Compañía Minera Del Pacífico Cerro Negro Norte EP: 12m Concentrate Thickener

Compaa Minera del Pacfico
Cerro Negro Norte EP

12m Concentrate Thickener

Tank and Support Structure Design Report
P.O. #: 4531126184
Project #: DQ-120100
Tag # 2200-TH-0002
Doc #: 002-72-DR-002-2

Rev: 2
Date: August 23, 2013

Prepared by:
Alejandro A. Ortiz, Ph.D.
Comecsa Ltda.
Av. 11 de Septiembre 1881, Of. 721
Providencia, Santiago, Chile.
Reviewed by:
Juan H. Cassis, Ph.D.

Certified by:
Alejandro A. Ortiz, Ph.D.

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 1 -
Author: Alejandro A. Ortiz

History of revisions

2 CERTIFIED 08/23/2013
1 UPDATE CENTER COLUMN SHEAR KEY. INCLUDE
AMEC'S COMMENTS WHEN THEY APPLY
11/07/2012
0 CERTIFIED 08/17/2012
Revision Reason for revision Date

Contact Information

Alejandro A. Ortiz Bernardin, Ph.D
aortizb@comecsa.com
+56 (2) 897 38 20 / +56 (9) 945 33 217
http://www.comecsa.com

Comecsa Ltda.
Av. 11 de Septiembre 1881, Of. 721
Providencia, Santiago
Chile

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 2 -

Table of Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 4
2 Analysis and Modeling Strategy .............................................................................. 4
3 Design Bases .......................................................................................................... 4
3.1 Applicable Codes ............................................................................................ 4
3.2 Other References ............................................................................................ 5
4 Design Data ............................................................................................................ 6
4.1 Thickener Dimensional and Process Data ...................................................... 6
4.2 Materials of Construction ................................................................................. 6
4.2.1 Structural Steel .................................................................................................. 6
4.2.2 Bolted Connections ........................................................................................... 7
4.2.3 Welding ............................................................................................................. 7
4.3 Design Load Cases ......................................................................................... 7
4.4 Load Combinations ....................................................................................... 10
5 Finite Element Analysis ......................................................................................... 12
5.1 Finite Element Analysis Program .................................................................. 12
5.2 Modeling Assumptions .................................................................................. 12
5.3 Finite Element Meshes .................................................................................. 12
5.4 Elements Properties ...................................................................................... 14
5.5 Loading and Boundary Conditions ................................................................ 15
6 Results .................................................................................................................. 16
6.1 Stress Analysis .............................................................................................. 16
6.1.1 Tank Wall and Floor ........................................................................................ 16

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 3 -

6.1.2 Underflow Cone ............................................................................................... 17
6.2 Steel Design .................................................................................................. 17
6.2.1 Support Structure ............................................................................................ 17
6.2.2 Center Column Base Plate .............................................................................. 20
6.2.3 Columns Base Plates ...................................................................................... 21
6.2.4 Anchor Bolts and Shear Keys ......................................................................... 22
7 Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 23
Appendix A: Finite Element Result Plots ...................................................................... 24
Appendix B: Detailed Load Calculation ......................................................................... 35
Appendix C: Center Column Base Plate Calculation .................................................... 38
Appendix D: Columns Base Plate Calculation .............................................................. 49
Appendix E: Normal Operating and Upset Slurry Loads ............................................... 54

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 4 -

1 Introduction
In this report, the structural integrity for the tank and support structure of a 12m concentrate
thickener for Cerro Negro Norte Project is assessed. A finite element analysis was carried
out to investigate the stress state in the tank and to perform the steel design of the support
structure.
2 Analysis and Modeling Strategy
The complete thickener was modeled using a three-dimensional finite element program.
Different load cases were considered and combined to evaluate the three-dimensional re-
sponse of the tank and structure to the effects of self weight, maximum hydrostatic load,
seismic effects, wind effects, maintenance and live loads, and bridge loading.

A linear static analysis was performed to obtain the stress and deflection results that were
used to check the tank and support structure against failure.
3 Design Bases
To assess the structural integrity and to attest the safety of the thickener, the allowable
stress design method (ASD) was used. In this study, load cases and their combinations
were defined according to standard practice of thickener manufacturers, Chilean codes, in-
ternational codes for building and non-building structures such as IBC 2009 or ASCE 7-05
standard, and specialized codes for industrial tanks such as API 650.
3.1 Applicable Codes
The following codes were considered in this study:

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 5 -

Procedure Applicable codes

General dispositions for load cases
and load combinations.

