Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

1/286

Av. Libertad 798 Of. 501 Edificio Libertad Fono/Fax (56-32) 269-0596 Via del Mar - Chile

Tyngsboro, MA, USA San Luis Obispo, CA, USA Toronto, Canada Perth, Australia

VALE S.A.

BELO HORIZONTE (MG), BRAZIL

FLOW TEST PROPERTY MEASUREMENTS TO IRON ORE SAMPLES VALE

Report #68334-2

Date: November 09, 2012

Jenike and Johanson Chile S.A.

____________________________

Oscar Angulo P., Mech. Eng.

____________________________Alfredo del Campo A., Eng.Sc.D.

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

2/286

CONTENT

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 TESTS 2

2.1 Characterization tests 3

2.2 Flow property tests 11

3.0 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE MATERIAL HANDLING,

FLOW AND STORAGE OF THE MATERIAL TESTED 25

3.1 Flow Patterns 25

3.2 General comments for the functional design of storage andhandling systems for the materials tested 27

3.3 Caution 27

3.4 Conclusions 28

APPENDIX I : Flow Test Results for Iron Ore

Report JJC #68334-1

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

3/286

VALE S.A. November 9, 2012

Report JJC #68334-2 Page 1

REPORT Report #68334-2

TO Date: Nov. 09, 2012

VALE S.A.

BELO HORIZONTE (MG), BRAZIL Distribution:

M. T. FerreiraJ.A. Rodrigues

FLOW PORPERTY MEASUREMENTS TO IRON ORE SAMPLES

VALE

1.0

INTRODUCTION

Jenike and Johanson Chile S.A. (JJC) was contracted by Vale S.A. (VALE), to perform

characterization and flow property tests with six samples of different iron ore products to

be stored and handled in their projects. Representative samples of each one of the six

materials to be tested were collected by the client, sent to our laboratory and tested at two

moisture contents. Tests were performed for continuous flow (instantaneous) and for 24

hours at rest.

According to the scope of the technical services specified by the client this report only

contains the critical presentation of the test results, including some general comments

referred to the functional design of storage and handling systems for these products.

Functional design recommendations for the future storage and handling installations for

these products can be prepared in base of the results presented here, but they are beyond

the scope of the work contracted at this point.

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

4/286



2.0 TESTS

From the viewpoint of bulk solids handling, materials can gain or not cohesive strength

when stored in bins, silos and/or stockpiles, depending on the combination of a series

factors. Besides, different flow problems may occur depending on the geometry and

location of the discharge hoppers, on the dimensions of the discharge outlets, and on the

flow pattern that the material will develop when flowing (either mass flow, funnel flow or

expanded flow, see appendix).

The flowability of most materials is affected by the following variables:

Particle size distribution,

Maximum particle size and content of fines,

Moisture content,

Particle shape,

Time of storage at rest,

Consolidation pressure (height of the silo, bin and/or pile),

Weather conditions (rain, freezing, ambient moisture, etc.),

Presence of additives, clays, talcs and/or dusts,

Chemical, lithological and/or mineralogical nature of the material

The fine fraction of a material (the fraction under 1/4) determines if the material will

present cohesive strength or not. VALE sent to our laboratory representative samples ofthe following products:

1. HFR The Gaff

2. Projeto ITMS

3. GFI

4. GFH Zogota

5. GFH The Gaff

6. AFH The Gaff

According to the ASTM D 6128 standard series of tests were performed to each of the

samples at two adjusted moisture levels. Tests were performed in order to characterize

and determine the flow properties of the materials. The results of these tests are

summarised in the following sections.

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

5/286



The client instructed JJC to adjust the moisture content of each named sample to two levels:

10% & 13% (wet basis), except for Projeto ITMS that was required to be adjusted to 8.5% &

12% (wet basis), respectively. In the case of the product HFR The Gaff the maximum

moisture level was 11.7% because above this level it showed plastic behavior.

All the tests were undertaken in our Laboratory at environmental temperature and relative

humidity conditions. The results of the tests are presented in our report JJC #68334-1, which

is attached as Appendix.

2.1 Characterisation tests

The samples were mixed, homogenized and divided. The moisture content (determined

as received), particle size distribution and particle density were determined and the

results are shown in Table 1.

The moisture content of the material is defined by the relation (as percentage, in wet

basis) of the H2O weight in the mix and the original weight of the sample; it was

determined by drying up a small sample of each material in an oven at 105 5C until

there was no more weight lost (Chilean Standard NCh.1515.Of79).

The particle density corresponds to the real density of the material (weight by volume

unit) and it was determined by the volumetric shifting in a pycnometer; the procedure isdescribed in the Chilean Standard NCh. 1532.Of80.

Table 1 shows the denomination, weight, as received moisture content and the particle

density of the samples.

Table 1. Denomination, quantity, as received moisture content (wet basis) and

particle density (p), of the samples.

Denomination Quantity [kg] Moisture (%) p (kg/m3

)HFR The Gaff 29.3 1.2 4970

Projeto ITMS 46.5 0.6 3760

GFI 20.5 1.0 4770

GFH Zogota 30.0 1.3 4890

GFH The Gaff 30.3 4.8 4760

AFH The Gaff 30.2 5.6 4820

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

6/286



The particle size distribution was determined for each sample by using a set of ASTM E-

11 sieves the results are shown in Table 2. This table includes the sieve openings and the

weight fraction of material retained in each of them. Figures 1 to 6 show the size fractions

obtained by sieving each sample. Figures 7 to 12 show the accumulated size distributionsof each of the six types of material tested.

Table 2. Particle size distribution of the received samples.

