Suitability of mine waste rocks as earth tailing storage embankment materials: environmental risk assessments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large volume of waste rocks is produced during mining activities in Nigeria and these waste rocks are deemed to be resourceful as embankment fills. This paper evaluates the stability of barrier engineering structures build using such waste rocks. To assess this, a total of 18 waste rock samples were collected from evenly designated units of three Nigerian mine sites, namely Enyigba, Itakpe, and Jos mine sites. Each of the samples was subjected to sieve, Atterberg, triaxial, compaction, consolidation, and permeability tests to determine the geotechnical characterizations of the waste rocks as embankment fill materials. The samples were further subjected to X-ray diffraction (XRD) and atomic absorption spectrometer (AAS) tests to ascertain the heavy metals’ concentrations of the samples. Results of these tests were analyzed using GeoStudio geo-environmental software suite to generate the relevant numerical and graphical simulation models. Laboratory data revealed that the waste rocks are competent engineering materials with intermediate shear strength capable of supporting earth structures. This agrees with the simulation results which suggested that factors of safety would, respectively, be above 1.9 and 3.8 at the downstream and upstream reaches of the proposed embankments during normal (steady state) operation. Nevertheless, the factor of safety values could drop to as low as 1.0 at the upstream during transient (drawdown) conditions. The value indicated critical stability that could lead to slope failure and it is less than the minimum limits recommended by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Canadian Dam Association for an upstream FOS during a reservoir drawdown. Thus, the critical unloading conditions of the embankments are unsafe. Evidences from advection–dispersion analysis revealed that 22–31,120% of contaminants from polluted impounded ponds may exit through the embankments in the first decade of the dams’ operation. These anticipated environmental impacts underscore the need for stabilization of the proposed structures to improve both stability and barrier efficiency.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".