Chilean code NCh3171.Of2010, Structural
Design - General Dispositions and Combina-
tions of Load, 2010.

Outotec's experience

Seismic load calculation

Chilean code NCh2369.Of2003, Earth-
quake-Resistant of Industrial Structures and
Facilities, 2003.

API 650 Standard, 11
th
Edition, June 2007,
Addendum 1, November 2008.

Wind load calculation

Chilean code NCh432.Of71, Calculation of the
Action of Wind on Structures, 1971.

For the seismic and wind loads, the procedures provided in Chilean Standards are already
available in an excel implementation. These calculations are provided in Appendix B of this
report.
3.2 Other References
Procedure Applicable codes

Base plates and anchorages calcu-
lation.

D. Moss, Pressure Vessel Design Manual,
Third Edition, 2004, Elsevier, MA, USA

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 6 -

4 Design Data
4.1 Thickener Dimensional and Process Data
The following is a list of parameters that define the tank geometry considered in this study
and that were obtained or calculated based on the Outotec's technical data sheet (TDS):

Diameter : 12 m
Floor Slope : 1:5 -
Floor SAG : 200 mm
Tank Wall Height : 2.4 m
Underflow Cone Max. Diameter : 1.2 m
Underflow Cone Min. Diameter : 0.324 m
Underflow Cone Slope : 1:1 -
Underside Base Plate Elevation : 0 m
Top of Tank Wall Elevation : 5.35 m
Number of Radial Beams : 8 -
Rings of Columns : 1 -
Center Column Diameter : 0.324 m
Corrosion Allowance : 0 mm
Slurry Specific Gravity for Upset Condition : 1.581 -
Normal Operating Equivalent Slurry Specific Gravity : 1.295 -

4.2 Materials of Construction
4.2.1 Structural Steel
ASTM A36 steel was used for the design of tank wall, tank floor, radial beams, columns and
bracings.

Chilean or European structural steel sections were considered for the support columns and
radial beams (see Section 6.2), whereas ANSI/ASME pipe schedules were considered for
the support bracings.

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 7 -

4.2.2 Bolted Connections
All connection bolts ASTM A325.
All anchor bolts ASTM A36 or ASTM 588 Gr. 50.
4.2.3 Welding
All welds adopted are 6 mm minimum size fillet. Minimum grade E70XX electrodes.
4.3 Design Load Cases
Seventeen design primary load cases were considered in the analysis.

Load Case Description
1: DT : Self weight of the tank and support structure. It is automatically cal-
culated by the program based on acceleration of gravity applied to
the model and a steel density of 7800 kg/m
3
.
2: DB : Self weight of the steel bridge and all its fixed components. Acceler-
ation of gravity is applied to the steel bridge, whereas fixed compo-
nents weights such as those from drive mechanism, rakes, feedwell
and torque tube are applied as nodal loads.
3: F1 : Slurry load in normal operating condition. It is introduced in the
model as hydrostatic pressure load by applying the underflow spe-
cific gravity to the normal operating mud bed level, and then the
overflow specific gravity to the top of the tank, which gives rise to
a normal operating equivalent specific gravity.
4: F2 : Slurry load in upset condition. It is introduced in the model as hy-
drostatic pressure load. This load case is considered to account for
settings in which the mud bed increases above design level gen-
erating high loads.
5: EX_DT : Horizontal seismic load (X-direction) due to tank and support struc-
ture weight. It is considered as an impulsive seismic force, which is
calculated according to the Chilean code NCh2369.Of2003, Section
5.3.3.
6: EX_DB : Horizontal seismic load (X-direction) due to bridge weight and its
fixed components. The bridge is considered as a secondary struc-

