Predicting water depth to limit tailings resuspension in

water cover just add water? 1

Adrian Manlagnit
25 April 2008

This paper was written primarily as literature review on the current research work on the resuspension of
mine wastes using water cover, a common method of limiting acid mine drainage generation. The author
has submitted this paper as part of the requirements in the graduate course ENVE 5704 Topics in
Environmental Engineering: Mine Waste Management (Winter 2008) at Carleton University, Ottawa, ON. For
more specific discussion of materials presented, the reader is directed to the Reference section for titles of
the journal articles for his/ her further research.

Abstract
Acid mine drainage (AMD), which generates sulfuric acid and dissolved trace
metals from oxidation of mine wastes exposed to water and oxygen, is one of the
most serious problems facing the mining industry. Creating water cover over
tailings is seen to have the potential to limit oxidation that would produce AMD
with its twin benefits of limiting oxygen diffusivity and solubility. This is evidenced
by reduced sulfate and metals concentrations in laboratory and field studies
where tailings and waste rocks were flooded. However, the resuspension of
flooded mine wastes may threaten the apparent success of water cover. This
literature review looks into recent methodologies developed to predict water
depth that would prevent resuspension of flooded tailings. The Linear Wave
Theory continues to provide the basis of the models used in wind-wave
calculations, with the Sverdup-Munk-Bretschneider (SMB) model the most
commonly used in the studies reviewed. A stand-out among the current
methodologies is the one predicting the optimum water cover depth either a
depth with no resuspension or a depth allowing resuspension and related water
quality conditions but within regulations. A range of 0.5 m to 2.50 m of water
depth to prevent resuspension was predicted at various test sites, though
resuspension may still occur due to other factors not captured by the
methodologies. Studies reviewed have recommended additional research to
further understand the physio-chemical nature of tailings and their combined
reactions so water depth as a function of resuspension could be suitably
determined.

ii

Table of Contents
I. Introduction .1
II. Predicting Water Depth to Limit Resuspension....3
III. Further Insights Water Cover Mechanism and Resuspension.....7
IV. Discussion...18
V. Conclusion20
References
Appendices

iii

I. Introduction
One of the many serious environmental problems the mining industry worldwide
is facing today is how to control acid mine drainage (AMD). AMD is produced
when tailings and waste rocks from mining pyritic massive sulfide deposits is
exposed primarily to water and atmospheric oxygen, resulting in sulfuric acid and
dissolved trace metals. Although AMD from pyrite oxidation can be naturally
produced and disseminated, they have localized impacts and can be attenuated
by dilution and neutralizing agents from nature. Whereas mining-produced AMD,
at higher concentrations in tailings impoundments, can contribute significant
loadings of acidity and dissolved metals when released to the environment
(MEND 1998).
To limit pyritic oxidation, water cover is one of the many emerging technologies
that can potentially limit the resulting AMD production from tailings and waste
rocks. Water cover is effective in suppressing oxidants for twin reasons the low
solubility of O2 (8.6 g/ m3 at 20oC) and low diffusivity of O2 (~2 x 10-9 m2/s) in
water compared to 1.78 x 10-5 m2/s in air. Oxygen transfer in flooded tailings by
molecular diffusion is approximately 10,000 times slower than those without
water cover (Simms, et al, 2000). Other benefits of water cover include a)
creating a reducing environment for growth of sulfate- and nitrate-reducing
microorganisms that helps in precipitation of metals dissolved as sulfides and
ammonia from reduction of nitrates, b) preventing surface erosion and dust
problems.
Water cover evolved from the disposal of tailings on natural bodies of water such
as freshwater lakes and oceans for reasons of general convenience rather than
as a control mechanism for reactive tailings in the late 1980s (MEND 1998).
Although research data have shown that the disposal of sulfide-rich tailings in
biologically-productive lakes will not lead to long-term acid generation or
excessive concentrations of dissolved trace metals in the covering water, only

short-term impact on the ecology and biology of the lake systems (MEND 1998),
the practice became increasingly unattractive to government regulators, thus the
shift to engineered impoundments.
There are four types of water cover methods that can be employed on mine
wastes, namely, (1) the sub-aqueous or underwater disposal in natural water
bodies such as lakes and marine disposal; (2) the disposal into man-made
impoundments or reservoirs;. (3) the disposal into flooded mine workings and
open pits, and (4) a water cover built on existing waste management sites
(Mohamed, et al, 1993). The near-impossibility of obtaining permits from
government regulators, particularly in North America, to dispose tailings and
waste rocks on natural marine waters pushes the mining sector to use the fourth
type - shallow covers (up to 2 meters) - as primary method of flooding mine
wastes and control AMD. Deep water covers appears to be less attractive option
to mine operators due to concerns on the long-term stability of reservoirs from
hydrostatic pressures, the high costs of construction including efficient flood
control systems and its maintenance, and the attendant monitoring of the
structure and water quality (Yanful, et al, 2004), among others.
Shallow water covers, compared with deeper ones, can also provide the twin
benefits of limiting oxygen diffusivity and solubility, thus dampening AMD
production and metals release. Laboratory and field studies (Yanful, et al, 2000
and Simms et al, 2000) have shown that dissolution and release of trace metals
from both oxidized and pre-oxidized can be minimized by shallow water cover.
However, wind-induced waves could cause erosion and resuspension of tailings
after flooding especially if the water depth is less than 1 m (Mian and Yanful,
2003). With oxygen concentration in shallow water covers at approximately close
to the saturation point (Vigneault et al, 2001), resuspension causes tailings to
oxidize more than flooded tailings at rest as shown in the laboratory (Yanful et al,
2000; Yanful and Verma, 1998). Indeed, resuspension is one of the key problems

