ACARP PROJECT C17036 - A&B · PDF fileacarp project c17036. ... dewatering reject bin truck to pit flotation cells -0.30+0.0mm vacuum filtration thickener tailings storage nominal

QLD ACPS Symposium – 15 September, 2009 1

ACARP PROJECT C17036

DELINEATION OF LARGE DIAMETER DMC PERFORMANCE

“PRELIMINARY FINDINGS”

Andy MeyersA&B Mylec

2

Presentation Outline• Project Aims Overview• Key Project Milestones• Plant Audit Program

– The Newlands plant– Testing program details– Managing sample analysis

• Preliminary Data Analysis– Test run summary and example data set– Test run performance data by size– Trends?– Medium stability– Duplicate test run outcomes– Particle size aspects

QLD ACPS Symposium – 15 September, 2009

3

Project Aims / Objectives Overview

• Detailed performance and operating condition data on a very large DMC (>1450mm cyclone diameter).

• Performance impacts from variables including:– solids loading / M:C ratio (3:1 to 6:1)– cyclone feed pressure (7D to 10D)– duplicate test run

• A definitive datum point at the very large cyclone diameter end of the scale.

• Quantification of low density tail aspects and the proposed “breakaway” size concept.

• Assess the integrity of current industry DMC models using measured data.


4

Key Project Milestones

• Newlands CHPP installs large inlet, 1450mm diameter DMC - 2006:– Cyclone inlet ~0.25 x diameter [Effective DSM ~1800mm]

• New Wing Tank installation August 2008.• Site sampling program completed November 2008.• Lab analysis progressed by with BV (CCI).• Validated audit data set issued.• Project completion – September 2009.


5

Newlands CHPP Overview

NUG >14.0% <12.0%Wollombi >9.5% <12.0%

Measured Circuit SplitsNUG Wollombi

DMC 734 438Spirals 178 277Flotation 88 285* Data from plant feed samples 23/3/07

544

38

152

48

52

15

554

19

10

710

ROM DUMP HOPPER PRIMARY

SIZER

SCREENING AT 1.4 ww mm

SECONDARY & TERTIARY

SIZERS

CYCLONE CLASSIFYING

AT 0.12 mm

SUPPLY AND PRETREATMENT OF FEED

CLEANING SUBSEQUENT TREATMENT OF

PRODUCT STORAGE AND LOADING

CHARACTERISTICS OF

PRODUCT ASH(ad)SIZE (mm)

1000TLO

SYSTEMDENSE

MEDIUM CYCLONE

-50+1.4 ww mm

SPIRALS-1.4ww + 0.30 mm

SCREENING AT 0.4mm

COARSE COAL CENTRIFUGE DEWATERING

RINSING AT 1.4 ww mm

RINSING AT 1.4 ww mm

CYCLONETHICKENING

FINE COAL CENTRIFUGE DEWATERING

REJECT BIN

TRUCK TOPIT

FLOTATION CELLS

-0.30+0.0mm

VACUUM FILTRATION

THICKENER TAILINGS STORAGE

Nominal Plant Capacity 2000 tphAll tonnages on ad basisRecirculating loads not shown

NEWLANDS CHPP BLOCK FLOW DIAGRAM

NOMINAL LOADINGSLast Update 27 July 2007 Rev2

531

145

290

209

CLEANCOAL

-50+0.08

REJECT -50 >60.0+0.08

SIEVE BEND AT 0.30 mm

NUGSTOCKPILE

758 PRODUCT STOCKPILE

TM(ar)

<18.0%

52


6

The Dense Medium Cyclone


7

The Dense Medium Cyclone


8

Plant Sampling Methodology

• Configure the plant for the planned test run conditions.• Complete a visual observation checklist for each test run

prior to undertaking plant sampling.• Log all available electronic plant operational data during

the plant sampling period.• Measure pipe flows where possible via ultrasonic flowmeter.• Sampling for each test run was completed over a ~2hr

period of stable plant operation, targeting 20 increments over this period for each sample stream wherever possible.

• All sample containers were sealed and weighed on site.• Large samples were mixed and split on site using full drum

RSD device (All sample reserves were stored on site at Newlands.)

• Analysis samples ONLY were sent to laboratory.QLD ACPS Symposium – 15 September, 2009

9

Testing Program Details• Completed ten (10) test runs, including one duplicate test run.• Impact of variable Feed Pressure at 4 settings between 7D and

10D.[Achieved by varying the plant fed rate to maintain constant M:C ratio]

• Impact of variable M:C ratio at 4 settings between 3:1 and 6:1[Achieved by keeping feed pressure constant and varying plant feed rate to vary M:C ratio]

• Testing of extremes, 2 test runs, one at low feed pressure and high M:C, second at high pressure and low M:C.

• Due to test run condition overlap additional low pressure / low M:C ratio run completed.