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 8 -

ture supported by another structure, whose seismic impulsive force
is calculated according to the Chilean code NCh2369.Of2003, Sec-
tion 7.2.2.
7: EX_F1 : Horizontal seismic load (X-direction) due to tank slurry at normal
operating density. The seismic force of the slurry above the bottom
of the tank wall comprises of a convective force and an impulsive
force. The first sloshing mode (convective mode) is calculated ac-
cording to the procedure given in ASCE/SEI 7-05 or API 650 (both
are equivalent), which yields a convective slurry mass and an im-
pulsive slurry mass (i.e., the mass that moves in unison with the
tank mass). The convective slurry mass is then considered in the
calculation of the convective force according to the Chilean code
NCh2369.Of2003, Section 5.3.3, using T* as the first sloshing mode
and x = 0.005. Finally, the impulsive slurry mass along with the slur-
ry on the floor cone, which is also assumed as impulsive, are con-
sidered in the calculation of the impulsive force according to the
Chilean code NCh2369.Of2003, Section 5.3.3 with T* as the period
of vibration of the tank in operating condition and x = 0.02. Howev-
er, the maximum value for the horizontal seismic coefficient is usu-
ally adopted.
8: EY_DT : Vertical seismic load (Y-direction) due to tank and support structure.
It is considered as an impulsive seismic force and calculated ac-
cording to the Chilean code NCh2369.Of2003 as 2/3 of the maxi-
mum effective acceleration (Ao) divided by acceleration of gravity.
9: EY_F1 : Vertical seismic load (Y-direction) due to tank slurry at normal oper-
ating density. It is considered as an impulsive seismic force, which
is computed using a vertical seismic coefficient that is calculated
according to the Chilean code NCh2369.Of2003 as 2/3 of the max-
imum effective acceleration (Ao) divided by acceleration of gravity.
10: EZ_DT : Horizontal seismic load (Z-direction) due to tank and support struc-
ture weight. It is considered as an impulsive seismic force, which is
calculated according to the Chilean code NCh2369.Of2003.
11: EZ_DB : Horizontal seismic load (Z-direction) due to bridge weight and its

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 9 -

fixed components. The bridge is considered as a secondary struc-
ture supported by another structure, whose seismic impulsive force
is calculated according to the Chilean code NCh2369.Of2003.
12: EZ_F1 : Horizontal seismic load (Z-direction) due to tank slurry at normal
operating density. The seismic force of the slurry above the bottom
of the tank wall comprises of a convective force and an impulsive
force. The first sloshing mode (convective mode) is calculated ac-
cording to the procedure given in ASCE/SEI 7-05 or API 650 (both
are equivalent), which yields a convective slurry mass and an im-
pulsive slurry mass (i.e., the mass that moves in unison with the
tank mass). The convective slurry mass is then considered in the
calculation of the convective force according to the Chilean code
NCh2369.Of2003, Section 5.3.3, using T* as the first sloshing mode
and x = 0.005. Finally, the impulsive slurry mass along with the slur-
ry on the floor cone, which is also assumed as impulsive, are con-
sidered in the calculation of the impulsive force according to the
Chilean code NCh2369.Of2003, Section 5.3.3 with T* as the period
of vibration of the tank in operating condition and x = 0.02. Howev-
er, the maximum value for the horizontal seismic coefficient is usu-
ally adopted.
13: WX : Horizontal wind load (X-direction) calculated according to
NCh432.Of71.
14: WZ : Horizontal wind load (Z-direction) calculated according to
NCh432.Of71.
15: M : Load due to maintenance over the bridge.
16: L : Lifting load applied on the bridge.
17: T : Torque load applied on the bridge.
18: Tn : Negative temperature variation. -20 C variation.
19: Tp : Positive temperature variation. 20 C variation.

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 10 -

4.4 Load Combinations
Several load combinations were considered in this study following the provisions of the Chil-
ean code NCh2369.Of2003. These combinations obey to find the worst scenarios for the
thickener in normal and upset conditions plus seismic, wind, permanent operating and live
loads.

The following are the assumptions considered to define the load combinations:

- When earthquake is combined with any other load, seismic effects on the slurry are
based on the normal operating slurry weight (F1).

- Bridge seismic has not been combined with tank seismic because bridge mass rep-
resents about 0.5% of the tank operating mass. For the same reason, vertical seis-
mic has not been considered for the bridge.

- Torque load is a permanent operating load.