Weight percentage retained [%]

Mesh

Mesh

opening

size

HFR The

GAFF

Projeto

ITMSGFI

GFH

Zogota

GFH The

GAFF

AFH The

GAFF

1/4" 6,3 mm 0 0 0 0 0 0

#5 4 mm 0 6.3 0 0 0 0

#10 2 mm 11.9 14.8 11.8 14.5 11.3 9.3

#16 1,2 mm 7.5 5.8 8.1 11.0 7.4 7.7

#30 600 m 7.9 4.8 11.0 11.6 8.1 7.1

#50 300 m 7.4 3.2 10.9 8.9 8.7 6.6

#100 150 m 10.3 6.6 14.1 10.0 12.0 10.2

#200 75 m 19.6 24.9 22.8 14.0 20.9 29.0#325 45 m 16.0 20.4 13.7 13.7 14.3 13.8

- #325 19.4 13.2 7.6 16.3 17.3 16.3

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

7/286



Figure 1. Particle size fractions of HFR The Gaff

Figure 2. Particle size fractions of Projeto ITMS

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

8/286



Figure 3. Particle size fractions of GFI

Figure 4. Particle size fractions of GFH Zogota

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

9/286



Figure 5. Particle size fractions of GFH The Gaff

Figure 6. Particle size fractions of AFH The Gaff

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

10/286



Figure 7. Accumulated particle size distribution of HFR The Gaff

Figure 8. Accumulated particle size distribution of Projeto ITMS

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

11/286



Figure 9. Accumulated particle size distribution of GFI

Figure 10. Accumulated particle size distribution of GFH Zogota

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

12/286



Figure 11. Accumulated particle size distribution of GFH The Gaff

Figure 12. Accumulated particle size distribution of AFH The Gaff

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

13/286



2.2 Flow property tests

The following flow property tests were done at different moisture contents for each

sample as agreed with the client. Time tests were done to simulate the maximum time at

rest in which the materials might be stored in a silo under the pressure of the material

stored above it.

All the tests were undertaken in our Laboratory at environmental temperature and relative

humidity conditions. The results of the tests are presented in the report JJC #68334-1,

attached as Appendix of this report.

2.2.1 Cohesive strength

Tests at instantaneous conditions (continuous flow) and for 24 hours at rest under pressure

were done to the six samples at different adjusted moisture contents. It is important to

bear in mind that the flow function allows to know the cohesive strength gained by a

material submitted to a given consolidating force, and based on this knowledge to

determine the minimum dimensions of the discharge outlet which are required to ensure

the reliable flow of material, avoiding arching and ratholing problems. Ratholing is the

occurrence of a cylindrical and vertical hole formed in the mass of material stored in a

bin, silo or pile, when the design of the storage system is not fitted to the flow properties

of the stored material.

In general, the results of the flow property tests show that the tested products gain

cohesive strength in different degrees when submitted to a consolidating stress. Figure 13

to 18 show the flow functions determined for the six samples at the different moisture

levels. These figures include the limits corresponding to the classification for bulk solids

proposed by A. Jenike ("Storage and Flow of Solids", Bulletin No. 123, University of

Utah, 1964).

It can be observed in Figures 13 to 18 that the iron ore samples tested vary mostly fromcohesive to very cohesive depending on their moisture content, consolidating

pressure, and time at rest under pressure. For example, Figure 17 shows that GHF The

Gaff is cohesive for high consolidating pressures and instant conditions, but it becomes

very cohesive at low consolidating pressures after 24 hours at rest.

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

14/286



Table 3 shows the critical arching dimensions BC, BP and BF, and the critical rathole

dimension DF for an effective head EH of 5 m for the products tested. For example, Table

3 shows that for HFR The Gaff at 11.7% H2O, the minimum diameter of a circular

opening BC in a converging hopper (i.e. conical or pyramidal hopper), must be at least 1.0m to avoid arching after 24 hours of rest under pressure, if mass flow is to be achieved.

For the case of a hopper with a slotted outlet (i.e. wedge shaped), the minimum width of

the discharge outlet BP must be at least 0.5 m to avoid arching after 24 hours at rest if

mass flow is to be achieved. If mass flow is not achieved in a wedge shaped hopper, the

diagonal of the slotted outlet DF must be equal or larger than 6 m to avoid ratholing for a

5 m effective height. For a better understanding of the nomenclature used in this section

please see the figures and explanations given in the appendix of our report JJC #68334-1,

attached in the appendix.

It can be observed from the values on Table 3 that the ratholing critical dimension DF

tends to increase when the material is left at rest under pressure for 24 hours.

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

15/286



Figure 13. Flow function of HFR The Gaff

Figure 14. Flow function of Projeto ITMS

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

16/286



Figure 15. Flow function of GFI

Figure 16. Flow function of GFH Zogota

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

17/286



Figure 17. Flow function of GFH The Gaff

Figure 18. Flow function of AFH The Gaff

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

18/286



Table 3. Minimum dimensions to avoid arching and ratholing problems, under

gravity flow conditions, for the iron ore samples tested (Overpressure P factor =1.0).

Mass Flow Funnel flow

Arching dimensions

[m]

Rathole

dimensions DF [m]Material

Moisturecontent

[%]

Restingtime

[hours]BC BP BF EH=5

100

24

0.9

1.2

0.5

0.6

0.5

0.6

4

5HFR The

Gaff11.7

0

24

0.6

1.0

0.3

0.5

0.3

0.7

2

6

8.50

24

1.2

1.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

1.0

6

7Projeto

ITMS 12 024

1.51.9

0.70.9

0.91.3

68

100

24

0.6

1.1

0.3

0.5

0.5

0.9

10

10GFI

130

24

0.9

1.1

0.4

0.5

0.8

1.7

9

11

100

24

0.6

0.8

0.3

0.4

0.3

0.5

5

6GFH

Zogota13

0

24

0.6

0.9

0.3

0.4

0.3

0.6

5

7

100

24

0.7

1.1

0.3

0.5

0.5

0.7

6

6GFH The

Gaff13

0

24

0.7

2.4

0.4

1.1

0.4

2.2

6

12

100

24

0.7

1.1

0.3

0.5

0.5

0.7

5

6AFH The

Gaff13

0

24

0.5

2.7

0.3

1.2

0.3

***

4

15

(***) Denotes unassisted gravity flow cannot be ensured (simulated widths of up to 2.6 m).

Where:

BC: Minimum opening diameter recommended for a conic hopper.

BP: Minimum opening width recommended for a wedge shaped hopper.

