Liquefaction Susceptibility Assessment of Oil Sands Tailings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada has the world’s third-largest crude oil reserve, with an estimated recoverable oil reserve of 171 billion barrels (10.3% of world proven oil reserve). However, this is primarily stored in oil sands deposits and should be extracted through mineral processing. The remaining tailings following the extraction of bitumen from oil sands consists of sands, fine particles, water, and residual bitumen, which is deposited behind a tailings dam. Tailings dams are particularly susceptible to liquefaction and exhibit a strength loss when loaded without allowing their volume to change in loose saturated conditions. A tailings dam must withstand both static and seismic loads to remain stable for a very long time. Lateral stress relief and effective stress reduction also have been recognized as the culprits in flow failures of several mine tailings dams and can be simulated in the laboratory as drained constant shear unloading (DCSU) tests. This research examines the instability of coarse oil sands tailings (CST) in both constant volume (CV) and DCSU stress path through a series of monotonic direct simple shear tests. A detailed investigation is carried out to observe the cyclic, post-cyclic liquefaction behaviour and dynamic properties of coarse oil sands tailings (CST). A tailings dam is made up of coarse sands tailings (CST) and fluid fine tailings (FFT), which can be mixed in various quantities and have significantly different properties than either CST or FFT. Laboratory specimens were prepared using moist-tamping (MT), dry deposition (DD), and slurry deposition (SD) techniques to investigate the effect of sample reconstitution method and tailings fabric on CST’s instability behavior. The effects of consolidation stress, void ratio, initial shear stress, and unloading rate on the drained instability of CST specimens were also investigated. The effectiveness of a naturally driven biological process known as microbially induced calcite precipitation (MICP) on the monotonic and cyclic shear response of oil sands tailings is also assessed. Sporosarcina pasteurii is employed to precipitate calcite (CaCO3) by its metabolic action to alter the engineering properties of CST.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".