- Lifting load is a live load

The following scenarios that define the load combinations were considered:

(Normal operating condition): Only permanent loads are active. Live loads do not occur.
C1: DT + DB + F1 + T

(Normal operating condition + lifting load): Permanent loads are active. Lifting load may occur to
avoid an upset condition.
C2: DT + DB + F1 + T + L

(Upset condition): Solid content in the pulp has increased. Torque load is tripped off, but lifting and
maintenance loads are active.
C3: DT + DB + F2 + L + M

(Normal operating condition + tank seismic load)
C4: DT + DB + F1 + T + EX_DT + EX_F1 + EY_DT + EY_F1
C5: DT + DB + F1 + T + EX_DT + EX_F1 - EY_DT - EY_F1
C6: DT + DB + F1 + T + EZ_DT + EZ_F1 + EY_DT + EY_F1
C7: DT + DB + F1 + T + EZ_DT + EZ_F1 - EY_DT - EY_F1
C8: DT + DB + F1 + T - EX_DT - EX_F1 + EY_DT + EY_F1
C9: DT + DB + F1 + T - EX_DT - EX_F1 - EY_DT - EY_F1
C10: DT + DB + F1 + T - EZ_DT - EZ_F1 + EY_DT + EY_F1
C11: DT + DB + F1 + T - EZ_DT - EZ_F1 - EY_DT - EY_F1

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 11 -

(Normal operating condition + tank seismic load + live loads)
C12: DT + DB + F1 + T + 0.75 EX_DT + 0.75 EX_F1 + 0.75 EY_DT + 0.75 EY_F1 + 0.75 L + 0.75 M
C13: DT + DB + F1 + T + 0.75 EX_DT + 0.75 EX_F1 - 0.75 EY_DT - 0.75 EY_F1 + 0.75 L + 0.75 M
C14: DT + DB + F1 + T + 0.75 EZ_DT + 0.75 EZ_F1 + 0.75 EY_DT + 0.75 EY_F1 + 0.75 L + 0.75 M
C15: DT + DB + F1 + T + 0.75 EZ_DT + 0.75 EZ_F1 - 0.75 EY_DT - 0.75 EY_F1 + 0.75 L + 0.75 M
C16: DT + DB + F1 + T - 0.75 EX_DT - 0.75 EX_F1 + 0.75 EY_DT + 0.75 EY_F1 + 0.75 L + 0.75 M
C17: DT + DB + F1 + T - 0.75 EX_DT - 0.75 EX_F1 - 0.75 EY_DT - 0.75 EY_F1 + 0.75 L + 0.75 M
C18: DT + DB + F1 + T - 0.75 EZ_DT - 0.75 EZ_F1 + 0.75 EY_DT + 0.75 EY_F1 + 0.75 L + 0.75 M
C19: DT + DB + F1 + T - 0.75 EZ_DT - 0.75 EZ_F1 - 0.75 EY_DT - 0.75 EY_F1 + 0.75 L + 0.75 M

(Normal operating condition + wind load)
C20: DT + DB + F1 + T + WX
C21: DT + DB + F1 + T - WX
C22: DT + DB + F1 + T + WZ
C23: DT + DB + F1 + T - WZ

(Normal operating condition + wind load + live loads)
C24: DT + DB + F1 + T + 0.75 WX + 0.75 L + 0.75 M
C25: DT + DB + F1 + T - 0.75 WX + 0.75 L + 0.75 M
C26: DT + DB + F1 + T + 0.75 WZ + 0.75 L + 0.75 M
C27: DT + DB + F1 + T - 0.75 WZ + 0.75 L + 0.75 M

(Erection condition + wind load): Tank is empty and erected and has not yet entered in operation.
Live loads are inactive.
C28: DT + DB + WX
C29: DT + DB - WX
C30: DT + DB + WZ
C31: DT + DB - WZ

(Erection condition + wind load + maintenance load): Tank is empty and erected and has not yet
entered in operation. Maintenance load is active.
C32: DT + DB + 0.75 WX + 0.75 M
C33: DT + DB - 0.75 WX + 0.75 M
C34: DT + DB + 0.75 WZ + 0.75 M
C35: DT + DB - 0.75 WZ + 0.75 M

(Operating condition + bridge seismic load)
C36: DT + DB + F1 + T + EX_DB
C37: DT + DB + F1 + T - EX_DB
C38: DT + DB + F1 + T + EZ_DB

