appendix 5: definition study report

Scoping Report

97 | P a g e

Appendix 5: Definition Study Report

Knight Piésold (Pty) Ltd.

4 De la Rey Road Rivonia, Johannesburg, South Africa PO Box 221, Rivonia 2128 Telephone: + 27 11 806 7111 E-mail: [email protected]

SOUTH32 LIMITED

MAMATWAN SLIMES HANDLING & BULK WATER STORAGE

DEFINITION STUDY REPORT

(KP Ref. No: RI301-00462/04/R2)

July 2015

Rev Description Date Approved

A/R1 Selection Report - Issued for Comment February 2015

0/R2 Definition Report - Issued for Comment July 2015

DOCUMENT CONTROL SHEET

Report no: RI301-00462/04/R2 REV0

Title: MAMATWAN SLIMES HANDLING & BULK WATER STORAGE

Sub Title DEFINITION STUDY REPORT

Rev

No:

Date of Issue Originator Checked Approved Description

Initials Signature Initials Signature Initials Signature

A Feb 2015 SDD AC AC Selection Report - Issued

for Comment

0 July 2015 SDD AS AC Definition Report - Issued for

Comment

SOUTH32 LIMITED



(KP REF. NO: RI301-00462/04/R2)

July 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This design report provides information on the investigation work, design criteria, sizing of the

proposed thickener, tailings storage facility (TSF), return water dam (RWD), stormwater dam

(SD) and bulk water storage dam (BWSD) with all associated infrastructure. The existing

slimes disposal system is inefficient in terms of water management and seepage into the

Adams and South pit is not in compliance with waste management regulations. The project is

aimed at improving water management and overall compliance.

The selected option from the selection study requires the implementation of the following:

By-passing the existing thickener, and replacing it with a new free standing smaller high

density thickener,

Construction of a new HDPE lined TSF, RWD on the Adams Farm site,

Installation of new tailings delivery and distribution pipeline and pumps,

Installation of new return water pipeline and pumps,

Construction of the earth bulk water storage dam next to the return and stormwater

dams.

A new above ground paddock type TSF, will be developed using an upstream wall raising and

deposition method.

The tailings material is classified as a Type 3 waste according to GNR 635, and a Class C liner

(1,5 mm thick HDPE liner + 300mm thick clay) is required.

The total TSF construction expenditure is approximately R 25.6 million (excl. VAT), and this

cost includes HDPE liner for the basin and inner side slope of the starter walls. For the re-

mining option, the total construction expenditure is approximately for R 26.0 million (excl. VAT).

The total cost estimate for installing the new thickener is R5.8 million (excl. VAT),

Consideration was given to concurrent re-mining of the slimes at the request of the client. The

design comprises two compartments for this purpose, however the practical details of how

deposition and re-mining can be done simultaneously has not been defined and requires further

definition and discussion. A third compartment may be required to separate re-processed slime

from ‘high grade’ slime.

South32 Ltd. i of iv July 2015 Mamatwan Slimes Handling & Bulk Water Storage Definition Study Report Rev 0

SOUTH32 LIMITED



(KP REF. NO: RI301-00462/04/R2)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 GENERAL ..................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND........................................................................................................... 2

1.3 SCOPE OF WORK ....................................................................................................................... 2

SECTION 2.0 - CLIMATIC CONDITIONS AND HYDROLOGY ................................................................. 3

2.1 REGIONAL CLIMATE ................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 RAINFALL AND EVAPORATION ................................................................................................. 3

2.3 STORM RAINFALL DEPTH .......................................................................................................... 3

SECTION 3.0 - GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ................................................................................ 4

3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY................................................................................................................. 4

3.2 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION .................................................................................................. 4

3.3 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................. 4

SECTION 4.0 - TAILINGS PRODUCTION AND CHARACTERISTICS .................................................... 5

4.1 TAILINGS PRODUCTION AND DISPOSAL STRATEGY ............................................................ 5

4.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISATION .............................................................................................. 6

4.3 TAILINGS DEWATERING TESTS ................................................................................................ 7

4.4 RHEOLOGY TESTS ................................................................................................................... 10

4.5 GEOCHEMICAL CHARACTERISATION .................................................................................... 12

4.5.1 Geochemical Analysis ................................................................................................................. 12

4.5.2 Characterisation Results ............................................................................................................. 13

4.5.3 Acid Base Accounting ................................................................................................................. 14

4.5.4 Waste Type Assessment ............................................................................................................ 14

4.5.5 Source Term Estimation and Groundwater Modelling ................................................................ 15

4.6 RATE OF RISE ........................................................................................................................... 16

SECTION 5.0 - TAILINGS THICKENER .................................................................................................. 17

5.1 PROPOSED TAILINGS THICKENER ........................................................................................ 17

5.2 THICKENER INSTALLATION ..................................................................................................... 18

SECTION 6.0 - TAILINGS STORAGE FACILITY DESIGN ..................................................................... 19

6.1 DESIGN OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................... 19

6.2 GENERAL LAYOUT OF THE TSF AND RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE ................................. 19

6.3 STAGE CAPACITY RELATIONSHIPS ....................................................................................... 21

6.4 HAZARD / CONSEQUENCE RATING ......................................................................................... 3

6.5 SEEPAGE ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 29

6.5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 29

6.5.2 Material Properties for Seepage Modelling ................................................................................. 30

South32 Ltd. ii of iv July 2015 Mamatwan Slimes Handling & Bulk Water Storage Definition Study Report Rev 0

6.5.3 Cases Considered for Seepage Analyses .................................................................................. 29

6.5.4 Seepage Analyses Results ......................................................................................................... 29

6.6 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 30

6.6.1 Slope Stability Analysis Software (SLOPE/W) Summary ........................................................... 30

6.6.2 Materials Properties for Slope Stability Analyses ....................................................................... 30

6.6.3 Cases Considered for Slope Stability Analyses .......................................................................... 31

6.6.4 Slope Stability Results ................................................................................................................ 31

6.7 BASIN PREPARATION AND LINING ......................................................................................... 32

6.8 PERIMETER EMBANKMENT WALL AND WALL RAISING PROCEDURE .............................. 32

6.9 UNDERDRAINAGE SYSTEM ..................................................................................................... 33

6.10 TAILINGS DELIVERY AND DISTRIBUTION .............................................................................. 34

6.11 RETURN WATER SYSTEM ....................................................................................................... 35

6.11.1 Decant System ............................................................................................................................ 35

6.11.2 Catwalk System .......................................................................................................................... 35

6.11.3 Silt Trap ....................................................................................................................................... 36

6.11.4 Return Water and Stormwater Dams .......................................................................................... 36

6.11.5 Return Water Pump and Pipeline ............................................................................................... 37

6.12 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................... 37

6.13 TSF REHABILITATION AND CLOSURE .................................................................................... 37

6.14 MONITORING OF TSF OPERATIONS ...................................................................................... 38

6.15 CONCURRENT RE-MINING OPTION ....................................................................................... 38

SECTION 7.0 - BULK WATER STORAGE DAM ..................................................................................... 39

SECTION 8.0 - SITE WIDE WATER BALANCE ...................................................................................... 39

SECTION 9.0 - SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF PREPARATORY/ CONSTRUCTION WORKS ........... 40

SECTION 10.0 - CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ............................................................................................ 40

10.1 TSF CONSTRUCTION COSTS .................................................................................................. 41

10.2 NEW TAILINGS THICKENER INSTALLATION COSTS ............................................................ 42

SECTION 11.0 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 42

SECTION 12.0 - REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 43

SECTION 13.0 - CERTIFICATION .......................................................................................................... 44

South32 Ltd. iii of iv July 2015 Mamatwan Slimes Handling & Bulk Water Storage Definition Study Report Rev 0

FIGURES

Figure 1-1: Local Setting of the Mamatwan Mine ................................................................................... 1

Figure 4-1: Tailings Particle Size Distribution ......................................................................................... 6

Figure 4-2: Photo of the Boger Slump Test at 54.2%m Solids Concentration ........................................ 8

Figure 4-3: Thickener Underflow Un-drained Settled Density (48h) ....................................................... 9

Figure 4-4: Thickener Underflow Un-drained Water Release (48h) ....................................................... 9

Figure 4-5: Rheogram for Tailings Material .......................................................................................... 11

Figure 4-6: Yield Stress versus Mass Solids Concentration for the Tailings Material .......................... 11

Figure 4-7: Plastic Viscosity versus Mass Solids Concentration for Tailings Material.......................... 12

Figure 4-8: Element Composition of Tailings Compared to Median Concentration of Crustal Rocks .. 13

Figure 4-9: Class C Prescribed Lining Requirement (from GNR 636) .................................................. 15

Figure 4-10: Contaminant Transport Simulation Results for Nitrate and Manganese .......................... 16

Figure 6-1: General TSF Layout ........................................................................................................... 21

Figure 6-2: Rate of Rise Curves.............................................................................................................. 1

Figure 6-3: Stage Capacity Curves (Design Case) ................................................................................. 2

Figure 6-4: Zone of Influence .................................................................................................................. 1

Figure 6-5: TSF Layout and Cross-Section Location ............................................................................ 30

Figure 6-6 : Outer Wall Raise for the TSF ............................................................................................ 33

Figure 6-7: Proposed Catwalk on top of HDPE Liner ........................................................................... 36

South32 Ltd. iv of iv July 2015 Mamatwan Slimes Handling & Bulk Water Storage Definition Study Report Rev 0

TABLES

Table 2-1: Summary of Rainfall and Evaporation Data .......................................................................... 3

Table 4-1: Fine Tailings Production ........................................................................................................ 5

Table 4-2: Tailings Physical Properties ................................................................................................... 6

Table 4-3: Rheological Correlations ...................................................................................................... 12

Table 5-1: Thickener Duty ..................................................................................................................... 17

Table 5-2: Thickener Sizing - 14m HRT Option .................................................................................... 18

Table 6-1: Sizing - Key Features of the TSF and Associated Infrastructure ........................................ 20

Table 6-2: Stage Capacity Criteria ........................................................................................................ 22

Table 6-3: Summarised Stage Capacity Results .................................................................................... 1

Table 6-4: General Information Required for the Safety Classification of a TSF (SANS 10286) ........... 3

Table 6-5: Safety Classification Criteria for the TSF (SANS 10286) ...................................................... 4

Table 6-6: Comments on Safety Classification of the TSF ..................................................................... 4

Table 6-7: Minimum Requirements Associated with a Medium Hazard TSF ....................................... 29

Table 6-8: Material Properties for Seepage Analysis ........................................................................... 29

Table 6-9: Cases for Seep Analysis ...................................................................................................... 29

Table 6-10: Material Properties for Stability Analysis ........................................................................... 31

Table 6-11: Slope Stability Results ....................................................................................................... 32

Table 6-12: Recommended Factor of Safety ........................................................................................ 32

Table 6-13: Design Criteria for Slurry System ...................................................................................... 34

Table 10-1: Summary of the Bill of Quantities ...................................................................................... 41

Table 10-2: Primary Offer - 14m HTR Pricing Summary ...................................................................... 42

Table 10-3: Total Cost Estimate for the New Thickener ....................................................................... 42

South32 Ltd. v of iv July 2015 Mamatwan Slimes Handling & Bulk Water Storage Definition Study Report Rev 0

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A DESIGN DRAWINGS

APPENDIX B GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

APPENDIX C THICKENING TEST REPORT

APPENDIX D FILTRATION TEST REPORT

APPENDIX E SLURRY TEST REPORT

APPENDIX F GEOCHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISATION REPORT

APPENDIX G THICKENER PROPOSAL

APPENDIX H SEEPAGE AND SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS FIGURES

APPENDIX I PIPELINE AND PUMP DESIGN CALCULATIONS

APPENDIX J WATER BALANCE DIAGRAMS AND INFORMATION

APPENDIX K BILL OF QUANTITIES

APPENDIX L CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS

South32 Ltd. i of iv July 2015 Mamatwan Slimes Handling & Bulk Water Storage Definition Study Report Rev 0

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Below a list of acronyms and abbreviations used in this report.

Acronyms / Abbreviations

Definition

DMR Department of Mineral Resources

DWS Department of Water and Sanitation (previously Department of Water Affairs and Forestry)

FOS Factor of safety

HDPE High density polyethylene

LOM Life of mine

mamsl Metres above mean sea level

Max. Maximum

Min. Minimum

NWA National Water Act

PAG Potentially Acid Generating

ROM Run of mine

ROR Rate of rise

RWD Return water dam

SANS (previously SABS) South African National Standards (previously South African Bureau of Standards)

SWD Stormwater dam

TSF Tailings storage facility

USCS Unified soil classification system

South32 Ltd. Mamatwan Slimes Handling & Bulk Water Storage 1 July 2015 Definition Study Report Rev 0

SOUTH32 LIMITED



(KP REF. NO: RI301-00462/04/R2)

SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

This report details the work that has been undertaken by Knight Piésold (KP) as part of the

Definition Phase for the Mamatwan Slimes Handling and Bulk Water Storage Project.

The Mamatwan Mine is located 17 km south of the town of Hotazel in the Northern Province.

See Figure 1-1. The mine is owned and operated by South32 Limited (formerly BHP Billiton

Limited).

Figure 1-1: Local Setting of the Mamatwan Mine


1.2 Project Background

Fine slurry from the Ore Preparation Plant (OPP) and Dense Media Separation Plant (DMS) is

currently being passed through a 22m diameter thickener where limited dewatering occurs,

and is deposited at the Adams Pit located approximately 600m north-west of the plant at very

low slurry densities. There is minimal water recovery from the deposition area (Adam’s pit)

and it is in the form of ground water seepage. This water is collected at the South Pit. Coarse

discard from the DMS is also deposited into the Adams Pit separately.

The selection study1 completed by Knight Piésold in February assessed a few alternatives for

the dewatering and tailings disposal methods to optimise return water. The bulk earth water

storage options were also studied to optimise water storage and the water balance of the

facilities.

The selected option from the selection study requires the following:

By-passing the existing thickener, and replacing it with a new free standing smaller

high density thickener,

Construction of a new HDPE lined tailings storage facility (TSF), return water dam

(RWD), and storm water dam (SD) on the Adams Farm site,

Installation of new tailings delivery and distribution pipeline and pumps,

Installation of new return water pipeline and pumps, and

Construction of the earth bulk water storage dam next to the return and storm water

dams.

The purpose of this design report is to provide information on the investigation work, design

criteria, sizing of the proposed thickener, design of the TSF, RWD, SD and bulk water storage

dam with all associated infrastructure.

1.3 Scope of Work

For the definition phase, the following scope of work was undertaken:

Geotechnical site investigations, laboratory testing and analysis of results,

Geochemical testing of tailings samples,

Tailings thickening investigation and thickener design,

Slurry transport and deposition design,

Detailed design of the TSF and related infrastructure,

Detailed design drawings for the TSF,

Bill of quantities and construction cost estimate.

1 KP Ref. No: RI301-00462/04/R2


SECTION 2.0 - CLIMATIC CONDITIONS AND HYDROLOGY

2.1 Regional Climate

The Mamatwan Mine falls within the northern steppe climatic zone as defined by the South

African Weather Bureau (SAWB). This is a semi-arid region characterised by seasonal

rainfall, hot temperatures in summer, and cold temperatures in winter. The area is

characterised by extremes of temperature ranging from -9oC to 42oC. The average

temperature is 18oC. with the higher temperatures occurring in summer months from

September to March and the coldest temperatures occurring from April to August.

2.2 Rainfall and Evaporation

Average rainfall and evaporation data for the Mamatwan Mine was obtained from the Milner

(0393083) Weather Service station, Kuruman Station (D4E004) and Olifantsfontein station

(D4E002) from the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) online database2, which are

located approximately 16km, 45km and 68km respectively from the mine. The average

monthly and annual data is summarised in Table 2-1 below. The mean annual precipitation

(MAP) for Milner is 334mm, based on a 67 year record.

Table 2-1: Summary of Rainfall and Evaporation Data

Month

Rainfall (mm) Evaporation (mm)

Milner-

393083 W

Kuruman-

D4E004

Olifantsfontein-

D4E002

Kuruman-

D4E004

Olifantsfontein-

D4E002

January 59.8 26.4 19 236.3 234.9

Feb 63 45.1 27.4 243.6 266.6

March 72.3 44.9 32.7 272.7 293.2

April 39.9 85.6 59.6 259 276.1

May 19.2 82.9 52.1 208.4 221.6

June 9.1 86.5 63.3 161.3 191.9

July 1.3 45.1 33.4 122.3 139.8

August 5.4 21.5 14.1 113.2 105.3

September 6.4 7.4 5.3 82.5 79.8

October 19.2 2.8 3.2 99.1 90.7

November 31.5 9.8 5.5 131.2 132.6

December 44.5 7.9 5.8 188.5 180.3

Annual 371.6 465.9 321.4 2118.1 2212.8

2.3 Storm Rainfall Depth

The 1 in 50 year flood, 24 hour rainfall, has a design rainfall depth of 116mm and the 1 in 100

year flood, 24 hour rainfall, has a design rainfall depth of 131mm. This data was obtained from

the Water Research Commission (WRC) Software (Ver.3)3.

2Data can be found on: https://www.dwa.gov.za/Hydrology/hymain.aspx

3 Program is from: http://dbnweb2.ukzn.ac.za/unp/beeh/hydrorisk/installation.pdf


SECTION 3.0 - GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

A geotechnical investigation was carried by Knight Piésold on the 16th to the 19th of March

2015 and the purpose of the investigation was to determine the geotechnical properties of the

foundation material. A separate report was prepared and is in Appendix B of this report.

3.1 Regional Geology

According to the published 1:250 000 scale geological map of the area, Sheet 2722 Kuruman, the site is underlain by red to flesh-coloured windblown sands, also known as Aeolian Kalahari sand. These are recent (Quaternary) superficial deposits.

3.2 Geotechnical Evaluation

The site is generally covered by Aeolian sand, which overlies calcareous Aeolian sand

horizon and this horizon was encountered to the maximum reach of the excavator (6m depth).

A layer of calcified Aeolian sand was encountered occasionally on the western portion of the

site.

The typical soil profile on site is as follows:

The Aeolian sand covers the site, has an average thickness of 2,7m and comprises of

silty sand with roots, with a very loose consistency at a depth ranging from 0,4m to 0,9m.

The consistency of the sand ranges from loose to medium dense to an average depth of

3m.

The Calcareous Aeolian sand underlies the surface layers, which extends to 6m depth

(maximum reach of excavator). This horizon comprises of silty sand with a consistency

that ranges between very loose to medium dense.

A dense calcified Aeolian sand layer was encountered in most of the test pits. This horizon

comprises of silty sand with abundant calcrete gravel, cobbles and small boulders. In

some of the test pits the calcified Aeolian sand layer was encountered between 4,8m and

5,8m.

A general observation was that bedrock was not encountered during the investigation, but

the excavator refused on the hardpan calcrete at an average depth of 5m particularly on

the lower western side of the site.

The general consistence of the site from was very loose from a 0.0m to 1.0m and it is

recommended that the loose material below the starter wall / embankment should be remove

and re-compacted.

3.3 Recommendations

It is recommended that the excavations that exceed 1.5m should be not have slope that

exceeds 1:1 during the dry season and 1:2 during the rainy season. The boxcut to the starter

wall / embankment and the basin of the TSF should be ripped and re-compacted to a

minimum depth of 300mm to 95% Mod. AASHTO dry density at ±2% OMC.


The starter wall / embankments can be constructed with the calcareaous and/or calcified

Aeolian sand to a density of at least 95% of Mod. AASHTO dry density at ±2% OMC.

At the time of compiling this draft report the shear strength parameter and hydraulic

conductivity results for the foundation material was not available. The following parameters

were assumed for the design;

Shear strength (angle of internal friction) (deg) = 32 to 36

Cohesion (kPa) = 0

Coefficient of permeability (m/s) = 3 x 10-7 to 1 x 10-6

Due to the origin and nature of the material, it is expected that the material will be highly

erodible and protection of the crest, surface slopes will required.

SECTION 4.0 - TAILINGS PRODUCTION AND CHARACTERISTICS

4.1 Tailings Production and Disposal Strategy

The fine tailings are received from the Ore Preparation Plant (OPP) and the Dense Media

Separation Plant (DMS). To optimize the water recovery the tailings should be channel /

pumped through the proposed new thickener. The tailings will then be pumped from the

thickener and be deposited to the proposed TSF. The envisaged development of the facility is

using an upstream construction method. The coarse discard from the DMS will not be pumped

through the proposed thickener and will continue to be deposited separately.

The production rate of fine tailings is approximately 86,000 tonnes/year (dry solids). The

production information is summarised in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1: Fine Tailings Production

Run of Mine OPP Feed 2,926,000 tonnes/year

Percentage of OPP Feed to Thickener 2% %

Solids thickener feed from OPP 58,520 tonnes/year

High Grade DMS feed 1,390,756 tonnes/year

Percentage of DMS Feed to Thickener 2% %

Solids thickener feed from DMS 27,815 tonnes/year

Annual Total Fine Tailings 86,335 tonnes/year

Monthly Total Fine Tailings 7,195 tonnes/month

Total Fine Tailings Over 19 years 1,640,367 tonnes


4.2 Physical Characterisation

The tailings physical characteristics used in the design are presented in Table 4-2. The values were

obtained from various laboratory test results conducted as part of this study, and also from previous

test results for similar materials.