affecting the treatment and operational efficiency of flooding mine tailings waste
rocks, especially those with shallow cover.
This literature review looked into different methodologies developed to date to
predict water depth and examine the results from new studies that could be
further integrated in the design of water cover to prevent resuspension of flooded
tailings.
II. Predicting Water Depth to Limit Resuspension
From the early 1980s to early 1990s, laboratory studies were conducted primarily
to measure geochemical performance of water cover and these returned positive
results, i.e. even up to 99.70% reduction in AMD generation and control of trace
metals migration via precipitation compared to the unflooded tailings. This
apparent success in terms of geochemical performance could be threatened by
resuspension a phenomenon that was not captured in the plexiglass columns
during earlier experiments however evidenced in later field studies (Yanful, 2004,
and Adu-Wusu, et al, 2001).
The depth of the water cover with far-reaching effects from engineering design
(total volume of water and heights of impoundments) to physical/ geochemical
performances (control of AMD generation and structural stability) to project
economics (initial capital and long-term maintenance and monitoring costs) is
a key component of implementing this AMD treatment technology. Designing
water cover depth is based on any of the two key criteria: 1) hydrological forecast
of the probability of occurrence of a drought event or 2) the minimum water cover
depth necessary to prevent resuspension (Yanful and Simms, 1998). There are
many variables, both measured and derived, in a wave activity that could
influence water depth as well as velocity as seen on Table I.

Table I. Wave Variables Influencing Minimum Water Depth (MEND 1998)

Process
wave
activity

Measured
Variables
wind speed
wind direction
fetch
tailings grain size
tailings density

Derived
Variables
wind duration
wave period
wave height

Output
minimum depth
bed velocity

Until the late 1990s, studies reviewed have shown that designing the water cover
depth was based on empirically-derived models and hydrological forecasting
(statistical probability approach of measuring drought duration to determine the
size and hence, the volume and depth of an impoundment to maintain moisture
saturation of the tailings). More importantly, the linear wave theory has provided
the continued basis of these models used to determine the minimum water cover
depth that will prevent resuspension of particles submerged in water.
Linear Wave Theory
The Linear Wave Theory, as described by Yanful and Simms (1998), is used
when estimating particle resuspension and is based on this premise the height
of the waves is small compared to the wave length and water depth. This
premise then linearizes two boundary conditions describing the wave motion: 1)
the dynamic surface boundary condition which describes the vertical component
of water velocity at the surface, and 2) the kinematic boundary condition, which is
Bernoullis equation for unsteady flow at the surface. Water velocities can then
be determined. The horizontal water particle velocity is particularly important as
this correlates empirically with bed velocity, bed shear stress, or the wave height
to water depth ratio in controlling resuspension and/or stability of deposited
materials.

The horizontal velocity particle, u, can be derived by the following equation, with
other variables including assuming waves being either in shallow or deep water:

u = H [cosh (k+z)/ sinh (kd)] cos (kx-t)

L

where

k is the wave number, defined as 2/L

is the wave angular frequency, defined as 2/T
z and x are spatial coordinates (z is negative below the water surface)
d is the water depth to the bottom
H is the wave height, empirically determined from wind-wave relationships
T is period, empirically determined from wind-wave relationships
L is wavelength to be solved iteratively using the equation = gT2 tanh (2D/L)
2
If the depth is greater than L/2 i.e. (for deep water cover), the maximum
horizontal water velocity is independent of water depth and can be obtained
using the equation u = H exp [2z/L).
T
For shallow water covers i.e. engineered impoundments, the velocity equation is
given by u = H exp [L/2d).
T
Empirical Models and their Applications
With the linear wave theory providing working foundation to assess particle
resuspension, there are several empirical models that have been developed to
determine water depth based on waves in shallow and/or deeper water. These
are the Norwegian Hydrotechnical Laboratory (NHL) model, the Sverdup-MunkBretschneider (SMB) model, the Rodney and Stefan model and the University of
British Columbia (UBC) model (Lawrence et al., 1991). Please refer to Appendix
I for more detailed description of the different models and methodologies.
The results from previous studies (Hay and Company Consultants, 1996,
Mohamed, Yong, et al, 1993; Eriksson, Lindvall, et al, 2001) on designing water
cover depth using various empirical models to date are summarized in the
following table. The data on Quirke Cell 14 (Elliot Lake) and Hjerkkin (Norway)

mine sites and, whenever available, the resulting resuspension (or lack of it) for
each sites were taken from an earlier review of water cover projects made by
Yanful and Simms in 1998.
Table II. Water Depth Predicted by Various Models at Different Sites
Minesites

Tailings/ ore
types
Minerals
include
chalcopyrite
CuFe2,
tennanite
(Cu,Fe,Zn,Ag)12
As4S13 and
tetrahedrite
(Cu,Fe,Zn,Ag)12
Sb4S13.

Water cover design and empirical

model/ method used
To have no resuspension of tailings,
HAY Consultants (1996) used the
work of Lawrence et al. (1991), the
UBC model and Komar and Miller
(1975) relating the depth of water
cover required for bed stability to
wave height and sediment
characteristics. Using wave hindcast
procedures, the over-water distances
at the Equity pond, and the sediment
characteristics from sampling, the
minimum water cover depth for a
variety of wind speeds was calculated.

SolbecCupra,
Quebec
(1993)

The tailings
have 1.56% Cu,
4.5% Zn, and
0.69% Pb,
52.11 g /t Ag
and 0.58 g /t
Au.

