brassengineeringinternational 151112220903 lva1 app6891

8/20/2019 Brassengineeringinternational 151112220903 Lva1 App6891

1/92


2/92

11/11/2015 Toromocho Tailings Pipelines Slide 2

The Tailings Pipelines were designed in two phases:

Tailings Pipelines Project Overview

• Expansion Phase

• Design Completed: 2015

• Nominal Capacity: 54,000 dry t/d• Design Capacity: 70,000 dry t/d

• Initial Phase

• Design to Startup: 2009 to 2014

• Nominal Capacity: 124,000 dry t/d• Design Capacity: 155,000 dry t/d


3/92


Tailings Pipelines Project Overview

Initial System Design• Located in the District of Morococha, Yauli Province, Junin Region,

Peru.

• The Toromocho project mines copper, molybdenum, and silver with

respective grades of 0.48%, 0.019%, and 6.88 grams per ton

• Ore Reserve is estimated to 1526 million metric tons

• Pump Station elevation is 4523 masl and terminates 4.7 km

distance at 4777 masl (up hill).

• Due to pressure requirements the pump station uses 10 of the

largest positive displacement pumps (8 + 2 mode) operating in

parallel• Due to number of pumps it is the largest pump station of its kind

• Estimated Annual production:

• One million metric tons of copper,

• Ten thousand metric tons of molybdenum

• Four million ounces of silver

• And ~ 44 million metric tons of tailings

Expansion System Design• ~26 million metric tons annually of tailings• Stand alone system adding four additional pumps operating in

parallel


4/92


Initial Tailings Pipeline

Process Design Criteria:

• Scope: from flange on P/S suction headers• Capacity:

• Nominal = 5176 t/h

• Design = 6470 t/h

• Pump Station Elevation: 4,520 masl

• Highest Discharge Elevation:• Phase I: 4,777 masl

• Phase II: 4,890 masl

• Pipeline length:

• Phase I: 4,707 m

• Phase II: 5,400m

• Tailings Slurry Concentration:• Minimum = 69%

• Maximum = 71%

• Actual experience tailings thickened to 65%

• Design Life: 30 years


5/92


Slurry Characteristics:

• Sample taken from Pilot Testing

•Solid’s SG:Sample 1 and 2 = 2.77 (used fordesign) to 2.92

• Handling Tests: Shutdown / Restart ability

are good, no serious problems areforeseen

Initial Tailings Pipeline


6/92


3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000

2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000

T h r o u g h p u t , d

r y

t / h

Flow, m3/h

Initital Toromocho Tailings System - Sample 2

62.0%

63.0%

Limiting Velocity

Q 5.8 pumps

61.0%

64.0%

65.0%

66.0%

67.0%

68.0%

69.0%

70.0%

Nominal

Q 10 pumps

Design Tonnage

Q 8 pumps

60.0%

Design Tonnage

Limiting Velocity

Nominal Tonnage

Operating Range

Contingency

Initial System Operating Range


7/92


Diameter 34.000 NPS Cw 68.80% % Capacity 158,939 dry t/d Sfac 1.100

Sample # 1 Q 5400.0 m3/h w-dot 6,622 dry t/h w-dot 158,939 dry t/d


Sample # 1 V 2.792 m/s -dH/dX, BP 24.369 m/km -dH/dX, NWT 11.437 m/km


Initial Cw, % 68.8% #Pumps 10 Speed, % 100%

Initial System 10 Pumps Operating @ 100 %

0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

10.000

10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000

f

Re

He = 0

Rec

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000

2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500

T h r o u g h p u t ,

d r y

t / h

Flow, m3/h


.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Design Tonnage

Limiting Velocity

Nominal Tonnage

Operating Range


8/92









0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

10.000

10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000

f

Re

He = 0

Rec

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000

2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500


d r y

t / h

Flow, m3/h


.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Design Tonnage

Limiting Velocity

NominalTonnage

Operating Range


9/92









0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

10.000

10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000

f

Re

He = 0

Rec

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000

2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500


d r y

t / h

Flow, m3/h


.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Design Tonnage

Limiting Velocity

Nominal Tonnage

Operating Range


10/92








Initial System 8 Pumps Operating @ 72.5 %

0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

10.000

10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000

f

Re

He = 0

Rec

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000

2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500


d r y

t / h

Flow, m3/h


.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Design Tonnage

Limiting Velocity

Nominal Tonnage

Operating Range


11/92








Initial System 8 Pumps Operating @ 72.5 %

0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

10.000

10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000

f

Re

He = 0

Rec

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000

2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500


d r y

t / h

Flow, m3/h


.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Design Tonnage

Limiting Velocity

Nominal Tonnage

Operating Range


12/92









0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

10.000

10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000

f

Re

He = 0

Rec

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000

2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500


d r y

t / h

Flow, m3/h


.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Design Tonnage

Limiting Velocity

Nominal Tonnage

Operating Range


13/92


Pipeline Routing and Impoundment


14/92



15/92


Impoundment and Tailings Dam


16/92


17/92




18/92




19/92



20/92



21/92



22/92



23/92


24/92



25/92


26/92



27/92



28/92


Discharge Points

Di h P i t


29/92


Discharge Points

Di h P i t


30/92


Discharge Points

Di h P i t


31/92


Discharge Points


32/92


System Hydraulics

I iti l S t SS H d li


33/92


Initial System SS Hydraulics

Conventional Slurry

I iti l S t SS H d li


34/92


Initial System SS Hydraulics

Bingham Plastic Slurry

Conventional Slurry


35/92


Pump Duty

• Geho: TZPM 2000 (largest PD pump)• Continuous Service

• Flow Capability: 655 m3/h each

•Initial System used 540 m3/h each

• Expansion System used 650 m3/h each

• Pressure Capability:

• Normal: 8,100 kPa

• w/ GLORES modification: 11,000 kPa


36/92


Pump Station Design

Pump Station Design


37/92


Pump Station Design

Pump Station Design


38/92


Pump Station Design

Pump Station Design


39/92


Pump Station Design

Pump Station Design


40/92


Pump Station Design


41/92


Pipe Stress Analysis

Toromocho Tailings Pipelines


42/92



Several unique difficulties in Mechanical Design of Toromocho Tailings

Pump Station

• Tailings pump station is situated on an earthwork bench and the space

available for piping was not sufficient to accommodate the preferred

pump station design

• Pump station is located in harsh, mountainous conditions 4,520m above

sea level

• Pump station will experience high pressures and flows and the

possibility of large pressure fluctuations




43/92




Preferred Pump Discharge Arrangement



44/92



Preferred pump station layout

• Pump discharge will incorporate bends to take the pipe from the pump

discharge nozzle to the station floor. Once on the floor the piping will

connect to the anchored discharge manifold

• Piping is much easier to restrain because pipe supports can be mounted

directly to platforms on the floor

• Pipe bends between the discharge nozzle and the discharge manifoldcreate flexibility in the piping




45/92



The Toromocho Tailings Pump Station is located on an bench only about

40m wide

• BRASS developed a station arrangement in which the discharge manifold

is at the same elevation as the discharge nozzle

• Eliminated the space between the pump discharge and manifold taken

up by the two pipe bends

• Reduced piping flexibility to absorb temperature expansion andcontraction



46/92


47/92


48/92



49/92


g p

This is a seemingly small change in length. When the Elastic

Modulus of the pipe is considered the force that can bedeveloped is easily enough to overstress piping and pump

nozzles if the system is too rigid.