BF: Minimum opening width recommended for a funnel flow hopper.

DF: Critical rathole diameter.

EH: Effective height of the material.

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

19/286



2.2.2 Compressibility

Measurements of the compressibility of a bulk solid allow to determine the variation of its

bulk density (apparent density) as a function of the effective height (consolidation

pressure in a silo or a pile). Figures 19 to 24 show the bulk density, , as a function of the

consolidation pressure, , for samples corresponding to the six types of materials tested at

the different adjusted moisture contents. The slopes of the lines show that all the tested

materials have some degree of compressibility. For example, HFR the Gaff at 10%

moisture content shows a bulk density range from approx. 1890 kg/m3for a low pressure

of 3 kPa (EH=0.2 m) up to approx. 2800 kg/m3for pressures of 150 kPa (EH=6 m) and

approx. 3030 kg/m3for a higher pressure of 360 kPa (EH=12 m).

Figure 19. Compressibility of HFR The Gaff

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

20/286



Figure 20. Compressibility of Projeto ITMS

Figure 21. Compressibility of GFI

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

21/286



Figure 22. Compressibility of GFH Zogota

Figure 23. Compressibility of GFH The Gaff

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

22/286



Figure 24. Compressibility of AFH The Gaff

2.2.3 Wall friction

Two important considerations in the mass flow silo and/or hopper design are: roughness

and inclination of the hopper wall to force the material to slide and the opening

dimensions to prevent arching and achieve the flow pattern desired.

Wall friction tests at instantaneous conditions (continuous flow) and for 24 hours at rest

under pressure were done to determine the minimum slope required by hopper walls to

cause mass flow. Three wall materials were tested (agreed with the client): Mild carbon

steel, A.R. Steel T-500, Astralloy-V liner.

Table 4 shows the optimum slope angle Pto achieve mass flow in wedge shaped hoppers

for tan outlet width BP of 0.6 meter. In a similar way, table 5 shows the maximum slope

angle cto achieve mass flow in conical hoppers, for an outlet diameter BC of 0.6 meter.

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

23/286



Table 4. Optimum hopper angle pto obtain mass flow in wedge shaped or

transition hoppers, for BP =0.6 m.

(pis measured in degrees from the vertical).

Optimum angle p[o]

Wall surface testedMaterial

Moisture

content

%

Resting

time

[hours]Mild Carbon

SteelA.R. Steel T-500

Astralloy-

V

100

24

20

8.*

20

8.*

23

18HFR The

Gaff11.7

0

24

27

11

25

10.*

26

17

8.50

24

21

12

18

14

20

16ProjetoITMS

120

24

22

8.*

20

8.*

22

12

100

24

15

13

17

13

16

13GFI

130

24

21

15

21

16

21

17

100

24

20

10.*

20

10.*

20

17GFH

Zogota

13

0

24

22

17

20

17

23

21

100

24

21

8.*

22

8.*

22

20GFH The

Gaff13

0

24

26

18

26

12

28

25

100

24

20

9.*

21

10

22

18AFH The

Gaff13

0

24

25

20

24

10.*

27

23

(*) Flow along the wall is questionable.

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

24/286



From Tables 4 and 5 it can be seen that for these products, the Astralloy-V liner is a

more effective lining material, specially in some cases. It can be noticed from the results

shown in Tables 4 and 5 that wedge shaped hoppers are more convenient, since they

require lower height than conical hoppers. For example, the test results show that toachieve mass flow, the slope of the side wall in a wedge shaped hopper must be p< 17

from vertical, if Astralloy-V liner is used as wall material in a bin containing HFR The

Gaff with 11.7% moisture content, staying at rest a maximum of 24 hours, and using a

0.6m wide outlet. If a conical hopper with a 0.6 m outlet diameter were used in the same

conditions, a wall angle c< 4 from vertical would be necessary to obtain mass flow, i.e.

a more height demanding design would be required.

Table 5. Maximum hopper angle

cto obtains mass flow in conic hoppers, for BC=0.6 m.(cis measured in degrees from the vertical).

Maximum angle c[o]

Wall surface testedMaterial

Moisture

Content

%

Resting

time

[hours] Mild Carbon SteelA.R. Steel T-

500Astralloy-V

100

24

10

0.

10

0.*

11

6HFR The

Gaff11.7

0

24

14

1

12

0.*

13

4

8.50

24

9

0

8

0

9

4Projeto

ITMS12

0

24

7

0.*

6

0.*

5

0.*

100

24

5

0.*

7

0.*

5

1GFI

130

24

10

3

10

0

10

5

100

24

9

0.*

9

0.*

10

6GFHZogota

130

24

10

3

9

1

12

8

100

24

9

0

10

0.*

10

7GFH The

Gaff13

0

24

14

2

14

0

16

12

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

25/286



(*) Flow along the wall is questionable.

2.2.4 Minimum opening

Once the lining material of the hopper and its inclination are determined, it is important to

consider the right dimensions of the hopper opening for the material discharge. This

opening is needed to be dimensioned to:

1) Prevent the arching formation due to the cohesion of the material.

2) Prevent the arching formation due to the particle interlocking.

3) Obtain the flow of the material desired.

According to the results shown in Table 3, the materials tested tend to form an arch due to

their cohesiveness, both for instantaneous and after 24 hours at rest under pressure (for the

particle size distribution and conditions tested).

To prevent the formation of cohesive arches, the minimum opening BP recommended, fora wedge shaped mass flow hopper, should be equal or larger than the BP values shown in

Table 3, whereas the length of the opening should be at least 3 times BP. In addition, the

hopper should also be dimensioned to prevent the formation of ratholes, and to reach the

desired flow rate of material. Usually, an interface for mass flow is necessary below the

hopper discharge opening. More information about this topic can be found in article

Interfacing Belt Feeders and Hoppers to Achieve Reliable Operation available in our

website www.jenike.com.

