Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Page 1
2.
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 5
1.1.
Background............................................................................................................. 5
1.2.
1.2.1.
1.2.2.
2.2.
2.3.
2.4.
3.
4.
Phase 1 ................................................................................................................ 10
4.1.1.
4.1.2.
4.1.3.
4.2.
Phase 2 ................................................................................................................ 13
4.2.1.
4.2.2.
Reference ........................................................................................................................... 15
Appendix ............................................................................................................................. 16
Appendix 1: Flow Velocity................................................................................................ 16
Appendix 2: Risk Classification (Barnes, 2009) ............................................................... 17
Page 2
List of Tables
Table 1 Cost Comparison ..................................................................................................... 7
Table 2 Velocity for varying pipe diameters ........................................................................... 7
Table 3 %Solids for Varying SG & Fill ratio ........................................................................... 8
Table 4 Pressure gradient with varying %Sm ........................................................................ 9
Table 5 Critical Areas .......................................................................................................... 10
Table 6 Flanges vs Electro-fusion ....................................................................................... 11
Table 7 Phase 1 project cost ............................................................................................... 11
Table 8 Installation time ...................................................................................................... 12
Table 9 Phase 2 replacements............................................................................................ 13
Table 10 Phase 2 project cost ............................................................................................. 14
Table 11 Phase 2 installation time....................................................................................... 15
Page 3
SG
Specific Gravity
PL
SF
Factor of Safety
HDPE
Page 4
Background
The backfill operation has become a major player on our production as the mine nears its
end of life. It must be further emphasised that whenever we have 1 day delay in backfilling a
stope, we lose a potential gain in profit of R496 800. This scenario is shown in Figure 1.
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
R 8 000 000.00
R 6 000 000.00
R 4 000 000.00
R 2 000 000.00
R 0.00
1
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Tonnage
Profit
Main cause of downtime for underground operation was identified as pipe burst, which
occurs mainly on the bends and subsequent outlet pipes. There is also a safety concern with
regards to the pipes which runs in the old working areas and this requires a permanent
solution to minimise the risk of people having to enter the worked out areas. In light of this,
different options were investigated and this report will mainly focus on the option which was
seen as the most feasible.
1.2.
Summary of Options
A total of 6 options were established and compared in terms of the total project cost in order
to select the most feasible option.
1.2.1. By-pass Old Workings
We looked at drilling boreholes from surface to certain levels which were selected based on
ease of access, availability of drilling space, safety concerns and most importantly the hole
angle which was between 40-60. Option 1 in this area involved drilling 3 boreholes to 9
level in order to by-pass the problematic 4 level bend. The total cost for this option amounted
to R6 360 882.
Page 5
Page 6
Options
Total Cost
@ 10% Contingency
R 557 704
R 731 149
R 524 004
R 657 101
R 1 209 240
R 1 516 386
R 856 703
R 1 074 305
R 886 600
R 1 111 796
From the above comparison it was decided that we should replace 6m with 3m HDPE pipes
for material handling purpose. It was also suggested that we use ceramic lined bends at
identified critical areas in conjunction with the 3m HDPE pipes. The pipeline replacement will
be done in 2 phases considering the increase in the amount of failures which are occurring
at the moment.
2. Pressure Calculations
Assumptions were made in order to determine the pressures at different levels through the
backfill pipeline which runs through old working areas. The calculations were done to ensure
that pipes with correct pressure ratings are installed at the respective levels.
2.1.
Different velocities were determined for varying volumetric flow rates (Q) and different pipe
diameters (ID), the results of the computation are summarised in Appendix 1: Flow Velocity.
The flowing formula was used to determine the velocity in the pipe, for a given flow rate.
. (1)
Table 2 Velocity for varying pipe diameters
Pipe diameter
(D)(mm)
150
Flow Velocity
(U) (m/s)
5.5
5.2
4.8
4.5
170
4.3
Page 7
2.2.
The %solids by mass were computed for different specific gravity (SG) and different fill
ratios. The results are summarised in Table 3 below.
Table 3 %Solids for Varying SG & Fill ratio
2.3.
SG
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
%Sm
61
65
68
72
75
77
80
Pressure Gradient
It was assumed that the fill SG varies between 1.9 and 2.2. Based on the above, the %Sm
for the fill was assumed to be between 64-75%. These estimates were then used to
determine the pressure gradient (kPa/m) based on Figure 4.
Figure 4 Pressure Gradient versus mixture velocity for the 157mm ID pipe for cemented tailings blend
without Chryso (Paterson&Cooke, 2015)
Page 8
Q=350 m/hr
ID = 150mm
U = 5.5m/s
2.4.
%Sm
66.4
70.4
2.25
2.5
73
3.1
Design Pressure
A total of 3 design calculations were done for the 3 determined pressure gradients
mentioned in Table 4 above. Below is a list of the additional assumptions which were used to
determine the respective pressures.
Pipe length = 6m
Pressure Head (
SG = 2
Pressure at borehole inlet =0, no pressure accumulation from one level to the next
)(2)
) (3)
The results for the pressure calculations are available on the hyperlink below.
