applied

sciences
Article
Shear Rate-Dependent Rheological Properties of
Mine Tailings: Determination of Dynamic and
Static Yield Stresses
Sueng-Won Jeong
Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources, Daejeon 34132, Korea; swjeong@kigam.re.kr




Received: 9 August 2019; Accepted: 5 November 2019; Published: 7 November 2019


Abstract: In this paper, shear rate-dependent rheological properties of mine tailings taken from
abandoned mine deposits prone to mass movements are examined using a commercial ball-measuring
rheological system. The yield stresses (i.e., dynamic and static yield stresses) and viscosity of sand-rich
materials are examined by the shear rate-controlled flow curve and time-dependent stress growth
methods. Before yielding, the shear stress reaches a peak value (i.e., yield stress) observed for all flow
curves. In the steady-state condition, the materials have a minimum shear stress (i.e., dynamic yield
stress). The static yield stress can be determined under a constant applied shear rate with different
initial values ranging from 10−4 to 10−1 s−1 . As a result, the Bingham yield stress and viscosity can
be used as a first approximation for estimating the debris flow mobility of post-failure materials.
However, the Bingham yield stress is competitive with the static yield stress measured from stress
growth methods. Upon comparison of the dynamic and static yield stresses, the static yield stress
is approximately 35–45 times greater than the dynamic yield stress, and may be strongly related
to microstructural changes (i.e., thixotropy). In this context, special attention must be paid to the
determination of yield stresses in debris flow mitigation programs.

Keywords: dynamic yield stress; static yield stress; initial shear rate; mine tailings; debris flow

1. Introduction
The yield stress is a special property associated with non-Newtonian fluids, such as clay
suspensions, concrete cements, crude oil, foams, food, paints, pastes, and polymers [1–6]. In general,
the yield stress is defined as the shear stress at the point where the applied stress exceeds the critical
shear rate; in this case, the material starts to flow. Materials may deform elastically due to structural
changes below the yield stress, but they may deform greatly and flow like liquids above the yield stress.
There are numerous methods that can be employed to determine the yield stress of non-Newtonian
fluids: model fitting, a slump test, an inclined plane test, a stress ramp test, a stress growth test,
oscillation amplitude sweep, and creep tests. However, the yield stress is strongly dependent on
the test conditions and techniques employed [7,8]. In addition, many non-Newtonian fluids are
thixotropic [9,10]. Structural changes with time are unavoidable during shear. Time-dependent
rheological characteristics make it difficult to find a robust method for determining the true yield
stress [11]. This subject is still under debate in cement and concrete research (such as building materials)
and disaster-prevention measures (such as debris flow analysis for estimating future catastrophic
hazards).
The dynamic and static yield stresses can be determined by equilibrium flow curves and stress
growth methods. The dynamic yield stress is the minimum shear stress in the flow curve with a
steady-state flow condition, while the static yield stress is the peak shear stress measured with a
constant shearing time [12]. It is also well-known that the dynamic yield stress is associated with

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4744; doi:10.3390/app9224744 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4744 2 of 11

flow stopping, but the static yield stress is associated with flow starting [13]. According to previous
studies [6], the dynamic and static yield stresses are related to the state before and after microstructural
changes in materials. In addition, the conception of the time depending on the value of the yield stress
has been pointed out by numerous studies [14–16]. As a result, it is expected that the value of dynamic
yield stress is much lower than that of static yield stress with respect to the structural states. It is
well-known that the yield stress is related to the structural change, that is, thixotropy.
Rheological properties are essential in the fluid industry and natural disaster-related sciences.
The rheological properties are examined for various materials, such as clay suspensions, muds,
sand-rich materials, and reconstituted pyroclastic debris flows [13,17–20]. Water is typically a viscous
liquid, while particle-bearing liquids typically behave as non-Newtonian fluids, indicating more
complex rheological characteristics. Few studies have focused on the geotechnical and rheological
properties of post-failure materials in mass movements, which can result in rapid complex fluid-like
behavior as a kind of soil liquefaction. In the field of debris flows, a multiphase process in large
particle-bearing debris flows is of paramount importance [21] because they are very dense and exhibit
strong interactions between particles in the interstitial fluid. Rheological tests are often considered
large particle-laden flows, e.g., the mean grain size of materials tested in rheometers has often been a
typical sand with particle sizes from 0.075 to 2 mm in diameter. However, the change in rheological
properties is significant when the solid fraction is slightly changed [13]. The disposal of mine tailings
and waste rock materials involving sand- and gravel-size particles in open pits is a problem that
needs to be managed. Severe erosion and mass movements in abandoned mine deposits can result in
physicochemical contamination at and near the mine deposits [22]. In this case, the determination
of flow properties is crucial for debris flow rheology [19] because the runout distances and speeds
of debris flows are mainly estimated by yield stress and viscosity [23]. When estimating the runout
distance of debris flows in coarse-grained sediments, the rheological characteristics are the decisive
criteria for mitigating and managing future debris flow events in mountainous areas. However, the
determination of dynamic and static yield stresses in debris flows is still poorly studied.
In this study, the dynamic and static yield stresses of sand-rich materials taken from abandoned
mine deposits are studied. First, the flow behaviors of the sand-rich materials are examined as a
function of the shear rate (i.e., the flow curve) at the same solid volume concentration. Second, the
rheological properties, i.e., yield stresses and viscosity, are determined using model fitting, including
Bingham, Herschel–Bulkley, bilinear, modified Bingham, and power law models. The initial shear
rate-dependent shear stress is examined. Third, under a constant applied shear rate, the stress build-up
with time is monitored. The differences in dynamic and static yield stresses as a function of shear
rate are highlighted. Finally, the shear strengths, including the undrained shear strength measured
from fall cone tests, the Bingham yield stress, and the static yield stress in modeling the debris flow,
are compared. Creep and recovery tests are not taken into account. It should also be noted that
pre-shearing has an impact on the determination of yield stress with respect to the flocculation state in
the materials. Therefore, only a limited situation can be discussed.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials
The materials tested were mine tailings taken from an abandoned mine deposit site located in
Busan Metropolitan City, Republic of Korea. The grain sizes were fine to coarse, and the shapes were
subangular. The main mineralogical composition was quartz, pyrophyllite, pyrite, sericite, and kaolin
clay [22,24]. The on-site materials are very coarse: 30% gravel, 60–70% sand, and 5% finer sizes (clay
and silt particles). The natural water content is less than 10%, and the permeability (k) is very high (e.g.,
k ≥ 2 × 10 cm/s−1 ). In the waste rock dump with a low level of vegetation, abandoned mine deposits
experience severe erosion. In addition, after torrential rainfall events in the summer monsoon season,
several traces of mass movements (e.g., rotational slumps, slides, and debris flows) can be found on
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4744 3 of 11

natural slopes. Failed materials often flow and are deposited in a mountain stream at and near the
waste rock dump. In brief, the materials can be gravelly sands; however, they are very difficult to
test in conventional rheological tests because most rheometers are suitable for fine-grained sediments.
To measure these materials, a series of rheometric tests was performed on the material passing through
a No. 4 sieve (i.e., sand-rich materials) using a ball-penetrating torque-measured system called the
“ball-measuring system (BMS)” in this study.

