appendix 33 - gcs-sa.biz · cv - coefficient of consolidation cw - concentration by mass, or...

Appendix 33

SLURRY MANAGEMENT PLAN

Leopard Court Building, 1st Floor, South Wing 56 Jerome Street, Lynnwood Glen, Pretoria, South Africa Tel: +27 (0) 12 348 1114 Fax: +27 (0) 12 348 1180 Web: www.gcs-sa.biz

GCS (Pty) Ltd. Reg No: 2004/000765/07 Est. 1987

Offices: Durban Gaborone Johannesburg Lusaka Maseru Ostrava Pretoria Windhoek

Directors: AC Johnstone (Managing) PF Labuschagne AWC Marais S Napier W Sherriff (Financial)

Non-Executive Director: B Wilson-Jones

www.gcs-sa.biz

Our Reference Somkhele Slurry Management Plan

Your Reference Pit A - Slurry Management Plan

Memo

1 INTRODUCTION

Inqubeko Consulting Engineers recently completed a deposition investigation study on Pit A

for Tendele Coal Mine near Mtubatuba, South Africa. The findings and recommendations of

this study was used to draft this memo as the Slurry Management Plan.

2 DEPOSITION INVESTIGATION

The pit background and findings of study can be summarised as follows:

• Pit excavation commenced around 2007 and was completed in 2009.

• Fine coal discard in the form of slurry was deposited between 2010 and 2017, for the

latter two years flocculent was added which increased the removal of water and

aiding consolidation.

• 3m deep DCP testing was carried out initially followed by 40m CPTU Piezocone

testing.

• 3.3m deep settlement may occur within the pit with an additional 5m cap.

• It is possible to deposit more material up to about 1,5m below a decant level under

controlled conditions.

To: Tendele Coal Mine (Pty) Ltd

Attention: Jade Dafel

CC: Jarmi Steyn

Subject: Pit A - Slurry Management Plan

From: Pieter de Coning; Henri Botha; Pieter Labuschagne

Date: 14/02/2019

Tendele Coal Mine Pit A - Slurry Management Plan

Slurry Management Plan 14 February 2019 Page 2

• Capping will have to commence with a well-drained layer of coarse material which

can be hydraulically placed to ensure an even spread of the load.

• Tipping of coarser material will be possible, once the initial cap has settled, which

should be placed in a manner to ensure surface drainage

• An engineering design must be done to ensure environmental compliance with the

settlement rates in mind, and a final drainage system on the capped surface.

• The decant elevation and the existing water monitoring network for Pit A is shown by

Figure 2-1.

Figure 2-1: Pit A monitoring network and decant elevation



3 PIT A SLURRY MANAGEMENT PLAN

The following section outlines conceptual strategies available to manage and monitor the

slurry contained within Pit A.

3.1 Method of Slurry Deposition

More slurry can be deposited up to 1,5m under the lowest decant point (approximately 77 to

78.4 mamsl) on the lip of the pit, under the following conditions:

• The slurry must be flocculated to increase the removal of water and aid consolidation.

• The slurry should by deposited in at least two, and possible three locations as shown

Inqubeko Consulting Engineers report (refer to Annexure A) to force the pool to the

dewatering pumps (It should be possible to move the point should the pool if required).

• Deposition layer thickness should also be kept as thin as possible to allow for better

drying of the slurry.

• Deposition should therefore also be altered to try and give some drying time.

• The pool must be kept as small as possible to maximize evaporative drying of the slurry

3.2 Capping Design

Capping design should be done in such a manner to prevent any ponding of water on the pit

area. The cap will be domed where possible to aid in run-off of precipitation, keeping the

settlement rates in mind, and prevention possible erosion.

3.3 Flocculent

As mentioned above, flocculent must be added whilst depositing the slurry, as is currently the

case, to ensure maximum water is removed and settlement consolidation is as high as possible.

3.4 Stormwater Management

Whilst still in use all clean storm water should be diverted around the pit by means of berms

and trenches, as is currently the case, ensuring that GN704 is adhered to in term of sizing and

design.

Water from within the pit, while still operational, is will still be considered dirty and must be

extracted and stored in the aboveground pollution control dams for re-use in the plant.



Once the capping has been constructed, it is still advisable to divert clean storm water around

the site as the drains (berms and trenches) will still be intact. Only water falling on the

rehabilitated and capped pit area will flow over the pit capping area preventing excessive

water flowing of the rehabilitated pit area, thereby also lowering the risk of any ponding of

water on the capped pit area, as well as lowering the risk of erosion due to high flow volumes

and speeds.

3.5 Environmental Seepage Management

Somkhele Anthracite Mine (SAM) implements a mine water management hierarchy (INAP,

21018) which constantly considers:

• Pollution prevention at all potential sources;

• Minimisation of potential impacts by mitigation measures;

• Recovery and beneficial use of mine water; and

• Treatment of mine water for beneficial use and discharge (where required).

3.5.1 Monitoring of potential seepage

There is an existing groundwater and surface water monitoring programme surrounding Pit A.

Hence, adequate mine water monitoring of the receiving environment as well as baseline

water quantities are continuously used to monitor seepages form Pit A. The monitoring

network is audited annually to identify gap areas, to ensure sufficient monitoring is taking

place.

The focus of monitoring is:

• Multiple-level monitoring of boreholes to monitor groundwater level behaviour in the

surrounding aquifer.

• Confirm/validate the predicted impacts on groundwater availability and quality after

closure.

• Update existing predictive tools (i.e. numerical groundwater models) to verify long-

term impacts on groundwater.

• Visual verification of groundwater inflow/outflows into/from Pit A and subsequent

flow monitoring, when and if it occurs.



3.5.2 Mitigation measures

In the unlikely event that seepage from Pit A occurs, SAM has the following mitigation

measures in place.

• Change monitoring boreholes, situated downstream of Pit A, to pump-and-treat

boreholes. The aim will be to:

o Induce aquifer drawdown to lower the in-pit water level, and hence the

aquifer water level, to prevent further seepage though Pit A high wall areas;

o Treat dewatered water to reticulate it into the mine water balance; and

o Stop seepage long enough to install a permanent treatment system.

• Poor quality seepage will need to be treated before it is discharged into the receiving

environment. Treatment options will depend on the seepage water quality and

quantity. If seepage does occur, the following treatment methods will be considered:

o Limestone diversion wells or limestone channels (refer t0 ;

o Revers osmosis and membrane treatment;

o Linear flow channel reactors; or

o Artificial wetlands.

Figure 3-1: Schematic representation of a passive limestone channel



3.6 Trade Off

The following trade-off between traditional surface disposal and the Somkhele in pit disposal

shows that in pit disposal is more attractive and potentially more environmentally sustainable

for the Somkhele Mine.

Traditional Surface Disposal:

• Esthetical and visually a problem – especially close to a park;

• Exposed to oxygen and rainfall – difficult to encapsulate the entire waste site;

• If AD and SD1 is detected in the aquifer one needs to find sufficient space for a new

waste site. This means that a new area will be “contaminated”;

• Not enough material to completely close and rehabilitate mining voids; and

• Long term integrity of linings questionable.

In Pit:

• No visual dumps;

• Encapsulate waste;

• Potential AD and SD contained in an already disturbed mine site;

• Methods well establish to treat problems, should they arise;

• No open voids after mine closure. Optimises life of mine and reduces rehabilitation

costs;

• Reshaping of the landscape to pre-mining conditions possible due to a surplus amount

of backfill material;

• Re-establishment of residents possible, with insignificant risk when compared to pit-

lakes; and

• Improve the water return from waste impounds and facilitate their rehabilitation.

1 AD = Acid drainage, SD = Saline drainage.



ANNEXURE A: SOMKHELE MATERIAL TESTING REPORT

SOMKHELE COAL MINE WASTE MATERIAL PROPERTIES REPORT

Report ML0066-REP-01

APRIL 2018

Report prepared for

Tendele Coal (Pty) Ltd

Prepared by:

Inqubeko Consulting Engineers

P O Box 608

EMPANGENI

3880

Somkhele Mine: Waste Material Properties Report Page I

REPORT REVIEW SHEET

SOMKHELE COAL MINE WASTE MATERIAL PROPERTIES REPORT

Report no: ML0066-REP-01

Client name: Tendele Coal (Pty) Ltd

Client contact:

Inqubeko Project Manager: Freek Pretorius

Inqubeko Technical Reviewer: Freek Pretorius

Main Author: Kevin Goss-Ross

Date Report Number Comment

30/4/2018 ML0066-REP-01 Issued for comment

Somkhele Mine: Waste Material Properties Report Page II

INDEX

1 TERMS OF REFERENCE ........................................................................................... 1

2 TERMINOLOGY AND CLARIFICATIONS .................................................................. 1

3 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................... 3

4 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 3

5 FINES SLURRY PSD .................................................................................................. 4

6 GEOTECHNICAL PSD AND ATTERBERG LIMIT TESTS ......................................... 5

7 PARTICLE DENSITY ................................................................................................... 7

8 SLURRY FINES FREE SETTLING BEHAVIOUR ....................................................... 8

9 COMPACTION ............................................................................................................. 9

10 PERMEABILITY ........................................................................................................ 10

11 SHEAR STRENGTH .................................................................................................. 14

12 CONSOLIDATION ..................................................................................................... 14