Table 4-2: Tailings Physical Properties

Property Value Comment

Particle specific gravity 3.512 g/cm3 Tested

Particle size distribution (1)

d20 = 1.36 μm

d50 = 5.06 μm

d80 = 14.63 μm

Tested, see Figure 4-1

Saturated hydraulic conductivity coefficient (Ksat) 3.0 × 10-6

m/s (100 kPa)

1.2 × 10-7

m/s (100 kPa)

2.4 × 10-8

m/s (100 kPa)

Tested(2)

Angle of internal friction Average :34º (28º to 36º) Previous tests

Cohesion 0 kPa Previous tests

Maximum Dry Density of consolidated tailings 1 700 kg/m3 (60%m

solids)

Tested

Note:

1. The d80 of approximately 15 μm for the thickener feed sample indicate that the tailings material

is ultra-fine, and this is significantly different to the given (assumed) typical value of 180 μm

during the Selection Study Phase

2. Falling head test

The typical particle size distribution is shown in Figure 4-1. It should be noted that 100% passes the

0.075mm seize, (this means that all of the particles size are smaller than 75microns in size).

Figure 4-1: Tailings Particle Size Distribution


4.3 Tailings Dewatering Tests

A bench top thickening and filtration test study was conducted by Vietti Slurrytec (formerly

Paterson and Cooke). The main aim of the study was to determine the thickening and filtration

characteristics of the Mamatwan tailings for dewatering equipment design; sizing and costing

purposes. The full reports are included as Appendix C and Appendix D for thickening and

filtration studies respectively.

The following tests were carried out on the thickener feed slurry obtained from the mine:

Slurry Behaviour Tests

Static Sedimentation Tests

Bench-top Dynamic Thickening Tests

Thickened Mud Bed Rheology Tests

Water Release Tests

Note:

Guided by the initial thickening targets set during the earlier stages of the Selection Study

Phase, the estimated thickener performance was based on the optimum parameters for

benchtop dynamic batch operation under Paste thickening conditions (i.e. 200mm mud bed

and no continuous pumping out).

Having taken into consideration the current state of tailings thickener operations it was

decided that a simpler High Rate Thickener (HRT) be considered (instead of a paste

thickener), with a maximum underflow solids concentration of approximately 55%m (The HRT

proposal is discussed in Section 5.0 - )

The following findings and conclusions were made from the thickening test work:

(1) The Mamatwan thickener feed material was found to be naturally coagulated (settling)

in the un-flocculated state, even though it has a very fine particle size distribution (d80

of 15 micron – see Figure 4-1) and a very small fraction of swelling clays.

(2) For thickening the optimum flocculant type is Magnafloc – 336.

(3) The optimum thickener operating parameters obtained from the test work and based

on the slurry solids concentration as received (3.4%m), are:

Flocculant dosing concentration of 0.025% to 0.05%m

Flocculant dose of 30 g/t

(4) The optimum thickener sizing parameters determined from the test work are:

Solids flux rate of 0.3 t/m2.h

Residence time of 6 hours

(5) Estimated thickener performance:

Parameter Mamatwan Thickener Feed

Overflow clarity (wedge number) 40 out of 50

Underflow solids conc. (%m) for a picket raked

Paste thickener at a residence time of 6 hours.

60


(6) The un-sheared vane yield stress of the material is in the order of 200 to 300 Pa at

63%m solids concentration. It is recommended that the thickener supplier be

consulted regarding the design of the rake drive to handle these high yield stresses.

However at the now planned maximum solids concentration of 55%m, it is expected

that the vane yield stress of the material will be below 20Pa. Figure 4-2 shows that the

tailings material still flow freely at approximately 55%m solids concentration.

Figure 4-2: Photo of the Boger Slump Test at 54.2%m Solids Concentration

(7) Figure 4-3 presents a summary of the un-drained final settled solids concentration

after 48 hours as a function of placed solids concentration.


Figure 4-3: Thickener Underflow Un-drained Settled Density (48h)

(8) The bleed water limit of the material is estimated at 65% to 66%m solids concentration. Figure 4-4 presents the percentage of water in the thickened underflow that is released after 48 hours in the un-drained condition, as a function of placed solids concentration.

Figure 4-4: Thickener Underflow Un-drained Water Release (48h)

(9) Vietti Slurrytec (Paterson and Cooke) recommended the following (paste) thickener

sizing options for the Thickener Feed Sample based on a lower limit feed dry solids


tonnage of 10 t/h and a higher limit of 50 t/h (A HR Thickener proposal is included in

Section 5.0 - ):

1 x 7m diameter Paste thickener with 4m side wall height for the lower limit

1 x 15m diameter Paste thickener with 3m side wall height for the higher limit

(10) The fine tailings material did not display ideal characteristics for vacuum filtration and

this was not considered further.

4.4 Rheology Tests

Rheology tests were conducted to determine the flow properties of the tailings material. The

results were used in the design of the slurry pipeline and pumping system. A rheology study

report by Paterson and Cooke is included as Appendix E.

An Anton Paar QC rotational viscometer with a temperature control bath was used for the test

work. The measured viscometer flow curves were analysed using the ISO 3219 method. The

sample was fully sheared before testing.

A resulting rheogram for the manganese the tailings at different solids concentrations is

shown in Figure 4-5. This data was analysed by applying the Bingham plastic model that is

characterised by the plastic viscosity and Bingham yield stress. The Bingham yield stress and

plastic viscosity at different mass solids concentration is shown in Figure 4-6 and Figure 4-7

respectively.

The results show that at the target maximum solids concentration of 55%m the slurry yield

stress is low (approximately 20 Pa) and conventional centrifugal pumps will be suitable for

pumping the tailings material.

Rheological correlations as a function of mass solids concentration are shown in Table 4-3.


Figure 4-5: Rheogram for Tailings Material

Figure 4-6: Yield Stress versus Mass Solids Concentration for the Tailings Material


Figure 4-7: Plastic Viscosity versus Mass Solids Concentration for Tailings Material

Table 4-3: Rheological Correlations

4.5 Geochemical Characterisation

The purpose of the study was to assess the hazard posed by the tailings material and the

subsequent seepage of leachate to the surrounding environment.

The geochemical characterisation study report by Solution[H+] is attached as Appendix H.

4.5.1 Geochemical Analysis

The tailings sample was analysed for:

Mineral identification.

Whole element analysis to determine the chemical composition of the tailings.

Acid base accounting to estimate the potential for acid generation.

Short term leach tests to determine the metal leaching potential from the tailings.

Sequential leach testing to determine changes in leaching potential over time.


Physical properties of the tailings that control permeability, including hydraulic

conductivity under compaction.

The tailings supernatant and the leachates from leach testing were analysed for:

Physico-chemical parameters.

Major anions (F, Cl, SO4).

ICP-OES (Optical Emission Spectroscopy) for major cations and trace elements

(including Ag, Al, As, Ba, Be, Ca, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, K, Mg, Mo, Mn, Na, Ni, Pb, Sb,

Se, Sr, Tl, V, Zn, Hg)

The characterisation results were used to determine the waste type according to the National

Environmental Management: Waste Act and develop a contaminant source term to determine

potential groundwater contamination impact downstream of the proposed tailings facility.

4.5.2 Characterisation Results

The mineralogical composition of the tailings is limited to calcite (calcium carbonate),

kutnohorite (a calcium manganese carbonate), braunite (manganese silicate), and birnessite

(manganese oxide). As shown in Figure 4-8, the mineralogy is consistent with the whole

element composition which indicates manganese is the most abundant element in the tailings,

followed by calcium and iron.

Figure 4-8: Element Composition of Tailings Compared to Median Concentration of Crustal Rocks

The results of the analysis of tailings supernatant indicate the flowing:

The tailings supernatant is alkaline with a pH of 8

Magnesium (Mg) and nitrate (NO3) dominate the supernatant chemistry, which also

includes significant concentrations of calcium (Ca) and chloride (Cl). The

concentrations of these compounds are several hundred mg/L.


TDS concentration indicates that the supernatant is saline and exceeds the SANS 241

guideline of 1 200 mg/L.

Manganese is present in the supernatant at 1.3 mg/L, which exceeds the SANS 241

guideline of 0.5 mg/L.

Sequential leaching indicates that the concentrations of most major ions decrease with

successive leaches. However, alkalinity remains constant and is likely to be controlled by

dissolution of the mineral calcite.

4.5.3 Acid Base Accounting

Acid base accounting (ABA) indicates whether tailings drainage is likely to have a low (acidic)

pH. The ABA results show the following:

The paste pH is 8.4.

The total sulphur is below the limit of detection.

Neutralisation potential (NP) far exceeds the acid potential (AP)

These results indicate that the Mamatwan tailings are non-potentially acid generating (non-

PAG) according to the criteria documented by Price (2009).

4.5.4 Waste Type Assessment

Waste type assessment and liner requirement determination was done based on the Waste

Classification and Management Regulations (WCMR) (GNR 634 of 2013) which include the

following Norms and Standards:

National Norms and Standards for the assessment of waste for landfill disposal

(GNR 635 of 2013)

National Norms and Standards for disposal of waste to landfill (GNR 636 of 2013)

This requires analysis of the waste to determine the following:

The Total Concentration (TC) of chemicals substances specified in Section 6 of

GNR 635 that are "known to occur, likely to occur or can reasonably be expected to

occur". The TC of the chemical substances is compared to the total concentration

threshold (TCT) limits in Section 6 of GNR 635.

The Leachable Concentration (LC) of the chemical substances must be compared to

the leachable concentration threshold (LCT) limits in Section 6 of GNR 635.

The TC and LC exceeding the relevant TCT and LCT limits determine the specific waste type

according to Section 7 of GNR 635.

For the Mamatwan tailings, Solution[H+] considered it appropriate to test for metal and

inorganic ions. Organic components and pesticides specified in GNR 635 are considered

unlikely to occur in the tailings.

A comparison of the tailings waste analysis with the National Norms and Standards

(GNR 635) was conducted. Based on the comparison, the Mamatwan tailings are Type 3


waste. Under GNR 636 Type 3 waste is required to be placed in a facility with a Class C lining

shown in Figure 4-9.

Figure 4-9: Class C Prescribed Lining Requirement (from GNR 636)

4.5.5 Source Term Estimation and Groundwater Modelling

The mass of salt moving through the TSF footprint over time (source term) is the product of

the seepage rate and the seepage quality. The results of the characterisation programme

were applied to determine nitrate and manganese source terms for the proposed TSF.

Considering the permeability results, and the proposed volume of water to be discharged to

the tailings, a liner with an effective permeability of 10-9 m/s would have little impact on

groundwater contamination.

The geochemical modelling code PHREEQC (Parkhurst and Appelo 1999) was used to

simulate tailings seepage quality for two scenarios:

Operational phase seepage, during which tailings supernatant percolates through the

tailings to the subsurface. The supernatant was assumed to be concentrated through

evaporation from the TSF pool. This study assumes a 10% volume reduction from

evaporation.

Post-closure seepage, during which the moisture content of the tailings is expected to

reduce to approximately 15% (the moisture content on completion of falling head

tests). The sequential leaching results were used as input water quality.

Water in contact with the tailings was assumed to be in equilibrium with the minerals

rhodochrosite and calcite, as indicated from the mineralogy results. The minerals manganite

(MnOOH) and barite (BaCO3) were allowed to precipitate.

Contaminant transport in groundwater beneath the tailings simulated with assumptions based

on site monitoring data, estimated seepage volume and seepage quality. Simulations were

conservative and only considered dilution in the subsurface, ignoring chemical processes

which may reduce concentrations.

Simulation results indicate that it takes 5 to 10 years for contamination from the tailings to

reach the groundwater table beneath the TSF and a further 5 years for contamination to travel


to the Mamatwan Pit in the groundwater. Both nitrate and manganese concentrations (which

exceed the SANS 241 guideline) decline by approximately 50% downstream of the tailings as

shown in Figure 4-10.

Local groundwater gradients are directed towards the Mamatwan Pit. The pit is not a sensitive

receptor and acts as a sink for contaminated groundwater, including the proposed TSF.

Therefore, the groundwater quality risk from the TSF is considered to be low.

Note: Nitrate is left column and Manganese is right column. Top row shows concentrations at the base of the unsaturated zone beneath the tailings. Bottom row shows concentrations 600 m downstream of the tailings.

Figure 4-10: Contaminant Transport Simulation Results for Nitrate and Manganese

4.6 Rate of Rise

The type of proposed TSF (upstream construction) is dependent on the tailings developing

sufficient strength to achieve a stable profile and trafficable crest to enable wall raising, once

the elevation of the tailings beach exceeds the elevation of the starter wall. The rate of rise

(m/ yr) is a critical design parameter as it affects the overall stability of the TSF. It also

influences the minimum footprint required for the TSF. The maximum allowable rate of rise is

a measure of the rate at which the average crest elevation rises vertically per year. The


decision of the maximum allowable rate of rise to be adopted is influenced by the following

parameters:

The coefficient of consolidation,

The coefficient of permeability,

The particle size distribution of the tailings,

The extent to which tailings segregates down the beach,

The climate including rainfall, evaporation and the nature of rainfall events,

The presence of salts within the process water which reduces the rate of evaporation

of water from the tailings, and

The layer thickness, which in turn affects the drying time.

The drying / desiccation time for the Mamatwan TSF is not an issue given the extremely high

evaporation rates and low annual rainfall, characterised by infrequent rainfall events.

However, the ultrafine nature of the tailings will limit the downward infiltration, and this will

inhibit the overall reduction in water content of the beach tailings.

Final sizing of the TSF was undertaken using the results of the settling and drying tests. A

maximum rate of rise of 1.5 m/year was adopted for this project based on the considerations

and the settling and drying tests previously performed by Knight Piésold for Manganese

tailings from the Hotazel area.

SECTION 5.0 - TAILINGS THICKENER

5.1 Proposed Tailings Thickener

Tenova Delkor was requested by Knight Piésold (with permission from the client) to provide a

proposal for the design, fabrication and ex works supply of a High Rate Thickener (HRT).

The thickener proposal is included as Appendix G; and it includes the following:

Commercials and Pricing information, and

Technical Information and Primary Equipment

The thickener sizing was based on the results of the Paterson and Cooke test work report

MAM-12-8458.1-R01 Rev 1 (extended version included as Appendix C of this report), which

was made available to TENOVA. The thickener duty is presented in Table 5-1. The main

information used for thickener sizing is shown in

Table 5-2.

Table 5-1: Thickener Duty

Property Criteria Comment

Design Solids Feed Rate 30 t/h Given as 10-15 t/h but can be as high as

50 t/h

% Solids in Feed 3.4%w Slurry as sampled

Solids SG 3.51 t/m3 From testwork results


Liquid SG 1.00 t/m3

% Solids in Underflow 55.00% Target 50-55%

Expected Yield Stress 12 Pa From testwork results

Table 5-2: Thickener Sizing - 14m HRT Option

Property Value

Thickener Diameter 14m

Number of Units 1

Solids Flux Rate 0.19 t/h

Rise Rate 5.59 m/h

% solids in Feed Well 3.4 %

Selected Drive k Factor 35

Thickener Side wall 2.4m

The received proposal includes the following:

1 x 14m Tailings Thickener (HRT) – Welded Construction; and

1 x AS Automation 0.6 kg/hr Floc Dosing Plant

The thickener specifications are included in Section 3.3 of the proposal and they include the

following:

Tank;

Drive;

Mechanism; and

Instrumentation.

5.2 Thickener Installation

Before the installation of the thickener on site the following tasks need to be completed:

Indication of the precise location for the thickener

Conduct geotechnical investigation of the foundation material and design appropriate

thickener base.

Evaluate and plan all connections to the existing electrical and process control

infrastructure.

Plan connections to the existing feed lines and plan switch over.

The installation will take approximately 4 to 5 weeks, based on prefabrication of much of the

steel work to be welded on site by experienced welders. The following is recommended for

installation phase:

The use of local construction companies to minimise costs,

Proper supervision be provided by a representative from the thickener supplier,

A quality control plan (similar to the one attached with the proposal) be implemented and

followed strictly, and

The switch-over be limited to one maintenance day.


SECTION 6.0 - TAILINGS STORAGE FACILITY DESIGN

This section presents the design summary for the proposed fine tailings disposal facility and

associated infrastructure; it also presents summaries of the additional analyses carried out to

confirm the design.

6.1 Design Objectives

The basic design philosophy used for the TSF is one of disposing the tailings in such a

manner that impacts on the surrounding environment and communities are minimised, while

ensuring that it is structurally sound, safe to operate, and economically viable. The following

design objectives were addressed:

Environmental Objectives:

The TSF must be safe with minimal risk of failure;

The TSF must be as visually unobtrusive as practical;

Dust emissions must be minimised;

Groundwater pollution must be contained and limited;

Surface water pollution must be contained; and

Unpolluted surface water must be protected.

Operational Objectives:

The TSF must be safe with minimal risk of failure;

The TSF must accommodate approximately 1.6 million dry tonnes of fine tailings over a

period of 19 years;

The life of facility cost must be economically viable; and

The design would lend itself to simple and practical operation.

6.2 General layout of the TSF and related infrastructure

A general layout showing the two paddocks of the TSF and associated infrastructure is shown

in Figure 6-1. This layout is for the option that considers future re-mining of the tailings. A

complete set of design drawings showing typical details is included in Appendix A.

The TSF will comprise the following main components

Compacted embankment walls with catchment paddock on the outside;

Compacted basin area covered by a HDPE liner;

Under drainage seepage collection network;

Tailings delivery and distribution system;

Decant system consisting of gravity penstock and access system;

Silt trap;

Lined water dams (Return water, stormwater and bulk water); and

Perimeter access roads and fences.


The pertinent parameters used for sizing of the TSF and related infrastructure is summarised

in Table 6-1.

Table 6-1: Sizing - Key Features of the TSF and Associated Infrastructure

Component Units Value

Tailings dam area (incl. tailings dam basin, starter wall and catchment paddocks)

m2 124 580

The final elevation of the TSF (at the end of year 19) mamsl 1115

Maximum height m 15.5

TSF capacity dry

tonnes 1.6 x 106

Water dams area RWD and SWD (including bulk water storage dam) area

m2 19 070

Return Water Dam volume m3 1 097

Storm Water Dam volume m3 3 436

Bulk water storage dam m3 27 000


Figure 6-1: General TSF Layout

(Note: Two paddocks are required for the re-mining option, otherwise only one large paddock

is required as per Drawing -03 in Appendix A)

6.3 Stage Capacity Relationships

The stage capacity assessment was undertaken to determine:

The relationship between the height (elevation) of the facility and the volume of tailings

deposited,

The variations in the active depositional area of the facility at corresponding elevations

and dates,

The variations in the rates of rise at corresponding elevations and dates, and

The minimum height of the starter wall required to enable the development of the facility to

the point where raising of the walls can be achieved using dried, consolidated tailings.

When developing the stage capacity curves the following was taken into consideration:

The area available for the development of the facility, which was defined during the

previous Selection Phase,


The tailings depositional profile (see Section 4.1),

The tailings characteristics (Section 4.2), and

A maximum allowable rate of rise (ROR) of 1.5 m/year (See Section 4.6)

The design criteria used to develop the stage capacity curve are presented in Table 6-2.

Allowance has been made for if there is a fluctuation in mass of solids passed through the

tailings thickener. In addition to the above, a calculation was conducted for a scenario where

there are 15% more solids (i.e. 15% above the provided value).

Table 6-2: Stage Capacity Criteria

Design Case Design Case + 15% Unit

Solids Deposition Rate 7,200 8,300 tonnes/month

Total Deposited Solids 1,641,600 1,887,900 tonnes

Dry Density 1.75 1.75 tonnes/m3

Total Required Volume 938,100 1,079,000 m3

Outer Side Slopes 1V: 4H 1V: 4H Vertical: Horizontal

Max ROR 1.5 1.5 m/year

Final Elevation 1115 1119 mamsl

The results of the stage capacity calculations (Base case) are presented in


Table 6-3 and in a multi-axial plot shown in Figure 6-3. A comparison between the ROR for the

design case and with additional 15% solids is shown in Figure 6-2.

The results show that:

The final elevation for the base case is 1115 mamsl (maximum TSF height is

approximately 15.5m); and this formed basis of all other analysis (seepage, stability,

safety classification etc.)

The ROR during the initial stages is sufficiently low and there is no required minimum

height for a starter wall around the perimeter of the TSF. A 2m high starter wall has been

specified for this project to simplify initial operations.

If there is change in any design parameters, particularly the height of the TSF, a review of the

slope stability assessment will be required.