2.2. Methods
Numerous testing methods and apparatuses have been designed for determining the soil resistance
of debris flow materials in the range from microscale to macroscale measuring systems (e.g., plate-plate,
cone-plate, cylinder, vane, stirrer, slump, and large-scale devices). Figure 1 shows the rheometer
used in this study. The commercial ball-measuring rheological system (BMS, RheolabQC, Anton
Paar) consists of three balls and a container. The balls have three diameters, i.e., 10, 12, and 15 mm,
whilst the container (cup) has a diameter of 115 mm with a sample volume of 500 cm3 . In this system,
a homogenous soil sample, the mixture of soil and water, is placed into the container and the ball is
immersed into the soil sample. The depth of ball penetration is the same for all tests. The distance
between the ball and the bottom of the container is 20 mm. Torques are automatically recorded when
rotating the ball. The shear rate control or shear stress control mode can be applied. The measurement
of shear stress and the shear rate in a ball-measuring system can be performed for 1–5 mm diameter
soil samples. Similar tests for large-particle fluids using a ball-measuring system have been performed
by [19,25,26]. The edge and slip effects are assumed to be negligible. Potential slipping and gliding
problems are negligible because of the ideal spherical shape used to minimize the edge effect during
shearing. The system displays a wide gap between the sensor and soil sample container. In this
context, it is applicable for both fine-grained and coarse-grained sediments in debris flow materials.
However, there are some limitations in performing such experiments. The normal pressure effect is
not taken into account. The temperature is fixed at 20 ◦ C during shearing. However, it is expected
that the variation in temperature is one of minor effects in the rheological behavior of sediments with
large particle sizes. Two simple test methods were applied to satisfy the purpose of the study. Two
types of rheological tests were performed: a flow curve test and a stress growth test. The first test was
conducted to determine the dynamic yield stress (e.g., the Bingham yield stress and viscosity), and
the second test was conducted to determine the static yield stress (e.g., the peak and residual shear
stresses). As a result, the flow curves and stress growth methods could produce shear stress vs. shear
rate and shear stress vs. shearing time relationships, respectively.
To determine the yield strength of waste rock materials, the rheological models considered are
as follows:
.
Bingham : τ = τc + µh ·γ (1)
. !
.n τc ·γ
Bilinear : τ = τ y + µh ·γ + . . (2)
γ + γo
  . 
 1 − exp −m γ  .
Modified Bingham : τ = µ + τc γ (3)

.
 γ 

.n
Herschel-Bulkley : τ = τc + K·γ (4)
.n
Power law : τ = µ·γ , (5)
.
where τ is the shear stress (Pa), µ is the viscosity (Pa·s), and γ is the shear rate (s−1 ). In Equation (1),
τc is the yield stress (Pa), which is called the Bingham yield stress, and µh is the plastic viscosity (Pa·s).
In Equation (2), τy is the yield stress (Pa) obtained from the bilinear model, which is similar to the yield
stress obtained from the Bingham fluid; the exponent n is the flow behavior index (dimensionless);
.
and γo is the shear rate related to the rheological transition from a Newtonian viscosity to an ideal
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4744 4 of 11

plastic viscosity. The exponent n is also used in the Herschel–Bulkley and power law models to describe
the flow behavior, e.g., if n < 1, pseudoplastic (shear thinning) behavior occurs, and if n > 1, dilatant
(shear thickening) behavior occurs. Equation (3) is the modified Bingham model. It is a well-known
model used to describe the transition from the pseudo-viscosity regime (elastic-dominant slope before
yielding) to2019,
Appl. Sci. yielding
9, x FORinPEER flowing region. The value of m is a parameter related to surface yielding
the REVIEW 4 of 11 in
shear stress at relatively low shear rates (unit of time, s). In Equation (4), if n = 1, it is the same as the
if n = 1, it is the same as the Bingham fluid, and if τc = 0, it reduces to the power law model. K is the
Bingham fluid, and if τc = 0, it reduces to the power law model. K is the consistency coefficient (Pa·s).
consistency coefficient (Pa∙s). The exponent n is 0.3 for clays, 0.8 for silt-rich materials, and 0.8 for
The exponent n is 0.3 for clays, 0.8 for silt-rich materials, and 0.8 for bentonite [27]. In Equation (5),
bentonite [27]. In Equation (5), if n = 1, it is a Newtonian viscosity model.
if n = 1, it is a Newtonian viscosity model.
The shear strengths measured from the BMS were compared with those obtained from fall cone
Thewith
tests sheardifferent
strengths measured
solid from the BMS were
volume concentrations. compared
Swedish fall coneswith those
were usedobtained from with
at 60 degrees fall cone
testsdifferent
with different solid such
cone weights, volume concentrations.
as 10, 60, 100, and 400Swedish
g. The testfall cones were
procedures used
were at 60todegrees
identical those ofwith
different
[28]. cone weights, such as 10, 60, 100, and 400 g. The test procedures were identical to those of [28].

Figure
Figure 1. Ball-measuringrheometric
1. Ball-measuring rheometric system:
system: (a)(a)Test
Testprocedure,
procedure, (b)(b)
schematic
schematic view of ball
view rotation,
of ball rotation,
(c) shear layer formation (sliding plane in a steady-state condition) during shearing,
(c) shear layer formation (sliding plane in a steady-state condition) during shearing, (d) flow curve(d) flow curve
withwith Bingham
Bingham fluid
fluid and
and ballrotation,
ball rotation,(e)
(e) shear
shear stress–shear
stress–shearrate
rateplot, and
plot, (f) (f)
and viscosity–shear rate rate
viscosity–shear plot. plot.
Tested from O
Tested from ⓐ
a to O.
g to ⓖ.

3. Results
3. Results

3.1. 3.1.
Rheological Properties
Rheological ofofMine
Properties MineTailings:
Tailings: Yield
Yield Stress andViscosity
Stress and Viscosity
Figure 2 presents
Figure the
2 presents flow
the flowcharacteristics of waste
characteristics of wastematerials
materialswith
with initial
initial shear
shear rates
rates for afor a water
water
content
content of of
34%34% (equivalentto
(equivalent to aa solid
solid volume
volumeconcentration
concentration of 52%). At the
of 52%). Atsame
the water
same content (or
water content
solid volume concentration), the flow behavior is very similar (Figure 2a). To examine
(or solid volume concentration), the flow behavior is very similar (Figure 2a). To examine the the rheological
characteristics,
rheological the controlled
characteristics, shear rate
the controlled mode
shear ratewas employed
mode with a range
was employed with aof 10−4 of
range to 10
10−4
1 s−1. In1 −1
to 10 s .
particular, five shear rates were applied as initial values from 0.0001 to 0.1 s −1. The measured
In particular, five shear rates were applied as initial values from 0.0001 to 0.1 s . The measured −1
rheological properties, that is, the yield stress and plastic viscosity, range from 17 to 21 Pa and 1.0 to
1.2 Pa∙s, respectively. The variations in yield stress and viscosity are relatively small. They can be
divided into two regimes based on a shear rate of 1 s−1: (a) the generation of a slip surface in response
to a complete rotation of a penetrated ball (after one full revolution, i.e., onset of failure stage) and
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4744 5 of 11

rheological properties, that is, the yield stress and plastic viscosity, range from 17 to 21 Pa and 1.0 to
1.2 Pa·s, respectively. The variations in yield stress and viscosity are relatively small. They can be
divided into 9,
Appl. Sci. 2019, two regimes
x FOR based on a shear rate of 1 s−1 : (a) the generation of a slip surface in response
PEER REVIEW 5 of 11
to a complete rotation of a penetrated ball (after one full revolution, i.e., onset of failure stage) and
(b)
(b)continuous
continuous viscous
viscous shearing (post-failure
(post-failure stage).
stage).An Anexample
exampleisisshownshownininFigure
Figure2b. 2b. Compared
Compared to to
.
the
theflow
flowbehavior
behaviorofoffine-grained
fine-grainedsediments,
sediments,aalarge largedifference
differenceisisshownshownbefore
beforeyielding
yielding(i.e.,(i.e.,γ = 𝛾 1= s1−1 ).
There is a distinct
s−1). There peak peak
is a distinct valuevalue
of shear stressstress
of shear at a relatively
at a relativelylow shear
low shearrate regime (i.e., (i.e.,
rate regime −1
0.4 s 0.4). sAfter
−1).

After the peak value, an abrupt decrease in shear stress is observed.

the peak value, an abrupt decrease in shear stress is observed. All processes generate a slip surface All processes generate a slip
surface
(i.e., shear(i.e., shearformation
banding banding formation
in Figure 1c) in inFigure 1c) in a ball-measuring
a ball-measuring system. After system.
one full After
revolution one fullof the
revolution
ball, of the ball,
they behave as anthey idealbehave
plastic asfluid,
an idealsuchplastic fluid, suchfluid
as a Bingham as a Bingham fluid [29].
[29]. To verify To verify the of
the applicability
applicability
the rheological ofmodel
the rheological
for obtaining model flowforcurves,
obtainingthe flow curves,
best fit the best fit
was obtained withwas theobtained
Bingham, with the
bilinear,
Bingham, bilinear, modified
Herschel–Bulkley, Herschel–Bulkley,
Bingham,modified
and power Bingham, and power
law models. law models.
As shown As shown
in Figure 2b, most in Figure
of them
2b, in
are most
good of agreement
them are in with goodthe agreement withafter
test results the test resultsrate
the shear afterofthe
1 sshear
−1 , butrate of 1 sscatter
a large −1, but a large
is found
scatter
at lowerisshear
foundrates.
at lower shear
In this rates. In
context, thethis context, the
post-failure post-failure characteristics
characteristics are limited to are the limited
flow behaviorsto the
flow behaviors observed after the critical deformation. The results of
observed after the critical deformation. The results of model fitting with respect to different initial model fitting with respect to
different
shear rates initial
rangingshearfromrates10ranging
−4 to 10from
−1 s−1 10aretosummarized
−4 10 s are summarized
−1 −1
in Table 1. in Table 1. Compared
Compared to the rheologicalto the
rheological properties of fine-grained sediments, the properties of these
properties of fine-grained sediments, the properties of these materials are slightly higher. According materials are slightly higher.
According
to Jeong et al. to [27],
Jeong theetrheological
al. [27], the rheologicalofcompilation
compilation of clay-rich,
clay-rich, silt-rich, silt-rich, materials
and sand-rich and sand-rich shows
materials shows viscosities of approximately 20, 200, and 2000 mPa∙s, respectively, in the case that
viscosities of approximately 20, 200, and 2000 mPa·s, respectively, in the case that the yield stress is
the yield stress is equal to 20 Pa. In this study, the materials tested were sand-rich materials (less
equal to 20 Pa. In this study, the materials tested were sand-rich materials (less cohesive). The results
cohesive). The results are in good agreement with the previous rheological compilation (especially
are in good agreement with the previous rheological compilation (especially the yield stress–viscosity
the yield stress–viscosity relationship for the sand-rich group). Uncertainties are higher for the
relationship for the sand-rich group). Uncertainties are higher for the rheological properties measured
rheological properties measured at lower shear rates because the variations in viscosity at low shear
at lower shear rates because the variations in viscosity at low shear rates (less than 1 s−1 ) are significant.
rates (less than 1 s−1) are significant. In an elastic regime, the structure begins to break down, is
In an elastic regime, the structure begins to break down, is subjected to shear localization, and creates
subjected to shear localization, and creates partial shear-induced particle migration in the flow curves
partial shear-induced particle migration in the flow curves when the shear strain approaches the critical
when the shear strain approaches the critical shear strain [6]. In the transition from the solid-like to
shear strain [6]. In the transition from the solid-like to liquid-like regime, there is a critical deformation.
liquid-like regime, there is a critical deformation. The shear localization and shear banding (stick-slip
The shear localization
behavior) are dependent andon shear bandingthe
increasing (stick-slip
apparentbehavior)
shear rateare dependent
[30]. According ontoincreasing
[31], shear thebanding
apparent
shear rate [30]. According to [31], shear banding instability can be
instability can be divided into three regions, e.g., homogeneous, wall slip, and bulk shear banding. divided into three regions, e.g.,
homogeneous,
In this regard, wall slip, “shear
the term and bulk shear
layer” inbanding.
Figure 1 In this regard,
is more the term
appropriate and“shear
could layer”
describe in Figure
the area1 is
more appropriate and could describe the area where the shear stresses
where the shear stresses (shear forces) are applied to the suspension structure. At a relatively high (shear forces) are applied to the
suspension structure. At a relatively high shear rate, the Bingham
shear rate, the Bingham rheological concept is well-matched. The viscosity before 1 s can be rheological concept is well-matched.
−1