13 SLURRY FINES YIELD STRESS .............................................................................. 15

14 EVAPORATIVE DRYING .......................................................................................... 17

15 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................... 19

16 FURTHER WORK ...................................................................................................... 19

APPENDIX A: MALVERN PSD RESULTS

APPENDIX B: PSD AND ATTERBERG LIMIT TEST RESULTS

APPENDIX C: FINES SETTLING TEST RESULTS

APPENDIX D: COMPACTION TEST RESULTS

APPENDIX E: PERMEABILITY TEST RESULTS

APPENDIX F: SHEAR TEST RESULTS

APPENDIX G: CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS

APPENDIX H: YIELD STRESS TEST RESULTS

Somkhele Mine: Waste Material Properties Report Page III

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 5-1 PSD for Fines Slurry samples by Malvern laser method ........................ 4

Figure 6-1 PSDs (geotechnical + Malvern laser methods) ...................................... 5

Figure 6-2 Plasticity Chart ....................................................................................... 7

Figure 8-1 Slurry fines free settling (SF110) ............................................................ 9

Figure 10-1 Permeability of compacted waste material ......................................... 11

Figure 10-2 Permeability of fines slurry waste material ......................................... 12

Figure 11-1 Triaxial test results on slurry fines SF110 .......................................... 14

Figure 13-1 Yield stress vs. concentration for slurry fines ..................................... 16

Figure 13-2 Yield stress vs. concentration for -75µm fraction of slurry fines ......... 16

Figure 14-1 Slurry evaporation vs. freshwater evaporation ................................... 18

Figure 14-2 Normalised slurry evaporation vs. freshwater evaporation................. 18

Figure 14-3 Photographic record of drying sample................................................ 19

LIST OF TABLES

Table 5-1 PSD statistics for Fines Slurry samples by Malvern laser method .......... 5

Table 6-1 Particle size distribution and Atterberg limits (Geotech Lab) .................. 6

Table 6-2 Atterberg limit comparison for Fines Slurry ............................................. 6

Table 7-1 Particle density ....................................................................................... 7

Table 8-1 Slurry fines free settling results ............................................................... 8

Table 9-1 Compaction test results ........................................................................ 10

Table 10-1 Permeability of compacted waste material ........................................ 10

Table 10-2 Permeability of fines slurry (settling tests) ......................................... 13

Table 10-3 Permeability of fines slurry (oedometer tests) ................................... 13

Table 12-1 Consolidation test results .................................................................. 15

Somkhele Mine: Waste Material Properties Report Page IV

ABBREVIATIONS ARD - Apparent Relative Density (density relative to water at 20°C)

CPT - Cone Penetration Test

Cv - Coefficient of consolidation

Cw - Concentration by Mass, or Percentage Solids (Mass Solids/Total Mass)

DPSH - Dynamic Probe Super Heavy

EC - Electrical Conductivity

K - Permeability

LL - Liquid Limit

MDD - Maximum dry density

MRD - Mine Residue Deposit

Mw - Coefficient of volume compressibility

Mw - Mass of water in a sample

Ms - Mass of solids in a sample

OMC - Optimum moisture content

PI - Plasticity Index

PL - Plastic Limit

ppm - Parts per million

PSD - Particle Size Distribution

ROM - Run Of Mine

rpm - revolutions per minute

SG - Specific Gravity (density relative to water at 20°C)

SPT - Standard Penetration Test

STLab - Specialised Testing Laboratory

TSF - Tailings Storage Facility

TSL - Thekwini Soils Laboratory

t/m3 - tonne per cubic meter

USCS - Unified Soil Classification System

w - Water Content (Mass Water / Mass Solids)

%W - Percentage Water ((Mass Water / Total Mass)

µm - Micron (mm/1000)

Somkhele Mine: Waste Material Properties Report Page 1

1 TERMS OF REFERENCE This report was prepared by Inqubeko Consulting Engineers as part of a tailings investigation for the Somkhele Coal Mine near KwaMbonambi, South Africa.

2 TERMINOLOGY AND CLARIFICATIONS

2.1 Moisture

In geotechnical soil testing, moisture is determined by oven drying at 110 ± 5°C. Moisture may occur in various forms within a coal:

• Surface or free moisture: water held on the surface of coal particles or macerals (also referred to the air dry moisture content). The surface moisture is determined by drying in ambient air or at maximum 40°C in an oven for 48 hours.

• Inherent (residual) moisture: water held by capillary action within the pores/capillaries of coal.

• Decomposition moisture: water produced from the thermal decomposition of organic constituents of coal.

• Mineral moisture (water of hydration of mineral matter): water which comprises part of the crystal structure of hydrous silicates such as clays and inorganic minerals in coal.

Total moisture content of coal consists of surface and inherent moisture. The total moisture content of coal can be determined by oven-drying a known mass of coal sample to a constant mass at a temperature of 105°C to 110°C in an atmosphere of either air (ASTM, ISO) or nitrogen (ISO). There are more involved methods which falls outside the scope of this project.

In order to compare geotechnical test results and coal specific process related test results, all moisture parameters in this report will refer to the Total Moisture Content (surface + inherent moisture).

The terms "moisture" and "water" is used interchangeably in the report and refers to the liquor portion of a soil or slurry sample, including the soluble salt content.

Apart from the way moisture is tested, it is also expressed differently in various technical disciplines.

In Civil Engineering, moisture- or water content is expressed as the mass of water / mass of solids (Mw/Ms) in a sample and is denoted by w. It is thus a ratio, but is commonly expressed as a percentage, and frequently have values exceeding 100%.

In Process Engineering, moisture is expressed as the mass of water or of solids as a percentage of total mass. This is expressed as a percentage and denoted by %W (mass of water / total mass) or by Cw (concentration by mass = mass of solids / total mass). Cw is also referred to as the % solids. Thus, Cw = 100% - %W.


To convert between %W and w, the following equations can be used:

%W = (w / (1+w)) x 100

w = %W / (100 - %W)

where w = water content = Mw/Ms as a ratio %W =percentage water = Mw / (Mw+Ms) x 100

2.2 Atterberg limits

Atterberg Limits refer to soil moisture states where soil behaviour changes and are usually expressed as the water content w as a percentage, but frequently expressed as a figure only (without the percentage suffix). This nomenclature will be applied in the report, but the associated %W and/or Cw may also be quoted to put the figures into perspective for readers who are accustomed to expressing moisture this way.

A liquid limit of 90 [%] therefore means a ratio of 0.9 (LL = 90[%] = 0.9 = mass of water / mass of solids), which is equivalent to %W = 47%.

2.3 Particle size distribution (PSD)

Laser particle size measurement (e.g. Malvern) is frequently used in Process Engineering and is appropriate to obtain the PSD of fine grained materials (finer than 2mm).

Civil Engineering soils laboratories follow a procedure in which the sample is effectively dry screened with an optional step of certain fractions washed on a 425 µm screen. Sample passing the 425 µm screen is further analysed by means of a hydrometer in a dispersant mixture containing deflocculant to counteract natural flocculated behaviour. Stokes' law is applied to determine particle size distribution to 2 µm grain size.

Both methods are used in this investigation, depending on the situation and the particle size range. It should, however, be taken into consideration that results from different methods are not necessarily directly comparable.

Geotechnical soil classifications and relationships are based on the PSD and other parameters. The standard soil mechanics PSD analysis results are therefore used for all geotechnical related classifications.

2.4 Waste material terminology

Different industries use different terms to describe their waste streams. Generally the term ‘tailings’ refers to all reject mineral streams generated by the processing plants that is not saleable product. In some industries the term "slimes" is used to denote a fine milled tailings, and historically the term "slimes dam" has been used to describe the storage facility where the slimes is managed.

At Somkhele there are generally coarse and fine waste streams, called "discard" and "slurry" respectively. Both waste streams are the result of physical separation of grains based on particle size and particle density with no chemical alteration. To ensure that the waste stream terminology is correctly understood in this report, the terms "fines" or "fines slurry" and "coarse discard" will be used.


2.5 Particle Density and Apparent Relative Density

Particle density refers to the density of the grains that make up a soil or mineral suspension. It is an important parameter for calculations between mass and volume. It is usually denoted as SG (specific gravity), which is the particle density relative to the density of water at a temperature of 20°C (0.99823 t/m3). Technically the SG should be multiplied by 0.99823 t/m3 to obtain the particle density in absolute terms (in t/m3 or g/ml), but since it makes a small difference it is usually ignored.

Apparent relative density (ARD) refers to the density of a lump of soil or rock compared to the density of water and is analogous to the SG test except that the lump of material may contain voids. When used on pieces of solid rock aggregate it is assumed that the results are similar to that of SG tests.

3 BACKGROUND The objective of the material investigation is to determine various relevant parameters of the general waste streams for application in geotechnical and environmental design processes.

It was not the intention to characterise all the different waste streams from different mining processes and plant rejects, but only to broadly characterise the fines ("slurry") waste stream and the coarse ("discard") waste stream, after which the need for more detailed characterisation would become apparent.

It is the intention that this report can be used as information source for various projects and processes, and therefore more characterisation tests were conducted than currently required in anticipation of these parameters being sought at a later date.

4 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION The samples were collected from Somkhele waste streams by various Somkhele personnel and delivered to Inqubeko in Empangeni and Mtunzini over the period November 2017 to January 2018.