Table 6-3: Summarised Stage Capacity Results

Elevation (m) Ave Area

(m2)

Cumul Vol (m

3)

Average ROR (m/yr)

Month

1100 3,492 398 - 0

1102 48,816 101,144 1.01 24

1104 90,910 276,069 0.54 67

1106 83,528 434,639 0.59 105

1108 75,076 576,279 0.66 140

1110 66,986 702,586 0.74 170

1112 59,526 814,181 0.83 197

1114 52,356 911,586 0.94 221

1116 45,694 996,320 1.08 228

1118 39,504 1,068,876 - -

1120 33,696 1,130,473 - -

1122 28,390 1,181,857 - -

1124 23,472 1,223,598 - -

1126 18,174 1,253,968 - -

1128 13,484 1,277,208 - -

Figure 6-2: Rate of Rise Curves


Figure 6-3: Stage Capacity Curves (Design Case)

1,100

1,101

1,102

1,103

1,104

1,105

1,106

1,107

1,108

1,109

1,110

1,111

1,112

1,113

1,114

1,115

0.400.600.801.001.201.401.601.802.00

Ele

va

tio

n (

ma

msl

)

Average Rate of Rise (m/yr)

0

50

100

150

200

0 500,000 1,000,000

Tim

e (m

on

ths)

Volume (m3)

- 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000

1,100

1,101

1,102

1,103

1,104

1,105

1,106

1,107

1,108

1,109

1,110

1,111

1,112

1,113

1,114

1,115

- 500,000 1,000,000

Area (m2)

Ele

va

tio

n (

ma

msl

)

Volume (m3)

Beach Area

Curve


6.4 Hazard / Consequence Rating

The safety classification of the proposed TSF has been carried out in accordance with the

requirements of SANS 10286. The safety classification system serves to provide a consistent

means of differentiating between high, medium and low hazard deposits on the basis of their

potential to cause harm to life or property. The classification system furthermore provides a

basis for the implementation of safety management practices for specified stages of the life

cycle of a TSF. The standard provides the aims, principles and minimum requirements that

apply to the classification procedure and the classification in turn gives rise to minimum

requirements for investigation, design, construction, operation and decommissioning. The

information used in the safety classification is presented in Table 6-4 to Table 6-6.

The approximate area that may be affected by a flow slide originating from the proposed TSF

is shown in Figure 6-4. The area is based on the guideline values from the Code of Practice

and the topography of the area.

Based on the safety classification criteria the TSF has been classified as a Medium Hazard

facility. The consequence of failure will vary depending on the stage of the life cycle of the

TSF. For example, as the TSF height increases the consequence of an overtopping event or

major slope failure leading to a flow slide would most likely increase in severity. Erosion of

the side slopes is unlikely to lead to a large-scale failure in the case of an operational TSF, but

could become a significant initiating cause during the post closure phase, when maintenance

is less likely to be undertaken to prevent a large-scale failure. The minimum requirements

associated with the design, operation, management and closure of a Medium Hazard Facility

are summarised in Table 6-7.

Table 6-4: General Information Required for the Safety Classification of a TSF (SANS 10286)

1 General Information (Ref SANS 10286)

1.1 Name of Mine Hotazel Manganese Mines (Mamatwan Mine)

1.2 Postal Address of the Mine 1 Peperboom Avenue, Hotazel, 8490, Northern Cape, South Africa

1.3 Telephone No. of the Mine 053 742 2496

1.4 Magisterial District John Taolo Gaetsewe District Municipality

1.5 DME Region Northern Cape

1.6 Nearest Town Hotazel

1.7 Direction and distance to town 17km North

1.8 Name of person responsible for residue deposit

To be announced

1.9 Number of Deposit 1

1.10 Common name of deposit Mamatwan Tailings Storage Facility

1.11 Name of closest river / stream to the deposit Tributary to Kuruman River

2 Safety Classification (Ref SANS 10286)

2.1 Description of Residue Manganese tailings


2.2 Is residue deposited hydraulically? Yes

2.3 Is deposit still active? N/A

2.4 Time since decommissioning. N/A

2.5 Ultimate maximum height of deposit on closure (Crest elevation and lowest toe elevation)

15.5 m

2.6 Current maximum height of deposit N/A

2.7 When did deposition start? Planned for 3rd quarter 2016

2.8 What is steepest overall outer slope of the deposit?

1 V : 4 H (or 14° from horizontal)

2.9 Steepest ground slope gradient on downstream perimeter of the deposit over a distance of 200m

1 m over 200 m (1V:200H)

2.10 Is deposit located on undermined ground? No

2.11 What is the shallowest depth to underground excavations?

N/A

2.12 Line diagram of the deposit showing:

Outline of deposit, and ground contours;

Zone of potential influence of a failure of the deposit (ref section 3)

Property / Infrastructure / Services located within the zone of influence

See Figure 6-4

3 Determination of Zone of Influence

Step 1 Deposition is hydraulic, go to step 2

Step 2 Deposit will shortly be active, go to step 4

Step 3 N/A

Step 4 Zone of influence defined by :

Upstream (5 x H)

Side (10 x H)

Downstream (100 x H)

72.5 m

155 m

1.55 km

Table 6-5: Safety Classification Criteria for the TSF (SANS 10286)

1 2 3 4

No. of Residents in Zone of Influence

No. of Workers in Zone of Influence

1

Value of 3rd

party property in Zone

of Influence 2

Depth to underground

mine workings 3

Classification

0 < 10 0 – R5 m > 200 m Low Hazard

1 – 10 11 - 100 R5 m – R50 m 50 m – 200 m Medium Hazard

> 10 > 100 > R50 m < 50 m High hazard

1. Not including workers employed solely for the purpose of operating the deposit 2. The value of third party property should be in the replacement value (monetary values based

on an updated version which is due for publication shortly). 3. The potential for collapse of the residue deposit into the underground workings effectively

extends the zone of influence to below ground level.

Source : SANS 10286:1998, Table 2 – Safety Classification Criteria (monetary values based on an updated version which is due for publication shortly)

Table 6-6: Comments on Safety Classification of the TSF

Criteria

No. Criteria Comment

Safety

Classification


1 No. of Residents in

Zone of Influence

No formal or informal settlements are noted

within the zone of influence.

Low Hazard

2 No. of Workers in

Zone of Influence

The zone of influence downstream of the

TSF is channelled into the Adams Pit. It is

not expected that there would be more than

10 workers in the area. However, it is likely

that once the Adams Pit is backfilled to

ground level, the flow may be channelled

into the South Pit (ramp) and this may

increase the number of workers within the

zone of influence to more than 10.

Medium

Hazard

3 Value of 3rd party

property in Zone of

Influence

No formal assessment of the value of the 3rd

party property within the zone of influence

has been done, however it is not likely to be

more than R5 million.

Low Hazard

4 Depth to

underground mine

workings

There are no mine workings beneath the

proposed tailings storage facility site;

however it must be noted that the ramp to

the South Pit is located within the zone of

influence

Low Hazard


Figure 6-4: Zone of Influence


Table 6-7: Minimum Requirements Associated with a Medium Hazard TSF

Planning Stage Design Stage Operation/ Commissioning

Stage

Decommissioning Stage

Conceptualisation by owner.

Preliminary site selection by appropriate specialist.

Geotechnical investigation by suitably qualified person.

Geotechnical report required.

Residue characterisation verified by laboratory analyses.

Design by Pr Eng.

Risk analysis optional.

Construction supervision by suitably qualified person.

Risk analysis optional.

Suitably qualified person responsible for operation.

Pr Eng appointed to monitor.

Pr Eng to audit every two years.

Pr Eng appointed to monitor.

Pr Eng to audit every two years.

6.5 Seepage Analysis

6.5.1 Introduction

Seepage analyses were conducted using the finite element seepage analysis software

SEEP/W 20144(Version 8.14.1.10087). This software is capable of analysing seepage

through a two-dimensional section using a finite element solution to the seepage differential

equation based on Darcy’s law.

The seepage analysis were carried out on the final end of life TSF profile and also for a profile

with a maximum elevation of 1105 mamsl i.e. maximum elevation for the re-mining option (the

position is indicated by a red line in Figure 6-5: TSF Layout and Cross-Section Location Figure 6-5)

The period prior to this (commissioning and early operational phase) and the period after

decommissioning (draw down phase) have not been analysed.

The models include a supernatant pond is positioned centrally on top of the TSF and a 5 m

wide toe drain positioned on the inner toe of the starter wall.

4More information on this software is available online at: http://www.geo-slope.com

http://www.geo-slope.com/


Figure 6-5: TSF Layout and Cross-Section Location

6.5.2 Material Properties for Seepage Modelling

A “saturated/unsaturated” SEEP/W material model was chosen for the analyses, and this model requires the following inputs for each material type:

the hydraulic conductivity functions, and

the hydraulic conductivity ratios (the ratio of the hydraulic conductivity in the y-coordinate

direction to the hydraulic conductivity in the x-coordinate direction).

The foundation material properties and thicknesses were estimated based on the findings of a

recent geotechnical test-pitting (See Appendix B).

The hydraulic permeability and anisotropic parameter values for tailings have been assigned

to the tailings material on the basis laboratory results. The material properties used in the

seepage modelling are shown in Table 6-8.


Table 6-8: Material Properties for Seepage Analysis

Material Properties Hydraulic Conductivity

KSat (m/s) Kv/Kh

Fine Tailings 2.50E-08 1/5

Starter Wall 2.00E-06 1

HDPE Liner Impermeable n/a

Aeolian 2.00E-06 1

Calcareous Aeolian 1.00E-07 1

Bedrock Impermeable n/a

6.5.3 Cases Considered for Seepage Analyses

The eight cases considered in the seepage analyses are summarised in Table 6-9, and the

following operating conditions were assessed:

Supernatant Pond Size: The pool size was modelled at 15% of the top surface area for

the normal operations and an extreme case of a pool size that is 50% of the top surface

area was also modelled for abnormal operations.

Underdrains: The underdrains with widths of 5 m are positioned on the inner toe of the

starter wall. The effects of the malfunctioning or complete failure of some drains were

modelled by removing the drain altogether from the models.

Liner: Lined and non-lined options are considered

Height of TSF: The height of the TSF was modelled at 5m (re-mining option) and 15 m

(final height)

Table 6-9: Cases for Seep Analysis

Cases Pond Size

(% of top surface area) Drains

Height of TSF (m)

Liner

1 15% Yes 15 Yes

2 15% No 15 Yes

3 50% Yes 15 Yes

4 15% Yes 15 No

5 50% Yes 15 No

6 50% Yes 5 Yes

7 50% No 5 No

8 50% No 5 Yes

6.5.4 Seepage Analyses Results

Seepage analyses results plots (included in the SLOPE/W results plots) are presented in

Appendix H. These plots show the position of the phreatic surface (dotted blue line) and

pressure head contours (black solid lines, in two metres increments). The pore water

distribution results were used in the SLOPE/W analyses (discussed in Section 6.6 below).


Phreatic Surface Position

The results show that except for extreme cases (Case 2 and Case 8 – when the basin is

plastic lined and the drains have failed) the size of the planned toe drain is adequate in

preventing the phreatic surface daylighting on the side slopes. The daylighting of the phreatic

surface on the embankment slopes is undesirable as it may result in slope stability issues,

e.g. piping (internal erosion) failure even if the calculated factor of safety is above the

recommended value.

Estimate Seepage to the New Basin Area without a liner

The estimated seepage using the estimated coefficient of permeability from the geotechnical

investigation report is as follows:

Coefficient of permeability of the foundation, k (m/s) = 1 x10-6

Exposed area for seepage to occur at elevation 1109 (m2) = 91 000

Seepage flow rate (m3/s) = 0.091

Seepage flow rate (m3/day) = 7 800

Estimate Seepage to the New Basin Area with a liner

Using the coefficient of permeability of the liner as 1 x 10-12 m/s (estimated). The estimated

seepage through the liner will be 0.078 m3/day (78l/day) assuming good installation, minimal

defects in the liner, and no holes associated with construction damage.

The above assessment indicates that the installation of HDPE liner reduces the seepage rate

by up to 6 orders of magnitude, thereby minimising the ground water contamination.

6.6 Slope Stability Analysis

6.6.1 Slope Stability Analysis Software (SLOPE/W) Summary

The slope stability analyses were undertaken using the slope stability software SLOPE/W

20145(Version 8.14.1.10087). The Morgenstern-Price factor of safety method was chosen for

the analyses. This method ensures force equilibrium in both x- and y-directions, and moment

equilibrium for the succession of slices into which the failure mass is divided.

6.6.2 Materials Properties for Slope Stability Analyses

Shear strength parameters used in the slope stability analyses are listed in Table 6-10.The

values are based on the findings of a recent geotechnical test-pitting (Appendix B) and Knight

Piésold’s experience with similar materials.

5More information on this software is available online at: http://www.geo-slope.com

http://www.geo-slope.com/


Table 6-10: Material Properties for Stability Analysis

Material Name Unit weight

(kN/m³) Effective cohesion

(kPa) Effective friction angle

(Degrees)

Sensitivity Analysis: Effective friction angle

(Degrees)

Fine Tailings 20 0 34 28-36

HDPE Liner 20 0 14 10-16

Starter Wall 20 0 34 28-36

Aeolian 20 0 34 28-36

Calcareous Aeolian 20 0 32 30-34

Bedrock Impenetrable - - -

6.6.3 Cases Considered for Slope Stability Analyses

The cases considered for the slope stability assessment correspond to the cases described

previously in Table 6-9 of the seepage analyses.

Static (steady-state) stability analyses were undertaken for all eight cases; and in addition to

these, earthquake (pseudo-static) analysis was conducted for Case 1. Due to the low seismic

activity in South Africa there is no legislated minimum Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) for

tailings dam design. A more conservative PGA value of 0.05g as suggested in the Chamber

of Mines of Guidelines (1996) was adopted for these analyses. The full value of 0.005 for the

horizontal seismic coefficient was entered for seismic loading.

Sensitivity analyses were carried out to determine which parameter the slope stability is most

sensitive to. When performing a sensitivity analysis, the software keeps one parameter

constant at a time, and the other parameters are varied as per pre-determined steps (10 steps

for this study) between the minimum and maximum values (based on a uniform probability

distribution function).

6.6.4 Slope Stability Results

The results for the static and pseudo-static slope stability analysis are presented in Table 6-

11. The SLOPE/W results plots are included in Appendix H, and these show all analysed

critical slip surfaces.

The results show that the factor of safety (FOS) is above the minimum recommended (shown

in Table 6-12) for all cases analysed.

The sensitivity analysis results (sensitivity FOS results graph included in Appendix H) show

that the slope stability is most sensitive to the effective friction angle of the HDPE liner. The

FOS remained above the recommended minimum for the range of values shown in Table 6-

10.


Table 6-11: Slope Stability Results

Cases Pond Size

(% of top surface area)

Drains Height of TSF (m)

Liner Factor of Safety

1 15% Yes 15 Yes 1.83

1 15% Yes 15 Yes 1.75*

2 15% No 15 Yes 1.67

3 50% Yes 15 Yes 1.79

4 15% Yes 15 No 2.56

5 50% Yes 15 No 2.56

6 50% Yes 5 Yes 3.15

7 50% No 5 No 3.05

8 50% No 5 Yes 3.03

* Under Earthquake Loading

Table 6-12: Recommended Factor of Safety

Condition Recommended Minimum FOS

Regular monitored/ Short-term undrained 1.3(1)

Abandoned side slopes/ Long-term drained 1.5(1)

Earthquake (Pseudo-Static) 1.1(2)

Note (1) – Chamber of Mines Guideline (1996) Note (2) – ANCOLD (1998)

6.7 Basin preparation and Lining

Prior to the commencement of construction activities; the TSF basin area will be cleared,

grubbed and stripped of topsoil to at least 300 to 350 mm depth (to be used for rehabilitation

purposes).

The TSF has been designed to minimise any adverse environmental effects arising from

seepage from the impoundments. The following has been incorporated in the design to

minimise seepage from the TSF:

Ripping and compaction of existing soils (500 mm thick) within the basin area; and

Lining of the basin area with an 1.5mm thick HDPE liner (with additional clearing of all

roots and vegetation that may puncture the liner)

6.8 Perimeter Embankment Wall and Wall Raising Procedure

The starter wall will be constructed using two materials. A 1.5 m high starter wall consisting of

material scraped from the basin of the TSF, will then be raised to a total height of 2 m by

adding a compacted 0.5m layer of calcrete (for erosion protection) to the crest and

downstream slope of the starter wall (See Drawing 30100462/04-04).


Once the tailings beach has reached the crest level of the starter wall, construction will be

continued by a series of upstream raises, each step being 1 m in height. A 1 m high bund

wall with a crest width of 1 m will be constructed around the perimeter of the facility using

dried tailings scraped from the surface of the beach. The bund wall should be positioned on

the beach such that the overall outer slope is 1V:4H. Care should be taken to ensure that

construction of the bund walls does not create a deep depression in the beach immediately

upstream of the bund wall.

The distribution pipe will then be moved onto the crest of each new outer wall raise and

deposition will be continued (See Figure 6-6 below).

Distribution pipe moved

onto bund wall

Bund

Wall

Starter Wall

Tailings Beach

Figure 6-6 : Outer Wall Raise for the TSF

6.9 Underdrainage System

The function of the filter drains is to maintain or improve the stability of the side slopes by

controlling the phreatic surface within the tailings material. The drain performance has been

modelled as part of the seepage and stability analysis.

Based on the analysis, a 5m wide toe drain constructed on the inside toe edge of the starter

wall will be sufficient to control the phreatic surface (a toe drain approximately 8m wide drain

has been adopted for this design). Drainage pipes within the filters will be 110 mm HDPE

slotted Drainex pipes. The toe drains will have outfall pipes (closed 110 mm Kabelflex) at

various intervals, and these outlet pipes will discharge into manholes which will provide

access to the filters for basic maintenance and rodding. The manhole will be connected with

closed 160 mm HDPE closed Drainex collector pipes and the seepage water will be conveyed

to the silt trap.

Correct commissioning of the drains is critical to their success in operation, and thus during

the commissioning of each drain, it is critical that the tailings material deposited on the drains

4

1

4


be carefully monitored to ensure that the drains are not blinded by the finer fraction of the

tailings. (See Drawing 30100462/04-02, 03 and 04 )

6.10 Tailings Delivery and Distribution

The tailings material will be pumped from the new thickener as slurry and deposited into the

basin (formed by the embankment walls) of the proposed TSF. A schematic representation of

the provisional tailings delivery and return water pipelines route is shown in Drawing

30100462/04-12. Preliminary design calculations for the slurry delivery system are included in

Appendix I. The design criteria for the slurry system is summarised in Table 6-13.

Table 6-13: Design Criteria for Slurry System

Criteria Minimum Value Maximum Value

Tailings Solid Throughput 14.5 tph 14.5 tph

Tailings Solids SG 3,5 3.5

Tailings Slurry %w Solids 50% 55%

Flow Rate 47 m3/hr* 41 m

3/hr*

Static Head (slurry) 1m 1m

Approximate Pipeline Length (m) 1000m 1000m *Flow rate based on pipeline running time of 12 hours

The tailings delivery and distribution system will comprise the following elements:

A slurry pump at the tailings thickener (it is envisaged that the current slurry pump will be

used during the initial years of deposition to the new TSF, thereafter a KSB-LCC-R50-

2302KGB6 or equivalent may be required)

A 110mm HDPE PE 80 Class 12 slurry delivery pipeline with associated valves and fittings

from the thickener to the TSF.

A 110 mm HDPE Class 12 pipe tailings distribution pipeline around the TSF crest

75 mm spigot offtakes will be located at every 25 m along the distribution pipeline.

Each offtake will be fitted with a Saunders valve and a short length of lay-flat hose which

will discharge into the TSF basin beyond the toe filters to prevent them being damaged or

blinded.

Deposition will occur in a cyclical pattern to ensure optimum sub-aerial drying of the tailings

beach to achieve high in-situ densities. To prevent erosion of the tailings beach, a minimum of

4 spigot points should be operational at any time.

Once the tailings beach has reached the crest level of the starter wall, construction of the

outer wall of the TSF will be continued by a series of upstream raises, each step being 1 m in

height. The distribution pipe will be moved onto the crest of each new outer wall raise and

deposition will be continued. Once the crest level of the starter wall has been reached, it will

6 Pump details available at: www.ksb.com


no longer be necessary to make use of lay-flat hoses at each spigot point. Discharge will take

place directly from the valved offtake onto the tailings beach.

When the tailings pumping system is to be shut down in a controlled manner, the duty

pump(s) and tailings delivery pipeline must be flushed with process water. Flushing must be

performed until the discharge at the TSF is substantially free of solids.

The following basic interlocks should be provided:

Tailings pumps are locked out from operating if suction or delivery isolation valves are

closed

Tailings pumps are locked out from running if the corresponding gland water pump is not

running or if there is no gland water flow to one or more tailings pumps in the stream

The gland water pumps are interlocked with the gland water tank low level switch, to

prevent them from running dry.

6.11 Return Water System

The return water system will consist of the following:

A decant system with access catwalk,

A silt trap that is fed by the decant system,

An HDPE lined return water dam (RWD) with a capacity of 1 097 m³ (receives water from

the silt trap),

An HDPE lined stormwater dam (SWD) with a capacity of 3 436 m³ ((receives excess

water from the RWD and Bulk water storage dam),

A return water pump on a concrete slab, and

The return water pipeline which coveys water to the process tank.

These components are discussed further in the following sections.

6.11.1 Decant System

The decanting arrangement is a centrally located gravity penstock comprising a 510 mm ID

stacked ring double intake tower with an outlet pipe discharging into the return water dam.

Due to the flat topography the decant had to be raised above natural ground level to achieve

slope in the outfall pipe and to prevent the creation of dead storage space in the RWD and

SWD. A 600 mm high compacted protective embankment will be constructed around the

outfall pipe and the 1.5 mm HDPE liner will be installed over this embankment and around the

concrete block of the decant inlet in order to reduce the possibility of piping or erosion around

the outfall pipe. A layout for the re-mining option includes two temporary single intakes. Refer

to Drawings No 30100462/04-02, 03, and 05.

6.11.2 Catwalk System

The decant intakes will be accessed by means of a walkway from the north wall. The

walkway will be constructed around the decant inlet. The walkway foundations will comprise


200 l drums filled with low strength concrete in which upright gum poles will be planted (see

Figure 6-7). The drums will be carefully placed on a sacrificial mat over the HDPE liner,

taking care to avoid damage to the filters or the decant outfall pipe. Refer to Drawing

30100462/04-06.

Figure 6-7: Proposed Catwalk on top of HDPE Liner

6.11.3 Silt Trap

A silt trap was incorporated into the TSF design to reduce sediment loading into the return

water dam, by removing particles from the decant water, which in turn reduces the chance of

damage to the liner in the return water dam as cleaning is less frequent and intensive. The silt

trap will be required to be cleaned out (de-silting) at regular intervals using mechanical means

or a slimes pump, and should be done during dry weather conditions. The silt trap will have a

1:4 slope access ramp. Refer to Drawing 30100462/04-07.

6.11.4 Return Water and Stormwater Dams

The RWD has the capacity to store decant water to supply three days of slurry water back to

the plant. Once this capacity is reached, as would occur in high rainfall events, the RWD will

overflow and excess water will be collected in the SWD. Stormwater retained in the storm

water dam will be gradually returned to the plant for re-use.

The RWD and SWD as well as the spillway between them and part of the emergency and inlet

spillways will be lined with a 1.5 mm HDPE liner.

To mitigate the risk of drowning in the lined RWD, nylon ropes (or equivalent) fastened to

anchor blocks at strategic positions around the dam will be provided. Furthermore, the RWD

and SWD are fenced off to prevent any unauthorised access and to prevent livestock from

drinking the water in the dams.


Refer to Drawings 30100462/04-08, 09, 10.

6.11.5 Return Water Pump and Pipeline

Preliminary design calculations for the return water pumping and pipeline are also included in

Appendix I.

The return water pumps and pipeline are sized to handle up to 331 m3/day, allowing for an

average 30% recovery. The return water pipeline will be a 250mm HDPE pipeline. There is a

duty and standby pump connected in parallel. If necessary they can be operated together to

boost the delivery rate following storms. They will deliver water to the process water header

tank at the plant, and will incorporate cross connections to the tailings delivery pipeline to

facilitate flushing of the tailings line.

Refer to Drawing 30100462/04-12.

6.12 Surface Water Management

The surface water drainage is designed to separate clean and dirty water run-off, in terms of

Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act, Government Notice R577 of April 2004.

Surface runoff from the outer slopes of the TSF will be collected in the catchment paddocks

and allowed to evaporate. No clean water will be able to enter the filter drain system as the

complete system comprises closed or sealed pipework up to the silt trap. The silt trap and

spillways walls are raised above ground level to prevent clean water being washed into the

system. An earth embankment will be constructed around the RWD and SWD to prevent

clean water and other material from entering the system.

6.13 TSF Rehabilitation and Closure

The closure objectives for the TSF are as follows:

To achieve chemical and physical stability;

To make the TSF site safe;

To protect surface and groundwater resources from loss of utility value or environmental

functioning; and

To limit the rate of emissions to the atmosphere (including particulate matter and salts) to

the extent that degradation of the surrounding properties and soils does not occur.

The following ongoing rehabilitation activities should be carried out in conjunction with the

construction and operation of the TSF:

Stripping and stockpiling of topsoil from the site for use in the rehabilitation and closure

process (The height of topsoil stockpiles to be limited to 2 m in order to limit adverse

biochemical reactions such as the accumulation of ammonium and anaerobic conditions at

the base of the pile that decrease the quality of the stockpiled topsoil as a growth medium

material);


Reshaping and establishment of vegetation on redundant borrow pits and haul roads;

Keeping the outer embankment slopes at 1V:4H (as per this concept design),

Cover the outer embankment slope with a 500 mm thick waste rock and topsoil mix as

part of on-going wall raises to facilitate concurrent closure.

At the end of the operational life of the facility the decommissioning activities will include:

Removal of tailings delivery and distribution system;

Removal of the return water system (pipeline, pumps etc.);

Re-shaping and capping of the top surface; and

Closure and establishment of vegetation on all facilities not needed for post closure

activities.

On completion of the final closure measures an aftercare programme has to be implemented

to ensure that the closure measures are robust, have performed adequately and that no

further liabilities arise. The aftercare period is normally not less than 5 years but can extend

into decades depending on the physical and chemical characteristics of the facility. In the

case of the Mamatwan TSF, with non-acid generating tailings, a period of six to nine years is

considered reasonable.

6.14 Monitoring of TSF Operations

Quarterly inspections of the facility by a suitably qualified person and the compilation of an

annual report on the construction and operation of the facility is a requirement of the

Department of Minerals and Energy. The focus of the quarterly inspections and annual

reporting on the facility will be to ensure that:

The facility is being constructed and operated in accordance with the design requirements;

Seepage and slope stability models of the facility are periodically reviewed and updated as

necessary;

Ensuring safe working practices by the operator;

Ongoing rehabilitation of the facility is kept up to date and that routine maintenance

activities are carried out by the operator.

Monitoring information relevant to the TSF is collected and analysed. Information is expected

to be collected as part of the overall environmental management function for the mine which

should include:

Collection and analysis of groundwater samples from up and down slope of the TSF;

Collection and analysis of surface water samples from the return water dam;

Collection and analysis of dust samples from up and down wind of the facility.

6.15 Concurrent Re-Mining Option

At the start of the definition study phase, Knight Piésold was requested to look an option of

designing a TSF with two compartments to enable concurrent re-mining of the economic

viable ore without affecting operations. The strategy is to deposit tailings on one compartment

whilst conducting re-mining operation on the remaining compartment.


For this option, the following considerations have to be taken into account:

Costs – This option requires additional infrastructure and thus the capital costs are

increased, however this may easily be offset by the ore sales in a short period of time.

Liner and filter drains Installation – Re-mining operations will need to be carefully

controlled in order to not damage the HDPE liner and filter drains.

Mining and Transpiration – It is envisaged that dust generation during re-mining and

transportation operation is going to be a challenge and may result in this option being

unviable (from the recent laboratory results the material has been found to be much finer

that initially thought during the selection study phase)

Height Limit – A maximum 3m height above the crest of the starter wall is recommended

to enable safe access for mining equipment

A firm decision with regards to the concurrent re-mining of the TSF will have to be taken

before the implementation phase, taking into consideration the above points.

SECTION 7.0 - BULK WATER STORAGE DAM

The definition phase included the design of the bulk water storage dam. This dam is located

next to the RWD and SWD and forms part of the return water system i.e. the same pump and

pipeline described in Section 6.11.5 is used to pump water from this dam to the plant. The

location of this dam was agreed upon during the Selection study phase. The possible railway

loop in the vicinity of the TSF area was ruled out subsequently.

This water dam has a capacity of 27,000 m3 as per Mamatwan Water Use Licence, and it will

be line with a 1.5 mm HDPE liner to reduce seepage losses to the ground.

SECTION 8.0 - SITE WIDE WATER BALANCE

The flow measurements were obtained from the mine for the periods between January 2009

and December 2015, after initial assessment it was found that the record contained many

errors, and a period between January 2011 and December 2011, which appeared to

contained less errors) was selected for water balance analysis.

As part of Knight Piésold’s scope, a technician was sent to conduct flow measurements

around the mine (measured flows included in Appendix J); however some of these values

could not be relied on since the appropriate pipe properties were not available during the site

visit.

The water balance will need to be updated after commissioning of new thickener, TSF, and

bulk water storage dam.

The available amount of water from the pits needs to be confirmed.

The water balance is included in Appendix J.


SECTION 9.0 - SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF PREPARATORY/ CONSTRUCTION WORKS

The preparatory works required for the TSF and associated water dams and infrastructure are

shown on the design drawings in Appendix A of this report and are listed below.

The TSF preparatory works include:

Site clearance - Clear and grub site, including removal of trees;

HDPE lining7 of the TSF basin area (including base preparation);

A compacted starter wall with a maximum height of 2.0 m (0.5m capping included) around

the TSF perimeter;

1.0 m high catchment paddocks on the outside of the starter wall (around the TSF

perimeter);

Toe drains at the base of the starter wall which are approximately 8 m wide comprising

suitably graded sand and stone with drain pipes;

HDPE drain outlet pipes (160 mm NB) that accept effluent from the toe drains;

Seepage collection manholes;

Main collection pipes (which connect the manholes);

Final intake penstock tower with two inlets;

Two intermediate penstock inlets for the re-mining option;

Catwalks providing access to the penstock inlets;

Penstock outfall pipeline which discharges into the silt trap;

Silt trap immediately upstream of the return water dam;

HDPE lined RWD;

HDPE lined SWD;

HDPE lined bulk water storage dam;

A return water pump concrete slab;

5m wide waste rock road around the perimeter of the TSF;

2.4 m high security fence with access gates around the silt trap, RWD, SWD and bulk

water storage dam;

The material quantities required for the construction works are included in Appendix K.

The construction documents included in Appendix L contains the following:

Construction quality plan.

Material and Equipment specification and data documents.

List of standards that need to be adhered to.

SECTION 10.0 - CAPITAL EXPENDITURE

7 Pending Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) submission and ruling.


10.1 TSF Construction Costs

The costs summarised in Table 10-1 have been adapted from more detailed bills of quantities

(included as Appendix K) that were developed for the cost estimate. A detailed bill of

quantities is attached as Appendix K. The cost estimate covers the works listed in Section 9.0

- .

The definition level capital estimate was based upon:

Unit rates provided to Knight Piésold by material suppliers.

Recently priced bill of quantities from similar projects.

Knight Piésold’s experience with similar facilities.

Where necessary, and rates that are based upon costs from earlier projects have been

adjusted by the South African consumer price index (CPI).

The total construction expenditure is approximately R 25. 532 million (excl. VAT), and this cost

includes plastic lining for the whole TSF basin area. For the re-mining option, the total

construction expenditure is approximately for R 25.997 million (excl. VAT).

Table 10-1: Summary of the Bill of Quantities

SECTION 1 : PRELIMINARY & GENERAL

SECTION 1 DESCRIPTION

AMOUNT

(1 PADDOCK)

AMOUNT

(2 PADDOCKS)

1.1 30% of the total cost of the project R 5 693 850.59 R 5 801 129.99

TOTAL SECTION 1 R 5 693 850.59 R 5 801 129.99

SECTION 2: TAILINGS STORAGE FACILITY (including dams and silt trap)

SECTION 2 DESCRIPTION

AMOUNT

(1 PADDOCK)

AMOUNT

(2 PADDOCKS)

2.1 SITE CLEARANCE R 858 600.00 R 858 600.00

2.2 EARTHWORKS AND EXCAVATION R 4 100 643.96 R 4 405 566.96

2.3 CATWALK R 306 300.00 R 570 400.00

2.4 DRAINAGE R 1 818 060.00 R 1 749 860.00

2.5 CONCRETE STRUCTURES R 240 963.00 R 297 313.00

2.6 DESIGN, SELECTION AND

INSTALLATION OF GEOMEMBRANE R 11 136 555.00 R 10 772 730.00

2.7 PIPEWORK R 953 938.00 R 1 118 188.00

2.8 MANHOLE R 1 080.00 R 1 080.00

2.9 MICELLANEOUS R 421 962.00 R 421 962.00

TOTAL SECTION 2 R 19 838 101.96 R 20 195 699.96

GRAND TOTAL (EXCLUDING VAT) R 25 531 952.55 R 25 996 829.95


10.2 New Tailings Thickener Installation Costs

The new thickener price proposal is included in Appendix G. The primary offer is shown in

Table 10-2. The battery limits and exclusions are listed in Section 1.4 and 1.5 of the proposal

respectively. The total estimate cost for installing the new thickener is R5. 576 million (see

Table 10-3).

Table 10-2: Primary Offer - 14m HTR Pricing Summary

Schedule 1a - primary offer - 10m hrt pricing summary

Item No.

Equipment Description Equipment Size

Quantity Unit Unit Price(ZAR) Amount (ZAR)

1 Tailings Thickener-Welded Construction

14m 1 Each 2 990 835.00 2 990 835.00

2 AS Automation 0,6kg/hr Floc Dosing Plant

0,6Kg/hr 1 Each 732 900.00 732 900.00

3 Supervision of installation N/A TBC Days 11 000 Per Day

4 Supervision of Commisioning

N/A TBC Days 11 000 Per Day

TOTAL PROJECT VALUE

3 723 735.00

Table 10-3: Total Cost Estimate for the New Thickener

Item Amount

Price ex works R 3 723 735.00

Turnkey – design and construct costs R 1 500 000.00

Civils R 351 858.00

Total estimate costs R 5 575 593.00

SECTION 11.0 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following conclusions and recommendations are made:

The design criteria should be periodically verified during the operational life of the tailings

dam.

The use of the current thickener as a clarifier or process water tank must be considered.

A decision with regards to the concurrent re-mining of the TSF must be made as soon as

possible as it affects the design significantly.

The exact pipeline routes need to be determined and agreed upon by all stakeholders.

It is recommended that the application for the registration of the RWD and approval of the

liner system for the TSF and other water dams be submitted as soon as possible to allow

any modifications to be made to the design should comments be received back.

The construction and installation activities follow a strict quality control plan.

An amendment to the existing EIA and EMP need to be completed before the construction

of the TSF commences.


SECTION 12.0 - REFERENCES

1. J.P. Giroud, & R. Bonaparte, 1989, “Leakage Through Liners Constructed With Geomembranes - Part I - Geomembrane Liners, Geotextiles and Geomembranes”, 8(1).

2. J.P. Giroud, & R. Bonaparte, 1989, “Leakage through Liners Constructed With Geomembranes - Part II - Composite Liners, Geotextiles and Geomembranes”, 8(2).

3. R. Bonaparte, J.P. Giroud, & B.A. Gross, 1989, “Rates of Leakage Through Landfill Liners”, Paper presented at Geosynthetics Conference, 1989.

4. R.M. Koerner, 1994, “Designing with Geosynthetics” 3rd edition.

5. Price, WA (2009) Prediction Manual for Drainage Chemistry from Sulphidic Geologic

Materials. Mine Environment Neutral Drainage (MEND) Report 1.20.1, December

2009.

6. Schulze, RE & Smithers JC, 2002, “Design Rainfall and Flood Estimation in South

Africa.” Report for Water Research Commission, 2002.

7. Chamber of Mines of South Africa, March 1996; “Guidelines for Environmental

Protection, the Engineering Design, Operation and Closure of Metalliferous, Diamond

and Coal Residue Deposits”

8. ANCOLD, 1998; ‘Guidelines for Design of Dams for Earthquakes’; Australian National Committee on Large Dams


SECTION 13.0 - CERTIFICATION

This report was prepared, reviewed and approved by the undersigned:

Prepared by:

Janice Zhang

Engineer-In-Training – South Africa

Mohammed Sabi


Siduduzo D. Dladla PrEng

Senior Civil Engineer – South Africa

Reviewed and

Approved by:

Andrew Copeland PrEng

Mining Division Manager – Southern Africa

This report was prepared by Knight Piésold (Pty) Ltd. for the account of South32 Limited (Hotazel Manganese Mines) for its Mamatwan Slimes Handling and Bulk Water Storage Project. The material in it reflects Knight Piésold’s best judgement in light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, is the responsibility of such third parties. Knight Piésold (Pty) Ltd. accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions, based on this report. This numbered report is a controlled document. Any reproductions of this report are uncontrolled and may not be the most recent revision.

South32 Ltd. July 2015

APPENDIX A

DESIGN DRAWINGS


APPENDIX B

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

MQN-MKM/KHH2240/Rev.0

HOTAZEL MANGANESE MINES (Pty) Ltd. MAMATWAN MINE

TSF AND RETURN WATER DAMS

Geotechnical Investigation

PRELIMINARY REPORT

MK MATOTOKA DJ MOUTON Pr.Sci.Nat. Junior Technologist Geology Specialist: Engineering Geologist

Prepared by

KHH2240

P/A 3010046204

Rev.0

JULY 2015

PO Box 72292 LYNNWOOD RIDGE 0040 Pretoria

Tel: +27 12 991 0557 Fax: +27 12 991 0558

e-mail: [email protected]

The Boardwalk Office Park Block 5 Eros Street FAERIE GLEN X77 0081 Pretoria REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

mailto:[email protected]

i MQN-MKM/KHH2240/Rev.0

HOTAZEL MANGANESE MINES (Pty) Ltd.: MAMATWAN MINE TSF AND RETURN WATER DAMS

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

PRELIMINARY REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1

2. SITE DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................... 1

3. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION .................................................................................... 2

4. GEOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 2

5. SOIL PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 3

6. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS .................................................................................. 3

6.1 Aeolian .......................................................................................................................... 3

6.2 Spoil .............................................................................................................................. 4

7. GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................... 4

8. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................ 5

9. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 6

TABLES

TABLE 1 : SUMMARY OF TEST PIT PROFILES

TABLE 2 : SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ON SOIL SAMPLES

FIGURES

FIGURE 1 : LOCALITY MAP

FIGURE 2 : SITE PLAN

FIGURE 3 : GEOLOGY MAP

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A : TEST PIT PROFILES

APPENDIX B : LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

1


HOTAZEL MANGANESE MINES (Pty) Ltd. MAMATWAN MINE : TSF AND RETURN WATER DAMS

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

PRELIMINARY REPORT

1. INTRODUCTION

Knight Piésold (KP) was appointed by BHP Billiton to conduct a geotechnical

investigation for the proposed Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) at Mamatwan Mine, where

manganese ore is mined. The facility comprises the TSF and two return water dams.

The TSF will be used to deposit mine tailings and the two return water dams will be used

for storing water that will be used to pump tailings from the plant to the TSF.

The purpose of the investigation was to determine the thickness and geotechnical

properties of the underlying soils. The findings of the investigation are documented in

this report along with recommendations for the foundation design of the TSF and the two

return water dams.

2. SITE DESCRIPTION

The location of the proposed TSF (from here on referred to as the “site”) is at Mamatwan Mine in the Northern Cape Province, about 70km west of Kuruman. Refer to Figure 1 for

the Locality plan of the site. The mine comprises an open-pit and can be accessed via

the R380 road between the towns of Kathu in the south and Hotazel in the north. A rail

way line runs parallel to the R380 on the eastern boundary of the mine.

The site is located on the eastern portion of the mine property, east of an area known as

Adam’s Pit and extends towards the fence of the mine property. Mining activities

characterised by excavations and conveyer belts occur to the west of the site. Two spoil

heaps were present on the north western and southern boundary. The site is covered

with grass and scattered Acacia and other types of trees.

The site covers an area of approximately 20 hectares and slopes gently towards the

west with sheetwash drainage being in the same direction. Gravel roads provide access

to the site. A concrete block labelled A2 was observed on site. The concrete block was

believed to be and old survey beacon of one of the mine geologists. The GPS co-

ordinates of this beacon are: S27° 22’ 49.8” E22° 59’ 38.2” (WGS84 Datum).

2


3. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION

Twenty test pits (TP1 to TP20) were excavated with an excavator hired from Oryx Plant

in Kathu, Northern Cape. The test pits were excavated between 16 and 19 March 2015.

Refer to Figure 2 for the site plan showing test pit positions. The test pits were logged by

a technologist according to standard practice [1]1. The soil profiles are presented in

Appendix A and summarised in Table 1.

The positions of the test pits were recorded with a hand-held Global Positioning System

(GPS) with a 3m accuracy. The co-ordinates of these positions are in South African Grid,

WGS84 Datum and they are displayed on the test pit logs.

Three soil samples were taken from spoil heaps on site. Co-ordinates where the

samples were taken are provided below.

Sample Co-ordinates

Sample 1 27°22'47.99"S 22°59'30.80"E

Sample 2 27°22'54.52"S 22°59'38.89"E

Sample 3 27°22'55.77"S 22°59'45.04"E

Representative soil samples were taken from different soil horizons. All samples were

submitted to Roadlab Laboratory in Kathu to conduct the following tests:

Foundation Indicators tests

Standard Proctor compaction tests

Shear Box tests

Consolidation test

Falling Head permeability test

Moisture content

The laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B and summarised in Table 2.

4. GEOLOGY

According to the published 1:250 000 scale geological map of the area, Sheet 2722

Kuruman, the site is underlain by red to flesh-coloured windblown sands, also known as

Aeolian Kalahari sand. These are recent (Quaternary) superficial deposits. Refer to

Figure 3 for the geological map of the site.

From previous borehole data it is evident that the mine property is underlain by the red

sands which overlie calcrete. No structural geological features were visible in the vicinity

of the site from the geological map.

1 References are indicated thus and are listed at the back of the report.

3


According to Weinert’s climatic N-value, [2] the site falls in an area classified as N>5,

where the annual rainfall is generally low. The predominant weathering mode is

therefore mechanical disintegration, opposed to chemical alteration processes

associated with the more humid regions of the country.

5. SOIL PROFILE

The site is generally covered by aeolian sand, which overlies calcareous aeolian sand

horizon, which was encountered to the maximum reach of the excavator. A layer of

calcified aeolian sand was encountered occasionally on the western portion of the site.