The
considered before 1 s−1 can beviscosity
viscositypseudo-Newtonian considered[27],pseudo-Newtonian
which is defined asviscosity the slope[27],
of the which is between
line fit defined as thethe
slope of the line fit between the origin (0 value in flow curves) and the
origin (0 value in flow curves) and the maximum value reached before the critical shear rates (in this maximum value reached before
the critical
case, 1 s−1).shear rates (in
As a result, thethis
lowercase, s−1 ). As
the1initial a result,
shear rates are,the the
lower the initial
higher shear
the slopes rates1).
(Table are,Thistheresult
higher
the
may slopes
occur(Table
because 1). the
Thispseudo-Newtonian
result may occur because viscositythe pseudo-Newtonian
(i.e., the slope determined viscosity
before (i.e., the slope
yielding)
determined before yielding)
gradually approaches the y-axisgradually approaches
as the initial the y-axis
shear rates as the initial shear rates decrease.
decrease.

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Flow
Flow curves and model
model fitting:
fitting:(a)
(a)Shear
Shearstress
stressand
andshear
shearrate
raterelationships with
relationships thethe
with mean
mean
valueofofflow
value flow equation;
equation; (b) (b) model
model fitting
fitting with with Bingham,
Bingham, Bilinear,
Bilinear, Herschel–Bulkley,
Herschel–Bulkley, Modified
Modified Bingham,
Bingham,
and Powerand law.Power law.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4744 6 of 11

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 11

Table 1. Rheological properties obtained from different rheological models.
Table 1. Rheological properties obtained from different rheological models.
Bingham Bilinear Modified Bingham Herschel–Bulkley Power Law
. .
γ τc
Bingham ηh γo Bilinear
c ηpN ModifiedmBingham τc-HB Herschel–Bulkley
K-HB n-HB Power K Lawn
𝜸 τc ηh 𝜸𝒐 c ηpN m τc-HB K-HB n-HB K n
0.1 22.39 1.34 0.47 10.43 49.4 10.43 23.0 0.83 1.14 11.04 0.52
0.1
0.01 22.39 1.34
19.75 1.46 0.47
0.08 10.43
1.52 49.4
257.05 10.43
1.52 23.0
18.0 0.83
0.69 1.141.13 11.04
13.01 0.52
0.42
0.01
0.001 19.75 1.46
15.31 1.10 0.08
0.04 1.52
0.61 257.05
384.21 1.52
0.61 18.0
15.0 0.69
1.96 1.130.84 13.01
10.88 0.42
0.45
0.001
0.0001 15.31 1.10
17.02 1.09 0.04
0.03 0.61
0.43 384.21
674.49 0.61
0.43 15.0
12.0 1.96
1.78 0.840.96 10.88
11.50 0.45
0.45
0.00001
0.0001 15.33 1.13 0.03
17.02 1.09 0.01 0.43
0.14 1703.47
674.49 0.14
0.43 12.0
12.0 1.90 0.96
1.78 0.91 11.508.98 0.45
0.53
.
0.00001
Note: γ15.33 1.13bilinear
and c are 0.01 constants;
0.14 1703.47 0.14 viscosity obtained
ηpN = pseudo-Newtonian 12.0 1.90 0.91Bilinear
from the 8.98model;
0.53
o
= model
mNote: and c areτc-HB
𝛾 constant, = Herschel–Bulkley
bilinear constants; ηpN =yield stress; n-HB = flowviscosity
pseudo-Newtonian behaviorobtained
index in the Herschel–Bulkley
from the Bilinear
model; K and n = flow behavior indices in the Power law model.
model; m = model constant, τc-HB = Herschel–Bulkley yield stress; n-HB = flow behavior index in the
Herschel–Bulkley model; K and n = flow behavior indices in the Power law model.
3.2. Shear Rate-Dependent Flow Behavior: Dynamic and Static Yield Stresses
3.2. Shear Rate-Dependent
A series Flow Behavior:
of ball-measuring Dynamic
rheometric and Static
tests was Yield Stresses
performed to examine the shear rate dependency
of rheological
A series ofbehavior. Two tests
ball-measuring were considered:
rheometric (a) flowto
tests was performed curve teststhe
examine with therate
shear initial shear rate
dependency
gradually increasing fromTwo−5 −4
10 ,tests
10 were −3 −2
, 10 ,considered:
and 10 to (a) −1
10 flow −1
s ,curve
and (b) stress growth tests at a constant
of rheological behavior. tests with the initial shear rate
shear rate with shearing time.
gradually increasing from 10 , 10 , 10 , and 10 to 10 s , and (b) stress growth tests at a constant
−5 −4 −3 −2 −1 −1

shear rate with shearing time.

3.2.1. Flow Curve Test: Initial Shear Rate Dependency
3.2.1.The
Flow Curve
shear rateTest: Initial Shear
dependency ofRate
shear Dependency
stress was examined using different initial shear rates.
FigureThe 3 presents the shear stress–shear
shear rate dependency of shear stress rate and viscosity–shear
was examined using rate relationships.
different initial Five initial
shear shear
rates.
rates, consisting of 10 −5 , 10−4 , 10−3 , 10−2 , and 10−1 s−1 , were applied to measure the flow behavior.
Figure 3 presents the shear stress–shear rate and viscosity–shear rate relationships. Five initial shear
The difference
rates, consistingin flow
of 10curves
−5, 10−4, is
10much
−3, 10−2clearer
, and 10using
−1 s−1, the
wereplot of logarithmic
applied to measure shearthestress
flow and logarithmic
behavior. The
shear rate (Figure 3a). The measurement of shear stress depends on the
difference in flow curves is much clearer using the plot of logarithmic shear stress and logarithmic applied initial shear rate.
For example, the first −3 −1
shear rate (Figure 3a). measurement
The measurement of shear stress
of shear is equal
stress dependsto 1on
Patheat applied
approximately 10 rate.
initial shear s when
For
an initial shear
example, rate
the first of 10−5 s−1 isofapplied.
measurement Delayed
shear stress is equal detection
to 1 Pa atmay be removed10when
approximately the initial
−3 s−1 when shear
an initial
rate
shearis rate
increased
of 10−5(for example,
s−1 is applied.initial
Delayed shear rate of may
detection 10−1 bes−1removed
). Interestingly,
when the as initial
shownshearin Figure
rate is3b,
aincreased
pseudo-plateau regimeinitial
(for example, is clearly
shearshown
rate ofwhen
10−1 sthe initial shear rate
−1). Interestingly, applied
as shown inisFigure
increased.
3b, a As shown
pseudo-
inplateau
Figureregime −1
2, afteris 1clearly
s , the shown when behave
materials the initial
as shear
ideal rate applied
plastic is increased.
fluids. In this case,As the
shownflow inbehavior
Figure
of2, sand-rich
after 1 s−1, materials
the materials canbehave as idealby
be governed plastic fluids. In this
the Bingham case, the law
constitutive flowwith
behavior of sand-rich
a yield stress and
materials
plastic can be governed by the Bingham constitutive law with a yield stress and plastic viscosity.
viscosity.