The initial 20 litre fines slurry sample delivered to Empangeni (SF100) was dilute, but subsequent samples were settled at the mine before delivery. Two 25 litre buckets (SF101 and SF102) were delivered on 6 December and two 65 litre (not full) dustbins (SF103 and SF104) were delivered on 19 January. The settled samples (SF101 to SF104) were combined in Mtunzini before submitting for geotechnical laboratory testing. Preparation consisted of decanting further process water, combining the settled slurry samples on a HDPE plastic liner, mixing to homogenise, air drying, breaking lumps, remixing, splitting and bagging. The combined sample was numbered as SF110. Most of the sample was submitted to Specialised Testing Laboratory (STL) in Pretoria, who subcontracted BM du Plessis Civil Engineering laboratory for specific specialised tests. A smaller fines slurry sample was submitted to Thekwini Soils Laboratory in Durban for specialised consolidation testing. Additional testing was done by the author in Mtunzini.

A few fines slurry quality control samples from various plants were also delivered, which was used to check the variability of fines PSD. These samples were numbered SF105 to SF109.


The PSD of all the fines slurry samples were tested with a Malvern Mastersizer 2000 laser instrument in Mtunzini.

The coarse discard samples were generally collected at different dump positions at the mine. The PSD of two of the bags was visibly smaller than the rest, which prompted the decision to treat these separately since it was presumed that this type of discard can be applied selectively if it has certain beneficial characteristics (e.g. compatibility or permeability). The two bags were combined and mixed on a tarpaulin, re-bagged and named "medium discard".

All the remaining bags of coarse discard sample were combined on a tarpaulin, mixed to homogenise the sample, coned and quartered and bagged in two large bags.

5 FINES SLURRY PSD Figure 5-1 shows the PSD graphs of all the fines slurry samples received and Table 5-1 shows the derived statistics and sample descriptions.

Except for samples SF100 and SF107 there is a close grouping of PSD. This indicates that the composite sample (SF110) which does not contain any of SF100 or SF107 is reasonably representative of the fine slurry material for characterisation purposes.

Detailed Malvern PSD results are attached as Appendix A.

Figure 5-1 PSD for Fines Slurry samples by Malvern laser method


Table 5-1 PSD statistics for Fines Slurry samples by Malvern laser method

6 GEOTECHNICAL PSD AND ATTERBERG LIMIT TESTS Figure 6-1 shows the PSD by geotechnical soil lab methods as well as the PSD by laser method for SF110. It is apparent that there is a large discrepancy in the clay fraction between the two methods. While neither is wrong it is the author's opinion that the laser method gives a better representation of particle size for the fines fraction of this material. However, since all geotechnical classifications and material behaviour association is based on the hydrometer method, it is used for geotechnical processes.

Figure 6-1 PSDs (geotechnical + Malvern laser methods)


Table 6-1 contains the PSD data, Atterberg limits and soil classifications based on the geotechnical lab data.

In addition to Atterberg limits on the composited fines slurry sample (SF110), Atterberg limits were also determined for two of the individual samples that were used to make up the composite sample (SF101 and SF103) to check for variability. Comparative Atterberg Limit properties are included in Table 6-2 and plotted on a Casagrande plasticity chart in Figure 6-2. The fines classify as silt of low plasticity.

One would have expected the composite sample liquid limit (LL) to be between the LL of the individual samples that were used to make up the composite. However, the values are reasonably close together considering the rather subjective nature of the test.

Table 6-1 Particle size distribution and Atterberg limits (Geotech Lab)

Table 6-2 Atterberg limit comparison for Fines Slurry


Figure 6-2 Plasticity Chart

PSD and Atterberg (Foundation Indicator) test certificates are attached as Appendix B.

7 PARTICLE DENSITY Particle density was determined on Fines Slurry samples and on the fine portion of the Discard samples by means of SG tests. Results are given in Table 7-1.

Table 7-1 Particle density


Since carbon content has a pronounced effect on density, the variability of density with aggregate size was further explored by doing ARD (lump density) tests on selected coarser fractions of the Coarse Discard sample. SG tests were also done on various slurry fines samples to test variability, as this parameter has significant impact on other calculations. The SG was determined by three different labs for sample SF110, which shows reasonable correlation.

A clear trend is that the particle density of the discard is higher than the slurry fines. Of the five fines slurry samples tested there was one that was noticeably lower (SF101). It would be prudent to not rely on only one sample when establishing the particle density of a large fines slurry deposit.

8 SLURRY FINES FREE SETTLING BEHAVIOUR Fines samples made up at a low slurry concentration were allowed to free settle (no flocculants added) to determine the likely behaviour in a TSF and determine possible problematic material with respect to thickening or clarity of supernatant bleed water. Sample SF100 was tested at the received dilute solids content of 5.35% solids, while the composite sample (SF110) was diluted to about 10% solids for the settling test. Both samples showed rapid settling of the bulk of the solids, but with very dirty supernatant. It took about one day for the supernatant to clear. This indicates possible combination (flocculent + coagulant) reagent requirement for thickener operation.

The results are summarised in Table 8-1 and Figure 8-1. Test certificates are attached as Appendix C.

Table 8-1 Slurry fines free settling results

Even though the final settled density was around 40% solids, it was observed that the material settled to concentrations in excess of 50% in the buckets. This is caused by less sidewall friction impact and higher bed height. The settling tests are thus not indicative of final settled densities in a TSF but serves as a quick check and comparison of different samples.


Figure 8-1 Slurry fines free settling (SF110)

9 COMPACTION The expected compaction performance was determined by means of Mod AASHTO compaction tests, including moisture density relationship and California Bearing Ratio (CBR). Insufficient sample was available for Proctor tests to be performed as well, but density at Proctor effort can be deduced from the 90% Mod AASHTO results of the CBR tests.

Compaction and density test results are summarised in Table 9-1. Test certificates and detail information for density and compaction tests are attached as Appendix D.


Table 9-1 Compaction test results

10 PERMEABILITY Permeability tests were done on re-constituted samples to provide design parameters for geohydrological modelling of waste containment facilities. Two conditions were targeted, namely compacted containment facilities (high density material) and contained fines slurry material (low density material).

To determine compacted material permeability, special Mod AASHTO sized compaction moulds were used that are directly attached in a permeability rig after compaction of the sample. Samples were tested at compacted densities corresponding to approximately 100% and 90% Mod AASHTO densities, which allows interpolation of permeability over a design range of compacted density. Results are tabulated in Table 10-1 and Figure 10-1.

Table 10-1 Permeability of compacted waste material


From the permeability results it is apparent that the medium discard has a lower permeability at the same density as the coarse discard, but does not compact as well as the coarse discard and has higher permeability at similar compactive efforts. From a compaction and permeability point of view it is not worth selecting specific finer discard streams for embankment construction.

Figure 10-1 Permeability of compacted waste material

The permeability of settled fines slurry (under self-weight consolidation) was determined by allowing the fines slurry to settle in a cylinder, after which a head of water was connected and a base drain opened to allow water to flow through, causing consolidation and allowing the measurement of permeability at various stages of consolidation. This permits a relationship between permeability (falling head method) and density in the typical range that fines slurry would consolidate to under self-weight in a tailings storage facility.

Two tests were performed, one by the author (KGR) and one by an external laboratory (BM du Plessis), with slight variation on starting density, sample preparation and head used, as detailed in Table 10-2.

Permeability was also calculated from consolidation (oedometer) test results (see Section 12). The density increases with each loading in the oedometer test, which also gives a number of permeability versus density results. The permeability results calculated from two oedometer tests are reported in Table 10-3.


The permeability results from all the fines slurry tests are plotted versus dry density in K = permeability in cm/s

Figure 10-2. The general trend of decreasing permeability with increasing density is clear, however there is overlap between the different tests that require some judgement in selecting appropriate values for modelling. A logarithmic curve fit on all the data points represents a good average for settled and consolidated fines slurry, with resulting equation:

Sd = -0.102 ln K - 0.3784 where: Sd = dry density in t/m3 K = permeability in cm/s

Figure 10-2 Permeability of fines slurry waste material

For analysis of compacted dried fines the higher permeability according to the compacted test results (Figure 10-1) is recommended.


Table 10-2 Permeability of fines slurry (settling tests)

Table 10-3 Permeability of fines slurry (oedometer tests)

Test certificates are included as Appendix E.


11 SHEAR STRENGTH A consolidated undrained triaxial test with pore pressure measurements was done on reconstituted samples of the combined fines slurry sample (SF110) at low density to obtain properties of likely settled material. The lowest dry density at which the lab could prepare the samples was 1.01 t/m3, (68% solids) which consolidated to 1.16 t/m3 at 600 kPa effective consolidation stress. In this density range the material showed dilating behaviour.

Figure 11-1 Triaxial test results on slurry fines SF110

The effective friction angle is 30⁰ with zero cohesion. Figure 11-1 shows the P-Q

graph; the bump in the specimen 3 graph was as a result of a short power failure during testing.

The full test results are attached as Appendix F.

No shear strength tests were done on the discard due to the coarse particle size relative to the test specimen size.

