Backfill System Design

Backfill System Design Black Mountain Mine
Backfill System Design

03 Aug. 15
Ngoma Khuthadzo Reginald
Page 1

Table of Contents
1.
2.
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 5
1.1.
Background............................................................................................................. 5
1.2.
Summary of Options ............................................................................................... 5
1.2.1.
By-pass Old Workings ..................................................................................... 5
1.2.2.
Pipeline Replacement ...................................................................................... 6
Pressure Calculations .................................................................................................... 7

2.1.
Volumetric Flow Rate & Velocity ............................................................................. 7
2.2.
Density () & %Solids by Mass (%Sm) ................................................................... 8
2.3.
Pressure Gradient ................................................................................................... 8
2.4.
Design Pressure ..................................................................................................... 9
3.
Backfill Schematic & Risk Ranking ............................................................................... 10
4.
Summary of Recommended System ............................................................................ 10

4.1.
Phase 1 ................................................................................................................ 10
4.1.1.
Estimated Cost .............................................................................................. 11
4.1.2.
Estimated Installation Time ............................................................................ 12
4.1.3.
Labour Costs ................................................................................................. 12
4.2.
Phase 2 ................................................................................................................ 13
4.2.1.
Estimated Cost .............................................................................................. 14
4.2.2.
Estimated Installation time ............................................................................. 14
Reference ........................................................................................................................... 15
Appendix ............................................................................................................................. 16
Appendix 1: Flow Velocity................................................................................................ 16
Appendix 2: Risk Classification (Barnes, 2009) ............................................................... 17
Page 2

List of Figures
Figure 1 Importance of Backfill in Monetary terms ................................................................. 5
Figure 2 Drilling layout 0-9 level ............................................................................................ 6
Figure 3 Drilling layout 0-19 level .......................................................................................... 6
Figure 4 Pressure Gradient versus mixture velocity for the 157mm ID pipe for cemented
tailings blend without Chryso (Paterson&Cooke, 2015) ......................................................... 8
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

List of Symbols
Q
Volumetric flow rate , (m/hr)
Flow velocity (m/s)
Internal Diameter (mm)
Fill specific gravity
SG
Specific Gravity
Gravitational acceleration constant (9.81 m/s)
Estimated borehole length (m)
Pressure Head (kPa)
PL
Horizontal pressure loss (kPa)
SF
Factor of Safety
HDPE
High Density Polyethylene
Page 4

1. Introduction
1.1.
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
Loss in potential profit (R)
Loss in tonnages (t)
Importance of BackFill System
Tonnage
Profit
Breakdowns/Time to repair (days)
Figure 1 Importance of Backfill in Monetary terms
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

Option 2 involved drilling 3 boreholes to 19 level to by-pass the upper levels, the total cost
for this option amounted to R17 467 007. The layouts for both options are shown in Figure 2
and Figure 3.
Figure 2 Drilling layout 0-9 level
Figure 3 Drilling layout 0-19 level
1.2.2. Pipeline Replacement

Five options were investigated under this section. The options involved introducing ceramic
lined bends in old areas, overhauling the entire pipeline and replacing the 6m HDPE pipes
with 3m HDPE pipes. The idea with the last option was to have pipes which will be easily
fitted inside the man cage for transportation purposes. All the five options are summarised in
Table 1.
Page 6

Table 1 Cost Comparison
Options
Total Cost
@ 10% Contingency
Replace pipeline from 0-22L
R 557 704
R 731 149
Use Ceramic lined bends 0-22L
R 524 004
R 657 101
Use Ceramic lined bends 0-49L
R 1 209 240
R 1 516 386
Replace entire pipeline 0-49L
R 856 703
R 1 074 305
Replace 6m with 3m 0-49L
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.
Volumetric Flow Rate & Velocity
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
Volumetric Flow Rate (Q) (m/hr) = 350

155
160
165
5.2
4.8
4.5
170
4.3
Page 7

From Table 2 above, an average flow rate of 350m/hr was assumed and using an average
internal diameter of 150mm, the velocity was determined to be 5.5 m/s. This velocity was
assumed to be constant throughout the distribution network.
2.2.
Density () & %Solids by Mass (%Sm)
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
Fill Ratio = 30:1