2.2.5 Chute tests

Chute tests were done for the six samples at different moisture contents over surfaces of

Mild carbon steel, A.R. Steel T-500 and Astralloy-V liners; in order to determine the

minimum slope angle that a flat surface should have to keep the flow of material after

impact, as a function of the impact pressure. Table 6 shows the results obtained for an

100

24

8

0.*

9

0.*

10

7AFH The

Gaff13

0

24

14

8

13

1.*

16

8

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

26/286



impact pressure of 7.2 kPa. The results show that for these materials, the design of chutes

must be done in such a way that the impact pressures are kept in very low values, keeping

incidence angles low, and/or taking advantage of the incoming velocity to redirect the

material.

Table 6. Minimum chute angle to obtain material flowing after impact

(chuteis measured in degrees from the horizontal).

Minimum chute angle chute[o]

Wall sample testedMaterial

Moisture

content

%Mild Carbon

Steel

A.R. Steel T-

500Astralloy-V

10 72o 78

o 72

o

HFR The Gaff11.7 55

o 58

o 60

o

8.5 90o 90

o 90

o

Projeto ITMS11.7 76

o 77

o 77

o

10 89o 90

o 88

o

GFI13 89

o 84

o 88

o

10 65o 67

o 67

o

GFH Zogota13 54

o 56

o 60

o

10 65o 69

o 65

o

GFH The Gaff 13 70o 71o 83o

10 79o 81

o 81

o

AFH The Gaff13 70

o 75

o 75

o

If the liner material to be used in a chute is different from the chute materials tested, then

we recommend sending samples of the liner material to our laboratory to run the

corresponding tests in order to check that its roughness is acceptable, and to verify that the

adhesion phenomenon is not produced.

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

27/286



3.0 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS TO STORE AND HANDLE THE TESTED

MATERIALS

Bulk materials may or may not gain cohesive strength when handled in bins, silos andstockpiles depending on the combination of several factors, such as: height of the silo or

pile, percentage and size distribution of fines, moisture content, storage time at rest,

presence of clays or talcs, and chemical nature of the product.

If the material does gain cohesive strength, like the iron ore samples tested, then problems

of arching or ratholing may occur - depending on the shape of the hopper, dimensions of

the outlet, wall angles, wall liner, and the flow pattern developed by the bulk solid in the

bin or pile.

3.1 Flow patterns

From the standpoint of flow there are three types of flow patterns: funnel flow, mass flow

and expanded flow, as it is shown in Figure 25.

Funnel flow Mass flow Expanded flow

Figure 25. Flow patterns.

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

28/286



Funnel flowoccurs when the hopper is not sufficiently steep and smooth to force material

to slide along the walls or when the outlet is not fully effective. In a funnel flow bin or

pile, solids flow toward the outlet through a channel that forms within stagnant solids.

With a non free-flowing material, the channel expands upward from the outlet to adiameter that approximates the largest dimension of the effective outlet. When the outlet

is fully effective, this dimension is the diameter of the outlet if it is circular, or the

diagonal if it is square or slotted (rectangular). Higher within the mass, the flow channel

will remain almost vertical, forming a pipe, if its diameter is less than the critical rathole

diameter. With a free-flowing material, the flow channel expands at an angle, which

depends on the effective angle of internal friction of the material. The resulting flow

channel is generally circular with a diameter in excess of the outlet diameter or diagonal.

When material is withdrawn from a funnel flow silo or stockpile, a flow channel develops

right above the outlet and material sloughs off of the top free surface sliding into the flow

channel. With sufficient cohesion, sloughing may cease, allowing the channel to empty

out completely and form a stable rathole. It is very difficult to break up the stable

material around a rathole by external means such as poking or vibration. Depending on

the steepness and smoothness of the hopper walls, a bin may or may not empty

completely. In general, funnel flow silos and stockpiles are only suitable for coarse, free-

flowing or slightly cohesive, non-degrading materials when segregation is not important.

Mass flow, on the other hand, occurs when the hopper is sufficiently steep and smooth to

force the material to slide along the hopper walls. All the material in a mass flow bin is in

motion whenever any is withdrawn. Shallow valleys are not permitted and the outlet must

be fully effective. Ratholes cannot form in a mass flow bin, thus eliminating stagnant

regions. Mass flow bins are recommended for handling cohesive materials, powders,

materials which degrade with time and when segregation needs to be minimized.

Expanded flow is a combination of the two previous flow patterns, in which the lower

part of a funnel flow silo or stockpile operates in mass flow. The mass flow hopper should

expand the flow channel to a diagonal or diameter equal to or greater than the critical

rathole diameter, thus eliminating the likelihood of ratholing. Multiple mass flow hoppers

can be placed close enough to cause a combined flow channel in excess of the critical

rathole diameter. Expanded flow silos and stockpiles are recommended for the storage of

large quantities of non-degrading materials, and for modifying existing funnel flow silos

to correct problems caused by arching, ratholing and flushing.

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

29/286



It is important to point out that feeders and/or gates play an important role in the correct

operation of bins, silos and hoppers. Also, bin and hopper outlets must be fully effective

with properly designed interfaces to achieve mass flow, as we will see later. If a gate like

an emergency spile bar shutoff pin gate valve is used below a mass-flow hopper, thegate must be operated either fully open or fully closed. It is critical that spile bars do not

protrude into the material flow during normal operation.

3.2 General comments for the functional design of storage and handling systems for the

materials tested

According to the test results the iron ore samples tested, at the adjusted moisture contents

specified by the client, show different degrees of tendency to arch if outlet dimensions are

smaller than the values shown in Table 3.Achieving a mass flow or expanded flow design

is feasible because the measured wall friction angles p, necessary to achieve mass flow

in wedge shaped or transition hoppers, are not too restrictive, specially for wedge shaped

or transition hoppers. Depending on the requirements for live capacity and discharge flow

rates, the geometry of the silo and the characteristics of the discharge system have to be

determined taking in consideration the flow properties presented in this report.

The scope of the present report does not include the functional design of any storageand handling system. However in the near future Jenike and Johanson Chile S.A.

could be asked to develop these type of designs based on the test results reported

here.

