Search Documents

By M. Z. He

Attractive particle interactions which underpin the sliming of gangue mineral particles onto valuable mineral phases are encountered in a number of flotation circuits. Sliming leads to poor flotation recovery of the valuable minerals and high recovery of the gangue particles in the concentrate. To mitigate sliming, low molecular weight poly-electrolytes are commonly used as dispersants during pulp conditioning prior to flotation separation of the valuable and gangue mineral phases. In the present work, the sliming mechanism of sericite onto chalcocite and the influence of interfacial chemistry and two anionic copolymer dispersants (carboxylate substituted polyacrylamide, polymer Cyquest 3223 and sulfonate substituted polymaleic acid, polymer P80) on the sliming interactions were probed in the pH range 5~9. It was shown that the sliming occurred under solution conditions where both chalcocite and sericite particles were negatively charged, as evidenced by their apparent particle zeta potentials. The suspension pH had a profound effect on sliming process as the extent was markedly greater at lower than higher pH. The sliming was found to be due to the chalcocite dissolution, Cu (I) release and oxidation to Cu (II), followed by hydrolysis and specific adsorption, leading to sericite particle surface charge reversal and the formation of electropositive sites on chalcocite surface in the pH range 5~9. Addition of polymer Cyquest 3223 or P80 not only increased the magnitude of zeta potentials of both sericite and chalcocite particles but also reduced the formation of Cu (II) ions and complexes, which mitigated the sliming behaviour. The adsorption of polymer Cyquest 3223 or P80 at 3 g polymer / kg solid or more had a significant impact on the zeta potentials of both sericite and chalcocite particles. Sericite-chalcocite particulate adsorption studies showed that sliming was completely suppressed via an electro-steric repulsion mechanism resulting from anionic polymeric dispersant adsorption at dosages > 3 g polymer / kg solid.

Jan 1, 2014

By Helen Ahnberg

The scope of the present paper is limited to report the experimental evidence and not for describing the analytical assumptions. However, the idea behind the experimental program is that the deterioration may be caused by the leaching of Ca from the treated soil to surrounding soil or water driven by the difference in the Ca ion concentration. As a consequence of Ca leaching, it may be natural to expect the expansion of micro void space within the treated soil. In a saturated condition, the water inflow into the treated soil may accompany the leaching phenomenon. We measured the water content within the treated soil. But there is not much difference in water content within the soil.

Feb 10, 2003

By Peter Iovino

Unfortunately, I don't know the unit cost per cubic yard of treatment. I reflected on that yesterday and I don't think that we considered the use of micropiles. They could have been an option. The challenge may have been picking up some of the lateral load but I think the micropiles could have been installed on a batter and perhaps extended to rock. We could have considered them, but I do not believe we explored micropiles as an option for this project.

Feb 10, 2003

By Stefan Dahlin

The laboratory tests indicated low permeability but as I said, as a rule, the permeability in the field has been found to be higher. A high permeability has also been found when doing back calculations of rates of settlements in different cases. But as I also said, there's a need for further studies in this area.

Feb 10, 2003

By Mary Ellen Bruce

Let me first address the issue of the wet grab samples. The wet grab samples that were attempted to take on the Central Artery were hindered by the fact that the way the mixing was being done was only by injecting grout on the way out, during withdrawal of the mixing tools. They would auger down to the required depth (usually with some water being injected), which took anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour, and then when coming out, the grout would be injected with grout. That was leaving a column of grout in the center where the shaft had been (i.e. inside of the blades of the mixing tools), which would end up being something like a foot in diameter because the pipe that was used for the drill shaft was a foot in diameter. So we had 10 inches to a foot of almost pure grout in the middle of our column and then we had 2 feet on either side that was mixed soil cement. So when they went down with the wet grab sampler not knowing where that was in the column sometimes they/we were getting strengths of 1500 psi, and sometimes they/we were getting strength of 500 psi or 100 psi. So what was it that we were taking into the wet grab sampler? In those cases you don't really know, but it wasn't representative of the core samples we were taking. We were purposely not coring in the center because we knew that was going to be high cement content, almost pure grout. So the issue of wet grab sampling particularly on this project, the Central Artery Project, was that we didn't really know what we were sampling. What becomes an issue with wet grab sampling in other projects is that you have to have another device (machine) in most cases, a cherry picker crane or something similar that can raise and lower with a beam that is used to forces the sampler down into the freshly mixed soil-cement. And regarding economics, is it more economical to have that crane standing by with its operator or to have a drill rig to come along later and do the coring and take the material out that's fairly identical to what you're finding in situ? The complaint of micro-fracturing in the core samples as you're taking the cores was raised by Seiko as causing large strength reductions. But, if you're doing it carefully, then I don't think that's much of an issue anymore, on research basis perhaps but not on a practical level.