Pressure Ratings.xlsx
Based on the results of the calculations, the current HDPE pipes in use can handle the fill
pressure at all levels besides on 21-22Level. Furthermore, when the fill is at 73%Sm, the
available pressure head is lower than the horizontal pressure loss on that level.
Page 9
Borehole length
4.1.
Phase 1
The areas which were identified as critical areas are summarised in Table 5 below.
Table 5 Critical Areas
Area
Number
(3m)
4 Level
9 Level
25 Level
28 Level
31 Level
34 Level
45 Level
Total
of
77
4
4
3
10
3
8
5
8
3
35
2
14
3
154
22
Total number of Units = 192
Distant
(3m)
Pieces
3
2
2
4
2
1
2
16
It is recommended that the bends and distant pieces be lined with ceramic wearing
compound and the material should be steel instead of HDPE. The distant pieces are to be
installed on the outlet section of the bends.
Ngoma Khuthadzo Reginald
Page 10
Joining Method
Total Cost
T1000/3 Flanges
Electro-fusion with Couplers
R 247 542.10
R 191 392.60
Variance
R 56 150.10
Description
Unit Price
Quantity
Required
Total Cost
3m HDPE Pipes
R 764.75
154
R 117 771.50
R 5 888.00
11
R 64 768.00
R 15 226.00
11
R 167 486.00
R 8 797.00
16
R 140 752.00
Electro-fusion Couplers
R 214.03
154
R 32 960.62
Electro-fusion Machine
R 25 000.00
R 25 000.00
Subtotal
R 55 889.78
347
R 548 738.12
Contingency (5%)
R 576 175.03
VAT (14%)
R 656 839.53
Page 11
Bend to pipe connection to use couplers (Recommended method is flanges for this
connection)
Table 8 shows that the installation time for phase 1 is approximately 16.5 hours; this is
roughly 2x12 hours shifts. This estimate of course, excludes all the assumptions mentioned
above and should only be used for reference purposes.
Table 8 Installation time
Area
Number of Number
Pipes (3m)
Bends
of Distant
Pieces (3m)
Couplers
installation
time (hour)
4 Level
77
84
7.00
9 Level
0.75
25 Level
10
15
1.25
28 Level
17
1.42
31 Level
13
1.08
34 Level
35
38
3.17
45 Level
14
19
1.58
Total
16.25
Page 12
Phase 2
Phase 2 will cover the replacements at the remaining levels, the number of bends and pipes
required are shown in Table 9.
Table 9 Phase 2 replacements
Area
Number of Bends
10 level
26
11 level
96
13 level
15 level
66
17 level
94
21-22 level
236
37 level
40 level
14
43 level
40
44 level
46 level
18
47 level
610
37
Total
It is recommended that HDPE pipes be used for this phase of the project at all levels except
certain section at 21-22 level. The pressure rating calculations suggests that we should
consider using steel pipes for the first 450m section of the pipeline in order to reduce the
pressure loss in the HDPE section.
Page 13
Description
Unit Price
Quantity
Required
Total Cost
3m HDPE Pipes
R 764.75
610
R 466 497.50
45/90HDPE Bends
R 1 590.00
37
R 58 830.00
Electro-fusion Couplers
R 214.03
610
R 130 558.30
Subtotal
R 2 568.78
1 257
R 655 885.80
Contingency (5%)
R 688 680.09
VAT (14%)
R 723 114.09
Page 14
Area
Number of
Pipes (3m)
Number
of
Bends
Couplers
installation time
(hour)
10 Level
26
28
2.33
11 Level
96
99
8.25
13 Level
12
1.00
15 Level
66
69
5.75
17 Level
94
97
8.08
21-22 Level
236
240
20.00
37 Level
0.42
40 Level
14
18
1.50
43 Level
40
43
3.58
44 Level
0.42
46 Level
18
20
1.67
47 Level
11
0.92
Total
53.92
Reference
Barnes, M. (2009). Risk Assessment workbook for mines.
Paterson&Cooke. (2015). Black Mountain Backfill Tests - Slurry Test Report.
Page 15
Flow Velocity (m/s) for Varying Pipe Diameters and Volumetric flow
rates
150
155
160
165
170
150
2.4
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.8
160
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.1
2.0
170
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.1
180
2.8
2.6
2.5
2.3
2.2
190
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.5
2.3
200
3.1
2.9
2.8
2.6
2.4
210
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.6
220
3.5
3.2
3.0
2.9
2.7
230
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
240
3.8
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.9
250
3.9
3.7
3.5
3.2
3.1
260
4.1
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
270
4.2
4.0
3.7
3.5
3.3
280
4.4
4.1
3.9
3.6
3.4
290
4.6
4.3
4.0
3.8
3.5
300
4.7
4.4
4.1
3.9
3.7
310
4.9
4.6
4.3
4.0
3.8
320
5.0
4.7
4.4
4.2
3.9
330
5.2
4.9
4.6
4.3
4.0
340
5.3
5.0
4.7
4.4
4.2
350
5.5
5.2
4.8
4.5
4.3
360
5.7
5.3
5.0
4.7
4.4
370
5.8
5.4
5.1
4.8
4.5
380
6.0
5.6
5.2
4.9
4.7
390
6.1
5.7
5.4
5.1
4.8
400
6.3
5.9
5.5
5.2
4.9
Page 16
Page 17