3.3 Caution

Our recommendations are based on samples and information provided by the Client, and

upon expected operation conditions as described by the Client. We assume that the

information furnished by the Client is accurate and complete, that the samples and expected

operation conditions are representative of those which will be obtained in the completed

facility, and that the Client will carry out routine tests and maintenance during periods of

operation in accordance with prudent industrial practice.

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

30/286



Bulk materials of inferior flowability (e.g. more cohesive with larger critical arching and

ratholing dimensions) when transported will behave differently than the materials referred to

in this report.

3.4 Conclusions

Diverse tests were undertaken to determine the characteristics and flow properties of the

sample of the fine fraction (under mesh) of iron ores provided by VALE S.A., from

the point of view of bulk solids handling and storage.

In general, the flow property test results show that the fine fractions of the iron ore

samples tested are cohesive if handled continuously (instantaneous flow) at the moisture

content tested. They can become very cohesive if flow is intended after 24 hours of

storage and under pressure, especially a low consolidating pressures.

In addition, the iron ore samples tested exhibit a strong tendency to form cohesive arches

and stable ratholes when handled in funnel flow silos, mainly due to the high moisture

contents and high amounts of fine particles contained. Also, these materials are very

compressible.

This report highlights the critical flow properties of the iron ore samples tested. These

data should be used in a next stage to design the systems that will safely and effectively

handle, store and feed these materials in the silos and transfer chutes to be installed in the

projects, including their corresponding reclaim systems (not included in this report).

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

31/286

APPENDIX I :

Flow Test Results for Iron Ore

Report JJC #68334-1

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

32/286

VALE S.A.

BELO HORIZONTE (MG), BRAZIL

FLOW TEST RESULTS

FOR

IRON ORE SAMPLES

Report #68334-1Date: November 5, 2012 Jenike and Johanson Chile S.A.

Prepared by:

___________________________lvaro Sierra A.

Reviewed by:

___________________________Alfredo del Campo A. Eng.Sc.D.

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

33/286

CONTENTS

page

INTRODUCTION 1

GENERAL COMMENTS 2

SUMMARY OF TESTS PERFORMED 3

RESULTS OF TESTS 4

APPENDIX A1

SELECTION OF BIN AND FEEDER A1

Types of Bins A1

Mass Flow A1

Funnel Flow A1

Expanded Flow A2

Feeders A2

DISCUSSION OF TEST REPORT DATA A3

Moisture A3

Section I - Bin Dimensions for Dependable Flow A3

Calculation of Effective Head A4Calculation of P Factors A5

Vibration A5

Impact Pressure from Fall into a Bin A6

External Loading A6

Liquid or gas Flow Loading A6

Limits on Bin Sizes A6

Section II - Bulk Density A7

Section III - Maximum Hopper Angles for Mass Flow A7

Section IV - Critical Solids Flow Rate A8

Section V - Air Permeability Test Report A9

Section VI - Chutes A10

GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS A12

TECHNICAL PAPERS REFERENCES A15

FIGURES A17

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

34/286

INTRODUCTION

This test report describes the flow properties of your material(s).

These properties are expressed in terms of bin dimensions required to ensure dependableflow, maximum hopper angle for mass flow, and if tested, minimum chute angles and

critical discharge rates through bin outlets. All dimensions represent limiting conditions for

flow. Therefore, larger outlets, steeper hoppers and chutes, and flow rates below critical are

acceptable. If your material is one, which will compact excessively in a large, bin, the

largest diameter or width and height of the cylinder to limit this compaction is also given.

In case you are unfamiliar with the use of this type of data, an Appendix follows the main

body of the report. Most of the symbols used in the report are shown in figures in pages

A17 to A19. A Glossary of Terms and Symbols is provided on pages A12 to A14. Theconcepts of gravity flow of solids and examples of application of solids flow data are

further illustrated in technical papers available upon request.

1

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

35/286

GENERAL COMMENT

Six samples of Iron Orefrom VALE, Brazil were received in our laboratory (on August

21, 2012 the two first, and on October 01, 2012 the other four) to perform flow property

tests. The samples were identified as follows and the As received moisture content wasdeterminated.

Name Weight Moisture(wet basis)

HFR The Gaff 29.3 kg 1.0%

Projeto ITMS 46.5 kg 8.5 %

GFI 20.5 kg 1.0%

GFH Zogot 30.0 kg 1.3%

GFH The Gaff 30.3 kg 4.8%

AFH The Gaff 30.2 kg 5.6%

The samples were prepared for testing by adjusting at two different levels of moisture

content: 10% and 11.7% on HFR The Gaff, 8.5% and 12% on Projeto ITMS and 10%

and 13% for the other four. Tests performed on the samples included instantaneous flow

function, 24 hours flow function, instantaneous wall friction tests, 24 hours wall friction

tests (on three wall materials:Mild Carbon Steel Plate Aged, A.R. Steel T-500 and

Astralloy V), chute tests on the same wall liners, compressibility, particle size analysis

and particle density determination.

All tests were performed in our laboratory at ambient conditions of temperature and

relative humidity.

2

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

36/286

SUMMARY OF TESTS PERFORMED

This report presents various flow property test results as indicated for the

following material(s) :

BULK MATERIAL MOISTUREMATERIAL ID # DESCRIPTION PARTICLE SIZE CONTENT

1 11459 HFR The Gaff As recd 10% (wet basis)2 11460 HFR The Gaff As recd 11.7% (wet basis

3 11461 Projeto ITMS As recd 8.5% (wet basis) 4 11462 Projeto ITMS As recd 12% (wet basis)

5 11464 GFI As recd 10% (wet basis)6 11470 GFI As recd 13% (wet basis)7 11465 GFH Zogota As recd 10% (wet basis)8 11471 GFH Zogota As recd 13% (wet basis)9 11466 GFH The Gaff As recd 10% (wet basis)

10 11472 GFH The Gaff As recd 13% (wet basis)11 11467 AFH The Gaff As recd 10% (wet basis)12 11473 AFH The Gaff As recd 13% (wet basis)

