4.5 Article

Rheology of Fly Ash Mixed Tailings Slurries and Applicability of Prediction Models

期刊

MINERALS
卷 7, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/min7090165

关键词

rheology; tailings; fly ash; slurry; modelling

资金

  1. University of Seoul
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) [2016R1A6A3A03010454]
  3. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transportation of Korean government [17-RDRP-B076564-04]
  4. Korea Agency for Infrastructure Technology Advancement (KAIA) [76566] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)
  5. National Research Foundation of Korea [2016R1A6A3A03010454] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Coal fly ash has potential applications in the management of reactive mine tailings. The shear stress versus shear rate curves obtained during viscometer tests are presented to describe the rheological behaviors of tailings slurries mixed with fly ash. The investigation was conducted on specimens prepared with different fly ash additions as well as prepared at variable conditions of temperature, mixing time, and CaCl2 solution. It was observed that the rheological properties of ash-tailings slurry mixtures are influenced by the hydration of fly ash as well as the particle packing and arrangement. Rheological properties of specimen mixtures were determined from the resulting flow curves using the existing rheological models. The performance of prediction models in calculating the rheological properties of the mixed specimens, as quantified by the root mean square error (RMSE), varied with the mixture constituents, temperature, and time. In general, the Papanastasion, Herschel-Bulkley, Sisko, and Robertson-Stiff models were found to be favorable for use with mixtures of fly ash and tailings slurries, compared to the Bingham, Modified Bingham, Casson, and De Kee models.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据