Fig. 4. Mea- sured cone resistance g,, sleeve friction f, and pore pressure u, are plotted against depth revealing a relatively homoge- neous profile down to about 16 m. Although the piezocone tests were conducted about 10 m away from each other, two profiles revealed lenses of granular materials that are not taken into consideration in the forgoing analysis. Shear Undrained triaxial tests were performed to evaluate the stress-strain-pore pressure response of bauxite tailings. Saturation of soil specimens was accomplished by applica- tion of a back pressure of around 500 kPa to produce B val-
Table 1 - Bauxite tailings composition. One dimensional compression and hydraulic conduc- tivity tests have been carried out in specimens reconstituted at different void ratios, ranging from 2.6 to 1.4, which cov- ers the maximum and minimum determined in situ values. The vertical effective stress-void ratio relationship pre- sented in Fig. 1 gives a description of the soil compressibil- ity. The vertical stresses were not sufficiently high to iden- tify the normal compression line (NCL), and an attempt to fit a straight line to points measured at high stresses give a slope A equal to 0.093 to an initial void ratio of 1.7. The hy- draulic conductivity has been determined by constant head tests carried out in the oedometer cells at different vertical stresses. An average value of 2 x 10° m/s was taken as rep- resentative.
Table 1 - Bauxite tailings composition. One dimensional compression and hydraulic conduc- tivity tests have been carried out in specimens reconstituted at different void ratios, ranging from 2.6 to 1.4, which cov- ers the maximum and minimum determined in situ values. The vertical effective stress-void ratio relationship pre- sented in Fig. 1 gives a description of the soil compressibil- ity. The vertical stresses were not sufficiently high to iden- tify the normal compression line (NCL), and an attempt to fit a straight line to points measured at high stresses give a slope A equal to 0.093 to an initial void ratio of 1.7. The hy- draulic conductivity has been determined by constant head tests carried out in the oedometer cells at different vertical stresses. An average value of 2 x 10° m/s was taken as rep- resentative.
Figure 3 - /n situ water content, unit weight and specific gravity in the bauxite tailing dam.
Figure 3 - /n situ water content, unit weight and specific gravity in the bauxite tailing dam.
Figure 4 - Typical CPTU profiles.
Figure 4 - Typical CPTU profiles.
Figure 5 - Values of coefficient of consolidation.
Figure 5 - Values of coefficient of consolidation.
Figure 6 - Classification of bauxite tailings on the chart proposed by Robertson (1990).
Figure 6 - Classification of bauxite tailings on the chart proposed by Robertson (1990).
Figure 8 - Classification of bauxite tailings on the chart proposed by Robertson and Fear (1995).
Figure 8 - Classification of bauxite tailings on the chart proposed by Robertson and Fear (1995).
Figure 7 - Normalized soil behavior index J, of bauxite tailings proposed by Robertson (1990).
Figure 7 - Normalized soil behavior index J, of bauxite tailings proposed by Robertson (1990).
Figure 10 - Classification of bauxite tailings represented in the G,/q, vs. q,, space.
Figure 10 - Classification of bauxite tailings represented in the G,/q, vs. q,, space.
Related topics:
Environmental Science
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved