2.4m Thickener Preliminary Report Rev0

Sunrise Dam Gold Mine Paste Thickening R&D Programme
SUNRISE DAM GOLD MINE 2.4m PILOT THICKENER PASTE THICKENING R&D PROGRAMME PRELIMINARY REPORT
Revision No. 0
Proposed by J. Amaranti
Authorised by GTS
Date Issued 7th July 2003
Page 1
Information within this report is commercial-in-confidence and as such must not be used or reproduced in any way by parties other than Outokumpu Technology or Sunrise Dam Gold Mine
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Summary 3.0 Testwork and Procedures
3.1 Sample Preparation 3.2 Thickener Mechanisms 3.3 Flocculant Addition 3.4 Measurements 3.5 Rotating Bed Determination 3.6 Rheology Measurements
5 9 18
18 19 20 20 21 22
4.0 Results 5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

Appendix 1
Photographs
24 36 38
38
Appendix 2
Logsheets
39
39
Appendix 3
Procedures
40
40
Appendix 4
Lab Simulation of Underflow % Solids vs Unsheared Yield Stress
41
41
Page 2
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1. SDGM 24m High Compression Thickener....................................................................................... 5 Figure 2. SDGM Central Tailings Discharge ................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3. General Arrangement of 2.4m Pilot Thickener ............................................................................... 8 Table 1. Best Operating Result ........................................................................................................................ 9 Figure 4. Comparison of 2.4m Pilot Thickener & 24m HCT Underflow Densities........................................ 10 Figure 5. Unsheared Yield Stress vs Underflow % Solids ............................................................................. 10 Table 2. Effect of Centrifugal Pump on Yield Stress...................................................................................... 11 Table 3. Effect of Rheometer Shearing Events on Yield Stress .................................................................... 11 Table 4. Effect of Underflow Recirculation on Yield Stress........................................................................... 11 Figure 6. Operating Torque vs Unsheared Yield Stress ................................................................................ 12 Figure 7. Operating Torque vs Underflow % Solids....................................................................................... 12 Figure 8. k Factor vs Unsheared Yield Stress ............................................................................................... 13 Figure 9. k Factor vs Underflow % Solids....................................................................................................... 14 Figure 10. Underflow % Solids vs Flocculant Dosage ................................................................................... 14 Figure 11. Comparison 190mm Laboratory Pilot Rig & 2.4m Pilot Thickener.............................................. 15 Figure 12. 190mm Laboratory Pilot Rig........................................................................................................... 15 Figure 13. 2.4m Pilot Thickener ....................................................................................................................... 16 Table 5. 2.4m Thickener Testwork at Sunrise Dam Goldmine March May 2003 ....................................... 17 Figure 14. 2.4m Pilot Thickener Arrangement ................................................................................................ 18 Figure 15. Feed Pump and Header Tank ......................................................................................................... 19 Figure 16. Pilot Thickener Rig.......................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 17. Rakes with 8 Stationary and 4 Rotating Pickets........................................................................... 19 Figure 18. Flocculant Dilution Setup ............................................................................................................... 20 Figure 19. Flocculant Manifold......................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 20. Observing Overflow Clarity ............................................................................................................ 21 Figure 21. Measuring U/F Flow Rate................................................................................................................ 21 Figure 22. Rotating Bed Detection................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 23. Slump Ring Test .............................................................................................................................. 22 Figure 24. Showing a Slump of Two Rings ..................................................................................................... 22 Figure 25. Rheology Sample ............................................................................................................................ 23 Figure 26. Laboratory and Rheometer ............................................................................................................ 23 Figure 27. Illustration of Haake Yield Stress Printout.................................................................................... 23 Figure 28. Liquor SG Calibration Curve .......................................................................................................... 24 Figure 29. Hydrometer ...................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 30. Comparison of 2.4m Pilot Thickener & 24m HCT Underflow Densities...................................... 26 Figure 31. Unsheared Yield Stress vs. Underflow % Solids .......................................................................... 27 Table 6. Effect of Centrifugal Pump on Yield Stress...................................................................................... 27 Table 7. Effect of Rheometer Shearing Events on Yield Stress .................................................................... 27 Figure 32. Illustration of Haake Yield Stress Printout.................................................................................... 28 Table 8. Effect of Underflow Recirculation on Yield Stress........................................................................... 28 Figure 33. Operating Torque vs Unsheared Yield Stress .............................................................................. 29 Figure 34. Operating Torque vs Underflow % Solids..................................................................................... 29 Figure 35. k Factor vs Unsheared Yield Stress ............................................................................................. 30 Figure 36. k Factor vs Underflow % Solids ..................................................................................................... 31 Figure 37. Underflow % Solids vs Flocculant Dosage ................................................................................... 31 Table 9. Best Operating Result ........................................................................................................................ 32 Figure 38. 190mm Twisted Rotating and Static Pickets ................................................................................ 32 Figure 39. Comparison of 190mm Pilot Rig & 2.4m Pilot Thickener Run 1 .................................................. 33 Figure 40. Comparison of 190mm Pilot Rig & 2.4m Pilot Thickener Run 2 .................................................. 33 Figure 41. Comparison of 190mm Pilot Rig & 2.4m Pilot Thickener Run 3 .................................................. 34 Table 10. 2.4m Thickener Testwork at Sunrise Dam Goldmine March May 2003 ..................................... 35 Figure 42. Percent Solids vs Yield Stress ....................................................................................................... 42
Page 3
Acknowledgements
AngloGold Outokumpu Technology Pty Ltd would like to take this opportunity to thank AngloGold for this opportunity and its cooperation. Thank you to all AngloGold staff that were involved with the Paste Thickening R&D Programme. Installation of the 2.4m pilot thickener required a number of changes both electrically and mechanically. Outokumpu would like to express our appreciation for the services of the Electrical and Maintenance Departments at Sunrise Dam Gold Mine. Special thanks to the metallurgical team at Sunrise Dam Gold Mine in particular John McKenny, Drew Noble, Mike Di Trento and Nathan Marr for all their support and to all at Sunrise Dam Gold Mine.
Outokumpu - Mineral Processing The Outokumpu Global Thickener Support Team would like to thank the following Outokumpu and associated personnel for their input, contributions and assistance; Outokumpu South Africa Fred Bibbey, Francois Mouton, Mark Fowler and Schalk Bekker. McNally India Pranab K Ghosh Outokumpu Eurasia Vladimir Lasukov Outokumpu Australia Warren Hinchliffe, Allan Webb, Craig Bonython, Brian Hartley, Phil Diesel, Grant Hankinson, Jay Benn and Jon Owen.
Page 4
1.0 Introduction
AngloGolds Sunrise Dam Gold Mine (SDGM) is located 220km north northeast of Kalgoorlie and 55km south of Laverton, Western Australia, in semi arid bush. SDGM currently treats up to 450 t/h of ore and operates a Central Tailings Discharge (CTD) storage facility with thickened tailings being produced by a Supaflo 24m High Compression Thickener (HCT) Figure 1.
Figure 1. SDGM 24m High Compression Thickener
SDGM contacted Outokumpu Technology Pty Ltd (Outokumpu) in regard to lower than desired underflow density from their 24m HCT coupled with problematic thickener operation. Outokumpu perceived that the poor overall performance was due to the rheology of the material and its tendency to form a rotating bed when higher underflow densities were targeted. A Paste Thickening R&D Programme was agreed to and completed at SDGM based on an agreement between AngloGold and Outokumpu. Outokumpu initiated the design and construction of a 2.4m pilot thickener to be used in assessing the performance possibilities of the ore being treated. General Arrangement of the 2.4m pilot thickener, Figure 3, can be seen on page 8. The objective of this R&D programme was to provide process and/or mechanical solutions for the operation of the existing tailings thickener circuit. In a steady state thickening process, densification of the slurry can only proceed if the rate of water release from the slurry migrating upwards through the thickener is greater than the transport of the densified slurry migrating downwards.
Page 5
The rate of water release is governed by the natural permeability of the slurry, and is enhanced by mechanical rake action. The 2.4m pilot thickener was able to be fitted with different rake mechanisms to confirm formation and then prevention of a rotating bed, as it was believed that the prevention of this would maintain permeability as well as maintain the usable area of the thickener. By increasing underflow density it will be possible to improve the CTD system, increase water recovery and effectively reduce reagent consumption, which leads to a number of environmental benefits and cost savings. The R&D programme consisted of the following: Testing different rake mechanisms for the verification and then prevention of a rotating bed Testing underflow density versus yield stress, torque and flocculant dosage Testing side by side of Outokumpus 190mm laboratory pilot rig versus 2.4m pilot thickener to compare results.
The main objectives of the testwork were: To confirm that a rotating bed would be formed in the pilot thickener To compare and optimise the relative effectiveness of different rake configurations for rotating bed prevention Determination of unsheared yield stress versus underflow percent solids Determination of yield stress before and after centrifugal pump Simulation of yield stress after pump using Haake Viscometer Determination of yield stress after recycling of underflow Determination of k factor (torque) versus unsheared yield stress Determination of k factor (torque) versus underflow percent solids Determination of underflow percent solids versus flocculant dosage Comparing 190mm test rig underflow density results to that of the 2.4m results at the same operating condition, to allow future scale up from the 190mm unit.
Page 6
By gaining a better understanding of all these objectives we hope to improve site water management as well as tailings disposal.
Figure 2. SDGM Central Tailings Discharge
In particular Outokumpus belief was that if a rotating bed could be prevented, permeability and usable dewatering area would be maintained. Hence, increasing underflow density, reducing flocculant consumption and reducing operating torque for the given density. Also, alleviating current thickener operating difficulties. The Paste Thickener R&D Programme was conducted in March, April and May 2003. The R&D programme consisted of three campaigns, which totalled a period of four weeks of testing.
Page 7
Figure 3. General Arrangement of 2.4m Pilot Thickener
Page 8
2.0 Summary
The 2.4m pilot thickener achieved the objectives of the R&D programme in forming and then preventing the formation of a rotating bed and consequently obtaining increased underflow densities at reduced flocculant dosage rates. Tests 1 to 3 were operated as a bare rake with no pickets and in all three tests rotating beds were established. The torque increased and problems associated with pumping the underflow occurred. Test 4 utilised a horizontal beam, which prevented a rotating bed from forming. This test was not operated for a sufficient period to give any usable steady state results. Tests 5 to 25 were operated with a combination of stationary and rotating pickets which all prevented rotating bed formation. It was concluded that a combination of eight stationary and four rotating pickets at a rake arm tip speed of 11.3 m/min provided the most effective rake mechanism. That is, preventing rotating bed formation, providing adequate dewatering, compaction and permeability of the bed. This lead to improved underflow density and lower flocculant consumption. What we consider as our best operating result, achieved over a continuous 8 hour period and at the end of our R&D programme can be seen in Table 1 below: Test No.
25
Rake Mechanism
Stat. & Rot. pickets
Tip Speed m/min

11.3
U/F % Solids
65.3
Solids Loading t/m2h

0.91
Flocc. Dosage g/t

18.5
Table 1. Best Operating Result
Comparative data was collected from the 2.4m pilot thickener and the 24m HCT on a daily basis to provide a concise summary of operating conditions. The 2.4m pilot thickener was operated at different conditions but the common element for tests 5 to 25 is that bed rotation was prevented. It was found that the 2.4m pilot thickener provided higher underflow densities for all except one of these tests when compared to the 24m HCT and this can be seen in Figure 4 overleaf. The one that did not provide a higher result was test 6. This was a test, which investigated high rake tip speed with full complement of rotating pickets. This test was successful in showing that this was not an operating set up to pursue.
Page 9
Pilot vs Plant Thickener, SDGM

Pilot Thickener 67.5 Plant Thickener
Underflow % Solids (w/w)
65.0 62.5 60.0 57.5 55.0 4 9 14 19 24
Test Number
Figure 4. Comparison of 2.4m Pilot Thickener & 24m HCT Underflow Densities
Yield stress is an important parameter and was tested extensively throughout the R&D programme. The testwork demonstrated that higher underflow densities lead to higher yield stresses. The results indicate that higher underflow densities can be achieved, however, consideration needs to be given to thickener drive torque rating and pumping of the underflow due to higher yield stresses.
Unsheared Yield Stress vs Underflow % Solids

100
Unsheared Yield Stress (Pa)
90 80 70 60 50 40 60.0 61.0 62.0 63.0 64.0

y = 5E-10x 6.2034
65.0
66.0
Figure 5. Unsheared Yield Stress vs Underflow % Solids
Page 10
The 2.4m pilot thickener was fitted with two underflow pumps. A helical rotor pump and a centrifugal pump were both used to gauge the effects of shearing the material by pumping to tailings. It was found that a centrifugal pump would approximately halve the yield stress of the underflow.
Before Centrifugul Pump
79 68
After Centrifugul Pump (Pa)

50 31
Table 2. Effect of Centrifugal Pump on Yield Stress
The Haake Viscotester VT550 was used to simulate two stages of pumping with a centrifugal pump or one stage of pumping plus pipeline transport and these results were recorded as 1 x shear and 2 x shear. More details can be found in Section 3.6 Rheology Measurements.
Before Simulated 1 x shear Centrifugul Pump (Pa)
79 68 29 33
Simulated 2 x shear (Pa)

20 25
Table 3. Effect of Rheometer Shearing Events on Yield Stress
The R&D programme also tested the effects of using a centrifugal pump to recirculate underflow in the underflow cone of the thickener. It was possible to approximately halve the yield stress in the cone by recirculating the material with a centrifugal pump.
58 88 69 91
Recirculated Yield Stress (Pa)

23 41 37 62
Table 4. Effect of Underflow Recirculation on Yield Stress
Page 11
Sunrise Dam Gold Mine Paste Thickening R&D Programme As the underflow density and hence unsheared yield stress of the material increased the operating torque also increased as illustrated in Figure 6 and 7 below.
Operating Torque vs Unsheared Yield Stress

2000
Operating Torque (Nm)
1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Unsheared Yield Stress y = 654.83e0.0107x
Figure 6. Operating Torque vs Unsheared Yield Stress
Operating Torque vs Underflow % Solids

2000
1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 60 61 62 63 64
y = 24.327x2 - 3011.1x + 94468

65 66 67
Figure 7. Operating Torque vs Underflow % Solids
Torque was measured by measuring hydraulic pressure to the drive hydraulic motor.
Page 12
An industry standard formula that is used to determine thickener drive capacity is;
Maximum Operating Torque (Nm) = 14.63 x k x d2
(d = thickener diameter (m))
k varying depending essentially on material characteristics at the desired densities and the level at which the drive is to operate at for normal conditions. Normal operating torque can be say 33% of maximum operating torque or a more conservative approach would be 25%. To date the selection of k has generally come down to a review of the process and then determination based on years of experience. As the underflow densities being sought are increasing the determination of k needs additional information and this comes from rheology work yield stress. The formula gives torque as the maximum operating torque (trip torque or cut out torque), not normal operating torque. Figures 8 below and 9 overleaf show k factor based on normal operating torque being 25% of maximum operating torque.
k Factor vs Unsheared Yield Stress

100 90 80
k Factor
70 60 50 40 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Unsheared Yield Stress (Pa) y = 0.6842x + 18.481
Figure 8. k Factor vs Unsheared Yield Stress
Page 13
k Factor vs Underflow % Solids

100 90 80
k Factor
70 60 50 40 30 60 61 62 63 y = 1.3045x 2 - 161.68x + 5070.9 64 65 66 67
Figure 9. k Factor vs Underflow % Solids
Tests 15 to 17, 20, 21, 24 and 25 were at solids loadings of 0.71 to 0.89 t/m2h (typical of SDGM operating conditions) and are graphed below to illustrate the effects of varying the flocculant dosage. From this it seems that dosages higher than 20 to 25 g/t have no positive effect on underflow density.
Underflow % Solids versus Flocculant Dosage
65.5 65.0 64.5 64.0 63.5 63.0 62.5 62.0 61.5 61.0 60.5 10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
Flocculant Dosage (g/t)
Figure 10. Underflow % Solids vs Flocculant Dosage
Page 14
Testing was also conducted using Outokumpus 190mm laboratory/pilot rig to provide comparative data with the 2.4m pilot thickener. Three test runs showed strong correlation between the results of the 190mm rig vs 2.4m pilot thickener. The best results are shown below in Figure 11.
190mm versus 2.4m - U/F SG - May 4th 1.80 1.78 1.76 1.74 1.72 1.70 1.68 1.66 1.64 1.62 1.60 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 Time of Day
U/F SG (t/m3)
190mm
2.4m
Figure 11. Comparison 190mm Laboratory Pilot Rig & 2.4m Pilot Thickener
Figure 12. 190mm Laboratory Pilot Rig Page 15

Figure 13. 2.4m Pilot Thickener
Page 16
TABLE 5. 2.4 m THICKENER TESTWORK AT SUNRISE DAM GOLD MINE : MARCH - MAY 2003
Date 7 March 8 March 10 March 11 March 12 March 13 March 14 March 15 March 19 March 20 March 22 March 23 March 24 March 25 March 11 April 12 April 12 April 12 April 13 April 13 April 13 April 14 April 15 April 2 May 3 May 4 May 5 May 6 May 7 May Test 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16 16 17 17 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mechanism Bare Rake Bare Rake Bare Rake Beam Stat. & Rot. Pickets Stat. & Rot. Pickets Stat. & Rot. Pickets Stat. & Rot. Pickets Stationary Pickets Stationary Pickets Stat. & Rot. Pickets Stat. & 4 Rot. Pickets Stat. & 4 Rot. Pickets Stationary Pickets Stat. & 4 Rot. Pickets Stat. & 4 Rot. Pickets Stat. & 4 Rot. Pickets Stat. & 4 Rot. Pickets Stat. & 4 Rot. Pickets Stat. & 4 Rot. Pickets Stat. & 4 Rot. Pickets Stat. & 4 Rot. Pickets Stat. & 4 Rot. Pickets Stat. & 4 Rot. Pickets Stat. & 4 Rot. Pickets Stat. & 4 Rot. Pickets Stat. & 4 Rot. Pickets Stat. & 4 Rot. Pickets Stat. & 4 Rot. Pickets Tip Speed m /m in 7.5 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 22.6 11.3 11.3 11.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 37.7 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 Feed Rate t/h 2.89 2.85 2.57 3.27 3.51 2.48 2.68 3.85 2.59 2.63 2.36 2.72 2.53 2.74 3.53 3.51 3.45 3.20 3.95 3.44 3.53 2.84 5.34 3.63 3.77 2.71 3.08 4.01 3.98 Solids Loading t/m 2h 0.64 0.63 0.57 0.72 0.78 0.55 0.59 0.85 0.57 0.58 0.52 0.60 0.56 0.60 0.78 0.77 0.76 0.71 0.87 0.76 0.78 0.63 1.18 0.80 0.83 0.60 0.68 0.89 0.88 Flocculant Dosage g/t 29.8 33.4 36.7 28.6 38.3 39.0 35.4 25.4 36.9 35.5 39.7 34.3 36.8 33.8 28.9 23.4 32.3 50.6 23.4 45.9 68.2 34.6 31.0 30.8 17.3 25.6 28.7 19.0 19.1 Underflow Density % Solids 66.7 67.2 67.1 67.3 63.4 (56) 65.5 64.6 64.8 63.2 63.3 63.0 63.8 62.1 62.8 63.2 63.2 62.2 61.0 62.9 62.0 65.0 65.2 61.8 61.5 62.8 64.6 63.8 65.2 Sheared Recirc. Unsheared 1 x shear Yield Stress Yield Stress Yield Stress Yield Stress Pa Pa Pa Pa 56 36 50 34 73 42 87 40 79 40 101 55 63* 29 63* 33 71* 38 23 58* 28 41 88* 35 37 69* 22 62 91* 41 50 79* 29 31 68 33 49 29 64 35 83 39 68 34 58 31 Torque Nm 2373 2503 2427 2817 2678 2808 2903 2064 1408 1365 1430 1300 1473 1495 1820 1781 1452 975 1206 1430 1105 1235 k Factor 28 30 29 33 32 33 34 24 17 16 17 15 17 18 22 21 17 12 14 17 13 15
Tests 1 to 25 figures are median values based on the daily logsheets. Tests 1 to 3 w ere initial tests and proved that rotating bed existed and the tests could be reproduced. Test 4 utilised the horizontal beam w hich proved that a rotating bed could be broken.
* denotes YS includes measurements from floor sampling pionts
Page 17
3.0 Testwork and Procedures

Twenty-five tests were conducted in the 2.4m pilot thickener. The thickener was operated based on Procedure for 2.4m Pilot Thickener Operations" (Appendix 3).
Thickener Feed Thickener Overflow
2.4m diameter t Thickener
Dilution Water
Overflow Underflow Flocculant Addition

Figure 14. 2.4m Pilot Thickener Arrangement
3.1
Sample Preparation
Feed slurry to the pilot rig was diluted to approximately 15% solids in the feedpipe using an external dilution pump based on the feed percent solids and dilution flow. Flocculant addition through a sparger was via the feedwell. The pilot thickener rig was run to simulate operating conditions in the 24m High Compression Thickener. The feed pump and pilot rig can be seen in Figures 15 and 16 overleaf.
Page 18
Figure 15. Feed Pump and Header Tank
Figure 16. Pilot Thickener Rig
3.2
Thickener Mechanisms
The 2.4m pilot thickener was designed with four rake arms to provide a direct relationship to the 24m HCT. Initial tests were with bare rakes to simulate rotating bed formation as apparent with the 24m HCT. The next phase of the R&D programme utilised stationary and rotating pickets as can be seen in Figure 17 below.
Figure 17. Rakes with 8 Stationary and 4 Rotating Pickets
Page 19
3.3
Flocculant Addition
A flocculant survey was completed on 21 February 2003 to ensure that the correct concentration of 3.6 g/l was being administered. A timed sample was taken of the flocculant feed as a batch of flocculant was being prepared. Observations were made as to the procedure and the preparation of the flocculant. It was noted that the area was in a tidy condition and that the cone feeder was free from excess flocculant. A timed sample was taken and it was calculated that the flocculant was being made up at 3.3 g/l. Nalco 83370 is the flocculant used on site. Flocculant was pumped from the flocculant feed pump to the pilot flocculant feed tank before each test. Concentrated flocculant was diluted 10:1 in the flocculant addition manifold. Flocculant was pumped through a manifold and into the feedwell via a sparger. The flocculant dilution lines and manifold can be seen in Figures 18 and 19 respectively.
Figure 18. Flocculant Dilution Setup
Figure 19. Flocculant Manifold
3.4
Measurements
Measurements were taken on an hourly basis and recorded on a daily logsheet. Feed flow rate was measured via a Magflow meter and by recording the time taken to fill a 70 litre calibrated bucket. Feed dilution was obtained from a Magflow meter. The flocculant rate was measured by timing the volume displacement on a measuring cylinder. The clarity of the overflow was determined by utilising a clarity wedge as can be seen in Figure 20 overleaf. Bed depth was determined by measuring the bed depth as was apparent through the site glass.
Page 20
Underflow flow rate was determined by timing the discharge into a calibrated 10 litre bucket as can be seen in Figure 21. The remaining measurements were extracted from the PLC unit.
Figure 20. Observing Overflow Clarity
Figure 21. Measuring U/F Flow Rate
3.5
Rotating Bed Determination
A method for rotating bed determination was established based on previous experience. We decided that rotating bed determination would entail probing the bed for movement with a length of conduit and looking through the site window.
Figure 22. Rotating Bed Detection
Page 21
3.6
Rheology Measurements
Rheology measurements were taken utilising a Haake Viscotester VT550. The Viscotester was used to examine the rheological material parameters of the thickened slurry. Samples were taken from the pilot rig and poured into a beaker being careful not to shear the material. The OK 600 rotor was inserted into the beaker containing slurry. The rotor is rotated at a preset speed. The slurry exerts a resistance to the rotational movement and a torque reaction is applied on the measuring shaft. The slurry samples collected exhibited a changing viscosity, therefore showing non-Newtonian behaviour. The viscosity of a material can be defined as the relationship between shear stress and shear rate. It was found that by shearing the material the viscosity would decrease thus being shear thinning in nature. In relation to the rheological measurements slump testing was explored to give a direct relationship to yield stress. The procedure is to fill a small cylindrical cone of known volume and lift the cone to provide a slump that is measured by cylindrical rings. This gives a general idea on the pump ability and the yield stress of the slurry.
Figure 23. Slump Ring Test
Figure 24. Showing a Slump of Two Rings Page 22