Quirke Cell
14, Elliot
Lake, ON
(1995)

The tailings
chemically
composed of
82% qtz.

To prevent resuspension, a semiempirical method based on SverdrupMunk-Bretschneider method for

shallow water is used to calculate the
significant wave height and significant
wave period. Height of water = actual
wave height in the field/ experimental
ratio (wave height/water height).
The water covers depth is to maintain
saturation of the tailings in the event
of a drought and aid vegetation
growth. Hydrological forecasting was
used.

Stekenjokk
Tailings, N.
Sweden
(1989)

The tailings are

sulfidic and
metal rich (20%
S; 0.65% Zn;
0.2% Cu) and
has carbonates
(7% CaCO3).

Equity
Silver, BC
(1996)

To ensure the tailings were covered

even in the event of a 1000-year
drought, the Norwegian
Hydrotechnical Laboratory (NHL)
model was used.

Predicted minimum
depth + results
The depth required at
no movement of
tailings is 1.4 m at
18.6 m/s wind.
Observed bed form
showed
resuspension at
depths < 1.4 m.
Water quality
parameters as at
1996 < provincial
guidelines, could be
indication of no
resuspension.
The minimum
water above tailing
obtained is 1.341m;
with sand layer on
top of the tailings, the
height can be
reduced to 0.741m.
Minimum water cover
depth is 0.6 m. Due
to coarse tailings and
small wave fetch,
resuspension was
not considered a
potential problem,
thus was not
monitored.
The calculated depth
varied between 0.2 2.2 m for fetch
lengths of 0.05 -1.10
km without a sand
layer, and 0.2-0.93 m
with a sand layer.
Wave breakers also
installed. TSS <

Hjerkkin,
Norway
(1986)

The sulfur of
the tailings
varied from 18
% measured in
1976 to less
than 5% in
1989. Cu, Zn,
and Fe in a
single sample
1989 was
0.26%, 0.49 %,
and 17.5 %
respectively.

To prevent resuspension, the

Norwegian Hydrotechnical Laboratory
(NHL) model was used.

detection (1995).
A minimum depth of
1.5 m was obtained
to stop resuspension,
though it was not
measured later in
1995. SO4 and Zn
concentrations went
down and could
indicate reduced
particles suspension.

It has been shown that shallow water cover (0.6 m to 2.2.m as predicted from the
aforementioned studies) could control resuspension. The addition of sand layer
(although at a cost if implemented) in the Solbec Cupra and Stenkenjokk sites
have also shown to decrease the volume of water and hence the depth.
However, these predicted values are site-specific due to disparate physical
features (geometry, size, orientation, wind conditions, climate, etc) of the tailings
ponds, in addition to complex behavior of flooded tailings themselves.
III. Further Insights Water Cover Mechanism and Resuspension
Resuspension as has been verified by Yang et al (2000) is a function of frictional
shear force exerted by the flow per unit area of bed or the shear stress. When
the total bed shear stress (bottom current shear stress + surface wave shear
stress) due to wind-induced wave exceeds the critical shear stresses of the
tailings, resuspension would occur (Mian et al, 2003). Formulas for stresses
(bottom wave, surface current and critical) are on Appendix II.
As described by Mian and Yanful (2003) from previous studies (Baines and
Knapp, 1965; Lick, 1986 and Yang, 2001), wind creates a shear stress at the
surface at the surface of the tailings pond, which then drives a surface drift
current in the direction of the wind and a return current near the tailings of the

bed. For shallow waters, wave action is the dominant force in creating shear
while it is the return current in deeper waters. Figure I illustrates the process.
Figure I. Mechanism of Wind-Induced Erosion, Resuspension and Transportation
of Flooded Mine Tailings (Mian and Yanful, 2003)

Resuspension at shallow areas

A similar study from previously-enumerated cases (see Table II) has been
undertaken by Yanful and Catalan in 2001. At the Heathe Steel Upper Cell
tailings area (Miramichi, NB), a field test was made using field-measured wind
conditions, tailings pond geometry, and laboratory-measured physical properties
of tailings to predict wind-driven resuspension of mine tailings. Using the
Sverdup-Munk-Bretschneider (SMB) method, wave parameters such as wave
height and time period were determined while wind-induced shear stress at the
surface of the pond and return or countercurrents shear stress to result with the
total combined bed stress were also determined. A critical depth for tailings
resuspension was predicted to be 1.181.34 m. The critical shear stress of the
study tailings was between 0.12 and 0.17 Pa (see Figure I) and at 10 m/s wind in
shallow water cover, resuspension occurred.

Figure I. Shear Stress and Suspended Tailings Concentration Measured in

Rotating Plume (Yanful and Catalan, 2001)

From the field sediment traps, resuspension occurs largely in areas where the
water cover depth was 1 m or less. For the Heathe Steel Upper Cell tailings, a 1m water cover, tailings erosion could occur if the wind speed is greater than 7.5
or 8.5 m/s based on the lower or upper bound values of the critical shear stress,
respectively, while (see Figure II) the critical wind speed increases linearly with
water cover depth, and that the rate of increase (see Figure III).
Figure II. Shear stress vs. Wind Speed for 1-m Cover (Yanful and Catalan, 2001)

Figure III. Critical Wind Speed vs. Water Cover Depth (Yanful and Catalan, 2001)

The study has also observed that currents generated by surface shear stress
traveling in the same direction with the waves as well as the bottom return
currents could have likely transported the resuspended tailings to other locations
where the cover was deeper than 1 m.
Total bed shear depends on wind speed, wave shear
Studies by Adu-Wusu et al (2000) on shallow water cover (< 1m) at Quirke Cell
14 (Elliot Lake, ON), they have found out that wind speeds greater than 8 m/s
could create wave heights greater than 10 cm and bottom shear stresses greater
than 0.2 Pascal resulted in erosion and resuspension as the critical shear stress
of the tailings was exceeded. The SMB method was used in determining wave
height and wave period. Other important findings on shallow water cover: a)
wave contribute more significantly than current in the total shear stress (see
Figure IV); and b) total shear stress is dependent more on wind speed than water
depth in shallow water (see Figure V).

