“Effects of polymer dosage on rheology / spread-ability of polymer-amended
MFT
Civil and Environmental Department, Carleton University
17 June 2013
Team managerSahar SoleimaniPhD Environmental Engineering3 years experience in Civil EngineeringProjectsExpertise in numerical modelling
Bereket Fisseha (at U of A)5 years experience with Golder in Mining Geotechnical Services
Shabnam Mizani3 years experience with AMEC
Tariq Bajwa 5 years in Civil and Hydropower Engineering
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)
3
Objective – Improve understanding of “out of pipe” rheologyControlling 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
4
Objective Introduction Methodology Results Conclusion Future Work
Rheology
Topography
Operational Parameters
Introduction
5
Flocculation: Aggregation Process
Alters the Rheology significantly (Yield Stress, Viscosity)Mixing intensity and duration (shear caused during transportation can disintegrate the flocs)
ObjectiveIntroduction Methodology Results Conclusion Future Work
Rheological Behaviour
► Tailings show Non-Newtonian behaviour
► Polymer amended MFT especially sensitive to aging and
shearing
6
Rheology ??
ObjectiveIntroduction Methodology Results Conclusion Future Work
Methodology► Slump Tests
► Back analysis of bench /field scale deposition
► Rheometer (Anton Paar Physica MCR301)
7
A.Stress growth (Rate control mode)
B. Stress relaxation
C. Creep (Stress controlled mode)
Application of constant stress
Application of constant stress rate
ObjectiveIntroductionMethodology Results Conclusion Future Work
Some pictures captured from video
In Line Mixing
In Field► rapid mixing of polymer occurs in a 17 ft pipeline
In LaboratoryI. First a four blade impeller with radius of 8.5 cm was immersed in
1,800 g of MFT.
II. The mixing was then started at a fixed speed of 250 rpm.
III. The flocculant solution was then added but was mainly directed near the impeller during mixing.
IV. After adding the 0.4% flocculant solution the mixing was continued for another 10 seconds
9
ObjectiveIntroductionMethodology Results Conclusion Future Work
Mixing Time & Dewaterbility
10
Highest water release
Results
► Stress Growth
11
ObjectiveIntroductionMethodologyResults-Rheology-Flume Test Conclusion Future Work
Shear Rate=0.1s-1 Shear Rate=1s-1
Constant stress test (Decreasing)-850gr/ton30s each step (800-5Pa) 10min each step (250-30Pa)
12
Flume / 3-D bench deposition tests► Using Funnel-9L of flocculated Tailings
13
ObjectiveIntroductionMethodologyResults-Rheology-Spreadibility Conclusion Future Work
Dosage (g/ton) Yield stress (Pa)600 60
725 95850 104
1,000 110
Yield stress from best fits of lubrication theory – JNNFM 2013
Comparison With Field Data (Pilot scale Test Oct2012)► Stress Growth Shear rate=0.1s-1
14
mixing time and intensity used to prepare the flocculated MFT in the laboratory was representative of field mixing conditions
• Shell Atmospheric Drying cell during the autumn 2010
• Total volume of tailings deposited in this cell was 7953 m3
• average slope of 2.1%.
15287.00
288.00
289.00
290.00
291.00
292.00
293.00
0 50 100 150 200 250
Heig
ht(m
)
Run-Out( m)
Deposited Tails
Topography
LT prediction, 100 Pa yield stress
LT prediction 240 Pa yield stress
Summary & Conclusion
16
ObjectiveIntroductionMethodologyResults-Rheology-SpreadibilityConclusion 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
(Pa)
Starting shear stress
(Pa)
Interpreted yield stress
(Pa)
Ave Stress
(Pa)
MFT - -0.1 28.8
100 10 5.521 28.0
600 92 600.1 169 250 50-1001 207 200 50-100
725 125 950.1 255
450 50-1001 323
850 154 1040.1 333
700 50-100 16.71 510
1,000 163 1100.1 988
1,000 2501 1,020
1,200 187 -0.1 1,000
1,300 -*1 1,180
Microstructure SEM► 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 1000 g/ton
17
ObjectiveIntroductionMethodologyResultsConclusionFuture Work
Microstructure: MIP
18
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
0.016
0.018
0.02
0.01 0.1 1 10
Incr
emen
tal p
ore
volu
me
(ml/
g)
Pore diameter (microns)
MFT
1500 ppm
700 ppm
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
19
Future/Ongoing WorkRheology 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
20
ObjectiveIntroductionMethodologyResults-Rheology-SpreadibilityConclusion Future Work
.1
dt
d
Characteristic time
Rate of shear
SPH flume simulation compared to lubrication theory
21
Acknowledgements
► COSIA and NSERC
► Shell Canada and Barr Engineering
22
Top Related