Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byElla Maloney Modified over 4 years ago

1
**Civil and Environmental Department, Carleton University 17 June 2013**

“Effects of polymer dosage on rheology / spread-ability of polymer-amended MFT Civil and Environmental Department, Carleton University 17 June 2013

2
**Tariq Bajwa Team manager Sahar Soleimani Shabnam Mizani**

3 years experience with AMEC Bereket Fisseha (at U of A) 5 years experience with Golder in Mining Geotechnical Services Team manager Sahar Soleimani PhD Environmental Engineering 3 years experience in Civil Engineering Projects Expertise in numerical modelling Tariq Bajwa 5 years in Civil and Hydropower Engineering

3
Project Background Part of a larger project funded by COSIA looking at optimization of polymer-amended mature fine tailings Optimization includes: i) Short-term dewatering due to action of polymer and consolidation under self-weight in a thin (< 1 m ) lift ii) Dewatering due to desiccation Iii) Dewatering and geotechnical behaviour after consolidation under addition of new lifts Iv) Spread-ability (rheological behaviour after material emerges from the pipe)

4
**Objective – Improve understanding of “out of pipe” rheology**

Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Future Work Controlling stack geometry (slope and lift heights) Designing deposition cells Trade off between deposition and dewaterability Flow Behaviour of the Amended Oil Sand Tailings upon Deposition Operational Parameters Topography P25 of proposal Rheology

5
**Introduction Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Future Work**

Objective Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Future Work Flocculation: Aggregation Process Alters the Rheology significantly (Yield Stress, Viscosity) Mixing intensity and duration (shear caused during transportation can disintegrate the flocs)

6
**Rheological Behaviour**

Tailings show Non-Newtonian behaviour Polymer amended MFT especially sensitive to aging and shearing Objective Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Future Work Rheology ??

7
**Methodology Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Future Work**

Slump Tests Back analysis of bench /field scale deposition Rheometer (Anton Paar Physica MCR301) Objective Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Future Work A.Stress growth (Rate control mode) B. Stress relaxation C Creep (Stress controlled mode) Application of constant stress Application of constant stress rate

8
**Some pictures captured from**

video

9
**In Line Mixing Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Future Work**

In Field rapid mixing of polymer occurs in a 17 ft pipeline In Laboratory First a four blade impeller with radius of 8.5 cm was immersed in 1,800 g of MFT. The mixing was then started at a fixed speed of 250 rpm. The flocculant solution was then added but was mainly directed near the impeller during mixing. After adding the 0.4% flocculant solution the mixing was continued for another 10 seconds Objective Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Future Work

10
**Mixing Time & Dewaterbility**

Highest water release

11
**Results Introduction Methodology Results -Rheology -Flume Test**

Stress Growth Objective Introduction Methodology Results -Rheology -Flume Test Conclusion Future Work Shear Rate=0.1s-1 Shear Rate=1s-1 11

12
**Constant stress test (Decreasing)-850gr/ton**

30s each step (800-5Pa) 10min each step (250-30Pa)

13
**Flume / 3-D bench deposition tests**

Using Funnel-9L of flocculated Tailings Objective Introduction Methodology Results -Rheology -Spreadibility Conclusion Future Work Yield stress from best fits of lubrication theory – JNNFM 2013 Dosage (g/ton) Yield stress (Pa) 600 60 725 95 850 104 1,000 110

14
**Comparison With Field Data (Pilot scale Test Oct2012)**

Stress Growth Shear rate=0.1s-1 mixing time and intensity used to prepare the flocculated MFT in the laboratory was representative of field mixing conditions

15
**Shell Atmospheric Drying cell during the autumn 2010**

Total volume of tailings deposited in this cell was 7953 m3 average slope of 2.1%.

16
**Summary & Conclusion Introduction Methodology Results -Rheology**

Objective Introduction Methodology Results -Rheology -Spreadibility Conclusion Future Work Dosage (g/ton) Method of Measurement Slump (Pa) From Lubrication Theory (Pa) Stress growth Decreasing shear stress Stress Relaxation Shear rate (S-1) Max stress Starting shear stress (Pa) Interpreted yield stress (Pa) Ave Stress MFT - 0.1 28.8 100 10 5.52 1 28.0 600 92 60 169 250 50-100 207 200 725 125 95 255 450 323 850 154 104 333 700 16.7 510 1,000 163 110 988 1,020 1,200 187 1,300 -* 1,180

17
**Microstructure SEM Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion**

Scanning electron microscopy (Vega-II XMU VPSEM, Tescan) speed of 148 µs/pixel and a working distance of 6-8 mm. acceleration voltage of 20 kV using a cold stage to freeze the samples(prevent excessive water withdrawal during the observation under the vacuum condition of the SEM chamber) Raw MFT g/ton Objective Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Future Work

18
Microstructure: MIP

19
Summary & Conclusion Laboratory prepared samples could mimic field samples in the stress growth tests Yield stress calculated from the flume and other tests employing lubrication theory was in best agreement with slump and controlled decreasing shear stress test. Lift thickness control likely needs to consider increase in effective yield stress of the deposit over deposition time Even high sheared polymer amended MFT still manifests a significant yield stress

20
**Future/Ongoing Work Introduction Methodology Results -Rheology**

Characterise the dependence of spreadability on both aging and shearing (i.e. Coussot Model ) Spreadibility finite element non-Newtonian flow codes such as ANYS Polyflow or ANSYS CFX 14 (Finite Volume) SPH – smooth particle hydrodynamics Rate of shear Objective Introduction Methodology Results -Rheology -Spreadibility Conclusion Future Work Characteristic time

21
**SPH flume simulation compared to lubrication theory**

22
Acknowledgements COSIA and NSERC Shell Canada and Barr Engineering

Similar presentations

OK

DIVIDING INTEGERS 1. IF THE SIGNS ARE THE SAME THE ANSWER IS POSITIVE 2. IF THE SIGNS ARE DIFFERENT THE ANSWER IS NEGATIVE.

DIVIDING INTEGERS 1. IF THE SIGNS ARE THE SAME THE ANSWER IS POSITIVE 2. IF THE SIGNS ARE DIFFERENT THE ANSWER IS NEGATIVE.

© 2018 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

To make this website work, we log user data and share it with processors. To use this website, you must agree to our Privacy Policy, including cookie policy.

Ads by Google