Figure 3. Shear
Figure 3. Shearrate
ratedependency
dependency of
of rheological behavioratatrelatively
rheological behavior relatively
lowlow shear
shear rates:
rates: (a) Shear
(a) Shear
stress-shear ratestress-shear
relationshiprate
andrelationship
(b) viscosity-shear rate relationship
and (b) viscosity-shear rate relationship

3.2.2. Stress Growth Test: Time Dependency

3.2.2. Stress Growth Test: Time Dependency
Flow-like
Flow-like sediments
sediments are
are well-known
well-known asas time-dependent
time-dependentmaterials
materials(i.e.,
(i.e.,thixotropic
thixotropic materials).
materials).
The
Thetime
time dependency
dependency of
of the
the rheological behavior of
rheological behavior ofwaste
wastematerials
materialsatata aconstant
constantshear
shearrate
rate was
was
examined. The applied shear rates ranged from 0.001 to 1 s−1. The shear rate was continuously
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4744 7 of 11

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 11

examined. The applied shear rates ranged from 0.001 to 1 s−1 . The shear rate was continuously applied,
applied, and thewere
and the torques torques were measured
measured for 350 s,for 350 s,
except atexcept
0.5 s−1at 0.5 s−1rheological
. Most . Most rheological tests fortests for coarse-
coarse-grained
grained
sediments are performed for relatively short periods of time, such as less than 1 min. Ifmin.
sediments are performed for relatively short periods of time, such as less than 1 If the
the shear
shear
rate israte
lessisthan
less 10than s10 , sthe, the
−3 −1−3 −1
testtest is difficult
is difficult to to carry
carry outout withwith a atime
timeconstraint.
constraint. FigureFigure 44 shows
shows
the
the test
test results
results of of the
the stress
stress growth
growth method:
method:shear shearstress
stresswith withtime timeand andviscosity
viscositywith withtime.
time. There
Thereis
significant fluctuation during shearing. This large scatter (fluctuation)
is significant fluctuation during shearing. This large scatter (fluctuation) is observed for each flow is observed for each flow
curve.
curve. This
This feature
feature may may be be due
due toto interactions
interactions betweenbetween large particles. The
large particles. The scatter
scatter maymay be be minimized
minimized
when the fine content is increased. In Figure 4a, the flow behavior is quite different when different
when the fine content is increased. In Figure 4a, the flow behavior is quite different when different
continuous
continuous shear shear rates
rates are are applied
applied at at constant
constant valuesvalues during
during shearing.
shearing. Typically,
Typically, two two types
types of shear
of shear
behavior
behavior can can bebe found
found for for aa given
given range
range of of shearing
shearing times:times: strain
strain hardening
hardening and and strain
strain softening
softening
behavior.
behavior. The first type has a peak value (i.e., the yield stress) in shear stress with time, and the second
The first type has a peak value (i.e., the yield stress) in shear stress with time, and the second
type has aa peak
type has peak and and aa steady-state
steady-state value.value. The The latter
latter isis very
very similar
similar to to the
the residual
residual shear shear stress
stress inin soil
soil
mechanics.
mechanics. It It can
can bebe defined
defined as as the
the minimum
minimum shear shear resistance
resistance of of the materials along
the materials along the previously
the previously
existing
existing slip
slipsurface.
surface.Strain Strain hardening
hardening is dominant
is dominant forfor
relatively
relatively lowlow initial shear
initial ratesrates
shear (i.e., shear rates
(i.e., shear
of 10 ofand
rates −3
10 10ands 10
−3 −2 −1 ), buts strain
−2 −1 ), butsoftening is dominant
strain softening for relatively
is dominant high initial
for relatively high shearinitial rates
shear(i.e.,
ratesshear
(i.e.,
rates of 10 −1 and−1 1 s −1). The −1 transitional behavior occurs between
shear rates of 10 and 1 s ). The transitional behavior occurs between 10 and 10 s . The shear 10 −2 and −2 10 −1 s−1. −1
The −1shear stress
fluctuation (vertical
stress fluctuation variation
(vertical in shearinstress
variation shearfor a given
stress for atime)
givenistime) large.isThislarge. result
This may occur
result may because
occur
of particle–particle
because of particle–particleinteraction via the
interaction vianonslip
the nonslip boundary
boundary system,
system, resulting
resultinginincollisions
collisions andand
fragmentation in coarse-grained sediments. The viscosity is also
fragmentation in coarse-grained sediments. The viscosity is also very sensitive to the shearing time very sensitive to the shearing time
(Figure 4b).
(Figure 4b). AtAt relatively
relatively low lowshear
shearrates
rates(i.e.,
(i.e.,shear
shearrates
ratesofof1010 and10
−3−3and 10−2−2 s−1
s ),),the
−1
the viscosity
viscosity gradually
gradually
increases with increasing shearing time; in both cases, no steady
increases with increasing shearing time; in both cases, no steady state appears for a given period state appears for a given period of of
shearing time. However, when the shear rate is larger than 0.1 s −1, the viscosity reaches a peak value
−1
shearing time. However, when the shear rate is larger than 0.1 s , the viscosity reaches a peak value
and gradually decreases
and gradually decreases with shearing time.
with shearing time. After
After aa certain
certain amount
amount of of time,
time, the the viscosity
viscosity is is almost
almost
constant with time, e.g., after 250 s for 0.1 s−1, 70 s for 0.5 s−1
−1
constant with time, e.g., after 250 s for 0.1 s , 70 s for 0.5 s , and 60 s for 1 s . −1, and 60 s for 1 s .
−1−1

Figure
Figure 4. Stress growth
4. Stress growth test:
test: (a)
(a) Shear
Shear stress–shearing
stress–shearing time;
time; (b)
(b) viscosity–shearing
viscosity–shearing time.
time.