• Float/sink at three size fractions, +8mm, -8+4mm and –4+2mm.• Plant feed and medium samples taken for each test run.• Plant operating data, including control circuits, pressures,

drive/pump speeds logged for each test run.QLD ACPS Symposium – 15 September, 2009

10

Target Test Run Conditions


11

Sampling ProgramSAMPLING PROGRAM FOR DMC CIRCUIT [Rev_02]

Audit duration – Minimum of 2 hours stable plant operation. A total of ten (10) separate test runs to be completed with each test run generating all of the samples stated below.

AMOUNT SAMPLE

No. SAMPLE I.D. SAMPLING POINT SAMPLE MODULE MASS *

(kg) VOLUME

(L)

ANALYSIS TYPE

COMMENTS

PLANT FEED

1 Plant feed sample Plant feed conveyor Mod 2 300 --- A, B Reserve remainder for possible full washability testing.

DMC CIRCUIT

2 DMC Feed Desliming screen O/F Mod 2 300 --- A, C, D

3 DMC Product Product D&R screen Mod 2 300 --- A, C, D

4 DMC Reject Reject D&R screen Mod 2 300 --- A, C, D

MEDIUM CIRCUIT

5 Correct Medium Correct medium test point Mod 2 40 A, E Marcy scale readings required

6 DMC O/F Medium Product D&R screen underpan Mod 2 40 A, E Marcy scale readings required

7 DMC U/F Medium Reject D&R screen underpan Mod 2 40 A, E Marcy scale readings required

8 Raw Magnetite Mags pit N/A 10 --- A, E Not being taken for every test run

* Samples to be mix and split at mine site. Lab analysis samples only sent off site. Reserve samples to be held at the mine site.


12

Custom Sampling Equipment


13

Site Images

Happy samplers!!


14

Site Images

Product Drain & Rinse Screen


15

Site Images

Desliming screen with blanked out panels to

provide sample point access


16

Site ImagesElectronic Marcy

for medium samples

Strobe for pump speed

measurementQLD ACPS Symposium – 15 September, 2009

17

Sample Analysis Program

A-type - 1. Determine %solids/%TM. 2. Determine head ash (Not on Medium samples!). 3. Determine solids RD.

B-type - 1 Dry size at 50, 31.5, 16, 8, 4, 2 mm. 2 Determine mass of each size fraction. 3 Reconstitute a 100kg sample, in proportion to the dry size distribution. (Reserve Remainder) 4 Wet tumble combined with cubes for 5 minutes (50 kg sample / 150 L water / 18 cubes pro rata

compensation). [Reuse the wet tumble water]. 5 Wet size at 50, 31.5, 16, 8, 4, and 2.0mm. 6 Determine ash content on each size fraction. (Reserve all remainders for possible float / sink analysis)

C-type - 1 Wet size at 50, 31.5, 16, 8, 4, and 2.0mm. 2 Determine mass and ash content on each size fraction.

D-type - 1. Recombine the +8.0mm, -8.0+4.0mm and –4.0+2.0mm size fractions. 2. Float/sink +8.0mm, -8.0+4.0mm and –4.0+2.0mm size fractions at 16 densities (1.30, 1.35, 1.375, 1.40,

1.425, 1.45, 1.475, 1.50, 1.525, 1.55, 1.60, 1.65, 1.70, 1.80, 1.90 and 2.00). Report all mass percentages to TWO decimal places.

[Minimum float/sink masses by size: +8.0mm (float/sink all material), -8.0+4.0mm (float/sink all material) and –4.0+2.0mm (float/sink minimum 20kg). Reserve ALL remainders.] 3. Determine RD of the F1.30 and S2.00 fractions. 4. Determine ash content on each density fraction and the –2.0 mm material.

E-type 1. Determine % magnetics using Davis Tube. 2. Using the NON-Mags material, wet size at 2.0, 0.50, 0.25, 0.125, 0.063 and 0.038 mm. 3. Determine mass and ash of each size fraction. 4. Using the Mags material, perform a Laser sizing.


18

Managing Lab Analysis

• Sample analysis flowsheetsgenerated for each sample type

• Relevant “Hold Points” included to ensure analysis integrity

• Regular laboratory site visits to review progress, actual analysis records and audit applied procedures

• Raw data reported, including all masses, to facilitate validation processes and independent calculation of mass%’s


19

Preliminary Data Analysis

Test Run Summary• Range of Feed Pressures and Medium to Coal Ratios.


20

Preliminary Data AnalysisExample Data Set

0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

1.27 1.37 1.47 1.57 1.67 1.77 1.87 1.97 2.07 2.17 2.27

Part

. No.

RD

+8.0mm Reject Partition Curve

+8.0mm (Actual) +8mm (Fitted)


21


0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

1.27 1.37 1.47 1.57 1.67 1.77 1.87 1.97 2.07 2.17 2.27

Part

. No.

RD

-8.0 + 4.0mm Reject Partition Curve

-8.0 +4.0mm (Actual) -8.0 +4.0mm (Fitted)


22


0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

1.27 1.37 1.47 1.57 1.67 1.77 1.87 1.97 2.07 2.17 2.27

Part

. No.