BULK TIME TEMPERATURE SIEVE BIN BULK HOPPER CHUTE FLOW OTHERMATERIAL hr deg C ANALYSIS DIM DENSITY ANGLES ANGLES RATE

1 0.0 22 X X X X X24.0 22 X X

2 0.0 22 X X X X24.0 22 X X

3 0.0 22 X X X X X24.0 22 X X

4 0.0 22 X X X X24.0 22 X X

5 0.0 22 X X X X X24.0 22 X X

6 0.0 22 X X X X24.0 22 X X

7 0.0 22 X X X X X24.0 22 X X

8 0.0 22 X X X X24.0 22 X X

9 0.0 22 X X X X X24.0 22 X X

10 0.0 22 X X X X24.0 22 X X

3

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

37/286

BULK TIME TEMPERATURE SIEVE BIN BULK HOPPER CHUTE FLOW OTHERMATERIAL hr deg C ANALYSIS DIM DENSITY ANGLES ANGLES RATE

11 0.0 22 X X X X X24.0 22 X X

12 0.0 22 X X X X24.0 22 X X

4

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

38/286

BULK MATERIAL 1: HFR The Gaff

PARTICLE SIZE As recd

MOISTURE CONTENT 10% (wet basis)

SECTION I. BIN DIMENSIONS FOR DEPENDABLE FLOW

Storage Time at Rest 0.0 hrsTemperature 22 deg CRelative Humidity 60.0%

PART A. BINS WITH UNLIMITED MAXIMUM SIZE

Optimum Mass Flow DimensionsP-Factor BC meters BP meters

1.00 0.9 0.51.25 1.0 0.5

1.50 1.1 0.52.00 1.3 0.6

Funnel Flow DimensionsP-Factor BF (meters)EH= 0.2 0.3 0.8 2 3 4 meters

Critical Rathole Diameters, DF (meters)1.00 0.5 1.2 1.2 1.4 2 3 31.25 0.61.50 0.62.00 0.9

TERMSP-FACTOR = overpressure factorBC = recommended minimum outlet diameter, conical hopperBP = recommended minimum outlet width, slotted or oval outletBF = minimum width of rectangular outlet in a funnel flow binEH = effective consolidating head

For detailed explanations of terms see appendix pages A5, A6, and A7.

5

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

39/286







1.00 1.2 0.61.25 1.3 0.6

1.50 1.4 0.72.00 1.8 0.9


Critical Rathole Diameters, DF (meters)1.00 0.6 1.5 1.5 2 2 3 41.25 0.71.50 0.82.00 1.3



6

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

40/286




SECTION II. SOLIDS DENSITY

TEMPERATURE 22 deg C

BULK DENSITYThe bulk density, GAMMA, is a function of the major consolidatingpressure, SIGMA1, expressed in terms of effective head, EH.

EH (meters) 0.2 0.3 0.8 1.5 3.0 6.1 12.2 24.4

SIGMA1 (kPa) 3. 6. 17. 36. 78. 168. 363. 783.

GAMMA (kg/m^3) 1886.1 2033.6 2246.5 2422.3 2611.8 2816.1 3036.4 3273.9

COMPRESSIBILITY PARAMETERS

Bulk density, GAMMA, is a function of the major consolidating pressureSIGMA1, as follows:

BETAGAMMA is the greater of GAMMA0 (SIGMA1/SIGMA0) and GAMMAM.

For GAMMA between 1758.2 and 2609.3 kg/m^3

GAMMA0 = 1626.55 kg/m^3

SIGMA0 = 0.62 kPa

BETA = 0.09801

Minimum bulk density GAMMAM =1505.3 kg/m^3

PARTICLE DENSITYThe weight density of an individual particle of the solid isCAPGAMMA = 4970.0 kg/m^3

7

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

41/286




SECTION IIA. SIEVE ANALYSIS

DESCRIPTION : siene analysis

U.S. SIEVE OPENING SIZE % WT. RETAINEDNUMBER (inches) (mm)

#5 0.1570 3.988 0.00

#10 0.0787 1.999 11.90

#16 0.0469 1.191 7.47

#30 0.0234 0.594 7.87

#50 0.0117 0.297 7.40

#100 0.0059 0.150 10.32

#200 0.0029 0.074 19.62

#325 0.0017 0.043 16.02

PAN 19.40

100.00

8

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

42/286




SECTION III. MAXIMUM HOPPER ANGLES FOR MASS FLOW

WALL MATERIAL: Mild Carbon Steel Plate, AgedSTORAGE TIME AT REST 0.0 hrsTEMPERATURE 22 deg C

HOPPER ANGLES FOR VARIOUS HOPPER SPANS

Dia of Cone (meters) 0.12 0.15 0.30 0.61 1.22 2.16Width of Oval (meters) 0.06 0.08 0.17 0.34 0.65 1.13

SIGMA (kPa) 0.7 1.0 2. 5. 11. 21.SIGMA1 (kPa) 1.0 1.3 3. 6. 15. 30.

Wall Friction AnglePHI-PRIME (deg) 30. 30. 30. 30. 30. 30.

Hopper AnglesTHETA-P (deg) 20. 20. 20. 20. 20. 20.THETA-C (deg) 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10.



Dia of Cone (meters) 0.39 0.61 1.06Width of Oval (meters) 0.22 0.35 0.59

SIGMA (kPa) 2.1 3.6 8.SIGMA1 (kPa) 4.2 6.9 14.

Wall Friction AnglePHI-PRIME (deg) 48. 44. 41.

Hopper AnglesTHETA-P (deg) 7.* 8. 8.*THETA-C (deg) 0.* 0. 0.*

* Flow along walls is questionable.

9

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

43/286




WALL MATERIAL: A.R. Steel T-500STORAGE TIME AT REST 0.0 hrsTEMPERATURE 22 deg C



SIGMA (kPa) 0.7 1.0 2. 5. 11. 21.

SIGMA1 (kPa) 1.0 1.3 3. 6. 15. 30.








Hopper AnglesTHETA-P (deg) 7.* 7.* 8.*THETA-C (deg) 0.* 0.* 0.*


10

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

44/286




WALL MATERIAL: Astralloy VSTORAGE TIME AT REST 0.0 hrsTEMPERATURE 22 deg C


Dia of Cone (meters) 0.13 0.30 0.61 1.22 2.11Width of Oval (meters) 0.07 0.17 0.34 0.65 1.10

SIGMA (kPa) 0.7 2.1 5. 11. 21.