12 CONSOLIDATION Consolidation material parameters are required to model the consolidation that would occur under self weight as well as under additional loading of a capping layer placed on a settled slurry fines waste facility. The better suited equipment for slurry consolidation testing is a Rowe cell, which is not readily available at commercial laboratories in South Africa. Therefore, a standard consolidation test was done on a reconstituted sample of the slurry fines (SF110) at the lowest density that would allow testing in a standard oedometer. The laboratory managed to start the test at 66% solids and with small initial loadings. Results are summarised in Table 12-1. T50 was determined by means of the square root time method.


Table 12-1 Consolidation test results

A second option was pursued at the same time at a different laboratory (TSL), who had some of the Rowe cell equipment available and managed to source the rest of the equipment to complete a successful Rowe cell consolidation test. However, the slurry sample poured into the Rowe cell consolidated rapidly under an initial bedding load of 4.2 kPa to a dry density of 1.055 t/m3.

The full results are attached as Appendix G.

13 SLURRY FINES YIELD STRESS Vane yield stress of the slurry fines was measured with a Brookfield YR1 yield stress rheometer at varying moisture contents for three fines samples. The yield stress curves are plotted in Figure 13-1 and test certificates are included as Appendix H.

It is generally accepted that the -75µm fraction of fines slurry primarily contribute to yield stress, while the +75µm fraction behaves more like added mass in the slurry. Since the samples that were tested contain variable amounts of +75µm material, Cw (% solids) was calculated using the mass of the -75µm fraction only, and plotted in Figure 13-2. This brings the curves of SF110 and SF101 close together but still some way off from SF103. At a slurry concentration of 40%, the yield stress difference is 20Pa (30Pa to 50Pa), which shows there is variability in the rheology of the generated slurry fines material.


Figure 13-1 Yield stress vs. concentration for slurry fines

Figure 13-2 Yield stress vs. concentration for -75µm fraction of slurry fines


14 EVAPORATIVE DRYING The rate of evaporative drying from the fines slurry as compared to water was tested in an evaporation chamber, where the energy was limited to represent atmospheric conditions. Radiation energy was provided by two 50 Watt halogen lamps and temperature was controlled with a thermostat between 34°C and 38°C by activating a fan that forced ambient air through the chamber. The intermittent forced air also removed humid air. The achieved freshwater evaporation was approximately 12mm per day.

There was no attempt to simulate day/night or other cycles and the results are relative to the control fresh water sample and not related to other real life parameters. Since the air in the chamber is constantly replaced there are no evaporation limiting conditions except the availability of moisture from the sample or physical manifestations of the sample (e.g. crusting).

The starting point was taken as the post bleed condition. Settled slurry was placed in the evaporation container and left for 24 hours, after which the additional bleed water was removed and the evaporation test started.

The rate of evaporation as compared to open water is influenced by many factors, including the colour of the material reflecting or absorbing energy, availability of water held in the capillaries between the particles and the point at which air enters into the voids between the solid particles.

Figure 14-1 plots evaporation from slurry and the resulting increase in concentration (% solids) against freshwater evaporation. To clarify the ratio between evaporation from slurry and freshwater evaporation, slurry evaporation is normalised in Figure 14-2; a value of one therefore represents equal evaporation from slurry and freshwater.

It is apparent that the evaporation rate from slurry is initially slightly higher than that of water up to approximately 78% solids, after which the rate of evaporation from the slurry is lower than evaporation from open water. This concentration (Cw = 78% solids) is suspected to be at or just past the point where air is allowed into the soil structure (also denoted as the air entry value) and further evaporation does not lead to equivalent consolidation shrinkage. This is an important parameter as relationships between mass and volume is readily done when the material is saturated, but past the air entry moisture condition it is necessary to measure in situ density.


Figure 14-1 Slurry evaporation vs. freshwater evaporation

Figure 14-2 Normalised slurry evaporation vs. freshwater evaporation


Figure 14-3 Photographic record of drying sample

15 CONCLUSIONS The representativeness of the tested fines slurry was to an extent achieved through PSG and SG tests on various samples. This was limited, however, to a specific time frame and does not necessarily represent historical deposits. The conclusions reached are therefor based on the samples supplied which is very small portion of the tailings already deposited and still to be deposited and variances in behaviour in actual deposits can still occur.

The main conclusions are summarized as follows:

• The coarse discard is a good embankment construction material from a stability and drainage point of view.

• The slurry fines material can be compacted to reasonably low permeability to limit seepage but not quite to the point of acting as an impermeable liner.

• From the consolidation tests one can deduct that the rate of consolidation of the fines slurry should be reasonably good, which is consistent with the low clay (-2µm) content.

• The fines slurry settles very well, except for a small fraction that takes longer to clarify, and reaches reasonably high densities under self weight consolidation.

• The fines slurry dries well under evaporative conditions up to 75% solids (1.2 t/m3 dry density) when the drying rate starts to decrease.

16 FURTHER WORK

The test work done on the samples collected should be followed up with field testing in tails deposits such as Pit A.

Somkhele Mine: Waste Material Properties Report

APPENDIX A

MALVERN PSD TEST RESULTS


APPENDIX B

PSD AND ATTERBERG TEST RESULTS

Client Name: Inqubeko Consulting Engineers

Project Name: Somkhele

Job Number: KGR-02

Date: 2018-03-02

Method: SANS 3001 GR1, GR10 & ASTM D422

Sample Fines Discard Discard Fines Discard Discard

Desc. (SF110) (Coarse) (Medium) (SF110) (Coarse) (Medium)

Lab No KGR-02-03 KGR-02-06 KGR-02-07 KGR-02-03 KGR-02-06 KGR-02-07

75.0 100 100 100 39 0 0

63.0 100 100 100 32 0 0

53.0 100 100 100 7 SP NP

37.5 100 92 100 3.2 0.4 0.0

28.0 100 81 100 7 0 0

20.0 100 72 100

14.0 100 65 100 0 74 69

10.0 100 56 94 21 22 29

7.1 100 49 84 60 3 1

5.00 100 40 69 19 1 1

2.00 100 26 31 0.4 0.0 0.0

1.00 100 20 14

0.425 99 14 9 100 26 31

0.250 98 10 6

0.150 93 7 4 0.16 2.55 2.57

0.075 85 5 3 N / T N / T N / T

0.050 75 3 2 1.946 2.336 2.306

0.020 59 2 1

0.006 35 1 1 ML GW-GM SW

0.002 19 1 1 A - 4 A - 1 - a A - 1 - a

Remarks: *: Assumed

N / T: Not Tested

Grading Modulus

Moisture Content (%)

Relative Density (SG)*

FOUNDATION INDICATOR

Liquid Limit (%)

Plastic Limit (%)

Plasticity Index (%)

Linear Shrinkage (%)

PI of whole sample

% Gravel

% Sand

% Silt

Activity

Grading & Hydrometer Analysis

(Particle Size (mm) & % Passing)Atterberg Limits & Classification

Although everything possible is done to ensure testing is performed accurately, neither Specialised Testing Laboratory (Pty) Ltd nor any of its directors, managers, employees or contractors

can be held liable for any damages whatsoever arising from any error made in performing any tests, nor from any conclusions drawn therefrom. Test results are to be published in full.

Samples will be kept for 1 month after the submission of test results due to limited storage space, unless other arrangements are in place.

Unified (ASTM D2487)

AASHTO (M145-91)

Lab No

% Clay

% Soil Mortar

Depth (m)

Sample

Client Name: Inqubeko Consulting Engineers

Project Name: Somkhele

Job Number: KGR-02

Date: 2018-03-02

Method: SANS 3001 GR1, GR10 & ASTM D422

Although everything possible is done to ensure testing is performed accurately, neither Specialised Testing Laboratory (Pty) Ltd nor any of its directors, managers, employees or contractors

can be held liable for any damages whatsoever arising from any error made in performing any tests, nor from any conclusions drawn therefrom. Test results are to be published in full.

Samples will be kept for 1 month after the submission of test results due to limited storage space, unless other arrangements are in place.

FOUNDATION INDICATOR

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

% P

assin

g

Size (mm)

PSD

KGR-02-03

KGR-02-06

KGR-02-07

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

PI o

f W

ho

le s

amp

le

Clay Fraction of Whole sample

Potential Expansiveness

KGR-02-03 KGR-02-06 KGR-02-07

MED

IUM

HIG

H

LOW

VERY

HIG

H

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pla

stic

ity

Ind

ex

Liquid Limit

Casagrande Plasticity Chart

KGR-02-03 KGR-02-06 KGR-02-07

CL -ML

ML o r OL

CL o r OL

MH o r OH

CH o r OH

Inqubeko Consulting Engineers

-

Somkhele

-

Atterberg Limits *

LL

(%)

PI

(%)

LS (

%)

Description

2.349

AR

D

(-53m

m +

37m

m)

2.306

2.01

1.946

45

42 7 3.0

AR

D

(-7.1

mm

+ 5

mm

)

2.317 2.366

AR

D

(-28m

m +

20m

m)

AR

D

(-14m

m +

10m

m)

Fines (SF110)

Fines (SF101)

Fines (SF103)

Discard (Coarse)

Discard (Medium)

Remarks:

07

2.336 2.37006

05

8 1.704

1.860

Lab no

Part

icle

Den

sity

(SG

) (-

2m

m)

03

Project Name: Job Reference no:

Source: Project No: Date:

KGR-02

02.03.2018

PROPERTIES OF AGGREGATE & SANDSheet reference:

R-STL-005

Client:

Test Method(s) : SANS 3001-AG1 / AG2 / AG4 / AG5 / AG10 / AG14 / AG15 / AG20 / AG21 / AG22 SANS202 / 850 / 5833 /

5837 / 5839 / 5840 / 5846 / 5849 / 5850 / 5856 / 6243 / 5832 (if applicable)

Although everything possible is done to ensure testing is performed accurately, neither Specialised Testing Laboratory (Pty) Ltd nor any of its directors, managers, employees or contractors can held liable for any damages whatsoever arising from any error made in performing any tests, nor from any conclusions drawn therefrom.