From the stress growth tests, the measurements of shear stress and viscosity are very sensitive
to variations in the initial condition driven by shear. There are two shear stresses: a peak value and a
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4744 8 of 11

From the stress growth tests, the measurements of shear stress and viscosity are very sensitive
toAppl.
variations inxthe
Sci. 2019, 9, FORinitial condition driven by shear. There are two shear stresses: a peak value
PEER REVIEW 8 ofand
11
a steady-state (i.e., residual) value. The latter can be obtained at the end of the tests. As shown in
steady-state
Figure 5a, the(i.e.,
peakresidual) value.
value of The
shear latterobtained
stress can be obtained at the end of the tests.
from strain-hardening flowAs shown in
behavior Figure
gradually
5a, the peak
increases withvalue of shear stress
an increasing shearobtained
rate. Thefrom strain-hardening
residual shear stress flow behavior
obtained fromgradually increases
the strain-softening
with an increasing shear rate. The residual shear stress obtained from
flow behavior gradually decreases with increasing shear rates, except for the lowest shear rate the strain-softening flowof
behavior−1 gradually decreases with increasing shear rates, except for the lowest
0.001 s . It may have a very high value when a long shearing time can be applied. Interestingly, shear rate of 0.001 s−1.
It may have a very high value when a long shearing time can be applied. Interestingly, three strain-
three strain-softening fluids display a similar range of residual shear stress (i.e., mean value of 283 Pa).
softening fluids display a similar range of residual shear stress (i.e., mean value of 283 Pa). Similar
Similar results can be observed for clayey soils [32]. Viscosity is also dependent on the shear rate
results can be observed for clayey soils [32]. Viscosity is also dependent on the shear rate and time.
and time. At low shear rates, the final viscosity rapidly decreases with an increasing shear rate;
At low shear rates, the final viscosity rapidly decreases with an increasing shear rate; however, there
however, there is no significant variation after an initial shear rate of 0.1 s−1 . In particular, there is a
is no significant variation after an initial shear rate of 0.1 s−1. In particular, there is a pseudo-
pseudo-Newtonian viscosity (not shown, but slopes may be found) in the elastic domain before the
Newtonian viscosity (not shown, but slopes may be found) in the elastic domain before the static
static yield stress for three higher shear rates. Interestingly, the pseudo-Newtonian viscosity increases
yield stress for three higher shear rates. Interestingly, the pseudo-Newtonian viscosity increases with
with an increasing shear rate (Figure 4a). Compared to the Bingham yield stress and viscosity of
an increasing shear rate (Figure 4a). Compared to the Bingham yield stress and viscosity of the sand-
the sand-rich materials tested, the yield stress and viscosity obtained from stress growth tests are
rich materials tested, the yield stress and viscosity obtained from stress growth tests are
approximately
approximately35–45 35–45times
times and
and 100–35,000 times higher,
100–35,000 times higher, respectively,
respectively,than
thanthose
thoseobtained
obtainedfrom fromflow
flow
curve
curve tests (Figure 4). Similar results have been observed for other thixotropic materials. Accordingto
tests (Figure 4). Similar results have been observed for other thixotropic materials. According
previous
to previousstudies [6,11,13],
studies the the
[6,11,13], difference between
difference betweenstatic andand
static dynamic
dynamicyield stresses
yield stresses ranges
rangesbetween
between 1.5
and
1.5 2-fold. It is, ofItcourse,
and 2-fold. is, of believed that the difference
course, believed is larger when
that the difference the solid
is larger when volume concentration
the solid volume
isconcentration
greater. is greater.

Figure5.5.Static
Figure Staticand
anddynamic
dynamic rheological
rheological properties of sand-rich
sand-rich mine
minetailings:
tailings:(a)
(a)Peak,
Peak,residual
residualshear
shear
stress, and the Bingham yield stresses; (b) final viscosity
stress, and the Bingham yield stresses; (b) final viscosity and the Bingham viscosity.
Bingham viscosity.

3.3.
3.3.Rheological
RheologicalProperties
Propertiesand
and Possible
Possible Implications Debris Flow
Implications for Debris Flow Modeling
Modeling
The
Therheological
rheologicalparameters
parameters are are essential
essential for examining debrisflow
examining debris flowpropagation
propagationand anddesigning
designing
measures
measuresfor forfuture
futurecatastrophic
catastrophic events. many cases
events. For many cases in
in debris
debrisflowflowsimulation,
simulation,the thevalue
valueofofthe
the
yield stress is fixed during the
yield stress is fixed during the flow flow as a first approximation to understand post-failure
first approximation to understand post-failure characteristics. characteristics.
InInthis
thiscase,
case, thethe determination
determination of of yield
yield stress
stress is crucial.
is crucial. Engineers
Engineers could
could obtain
obtain the the shear
shear strength
strength from
from
field fieldtests
vane vaneunder
tests under
in situ in situ conditions
conditions and falland falltests
cone coneintests
the in the laboratory
laboratory as a priority,
as a priority, whichwhich
would
bewould
more be more reliable
reliable forflow
for debris debris flow initiation.
initiation. For fine-grained
For fine-grained sediments,
sediments, the yield
the yield stress
stress obtained
obtained from
from
the the material,
material, which which is assumed
is assumed to behave
to behave as a Bingham
as a Bingham fluid,fluid,
is very is close
very close
to thetoundrained
the undrainedshear
shear strength
strength determined determined
by fallby falltests.
cone cone tests.
For a For
given a given sand-rich
sand-rich material,
material, the Bingham
the Bingham yield
yield stress
stress and
and undrained shear strength were compared for a given solid volume
undrained shear strength were compared for a given solid volume concentration ranging from 50% to concentration ranging from
50%Figure
65%. to 65%.6 Figure
presents6 presents a comparison
a comparison of the
of the shear shear strength
strength measured measured
from the from the Bingham
Bingham yieldin
yield stress
stress
flow in flow
curve tests,curve tests,yield
the static the stress
static in
yield stress in time-dependent
time-dependent tests, and thetests, and the
undrained undrained
shear strengthshear
in fall
strength in fall cone tests. A simple relationship can be expressed as C vs = 74∙Su0.1 (kPa). For Cvs = 50%,
cone tests. A simple relationship can be expressed as Cvs = 74·Su (kPa). For Cvs = 50%, the Bingham
0.1
the Bingham
yield stress and yield stress and
undrained undrained
shear strength shear strength
range betweenrange between
0.02 and 0.06 0.02kPaand(mean
0.06 kPa (mean
value of value
40 Pa);
of 40 Pa); however, the static yield stress is approximately 0.6–0.9 kPa (mean value of 700 Pa). The
difference is more than 10-fold. More interestingly, as described above, the sediments are much more
resistant to flow when the shear rate is increased. These results suggest that more research is needed
to understand the mechanism related to the high mobilization of debris flows, e.g., entrainment,
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4744 9 of 11