The soil profile on site is as follows:

The aeolian soil that covers the site has an average thickness of 2,7m and

comprises silty sand with roots with a very loose consistency at a depth ranging

from 0,4m to 0,9m. The consistency then changes to loose or medium dense to an

average depth of 3m.

Calcareous Aeolian underlies the surface layers, which extends to more than 6m

depth (maximum reach of excavator). This horizon comprises silty sand with a

consistency that ranges between very loose and medium dense. This horizon was

however not encountered in TP6, where excavation was terminated at a depth of

4,4m due to collapsing side walls of the test pit in loose aeolian sand.

A dense calcified aeolian sand layer was encountered in TP5, TP7, TP8 and TP17.

This horizon comprises silty sand with abundant calcrete gravel, cobbles and small

boulders. In TP5, the calcified aeolian layer was encountered between 4,8m and

5,8m, which is the maximum reach of the excavator. This horizon was encountered

from 3,8m to 4,8m in TP7, 1,8m to 2,3m in TP8 and 2,1m to 2,6m in TP17.

Refusal of excavator only occurred in TP7 at a depth of 4,8m on hardpan calcrete.

Excavation was also terminated due to collapsing side walls of test pits TP8 and TP9 at

depths of 5,5m and 4,8m, respectively. No groundwater seepage was encountered in

any of the test pits.

6. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Six of the thirteen foundation indicator tests conducted by Roadlab were only conducted

on material screened to 0,600mm sieve size and therefore do not portray the coarser

fraction of the samples.

6.1 Aeolian

The laboratory test results indicated that the near-surface aeolian sand generally

comprises 1% gravel, 89% sand, 6% silt and 4% clay. Except for sample TP4/1, the

4


calcareous aeolian generally comprises 1% gravel, 86% sand, 8% silt and 4% clay. The

calcareous aeolian from TP4/1 comprises 41% gravel and 50% sand. The calcified

aeolian comprises 51% gravel, 43% sand, 3% silt and 3% silt.

The Plasticity Index (PI) of all the samples indicated non-plastic and slightly plastic

behaviour, except for sample TP1/2, which had a PI of 1,4%. The potential for

expansiveness is low for all the samples.

Moisture content test of the materials found on site was conducted on the aeolian

(TP1/1), calcareous aeolian (TP1/2) and the calcified aeolian (TP5/1). The moisture

content of the three samples varied between 1,6 and 4,1.

The Modified AASHTO maximum dry density (MDD) varies between 1872kg/m3 and

1959kg/m3 with an optimum moisture content (OMC) that varies between 5,5% and

9,4%. This is an exception to sample TP5/1, which has a Modified AASHTO MDD of

1781kg/m3 and an optimum moisture content of 11,4%. The California Bearing Ration

(CBR) at 95% MDD varied between 10% and 12%, which classified as G8 and G9

quality material.

A consolidation (double oedometer) test could not be conducted on sample TP12/1, as it

was too loose to prepare the sample in the laboratory.

Shear box test and falling head permeability test results were not available at the time of

preparing this report.

6.2 Spoil

The three samples collected from the spoil heaps on site have similar properties than the

aeolian sand that covers the site, except that it has slightly higher gravel content. The PI

varies between non-plastic and slightly plastic with a low potential for expansiveness.

The grading of the material was not accurately determined due to the fact that the

laboratory screened the sample to the 0,600mm sieve and the coarser material larger

than 0,600mm was not graded.

7. GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The top 0,9m aeolian sand generally has a very loose consistency. From a depth of

below 0,9m, the aeolian soil has a consistency ranging from loose to medium dense.

Calcareous aeolian sand with a consistency ranging between very loose to medium

dense occurs below the surface aeolian sand layer. A dense calcified aeolian horizon

was occasionally encountered on the western portion of the site.

No bedrock was encountered during the investigation, but the excavator refused on

hardpan calcrete at a depth of 4,8m at TP7, which is situated on the lower western

portion of the site.

5


Based on the generalised soil profile at the site, it follows that the upper 0,9m to 1m of

the soil profile is very loose and should be removed below the footprint of the TSF, dams

and embankments. Excavation slopes should not exceed 1:1 during the dry season, or

1:2 (V:H) during the rainy season. The floor in the box cut should be ripped to 300mm

and in situ densified to 95% of Mod. AASHTO dry density at OMC. The compacted in

situ materials will form a suitable base for the lining system in the TSF floor and adjacent

ponds. Lining is essential, since wetting up of the foundations could result in

densification of the loose horizons that are present to considerable depths in places.

Embankments can be constructed from calcareous and/or calcified aeolian sand to a

density of at least 95% of Mod. AASHTO dry density at OMC. The compacted

permeability and shear strength parameters were not available at the time of compiling

this preliminary report, but it is recommended that the following interim values be used:

Shear Strength Angle of Friction : 32° to 36°

Cohesion : Zero

Coefficient of Permeability (k) : 3 x 10-7m/s to 1 x 10-6m/s

It is expected that the material will be highly erodible and protection of the crest and

downstream slope will be required to avoid erosion damage caused by rainwater runoff.

8. CONCLUSIONS

The consistencies of the soils on site generally vary between very loose to medium

dense occasionally becoming dense.

No bedrock was encountered during the investigation.

The site is suitable for the proposed development, but foundation recommendations

include the removal of the upper 0,9m to 1m of the very loose surface sands, rip and in

situ densify the floor of the box cut. All ponds and TSF floor and walls must be lined to

prevent water entering the foundations. Both the floor and embankment soils are

considered to contain relatively pervious soils. All cut and fill slopes must be protected

against erosion caused by surface runoff.

Final conclusions will be provided once all outstanding laboratory test results (shear box

strength and coefficient of permeability) have been obtained.

6


9. REFERENCES

[1] The South African Institute of Engineering Geologists (1996). Guidelines for Soil

and Rock Logging.

[2] Weinert, H. (1965). A climatic index of weathering. Geotechnique, Vol. 24, No. 4,

pp. 475-488.


TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF TEST PIT PROFILES

TEST PIT No.

TOTAL DEPTH

(m)

LAYER DEPTHS (m) - (m)

AEOLIAN CALCAREOUS

AEOLIAN CALCIFIED AEOLIAN

HARDPAN CALCRETE

TP1 6,4 0 – 2,4 2,4 – 6,4+ - -

TP2 6,4 0 – 2,3 2,3 – 6,4+ - -

TP3 7,0 0 – 7,0+ - - -

TP4 6,0 0 – 2,8+ 2,8 – 6,0+ - -

TP5 5,8 0 – 3,1+ 3,1 – 4,8 4,8 – 5,8+ -

TP6 4,4 0 – 4,4+ S - - -

TP7 4,8 0 – 2,4 2,4 – 3,8 3,8 – 4,8 4,8+ R

TP8 5,5 0 – 1,8 2,3 – 5,5 1,8 – 2,3 -

TP9 4,8 0 – 2,6 2,6 – 4,8+ - -

TP10 6,3 0 – 2,7 2,7 – 6,3+ - -

TP11 6,4 0 – 3,0 3,0 – 6,4+ - -

TP12 6,4 0 – 2,9 2,9 – 6,4+ - -

TP13 6,4 0 – 2,9 2,9 – 6,4+ - -

TP14 6,3 0 – 3,0 3,0 – 6,3+ - -

TP15 6,4 0 – 2,7 2,7 – 6,4+ - -

TP16 6,3 0 – 2,5 2,5 – 6,3+ - -

TP17 6,3 0 – 2,1 2,6 – 6,3+ 2,1 – 2,6 -

TP18 6,4 0 – 2,7 2,7 – 6,4+ - -

TP19 6,3 0 – 2,8 2,8 – 6,3+ - -

TP20 6,4 0 – 2,6 2,6 – 6,4+ - -

Note: No groundwater seepage was encountered in any of the test pits excavated during the end

of the rainy season (March 2014).

S: Denotes test pits terminated due to collapsing sidewalls

R: Excavator refusal depth


TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

ON SOIL SAMPLES

SAMPLE

GRADING % ATTERBERG LIMITS

(%)

GM PE USC

COEFFICIENT OF PERMEA-

BILITY (m/s)

MOISTURE CONTENT

Mod. AASHTO COMPACTION

CBR %

COLTO

PEAK SHEAR BOX STRENGTH

PARAMETERS MATERIAL

DESCRIPTION

No. DEPTH

(m) Gravel Sand Silt Clay LL PI LS

MDD (kg/m³)

OMC (%)

93 95 98 Friction Angle

(°)

Cohesion kPa

TP1/1 0,6 – 2,4 <1 92 7 1 0 NP 0 1,04 Low SW - 2,90 1903 5,5 8 10 13 G9

Aeolian

TP1/2 2,4 – 6,4 <1 86 12 2 15,62 1,4 0,7 0,97 Low SM - 1,60 1953 7,0 10 12 16 G8

Calcareous Aeolian

TP4/1 2,8 – 6,0 41 50 5 4 15,88 SP 0,7 1,82 Low SP - - 1872 9,4 9 11 13 G9

Calcareous Aeolian

TP5/1 4,8 – 5,8 51 43 3 3 17,33 SP 0,9 2,02 Low GP - 4,10 1781 11,4 9 11 14 G9

Calcified Aeolian

TP9/1 0 – 0,7 0 NP 0 - Low - - - - Aeolian

TP11/1 0,6 – 3,0 <1 90 4 6 0 NP 0 1,01 Low SW - - 1936 6,0 10 12 15 G8

Aeolian

TP12/1 0,9 – 1,0 - - - - - - - - Low - - - - - - - - -

Aeolian

TP12/2 2,9 – 6,4 - - - - 0 NP 0 - Low - - - - - - - - -

Calcareous Aeolian

TP13/1 0 – 0,5 - - - - 0 NP 0 - Low - - - - - - - -

Aeolian

TP14/1 0,5 - 3 <1 86 8 6 0 NP 0 0,97 Low SM - - 1959 6,1 10 12 15 G8

Aeolian

TP18/1 2,7 – 6,4 1 86 6 7 15,45 SP 0,7 1,02 Low SM - - 1954 8,2 8 10 13 G9

Calcareous Aeolian

Sample 1 - - - - 19,03 SP 0,8 - Low - - - - - - - - -

Spoil

Sample 2 - - - - 0 NP 0 - Low - - - - - - - - -

Spoil

Sample 3 - - - - 0 NP 0 - Low - - - - - - - -

Spoil

LL : Liquid Limit OMC : Optimum Moisture Content PI : Plasticity Index MDD : Maximum Dry Density LS : Linear Shrinkage SC : Clayey Sands, Sand-Clay Mixtures GM : Grading Modulus GM : Silty Gravels PE : Potential Expansiveness GC : Clayey Gravels USC : Unified Soil Classification NP : Not Plastic


APPENDIX A

TEST PIT PROFILES

TP1/1

TP1/2

HOTAZEL MANGANESE MINES (Pty) LtdMAMATWAN MINETSF & RETURN WATER DAMSGEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

HOLE No: TP1Sheet 1 of 1




JOB: 3010046204JOB: 3010046204

0.60

0.00

2.40

6.40

Slightly moist, reddish brown, very loose, intact, slightly silty SAND, withroots. AEOLIAN.

Slightly moist, dark reddish brown, medium dense, pinhole voided, slightlysilty SAND, with scattered roots. AEOLIAN.

Slightly moist, white orange brown, loose becoming medium densebetween 2,4m and 4,8m, intact, slightly silty SAND, with scattered roots.CALCAREOUS AEOLIAN.

EOH: Maximum reach of excavator on material as above.

Scale

1:50

NOTES

1) No groundwater seepage encountered.

2) Bulk sample TP1/1 taken between 0,6m--2,4m.


CONTRACTOR :

MACHINE :

DRILLED BY :

PROFILED BY :

TYPE SET BY :

SETUP FILE :

Oryx PlantHitachi 330LC

MKM

EM

KPTP2.SET

INCLINATION :

DIAM :

DATE :

DATE :

DATE :

TEXT :

Vertical

17 March 2015

03/07/2015 10:34

C\WP51\PROFILES\MNAMKM.TXT

COORDINATE SYSTEM :

X-COORD :

Y-COORD :

WGS84 (Lo23)30298460000862

dotPLOT 7016 PBpH7D079 E Mouton

HOLE No: TP1HOLE No: TP1HOLE No: TP1HOLE No: TP1






JOB: 3010046204JOB: 3010046204

0.70

0.00

2.30

6.40



Slightly moist, white orange brown, loose, intact, silty SAND, withscattered roots. CALCAREOUS AEOLIAN.


Scale

1:50

NOTES


2) No samples taken.

CONTRACTOR :

MACHINE :

DRILLED BY :

PROFILED BY :

TYPE SET BY :

SETUP FILE :


MKM

EM

KPTP2.SET

INCLINATION :

DIAM :

DATE :

DATE :

DATE :

TEXT :

Vertical

17 March 2015

03/07/2015 10:34


COORDINATE SYSTEM :

X-COORD :

Y-COORD :

WGS84 (Lo23)30299180000811








JOB: 3010046204JOB: 3010046204

0.40

0.00

7.00

Slightly moist, reddish brown, very loose, intact, silty SAND, withscattered roots. AEOLIAN.

Slightly moist, reddish brown and light orange brown, loose with pocketsof medium dense, pinhole voided to 2,5m, silty SAND, becoming slightlycalcareous from 2,7m. AEOLIAN.


Scale

1:50

NOTES



CONTRACTOR :

MACHINE :

DRILLED BY :

PROFILED BY :

TYPE SET BY :

SETUP FILE :


MKM

EM

KPTP2.SET

INCLINATION :

DIAM :

DATE :

DATE :

DATE :

TEXT :

Vertical

17 March 2015

03/07/2015 10:34


COORDINATE SYSTEM :

X-COORD :

Y-COORD :

WGS84 (Lo23)30298570000794



TP4/1






JOB: 3010046204JOB: 3010046204

0.60

0.00

2.80

6.00

Moist, reddish brown blotched brown, very loose, intact, slightly siltySAND, with scattered roots. AEOLIAN.

Moist, reddish brown, loose, intact, silty SAND. AEOLIAN.

Moist, orange brown, loose becoming medium dense from 5,6m, intact,slightly silty SAND, with abundant calcrete nodules. CALCAREOUSAEOLIAN.


Scale

1:50

NOTES



CONTRACTOR :

MACHINE :

DRILLED BY :

PROFILED BY :

TYPE SET BY :

SETUP FILE :


MKM

EM

KPTP2.SET

INCLINATION :

DIAM :

DATE :

DATE :

DATE :

TEXT :

Vertical

17 March 2015

03/07/2015 10:34


COORDINATE SYSTEM :

X-COORD :

Y-COORD :

WGS84 (Lo23)30298540000662



TP5/1






JOB: 3010046204JOB: 3010046204

0.80

0.00

3.10

4.80

5.80

Moist, reddish brown blotched brown, very loose, intact, slightly siltySAND, with roots. AEOLIAN.

Slightly moist, dark reddish brown, loose becoming medium dense from1,3m, slightly pinhole voided, silty SAND, with minor roots. AEOLIAN.

Slightly moist, pale orange brown, loose, intact, silty SAND with scatteredcalcrete and ferricrete nodules. CALCAREOUS AEOLIAN.

Slightly moist, pale orange brown, dense, intact, SAND, with abundantcalcrete gravel, cobbles and minor ferricrete gravel. CALCIFIEDAEOLIAN.

EOH: Maximum reach of excavator.

Scale

1:50

NOTES



CONTRACTOR :

MACHINE :

DRILLED BY :

PROFILED BY :

TYPE SET BY :

SETUP FILE :


MKM

EM

KPTP2.SET

INCLINATION :

DIAM :

DATE :

DATE :

DATE :

TEXT :

Vertical

17 March 2015

03/07/2015 10:34


COORDINATE SYSTEM :

X-COORD :

Y-COORD :

WGS84 (Lo23)30298080000745








JOB: 3010046204JOB: 3010046204

0.50

0.00

4.40

Moist, reddish brown, very loose, intact, slightly silty SAND, with roots.AEOLIAN.

Moist, reddish brown becoming orange brown, loose, pinhole voided, siltySAND, with calcrete nodules from 4m. AEOLIAN.

EOH: Excavation stopped due to collapsing side walls.

Scale

1:50

NOTES


2) Logged from spoil.

3) Old concrete on the edge of test pit.

CONTRACTOR :

MACHINE :

DRILLED BY :

PROFILED BY :

TYPE SET BY :

SETUP FILE :


MKM

EM

KPTP2.SET

INCLINATION :

DIAM :

DATE :

DATE :

DATE :

TEXT :

Vertical

17 March 2015

03/07/2015 10:34


COORDINATE SYSTEM :

X-COORD :

Y-COORD :

WGS84 (Lo23)30297210000780








JOB: 3010046204JOB: 3010046204

0.50

0.00

2.40

3.80

4.80


Slightly moist, dark reddish brown, loose becoming medium dense from1m, pinhole voided, silty SAND. AEOLIAN.

Moist, light orange brown, loose, intact, silty SAND, with scatteredcalcrete nodules. CALCAEROUS AEOLIAN.

Slightly moist, light orange brown, dense, intact, silty SAND, withabundant calcrete gravel and cobbles. CALCIFIED AEOLIAN.

EOH: Refusal of excavator on HARDPAN CALCRETE, with a consistencyof medium hard rock.

Scale

1:50

NOTES



CONTRACTOR :

MACHINE :

DRILLED BY :

PROFILED BY :

TYPE SET BY :

SETUP FILE :


MKM

EM

KPTP2.SET

INCLINATION :

DIAM :

DATE :

DATE :

DATE :

TEXT :

Vertical

17 March 2015

03/07/2015 10:34


COORDINATE SYSTEM :

X-COORD :

Y-COORD :

WGS84 (Lo23)30296140000786








JOB: 3010046204JOB: 3010046204

0.60

0.00

1.80

2.30

5.50


Slightly moist, reddish brown, loose, pinhole voided silty SAND. AEOLIAN.

Slightly moist, off-white orange brown, dense, intact, silty SAND, withabundant calcrete gravel, cobbles and small boulders. CALCIFIEDAEOLIAN.

Slightly moist, off-white orange brown, loose, intact silty SAND, with minorcalcrete nodules. CALCAREOUS AEOLIAN.

EOH: Excavation stopped due to collapsing side walls.

Scale

1:50

NOTES



CONTRACTOR :

MACHINE :

DRILLED BY :

PROFILED BY :

TYPE SET BY :

SETUP FILE :


MKM

EM

KPTP2.SET

INCLINATION :

DIAM :

DATE :

DATE :

DATE :

TEXT :

Vertical

17 March 2015

03/07/2015 10:34


COORDINATE SYSTEM :

X-COORD :

Y-COORD :

WGS84 (Lo23)30296570000681



TP9/1






JOB: 3010046204JOB: 3010046204

0.70

0.00

2.60

4.80

Moist, reddish brown, very loose, slightly silty SAND, with roots.AEOLIAN.

Slightly moist, dark reddish brown, loose, silty SAND. AEOLIAN.

Slightly moist, off-white orange brown, loose, silty SAND, with minorcalcrete nodules. CALCAREOUS AEOLIAN.

EOH: Excavation stopped due to collapse of side walls.

Scale

1:50

NOTES


2) Logged from spoil due to collapsing side walls.

3) Small bag sample TP9/1 taken between 0,0m--0,7m.

CONTRACTOR :

MACHINE :

DRILLED BY :

PROFILED BY :

TYPE SET BY :

SETUP FILE :


MKM

EM

KPTP2.SET

INCLINATION :

DIAM :

DATE :

DATE :

DATE :

TEXT :

Vertical

17 March 2015

03/07/2015 10:34


COORDINATE SYSTEM :

X-COORD :

Y-COORD :

WGS84 (Lo23)30297280000649








JOB: 3010046204JOB: 3010046204

0.70

0.00

2.70

6.30


Slightly moist, reddish brown, loose, slightly pinhole voided, silty SAND.AEOLIAN.

Slightly moist, off-white orange brown, very loose becoming loose from5,8m, silty SAND, with calcrete nodules. CALCAREOUS AEOLIAN.


Scale

1:50

NOTES



3) Unstable side walls, logged from spoil.

CONTRACTOR :

MACHINE :

DRILLED BY :

PROFILED BY :

TYPE SET BY :

SETUP FILE :


MKM

EM

KPTP2.SET

INCLINATION :

DIAM :

DATE :

DATE :

DATE :

TEXT :

Vertical

17 March 2015

03/07/2015 10:34


COORDINATE SYSTEM :

X-COORD :

Y-COORD :

30297430000552



TP11/1






JOB: 3010046204JOB: 3010046204

0.60

0.00

3.00

6.40

Slightly moist, reddish brown, very loose, slightly silty SAND, with roots.AEOLIAN.

Slightly moist, reddish brown, medium dense, pinhole voided, slightly siltyclayey SAND. AEOLIAN.

Slightly moist, off-white orange brown, loose, silty SAND, with minorcalcrete nodules. CALCAREOUS AEOLIAN.


Scale

1:50

NOTES


2) Logged from spoil due to unstable side walls below 3m.

3) Bulk sample TP11/1 taken between 0,6m--3m.