The Viscotester was fitted with an Outokumpu custom made vane (OK 600), which is designed to measure yield stress values up to 600 Pa. The yield stress was determined by recording the peak of a shear stress versus time curve. The yield stress was calculated at a shear rate of 0.1 s-1 over 60 s. This gave us an initial yield stress of the material. The sample was then exposed to a high shear rate of 10 s-1 over a 60 s period. This was initiated to gauge the effect of pumping the sample with a centrifugal pump. This stage was repeated to see the effects of two-stage pumping with centrifugal pumps, and to get a feel for the yield stress should the slurry structure be fully broken down.
Figure 25. Rheology Sample
Figure 26. Laboratory and Rheometer
Illustration of Haake Yield Stress Printout 100

1 x shear event 2 x shear event
Yield Stress (Pa)
80 60 40 20 0 0
24 42 61 87 114 144 167 190 216 234 252 269 321 371 Time (secs) Yield Stress (Pa)
Figure 27. Illustration of Haake Yield Stress Printout
Page 23
4.0 Results
The scope of work for this study included the operation of the 2.4m pilot thickener and taking hourly samples. Detailed results from the R&D programme can be seen in the Daily Logsheets (Appendix 2). The summarised results can be seen in Table 10 on page 35. A feed slurry stream was taken directly from the 24m HCT feed pump discharge. A slurry sample was taken in a measuring cylinder and weighed before each test to determine the percent solids and establish the daily operating conditions. The feed percent solids varied from 45.3 % in test 7 to 56.0 % in test 25. A limitation of the testwork due to site water restrictions was the filling with raw process water at the start of each run. It was found that while operating the thickener the liquor SG would gradually increase from 1.020 g/cm3 to 1.090 g/cm3 due to the higher SG of the liquor in the process slurry. The underflow percent solids were corrected by utilising the liquor SG calibration curve, which can be seen in Figure 28 below.
Liquor SG Calibration
1.1 1.08 1.06 1.04 1.02 1 0.98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Tim e (h) Liquor SG (g/cm3)
Figure 28. Liquor SG Calibration Curve
Figure 29. Hydrometer
Page 24
The 2.4m pilot thickener was designed with four rake arms to provide a direct relationship to the 24m High Compression Thickener. Tests 1 to 3 were operated as a bare rake with no pickets at solids loading ranging from 0.56 to 0.67 t/m2h. It was noted that in all tests a rotating bed formed. None of these tests were run for adequate time to allow steady state results to be used for our analysis. Test 4 was at a solids loading of 0.72 t/m2h with a horizontal beam installed inside the tank. This was effective in preventing rotating bed formation whilst obtaining an underflow percent solids result of 67.1 % at a bed height of 1.0 m. This test was not run for an adequate time to allow steady state results to be used for our analysis. Tests 5 to 8 were run with a full complement of eight stationary and eight rotating pickets. Solids loading ranged from 0.55 t/m2h in test 6 to 0.85 t/m2h in test 8 with underflow percent solids varying between 56.0 % and 65.5 %. The low percent solids in test 6 can be attributed to underflow being recirculated from the cone to the sidewall, which disrupted the bed compaction. For tests 9 and 10 the rotating pickets were removed and the thickener ran with eight stationary pickets. Using rake tip speeds of 11.3 m/min and 4.5 m/min obtaining underflow percent solids of 64.8 % and 63.2 % respectively. The decrease in underflow percent solids can be attributed to the lower rake tip speed being unable to maintain the required solids transportation to the underflow. Test 11 to 14 explored various picket combinations as well as rake tip speeds ranging from 4.5 m/min to 37.7 m/min. It was found that at the higher rake tip speed only 62.1 % underflow solids was achievable, most likely due to eddies within the thickener that were not conducive to settling. It was concluded that a combination of eight stationary and four rotating pickets at a rake arm tip speed of 11.3 m/min provided the most effective rake mechanism. That is, preventing rotating bed formation, providing adequate dewatering, compaction and permeability of the bed. This lead to improved underflow density and lower flocculant consumption. All subsequent tests, 14 to 25, were run with the configuration of four rotating and eight stationary pickets at a rake tip speed of 11.3 m/min. To achieve a higher density generally requires a lower solids throughput for a given thickener area and an increase in bed depth. This can be related to the solids loading in tonnes per square metre per hour of thickener area. The solids loading in the pilot campaign varied from 0.52 t/m2h to 1.18 t/m2h however generally focussed on the solids loading applicable to SDGMs 24m HCT. Comparative data was collected from the 2.4m pilot thickener and the 24m HCT on a daily basis to provide a concise summary of operating conditions.
Page 25
The 2.4m pilot thickener was operated at different conditions but the common element for tests 5 to 25 is that bed rotation was prevented. It was found that the 2.4m pilot thickener provided higher underflow densities for all except one of these tests when compared to the 24m HCT and this can be seen in Figure 30. The one that did not provide a higher result was test 6. This was a test, which investigated high rake tip speed with full complement of rotating pickets. This test was successful in showing that this was not an operating set up to pursue.
Pilot vs Plant Thickener, SDGM
Pilot Thickener 67.5 Plant Thickener
65.0 62.5 60.0 57.5 55.0 4 9 14 19 24
Test Number
Figure 30. Comparison of 2.4m Pilot Thickener & 24m HCT Underflow Densities
Yield stress is an important parameter and was tested extensively throughout the R&D programme. The testwork demonstrated that higher underflow densities lead to higher yield stresses. The results indicate that higher underflow densities can be achieved, however, consideration needs to be given to thickener drive torque rating and pumping of the underflow due to higher yield stresses.
Page 26
Unsheared Yield Stress vs Underflow % Solids