however, the static yield stress is approximately 0.6–0.9 kPa (mean value of 700 Pa). The difference is
more than 10-fold. More interestingly, as described above, the sediments are much more resistant to
flow when the shear rate is increased. These results suggest that more research is needed to understand
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 11
the mechanism related to the high mobilization of debris flows, e.g., entrainment, hydroplaning, yield
stress reduction, and wetting processes in debris flow motion. It is necessary to revisit the research
hydroplaning, yield stress reduction, and wetting processes in debris flow motion. It is necessary to
work ([24] see Figure 8 in the paper) on failure and post-failure characteristics of mine deposit areas
revisit the research work ([24] see Figure 8 in the paper) on failure and post-failure characteristics of
and to estimate the debris flow mobility for such areas. Using the same geometry for the initial slope
mine deposit areas and to estimate the debris flow mobility for such areas. Using the same geometry
and volume with different yield stresses, the debris flow propagation can be simply compared. For a
for the initial slope and volume with different yield stresses, the debris flow propagation can be
given yield stress of 50 Pa, the runout distance is approximately 700 m, but for a stress of 700 Pa, the
simply compared. For a given yield stress of 50 Pa, the runout distance is approximately 700 m, but
distance is approximately 100 m. The difference is more than 7-fold. The debris flow velocity is more
for a stress of 700 Pa, the distance is approximately 100 m. The difference is more than 7-fold. The
sensitive to the variation in yield stress. The difference is more than 10-fold. This result means that the
debris flow velocity is more sensitive to the variation in yield stress. The difference is more than 10-
debris flow impact can be determined by determining the yield stress. In this context, more precise
fold. This result means that the debris flow impact can be determined by determining the yield stress.
computational techniques based on rheological studies are required to avoid overdesigning for future
In this context, more precise computational techniques based on rheological studies are required to
disasters and to establish reasonable measures.
avoid overdesigning for future disasters and to establish reasonable measures.
It is very difficult to describe debris flow with one fixed rheological model, because it is expected
It is very difficult to describe debris flow with one fixed rheological model, because it is expected
that the flow behaviors of real debris flow are too complex. In particular, the influence of material
that the flow behaviors of real debris flow are too complex. In particular, the influence of material
parameters (such as the particle size distribution, change in water content, porosity, roughness, edge
parameters (such as the particle size distribution, change in water content, porosity, roughness, edge
and wall slip effects) in estimating the flow mobility should be scrutinized in future work. Even with a
and wall slip effects) in estimating the flow mobility should be scrutinized in future work. Even with
very simplified hypothesis in which many parameters, such as the particle size distribution, water
a very simplified hypothesis in which many parameters, such as the particle size distribution, water
content, porosity, roughness, solid concentration, and topographic characteristics are simplified with
content, porosity, roughness, solid concentration, and topographic characteristics are simplified with
ordinary constants, the research findings presented in this study can be simply applied to debris flow
ordinary constants, the research findings presented in this study can be simply applied to debris flow
mitigation in mine tailing. In addition, micro-structural evolution of the particles in terms of landslide
mitigation in mine tailing. In addition, micro-structural evolution of the particles in terms of landslide
mobilization has a substantial contribution in the destructuration–restructuration process [33].
mobilization has a substantial contribution in the destructuration–restructuration process [33].

Figure
Figure 6.
6. Relationship
Relationshipbetween
betweenthe
theshear
shearstrength
strength and
and the
the solid
solid volume
volume concentration.
concentration.

4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions
The dynamic
The dynamicandandstatic
staticyield
yieldstresses
stressesofofmine
minetailings,
tailings, which
which areare exposed
exposed onon natural
natural slopes
slopes in
in abandoned mine deposits and potentially vulnerable to future geochemical
abandoned mine deposits and potentially vulnerable to future geochemical and geophysical and geophysical
modification, have
modification, have been
been identified
identified and
and examined
examined in in this
this study.
study. The
The rheological
rheological properties,
properties, thethe yield
yield
stresses and viscosity, have been determined using the ball-measuring system, which
stresses and viscosity, have been determined using the ball-measuring system, which is a well-knownis a well-known
piece of
piece of apparatus
apparatus suitable
suitable for
for large
large particles.
particles. The
The yield
yield stresses
stresses obtained
obtained from
from the
the flow
flow curve
curve and
and
stressgrowth
stress growthmethods
methodshavehave been
been compared.
compared. In plot
In the the ofplot of shear
shear stress stress
and theand therate
shear shear rate
(flow (flow
curve),
there is a peak value related to the generation of the slip surface due to the high percentage of soils;
after the critical shear rate, the materials behave as Bingham fluids. The shear resistance before
yielding is different from the applied initial shear rates. The pseudo-Newtonian viscosity increases
with decreasing initial shear rates. However, the Bingham yield stress and viscosity are obtained
within a similar range, regardless of the initial shear rates applied. Therefore, the Bingham rheology
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4744 10 of 11

curve), there is a peak value related to the generation of the slip surface due to the high percentage of
soils; after the critical shear rate, the materials behave as Bingham fluids. The shear resistance before
yielding is different from the applied initial shear rates. The pseudo-Newtonian viscosity increases
with decreasing initial shear rates. However, the Bingham yield stress and viscosity are obtained
within a similar range, regardless of the initial shear rates applied. Therefore, the Bingham rheology is
applicable as a first approximation for debris flow motion to examine the post-failure characteristics of
mass movement. These results can be used from a very conservative point of view. The yield stress can
be obtained from the stress growth tests (the measurement of shear stress with a constant shear rate).
In this case, it is called the static yield stress. The static yield stresses are strongly affected by the shear
rate. At relatively low shear rates, the flow curve seems to demonstrate Newtonian behavior for a
given period of time. However, after a certain amount of time, the flow curve displays strain-softening
behavior similar to that in soil mechanics. A large difference is found between the dynamic and static
yield stresses. The largest difference is approximately 45-fold. In general, the static yield stress is
related to the flow starting, but the dynamic yield stress is related to the flow stopping. This effect may
result in an underestimation of the debris flow mobility if only the static yield stress and residual shear
stress from the stress growth test are considered. In landslide dynamics, at the onset of slope failure,
the undrained shear strength and static yield stress may be useful for examining the generation of slip
surfaces; however, at the transition to flow conditions, the transition from the static yield stress to the
Bingham yield stress should be considered. Yield stress reduction must be taken into account in highly
mobile debris flow hazards, which are related to hydroplaning, particle migration, and wetting effects
during flow.