SIGMA1 (kPa) 1.1 2.9 6. 15. 29.

Wall Friction AnglePHI-PRIME (deg) 37. 31. 29. 28. 28.

Hopper AnglesTHETA-P (deg) 15. 22. 23. 23. 23.THETA-C (deg) 3. 9. 11. 12. 13.






Hopper AnglesTHETA-P (deg) 14. 18. 18.THETA-C (deg) 2. 6. 7.

11

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

45/286




SECTION VI. CHUTE ANGLES

Tests were conducted at the indicated impact pressures, temperatures, andtime(s) at rest to determine the angles required for nonconvergingchutes in order to maintain flow after material impact. The angle given isthe minimum angle from the horizontal that will cause a bed of materialto slide on the chute. In general, chutes should be designedwith at least a 5 degree safety margin on this angle; if the chuteconverges, a significantly steeper chute may be required.

Temperature(deg C) Time Impact Chute Angles (deg)Chute Material Material Chute at Rest Pressure Range Min.

(hours) (kPa) Rec.

Mild Carbon Steel 22 22 0.0 0.3 37 to 38 43.Plate, Aged 1.0 40 to 41 46.

2.4 50 to 51 56.4.4 60 to 61 66.7.2 65 to 67 72.

A.R. Steel T-500 22 22 0.0 0.3 39 to 40 45.1.0 42 to 43 48.2.4 52 to 53 58.4.4 63 to 65 70.7.2 71 to 73 78.

Astralloy V 22 22 0.0 0.3 37 to 38 43.1.0 41 to 43 48.2.4 52 to 53 58.4.4 61 to 63 68.7.2 66 to 67 72.

12

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

46/286



MOISTURE CONTENT 11.7% (wet basis)





1.00 0.6 0.31.25 0.7 0.3

1.50 0.7 0.42.00 0.9 0.4


Critical Rathole Diameters, DF (meters)1.00 0.3 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.3 2 21.25 0.41.50 0.42.00 0.6



13

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

47/286







1.00 1.0 0.51.25 1.6 0.7

1.50 3.6 1.42.00 +++ ***


Critical Rathole Diameters, DF (meters)1.00 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.5 2 4 41.25 1.61.50 ***2.00 ***

*** Denotes unassisted gravity flow is impossible. However, widths of onlyup to 1.9 meters were simulated by our tests. If larger widthsare practical for your application, further testing at higher pressuresmight reveal conditions under which unassisted gravity flow is possible.

+++ Denotes unassisted gravity flow is impossible. However, diameters of onlyup to 3.8 meters were simulated by our tests. If larger diametersare practical for your application, further testing at higher pressuresmight reveal conditions under which unassisted gravity flow is possible.



14

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

48/286







EH (meters) 0.2 0.3 0.8 1.5 3.0 6.1 12.2 24.4

SIGMA1 (kPa) 4. 8. 20. 40. 83. 171. 351. 723.

GAMMA (kg/m^3) 2457.0 2527.7 2624.2 2699.7 2777.3 2857.2 2939.3 3023.8





GAMMA0 = 2291.50 kg/m^3

SIGMA0 = 0.62 kPa

BETA = 0.03929


15

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

49/286

















16

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

50/286







SIGMA (kPa) 0.8 1.1 3. 6. 14. 21.

SIGMA1 (kPa) 1.6 2.0 4. 8. 19. 28.


Hopper AnglesTHETA-P (deg) 7.* 9. 20. 24. 25. 26.THETA-C (deg) 0.* 0. 7. 12. 14. 15.









17

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

51/286







SIGMA (kPa) 0.9 2.7 6. 14. 21.

SIGMA1 (kPa) 1.6 3.7 8. 19. 28.





Dia of Cone (meters) 0.32 0.78Width of Oval (meters) 0.18 0.42

SIGMA (kPa) 2.2 7.7SIGMA1 (kPa) 4.3 11.4

Wall Friction AnglePHI-PRIME (deg) 46. 32.

Hopper AnglesTHETA-P (deg) 7.* 17.THETA-C (deg) 0.* 7.


18

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

52/286







(hours) (kPa) Rec.


2.5 44 to 45 50.4.5 45 to 47 52.7.3 49 to 50 55.



19

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

53/286

BULK MATERIAL 3: Projeto ITMS







1.00 1.2 0.61.25 1.5 0.7

1.50 1.9 0.82.00 +++ 1.9


Critical Rathole Diameters, DF (meters)1.00 0.8 1.5 1.5 2 3 4 61.25 1.11.50 1.92.00 ***





20

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

54/286







1.00 1.5 0.71.25 1.9 0.9

1.50 2.6 1.12.00 +++ ***


Critical Rathole Diameters, DF (meters)1.00 1.0 2 2 2 3 5 71.25 1.61.50 ***2.00 ***





21

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

55/286







EH (meters) 0.2 0.3 0.8 1.5 3.0 6.1 12.2 24.4

SIGMA1 (kPa) 2. 4. 12. 27. 59. 130. 284. 622.

GAMMA (kg/m^3) 1337.9 1464.9 1651.5 1808.3 1979.9 2167.9 2373.7 2599.1





GAMMA0 = 1168.88 kg/m^3

SIGMA0 = 0.62 kPa

BETA = 0.11571



22

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

56/286





DESCRIPTION : sieve analysis


1/4" 0.2500 6.350 0.00

#5 0.1570 3.988 6.27

#10 0.0787 1.999 14.84

#16 0.0469 1.191 5.84

#30 0.0234 0.594 4.83

#50 0.0117 0.297 3.16

#100 0.0059 0.150 6.59

#200 0.0029 0.074 24.95

#325 0.0017 0.043 20.39

PAN 13.15

100.00

23

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

57/286








SIGMA (kPa) 0.6 1.4 3. 7. 21.SIGMA1 (kPa) 1.0 2.1 4. 10. 29.