Test results are to be published in full. Samples will be kept for 1 month after the submission of test results due to limited storage space, unless other arrangements are in place.

Inqubeko Consulting Engineers BS 1377 Part 2

Somkhele 12/03/2018

KGR-02

Lab No Sample Depth (m)

1.124 1.946 0.732

NMC (%)

Bulk

Density

(g/cm³)

Dry Density

(g/cm³)

Particle

Density (SG)Void Ratio

17.6 1.321

40.3 1.348 0.961 1.946 1.025KGR-02-03

46.7 32.1

76.5 30.7Fines

(SF110)-

Job Number:

Method:

Date:

Client Name:

Project Name:

Although everything possible is done to ensure testing is performed accurately, neither Specialised Testing Laboratory (Pty) Ltd nor any of its directors, managers, employees or contractors can be held liable for any damages whatsoever

arising from any error made in performing any tests, nor from any conclusions drawn therefrom. Test results are to be published in full. Samples will be kept for 1 month after the submission of test results due to limited storage space, unless

other arrangements are in place.

DENSITY & MOISTURE CONTENT OF UNDISTURBED SAMPLES

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Porosity (%)


APPENDIX C

SETTLING TEST RESULTS

FREE SETTLING TEST

Sample name

Project Somkhele mine Sample description Fine tailings

Date test started 25-Nov-17

Date test stopped 26-Nov-17 Particle density (g/cm3) 1.995

Test duration (hours) 25 Water density (g/cm3) 0.9973

Test temperature (°C) 24 Settling cylinder volume (ml) 997.3

Starting solids % (wt.%) 5.4% Starting slurry density (g/cm3) 1.0247

Final solids % (wt.%) 41.3% Final dry density (t/m3) 0.533

Supernatant clarity clear at end

Free settling rate (mm/h) 432

Fines Slurry (SF100)

45%350

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 5 10 15 20 25

% S

oli

ds

(w

t%)

Se

ttle

d h

eig

ht

(mm

)

Hours

Settled Height

Free settling rate

% Solids (wt %)

Hours

FREE SETTLING TEST

Sample name

Project Somkhele mine Sample description Fine tailings

Date test started 03-Feb-18

Date test stopped 04-Feb-18 Particle density (g/cm3) 1.995

Test duration (hours) 20 Water density (g/cm3) 0.9968

Test temperature (°C) 26 Settling cylinder volume (ml) 970.6

Starting solids % (wt.%) 10.2% Starting slurry density (g/cm3) 1.0506

Final solids % (wt.%) 39.5% Final dry density (t/m3) 0.491

Supernatant clarity clear at end

Free settling rate (mm/h) 298

Fines Slurry (SF110)

40%400

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15 20 25

% S

oli

ds

(w

t%)

Se

ttle

d h

eig

ht

(mm

)

Hours

Settled Height

Free settling rate

% Solids (wt %)

Hours


APPENDIX D

COMPACTION TEST RESULTS

Inqubeko Consulting Engineers KGR-02

Somkhele KGR-02-03

Fines (SF110) SANS 3001 GR30

-

Maximum Dry Density: kg/m³ Optimum Moisture Content: %

Moisture Content (%):

Dry Density (kg/m³) 1278 1305 1311 1281

Client Name:

Project Name:

Sample:

Depth: (m)

Although everything possible is done to ensure testing is performed accurately, neither Specialised Testing Laboratory (Pty) Ltd nor any of its directors, managers, employees or contractors can not be held liable for any damages whatsoever



MDD & OMC DETERMINATION (Mod. AASHTO)

Job Number:

Lab Number:

Method:

Date: 23-Feb-18

1316 17.1

15.3 16.3 17.3 18.3

1275

1280

1285

1290

1295

1300

1305

1310

1315

15.0 15.5 16.0 16.5 17.0 17.5 18.0 18.5

Dry

Den

sity

(kg

/m³)



Somkhele KGR-02-03

Fines (SF110) SANS 3001 GR40

-

2.54 5.08 7.62

Client Name: Job Number:

Project Name: Lab Number:

Sample: Method:

Depth: (m) Date: 02-Mar-18

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO

Mod. AASHTO Values Compaction Data: CBRSwell CBR at (mm) CBR Values

MDD OMC Dry Dens. MC Comp.

(kg/m³) (%) (kg/m³) (%) (%) (%) Compaction (%) CBR

1316 17.1 1330 18.6 101.1 1.8 12 14 15

100 10.4

98 8.4

7.6

95 5.81316 17.1 1265 18.6 96.1 2.0

2.4

7 7 8

97

3 4 3

93

1316 17.1 1196 18.6 90.9

4.3

90 2.8

Although everything possible is done to ensure testing is performed accurately, neither Specialised Testing Laboratory (Pty) Ltd nor any of its directors, managers, employees or contractors can be held liable for any damages whatsoever arising from any

error made in performing any tests, nor from any conclusions drawn therefrom. Test results are to be published in full. Samples will be kept for 1 month after the submission of test results due to limited storage space, unless other arrangements are in

place.

1

10

100

1000

90.0 92.0 94.0 96.0 98.0 100.0 102.0

Cal

ifo

rnia

Be

arin

g R

atio

(C

BR

)

Compaction (%)


Somkhele KGR-02-06

Discard (Coarse) SANS 3001 GR30

-



Dry Density (kg/m³) 1822 1840 1849 1835 1819

Client Name:

Project Name:

Sample:

Depth: (m)





Job Number:

Lab Number:

Method:

Date: 23-Feb-18

1849 8.2

6.2 7.2 8.2 9.2 10.2

1815

1820

1825

1830

1835

1840

1845

1850

1855

6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5

Dry

Den

sity

(kg

/m³)



Somkhele KGR-02-06

Discard (Coarse) SANS 3001 GR40

-

2.54 5.08 7.62



Sample: Method:






1849 8.2 1848 8.7 99.9 0.0 49 55 57

100 49

98 35

30

95 221849 8.2 1761 8.7 95.2 0.0

0.0

22 24 25

97

17 17 18

93

1849 8.2 1704 8.7 92.2

18

90 14



place.

1

10

100

1000

91.0 92.0 93.0 94.0 95.0 96.0 97.0 98.0 99.0 100.0 101.0

Cal

ifo

rnia

Be

arin

g R

atio

(C

BR

)

Compaction (%)


Somkhele KGR-02-07

Discard (Medium) SANS 3001 GR30

-



Dry Density (kg/m³)





Job Number:

Lab Number:

Method:

Date: 23-Feb-18

1648 12.9

11.5 12.5 13.5 14.5

Client Name:

Project Name:

Sample:

Depth: (m)

1629 1646 1644 1625

1620

1625

1630

1635

1640

1645

1650

11.0 11.5 12.0 12.5 13.0 13.5 14.0 14.5 15.0

Dry

Den

sity

(kg

/m³)



Somkhele KGR-02-07

Discard (Medium) SANS 3001 GR40

-

2.54 5.08 7.62



Sample: Method:






1648 12.9 1724 11.7 104.6 0.0 32 42 45

100 24

98 21

19

95 151648 12.9 1602 11.7 97.2 0.1

0.2

20 21 22

97

11 12 13

93

1648 12.9 1528 11.7 92.7

12

90 8



place.

1

10

100

1000

92.0 94.0 96.0 98.0 100.0 102.0 104.0 106.0

Cal

ifo

rnia

Be

arin

g R

atio

(C

BR

)

Compaction (%)


APPENDIX E

PERMEABILITY TEST RESULTS

SLURRY PERMEABILITY TEST

Sample name SK110 Cw (%solids) K (cm/s) Dry Denisty

Site/Project Somkhele 42.1% 1.128E-04 0.532

Sample description Slurry samples collected from 42.7% 7.769E-05 0.541

process plant 43.8% 5.563E-05 0.541

Sample dewatering Settling 44.4% 4.587E-05 0.559

Processing date Dec 2017 45.7% 3.622E-05 0.569

Test date 04-Feb-18 46.3% 3.239E-05 0.590

Test temp oC (appr) 25 47.7% 2.417E-05 0.601

Initial sample thickness (cm) 6.1 49.1% 1.927E-05 0.624

Final sample thickness (cm) 4.5 50.6% 1.718E-05 0.649

Sample diameter (cm) 6.4 51.4% 1.489E-05 0.676

Filter type 5 mm silty sand

Test method Falling head

Water density 0.9965 (at lab temperature)

Particle density 1.995 (tested)

12.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

40

%

42

%

44

%

46

%

48

%

50

%

52

%

54

%Pe

rme

ab

ilit

y x

10

-5cm

/s

Cw (%solids)