50/92


g p

The stiffness and location of pipe supports were carefully analyzed and

many iterations of the design were considered before a final solution was

reached

• Caesar II simulations were run to analyze the pipe stresses

• Two main over stress issues needed to be solved. Both issues were most

severe when low temperature pipe contraction was considered

• straight pump discharge lines pull the discharge manifold laterally

• large S-bend located after the discharge manifold stretched by the

contracting manifold




51/92


g p

S-Bend




52/92


g p

• To reduce stress on the manifold and pump nozzles, BRASS used flexible

supports which allow the manifold piping to move laterally as the pipe

contracts

•

Over stress issue at the S-bend not as easy to fix

• Possible solution: fix the manifold piping with very rigid supports

• Prevent the manifold piping from pulling on the S-bend as

strongly

• Has the effect of increasing the pump nozzle loads to

unacceptable levels




53/92


g p

After a number of design iteration BRASS discovered that a special support

needed to be designed

• Support must be very rigid in the axial direction of the piping and

simultaneously flexible in the lateral direction

• Developed large plate oriented in the direction of the pipe axis

• Reinforcing ribs were added to achieve the required lateral and vertical

stiffness.

• Support is located near the middle of the discharge manifold



54/92



55/92


Even small pressure pulsations can cause large deflection in piping if the

excitation frequency of the pump is close to the natural frequency of the

piping

• The first mode of vibration of the piping should be signifigantly greater

than the pump’s nominal frequency of excitation and must be greater

than the pump’s maximum excitation to ensure no resonant vibration

will take place




56/92


Frequency of Excitation Calculation

60

)( nrpmi fe

e f : Frequency of Excitation (Hz)

i : Numbers of pistons

rpm : Rotations per minute

n : Fundamental frequency, n=1,2,3…..




57/92


The pump’s nominal frequency of excitation is 4Hz and maximum

frequency of excitation is 5 Hz

• Upon first analysis BRASS found that the piping natural frequency was

too low, due to the flexible supports

• A number of iterations were made to adjust the stiffness and location of

supports to increase the piping natural frequency

• The piping natural frequency was increased to approximately 6Hz. This ishigh enough to prevent resonant vibration.




58/92


The stress and flexibility analysis of the Toromocho

Tailings Pump Station presented numerous unique

engineering challenges. BRASS Engineering

International was able to develop a design which

overcame the space limitations, harsh environment,

and possible harmonic resonance of the pipe causedby pressure pulsation.



59/92


Pre-com, Com, Startup



60/92


Nitrogen charged Pulsation dampeners

Low, Medium, and High Pressure Pre-charge


Early pre commissioning problems


61/92


Urethane lined pipe was welded on causing the lining to be compromised

Early pre-commissioning problems



62/92


Photo shows field constructed “Y” on pump discharge line


63/92


Expansion System Design



64/92


Process Design Criteria:

• Scope: from bottom of thickeners• Capacity:

• Nominal = 2250 t/h

• Design = 2916 t/h

• Pump Station Elevation: 4,520 masl

• Highest Discharge Elevation: 4,777 masl

• Pipeline length: 4707 m

• Tailings Slurry Concentration:

• Minimum = 60.0%

• Maximum = 68.8%

• Based upon existing system the actual

experience tailings thickened to 65%

• Design Life: 5 years



65/92


66/92



67/92


1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700


d r y

t / h

Flow, m3/h

Toromocho Tailings System Expansion - Sample 2

Q 2.4 pumps

62.0%

63.0%

Limiting Velocity

61.0%

64.0%

65.0%

66.0%

67.0%

68.0%

69.0%

70.0%

Nominal

Q 4 pumps

Design Tonnage

Q 3 pumps

60.0%

Design Tonnage

Limiting Velocity

Nominal Tonnage

Operating Range

Contingency

Operating Range

pa s o Sys e es g


68/92

Expansion System 4 Pumps Operating @ 100 %


69/92







Expansion Cw, % 65.0% #Pumps 4 Speed, % 100%

0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

10.000

10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000

f

Re

He = 0

Rec

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500


d r y

t / h

Flow, m3/h


.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Design Tonnage

Limiting Velocity

Nominal Tonnage

Operating Range

Contingency



70/92








0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

10.000

10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000

f

Re

He = 0

Rec

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500


d r y

t / h

Flow, m3/h


.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Design Tonnage

Limiting Velocity

Nominal Tonnage

Operating Range

Contingency



71/92








0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

10.000

10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000

f

Re

He = 0

Rec

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500


d r y

t / h

Flow, m3/h


.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Design Tonnage

Limiting Velocity

Nominal Tonnage

Operating Range

Contingency



72/92








0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

10.000

10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000

f

Re

He = 0

Rec

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500


d r y

t / h

Flow, m3/h


.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Design Tonnage

Limiting Velocity

Nominal Tonnage

Operating Range

Contingency



73/92








0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

10.000

10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000

f

Re

He = 0

Rec

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500


d r y

t / h

Flow, m3/h


.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Design Tonnage

Limiting Velocity

Nominal Tonnage

Operating Range

Contingency

Operating Ranges:


74/92


1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1300 1800 2300 2800 3300 3800 4300 4800 5300 5800

T h r o u g h p

u t ,

d r y

t / h

Flow, m3/h

Initital Toromocho Tailings Systems - Comparison

62.0%

63.0%

Limiting Velocity

Q 5.8 pumps

61.0%

64.0%

65.0%

66.0%

67.0%

68.0%

69.0%

70.0%

Nominal

Q 10 pumps

Design Tonnage

Q 8 pumps

60.0%

Limiting Velocity

Nominal

Design TonnageQ 4 pumps

Design Tonnage

Limiting Velocity

Nominal Tonnage

Operating Range

Limiting Velocity

Nominal Tonnage

Design Tonnage

Operating Ranges:


75/92


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000

T h r o u g h p u

t ,

d r y

t / h

Flow, m3/h

Toromocho Tailings Systems - Complete Operating Range

62.0%

63.0%

Limiting Velocity

Q 5.8 pumps

61.0%

64.0%

65.0%

66.0%

67.0%

68.0%

69.0%

70.0%

Initial Nominal

Q 10 pumps

Initial Design Tonnage

Q 8 pumps

60.0%

Limiting Velocity

Exansion Nominal

Expansion Design

Q 4 pumps

w-14 pump

Total NominalTonnage

Total Design Tonnage

Initial Design Tonnage

Initial Limiting Velocity

Initial Nominal Tonnage

Operating Ranges

Expan Limiting Velocity

Expan Nominal Tonnage

Expan Design

Tonnage

Both @ Design Tonnage

Both @ Nominal Tonnages


76/92


77/92

i h l i Sl

Expansion System SS Hydraulics


78/92


Bingham Plastic Slurry

Conventional Slurry


79/92

Expansion System Mechanical Design


80/92



81/92

Expansion System Mechanical Design


82/92


Available space for the new discharge pipe


83/92

Expansion System Mechanical DesignP/S West Side feed and discharge


84/92


P/S West Side feed and discharge


85/92


86/92


87/92


Expansion System Pipe Stress Analysis



88/92


The expansion system pipe stress analysis was more straight forward than

the work done for the original system

• 4 pumps spaced far apart allow the discharge manifold to be more

flexible

• Elevated piping still required to avoid existing piping and structures

under the platform

• Only one discharge manifold

• More lateral space

• Pipe bends used to bring discharge to station floor for East side

pumps increasing piping flexability

Expansion Pipe Stress Analysis


Expansion System Plant Discharge


89/92


Expansion System, Plant Discharge

Acknowledgements

Brian Peer:


90/92


Brian Peer:

Brian Peer is a Mechanical Engineer specializing

in mechanical piping design and pipe stressanalysis.

Brian Peer was responsible for the Toromocho

Tailings Pipeline Pump Station Stress andFlexibility Analysis.

Leroy Worthen:

Mr. Worthen served as commissioning and

start-up engineer for the project.

Acknowledgements


91/92


Dr. George Shou (presentation reviewer):

VP and Chief engineer, BRASS EngineeringInternational, USA

Dr. Shou has over 30 years experience in slurry

pipeline engineering.

He was the project manager for basic

engineering, detailed engineering, construction

support and commissioning. Wushan Copper

tailings paste pipeline, 6km, 450 and 330mmOD, in China. The pipeline was successfully

commissioned in September 2009.


92/92

The End&Thank you

brassengineeringinternational 151112220903 lva1 app6891

Documents