10

Figure IV. Shear Stress vs. Water Depth at 8 m/s (Adu-Wusu et al, 2003)

Figure V. Total shear stress vs. Water Depth at Different Speeds (Adu-Wusu et al,
2003)

Maximum resuspension at longest fetch

Field studies by Mian and Yanful (2003) on co-disposed tailings and sludge with
shallow covers (up to 2 m) at the Heathe Steele Mines (Miramichi, NB) have also
shown that wind blowing at 8-9 m/s along the long-axis (longest fetch) of the
tailings ponds produced more resuspension and erosion as indicated by higher
total suspended solids (TSS) concentration, exceeding the federal effluent

11

guidelines of 25 mg/L. The SMB method was used in determining wave height
and wave period. Figures VI also showed that water cover depth of 1 m must be
maintained to ensure TSS concentrations are below federal guidelines and that
wind speed has to exceed 9.5 m/s for the bottom sediments to get float at 1 m.
However it must be noted that the calculated TSS concentrations are higher than
those measured at the effluent since the experiment was performed using water
column and the effects of transport and deposition of sludge were not factored in.
Figure VI. Calculated TSS concentration at max wind speed and varying fetches
(Mian and Yanful, 2003)

This study has also confirmed the results of studies by Adu-Wusu, et al (2000)
discussed earlier that wave-induced shear stress dominates the total bed shear
stress and that bottom return currents has negligible effects for shallow water
covers (see Figure VII).

12

Figure VII. Total Shear Stresses (from Surface Drifts and Bottom Currents) for 0.5
m Water Cover Depth (Mian and Yanful, 2003)

To eliminate or allow resuspension based on optimum water depth

Samad and Yanful (2004) have proposed a methodology of predicting an
optimum water depth that would either eliminate resuspension or allow
resuspension but with TSS and sulfate concentrations within federal regulations.
The minimum water depth required is based on the condition that wind-induced
bottom shear stress would not exceed the critical shear stress for tailings
erosion. The study prescribes that the distribution of required depths in the pond
is obtained by dividing the pond into a number of grids with suitable grid spacing
and the computations are performed at each grid cell. The design wind speed
and directional distribution for a given return period is based on measured wind
data.

Fetch length at each grid points are then calculated according to the

directional wind distribution. Figure VIII describes the process while details of the
equations including variables used are in Appendix III.
In the computational framework proposed by Samad and Yanful (2004), the first
cycle of computations involves finding the minimum water depth needed to
completely eliminate resuspension of the tailings using wind data and the

13

measured critical shear stress. The resulting depths are presented in depthcontour maps.
Figure VIII. Computational Flowchart for the Methodology of Predicting Optimum
Water Cover Depth (Samad and Yanful, 2004)

14

During the second computational cycle, specific conditions are applied to the
minimum required water depth, allowing partial tailings resuspension, resulting
with reduced depth requirement. The equivalent TSS and sulfate concentrations
at reduced water depth are then determined and plotted as distribution maps
along with depth contours.
Wave parameters such as wave heights and periods were calculated with both
the SMB and the Coastal Engineering (CEM) methods the given wind speeds,
fetch lengths in the direction of the wind, and water depths. The time necessary
to meet the fetch-limited condition in the pond is also determined prior to
calculating significant wave properties (Samad and Yanful 2004).
As proposed by two authors (Samad and Yanful 2004), sulfate concentration will
be also estimated as an oxidation product based on the principle similar to a
batch reactor, where the rate of loss of oxygen for oxidation is set equal to the
rate of accumulation of the oxidation product. Oxygen consumption for oxidation
of the bed tailings can be obtained through the diffusion law; the dissolved
oxygen concentration in a completely mixed water column, in the absence of
advection or sediment resuspension, is found through the equation:
dC/dt = D * d2C/dz2 K*C, where C is the oxygen concentration (kg/m-3); t is time
(s); D is effective diffusion coefficient of oxygen in tailings (m2/s-1); z depth of
water in water column (m) and K is oxidation rate (s-1). The steady-state solution
of the previous equation at the tailings-water interface can be found for oxygen
mass flux, O2 flux (kg.m-2s-1) as O2 flux = dm/dt = CoD*K*. Co is oxygen
concentration at the air-water interface (kg.m-3).
Using the rate law and reaction rate constant, the rate of sulfate production can
then be derived from the previous oxygen flux (Samad and Yanful, 2004).
However, data on oxidation of resuspended tailings in a tailings impoundment