CONTRACTOR :

MACHINE :

DRILLED BY :

PROFILED BY :

TYPE SET BY :

SETUP FILE :


MKM

EM

KPTP2.SET

INCLINATION :

DIAM :

DATE :

DATE :

DATE :

TEXT :

Vertical

17 March 2015

03/07/2015 10:34


COORDINATE SYSTEM :

X-COORD :

Y-COORD :

WGS84 (Lo23)30298290000484



TP12/1

TP12/2






JOB: 3010046204JOB: 3010046204

0.50

0.00

2.90

6.40



Slightly moist, off-white orange brown, loose, intact, slightly silty SAND,with scattered roots. CALCAREOUS AEOLIAN.


Scale

1:50

NOTES


2) Undisturbed sample TP12/1 taken between 0,9m--1,0m.


CONTRACTOR :

MACHINE :

DRILLED BY :

PROFILED BY :

TYPE SET BY :

SETUP FILE :


MKM

EM

KPTP2.SET

INCLINATION :

DIAM :

DATE :

DATE :

DATE :

TEXT :

Vertical

17 March 2015

03/07/2015 10:34


COORDINATE SYSTEM :

X-COORD :

Y-COORD :

WGS84 (Lo23)30297490000382



TP13/1






JOB: 3010046204JOB: 3010046204

0.50

0.00

2.90

6.40



Slightly moist, off-white orange brown, loose, intact, silty SAND, withcalcrete nodules. CALCAREOUS AEOLIAN.


Scale

1:50

NOTES


2) Unstable side walls from 2,9m.


CONTRACTOR :

MACHINE :

DRILLED BY :

PROFILED BY :

TYPE SET BY :

SETUP FILE :


MKM

EM

KPTP2.SET

INCLINATION :

DIAM :

DATE :

DATE :

DATE :

TEXT :

Vertical

17 March 2015

03/07/2015 10:34


COORDINATE SYSTEM :

X-COORD :

Y-COORD :

WGS84 (Lo23)30296140000522



TP14/1






JOB: 3010046204JOB: 3010046204

0.50

0.00

3.00

6.30


Slightly moist, reddish brown, medium dense, pinhole voided, slightlyclayey and silty SAND. AEOLIAN.

Slightly moist, off-white orange brown, loose, intact, silty SAND, withminor calcrete nodules. CALCAREOUS AEOLIAN.


Scale

1:50

NOTES


2) Bulk sample TP14/1 taken between 0,5m--3m.

CONTRACTOR :

MACHINE :

DRILLED BY :

PROFILED BY :

TYPE SET BY :

SETUP FILE :


MKM

EM

KPTP2.SET

INCLINATION :

DIAM :

DATE :

DATE :

DATE :

TEXT :

Vertical

17 March 2015

03/07/2015 10:34


COORDINATE SYSTEM :

X-COORD :

Y-COORD :

WGS84 (Lo23)30295120000662








JOB: 3010046204JOB: 3010046204

0.70

0.00

2.70

6.40



Slightly moist, white orange brown, loose becoming medium densebetween 2,7m and 4m and very loose from 5,5m, intact, silty SAND, withscattered roots. CALCAREOUS AEOLIAN.


Scale

1:50

NOTES



CONTRACTOR :

MACHINE :

DRILLED BY :

PROFILED BY :

TYPE SET BY :

SETUP FILE :


MKM

EM

KPTP2.SET

INCLINATION :

DIAM :

DATE :

DATE :

DATE :

TEXT :

Vertical

17 March 2015

03/07/2015 10:34


COORDINATE SYSTEM :

X-COORD :

Y-COORD :

WGS84 (Lo23)30298940000742








JOB: 3010046204JOB: 3010046204

0.70

0.00

2.50

6.30

Slightly moist, reddish brown, very loose, intact, silty SAND, with roots.AEOLIAN.

Slightly moist, reddish brown, loose becoming medium dense from 1,2m,pinhole voided, slightly silty SAND. AEOLIAN.

Slightly moist, off-white orange brown, loose, intact, silty SAND, withminor calcrete nodules. CALCAREOUS AEOLIAN.


Scale

1:50

NOTES



CONTRACTOR :

MACHINE :

DRILLED BY :

PROFILED BY :

TYPE SET BY :

SETUP FILE :


MKM

EM

KPTP2.SET

INCLINATION :

DIAM :

DATE :

DATE :

DATE :

TEXT :

Vertical

17 March 2015

03/07/2015 10:34


COORDINATE SYSTEM :

X-COORD :

Y-COORD :

WGS84 (Lo23)30296750000572








JOB: 3010046204JOB: 3010046204

0.60

0.00

2.10

2.60

6.30


Moist, reddish brown, loose, slightly pinhole voided, slightly silty SAND.AEOLIAN.

Slightly moist, off-white mottled orange brown, dense, silty SAND, withabundant calcrete gravel, cobbles and boulders. CALCIFIED AEOLIAN.

Slightly moist, off-white orange brown, loose, intact, silty SAND, withcalcrete nodules. CALCAREOUS AEOLIAN.

EOH: Maximum reach of excavator in material as above.

Scale

1:50

NOTES



CONTRACTOR :

MACHINE :

DRILLED BY :

PROFILED BY :

TYPE SET BY :

SETUP FILE :


MKM

EM

KPTP2.SET

INCLINATION :

DIAM :

DATE :

DATE :

DATE :

TEXT :

Vertical

17 March 2015

03/07/2015 10:34


COORDINATE SYSTEM :

X-COORD :

Y-COORD :

WGS84 (Lo23)30295800000684



TP18/1






JOB: 3010046204JOB: 3010046204

0.80

0.00

2.70

6.40


Slightly moist, dark reddish brown, medium dense, pinhole voided, slightlyclayey and silty SAND, with scattered roots. AEOLIAN.

Slightly moist, off-white orange brown, loose, intact, slightly clayey siltySAND, with scattered roots. CALCAREOUS AEOLIAN.


Scale

1:50

NOTES



CONTRACTOR :

MACHINE :

DRILLED BY :

PROFILED BY :

TYPE SET BY :

SETUP FILE :


MKM

EM

KPTP2.SET

INCLINATION :

DIAM :

DATE :

DATE :

DATE :

TEXT :

Vertical

17 March 2015

06/07/2015 09:33


COORDINATE SYSTEM :

X-COORD :

Y-COORD :

WGS84 (Lo23)30297520000456








JOB: 3010046204JOB: 3010046204

0.50

0.00

2.80

6.30





Scale

1:50

NOTES



CONTRACTOR :

MACHINE :

DRILLED BY :

PROFILED BY :

TYPE SET BY :

SETUP FILE :


MKM

EM

KPTP2.SET

INCLINATION :

DIAM :

DATE :

DATE :

DATE :

TEXT :

Vertical

17 March 2015

03/07/2015 10:34


COORDINATE SYSTEM :

X-COORD :

Y-COORD :

30296660000451








JOB: 3010046204JOB: 3010046204

0.90

0.00

2.60

6.40


Slightly moist, dark reddish brown, loose becoming medium dense from1,2m, pinhole voided, slightly silty SAND, with scattered roots. AEOLIAN.



Scale

1:50

NOTES



CONTRACTOR :

MACHINE :

DRILLED BY :

PROFILED BY :

TYPE SET BY :

SETUP FILE :


MKM

EM

KPTP2.SET

INCLINATION :

DIAM :

DATE :

DATE :

DATE :

TEXT :

Vertical

17 March 2015

03/07/2015 10:34


COORDINATE SYSTEM :

X-COORD :

Y-COORD :

WGS84 (Lo23)30298080000583



FILE CODE

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

May-14 REV.1

OUR REF: YOUR REF: DATE:

Client :Client10/04/201510/04/2015Client13/04/2015

Not SpecifiedDear Sir TMH1

Moisture ContentAsanda Tyobo

Test Report :

Please find the attached test results for the sample/s as submitted to and tested by Roadlab / Prehab JV in Sishen.The unambiguous description of the sample/s as received are as follows :

TP1/1 (S10672) TP1/2 (S10673) TP5/1 (S10675)Black Sampling Bags Black Sampling Bags Black Sampling Bags

MOISTURE CONDITION OF

SAMPLE ON ARRIVALSlightly Moist Slightly Moist Slightly Moist

HOLE NO. / KM OR CHAINAGE Not Specified Not Specified Not SpecifiedROAD NO OR NAME Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified

0.6 - 2.4m 2.4 - 6.4m 4.8 - 5.8 m

DATE SAMPLED 10/04/2015 10/04/2015 10/04/2015DATE RECEIVED 10/04/2015 10/04/2015 10/04/2015

CLIENTS MARKING

DESCRIPTION

OF

SAMPLE

(COLOUR & TYPE)

75.0

63.0

53.0

37.5

26.5

19.0

13.2

4.75

2.00

0.425

0.075

LL

PI

LS %

GM

MOISTURE CONTENT 2.90 1.60 4.10

ACV (Dry)

10% FACT (Wet)

10% FACT (Dry)

Flakiness Index (max)

ALD (mm)

LBD (kg/m3) *

CBD (kg/m3) *

Relative Density *

Sand Equivalent

Apparent Relative Density

pH

Conductivity

80 75 70 66 60

Kind Regards

Remarks :

The samples were subjected to analysis according to TMH 1 Test Methods

The results reported relate only to the sample tested

Further use of the above information is not the responsibility or liability of Roadlab/ Prehab JV

Documents may only be reproduced or published in their full context

Kathu 8446

Knight Piesold ConsultingP O Box 72292Lynwood Ridge40Keneth Matotoka

MamatwanProject :

16/04/2015

Sampling Method : *Test Method :TEST TYPE :LABORATORY TESTER :

Not Specified

Sampled By :

Industrial Area

Kalkstreet 8

* Non accredited tests

D5171

REMARKS & NOTES SAMPLE NO

CONTAINER USED FOR SAMPLING

ROADLAB PREHAB JV (Pty) Ltd. - REG NO: 2010/017402/07 - VAT NO: 4730237031

Kathu

South Africa

PO Box 507

8446

E-mail:[email protected]

Tel: 053 723 1802

Fax: 086 767 2715

Atterberg

Limits - (A2)

(A3)

Aeolian (Bulk Sample)

Calcerous Aeolian (Bulk Sample)

Calcified

Technical Signatory

TMH 1 - (B1)

(B2) (B3)

(B18(a)) (B9)

(A12T)(B19)

(B14,B15) (A20)

(A21T)

Sieve Size mm -

(A1a) (A1b)

Date Sampled :Date Received :Delivered By :Date Tested :

LAYER TESTED / SAMPLED FROM

37.5

26.5

19

13.2

4.7

5

2.0

0

0.4

25

0.0

75

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Cu

mu

lati

ve

pe

rce

nta

ge

pa

ss

ing

Sieve size ( mm ) to log scale

SIEVE ANALYSIS

\\PREHABPC\Roadlab Server\Roadlab Kathu 2015\Clients 2015\Knight Pieslo Consulting\Results\Gradding\10.04.15 Knight Piessold Consulting D5171 S10672-73-75Grading1

Rev - 01 R-RLPHU - 11

Vat Reg No: 4730237031

pH: N/A N/A

Notes: * Test methods not accredited.

% Gravel

0.150

37.5

0.0218 8

10

100

100

14

2

0

1001.18

88

4

0% Sand

00

% Silt

1. Opinions & Interpretations are not included in our schedule of Accreditation.

0.0045 5

0.0023 3

% Clay

0.0063 6

0.0013

0.0032

Remarks:

0.0488

Conductivity:

9.5 100

4.752.36

0.0755078

13.2100

6.7

1

0.0690 13

19.0100

100

100

Plasticity Index

FOUNDATION INDICATOR - (TMH 1 Method A1(a),A2,A3,A4,A5) & (ASTM Method D422)

Attention : William Stevens Job No: D5171

17 April 2015

Jul-14

10063.0 10053.0

Position:

75.0

Depth:

100

N/P

not the responsibility or liability of Roadlab Prehab JV (Upington).

4. This document is the correct record of all measurements made, and may not be reproduced

other than with full written approval from the Technical Manager of Roadlab Prehab JV (Upington).

2. The samples where subjected and analysed according to ASTM.

0.600 97

11

0.6-2.4m

26.5

5. Measuring equipment is traceable to national standards (Where applicable).

Technical Signatory

Sieve

Size(mm)% Passing

3. The results reported relate only to the sample tested, Further use of the above information is

0.425 890.300

100

Sample Number: TP1/1 (S10672)

Date Reported :Customer :

Roadlab Project :

Material Description:

Ref Number :

Aeolian

Insitu M/C% N/A

Linear Shrinkage

MamatwanDate Received : 13 April 2015

0Liquid Limit 0TP 1/1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Cu

mu

lati

ve

per

cen

tag

e P

ass

ing

Particle Size (mm)

Particle Size Distribution

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pla

stic

ity

In

dex

Liquid Limit

Plasticity Chart A Line

0

10

20

30

40

0 20 40 60 80

Pla

stic

ity

In

dex

Of

Wh

ole

Sa

mp

le

Clay Fraction Of Whole Sample

Potential Expansiveness

MEDIUM

HIGH

VERY HIGH

LOW

LOW

Perseel 1050

De Drift Plaza

Olyvenhoudtsdrift

Upington

0827744240

Compiled By: M.Steyn Approved By: J.SteynPage 2 of 2


Vat Reg No: 4730237031

pH: N/A N/A


Insitu M/C% N/A

Linear Shrinkage


0.7Liquid Limit 15.62TP 1/2



Roadlab Project :


Ref Number :

Aeolian


Technical Signatory

Sieve

Size(mm)% Passing


0.425 870.300

100

1.4





0.600 96

8

2.4-6.4m

26.5

Jul-14

10063.0 10053.0

Position:

75.0

Depth:

100

D5171

20 April 2015

Plasticity Index


Attention : William Stevens Job No:

13.2100

6.7

0

0.0690 9

19.0100

100

100

9.5 100

4.752.36

0.0755077

0.0065 3

0.0013

0.0032

Remarks:

0.0488

Conductivity: % Silt


0.0046 2

0.0023 1

% Clay

0

1001.18

91

2

0% Sand

00

% Gravel

0.150

37.5

0.0220 6

8

100

100

17

1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Cu

mu

lati

ve

per

cen

tag

e P

ass

ing

Particle Size (mm)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pla

stic

ity

In

dex

Liquid Limit


0

10

20

30

40

0 20 40 60 80

Pla

stic

ity

In

dex

Of

Wh

ole

Sa

mp

le



MEDIUM

HIGH

VERY HIGH

LOW

LOW

Perseel 1050

De Drift Plaza

Olyvenhoudtsdrift

Upington

0827744240



Vat Reg No: 4730237031

pH: 0.0 0.00


% Gravel

0.150

37.5

0.0222 15

10

100

100

18

7

0

1001.18

83

8

0% Sand

00

% Silt


0.0046 9

0.0023 7

% Clay

0.0065 11

0.0013

0.0033

Remarks:

0.0493

Conductivity:

9.5 100

4.752.36

0.0754875

13.2100

6.7

6

0.0697 17

19.0100

100

100

Plasticity Index



20 April 2015

Jul-14

10063.0 10053.0

Position:

75.0

Depth:

100

S/P





0.600 95

16

2.8-6.0m

26.5


Technical Signatory

Sieve

Size(mm)% Passing


0.425 850.300

100

Sample Number: S10674


Roadlab Project :


Ref Number :

Aeolian

Insitu M/C% N/A

Linear Shrinkage



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Cu

mu

lati

ve

per

cen

tag

e P

ass

ing

Particle Size (mm)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pla

stic

ity

In

dex

Liquid Limit


0

10

20

30

40

0 20 40 60 80

Pla

stic

ity

In

dex

Of

Wh

ole

Sa

mp

le



MEDIUM

HIGH

VERY HIGH

LOW

LOW

Perseel 1050

De Drift Plaza

Olyvenhoudtsdrift

Upington

0827744240



Vat Reg No: 4730237031

pH: 0.0 0.00


% Gravel

0.150

37.5

0.0226 11

6

100

100

18

7

0

1001.18

87

7

0% Sand

00

% Silt


0.0046 8

0.0023 7

% Clay

0.0065 8

0.0013

0.0033

Remarks:

0.0501

Conductivity:

9.5 100

4.752.36

0.0755179

13.2100

6.7

6

0.0707 14

19.0100

100

100

Plasticity Index



20 April 2015

Jul-14

10063.0 10053.0

Position:

75.0

Depth:

100

S/P





0.600 95

13

4.8 - 5.8m

26.5


Technical Signatory

Sieve

Size(mm)% Passing


0.425 890.300

100



Roadlab Project :


Ref Number :

Aeolian

Insitu M/C% N/A

Linear Shrinkage



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Cu

mu

lati

ve

per

cen

tag

e P

ass

ing

Particle Size (mm)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pla

stic

ity

In

dex

Liquid Limit


0

10

20

30

40

0 20 40 60 80

Pla

stic

ity

In

dex

Of

Wh

ole

Sa

mp

le



MEDIUM

HIGH

VERY HIGH

LOW

LOW

Perseel 1050

De Drift Plaza

Olyvenhoudtsdrift

Upington

0827744240



Vat Reg No: 4730237031

pH: 0.0 0.00


% Gravel

0.150

37.5

0.0222 11

6

100

100

13

7

0

1001.18

87

8

0% Sand

00

% Silt


0.0046 9

0.0023 7

% Clay

0.0064 10

0.0013

0.0032

Remarks:

0.0493

Conductivity:

9.5 100

4.752.36

0.0755181

13.2100

6.7

6

0.0697 13

19.0100

100

100

Plasticity Index



20 April 2015

Jul-14

10063.0 10053.0

Position:

75.0

Depth:

100

N/P





0.600 97

12

0-0.7m

26.5


Technical Signatory

Sieve

Size(mm)% Passing


0.425 910.300

100



Roadlab Project :


Ref Number :

Aeolian

Insitu M/C% N/A

Linear Shrinkage



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Cu

mu

lati

ve

per

cen

tag

e P

ass

ing

Particle Size (mm)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pla

stic

ity

In

dex

Liquid Limit


0

10

20

30

40

0 20 40 60 80

Pla

stic

ity

In

dex

Of

Wh

ole

Sa

mp

le



MEDIUM

HIGH

VERY HIGH

LOW

LOW

Perseel 1050

De Drift Plaza

Olyvenhoudtsdrift

Upington

0827744240



Vat Reg No: 4730237031

pH: 0.0 0.00


% Gravel

0.150

37.5

0.0220 11

5

100

100

14

8

0

1001.18

87

8

0% Sand

00

% Silt


0.0045 9

0.0023 8

% Clay

0.0063 10

0.0013

0.0032

Remarks:

0.0488

Conductivity:

9.5 100

4.752.36

0.0754775

13.2100

6.7

7

0.0690 13

19.0100

100

100

Plasticity Index



20 April 2015

Jul-14

10063.0 10053.0

Position:

75.0

Depth:

100

N/P





0.600 95

13

0.6-3m

26.5


Technical Signatory

Sieve

Size(mm)% Passing


0.425 870.300

100



Roadlab Project :


Ref Number :

Aeolian

Insitu M/C% N/A

Linear Shrinkage



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Cu

mu

lati

ve

per

cen

tag

e P

ass

ing

Particle Size (mm)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pla

stic

ity

In

dex

Liquid Limit


0

10

20

30

40

0 20 40 60 80

Pla

stic

ity

In

dex

Of

Wh

ole

Sa

mp

le



MEDIUM

HIGH

VERY HIGH

LOW

LOW

Perseel 1050

De Drift Plaza

Olyvenhoudtsdrift

Upington

0827744240



Vat Reg No: 4730237031

pH: 0.0 0.00


Insitu M/C% N/A

Linear Shrinkage


0Liquid Limit 0TP 12 / 2



Roadlab Project :


Ref Number :

Aeolian


Technical Signatory

Sieve

Size(mm)% Passing


0.425 860.300

100

N/P





0.600 94

10

2.9 - 6.4

26.5

Jul-14

10063.0 10053.0

Position:

75.0

Depth:

100

D5171

17 April 2015

Plasticity Index



13.2100

6.7

4

0.0695 11

19.0100

100

99

9.5 100

4.752.36

0.0754375

0.0064 8

0.0013

0.0033

Remarks:

0.0492



0.0046 5

0.0023 4

% Clay

0

1001.18

88

4

1% Sand

00

% Gravel

0.150

37.5

0.0221 9

7

100

100

12

4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Cu

mu

lati

ve

per

cen

tag

e P

ass

ing

Particle Size (mm)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pla

stic

ity

In

dex

Liquid Limit


0

10

20

30

40

0 20 40 60 80

Pla

stic

ity

In

dex

Of

Wh

ole

Sa

mp

le



MEDIUM

HIGH

VERY HIGH

LOW

LOW

Perseel 1050

De Drift Plaza

Olyvenhoudtsdrift

Upington

0827744240



Vat Reg No: 4730237031

pH: 0.0 0.00


Insitu M/C% N/A

Linear Shrinkage





Roadlab Project :


Ref Number :

Top Aeolian


Technical Signatory

Sieve

Size(mm)% Passing


0.425 880.300

100

N/P





0.600 96

6

0-0.5

26.5

Jul-14

10063.0 10053.0

Position:

75.0

Depth:

100

D5171

17 April 2015

Plasticity Index



13.2100

6.7

1

0.0695 7

19.0100

100

100

9.5 100

4.752.36

0.0753876

0.0064 3

0.0013

0.0032

Remarks:

0.0492



0.0045 2

0.0023 1

% Clay

0

1001.18

93

2

0% Sand

00

% Gravel

0.150

37.5

0.0221 4

6

100

100

8

1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Cu

mu

lati

ve

per

cen

tag

e P

ass

ing

Particle Size (mm)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pla

stic

ity

In

dex

Liquid Limit


0

10

20

30

40

0 20 40 60 80

Pla

stic

ity

In

dex

Of

Wh

ole

Sa

mp

le



MEDIUM

HIGH

VERY HIGH

LOW

LOW

Perseel 1050

De Drift Plaza

Olyvenhoudtsdrift

Upington

0827744240



Vat Reg No: 4730237031

pH: 0.0 0.00


Insitu M/C% N/A

Linear Shrinkage





Roadlab Project :


Ref Number :

Aeolian


Technical Signatory

Sieve

Size(mm)% Passing


0.425 830.300

100

S/P





0.600 94

15

2.7-6.4m

26.5

Jul-14

10063.0 10053.0

Position:

75.0

Depth:

100

D5171

20 April 2015

Plasticity Index



13.2100

6.7

8

0.0695 16

19.0100

100

100

9.5 100

4.752.36

0.0754673

0.0065 11

0.0013

0.0032

Remarks:

0.0493



0.0046 8

0.0023 8

% Clay

0

1001.18

84

8

0% Sand

00

% Gravel

0.150

37.5

0.0222 12

8

100

100

16

8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Cu

mu

lati

ve

per

cen

tag

e P

ass

ing

Particle Size (mm)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pla

stic

ity

In

dex

Liquid Limit


0

10

20

30

40

0 20 40 60 80

Pla

stic

ity

In

dex

Of

Wh

ole

Sa

mp

le



MEDIUM

HIGH

VERY HIGH

LOW

LOW

Perseel 1050

De Drift Plaza

Olyvenhoudtsdrift

Upington

0827744240



Vat Reg No: 4730237031

pH: 0.0 0.00


% Gravel

0.150

37.5

0.0220 16

10

100

100

19

9

0

1001.18

81

10

0% Sand

00

% Silt


0.0046 11

0.0023 9

% Clay

0.0064 12

0.0013

0.0032

Remarks:

0.0488

Conductivity:

9.5 100

4.752.36

0.0754571

13.2100

6.7

8

0.0690 19

19.0100

100

100

Plasticity Index



20 April 2015

Jul-14

10063.0 10053.0

Position:

75.0

Depth:

100

S/P





0.600 92

19

0

26.5


Technical Signatory

Sieve

Size(mm)% Passing


0.425 830.300

100

Sample Number: Sample 1 (S10683)


Roadlab Project :


Ref Number :

Sand With Cobbles

Insitu M/C% N/A

Linear Shrinkage


0.8Liquid Limit 19.03Sample 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Cu

mu

lati

ve

per

cen

tag

e P

ass

ing

Particle Size (mm)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pla

stic

ity

In

dex

Liquid Limit


0

10

20

30

40

0 20 40 60 80

Pla

stic

ity

In

dex

Of

Wh

ole

Sa

mp

le



MEDIUM

HIGH

VERY HIGH

LOW

LOW

Perseel 1050

De Drift Plaza

Olyvenhoudtsdrift

Upington

0827744240



Vat Reg No: 4730237031

pH: 0.0 0.00


Insitu M/C% N/A

Linear Shrinkage


0Liquid Limit 0Sample 2



Roadlab Project :


Ref Number :

Sand


Technical Signatory

Sieve

Size(mm)% Passing


0.425 880.300

100

N/P





0.600 94

11

0

26.5

Jul-14

10063.0 10053.0

Position:

75.0

Depth:

100

D5171

17 April 2015

Plasticity Index



13.2100

6.7

2

0.0690 12

19.0100

99

98

9.5 99

4.752.36

0.0754680

0.0065 6

0.0013

0.0032

Remarks:

0.0492



0.0046 5

0.0023 3

% Clay

0

991.18

87

4

1% Sand

00

% Gravel

0.150

37.5

0.0221 10

9

100

99

13

3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Cu

mu

lati

ve

per

cen

tag

e P

ass

ing

Particle Size (mm)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pla

stic

ity

In

dex

Liquid Limit


0

10

20

30

40

0 20 40 60 80

Pla

stic

ity

In

dex

Of

Wh

ole

Sa

mp

le



MEDIUM

HIGH

VERY HIGH

LOW

LOW

Perseel 1050

De Drift Plaza

Olyvenhoudtsdrift

Upington

0827744240



Vat Reg No: 4730237031

pH: N/A N/A


% Gravel

0.150

37.5

0.0218 13

12

100

100

18

5

0

1001.18

83

7

0% Sand

00

% Silt


0.0045 9

0.0023 5

% Clay

0.0064 10

0.0013

0.0032

Remarks:

0.0483

Conductivity:

9.5 100

4.752.36

0.0755583

13.2100

6.7

5

0.0683 17

19.0100

100

100

Plasticity Index



17 April 2015

Jul-14

10063.0 10053.0

Position:

75.0

Depth:

100

N/P





0.600 98

17

0

26.5


Technical Signatory

Sieve

Size(mm)% Passing


0.425 920.300

100

Sample Number: Sample 3 (S10685)


Roadlab Project :


Ref Number :

Silty Sand

Insitu M/C% N/A

Linear Shrinkage


0Liquid Limit 0Sample 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Cu

mu

lati

ve

per

cen

tag

e P

ass

ing

Particle Size (mm)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pla

stic

ity

In

dex

Liquid Limit


0

10

20

30

40

0 20 40 60 80

Pla

stic

ity

In

dex

Of

Wh

ole

Sa

mp

le



MEDIUM

HIGH

VERY HIGH

LOW

LOW

Perseel 1050

De Drift Plaza

Olyvenhoudtsdrift

Upington

0827744240


May-14 REV.1

JOB No.: YOUR REF: DATE:

Client :

DEAR SIR

Date Tested :



SAMPLE ON ARRIVAL

HOLE NO. / KM OR CHAINAGE

ROAD NO OR NAME

DATE SAMPLED

DATE RECEIVED

CLIENTS MARKING

DESCRIPTION

OF Minimum MaximumSAMPLE

(COLOUR & TYPE)

75.0

63.0

53.0

37.5

26.5

19.0

13.2

4.75

2.00 20% 70%

0.425

0.075

LL < 30 < 30

PI < 10 < 15

LS % < 5% < 6%

GM

H.R.B

T.R.H. 14

COLTO

MOD AASHTO OMC%

(TMH A7) MDD(KG/M3)

COMP MC All Materials Calcrete

C.B.R. % SWELL < 0.5% < 0.5%

100%

98%

C.B.R. 97%

(TMH A8) 95%

93%

90%

Kind Regards

Remarks :





TMH1Mod, CBR, Ind0

Client

2015/05/122015/05/12Client2015/05/16

1.5 < GM < 2.5

> 45%

Sieve Size (mm)

(TMH

A1(a)(b),A5)

13

11

9

6

1872

9.1

0.0

17

14

1.82

A-3

G9

100

94

1953

7.0

0.0

19

16

0.97

A-3

G8

G9

9.4

50

9.0

0

S/P

0.0

89

83

78

65

59

Slightly Moist

TP4/1Not Specified

2.8-6.0m12/05/201512/05/2015

Calcerous Aeolian

100

100

14

12

10

7

12

10

G9

G9

5.5

G8

7.0

90

14.1

0

S/P

0.0

S10973Black Sampling Bags

Slightly Moist

TP1/2Not Specified

2.4-6.4m12/05/201512/05/2015

12/05/201512/05/2015

Aeolian

1903

5.4

0

N/P

0.0

1.04

A-3

100

100

88

8.4

Kathu 8446


Project :

18/05/2015

Sampling Method : *

Mmamatwan TSF & Return Water Dams

Not SpecifiedTest Method :Test Type :Laboratory Tester :

0

Sampled By :

Industrial Area

Kalkstreet 8


D5171




Kathu

South Africa

PO Box 507

8446


Tel: 053 723 1802

Fax: 086 767 2715

Date Sampled :Date Received :Delivered By :

Classifi-

Cation

G5

Atterberg Limits

(TMH A2,A3)

Technical Signatory

8

6

Calcerous Aeolian

0.0

17

13

Test Report : The Determination of the California Bearing Ratio, MOD AASHTO, Sieve Analysis and Atterberg

Limits of Soil, Gravel or Sand.



Slightly Moist

TP1/1Not Specified

0.6-2.4m


37.5

26.5

19

13.2

4.7

5

2.0

0

0.4

25

0.0

75

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Cu

mu

lati

ve

pe

rce

nta

ge

pa

ss

ing


SIEVE ANALYSIS

\\PREHABPC\Roadlab Server\Roadlab Kathu 2015\Clients 2015\Knight Pieslo Consulting\Results\CBR Ind Summary\12.05.15 Knigh Piesold Consulting Mmamatwan TSF & Return Water Dams- D5171 S10972-

74Summary

May-14 REV.1


Client :

DEAR SIR

Date Tested :



SAMPLE ON ARRIVAL


ROAD NO OR NAME

DATE SAMPLED

DATE RECEIVED

CLIENTS MARKING

DESCRIPTION


(COLOUR & TYPE)

75.0

63.0

53.0

37.5

26.5

19.0

13.2

4.75

2.00 20% 70%

0.425

0.075

LL < 30 < 30

PI < 10 < 15

LS % < 5% < 6%

GM

H.R.B

T.R.H. 14

COLTO

MOD AASHTO OMC%

(TMH A7) MDD(KG/M3)


C.B.R. % SWELL < 0.5% < 0.5%

100%

98%

C.B.R. 97%

(TMH A8) 95%

93%

90%

Kind Regards

Remarks :









Slightly Moist

TP5/1Not Specified

4.8-5.8m


Classifi-

Cation

G5

Atterberg Limits

(TMH A2,A3)

Technical Signatory

100

96

74

69

9

6

Aeolian

0.0

17

14

Test Method :Test Type :Laboratory Tester :

0

Sampled By :

Industrial Area

Kalkstreet 8


D5171




Kathu

South Africa

PO Box 507

8446


Tel: 053 723 1802

Fax: 086 767 2715


Kathu 8446


Project :

18/05/2015

Sampling Method : *

Mmamatwan TSF & Retrun Water Dams

Not Specified

12/05/201512/05/2015

Calcerous Aeolian

1781

11.5

S/P

0.0

2.02

A-1-b

64

54

50

41

6.9


Slightly Moist

TP11/1Not Specified

0.6-3.0m12/05/201512/05/2015

13

11

G9

G9

11.4

G8

6.0

89

10.4

N/P

0.0

100

100

14

12

10

7

100

100

Slightly Moist

TP14/1Not Specified

0.5-3m12/05/201512/05/2015

Aeolian

18

15

0.97

A-2-4

G8

1936

6.0

0.0

18

15

1.01

A-2-4

G8

G8

6.1

90

14.1

N/P

0.0

TMH1Mod, CBR, Ind0

Client

12/05/201512/05/2015Client2015/05/16

1.5 < GM < 2.5

> 45%

Sieve Size (mm)

(TMH

A1(a)(b),A5)

14

12

10

8

1960

5.8

0.0

37.5

26.5

19

13.2

4.7

5

2.0

0

0.4

25

0.0

75

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Cu

mu

lati

ve

pe

rce

nta

ge

pa

ss

ing


SIEVE ANALYSIS

\\PREHABPC\Roadlab Server\Roadlab Kathu 2015\Clients 2015\Knight Pieslo Consulting\Results\CBR Ind Summary\12.05.15 Knigh Piesold Consulting Mmamatwan TSF & Return Water Dams- D5171 S10975-

77Summary

May-14 REV.1


Client :

DEAR SIR

Date Tested :



SAMPLE ON ARRIVAL


ROAD NO OR NAME

DATE SAMPLED

DATE RECEIVED

CLIENTS MARKING

DESCRIPTION


(COLOUR & TYPE)

75.0

63.0

53.0

37.5

26.5

19.0

13.2

4.75

2.00 20% 70%

0.425

0.075

LL < 30 < 30

PI < 10 < 15

LS % < 5% < 6%

GM

H.R.B

T.R.H. 14

COLTO

MOD AASHTO OMC%

(TMH A7) MDD(KG/M3)


C.B.R. % SWELL < 0.5% < 0.5%

100%

98%

C.B.R. 97%

(TMH A8) 95%

93%

90%

Kind Regards

Remarks :









Slightly Moist

TP18/1Not Specified

2.7-6.4m

Classifi-

Cation

G5

Atterberg Limits

(TMH A2,A3)

Technical Signatory

8

6

0.0

17

13

Test Method :Test Type :Laboratory Tester :

0

Sampled By :

Industrial Area

Kalkstreet 8


D5171




Kathu

South Africa

PO Box 507

8446


Tel: 053 723 1802

Fax: 086 767 2715


Kathu 8446


Project :

18/05/2015

Sampling Method : *

Mmamatwan TSF & Retrun Water Dams

Not Specified

10/04/201510/04/2015

Calcerous Aeolian

1954

8

0

S/P

0.0

1.02

A-2-4

100

100

99

88

12.2

12

10

G9

G9

8.2

TMH1Mod, CBR, Ind0

Client

12/05/201512/05/2015Client2015/05/16

1.5 < GM < 2.5

> 45%

Sieve Size (mm)

(TMH

A1(a)(b),A5)

37.5

26.5

19

13.2

4.7

5

2.0

0

0.4

25

0.0

75

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Cu

mu

lati

ve

pe

rce

nta

ge

pa

ss

ing


SIEVE ANALYSIS

\\PREHABPC\Roadlab Server\Roadlab Kathu 2015\Clients 2015\Knight Pieslo Consulting\Results\CBR Ind Summary\12.05.15 Knigh Piesold Consulting Mmamatwan TSF & Return Water Dams- D5171