RD

-4.0 + 2.0mm Reject Partition Curve

-4.0 +2.0mm (Actual) -4.0 +2.0mm (Fitted)


23


0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

1.47 1.57 1.67 1.77 1.87 1.97

Part

. No.

RD

Test Run 2 All Fitted Partition Curves[7D / 4.6 : 1 M:C Ratio]

Combined +2.0mm +8mm -8+4mm -4+2mm


24



25

Preliminary Data AnalysisPerformance Data by Size


26



27



28


0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

0.040

0.045

3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7

Ep

M:C Ratio

Ep v M:C Ratio

-4+2mm

-8+4mm

+8mm

Linear (-4+2mm)

Linear (-8+4mm)

Linear (+8mm)

Linear (+8mm)


29


0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

0.300

0.350

0.400

3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7

T0

M:C Ratio

T0 v M:C Ratio

-4+2mm

-8+4mm

+8mm

Linear (-4+2mm)

Linear (-8+4mm)

Linear (+8mm)


30


0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

0.040

0.045

6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10

Ep

Feed Pressure "D"

Ep v Feed Pressure "D"

-4+2mm

-8+4mm

+8mm

Linear (-4+2mm)

Linear (-8+4mm)

Linear (+8mm)

Linear (+8mm)


31


0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

0.300

0.350

0.400

6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0

T0

Feed Pressure "D"

T0 v Feed Pressure "D"

-4+2mm

-8+4mm

+8mm

Linear (-4+2mm)

Linear (-8+4mm)

Linear (+8mm)


32


0.000

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

25.000

3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7

Prod

uct i

n R

ejec

t (%

of N

ear

Gra

vity

)

M:C Ratio

Misplaced Product in Reject (% of Near Gravity) v M:C Ratio

-4+2mm

-8+4mm

+8mm

Linear (-4+2mm)

Linear (-8+4mm)

Linear (+8mm)


33

Preliminary Data AnalysisObserved Trends

Why Limited Observed Trends?...• All data too close together (too good for all test runs!)• Good measured performance due to test run pressure range using

“Effective” D not “Actual” D for DMC’s with inlet >0.2 ratio…o Assumption that inlet velocity is dictated by inlet pressureo Larger inlets for a given pressure delivers a lower inlet velocityo Lower inlet velocity delivers a lower centrifugal forceo Pressure in ‘D’ assumes a 0.2 ratio (refer DSM)o Therefore centrifugal forces intended by DSM at 9D must

ensure ‘D’ used in feed pressure calculation is in fact…

‘D’ = inlet diameter / 0.2• Feed type, correct density / near gravity% all constant during testing

(only M:C ratio and “D” varied)…o More challenging conditions necessary to see performance drop

off, ie: higher near gravity / lower medium set point?


34

Preliminary Data AnalysisObserved Trends

General Findings…• Very good data sets generated with smooth consistent

partition curves resulting from the raw data, ie: no data smoothing applied!

• Good sampling techniques and diligence with laboratory procedures can deliver accurate and repeatable results.

• Very good performance in terms of Ep and T0 and T1 measured for all test runs down to 2mm.

o Avg. Ep (-4+2mm) ~0.035 [Max. 0.040]o Avg. T0 (-4+2mm) ~0.14 [Max. 0.35]

• While Ep does trend upwards for the finer sizes (as expected!) , not obvious break away point down to 2mm.


35

Preliminary Data AnalysisMedium Stability

• Average Cut Pt / Set Pt Off Set ~0.14RD units• Average U/F // O/F Differential ~0.45RD units• No visible or measured performance effects from these high values?• Low density operation / achievable cut point issue with this high off set?


36

Preliminary Data AnalysisDuplicate Test Run

Sampling Approach…• Increments were collected simultaneously during sampling period, with

an ‘A’ and ‘B’ sample being generated, ie: Test Runs 10 and 11.• Subjected to the same suite of analysis without lab being aware test runs

were any different / same.• Provides a quantitative guide to sampling and analysis errors in Partition

Curve generation / interpolation.

Outcomes…• Good agreement of all size fractions for Yield%, Ep, T1 and T0.• Interpolation of parameters can contribute to errors due to curve shape

issues.o Use alternate models or manually fit data, ie: draw curve


37

Preliminary Data AnalysisDuplicate Test Run


38

Preliminary Data AnalysisParticle Sizing Aspects


39

Preliminary Data AnalysisParticle Sizing Aspects

• Sampled DMC feed generally finer than the predicted.o Some sampling aspects related to this stream (refer earlier

photo!)

• Predicted DMC feed uses Probability model applied to plant feed data.

• Predicted seems always finer than the recombined (similar to other literature).

• Further evaluation of all test run data continuing to investigate observed treads and assess impacts on efficiency parameter determination.


40

Questions???

For a copy of this presentation goto…

www.abmylec.com.au/links


http://www.abmylec.com.au/links

Documents

ACARP PROJECT C17036 - A&B · PDF fileacarp project c17036. ... dewatering reject bin truck to pit flotation cells -0.30+0.0mm vacuum filtration thickener tailings storage nominal