100
90 80 70 60 50 40 60.0 61.0 62.0 63.0 64.0

y = 5E-10x 6.2034
65.0
66.0
Figure 31. Unsheared Yield Stress vs. Underflow % Solids
The 2.4m pilot thickener was fitted with two underflow pumps. A helical rotor pump and a centrifugal pump were both used to gauge the effects of shearing the material by pumping to tailings. It was found that a centrifugal pump would approximately halve the yield stress of the underflow.
Before Centrifugul Pump
79 68
After Centrifugul Pump (Pa)

50 31
Table 6. Effect of Centrifugal Pump on Yield Stress
The Haake Viscotester VT550 was used to simulate two stages of pumping with a centrifugal pump or one stage of pumping plus pipeline transport and these results were recorded as 1 x shear and 2 x shear. More details can be found in Section 3.6 Rheology Measurements.
Before Simulated 1 x shear Centrifugul Pump (Pa)
79 68 29 33
Simulated 2 x shear (Pa)

20 25
Table 7. Effect of Rheometer Shearing Events on Yield Stress
The settling of particles is governed by hindered settling which is directly related to Stokes law. The slurry exhibited non-Newtonian fluid behaviour due to the flow curve of shear stress versus shear rate being non-linear.
Page 27
Illustration of Haake Yield Stress Printout 100

1 x shear event 2 x shear event
Yield Stress (Pa)
80 60 40 20 0 0
24 42 61 87 114 144 167 190 216 234 252 269 321 371 Time (secs) Yield Stress (Pa)
Figure 32. Illustration of Haake Yield Stress Printout
The R&D programme also tested the effects of using a centrifugal pump to recirculate underflow in the underflow cone of the thickener. It was possible to approximately halve the yield stress in the cone by recirculating the material with a centrifugal pump.
58 88 69 91
Recirculated Yield Stress (Pa)

23 41 37 62
Table 8. Effect of Underflow Recirculation on Yield Stress
Page 28
As the underflow density and hence unsheared yield stress of the material increased the operating torque also increased as illustrated in Figure 33 and 34 below.
Operating Torque vs Unsheared Yield Stress

2000
1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Unsheared Yield Stress y = 654.83e0.0107x
Figure 33. Operating Torque vs Unsheared Yield Stress
Operating Torque vs Underflow % Solids

2000
1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 60 61 62 63 64
y = 24.327x2 - 3011.1x + 94468

65 66 67
Figure 34. Operating Torque vs Underflow % Solids
Torque was measured by measuring hydraulic pressure to the drive hydraulic motor.
Page 29
An industry standard formula that is used to determine thickener drive capacity is;
Maximum Operating Torque (Nm) = 14.63 x k x d2
(d = thickener diameter (m))
k varying depending essentially on material characteristics at the desired densities and the level at which the drive is to operate at for normal conditions. Normal operating torque can be say 33% of maximum operating torque or a more conservative approach would be 25%. To date the selection of k has generally come down to a review of the process and then determination based on years of experience. As the underflow densities being sought are increasing the determination of k needs additional information and this comes from rheology work yield stress. The formula gives torque as the maximum operating torque (trip torque or cut out torque), not normal operating torque. Figures 35 below and 36 overleaf show k factor based on normal operating torque being 25% of maximum operating torque.
k Factor vs Unsheared Yield Stress

100 90 80
k Factor
70 60 50 40 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Unsheared Yield Stress (Pa) y = 0.6842x + 18.481
Figure 35. k Factor vs Unsheared Yield Stress
Page 30
k Factor vs Underflow % Solids

100 90 80
k Factor
70 60 50 40 30 60 61 62 63 y = 1.3045x 2 - 161.68x + 5070.9 64 65 66 67
Figure 36. k Factor vs Underflow % Solids
Tests 15 to 17, 20, 21, 24 and 25 were at solids loadings of 0.71 to 0.89 t/m2h (typical of SDGM operating conditions) and are graphed below to illustrate the effects of varying the flocculant dosage. From this it seems that dosages higher than 20 to 25 g/t have no positive effect on underflow density.
Underflow % Solids versus Flocculant Dosage
65.5 65.0 64.5 64.0 63.5 63.0 62.5 62.0 61.5 61.0 60.5 10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
Flocculant Dosage (g/t)
Figure 37. Underflow % Solids vs Flocculant Dosage
Page 31
At the end of the R&D programme test 25 was run with a solids loading of 0.88 t/m2h to simulate SDGM plant throughput and at a lower flocculant dosage of 19.1 g/t. This resulted in underflow solids of 65.2 %. This test, we consider as our best operating result, achieved over a continuous 8hour period and can be seen in Table 9 below: Test No.
25
Rake Mechanism
Stat. & Rot. pickets
Tip Speed m/min

11.3
U/F % Solids
65.2
Solids Loading t/m2h

0.88
Flocc. Dosage g/t

19.1
Table 9. Best Operating Result
Testing was also conducted using Outokumpus 190mm laboratory/pilot rig to provide comparative data with the 2.4m pilot thickener. The 190mm rig also confirmed strong tendency for the SDGM material to form a rotating bed. The result of this can be seen by the damage to the first version of rotating and static pickets. The pickets were subsequently strengthened for the three comparison tests.
Figure 38. 190mm Twisted Rotating and Static Pickets Page 32