15

can be largely unavailable, thus sulfate production is derived using the batch
reactor principle and volume of tailings resuspension (Samad and Yanful, 2004).
From an earlier study, Yanful and Gautam (2001) offered a formula to find the
rate of sulfate production, SO4-2 flux (kg.m2.s-1) = dms/dt = sE, where dms/dt is the
sulfate mass flux (kg.m2.s-1); s is the sulfate production rate from the shake flask,
e.g. 1.88 mgL-1(SO4-2).day-1.g-1L-1(tailings) for the Heathe Steel tailings, and E being
the tailings erosion rate (kg/m2).
The erosion rate E can be found using the Ariathurai-Partheniades erosion
equation E = M [(o - c)/ c]n for cohesive materials, where o is the total bed
shear stress, c is the critical bed shear stress with units of N/m2, n is an
exponent and M is a coefficient whose values can be found through laboratory or
in-situ experiments or from large-scale observational data (Samad and Yanful
2004).
The proposed model was used to calculate, as demonstration of the model, the
required depth of water as well as the reduced depth cover and the
corresponding TSS and sulfate concentrations at the Premier Gold ProjectTailings Storage Facility (PGP-TSF) in British Columbia. The results are as
follows:
a) Minimum depth without resuspension: 0.80 m to 2.5 m (Case 1 at maximum
wind speed of 16 m/s) and 0.80 m to 4.40m (Case 2 at maximum wind speed at
16 m/s and assumed to be along the direction of the longest axis). See Figure IX
for depth contour of the two cases.
b) Restricting minimum depths to 1.5 m and 2.0 m, sulfate concentrations were
43 mg/L and 9 mg/L, respectively. Sulfate concentration rates also decreased to
9.8 mg/L/d and 2.8 mg/L/d (1.5 m and 2.0 m, respectively), see Figure X.

16

Figure IX. Contour of Minimum Depth Required, Case 1 (left) at maximum wind
speed of 16m/s and Case 2 (Right) at 16 m/s wind and along max fetch length
(Samad and Yanful 2004)

17

Figure X. Contour of sulfate production rate (intervals in mg/L/d); (a) case 3 with
1.5 m maximum allowable water depth and (b) case 4 with 2.0 m maximum
allowable water depth. (Samad and Yanful 2004)

Other highlights of the Samad and Yanful (2004) study:

1) Both TSS and sulfate concentrations and rate of production increased when
maximum wind speed coincides with maximum fetch length. This has also been
proven in previous study (Mian and Yanful 2003).
2) Unlike studies made by Catalan and Yanful (2001) that assumed minimal
contribution of bottom current shear to the total shear stress, this present study
found the opposite is true, but largely dependent on the significant wave height
(affected wind speed and fetch length) and water depth in the pond. But
generally shares the same view that at greater water depth, bottom shear stress
is greater than wave (surface) stress.

18

IV. Discussion
Methodology of predicting water depth
From all the studies surveyed, the minimum depth of water cover predicted
ranged from 0.2 m to 2.5 m, however, each site is different and correlation of
parameters and conditions when determining this value would be limited. The
SMB method appears to be robust when finding for wave heights and periods
based on measured variables (wind speed, direction and fetch) especially for
waves in shallow waters, although other models (see Appendix I) have also
performed well in wind-wave calculations. The approach of employing
hydrodynamic principles have yielded reasonable estimations of values (velocity,
stresses, concentrations, etc) or ratios between predicted and those measured in
the laboratory or in the field. However, even with the existing methods use in the
design of water covers, there could still be a chance for resuspension to occur at
wind speeds and fetch larger than those used in the studies.
Recognizing the recurring problem of resuspension of tailings, the latest
methodology suggested by Samad and Yanful (2004) of predicting water depth
that would either eliminate resuspension or allow it but at desired water quality
provides greater flexibility in terms of design, construction, maintenance/
monitoring and regulatory aspects to mine operators. The method has linked the
minimum depth to desired TSS and sulfate concentrations. Although at a
preliminary stage and has not yet been used on actual design, its computational
capabilities have initially demonstrated its practicality and usefulness in coming
up with scenarios e.g. range of concentrations and production rates at different
depths. But other aspects of the method such as wave measurements, surface
drift currents, TSS concentrations and laboratory concentrations have been
validated.

19

Cover design considerations

Other surveyed studies in the paper may not have directly discussed depth
prediction however they were included as they have presented new information
on resuspension at different wind and wave conditions. Of particular important
findings include 1) the maximum loadings from resuspension (TSS and sulfate
concentration and production rate) occur when steady wind blow along the
longest axis of the pond; 2) wave-induced shear stress dominates the total bed
shear stress and that bottom return currents has minor effects at shallow water
covers and 3) total shear stress is dependent more on wind speed than water
depth in shallow water. These three previously-mentioned observations could be
used in deciding the geometry, orientation and size of a tailings pond to be
designed or operated.
Physical and chemical nature of tailings
The authors of the reviewed papers have also made the following observations:
a) A more comprehensive and rigorous evaluation of sediment transport in the
tailings pond would require careful field measurements of current velocity.
Further experiments are needed to fully understand the erosion and deposition
characteristics of the sludge and tailings particles. The dependence of the
cohesive nature of tailings and sludge particles on consolidation time, water
content, temperature, clay mineral content, and salt concentrations needs to be
investigated (Mian and Yanful 2003);
b) Estimation of the production of other metals aside from sulfate contained in
mine tailings requires assessment of the kinetic reactions of the minerals. In
addition, general water balance and seasonal fluctuations in water volume in the
tailings pond may contribute to the seasonal occurrence of relatively severe
periods of water quality concerns (Samad and Yanful 2004);
c) Certain properties of mine tailings such as thixotropy, flocculation and
cementation and their interactions may influence erosion and entrainment in
more complex ways than can be explained by simple flow dynamics (Adu-Wusu,
et al, 2000).