Project: Somkhele

Sample Number: Fines (SF110) (KGR-02-03)

Sample Position:

Test: Sedimentation Settling Test

Sample Date: -

Lab Number: 18052

Test Date: 6-Mar-18

Preparation:

Total volume prepared (cm3): 510.0

Preparation moisture content of moist soil (%): 0.0

Target RD: 1.32

Gs: 1.95

Mass dry soil used (g): 336.8

Additional water added (g): 336.9

Total mass of solids and water (g): 673.7

Cylinder Number: 1

Cylinder Diameter (cm): 5.12

Sedimentation Test: Data

TimeSediment

volume

Sediment

height

Dry

density

(min) (cm3) (cm) (g/cm

3)

0 521 25.3 2.01 0.647

120 521 25.3 2.01 0.647

1250 516 25.1 1.98 0.653

1670 515 25.0 1.97 0.654

2700 505 24.5 1.92 0.666

4265 490 23.8 1.83 0.687

8420 474 23.0 1.74 0.710

9890 469 22.8 1.71 0.718

11430 467 22.7 1.70 0.721

12795 464 22.5 1.68 0.726

14435 459 22.3 1.65 0.734

18620 458 22.2 1.65 0.736

20300 456 22.1 1.63 0.739

22865 455 22.1 1.63 0.741

24285 455 22.1 1.63 0.741

In 17 days

Void

ratioComments

Settling Complete

250 ORION AveMonument Park 0181

PO Box 26272Monument Park 0105

Tel/Fax 012 346 7586Cell: 082 375 3003

[email protected]. No: cc 200004833323

Project: Somkhele


Sample Position: 0

Test: Sedimentation Settling Test

Sample Date: -

Lab Number: 18052

Test Date: 6-Mar-18

Sedimentation Test: Graphs

21.5

22.0

22.5

23.0

23.5

24.0

24.5

25.0

25.5

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Sediment Height (cm)

Time (min)

0.64

0.66

0.68

0.70

0.72

0.74

0.76

1.50

1.60

1.70

1.80

1.90

2.00

2.10

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Dry Density (g/cm3)

Void Ratio

Time (min)



Tel/Fax 012 346 7586Cell: 082 375 3003


Project: Somkhele


Sample Position: 0

Test: Falling Head Permeability

Sample Date: -

Lab Number: 18052

Test Date: 6-Mar-18

Falling Head Permeability Test: Data

Time Sediment

Volume

Sediment

Height

Dry

DensityHead Perm. Comments

(min) (cm3) (cm) (g/cm

3) (cm) (cm/s)

0 455 22.1 1.63 0.741 25.3

50 449 21.8 1.59 0.751 25.0 0.00E+00 Open Drain

160 443 21.5 1.56 0.760 24.6 4.63E-05

575 433 21.0 1.50 0.778 24.0 1.92E-05

1515 418 20.3 1.41 0.807 23.3 1.14E-05

2015 412 20.0 1.38 0.817 23.0 7.24E-06

2940 407 19.8 1.35 0.827 22.5 7.85E-06

4480 402 19.5 1.32 0.838 21.8 7.18E-06

4840 402 19.5 1.32 0.838 21.7 4.18E-06 Closed

11670 402 19.5 1.32 0.838 21.7 0.00E+00 Open

14525 402 19.5 1.32 0.838 20.3 7.64E-06

15855 402 19.5 1.32 0.838 19.8 6.13E-06

16450 402 19.5 1.32 0.838 19.5 6.99E-06

18734 379 18.4 1.19 0.888 Interfaced

22096 371 18.0 1.14 0.908 in 12 days

23185 371 18.0 1.14 0.908

26050 369 17.9 1.13 0.913

30325 368 17.9 1.13 0.915 Complete in

21 days

Final Moist:

63.00%

Void

Ratio



Tel/Fax 012 346 7586Cell: 082 375 3003


Project: Somkhele


Sample Position: 0

Test: Falling Head Permeability

Sample Date: -

Lab Number: 18052

Test Date: 6-Mar-18

Falling Head Permeability Test: Graphs

17.0

17.5

18.0

18.5

19.0

19.5

20.0

20.5

21.0

21.5

22.0

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

Sediment Height (cm)

Time (min)

0.70

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.50

1.60

1.70

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

Dry Density (g/cm3)

Void Ratio

Time (min)



Tel/Fax 012 346 7586Cell: 082 375 3003


Project: Somkhele Test Type: Permeameter Constant Head Permeability

Sample No: KGR-02-06 Sample Preparation: Compaction mould by client

Sample Position: Coarse Discard @ MOD Start Date: Rev 0

Lab No.: 18/053(A)

Preparation: Time Readings and Permeability:

Specified Dry Density (kg/m3): 1849

Time (sec.) Flow (ml)Flow Rate

(Q) (m3/s)

kT = Q/(ί *A)

(m/s)

Optimum Moisture Content (%): 8.2 Flow Started:

Target % of Dry Density (%): 100 Run 1 480 1065 2.22E-06 9.61E-06

Target Dry Density (kg/m3): 1849 Run 2 480 1083 2.26E-06 9.77E-06

Target Moisture Content (%): 8.2 Run 3 480 1097 2.29E-06 9.90E-06

Specimen Length L (mm): 127.4 Run 4 480 1137 2.37E-06 1.03E-05

Specimen Diameter (mm): 152.0 Run 5 480 1147 2.39E-06 1.03E-05

Specimen Area A (mm2): 18152.4 Run 6 480 1174 2.45E-06 1.06E-05

Specimen Vol. (cm3): 2311.9 Run 7 480 1189 2.48E-06 1.07E-05

Sample Mass (g): 4644 Run 8 480 1158 2.41E-06 1.04E-05

Specimen Moisture Content(%): 8.5% Run 9 480 1158 2.41E-06 1.04E-05

Specimen Bulk Density (kg/m3): 2009

Specimen Dry Density (kg/m3): 1852

Final % of Specified Dry Density (%): 100.2%

Particle Density: 2.35 Flow Stopped:

Vol. of Soil (Vs) (cm3): 1823.6 Final kT: 9.61E-06

Initial Vol. of Voids (Vv) cm3): 488.4 kT20 Temperature Correction: 9.86E-06

Initial Voids Ratio (e) (Vv/Vs): 0.27

Head Above Outlet (∆h) (mm): 1620 Notes:

Hydraulic Gradient (ί = ∆h/L): 12.72

Soaking Tank Water Temperature (°C): 20.2

Temperature Correction Factor: 1.03

Permeability (K.H. Head Vol. 2): kT = 3.84(aL/At)log10(h1/h2)x10-5

m/s

4/3/18 21:48

Permeability kT20 = 9.86E-06 m/s

03-Apr-18

4/3/18 14:05



Tel/Fax 012 346 7586Cell: 082 375 3003


Page 1



Sample Position: Coarse Discard @ Proctor Start Date: Rev 0

Lab No.: 18/053(B)




(Q) (m3/s)

kT = Q/(ί *A)

(m/s)











Specimen Bulk Density (kg/m3): 1823












m/s

4/3/18 12:21


03-Apr-18

4/3/18 9:10



Tel/Fax 012 346 7586Cell: 082 375 3003


Page 2



Sample Position: Medium Discard @ MOD Start Date: Rev 0

Lab No.: 18/054(A)




(Q) (m3/s)

kT = Q/(ί *A)

(m/s)











Specimen Bulk Density (kg/m3): 1885 Run 10 230 948 4.12E-06 1.78E-05












m/s

4/5/18 15:03


04-Apr-18

4/4/18 14:00



Tel/Fax 012 346 7586Cell: 082 375 3003


Page 3



Sample Position: Medium Discard @ Proctor Start Date: Rev 0

Lab No.: 18/054(B)




(Q) (m3/s)

kT = Q/(ί *A)

(m/s)











Specimen Bulk Density (kg/m3): 1697 Run 10 50 998 2.00E-05 8.59E-05












m/s

4/4/18 13:30


04-Apr-18

4/4/18 8:35



Tel/Fax 012 346 7586Cell: 082 375 3003


Page 4

Project: Somkhele Test Type: Permeameter Cell Falling Head Permeability


Sample Position: Fines (SF110) MOD Start Date: Rev 0 29-Mar-18

Lab No.: 18/052 (A)



Optimum Moisture Content (%): 17.1%

Target % of Dry Density (%): 100.0% kT (m/s)

Target Dry Density (kg/m3): 1316

Target Moisture Content (%): 10.4% Run 1 0.0 1770.0 1.14 3.64E-09

Specimen Length L (mm): 127.3 42.0 1548.7 3.49E-09

Specimen Diameter (mm): 152.1 102.0 1299.8 1.19 3.34E-09

Specimen Area A (mm2): 18175.7 Run 2 0.0 1770.0 1.14 3.96E-09

Specimen Vol. (cm3): 2314.3 39.0 1546.6 3.88E-09

Sample Mass (g): 3526.0 79.0 1354.9 1.14 3.79E-09

Specimen Moisture Content(%): 16.5% Run 3 0.0 1770.0 1.18 3.70E-09

Specimen Bulk Density (kg/m3): 1524 52.0 1496.6 3.40E-09

Specimen Dry Density (kg/m3): 1308 97.0 1324.3 1.13 3.11E-09


Particle Density: 1.95

Vol. of Soil (Vs) (cm3): 1555.5

Initial Vol. of Voids (Vv) cm3): 758.8


Tube Area (a ) (mm2): 9.8



Permeability (K.H. Head Vol 2):

kT = 3.84(aL/At)log10(h1/h2)x10-5

m/s

Selected kT: 3.40E-09

kT20 Temperature Correction: 3.64E-09


Elapsed Time

(min)

