MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406146928 · doi:10.3390/geotechnics5010003

Evaluating Consolidation Behaviors in High Water Content Oil Sands Tailings Using a Centrifuge

2025· article· en· W4406146928 on OpenAlexafffund
Mahmoud Ahmed, Nicholas Beier, Heather Kaminsky

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsNorthern Alberta Institute of TechnologyUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance
KeywordsCentrifugeConsolidation (business)Geotechnical engineeringOil sandsTailingsHydraulic conductivityCompressibilityVoid ratioCompactionGeologyAsphaltSoil waterMaterials scienceSoil scienceEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The composition of oil sands tailings is a complex mixture of water, fine clay, sand, silt, and residual bitumen that remains after the extraction of bitumen. Effective tailings disposal management requires an understanding of the mechanisms controlling water movement, surface settlement rates and extents (hydraulic conductivity and compressibility), and strength variation with depth. This investigation examines the self-weight consolidation behavior of oil sands tailings, typically assessed by utilizing large strain consolidation (LSC) methods such as the multi-step large strain consolidation (MLSC) test and seepage-induced consolidation test (SICT). These methods, however, are time consuming and often take weeks or years to complete. As an alternative, centrifuge testing, including both geotechnical beam type and benchtop devices, was utilized to evaluate the consolidation behaviors of three untreated high water content oil sands tailing slurries: two high-plasticity fluid fine tailing (FFT) samples and one low plasticity FFT. The centrifuge-derived compressibility data closely matched the LSC testing compressibility data within the centrifuge stress range. However, the hydraulic conductivity obtained from centrifuge testing was up to an order of magnitude higher than the LSC test results. Comparing centrifuge and large strain modeling results indicates that centrifuge test data demonstrate average void ratios 10–33% lower than those predicted by simulations using LSC parameters, highlighting a notable deviation. To examine the scale effect on result accuracy, validation tests indicated that the benchtop centrifuge (BTC) yielded comparable results to the geotechnical beam centrifuge (GBC) for the same prototype, saving time, resources, and sample volumes in the assessment of tailings consolidation behavior. These tests concluded that the small radius of the benchtop centrifuge had a minimal impact on the results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeotechnicsSame topicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207