20

d) An equation or model that would incorporate the processes of cohesion, selfconsolidation, flocculation, fall velocity, tailings pond hydrology and water
balance is still needed to address resuspension problem (Mian and Yanful 2002)
IV. Conclusions
This paper has surveyed studies relating how water depth, a critical component
in implementing this treatment technology, could be predicted to prevent
resuspension of flooded tailings. Resuspension due to wind-induced waves could
trigger reoxidation of resuspended tailings and compromising water and effluent
quality. Despite existing design methods and numerous models of preventing
resuspension, the phenomenon still occurs, both on shallow and deeper waters
(>2m). Examples specifically on the prediction of water cover depth have been
shown and a depth ranging from 0.2 m to 2.5 m were obtained at different test
sites, though no correlations exist among the parameters used during their
derivations as they are site-specific. Monitoring during and after field tests have
yielded some success though resuspension would still recur at a particular time
in a given year. New insights from recent studies can be useful deciding the
geometry, orientation and size of a tailings pond to be designed or operated to
minimize wave and introduction of oxygen. A new method was also proposed
that would predict optimum water depth either no resuspension or allow
resuspension at desired water quality that could provide greater flexibility to
mine operators and regulators alike.
The Linear Wave Theory continues to provide the basis of the models used in
wind-wave calculations, with the SMB model the most commonly used in the
studies reviewed. Though they have provided tools in subsequent prediction of
minimum depth, the methods developed to date may not quite capture yet other
complex inter-relationship of variables such velocity, flocculation, pond geometry,
water balance, cohesion properties, chemical concentrations, among others
within the water cover. Thus, research is still needed to further understand the

21

physiochemical nature of tailings so water depth as a function of resuspension

could be determined.
There is still a dearth of data as to the long-term viability and performance of the
water cover to control AMD and release of metals to the environment, thus,
continued monitoring of sites implementing this method is needed. Water cover
to treat mine wastes is a physical and chemical processes occurring
simultaneously and is more than just adding water.

22

References
Mian, M. H and Yanful, E. (2004). Analysis of wind-driven resuspension of metal
mine sludge in a tailings pond. Journal of Environmental Engineering and
Science 3:119 135.
Holmstromm, H., Ljungberg, J. and Ohlander, B. 2000. The character of the
suspended and dissolved phases in the water cover of the flooded mine tailings
at Stekenjokk, northern Sweden. The Science of Total Environment. 247: 15
31.
Samad, M and Yanful, E. A design approach for selecting the optimum water
cover depth for subaqueous disposal of sulfide mine tailings. 2005. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal. 42: 207228.
Adu-Wusu, C, Yanful, E. and Mian M. Field evidence of resuspension in a mine
tailings pond. 2001. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 38: 796808
Simms, P. Yanful, E, St-Arnaud, L, and Aube, B. A laboratory evaluation of metal
release and transport in preoxidized mine tailings. 2000. Applied Geochemistry
15: 12451263.
Elberling, B. and Daamgard, L. Microscale measurements of oxygen diffusion
and consumption in subaqueous sulfide tailings. 2001. Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 65, No. 12, pp. 18971905.
Mohamed, A, Yong, R., Caporuscio, R and Li, R. Flooding of a mine tailings site
and suspension of solids Impact and Prevention. 1994. MEND Report 2.13.2b
Vigneault, B, Campbell, P, Tessier, A, and De Vitre, R. Geochemical changes in
sulfidic mine tailings stored under a shallow water cover. 2001. Water Resources
Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 10661076, 2001.
Yanful, E, Verma, A and Straatman, A. Turbulence-driven metal driven release
from resuspended pyrrhotite tailings. 2000. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 12. Paper No. 20515.
Peacey, V, Yanful, E, Li, M and Patterson, M. 2002. Water cover over mine
tailings and sludge: field studies of water quality and resuspension. International
Journal of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Environment. Vol. 16, pp. 289 203.
Samad, M and Yanful, E. 2005. A design approach for selecting the optimum
water cover depth for subaqueous disposal of sulfide mine tailings. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal. 42: 207228.

23

Yanful, E, Samad, M and Mian, H. 2004. Shallow Water Cover Technology for
Reactive Sulfide Tailings Management. Waste Geotechnics, pp. 42 52.
Catalan, L and Yanful, E, St-Arnaud, L. 2000. Field assessment of metal and
sulfate fluxes during flooding of pre-oxidized mine tailings. Advances in
Environmental Research 4: 295 306.
Yanful, E. and Catalan, L. Predicted and field-measured resuspension of flooded
mine tailings. 2002. Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 128, No. 4.
Catalan, L. and Yanful, E. Sediment-trap measurements of suspended mine
tailings in shallow water cover. 2002. Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol.
128, No. 1.
Mian, H and Yanful, E. 2003. Tailings erosion and resuspension in two mine
tailings ponds due to wind waves. Advances in Environmental Research 7: 745
765
Hay and Company Consultants. 1996. Shallow water covers Equity Silver Base
Information on Physical Variables. MEND Project 2.11.5ab. 71 pp.
Simms, P and Yanful, E. Review of water cover sites and research projects.
1997. MEND Report 2.18.1. 137 pp.
Design guide for the subaqueous disposal of reactive tailings in constructed
impoundments. 1998. MEND Project 2.11.9. 183 pp.