Height (h)

above outlet

(mm)

Height Ratio

(h1/h3 or

h3/h2)

Averaged kT:



Tel/Fax 012 346 7586Cell: 082 375 3003


Page 1

Project: Somkhele Test Type: Permeameter Cell Falling Head Permeability


Sample Position: Fines (SF110) Proctor Start Date: Rev 0 01-Apr-18

Lab No.: 18/052 (B)



Optimum Moisture Content (%): 17.1%

Target % of Dry Density (%): 100.0% kT (m/s)

Target Dry Density (kg/m3): 1316

Target Moisture Content (%): 10.4% Run 1 0.0 1770.0 1.17 8.48E-08

Specimen Length L (mm): 126.4 2.1 1515.0 8.43E-08

Specimen Diameter (mm): 152.2 4.6 1260.0 1.20 8.37E-08

Specimen Area A (mm2): 18193.6 Run 2 0.0 1770.0 1.17 8.62E-08

Specimen Vol. (cm3): 2299.4 2.1 1515.0 8.55E-08

Sample Mass (g): 3189.0 4.5 1260.0 1.20 8.49E-08

Specimen Moisture Content(%): 16.5% Run 3 0.0 1770.0 1.17 8.69E-08

Specimen Bulk Density (kg/m3): 1387 2.0 1515.0 8.56E-08

Specimen Dry Density (kg/m3): 1191 4.5 1260.0 1.20 8.43E-08

Final % of Specified Dry Density (%): 90.5% Run 4 0.0 1770.0 1.17 8.69E-08

Particle Density: 1.95 2.0 1515.0 8.56E-08

Vol. of Soil (Vs) (cm3): 1406.9 4.5 1260.0 1.20 8.43E-08

Initial Vol. of Voids (Vv) cm3): 892.6 Run 5 0.0 1770.0 1.17 8.69E-08

Initial Voids Ratio (e) (Vv/Vs): 0.63 2.0 1515.0 8.53E-08

Tube Area (a ) (mm2): 9.8 4.5 1260.0 1.20 8.37E-08



Permeability (K.H. Head Vol 2):

kT = 3.84(aL/At)log10(h1/h2)x10-5

m/s

Selected kT: 8.43E-08

kT20 Temperature Correction: 8.75E-08


Elapsed Time

(min)

Height (h)

above outlet

(mm)

Height Ratio

(h1/h3 or

h3/h2)

Averaged kT:



Tel/Fax 012 346 7586Cell: 082 375 3003


Page 2


APPENDIX F

SHEAR TEST RESULTS

Inqubeko Consulting Engineers Job Number: KGR-02 Somkhele Lab Number: KGR-02-03Fines (SF 110) Date: 09/04/2018- Method: BS 1377 Part 8

Saturated, Consolidated Undrained with Pore Water Pressure MeasurementsRemoulded to lowest possible densityNoTo One End-

Increments of Cell- and Backpressure

*: At commencement of Shear

Maximum Deviator Stress

s1's3'

Depth: (m)

Client Name:Project Name:Sample:

Void Ratio -

Volume cm³Moisture Content %

Dry Density g/cm³24.1

Diameter mmLength mm

196.3 196.3

CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST

Specimen 3Specimen 2Specimen 150.0

Although everything possible is done to ensure testing is performed accurately, neither Specialised Testing Laboratory (Pty) Ltd nor any of its directors, managers, employees or contractors can be held liable for any damages whatsoever arising

from any error made in performing any tests, nor from any conclusions drawn therefrom. Test results are to be published in full. Samples will be kept for 1 month after the submission of test results due to limited storage space, unless other

arrangements are in place.

General Test DataType of Test:Type of Sample:Side Drains:Drainage:Comments:

Initial Specimen Details

Degree of Saturation

24.7 24.61.016 1.010 1.0120.916 0.927 0.923

50.0 50.0100.0 100.0 100.0196.3

End of Saturation Phase

Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3Method:

% 51.1 51.9 51.8Particle Density (SG) - 1.946

0.99 0.99 0.97

Consolidation Phase

Cell Pressure kPa 200 200 150Back Pressure kPa 190 190 140

Effective Stress * kPa

Cell Pressure kPaBack Pressure kPa

Pore Pressure (Initial) kPa

B Value -

142.7

340 490 740190 190 140

Pore Pressure (Final) kPa

Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3

Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3

Volumetric Strain %

End of Shear PhaseFailure Criterion:

Rate of Strain 1.0 %/hour

147.6 298.2 599.37.7 9.7 12.7

329.2 478.1 724.3190.7 190.7

85 173kPa

Moisture Content %Dry Density g/cm³

166.0 356.18.5 10.3

Principal StresseskPa 132 251 529

42

Corrected Deviator Stressat Axial Strain

kPa%

89.715.4

0.768 0.741 0.679Void Ratio -

Final Specimen Details32.3 30.5 28.9

1.101 1.118 1.159





Client Name:Project Name:Sample:Depth: (m)


0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Vo

l. St

rain

(%

)

Root Time (min) 0.5

Consolidation

Specimen 1

Specimen 2

Specimen 3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

PW

P D

issi

pat

ion

(%

)

Time (min)

Pore Water Pressure Dissipation

Specimen 1

Specimen 2

Specimen 3







0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Dev

iato

r St

ress

(kP

a)

Axial Strain (%)

Deviator Stress vs Axial Strain

Specimen 1

Specimen 2

Specimen 3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Exce

ss P

WP

(kP

a)

Axial Strain (%)

Excess Pore Water Pressure vs Axial Strain

Specimen 1

Specimen 2

Specimen 3







f' Deg.c' kPa

300

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

t (k

Pa)

s' (kPa)

Specimen 1

Specimen 2

Specimen 3


APPENDIX G

CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS


Somkhele KGR-02-03

Fines (SF 110) BS 1377 Part 5

- 09/04/2018

Remoulded from a slurry to the lowest possible density

Determined

6 12 25 50 100 200 400 800 1600 400 100 25 6

12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 3 3 3 3

24.12 23.95 23.33 21.86 20.76 20.01 19.13 18.33 17.46 17.84 18.11 18.37 18.59

5.04 5.72 8.14 13.94 18.26 21.21 24.69 27.84 31.25 29.75 28.69 27.67 26.81

1.001 0.986 0.935 0.813 0.722 0.660 0.587 0.520 0.448 0.480 0.502 0.524 0.542

- 1.195 1.978 2.523 1.004 0.362 0.221 0.104 0.059 0.018 0.051 0.190 0.626

Test Remarks:

-

25.4

55.5

924

1.107

1.946

Initial

97.5

-

%

Unit

Moisture ContentInitial

Final % 30.3

%

Void Ratio

Mv (1/Mpa)

-

-

Dry Density kg/m³




Height after increment

ONE DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION TEST

Vertical Stress Applied: kPa

Load applied for: Hrs

mm

Sample Info

Test Specimen Height

Void Ratio

Degree of Saturation

Relative Density (SG)

mm

Total Strain %

Job Number:

Lab Number:

Method:

Date:

Client Name:

Project Name:

Sample:

Depth: (m)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 10 100 1000 10000

Stra

in (

%)

Vertical Stress (kPa)

Strain vs Log Stress


Somkhele KGR-02-03


- 09/04/2018


Determined

6 12 25 50 100 200 400 800 1600 400 100 25 6

12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 3 3 3 3

24.12 23.95 23.33 21.86 20.76 20.01 19.13 18.33 17.46 17.84 18.11 18.37 18.59

5.04 5.72 8.14 13.94 18.26 21.21 24.69 27.84 31.25 29.75 28.69 27.67 26.81

1.001 0.986 0.935 0.813 0.722 0.660 0.587 0.520 0.448 0.480 0.502 0.524 0.542

- 1.195 1.978 2.523 1.004 0.362 0.221 0.104 0.059 0.018 0.051 0.190 0.626




Total Strain %

Void Ratio -

Mv (1/Mpa) -

Vertical Stress Applied: kPa

Load applied for: Hrs

Height after increment mm

Degree of Saturation % 97.5

Relative Density (SG) - 1.946

Dry Density kg/m³ 924

Void Ratio - 1.107

Test Specimen Height mm 25.4

% 55.5Moisture Content

Initial

Final % 30.3

Depth: (m) Date:


Sample Info Unit Initial Test Remarks:



Sample: Method:

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1 10 100 1000 10000

Vo

id R

atio

Vertical Stress (kPa)