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 12 -

C39: DT + DB + F1 + T - EZ_DB

(Operating condition + bridge seismic load + live loads)
C40: DT + DB + F1 + T + 0.75 EX_DB + 0.75 L + 0.75 M
C41: DT + DB + F1 + T - 0.75 EX_DB + 0.75 L + 0.75 M
C42: DT + DB + F1 + T + 0.75 EZ_DB + 0.75 L + 0.75 M
C43: DT + DB + F1 + T - 0.75 EZ_DB + 0.75 L + 0.75 M

In addition, all the 43 load combinations were combined with Tn and Tp as follows:
(C1 + Tp) to (C43 + Tp)
(C1 + Tn) to (C43 + Tn)
5 Finite Element Analysis
5.1 Finite Element Analysis Program
The finite element analysis software used was STAAD.Pro V.8i, which includes a complete
environment for steel design. Appendix A provides relevant results plots obtained from this
program.
5.2 Modeling Assumptions
For the analysis of the tank and support structure, fully fixed supports have been considered
at the base plate locations.
5.3 Finite Element Meshes
Tank wall, floor plates, radial beams, underflow cone and center column were fully modeled
using shell elements of equivalent thickness to investigate the stress state in detail; whereas
the support structure was modeled using beam elements.

To account for the loading that is introduced by the bridge, the latter was also considered in
the model using shell elements. However, the bridge design was not considered in this re-
port.

A view of the finite element mesh for the complete model is shown in Fig. 5.1; whereas a
view of the finite element mesh showing details in the interior of the tank is depicted in Fig.
5.2. In Fig. 5.3, detail of the finite element mesh for the underflow cone and center column is

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 13 -

provided.

Fig. 5.1: A view of the finite element mesh for the complete model

Fig. 5.2: A view of the finite element mesh in the interior of the tank

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 14 -

Fig. 5.3: Detail of the finite element mesh for the underflow cone and center column
5.4 Elements Properties
The following is the list of equivalent thicknesses and section profiles that were used for the
plates and beam finite elements:

Plate elements for: Thickness Material
Tank wall 6 mm ASTM A36
Tank floor 6 mm ASTM A36
Compression ring (top) 25 mm ASTM A36
Compression ring (bottom) 14 mm ASTM A36
Underflow cone 25 mm ASTM A36
Center column 21 mm ASTM A36
Radial beams
Flange = 14 mm
Web = 10 mm
IN-like (*) beam:
356x170x14x10 mm,
ASTM A36

Beam elements for: Section Profile Material
Outer ring of columns HEB160 ASTM A36
Bracing Pipe 3" Sch. 40 ASTM A36

(*) Chilean section profiles details are available in the "Manual de Diseo Estructural", Insti-
tuto Chileno del Acero, 2da Edicin, 2008.

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 15 -

5.5 Loading and Boundary Conditions
The slurry load was applied as hydrostatic pressure over the element's faces that were used
to represent the side wall and floor of the tank. The hydrostatic load was applied pointing in
the outward normal direction of the element's faces with its magnitude varying along the ver-
tical global direction (Y-axis) down to the slurry depth.

The horizontal and vertical seismic forces of to the tank and support structure were applied
as a gravity force in the required direction.

The horizontal seismic force of the bridge was also applied as a gravity force, but the seis-
mic force of its fixed components were introduced as nodal loads.

The horizontal seismic force of the slurry was applied to the tank wall as a uniform pressure
at the load height required to produce the correct overturning moment.

The vertical seismic force of the fluid content was applied as the slurry load defined above
multiplied by the vertical seismic coefficient.

The wind load was introduced as uniform distributed load over the side wall and tank floor
pointing in the global direction in which the wind acts (horizontal directions X or Z).

Lifting load, maintenance load and torque load, as well as the weights and seismic forces of
the fixed components to the bridge were all applied as nodal loads in the bridge model that is
supported by the tank.

Load combinations of the above-mentioned loading were defined in the finite element model
using the combinations provided in Section 4.4.

For the analysis of the tank and support structure, fully fixed supports have been considered
at the bottom end of the support structure columns and center column.