Funding: This research was supported by the KIGAM Research project (19-3413).
Acknowledgments: The author also extends special thanks to the anonymous reviewers and editor for their
valuable comments and recommendations for publishing this paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Barnes, H.A. The yield stress—A review or ‘παντα ρει’—Everything flows? J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech. 1999,
81, 133–178. [CrossRef]
2. Coussot, P.; Nguyen, Q.D.; Huynh, H.T.; Bonn, D. Viscosity bifurcation in thixotropic, yielding fluids. J. Rheol.
2002, 46, 573–589. [CrossRef]
3. Moller, P.C.F.; Mewis, J.; Bonn, D. Yield stress and thixotropy: On the difficulty of measuring yield stresses in
practice. Soft Matt. 2006, 2, 274–283. [CrossRef]
4. Mewis, J.; Wagner, N.J. Thixotropy. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2009, 147–148, 214–227.
5. Qian, Y.; Kawashima, S. Use of creep recovery protocol to measure static yield stress and structural rebuilding
of fresh cement pastes. Cem. Concr. Res. 2016, 90, 73–79. [CrossRef]
6. Qian, Y.; Kawashima, S. Distinguishing dynamic and static yield stress of fresh cement mortars through
thixotropy. Cem. Concr. Comp. 2018, 86, 288–296. [CrossRef]
7. Nguyen, Q.D.; Boger, D.V. Measuring the Flow Properties of Yield Stress Fluids. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.
1992, 24, 47–88. [CrossRef]
8. Stokes, J.R.; Telford, J.H. Measuring the yield behaviour of structured fluids. J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech.
2004, 124, 137–146. [CrossRef]
9. Mewis, J. Thixotropy—A general review. J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech. 1979, 6, 1–20. [CrossRef]
10. Barnes, H.A. Thixotropy—A review. J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech. 1997, 70, 1–33. [CrossRef]
11. Moller, P.; Fall, A.; Chikkadi, V.; Derks, D.; Bonn, D. An attempt to categorize yield stress fluid behaviour.
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2009, 367, 5139–5155. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Cheng, D.C.H. Yield stress: A time-dependent property and how to measure it. Rheol. Acta 1986, 25, 542–554.
[CrossRef]
13. Santolo, A.S.D.; Pellegrino, A.M.; Evangelista, A.; Coussot, P. Rheological behaviour of reconstituted
pyroclastic debris flow. Géotechnique 2012, 62, 19–27. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4744 11 of 11

14. Barnes, H.A.; Walters, K. The yield stress myths? Rheol. Acta 1985, 24, 323–326. [CrossRef]
15. Astarita, G. Letter to the editor: The engineering reality of the yield stress. J. Rheol. 1990, 34, 275–277.
[CrossRef]
16. De Souza Mendes, P.R. Modeling the thixotropic behavior of structured fluids. J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech.
2009, 164, 66–75. [CrossRef]
17. O’Brien, J.S.; Julien, P.Y. Laboratory Analysis of Mudflow Properties. J. Hydraul. Eng. 1988, 114, 877–887.
[CrossRef]
18. Coussot, P.; Piau, J.M. On the behavior of fine mud suspensions. Rheol. Acta 1994, 33, 175–184. [CrossRef]
19. Schatzmann, M.; Bezzola, G.R.; Minor, H.E.; Windhab, E.J.; Fischer, P. Rheometry for large-particulated
fluids: Analysis of the ball measuring system and comparison to debris flow rheometry. Rheol. Acta 2009, 48,
715–733. [CrossRef]
20. Sosio, R.; Crosta, G.B. Rheology of concentrated granular suspensions and possible implications for debris
flow modeling. Water Resour. Res. 2009, 45, W03412. [CrossRef]
21. Campbell, C.S. Rapid Granular Flows. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1990, 22, 57–90. [CrossRef]
22. Jeong, S.W.; Wu, Y.H.; Cho, Y.C.; Ji, S.W. Flow behavior and mobility of contaminated waste rock materials in
the abandoned Imgi mine in Korea. Geomorphology 2018, 301, 79–91. [CrossRef]
23. Imran, J.; Parker, G.; Locat, J.; Lee, H. 1D Numerical Model of Muddy Subaqueous and Subaerial Debris
Flows. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2001, 127, 959–968. [CrossRef]
24. Jeong, S.W. Geotechnical and rheological characteristics of waste rock deposits influencing potential debris
flow occurrence at the abandoned Imgi Mine, Korea. Environ. Earth Sci. 2015, 73, 8299–8310. [CrossRef]
25. Bisantino, T.; Fischer, P.; Gentile, F. Rheological characteristics of debris-flow material in South-Gargano
watersheds. Nat. Hazards 2010, 54, 209–223. [CrossRef]
26. Kaitna, R.; Rickenmann, D.; Schatzmann, M. Experimental study on rheologic behaviour of debris flow
material. Acta Geotech. 2007, 2, 71–85. [CrossRef]
27. Jeong, S.W.; Locat, J.; Leroueil, S.; Malet, J.-P. Rheological properties of fine-grained sediment: The roles of
texture and mineralogy. Can. Geotech. J. 2010, 47, 1085–1100. [CrossRef]
28. Locat, J.; Demers, D. Viscosity, yield stress, remolded strength, and liquidity index relationships for sensitive
clays. Can. Geotech. J. 1988, 25, 799–806. [CrossRef]
29. Bingham, E.C. Fluidity and Plasticity; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1922; p. 440.
30. Coussot, P.; Tocquer, L.; Lanos, C.; Ovarlez, G. Macroscopic vs. local rheology of yield stress fluids.
J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech. 2009, 158, 85–90. [CrossRef]
31. Germann, N. Shear banding in semidilute entangled polymer solutions. Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci.
2019, 39, 1–10. [CrossRef]
32. Tika, T.E.; Vaughan, P.R.; Lemos, L.J.L.J. Fast shearing of pre-existing shear zones in soil. Géotechnique 1996,
46, 197–233. [CrossRef]
33. Huynh, H.T.; Roussel, N.; Coussot, P. Aging and free surface flow of a thixotropic fluid. Phys. Fluids 2005, 17,
033101. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).