Void Ratio vs Log Stress


Somkhele KGR-02-03


-


Determined

0.000 0.320 0.427 0.444 0.459 0.478 0.516 0.558 0.588 0.635 0.678 0.722 0.801

0.852 0.925 1.012 1.075 1.152 1.220 1.263 1.299 1.323 1.331 1.346 1.356 1.372

1.380 1.386 1.393 1.401 1.406 1.411 1.415 1.413 1.417 1.426 1.430 1.438 1.442

1.446 1.448 1.471

0.00 0.32 0.45 0.47 0.50 0.55 0.59 0.65 0.71 0.77 0.86 0.95 1.06

1.17 1.30 1.45 1.62 1.81 2.02 2.27 2.54 2.84 3.18 3.57 4.00 4.48

5.02 5.64 6.32 7.09 7.95 8.92 10.01 11.23 12.59 14.13 15.85 17.79 19.96

22.39 25.12 26.84

Sqrt Time Sqrt min




Load kPa 50

Displacement

(Increment only)mm




Void Ratio - 1.107


Moisture ContentInitial % 55.5

Final % 30.3

Depth: (m) Date: 04/04/2018





Sample: Method:

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Dis

pac

em

en

t (m

m)

Sqrt Time (min)

Displacement vs Sqrt Time


Somkhele KGR-02-03


-


Determined

0.000 0.332 0.422 0.438 0.451 0.474 0.499 0.526 0.552 0.586 0.638 0.672 0.721

0.753 0.809 0.840 0.858 0.897 0.916 0.929 0.948 0.960 0.971 0.979 0.987 0.996

1.007 1.013 1.023 1.033 1.039 1.049 1.061 1.075 1.080 1.092 1.104 1.116 1.107

1.114 1.101 1.097

0.00 0.29 0.43 0.47 0.50 0.55 0.59 0.65 0.71 0.77 0.86 0.95 1.05

1.17 1.30 1.45 1.62 1.81 2.02 2.26 2.53 2.84 3.18 3.56 4.00 4.48

5.02 5.63 6.32 7.09 7.95 8.92 10.01 11.23 12.59 14.13 15.85 17.79 19.96

22.39 25.12 26.84

Sqrt Time Sqrt min




Load kPa 100

Displacement

(Increment only)mm




Void Ratio - 1.107



Final % 30.3

Depth: (m) Date: 04/04/2018





Sample: Method:

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Dis

pac

em

en

t (m

m)

Sqrt Time (min)



Somkhele KGR-02-03


-


Determined

0.000 0.252 0.330 0.341 0.364 0.381 0.400 0.428 0.456 0.477 0.502 0.534 0.547

0.578 0.593 0.603 0.616 0.625 0.631 0.633 0.640 0.649 0.655 0.668 0.670 0.673

0.678 0.685 0.686 0.701 0.702 0.701 0.709 0.716 0.717 0.724 0.729 0.731 0.732

0.733 0.740 0.751

0.00 0.29 0.43 0.47 0.50 0.53 0.59 0.65 0.71 0.77 0.86 0.95 1.05

1.17 1.30 1.45 1.62 1.81 2.02 2.26 2.53 2.84 3.18 3.56 4.00 4.48

5.02 5.63 6.32 7.09 7.95 8.92 10.01 11.23 12.59 14.13 15.85 17.79 19.96

22.39 25.12 26.84

Sqrt Time Sqrt min




Load kPa 200

Displacement

(Increment only)mm




Void Ratio - 1.107



Final % 30.3

Depth: (m) Date: 04/04/2018





Sample: Method:

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Dis

pac

em

en

t (m

m)

Sqrt Time (min)



Somkhele KGR-02-03


-


Determined

0.000 0.370 0.429 0.454 0.469 0.494 0.507 0.537 0.563 0.589 0.607 0.625 0.649

0.676 0.690 0.706 0.717 0.721 0.727 0.733 0.738 0.745 0.752 0.761 0.767 0.770

0.774 0.785 0.791 0.797 0.802 0.805 0.810 0.818 0.825 0.843 0.864 0.875 0.884

0.884 0.882 0.883

0.00 0.29 0.43 0.47 0.50 0.55 0.59 0.65 0.71 0.77 0.86 0.95 1.05

1.17 1.30 1.45 1.62 1.81 2.02 2.27 2.54 2.84 3.18 3.56 4.00 4.48

5.02 5.63 6.32 7.09 7.95 8.92 10.01 11.23 12.59 14.13 15.85 17.79 19.96

22.39 25.12 26.84

Sqrt Time Sqrt min




Load kPa 400

Displacement

(Increment only)mm




Void Ratio - 1.107



Final % 30.3

Depth: (m) Date: 04/04/2018





Sample: Method:

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Dis

pac

em

en

t (m

m)

Sqrt Time (min)



Somkhele KGR-02-03


-


Determined

0.000 0.338 0.446 0.461 0.473 0.502 0.529 0.545 0.573 0.610 0.634 0.642 0.655

0.664 0.683 0.690 0.700 0.707 0.717 0.719 0.726 0.724 0.732 0.733 0.742 0.744

0.747 0.759 0.761 0.758 0.768 0.772 0.776 0.779 0.783 0.785 0.782 0.788 0.789

0.789 0.789 0.800

0.00 0.32 0.45 0.48 0.52 0.55 0.59 0.65 0.71 0.79 0.86 0.95 1.06

1.17 1.30 1.45 1.62 1.81 2.02 2.27 2.54 2.84 3.18 3.57 4.00 4.48

5.02 5.63 6.32 7.09 7.95 8.92 10.01 11.23 12.59 14.13 15.85 17.79 19.96

22.39 25.12 26.84

Sqrt Time Sqrt min




Load kPa 800

Displacement

(Increment only)mm




Void Ratio - 1.107



Final % 30.3

Depth: (m) Date: 04/04/2018





Sample: Method:

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Dis

pac

em

en

t (m

m)

Sqrt Time (min)



Somkhele KGR-02-03


-


Determined

0.000 0.389 0.485 0.515 0.536 0.562 0.574 0.603 0.624 0.653 0.673 0.685 0.697

0.715 0.714 0.718 0.725 0.729 0.738 0.741 0.746 0.754 0.759 0.762 0.773 0.787

0.810 0.815 0.826 0.822 0.827 0.835 0.841 0.845 0.846 0.849 0.859 0.867 0.878

0.873 0.872 0.867

0.00 0.32 0.45 0.47 0.50 0.55 0.59 0.65 0.71 0.77 0.86 0.95 1.06

1.17 1.30 1.45 1.62 1.81 2.02 2.27 2.54 2.84 3.18 3.57 4.00 4.48

5.02 5.63 6.32 7.09 7.95 8.92 10.01 11.23 12.59 14.13 15.85 17.79 19.96

22.39 25.12 26.84

Sqrt Time Sqrt min




Load kPa 1600

Displacement

(Increment only)mm




Void Ratio - 1.107



Final % 30.3

Depth: (m) Date: 04/04/2018





Sample: Method:

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Dis

pac

em

en

t (m

m)

Sqrt Time (min)



APPENDIX H

YIELD STRESS TEST RESULTS

VANE YIELD STRESS CURVE 101

Sample name

Site/ Project

Sample description

Sample processing

Sample dewatering

Processing date

Test Date

Job no

Grit + definition 16.7% plus 75micron

% Solids (w/w) Yield Stress (Pa) % Solids (w/w)

no grit (calc)

54.4% 162.3 49.8%

46.0% 50.2 41.5%

41.2% 17.8 36.9%

34.3% 5.1 30.3%

- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

- - -

Dec 2017

30 January 2018

S1 Inqubeko

Comments 25 litre bucket

SF101

Somkhele

Fines slurry discharge from process plant

used as is

Sample settled by mine, then further settled and decanted

- - -

- - -

y = 16810.02019x7.60504

R² = 0.99662

y = 22424.18878x7.05218

R² = 0.99673

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Yie

ld S

tre

ss (

Pa

)

% Solids (w/w)

Full sample Fines Only (calc)


Sample name

Site/ Project

Sample description

Sample processing

Sample dewatering

Processing date

Test Date

Job no



no grit (calc)

49.7% 200.5 44.8%

47.5% 88.7 42.7%

45.1% 47.9 40.3%

42.5% 28.5 37.8%

39.7% 15.7 35.1%

35.9% 7.7 31.5%

29.5% 2.6 25.7%

- - -

- - -

Dec 2017

30 January 2018

S1 Inqubeko

Comments appr 50 litre dustbin

SF103

Somkhele

Fines slurry discharge from process plant

used as is

Sample settled by mine, then further settled and decanted

- - -

- - -

y = 34854.08826x8.05382

R² = 0.96285

y = 52137.86684x7.50874

R² = 0.96492

0

50

100

150

200

250

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Yie

ld S

tre

ss (

Pa

)

% Solids (w/w)



Sample name

Site/ Project

Sample description

Sample processing

Sample dewatering

Processing date

Test Date

Job no



no grit (calc)

53.0% 109.9 46.5%

50.1% 59.4 43.7%

47.5% 34.0 41.0%

42.2% 13.5 36.0%

35.5% 4.5 29.8%

30.3% 2.0 25.1%

26.0% 1.0 21.3%

- - -

- - -

Dec 2017

19 March 2018

S1 Inqubeko

Comments composite sample

SF110

Somkhele

Fines slurry from plant

Fines from 4 buckets 101-104 combined

Settled by the mine.

- - -

- - -

y = 5057.58989x6.55357

R² = 0.98240

y = 7878.64007x5.98700

R² = 0.98460

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Yie

ld S

tre

ss (

Pa

)

% Solids (w/w)


appendix 33 - gcs-sa.biz · cv - coefficient of consolidation cw - concentration by mass, or...

Documents