Mining companies are subject to varying regulatory regimes, but one thing that is common across almost all jurisdictions is that it is getting more challenging to obtain approval to construct new tailings dams.
For more information, please visit our website.
Even when they are approved, it is a much longer and more arduous process than it was in the past. There are important safety and environmental reasons for this; nonetheless, it inevitably has operational consequences.
For instance, some miners, rather than embarking on what can be a multi-year process to get approval for a new dam, are opting to manage their tailings with their existing infrastructure. As a result, miners are moving their tailings around their site a lot more than they did in the past.
As a case in point, an Australian operator recently wanted to mine a previously unmined area of their asset. The area was located near the existing tailings dam. Time did not allow for the approval and construction of a new tailings storage facility (TSF), so they decided to fill up an old pit with the tailings.
Consequently, this increased transfer of tailings indicates a rising demand for pipelines at many sites. Alongside this demand come operational challenges and additional risks that need to be thoroughly assessed and managed. Pipelines – both concentrates, as well as tailings pipelines – constitute significant capital and operational expenses, so it is vital that they are correctly designed to prevent failures.
There are a lot of pipe design models available and digital tools are increasingly used when designing pipelines; however, new systems are dewatering higher solids concentrations, which means it is more common for slurries to contain larger particles. As a result, pipe loop testing is a vital part of de-risking pipeline designs.
With competitive price and timely delivery, Dragon sincerely hope to be your supplier and partner.
De-risking pipeline design
The Weir Technical Centre (WTC) in Melbourne, Australia, is a global hub, providing slurry, tailings, and pipeline solutions to its customers worldwide. Working closely with miners and EPCs, its pipe loop test facility provides design inputs to pipeline designers in order to de-risk the designs.
Mineral slurries vary in many ways – mineralogy, particle size distribution (PSD), solids concentration and chemistry, etc. – which means each slurry behaves differently when in a pipe system. Therefore, pilot test work is important to help determine the best solution for each customers’ sites, while reducing the overall design risk.
For instance, Weir Minerals can run a variety of tests to identify possible issues. The testing can determine how the slurry behaves when pumped in a range of different conditions, solids concentrations, and velocities, as well as simulating pump failure and a possible restart event.
Pipelines also consume a significant amount of energy, so testing can assist with motor selection. The outcome ensures the pump and motors selected will provide the right tool for the job and the optimal operating window for mine site staff.
Enjoyed what you've read so far? Read the full article and the rest of the January/February Issue of Global Mining Review by registering today for free!
Does anyone have a good reference for the analysis of Slurry or Tailings pipelines? Especially where you would have multiple piplines supported on sleepers or piperacks. This type of analysis is not the same as a conventional stress analysis, as it is not within a refinery, and many times some of the pipelines are supported only by the ground, and left to expand where they want. The systems in question use expansion (slip type) joints to account for expansion in the line. The use of these types of expansion joints increases the anchor loadings drastically due to the pressure thrust component (easily in the 300k lbf range)
I am also interested in facility piping for tailings lines.
Thanks for the reply Stanier. The piping system is designed to ASME B31.11, which will give me the code requirments, I was looking more for the practical, or rules of thumb type references that provide backup to their methodologies. For example, when you have three pipelines on a single common anchor, can you design the systems with only one in upset conditions, and the other two at design or normal operating? Can you design the anchors to only a single times thrust load, or do you design to multiple times thrust loadings for each line? Do the references that you list have this type of guidance?
I have seen pipelines with teflon sliders on the supports? I see this as a total waste of money, but maybe there is an unwritten rule for some systems to do this?
Thanks
What you are looking for is a basic piping engineering advice. It has little to do with slurries. It applies to all pipelines.
The design has to take into account all conditions. Yes, if there are three pipleins imposing a load on a support you have to consider the total load.
The need for sliding suports will come from your stress analysis. Teflon pads reduce friction. Graphited steel shoes have been used successfully for many years. Again it comes down to the friction coefficient used in your pipe stress analysis. Many pipes are supported on rollers to allow free movement.
Suggest you check ASME B31.3 to give greater insights.
As for references I suggest:
Piping Design-Kellogg
Piping Design and Engineering -Grinnell
Piping Engineering-Tube Turns
Piping Handbook Mohinder Nayyar
Piping and Pipeline Design George Antaki
Process Piping - Becht
Piping Handbook- Sherwood
Pipeline Rules of Thumb- McGraw Hill
Also visit You may choose to join their discussion forum.
Pipeline stress is much different than you would do for process piping. Typically you are looking at a few inches of movement in process systems, with an above ground pipeline, you can be looking at feet. Plus you need to account for the line "snaking" its way down the corridor, or else you will have anchor loads of hundreds of thousands of pounds force which may be ultra conservative. Conventional stress analysis (Caesar) uses beam elements that don't allow for minor buckling of piping that iun the real world alleviates much of the stress in the piping, and it also does not adequately calculate the difference between thrust loading on expansion joints versus frictional loads on anchors.
I guess the real question is "Are there any references out there for design of above ground pipelines with slip style expansion joints acting in parallel?"
Thanks,
Porter