24

APPENDICES
Appendix I. Description of Methods to Predict Water Depth Hydrological
Forecasting and Empirical Models (Yanful and Simms 1998)
Hydrological Forecasting
By statistically-determining drought duration period, e.g. 100 years, along with modeling
the tailings hydrology, the size of the impoundment can be known that will primarily
maintain moisture saturation of tailings during worst dry season. From the hydrological
model of the impoundment, the required depth of water cover can be determined. Other
factors such as hydraulic conductivity of the tailings and underlying soil deposits and the
surface and sub-surface hydrology must also be known. The absence of realistic
weather records hinders the accuracy of the statistical analyses thus allowing for
substitution from neighboring stations.
Empirical Models and Methodologies
Norwegian Hydrotechnical Laboratory (NHL) Approach - Norway
This method use empirical methods to calculate the necessary depth of water to
eliminate resuspension based on two different criteria (shear force and shear velocity).
For particle sizes greater than 100 m, a maximum shear force at which particles will
resuspend, based on work by Shields (1936), is calculated. For particle sizes less than
100 m, a maximum shear velocity is determined. Estimates of resuspension consider
wind events with a 10-year return period. Wave heights and wave periods are calculated
for various fetch lengths. A non-dimensional fetch (F) is calculated using the following
relationships:
F = gF/u*2 (F is the fetch, g is the acceleration due to gravity)
u* is the air shear velocity is calculated by u* = CdU102
Cd = (0.8 +0.065 U10)10e-3: (U10 is the wind speed at a 10 m height above the water
surface and Cd, the drag coefficient at the air-water interface)
The following non-dimensional parameters are then defined:
Hmo = g Hmo / u*2 where Hmo is the significant wave height
Tu = gTu/ u* , where Tu is the upper wave period
Td = gTd/ u* where Td is the duration of the wind event
These non-dimensional parameters have been correlated with fetch length using data
from the North Sea:
Tu = gTu/ u* where K1 = 0.0506
Td = gTd/ u* where K2 = 0.903

25

Td = = K3(F)e-3 where K3 = 23
From these parameters the real significant wave heights and periods can be back
calculated. The uncertainty in the above expressions is assumed to be around 10 %.
The bed velocity, Ub, can be calculated from the above wave characteristics using linear
wave theory. The shear force at the bottom, b, is then calculated as:
b = 0.5fw w Ub2
where
w is the specific mass of water, kg/m3
Ub is the maximum bottom water velocity calculated from linear wave theory, m/s, and
fw is a dimensionless shear factor and can be calculated iteratively using the expression:
1/(4fw) + log 1/(4fw) = -0.08 + log aw/(2.5d50)
where aw is the water particle amplitude at the bottom calculated from linear wave
theory and d50 is the average tailings particle diameter
Shear force criterion, derived from Shields work, which estimated critical shear force for
a given particle experimentally and is given by the empirical equation:
sh = w g d50 [(ys/yw) 1] where sh is the critical shear force, is a dimensionless
shear force obtained from Shields experiments, g is the acceleration due to gravity,
and s and w are the specific weights of particles and water.
Then if b > sh resuspension occurs.
However, for particles sizes smaller than 100 m, Shields criterion is unreliable because
the background data are sparse, and the cohesive forces between small particles is not
taken into account. For particle sizes less than 100 m a critical shear velocity criterion
is used. U* the shear velocity, is calculated as U* = (b/s)e0.5, where s is the tailings
particle density
Then an empirical criterion is used to assess if suspension occurs: U* > 1.7 w, where w
is the settling velocity. The settling velocity of a single, spherical, and cohesionless
particle is assumed to represent the average settling velocity of suspended tailings of a
certain grain size. Settling velocity is obtained from the results of Rouse (1937b) who
performed experiments with spherical quartz particles of density of 2.65 g/cm3. To get a
homogeneous suspension over the whole water depth, the shear velocity must be 200
times the settling velocity.
UBC Approach (Lawrence et al., 1991)
Lawrence et al. (1991) used linear wave theory and wave hindcasting procedures to
determine the depth of water cover needed to prevent the resuspension of Syncrude oil
sands tailings in northeastern Alberta. A simple model was developed Ward et al. (1994)
to predict the amount of wind-entrained tailings and found good agreement between the
model results and measured data. As with the NHL method, the design wind speed has

26

a 10-year wind speed of 1-hour duration. Wave characteristics were calculated from
wind speed and fetch using empirical relationships derived by the U.S. Coastal
Engineering Research Center, except that the coefficients K1, K2, and K3 were 0.0016,
0.2714, and 68.8 respectively. Assuming that the bottom wave velocities can be
calculated using linear wave theory, and that the waves causing suspension are deep
water waves, then Ub = 2H/Texp(2d/L, where H and T are the wave height and
period, d is the pond depth, and L = gT2/2, the deep water wavelength. Note that d >
L/2 is assumed in the derivation of Ub.
Ub must exceed some threshold velocity Ut for resuspension to occur. Lawrence et al
(1991) noted that because of the thixotropic nature of tailings there will be a significant
difference between the behaviour of tailings and non-cohesive particles.
Sverdup-Munk-Bretschneider Method
This approach also relies on empirically derived expressions relating maximum wind
speed, fetch length, and wind duration to wave characteristics previously but assumes
waves are shallow. The method estimates the maximum wave height. Some
investigations of resuspension have used a wave height to water depth ratio as a
criterion for resuspension. The maximum wave height is calculated as Hmax =
(0.5lnNIW)0.5Hs, where Hs is the significant wave height obtained and NIW (Td/Tp) is
the number of incident waves. Td is the duration of the wind event, and Tp is the peak
energy period, both obtained empirically. To verify whether shallow wave conditions
exist, the wavelength, L= gT2/2, must be less than twice the depth of water.
Rodney and Stefan (1987) Method
This method estimates the shear force at the bed in shallow ponds, which is employed in
two empirical equations to estimate the rate of resuspension. The rate of resuspension
and the settling velocity of the particles considered are used to calculate an equilibrium
concentration of suspended solids in the pond. The bed shear stress is calculated
considering three different wind-induced phenomena: return currents, progressive
waves, and standing waves. The shear stress on the bed from a return current for nonstratified turbulent flow is approximately 10% of the shear stress generated on the
surface (Baines and Knapp, 1965), and is given by wl = 0.1Cd aU102, where U10 is the
wind speed, Cd is the drag coefficient and Cd = 0.0005 (U10< 15 m/sec and Cd =
0.0026 for U10 > 15 m/sec. a is the density of air ( kg/m3)
The shear force from progressive waves can be calculated from the bed velocity, Ub, is
w = f Ub2, where is the density of water and f is the wave friction factor, for which a
value of 0.004 for flow in lakes was used. The bed velocity is calculated from linear wave
theory.
Wave height (H) and period (T) are calculated using the following empirical equations:

27

where F, g, and d are fetch length, acceleration due to gravity, and pond depth
respectively.