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 16 -

6 Results
6.1 Stress Analysis
The stress contour result plots from the finite element analysis are provided in Appendix A.
These stress results are used to investigate the stress state of the thickener components as
a result from its response to the different load combinations that were considered in the
analysis. The FEA stress values are compared with the allowable stress values to draw con-
clusions on the structural integrity of the thickener.
6.1.1 Tank Wall and Floor
Tank wall must be capable to resist the hoop stress in the upset condition, but also must be
checked against buckling in the seismic condition.

Allowable stresses:
- According to API 650, the maximum allowable hoop stress is 160 MPa for A36 steel.
This value is used for the tank wall and tank floor.
- According to API 650, Appendix E, the calculated allowable shell-membrane com-
pressive stress for this tank is 30 MPa.

The following table summarizes the stress analysis for the critical load combination:
Table 6.1: Summary of tank and floor stress analysis

Tank wall presents relatively low compressive stress along its length except near the union
of the tank wall and tank floor. However, the stresses at that union may be fictitious since the
union behaves like a corner that can eventually create an artificial stress concentration. Ad-
Description
FEA Value,
MPa
Allowable
Value, MPa
Critical
Comb.
Figure Safe
Tank wall max. principal stress 76 160 C3 A1 Yes
Tank wall longitudinal total com-
pressive stress (membrane plus
bending)
36 30 C5 A2 Acceptable
Tank floor Von Mises stress 107 160 C3 A4 Yes

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 17 -

ditionally, the finite element model does not include the welding near that zone. The rest of
the plates remain below 30 MPa, which is safe.
6.1.2 Underflow Cone
The underflow cone along with the compression ring are considered here. Due to the highly
three-dimensional stress state, Von Mises stress is considered in this stress analysis. Again,
an allowable stress of 160 MPa could be considered to compare with the FEA stress. The
following is the stress summary for the worst load combination:
Table 6.2: Summary of underflow cone stress analysis

6.2 Steel Design
6.2.1 Support Structure
The support structure is shown in Fig. 6.1. It is structured as follows:

Radial beam IN-like (*) beam: 356x170x14x10 mm ASTM A36
Outer ring of columns HEB160 ASTM A36
Bracing Pipe 3" Sch. 40 ASTM A36
Center column Custom pipe: D
ext
= 508 mm; Thick = 32 mm ASTM A36
Table 6.3: Summary of structural members for support structure

(*) Chilean section profiles details are available in the "Manual de Diseo Estructural", Insti-
tuto Chileno del Acero, 2da Edicin, 2008.

Description
FEA Value,
MPa
Allowable
Value, MPa
Critical
Comb.
Figure Safe
Underflow cone Von Mises stress 117 160 C5 A7 Yes

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 18 -

Fig. 6.1: Support structure

The procedure to verify the structural integrity of the support structure (steel design) consists
of basically determining the type of failure of the section profiles. If no buckling of any kind
governs the structural members, the allowable stress can be taken as 0.6xFy when the al-
lowable stress method is used.

Radial beams and columns are usually subjected to combined compression and flexure. The
buckling has to be investigated for compression and flexure separately, which then are com-
bined to check the utility factor according to AISC 360-05:

(a) When 2 . 0 >
c
r
P
P
, 0 . 1
9
8
s
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ +
cy
ry
cx
rx
c
r
M
M
M
M
P
P

(b) When 2 . 0 <
c
r
P
P
, 0 . 1
2
s
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ +
cy
ry
cx
rx
c
r
M
M
M
M
P
P

Where P
r
is the required axial strength, P
c
is the available axial strength, M
r
is the required
flexural strength and M
c
is the available flexural strength. A utility factor (U.F) larger than 1
means that the member has failed.

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 19 -

The steel design for the columns and bracing was done automatically using the steel design
library available in the finite element program with appropriate steel design parameters. The
utility factors are shown in Fig. 6.2 from which the structure is found to be safe.