SG
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.3.
Fill Ratio = 8:1

%Sm
60
64
68
71
74
77
79
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

The following assumptions were made to determine 3 pressure gradients for varying %Sm.
Q=350 m/hr
ID = 150mm
SG = 2.0, %Sm =68%
U = 5.5m/s
Table 4 Pressure gradient with varying %Sm
2.4.
%Sm
Pressure Gradient (kPa/m)
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
90Bend equivalent length = 9.5m
45Bend equivalent length = 2.2m
Safety factor = 1.3
Pressure Head (
SG = 2
Horizontal pressure loss (
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

3. Backfill Schematic & Risk Ranking
The backfill system schematic showing the following information was drawn:
Borehole length
Horizontal distance of the pipeline
Maximum pressure at the base of borehole
Areas where ceramic lined bends are required
Risk ranking based on ground condition
Priority of replacement, divided in phases
The schematic is available on the hype link below:

Backfill design -Schematic1.xlsx
The risk classification table and the risk matrix used are included on Appendix 2: Risk
Classification of this document.
4. Summary of Recommended System

It is recommended that the system upgrade be done in 2 phases; phase 1 will involve
replacements at identified hotspots and phase 2 will cover the remaining levels.
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
Pipes Number of Bends
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.
Page 10

4.1.1. Estimated Cost
A comparison between flanges and electro-fusion for joining the pipes was done and the
results are summarised in Table 6.
Table 6 Flanges vs Electro-fusion
Joining Method
Total Cost
T1000/3 Flanges
Electro-fusion with Couplers
R 247 542.10
R 191 392.60
Variance
R 56 150.10
A detailed breakdown of the costs is available on the link below:

Flanges vs Fusion Coupling.xlsx
The estimated cost of phase 1 is based on the assumption that electro-fusion will be used as
a joining method and the results are summarised in Table 7
Table 7 Phase 1 project cost
Description
Unit Price
Quantity
Required
Total Cost
3m HDPE Pipes
R 764.75
154
R 117 771.50
45Bends (ceramic lined)
R 5 888.00
11
R 64 768.00
90Bends( ceramic lined)
R 15 226.00
11
R 167 486.00
3m Distant Pieces (ceramic lined)
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

4.1.2. Estimated Installation Time
The following assumptions were made to estimate the installation time of the pipes on each
level:
Time to join 2 pipes = 5 minutes
The areas has been rehabilitated
All material has been transported to the respective areas
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
4.1.3. Labour Costs

The construction team has been commissioned to assist the backfill team with underground
constructions. It is recommended that this construction team be used for the installation part
of this project. As a result, the labour cost of this project will be covered under the
construction team costs.
Page 12

4.2.
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 pipes (3m)
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
Total number of Units = 647
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

4.2.1. Estimated Cost
Table 10 below shows the estimated cost for phase 2 of the pipeline replacement project.
The cost estimate is also based on the assumption that electro-fusion couplers will be used
as a joining method.
Table 10 Phase 2 project cost
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
4.2.2. Estimated Installation time

The estimated installation time is based on the assumptions made in section 4.1.2 of this
document. The installation time for phase 2 of the project should be updated accordingly
when phase 1 of the project is complete.
Table 11 shows that the installation time for phase 2 is approximately 54 hours; this is
roughly 5x12 hours shifts. This estimate of course, excludes all the assumptions mentioned
in section 4.1.2 and should only be used for reference purposes
Page 14

Table 11 Phase 2 installation time
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

Appendix
Appendix 1: Flow Velocity
Flow Velocity (m/s) for Varying Pipe Diameters and Volumetric flow
rates
Volumetric Flow Rate (m3/hr)
Pipe Diameter (mm)

4.40
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

Appendix 2: Risk Classification (Barnes, 2009)
Page 17

Backfill System Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Backfill System Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Backfill System Design Black Mountain Mine