The stress caused by standing waves is periodic over a large time scale. The wind
setup, or the difference in water depth from the downwind to the upwind end of a body of
water caused by wind action, is calculated using the following empirical expression:
S = 3.37 x 10(e-7) U102F/dm, where dm is the average lake depth (m)
The maximum rise above the mean water depth, dr, is given by dr = 0.57S, and the
the maximum flow velocity Um is Um = dr (g/dm)1.5. The flow velocity at any time t and at
any distance x from the centre of the pond for a given fetch F is U = Um x cos (x/F) x
sin (2t/T). Then the shear due to standing waves is obtained by substituting U into the
equation wl = 0.1Cd aU102.
Appendix II. Wave Shear Formulas from Linear Wave Theory (Adu-Wusu, et al
2000)
The bottom shear stress can be found by w = fw u2bm, derived from
ubm = H/T [1/sinh(2h/L)] where ubm horizontal wave velocity, h is the depth of water,
wave height H and significant wave period T from the ff equations:

28

where F is the fetch and UA is defined as the wind stress factor (= 0.71U1.23, where U
is the wind speed in meters per second) which accounts for the nonlinear relationship
between wind stress and wind speed. Also, fw (fw = 2/Rw) is the wave friction factor, r
is the fluid density, and ubm is the maximum bottom fluid velocity near the tailings bed.
The wave friction factor fw is a function of the amplitude Reynolds number Rw (Rw =
ubmam/v, am is the maximum displacement of the individual fluid particles from their
mean position and v is the kinematic viscosity of the fluid) and the relative roughness of
the boundary.
The stress due to wind-induced currents can be found by

The variables zsh and zbh are evaluated as zsh = zs/h and zbh = zb/h, where zsh = 2.2
104 and zbh = 1.4 104 were used (Wu and Tsanis 1994). The variables zb and zs
are characteristic heights at the bottom and surface of the water, respectively, i.e., z = 0
and z = h, and are used to characterize the thickness of the viscous sublayer, with z

29

measured from the bottom of the pond. The nondimensional depth of water is expressed
as zh = z/h. rw is the density of water. The constant l characterizes the intensity of
turbulence. For surface Reynolds numbers ranging from 103 to 105, l is estimated to
be between 0.2 and 0.5. The friction velocity at the surface, u*s (u*s = 0.035U/0.53x
(a/ w). Note: w is the density of air, and U is the wind speed (in m/s). Previous
equation (w) can be used to calculate the shear stress due to current at the bottom
where z = 0. For flow over a smooth bed, under laminar flow conditions, the combined
bed shear stress is simply a linear addition of the pure current and pure wave shear
stresses (Whitehouse et al. 1999).
Appendix III. Formula and Variables Used in the Computational Framework
(Samad and Yanful 2004)
For shallow- and intermediate-water waves,

where h is the water depth (m); L is the wave length (m); Hs is the significant wave
height (average height of the highest one-third of waves in a wave train (m)); F is the
fetch length over which wind blows (m); Ua is the wind stress factor (ms1) (=
0.71U1.23, where U is the wind speed (ms1) at 10 m elevation); g is the acceleration
due to gravity (ms2); and Ts is the significant wave period (s).

30

where H0m is the energy-based significant wave height (m) (= Hs); ua * is the shear
velocity in the atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) (ms1); and Tp is the wave period
corresponding to the spectral peak frequency (s) ( Ts).
The analysis (CERC 2002) also defines the persistent time required for achieving the
fetch-limited wave condition for a given fetch length and wind velocity. The wind duration
to achieve fetch-limited condition, tF,U (s), is given
(CERC 2002) by

CD is the drag coefficient: Cd = Ua*2/U2 and Cd = 0.001 91.1 + 0.35U)

The wavelength, L (m), can be calculated iteratively by L = gTs2/ 2 x tanh (2h/L)
The small-amplitude (linear) wave theory can be applied to determine near-bottom
velocity amplitude, U1m (ms1), and particle displacement length, am (m),
corresponding to the significant wave height and period. These can be obtained as U1m=
Hs/Ts (1/sinh (kh); am = U1m/s
where k is the wave number (= 2/L); and s is the wave frequency (s1) corresponding
to the significant wave period (= 2/Ts).
Maximum bed shear stress, 0w (Nm2), developed by oscillatory motion at the free
surface, can be described by applying the quadratic friction law (Jonsson 1966).

For laminar motion, the friction factor can be obtained analytically as shown by Jonsson
(1966) is fw = 2/Rew
Counter Current Flow (CCF)-induced bottom shear stress, the equation is

The total bottom stress (wave and CCF): o = ow/2 + oc

The surface drift velocity, Us, has components from both wind-induced surface drift
(Usc) and generated wind waves (Usw) and can be obtained following Wu (1975) and
Fredse and Diegaard (1992), respectively.

31