The three test runs showed strong correlation between the results of the 190mm rig vs 2.4m pilot thickener. The three results are shown in Figures 39, 40 below and Figure 41 overleaf
190mm versus 2.4m - U/F SG - May 3rd
1.80 1.78 1.76 1.74 1.72 1.70 1.68 1.66 1.64 1.62 1.60 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00
U/F SG (t/m3)
Time of Day
190mm
2.4m
Figure 39. Comparison of 190mm Pilot Rig & 2.4m Pilot Thickener Run 1
190mm versus 2.4m - U/F SG - May 4th 1.80 1.78 1.76 1.74 1.72 1.70 1.68 1.66 1.64 1.62 1.60 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 Time of Day
190mm
2.4m
U/F SG (t/m3)
Figure 40. Comparison of 190mm Pilot Rig & 2.4m Pilot Thickener Run 2 Page 33
2.4m versus 190mm - U/F SG - May 5th 1.85 U/F SG (t/m3) 1.80 1.75 1.70 1.65 1.60 8:00
9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 Time of Day 190mm 2.4m
Figure 41. Comparison of 190mm Pilot Rig & 2.4m Pilot Thickener Run 3
Page 34
TABLE 10. 2.4 m THICKENER TESTWORK AT SUNRISE DAM GOLD MINE : MARCH - MAY 2003
Date 7 March 8 March 10 March 11 March 12 March 13 March 14 March 15 March 19 March 20 March 22 March 23 March 24 March 25 March 11 April 12 April 12 April 12 April 13 April 13 April 13 April 14 April 15 April 2 May 3 May 4 May 5 May 6 May 7 May Test 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16 16 17 17 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mechanism Bare Rake Bare Rake Bare Rake Beam Stat. & Rot. Pickets Stat. & Rot. Pickets Stat. & Rot. Pickets Stat. & Rot. Pickets Stationary Pickets Stationary Pickets Stat. & Rot. Pickets Stat. & 4 Rot. Pickets Stat. & 4 Rot. Pickets Stationary Pickets Stat. & 4 Rot. Pickets Stat. & 4 Rot. Pickets Stat. & 4 Rot. Pickets Stat. & 4 Rot. Pickets Stat. & 4 Rot. Pickets Stat. & 4 Rot. Pickets Stat. & 4 Rot. Pickets Stat. & 4 Rot. Pickets Stat. & 4 Rot. Pickets Stat. & 4 Rot. Pickets Stat. & 4 Rot. Pickets Stat. & 4 Rot. Pickets Stat. & 4 Rot. Pickets Stat. & 4 Rot. Pickets Stat. & 4 Rot. Pickets Tip Speed m /m in 7.5 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 22.6 11.3 11.3 11.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 37.7 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 Feed Rate t/h 2.89 2.85 2.57 3.27 3.51 2.48 2.68 3.85 2.59 2.63 2.36 2.72 2.53 2.74 3.53 3.51 3.45 3.20 3.95 3.44 3.53 2.84 5.34 3.63 3.77 2.71 3.08 4.01 3.98 Solids Loading t/m 2h 0.64 0.63 0.57 0.72 0.78 0.55 0.59 0.85 0.57 0.58 0.52 0.60 0.56 0.60 0.78 0.77 0.76 0.71 0.87 0.76 0.78 0.63 1.18 0.80 0.83 0.60 0.68 0.89 0.88 Flocculant Dosage g/t 29.8 33.4 36.7 28.6 38.3 39.0 35.4 25.4 36.9 35.5 39.7 34.3 36.8 33.8 28.9 23.4 32.3 50.6 23.4 45.9 68.2 34.6 31.0 30.8 17.3 25.6 28.7 19.0 19.1 Underflow Density % Solids 66.7 67.2 67.1 67.3 63.4 (56) 65.5 64.6 64.8 63.2 63.3 63.0 63.8 62.1 62.8 63.2 63.2 62.2 61.0 62.9 62.0 65.0 65.2 61.8 61.5 62.8 64.6 63.8 65.2 Sheared Recirc. Unsheared 1 x shear Yield Stress Yield Stress Yield Stress Yield Stress Pa Pa Pa Pa 56 36 50 34 73 42 87 40 79 40 101 55 63* 29 63* 33 71* 38 23 58* 28 41 88* 35 37 69* 22 62 91* 41 50 79* 29 31 68 33 49 29 64 35 83 39 68 34 58 31 Torque Nm 2373 2503 2427 2817 2678 2808 2903 2064 1408 1365 1430 1300 1473 1495 1820 1781 1452 975 1206 1430 1105 1235 k Factor 28 30 29 33 32 33 34 24 17 16 17 15 17 18 22 21 17 12 14 17 13 15
Tests 1 to 25 figures are median values based on the daily logsheets. Tests 1 to 3 w ere initial tests and proved that rotating bed existed and the tests could be reproduced. Test 4 utilised the horizontal beam w hich proved that a rotating bed could be broken.
* denotes YS includes measurements from floor sampling pionts
Page 35
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