Feb 10, 2003

By Dennis Wrixon

It was a little bit exceeded. The decision was the uniform settlement is measured at each one corner and the highest one corner is the important one. And in addition there is a differential settlement of 2.1 mm allowed. So we reached about 7.8 or 7.9 mm with the highest corner and in addition 2.1 so it was a little too much. But behind there is a very difficult calculation of the authorities where all of the displacements are combined together and there are of course some more factors of safety in these settlements.

Feb 10, 2003

By Douglas Heenan

The fracture orientations were inferred based on theory and previous experience. The fracture pattern was not monitored during the project. Grout volume was recorded at each sleeve port and real time movement monitoring of the building foundation was performed.

Feb 10, 2003

By Timothy Flaherty

We observed the boiling in the water very close to the water adjacent to where we were drilling. That only happened at the very beginning before it was switched to water flushing. Yes, it was performed with water flush.

Feb 10, 2003

By Jim Henry

I would say mainly the cost. I showed only 3 cases. One of them was the one that Allen just described and there were two other cases. In those cases it was fairly easy to develop a solution using limited mobility grout to treat the soft soils suitable for the limited bearing pressures required by the structures. LMG readily provided a fairly reliable system for the foundation support at a reasonable cost.

Feb 10, 2003

By Allen Cadden

The type of soil we had was a silty fine sand. It had been placed by hydraulic methods in 1904 so it was quite clean I would say less than 10% silt the rest of it was very loose sand. That I'm not certain, I've only done it on sandy soils but it would stand to reason that some sort of a number should apply because you are measuring the amount of work that you are doing to it so if the soil is fairly consistent over the site it should be able to generalize from there but I don't know for a fact that it works. Well, verifying to ourselves that this method actually worked because we weren't certain at first when we were doing it so then we would develop the numbers and then check the results.

Feb 10, 2003

By John Davie

We used a Remtek survey in Glenrock and had very good luck with it when we first started the initial investigation. We would have loved to have used that more but my understanding is the equipment is hard to find. It also requires a flooded mine workings. If you're in a dry mine the communication between the two holes is not quite as successful.

Feb 10, 2003

By Peter Yen

This session consists of five papers. Three involved research on the properties of grout materials, specifically ultrafine cements and polyurethane grouts. Two papers present the development of soil grouting technology and monitoring methods. Of great interest are the papers on ultrafine grout penetrability testing focusing on the pressure filtration effects encountered in permeation grouting applications (Ericksson, Stille and Mittag, Savidis). The comparison testing of hydrophilic and hydrophobic polyurethane grouts submitted by Vrignaud, Ballivy, Perret and Fernagu assessed the long-term performance of these materials for repairing saturated cracks in concrete, subject to thermal expansion and contraction. Two very practical papers present the development of soil grouting, where permeation, fracture, replacement, jetting and other grouting techniques are utilized. The papers by Lees with Chuaqui and Warner present experience with ultrafine and other commonly used grout materials. Methods to measure and monitor the injection process and verify production progress are discussed.

Feb 10, 2003

By Trent Dreese

For critical velocities in gravel units we use Bush-Luckner, Sichardt, other empirical equations, and equations derived from laboratory experiments too. On the base of these, we compiled critical velocity - permeability coefficient dependencies. Under the lower border of these dependencies sand particles can't be moved, and thus they are stable. For critical velocities in the fissures of flysh and volcanic rocks we use Ronzhin (1974) criteria derived from laboratory experiments in Russia. Maximal filtration velocities measured by tracer methods in gravel soils and in fissured rocks have smaller values then the critical ones.

Feb 10, 2003

By Dawn Shuttle

In trying to find a grout, or some kind of stabilizer that would work in this application, we established some performance criteria. Of those, what I controlled the most was viscosity, then I had a whole list of other criteria. I needed a long, controllable gel time, durability and the ability to set and stabilize the soil. So I looked through a lot of different stabilizers, some really crazy ones and also the typical chemical grouts that are used. The typical chemical grouts were eliminated because of long-term durability concerns, the need for having extended gel times, and several other concerns. I would be happy to discuss that with you further after the talk if you're interested. But, generally it was based on viscosity, gel time, and the need for extended gel time. In terms of the relative density of the sand many other grouts could have been used. But the main issue was trying to develop this way to do low pressure grouting that would not cause invasive disruption of the site. We couldn't go in and grout it, put centers, so most of the other grouts wouldn't work for various reasons. The forty percent relative density samples were prepared by plubiation. That was both during the cyclic testing stage of the research, which happened a few years back, and also during the box model and the laminar box models at RPI. In terms of what criteria were used to determine the success of the grouting, when I initially started this work what I did was take the grouted samples and I subjected them to cyclic triaxial testing. What I did was take a look at the cyclic deformation resistance of different concentrations of grouted colloidal silica treated sand. I looked first at 20% concentration because I wanted something that I knew worked and then I gradually decreased to 15%, 10%, and 5%. What I was most concerned with was that it did not liquefy and that it was able to hold together it and experience some deformation. But most importantly it needed to not liquefy. So, that was the biggest issue in determining the success of the grouting. In terms of the centrifuge modeling it was done by looking at several components: from looking at the pictures of the bending moments, looking at the acceleration records and how the acceleration records were transferred through the soil, looking at the reduction in the lateral displacement and those kinds of issues. So let me show you the difference.