24

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

58/286







SIGMA (kPa) 0.6 1.5 3. 7. 21.

SIGMA1 (kPa) 0.9 2.0 4. 10. 31.









25

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

59/286







SIGMA (kPa) 0.6 1.4 3. 7. 21.

SIGMA1 (kPa) 1.0 2.1 4. 10. 30.









26

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

60/286







(hours) (kPa) Rec.


2.3 59 to 60 65.4.4 73 to 74 79.7.1 89 to 90 90.



27

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

61/286








1.00 1.5 0.71.25 1.6 0.8

1.50 1.9 0.92.00 2.9 1.3


Critical Rathole Diameters, DF (meters)1.00 0.9 2 2 2 3 4 61.25 1.01.50 1.32.00 ***




28

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

62/286







1.00 1.9 0.91.25 2.3 1.1

1.50 3.2 1.42.00 +++ ***


Critical Rathole Diameters, DF (meters)1.00 1.3 2 2 3 4 5 81.25 1.81.50 ***2.00 ***





29

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

63/286







EH (meters) 0.2 0.3 0.8 1.5 3.0 6.1 12.2 24.4

SIGMA1 (kPa) 2. 5. 14. 30. 64. 139. 301. 652.

GAMMA (kg/m^3) 1516.6 1643.0 1826.4 1978.6 2143.5 2322.1 2515.6 2725.3





GAMMA0 = 1326.66 kg/m^3

SIGMA0 = 0.62 kPa

BETA = 0.10353


30

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

64/286










Hopper AnglesTHETA-P (deg) 7.* 12. 20. 22. 22.THETA-C (deg) 0.* 0. 7. 10. 12.









31

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

65/286







SIGMA (kPa) 0.7 1.4 3. 8. 21.

SIGMA1 (kPa) 1.3 2.5 5. 11. 30.











32

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

66/286







SIGMA (kPa) 0.7 1.4 3. 8. 21.

SIGMA1 (kPa) 1.3 2.5 5. 11. 28.









Hopper AnglesTHETA-P (deg) 7.* 7.* 14.THETA-C (deg) 0.* 0.* 2.


33

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

67/286







(hours) (kPa) Rec.


2.3 51 to 53 58.4.4 64 to 65 70.7.2 70 to 71 76.



34

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

68/286

BULK MATERIAL 5: GFI







1.00 0.6 0.31.25 0.8 0.4

1.50 1.5 0.62.00 +++ ***


Critical Rathole Diameters, DF (meters)1.00 0.5 0.4 0.6 1.1 2 5 101.25 1.61.50 ***2.00 ***





35

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

69/286







1.00 1.1 0.51.25 1.6 0.7

1.50 3.1 1.12.00 +++ ***


Critical Rathole Diameters, DF (meters)1.00 0.9 0.7 0.8 1.3 2 5 101.25 ***1.50 ***2.00 ***





36

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

70/286







EH (meters) 0.2 0.3 0.8 1.5 3.0 6.1 12.2 24.4

SIGMA1 (kPa) 2. 5. 13. 27. 59. 126. 272. 584.

GAMMA (kg/m^3) 1431.5 1539.9 1695.8 1824.2 1962.4 2111.0 2270.8 2442.7





GAMMA0 = 1272.63 kg/m^3

SIGMA0 = 0.62 kPa

BETA = 0.09527



37

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

71/286





DESCRIPTION : sieve analysis


#5 0.1570 3.988 0.00

#10 0.0787 1.999 11.84

#16 0.0469 1.191 8.11

#30 0.0234 0.594 10.95

#50 0.0117 0.297 10.82

#100 0.0059 0.150 14.12

#200 0.0029 0.074 22.80

#325 0.0017 0.043 13.74

PAN 7.63

100.00

38

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

72/286



















39

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

73/286







SIGMA (kPa) 0.6 1.7 4. 8. 21.

SIGMA1 (kPa) 1.1 2.6 6. 12. 31.










40

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

74/286







SIGMA (kPa) 0.6 1.6 4. 8. 21.

SIGMA1 (kPa) 1.1 2.7 6. 12. 32.









Hopper AnglesTHETA-P (deg) 10.* 10. 13.THETA-C (deg) 0.* 1. 3.


41

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

75/286







(hours) (kPa) Rec.


2.3 57 to 59 64.4.4 70 to 71 76.7.1 82 to 84 89.



42

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

76/286








1.00 0.9 0.41.25 1.3 0.6

1.50 2.6 0.92.00 +++ ***


Critical Rathole Diameters, DF (meters)1.00 0.8 1.0 1.2 2 3 5 91.25 ***1.50 ***2.00 ***





43

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

77/286







1.00 1.1 0.51.25 2.2 0.7

1.50 +++ 3.02.00 +++ ***


Critical Rathole Diameters, DF (meters)1.00 1.7 1.0 1.3 2 3 6 111.25 ***1.50 ***2.00 ***





44

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

78/286







EH (meters) 0.2 0.3 0.8 1.5 3.0 6.1 12.2 24.4

SIGMA1 (kPa) 2. 5. 14. 29. 62. 133. 283. 602.

GAMMA (kg/m^3) 1583.3 1686.9 1834.5 1954.6 2082.6 2219.0 2364.3 2519.2





GAMMA0 = 1415.56 kg/m^3

SIGMA0 = 0.62 kPa

BETA = 0.08384


45

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

79/286

















46

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

80/286







SIGMA (kPa) 0.6 1.7 4. 9. 21.

SIGMA1 (kPa) 1.0 2.4 5. 12. 29.









47

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

81/286







SIGMA (kPa) 0.5 1.7 4. 9. 21.

SIGMA1 (kPa) 1.0 2.4 5. 12. 29.









48

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

82/286







(hours) (kPa) Rec.


2.3 58 to 59 64.4.4 69 to 71 76.7.1 82 to 84 89.



49

7/25/2019 Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

83/286

BULK MATERIAL 7: GFH Zogota


MOISTURE CONTENT 10% (wet bas

Date post:	28-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jamersonmiranda
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Report JJC #68334-2 (2)

Documents