In conclusion, the 2.4m pilot thickener achieved the objectives of the R&D programme in forming and then preventing the formation of a rotating bed and consequently obtaining increased underflow densities at reduced flocculant dosage rates. It was concluded that in the 2.4m pilot thickener that a combination of eight stationary and four rotating pickets at a tip speed of 11.3 m/min provided the most effective rake mechanism. That is, preventing rotating bed formation, providing adequate dewatering, compaction and permeability of the bed. This lead to improved underflow density and lower flocculant consumption. Yield stress is an important parameter and was tested extensively throughout the R&D programme. It was found that by shearing the material the yield stress would decrease due to its shear thinning nature. The 2.4m pilot thickener was fitted with two underflow pumps. A helical rotor pump and a centrifugal pump were both used to gauge the effects of shearing the material by pumping to tailings. It was found that a centrifugal pump would essentially halve the yield stress of the material. The results indicate that higher underflow densities can be achieved however consideration needs to be given to thickener drive torque rating and pumping of the underflow due to higher yield stresses. The R&D programme also concluded that flocculant dosages higher than 20 to 25 g/t have no positive effect on underflow density. Testing was also conducted using Outokumpus 190mm laboratory pilot rig to provide comparative data with the 2.4m pilot thickener. The testwork showed strong correlation between the two. Should SDGM desire higher densities than currently being achieved, we believe from this R&D programme that this is possible, however modifications to the existing 24m HCT would be required. These modifications would essentially include forced feed dilution, rotating bed prevention system, cancellation of rake lifting system, increase in the overall drive and mechanism torque capacity and installation of more reliable bed level detection device. We believe that a feed of 50% plus to the thickener feedwell is too high to achieve efficient dilution without mechanical mixing. Hence inclusion of forced feed dilution system TurboDil.
Page 36
We believe that a rotating bed prevention system could be designed and fitted to the 24m HCT and by doing so improve overall thickener performance. To operate effectively this system requires the bed depth to be approximately 500mm above the bottom of the static pickets. Until this level is reached we believe the bed will be rotating. As such, we feel that rake lift should be cancelled so that the maximum length of static pickets can be installed. Should the desired operating underflow density be 65% w/w from our k Factor vs Underflow % solids graph (Figures 9 & 36) k Factor would be 75 giving a drive and mechanism rating of 632,000 Nm. The current drive and mechanism rating is 350,000 Nm. Given that the rake lift is to be cancelled and that the gearbox selection between 632,000 and 800,000 Nm is of little cost difference we would recommend going to 800,000 Nm for the new drive. As bed level is now a more important operating parameter we believe a more reliable detection device should be installed.
Page 37
Appendix 1
Photographs
Page 38
Appendix 2
Logsheets
Page 39
Appendix 3
Procedures
Page 40
Appendix 4
Lab Simulation of Underflow % Solids vs Unsheared Yield Stress
Page 41
Late June 2003 Outokumpu requested and received a sample of underflow from SDGMs 24m HCT. This sample was used in Outokumpus laboratory to construct a lab generated yield stress curve at different percent solids. Note for this construction actual measured specific gravities were used for calculation for percent solids (w/w)
Percent Solids Vs Yield Stress (Solid SG 2.86, Liquor SG 1.12)

400 350
Yield Stress (Pa)
300 250 200 150 100 50 0 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69
Percent Solids (w/w)
0 Shear
1st Shear
2nd Shear
Figure 42. Underflow Percent Solids vs Yield Stress
Page 42

2.4m Thickener Preliminary Report Rev0

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2.4m Thickener Preliminary Report Rev0

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Sunrise Dam Gold Mine Paste Thickening R&D Programme

Date Issued 7th July 2003

Sunrise Dam Gold Mine Paste Thickening R&D Programme

4.0 Results 5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

Sunrise Dam Gold Mine Paste Thickening R&D Programme

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Sunrise Dam Gold Mine Paste Thickening R&D Programme

Sunrise Dam Gold Mine Paste Thickening R&D Programme

Figure 1. SDGM 24m High Compression Thickener

Sunrise Dam Gold Mine Paste Thickening R&D Programme

Sunrise Dam Gold Mine Paste Thickening R&D Programme

Figure 2. SDGM Central Tailings Discharge

Sunrise Dam Gold Mine Paste Thickening R&D Programme

Figure 3. General Arrangement of 2.4m Pilot Thickener

Sunrise Dam Gold Mine Paste Thickening R&D Programme

Tip Speed m/min

Solids Loading t/m2h

Flocc. Dosage g/t

Table 1. Best Operating Result

Sunrise Dam Gold Mine Paste Thickening R&D Programme

Pilot vs Plant Thickener, SDGM

Underflow % Solids (w/w)

65.0 62.5 60.0 57.5 55.0 4 9 14 19 24

Unsheared Yield Stress vs Underflow % Solids

90 80 70 60 50 40 60.0 61.0 62.0 63.0 64.0

Underflow % Solids (w/w)

Figure 5. Unsheared Yield Stress vs Underflow % Solids

Sunrise Dam Gold Mine Paste Thickening R&D Programme

After Centrifugul Pump (Pa)

Table 2. Effect of Centrifugal Pump on Yield Stress

Simulated 2 x shear (Pa)

Table 3. Effect of Rheometer Shearing Events on Yield Stress

Recirculated Yield Stress (Pa)

Table 4. Effect of Underflow Recirculation on Yield Stress

Operating Torque vs Unsheared Yield Stress

Operating Torque (Nm)

Figure 6. Operating Torque vs Unsheared Yield Stress

Operating Torque vs Underflow % Solids

Operating Torque (Nm)

1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 60 61 62 63 64

y = 24.327x2 - 3011.1x + 94468

Underflow % Solids (w/w)

Figure 7. Operating Torque vs Underflow % Solids

Sunrise Dam Gold Mine Paste Thickening R&D Programme

Maximum Operating Torque (Nm) = 14.63 x k x d2

(d = thickener diameter (m))

k Factor vs Unsheared Yield Stress

70 60 50 40 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Unsheared Yield Stress (Pa) y = 0.6842x + 18.481

Figure 8. k Factor vs Unsheared Yield Stress

Sunrise Dam Gold Mine Paste Thickening R&D Programme

k Factor vs Underflow % Solids

70 60 50 40 30 60 61 62 63 y = 1.3045x 2 - 161.68x + 5070.9 64 65 66 67

Underflow % Solids (w/w)

Figure 9. k Factor vs Underflow % Solids

Underflow % Solids (w/w)

Flocculant Dosage (g/t)

Figure 10. Underflow % Solids vs Flocculant Dosage

Sunrise Dam Gold Mine Paste Thickening R&D Programme

Figure 12. 190mm Laboratory Pilot Rig Page 15

Sunrise Dam Gold Mine Paste Thickening R&D Programme

Figure 13. 2.4m Pilot Thickener

Sunrise Dam Gold Mine Paste Thickening R&D Programme

* denotes YS includes measurements from floor sampling pionts