Feb 10, 2003

By Raymond Henn

Yes we have also used some however, again because of the nature of the maintenance window where we have that two hour (at best) window every night and due to the numerous other crews that are wanting to get in to do the other types of maintenance activities, we don't know if we are going to be getting into that same area from one night to the next. So even with the dormancy additives that one can add to cementitious grouts (that are good up to 72 hours) we don't know if we are going to get back in to the same locations from one week to the next. That's why I use the term "the forgiving nature of the acrylamide". It allows us to ream out the hole allowing us to use the exact same hole without having to re-drill a new hole. The program started in 1997 and we have a budget between labor/materials and equipment of 4.5 million dollars on a year to year basis. For the next few years that is going to come down drastically because the program is going to be more of an ongoing maintenance program. The program started in 1997 and we have a budget between labor/materials and equipment of 4.5 million dollars on a year to year basis. For the next few years that is going to come down drastically because the program is going to be more of an ongoing maintenance program. Up to the end of 2001 we were just over 1.7 million liters of between AV100 and AV118 grout. Of that, approximately just under 200,000 was AV100 and the remaining balance was AV118.

Feb 10, 2003

By Lois G. Schwarz

I did not make studies about this parameter but I can say that some researchers recommend using low C3A cements to repair masonry mortar in order to reduce a possible combination with sulphate that can be present in old mortars.

Feb 10, 2003

By Lois G. Schwarz

I did a project (Sungai Piah) as a consultant to your firm in Malaysia, where we were faced with a similar situation as sketched out in your question. The following is what we did for the grouting of the primary holes, which were both located upstream of the plug as well as downstream: We used a hydrophobic MDI based semi-rigid polyurethane prepolymer in the first phase of the grouting operation when grouting under water flow conditions. Then in the second phase and also for the contact grouting we used a two component water compatible polyurethane elastomer. And then for deeper formation grouting, when all the water flow had been stemmed in the vicinity of the plug, we used a regular (balanced stable) cement based grout. So it may not exactly answer your question, but we first used hydrophobic grout because it is very efficient to grout a formation through which water flows. We didn't stop all the leaks day-lighting downstream of the plug or all water running through the formation near the plug, but the flow of water through the rock formation adjacent to the plug was reduced by 99.9%, after completing the urethane grouting. This facilitated the placement of cement based suspension grouts without wash-out.

Feb 10, 2003

Paper 1: Risk of gastrointestinal cancers from inhalation and ingestion of asbestos, John F. Gamble Selikoff suggested the hypothesis that asbestos exposure is causally associated with increased risk of gastrointestinal (GI) cancers in an early study of insulation workers. In this paper, John Gamble reports on his extensive review and reanalysis studies that address the relationship between asbestos exposure and GI cancers. The purpose of the review was to evaluate the association between asbestos exposure and risks of stomach, colorectal, colon, and rectal cancers separately. Gamble evaluated exposure?response (E?R) relationships using surrogate exposure methods ??because few individual studies of GI cancer have reported exposure? response analyses.?? The principal asbestos exposure surrogates are: (1) the rate ratio (RR) for lung cancer; and (2) the percent of mesothelioma among exposed workers. Analyzing SMRs for GI cancers from individual studies versus the risk of lung cancer and mesothelioma provides crude estimates of E?Rs for asbestos exposure and GI cancer. Briefly, Gamble justifies the surrogate approach as follows:

Jan 1, 2007

By George J. Tamaro

The design and construction of foundations in the New York City area are usually dictated by the widely varying geologic conditions encountered in the five boroughs, particularly along the spine of Manhattan Island. Rock extends well above sea level at the northern reaches and falls to depths in excess of 250 m at the barrier islands at the southern extremities. These highly variable geologic conditions, significantly affected by glacial activity, dictate different design and construction approaches throughout the five boroughs of New York City. Extensive rock removal is required at the north while long piling is dictated in the south. Similar changes can occur within a project site on Manhattan Island. This paper will describe these conditions in general, will identify the various solutions used to solve these problems and will summarize various foundation types used in the New York City area.

Jan 1, 2000

By Arturo Ressi di Cervia

From the times when men in lacustrine environments drove wooden piles into the mud to elevate their dwellings, until the beginning of the twentieth century builders reacted to the conditions found in the location of their proposed structures by attempting to distribute their loads in ways that could be supported by the foundation's soils; or, if those were unsuitable, by moving the structure, whenever possible. While many major structures were built on stable ground (the pyramids were founded on rock), others were built on [ ]

Jan 1, 2000