Fig. 6.2: Utility factors obtained from the steel design

Because of the radial beam was modeled in three dimensions using shell elements, the steel
design of it was done manually. The radial beam is subjected to bending moment, which
leads to an allowable stress of 160 MPa since it is fully laterally supported on the top flange.
Therefore, the radial beam is basically determined by yielding. The maximum stress was
found in the middle span of the portion of the radial beam. The result is shown in Table 6.4.
Table 6.4: Summary of radial beam stress analysis
Description
FEA Value,
MPa
Allowable
Value, MPa
Critical
Comb.
Figure Safe
Von Mises stress in the top flange of the
radial beam
118 160 C3 A9 Yes

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 20 -

6.2.2 Center Column Base Plate
The calculation of the center column base plate was done for the following reaction loads
occurring at the bottom of the center column base plate:

Table. 6.5: Maximum and minimum reactions at center column base plate

In the above table for max/min reactions, positive values for Fy are compressive loads,
whereas negative values of Fy are tensile loads. The calculations for base plate and anchor-
age are shown in Appendix C.

a) bolt, base plate and anchor chair calculation

Case 1:
Axial compressive force: 2319 kN
Bending moment: 531 kNm

Case 2:

Case 3:
Axial lifting force: 13.6 kN

b) Shear key calculation

Shear force: 399 kN

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 21 -

6.2.3 Columns Base Plates

Fig. 6.3: Columns row definition (above) and corresponding node numbering (below)

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 22 -

The calculation of the columns base plates was done for the following maximum loads:

Table. 6.6: Maximum and minimum reactions at base plates of Row B

Row B: (see Table 6.6)
Axial tensile force: 23 kN
Shear force: 120 kN
6.2.4 Anchor Bolts and Shear Keys
The horizontal seismic force of 399 kN in the center column was taken with a cross shear
key. Ten A588 Gr. 50 bolts of 1 1/2" along with anchor chair were specified. The calculations
are shown in Appendix C.

Cross shear keys were installed on the underside of base plates of the column legs to dis-
perse the horizontal force from the seismic load to the ground. The shear key was veri-
fied to take the full shear at the base plate, and it was found satisfactory for the maximum
horizontal force of 120 kN (Row B). See Appendix D for calculation details. Therefore, an-
chor bolts at these columns base plates are then verified for tension only since shear is as-
sumed to be resisted by shear keys. Uplift load of 23 kN was found in the column legs (Row
B) for wind and temperature load combinations. Thus, anchor chair will not be used. Using 4
x 1" A36 bolts sufficed to resist the lifting force of 23 kN in Row B. The calculation is shown
in Appendix D.

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 23 -

7 Conclusions
The three-dimensional finite element analysis and the steel design checks showed that this
thickener is safe to resist the load combinations that were considered in this structural integ-
rity study. The structural integrity is verified according to the provisions of NCh2369.Of2003.

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 24 -

Appendix A: Finite Element Result Plots

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 25 -

Fig. A1: Tank wall maximum stress for Load Combination C3

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 26 -

Fig. A2: Tank wall longitudinal total compressive stress (membrane plus bending) for Load
Combination C5

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 27 -

Fig. A3: Tank floor Von Mises stress for Load Combination C2

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 28 -

Fig. A4: Tank floor Von Mises stress for Load Combination C3

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 29 -

Fig. A5: Underflow cone Von Mises stress for Load Combination C2

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 30 -


File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 31 -


File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 32 -

Fig. A8: Radial beams Von Mises stress for Load Combination C2

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 33 -


File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 34 -


File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 35 -

Appendix B: Detailed Load Calculation

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 36 -

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 37 -

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 38 -

Appendix C: Center Column Base Plate Calculation

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 39 -

The following procedure is based on Pressure Vessel Design Manual (see Section 3.2)

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 40 -

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 41 -

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 42 -

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 43 -

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 44 -

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 45 -

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 46 -

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 47 -

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 48 -

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 49 -

Appendix D: Columns Base Plate Calculation

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 50 -

The following denotation is considered for the base plates:

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 51 -

ROW B
The following procedure is based on Pressure Vessel Design Manual (see Section 3.2).

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 52 -

SHEAR KEY FOR ROW B

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 53 -

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 54 -

Appendix E: Normal Operating and Upset Slurry Loads

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 55 -

Normal Operating Slurry Load

File: 002-72-DR-002-2.doc - 56 -

Upset Slurry Load

Compañía Minera Del Pacífico Cerro Negro Norte EP: 12m Concentrate Thickener

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Compañía Minera Del Pacífico Cerro Negro Norte EP: 12m Concentrate Thickener

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Compaa Minera del Pacfico

Cerro Negro Norte EP

También podría gustarte