S10978Summary

��

�� !��"��#�� $

��$ ��%

:��(�* �0,2, �'+'�'(&'(�* @#)'* ,-./0.1/,0

&��'()* )�� (��5� �� :'&)*

��7�21181 ��)��(A�#B'�*

"��3�� A�;*

//=/ �#� �'(C��'�*

#))'()��(* )�� +� �#)'��#�@'�&�� )��(*

�#� �'@�B*

)'�)�')��@D*

�#��#)��B)'�)'�*

3��E ��E ��E %��E ��E

��

,3��3 ,3��3 ,3��3 ,3��3 ,3��3

F,,� F�� F�%� F�� F3�F

��3� ��3� ��3� ��3� ��3�

�3F� �� %3� �� F

�� ,% �F ,F ,�

F�� F F3� ��% F��

��3 ��F �FF ��% ��F

,�� ,�F ,�� ,�% ,��

,� 3� 3F ��

�,3� �3%, �3�� ,�� ,,,

=�/ 0�/ >�/ 2�/ -�/

,-92 ,-8= ,-8- ,->/ ,-99

�� !��

��+��

+��*��%�%�,��

��?�@

�� 5��?�@

(�� ?�@

��<,�;�#2

(�� A��?�@

(�� A�3� ��?�@

(��

6� ��?�@

��5��?�@

��5��A�3� ��?�@

�#B'�C��$��%��'�$�.��'�C��'��C�%�(��%��<�,��%�<��#2�

(��#(�'��#�#

��5��

��5��

D�6� ��

��! �"�8�> "0-��"!��1��.��"��!��!<?$��00�"1�.��=� )�1$�"1��"8��

��

D�� 5�

��0"�"��!4��0��"��!��"�1� ��"�� !1$�� 5#11��"��"��

,�)$�!�-0��!6$��! .7�1��!��11��"�8��)��

3�)$��! ��!��0��$�!�-0��!��9+ ��$�� !��5�$��.��"�5��-��"��

��

"!��$��!0��!"."�"��"�."�"��5��. ��$�.:;<��$ =�

��)$"!��1 -��"!�$�1��1��1��5��-��! ��-��!-��9��-��.��0�� 1��

��$��$��6"�$5 ��6�"��00��5��-�$�)�1$�"1��8��5��. ��$�.:;<��$ =�

�#B'�C��$��%��'�$�)�.�9 ��

��'�C��'��C�%�(��%��

)'� �G&�(��@'�#��#)��B*

'(;��'()#�&�(@�)��(�*

�� 3��4�*�� 5��6� ��

��,.,�E�/�>;1�=�

(��

�,/821

#��

��'��C�%��#�#

)��*��3�,3��,

'�-�"�*��.�!"!$��/0��$�.�1��2�

��:�� :��&��;�

�H,��3,�� F��3 I��, � 3��I%F�%��

��,�

��3�

��

��

��%�

��

��

��F�

�F��

�F��

3�� %�� %��

��

�� 5��

��

��

�� !��"��#�� $

��$ ��%

8��(�* �0/5/ �'7'�'(&'(�* @#)'* /71.01-./0

&��'()* )�� (��:� �� 8'&)*

��<�5--=- ��)��(A�#B'�*

"��8�� A�9*

..6. �#� �'(C��'�*

#))'()��(* )�� +� �#)'��#�@'�&�� )��(*

�#� �'@�B*

)'�)�')��@D*

�#��#)��B)'�)'�*

5��E ��E ��E %��E ��E

��

/5��5 /5��5 /5��5 /5��5 /5��5

F5�� F�� F%�F F��% F��

��5� ��5� ��5� ��5� ��5�

��/� ��/� ��F ��% �%��

// �� 55 /%

FF� �%� F�F ��/ F�%

F�/ �5� �%� �� F/5

/�� /�% /�� /�/ /��

5� 5� �� 5� %5

�/�� % ��F5 �5�� /�%

0�6 >�2 5�2 7�6 =�6

/7>- /=2. /=0/ /77= /7>/

�� !��

��+��

��'��?�%��#�#

)��*��5�/5��/

'�0�"�*��2�!"!$��>+��$�2�-��?�

��3�� 3��&��4�)'� �G&�(��@'�#��#)��B*

'(9��'()#�&�(@�)��(�*

�� 8��9�*�� :��;� ��

��/1-�@�-�64>�6�

(��

�/.=52

(��:��#��

��! �"�4�< "+0��"!��-��2��"��!��!:=$��++�"-�2��;� )�-$�"-��"4��

��

A�� :�

��+"�"��!,��+��"��!��"�-� ��"�� !-$�� .#--��"��"��

/�)$�!�0+��!1$��! 23�-��!��--��"�4��)��

5�)$��! ��!��+��$�!�0+��!��67 ��$�� !��.�$��2��"�.��0��"��

��

"!��$��!+��!"2"�"��"�2"�"��.��2 ��$�289:��$ ;�

��)$"!��- 0��"!�$�-��-��-��.��0��! ��0��!0��6��0��2��+�� -��

��$��$��1"�$. ��1�"��++��.��0�$�)�-$�"-��4��.��2 ��$�289:��$ ;�

�#B'�?��$��%��'�$�)�1�2 ��

��'�?��'��?�%�(��%��

��C�D

�� :��C�D

(�� C�D

��,/�4�#5

(�� E��C�D

(�� E�8� ��C�D

(��

;� ��C�D

��:��C�D

��:��E�8� ��C�D

�#B'�?��$��%��'�$�1��'�?��'��?�%�(��%��,�/��%�,��#5�

(��#(�'��#�#

��:��

��:��

A�;� ��

7��*��%�%�/��

�H/��5/�� F��5 I��/ � 5��I%F�%��

��

��%�

��

��

��F�

�F��

�F��

�F/�

�F5�

�F��

�F��

�F%�

�� %�� %�� F�� F��

��

�� :��

��

��

�� !��"��#�� $

��$ ��%

8��(�* �0/5/ �'7'�'(&'(�* @#)'* /71.01-./0

&��'()* )�� (��:� �� 8'&)*

��<�5--=- ��)��(A�#B'�*

"��8�� A�9*

..6. �#� �'(C��'�*

#))'()��(* )�� +� �#)'��#�@'�&�� )��(*

�#� �'@�B*

)'�)�')��@D*

�#��#)��B)'�)'�*

5��E ��E ��E %��E ��E

��

/5��5 /5��5 /5��5 /5��5 /5��5

F5�% F�� F��/ F�/� F��/

��5� ��5� ��5� ��5� ��5�

��% �%�� // �%F� �%�/

% �F 5� /� ��

F�� %� F�% FF� �%5

�FF ��% ��F F/% ��

/�� /�% /�/ /�� /��

�F �F �� / %5

��F� �/�F �5�� /�� /��

5�> 7�> =�0 /.�> //�0

/7-- /707 /75- /762 /7-6

�� !��

��+��

��'��?�%��#�#

)��*��5�/5��/

'�0�"�*��2�!"!$��>+��$�2�-��?�

��3�� 3��&��4�)'� �G&�(��@'�#��#)��B*

'(9��'()#�&�(@�)��(�*

�� 8��9�*�� :��;� ��

��61/�@�-�74>�.�

(��

�/.=56

(��:��#��

��! �"�4�< "+0��"!��-��2��"��!��!:=$��++�"-�2��;� )�-$�"-��"4��

��

A�� :�

��+"�"��!,��+��"��!��"�-� ��"�� !-$�� .#--��"��"��

/�)$�!�0+��!1$��! 23�-��!��--��"�4��)��

5�)$��! ��!��+��$�!�0+��!��67 ��$�� !��.�$��2��"�.��0��"��

��

"!��$��!+��!"2"�"��"�2"�"��.��2 ��$�289:��$ ;�

��)$"!��- 0��"!�$�-��-��-��.��0��! ��0��!0��6��0��2��+�� -��

��$��$��1"�$. ��1�"��++��.��0�$�)�-$�"-��4��.��2 ��$�289:��$ ;�

�#B'�?��$��%��'�$�)�1�2 ��

��'�?��'��?�%�(��%��

��C�D

�� :��C�D

(�� C�D

��,/�4�#5

(�� E��C�D

(�� E�8� ��C�D

(��

;� ��C�D

��:��C�D

��:��E�8� ��C�D

�#B'�?��$��%��'�$�1��'�?��'��?�%�(��%��,�/��%�,��#5�

(��#(�'��#�#

��:��

��:��

A�;� ��

7��*��%�%�/��

�H/��5/�� F��5 I��/ � 5��I%F�%��

��

��/�

��5�

��

��

��%�

��

��

�� F�� F��

��

�� :��

��

��

�� !��"��#�� $

��$ ��%

:��(�* �0,2, �'+'�'(&'(�* @#)'* ,-./0.1/,0

&��'()* )�� (��5� �� :'&)*

��7�21181 ��)��(A�#B'�*

"��3�� A�;*

//=/ �#� �'(C��'�*

#))'()��(* )�� +� �#)'��#�@'�&�� )��(*

�#� �'@�B*

)'�)�')��@D*

�#��#)��B)'�)'�*

,��E 3��E ��E ��E %��E

��

,3��3 ,3��3 ,3��3 ,3��3 ,3��3

F�%� F�� F3�� F3�� F,�F

��3� ��3� ��3� ��3� ��3�

�,3� �3�� F

,� �3 ,3 �� ,�

F�� F� F�� F� ��

��, �3F �� 3� �3%

,�� ,�� ,�F ,�� ,�%

�� F %F �F %�

3�� 3F�� F� ��3 3F�F

8�, ,/�/ ,,�/ ,1�, ,9�,

,>-2 ,2,2 ,22> ,2>/ ,>82

�� !��

��+��

+��*��%�%�,��

��?�@

�� 5��?�@

(�� ?�@

��<,�;�#2

(�� A��?�@

(�� A�3� ��?�@

(��

6� ��?�@

��5��?�@

��5��A�3� ��?�@

�#B'�C��$��%��'�$�.��'�C��'��C�%�(��%��<�,��%�<��#2�

(��#(�'��#�#

��5��

��5��

D�6� ��

��! �"�8�> "0-��"!��1��.��"��!��!<?$��00�"1�.��=� )�1$�"1��"8��

��

D�� 5�

��0"�"��!4��0��"��!��"�1� ��"�� !1$�� 5#11��"��"��

,�)$�!�-0��!6$��! .7�1��!��11��"�8��)��

3�)$��! ��!��0��$�!�-0��!��9+ ��$�� !��5�$��.��"�5��-��"��

��

"!��$��!0��!"."�"��"�."�"��5��. ��$�.:;<��$ =�

��)$"!��1 -��"!�$�1��1��1��5��-��! ��-��!-��9��-��.��0�� 1��

��$��$��6"�$5 ��6�"��00��5��-�$�)�1$�"1��8��5��. ��$�.:;<��$ =�

�#B'�C��$��%��'�$�)�.�9 ��

��'�C��'��C�%�(��%��

)'� �G&�(��@'�#��#)��B*

'(;��'()#�&�(@�)��(�*

�� 3��4�*�� 5��6� ��

��0.,�E�=�-;0�-�

(��

�,/820

(��5��#��

��'��C�%��#�#

)��*��3�,3��,

'�-�"�*��.�!"!$��/0��$�.�1��2�

��:�� :��&��;�

�H,��3,�� F��3 I��, � 3��I%F�%��

�%%�

�%��

��

��,�

��

��%�

��

��

F�� F�� ,�� ,�� 3�� 3��

��

�� 5��

��

��$ ��%

8��(�* �0/5/ �'7'�'(&'(�* @#)'* /71.01-./0

&��'()* )�� (��:� �� 8'&)*

��<�5--=- ��)��(A�#B'�*

"��8�� A�9*

..6. �#� �'(C��'�*

#))'()��(* )�� +� �#)'��#�@'�&�� )��(*

�#� �'@�B*

)'�)�')��@D*

�#��#)��B)'�)'�*

/��E 5��E ��E ��E %��E

��

/5��5 /5��5 /5��5 /5��5 /5��5

F5�5 F�� F�/� F�%% F��

��5� ��5� ��5� ��5� ��5�

��5 �� %F� ��5% �%��

/� /� �� F

F�� F�% ��% F55 �%�

��% �� /� �F/ �/5

/�F /�� /�% /�� /��

// /� 5/ �� /

�5/� �5�5 �� 55�

2�0 6�0 0�0 >�6 5�6

/755 /=.2 /=2/ /=22 /772

�� !��

��+��

��'��?�%��#�#

)��*��5�/5��/

'�0�"�*��2�!"!$��>+��$�2�-��?�

��3�� 3��&��4�)'� �G&�(��@'�#��#)��B*

'(9��'()#�&�(@�)��(�*

�� 8��9�*�� :��;� ��

��//1/�@�.�>42�.�

(��

�/.=5>

#��

��! �"�4�< "+0��"!��-��2��"��!��!:=$��++�"-�2��;� )�-$�"-��"4��

��

A�� :�

��+"�"��!,��+��"��!��"�-� ��"�� !-$�� .#--��"��"��

/�)$�!�0+��!1$��! 23�-��!��--��"�4��)��

5�)$��! ��!��+��$�!�0+��!��67 ��$�� !��.�$��2��"�.��0��"��

��

"!��$��!+��!"2"�"��"�2"�"��.��2 ��$�289:��$ ;�

��)$"!��- 0��"!�$�-��-��-��.��0��! ��0��!0��6��0��2��+�� -��

��$��$��1"�$. ��1�"��++��.��0�$�)�-$�"-��4��.��2 ��$�289:��$ ;�

�#B'�?��$��%��'�$�)�1�2 ��

��'�?��'��?�%�(��%��

��C�D

�� :��C�D

(�� C�D

��,/�4�#5

(�� E��C�D

(�� E�8� ��C�D

(��

;� ��C�D

��:��C�D

��:��E�8� ��C�D

�#B'�?��$��%��'�$�1��'�?��'��?�%�(��%��,�/��%�,��#5�

(��#(�'��#�#

��:��

��:��

A�;� ��

7��*��%�%�/��

�H/��5/�� F��5 I��/ � 5��I%F�%��

��

��

��F�

�F��

�F��

�F/�

�F5�

�F��

5�� 5�� %�� %��

��

�� :��

��

��$ ��%

:��(�* �0,2, �'+'�'(&'(�* @#)'* ,-./0.1/,0

&��'()* )�� (��5� �� :'&)*

��7�21181 ��)��(A�#B'�*

"��3�� A�;*

//=/ �#� �'(C��'�*

#))'()��(* )�� +� �#)'��#�@'�&�� )��(*

�#� �'@�B*

)'�)�')��@D*

�#��#)��B)'�)'�*

3��E ��E ��E %��E ��E

��

,3��3 ,3��3 ,3��3 ,3��3 ,3��3

F3%, F��3 F%,� F�� F�,�

��3� ��3� ��3� ��3� ��3�

��3, ��3 ��F� ��,� �%F�

,� �� ,� 33 ,�

F�� %F F�� F� F%�

F�� 3� �� , F��

,�% ,�� ,�� ,�F ,��

3� 3, ��

�33� �� % �3F3 �33�

=�0 0�= >�= 2�0 -�0

,--9 ,8=, ,802 ,8/- ,--,

�� !��

��+��

+��*��%�%�,��

��?�@

�� 5��?�@

(�� ?�@

��<,�;�#2

(�� A��?�@

(�� A�3� ��?�@

(��

6� ��?�@

��5��?�@

��5��A�3� ��?�@

�#B'�C��$��%��'�$�.��'�C��'��C�%�(��%��<�,��%�<��#2�

(��#(�'��#�#

��5��

��5��

D�6� ��

��! �"�8�> "0-��"!��1��.��"��!��!<?$��00�"1�.��=� )�1$�"1��"8��

��

D�� 5�

��0"�"��!4��0��"��!��"�1� ��"�� !1$�� 5#11��"��"��

,�)$�!�-0��!6$��! .7�1��!��11��"�8��)��

3�)$��! ��!��0��$�!�-0��!��9+ ��$�� !��5�$��.��"�5��-��"��

��

"!��$��!0��!"."�"��"�."�"��5��. ��$�.:;<��$ =�

��)$"!��1 -��"!�$�1��1��1��5��-��! ��-��!-��9��-��.��0�� 1��

��$��$��6"�$5 ��6�"��00��5��-�$�)�1$�"1��8��5��. ��$�.:;<��$ =�

�#B'�C��$��%��'�$�)�.�9 ��

��'�C��'��C�%�(��%��

)'� �G&�(��@'�#��#)��B*

'(;��'()#�&�(@�)��(�*

�� 3��4�*�� 5��6� ��

��,=.,�E�/�0;9�

(��

�,/822

#��

��'��C�%��#�#

)��*��3�,3��,

'�-�"�*��.�!"!$��/0��$�.�1��2�

��:�� :��&��;�

�H,��3,�� F��3 I��, � 3��I%F�%��

��

��

��F�

�F��

�F��

�F,�

�F3�

�F��

�F��

�F%�

�F��

�� %�� %�� F��

��

�� 5��

��

��

�� !��"��#�� $

��$ ��%

:��(�* �0,2, �'+'�'(&'(�* @#)'* ,-./0.1/,0

&��'()* )�� (��5� �� :'&)*

��7�21181 ��)��(A�#B'�*

"��3�� A�;*

//=/ �#� �'(C��'�*

#))'()��(* )�� +� �#)'��#�@'�&�� )��(*

�#� �'@�B*

)'�)�')��@D*

�#��#)��B)'�)'�*

3��E ��E ��E %��E ��E

��

,3��3 ,3��3 ,3��3 ,3��3 ,3��3

F�%� F%�F F�� F%�F F%3�

��3� ��3� ��3� ��3� ��3�

�%3� ��,F �� ,F ��

�� ,� ,, �, �%

F�� F3 F�� , F��

��F �� F�3 �F� ��

,�� ,�3 ,�� ,�F ,��

�� % �� , %�

�3�� , ��F� ��% �3��

>�2 2�2 -�> 8�> ,/�2

,--> ,8=> ,80/ ,8,9 ,--0

�� !��

��+��

+��*��%�%�,��

��?�@

�� 5��?�@

(�� ?�@

��<,�;�#2

(�� A��?�@

(�� A�3� ��?�@

(��

6� ��?�@

��5��?�@

��5��A�3� ��?�@

�#B'�C��$��%��'�$�.��'�C��'��C�%�(��%��<�,��%�<��#2�

(��#(�'��#�#

��5��

��5��

D�6� ��

��! �"�8�> "0-��"!��1��.��"��!��!<?$��00�"1�.��=� )�1$�"1��"8��

��

D�� 5�

��0"�"��!4��0��"��!��"�1� ��"�� !1$�� 5#11��"��"��

,�)$�!�-0��!6$��! .7�1��!��11��"�8��)��

3�)$��! ��!��0��$�!�-0��!��9+ ��$�� !��5�$��.��"�5��-��"��

��

"!��$��!0��!"."�"��"�."�"��5��. ��$�.:;<��$ =�

��)$"!��1 -��"!�$�1��1��1��5��-��! ��-��!-��9��-��.��0�� 1��

��$��$��6"�$5 ��6�"��00��5��-�$�)�1$�"1��8��5��. ��$�.:;<��$ =�

�#B'�C��$��%��'�$�)�.�9 ��

��'�C��'��C�%�(��%��

)'� �G&�(��@'�#��#)��B*

'(;��'()#�&�(@�)��(�*

�� 3��4�*�� 5��6� ��

��,-.,�E�1�2;>�=�

(��

�,/82-

(��5��#��

��'��C�%��#�#

)��*��3�,3��,

'�-�"�*��.�!"!$��/0��$�.�1��2�

��:�� :��&��;�

�H,��3,�� F��3 I��, � 3��I%F�%��

��

��F�

�F��

�F��

�F,�

�F3�

�F��

�F��

�F%�

%�� F�� F��

��

�� 5��

��


APPENDIX C

THICKENING TEST REPORT

www.PatersonCooke.com

MAMATWAN TAILINGS THICKENER TEST WORK

MAM-12-8458.1 R01 Rev 1

1 5 May 2015 Issued to client SR FD -

0 28 April 2015 Issued to client SR FD -

A 28 April 2015 Issued for Internal Review SR FD -

Rev

No. Date Description

Prepared Reviewed Reviewed

Originator Client

Document Title

Thickening Test Work Report

Document Number

Office Code Project Code

Document

Type Doc. No. Rev No.

12 8458.1 REP 01 1

Thickening Test Work Report MAM-12-8458.1-R01 Rev 1

5 May 2015 Page ii

TERMS OF REFERENCE

This work has been conducted by Paterson & Cooke Consulting Scientists (Pty) Ltd. for Knight Piésold

Consulting under Order Number 159385\15.

This report, and accompanying drawings, has been prepared by Paterson & Cooke Consulting Scientists (Pty)

Ltd for the exclusive use of Knight Piesold Consulting for the Mamatwan Plant Tailings Thickener Test Work,

and no other party is an intended beneficiary of this report or any of the information, opinions and conclusions

contained herein. The use of this report shall be at the sole risk of the user regardless of any fault or

negligence of Knight Piesold Consulting or Paterson & Cooke Consulting Scientists (Pty) Ltd. Paterson & Cooke

Consulting Scientists (Pty) Ltd accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a

result of decisions or actions based on this report. Note that this report is a controlled document and any

reproductions are uncontrolled and may not be the most recent version.


5 May 2015 Page iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Paterson and Cooke conducted a site and equipment audit in January 2015 for the upgrade of the

current 22m diameter Mamatwan tailings thickener to meet the planned Hotazel Manganese Mines

process and performance objectives. One of the outcomes of the audit was a bench-top thickening

and filtration test study to be conducted in order to determine the thickening and filtration

characteristics of the Mamatwan tailings for dewatering equipment design; sizing and costing

purposes. This document details the test results and findings of the laboratory thickening test work. A

separate filtration test report will follow upon completion of the filtration tests.

The following findings and conclusions were made from the thickening test work:

The Mamatwan thickener feed material was found to be naturally coagulated (settling) in the

un-flocculated state, even though it has a very fine particle size distribution (d80 of 15 micron)

and a very small fraction of swelling clays.

For thickening the optimum flocculant type is Magnafloc – 336.

The optimum thickener operating parameters obtained from the test work and based on the

slurry solids concentration as received (3.4%m), are:

� Flocculant dosing concentration of 0.025% to 0.05%m

� Flocculant dose of 30 g/t

The optimum thickener sizing parameters determined from the test work are:

� Solids flux rate of 0.3 t/m2.h

� Residence time of 6 hours

Estimated thickener performance:

The estimated thickener performance is based on the optimum parameters above for bench-

top dynamic batch operation under Paste thickening conditions (i.e. 200mm mud bed and no

continuous pumping out). For more accurate estimates of the thickener underflow solids

concentrations at full scale, semi-pilot test data under dynamic continuous conditions are

required, which more accurately presents the full scale operating conditions.



Underflow solids conc. (%m) for a picket raked Paste

thickener at a residence time of 6 hours.

60


5 May 2015 Page iv

The un-sheared vane yield stress of the material is in the order of 200 to 300 Pa at 63%m solids

concentration. It is recommended that the thickener supplier be consulted regarding the

design of the rake drive to handle these high yield stresses.

The final settled solids concentration for a slurry placed at 60%m (expected Paste thickener

underflow) was around 63%m, based on un-drained settling of the thickened underflow

material over a 48 hour period.

The bleed water limit of the material is estimated at 65% to 66%m solids concentration.

Paterson and Cooke recommends the following thickener sizing options for the Thickener Feed

Sample based on a lower limit feed dry solids tonnage of 10 t/h and a higher limit of 50 t/h:

• 1 x 7m diameter Paste thickener with 4m side wall height for the lower limit

• 1 x 15m diameter Paste thickener with 3m side wall height for the higher limit

Tonnage Solids (t/h) 10 50

Feed solids (%m) 3.4 10.0

Flocculant Type M336 M336

Flocculant Dose (g/t) 30 15

Thickener Diam (m) 7 15

Thickener No. 1 1

Actual Flux Rate (t/m2.h) 0.26 0.28

Actual Mud Bed Rise

Rate (m/h) 0.370.41

Floor Slope ( ° from horizontal) 30 30

Cone Height (m) 2.0 4.3

Total Side Wall Height (m) 4.0 3.0

Total Height (m) 6.0 7.3

Mud Bed Height (m) 3.6 5.4

Disch Vol. (m3/h) 14.2 80.2

MB Res Time (h) 6.0 6.0

Est. U/F Conc. (%m) 60.4 60.4

Un Sheared Yield Stress (Pa) 308 308

Thickener Feed

(Higher limit)

Thickener Feed

(Lower limit)

Feed

Tank

Parameter

Underflow


5 May 2015 Page v

CONTENTS

TERMS OF REFERENCE ............................................................................................................ ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... iii

CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. v

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1

2. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION AND PREPARATION ....................................................................... 1

3. TEST WORK PROGRAMME ............................................................................................... 1

3.1 Slurry Behaviour Tests ............................................................................................................. 2

3.2 Static Sedimentation Tests ...................................................................................................... 2

3.3 Bench-top Dynamic Thickening Tests ...................................................................................... 2

3.4 Thickener Mud Bed Rheology Tests ......................................................................................... 3

3.5 Water Release Tests ................................................................................................................. 3

4. RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 3

4.1 Slurry Behaviour Tests ............................................................................................................. 3

4.1.1 Particle Specific Gravity ............................................................................................... 3

4.1.2 Particle Size Distribution ............................................................................................. 4

4.1.3 Clay Mineralogy ........................................................................................................... 4

4.1.4 Process Water Quality ................................................................................................. 6

4.1.5 Natural Colloidal Characteristics ................................................................................. 7

4.2 Static Sedimentation Tests ...................................................................................................... 7

4.2.1 Flocculant Type ............................................................................................................ 7

4.2.2 Flocculant Dose Optimisation ..................................................................................... 9

4.3 Bench-top Dynamic Thickening Tests .................................................................................... 10

4.3.1 Solids Flux Tests ......................................................................................................... 10

4.3.2 24-Hour Mud Bed Consolidation Tests ..................................................................... 13

4.4 Underflow Mud Bed Rheology Tests ..................................................................................... 14

4.4.1 Un-sheared Yield Stress ............................................................................................. 14

4.4.2 Sheared Yield Stress .................................................................................................. 15

4.5 Water Release Tests ............................................................................................................... 15

4.5.1 Test Set-up ................................................................................................................. 15

4.5.2 Water Release Curves ............................................................................................... 16

5. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ................................................................................................. 17

5.1 Slurry Behaviour Tests ........................................................................................................... 17

5.1.1 Particle Specific Gravity ............................................................................................. 17


5 May 2015 Page vi

5.1.2 Particle Size Distribution ........................................................................................... 17

5.1.3 Clay Mineralogy ......................................................................................................... 17

5.1.4 Process Water Quality ............................................................................................... 18

5.1.5 Natural Colloidal Characteristics ............................................................................... 18

5.2 Static Sedimentation Tests .................................................................................................... 18

5.2.1 Flocculant Type .......................................................................................................... 18

5.2.2 Flocculant Dose Optimisation ................................................................................... 19

5.3 Bench-top Dynamic Thickening Tests .................................................................................... 19

5.3.1 Solids Flux Tests (Thickener Solids Throughput) ....................................................... 19

5.3.2 24-Hour Mud Bed Consolidation Tests ..................................................................... 20

5.4 Mud Bed Rheology ................................................................................................................. 20

5.5 Water Release Tests ............................................................................................................... 20

6. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 21

7. THICKENER SIZING EXERCISE ........................................................................................... 22

APPENDIX A – SLURRY BEHAVIOUR TESTS RAW DATA ........................................................ A.1

APPENDIX B – STATIC SEDIMENTATION TESTS RAW DATA .................................................. B.1

APPENDIX C – DYNAMIC THICKENING TESTS RAW DATA .................................................... C.1

APPENDIX D – MUD BED RHEOLOGY TEST DATA ................................................................. D.1

APPENDIX E – WATER RELEASE TESTS .................................................................................. E.1


5 May 2015 Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION

A request was received from Mr Siduduzo (Sdu) Dladla of Knight Piésold Consulting for

Paterson and Cooke (P&C) to conduct a site and equipment audit for the upgrade of the current

22m diameter Mamatwan tailings thickener to meet the planned Hotazel Manganese Mines

process and performance objectives.

P&C conducted the audit on the 28th of January 2014 and submitted a Note for the Record1

recommending that a bench top thickening and filtration test study be conducted in order to

determine the thickening and filtration characteristics of the Mamatwan tailings for

dewatering equipment design; sizing and costing purposes.

This document details the test results and findings of the laboratory thickening test work. A

separate filtration test report will follow upon completion of the filtration tests.

2. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION AND PREPARATION

The following samples were delivered to the P&C laboratory facility in Johannesburg, South

Africa:

� 8 x 50 litre Thickener Feed Slurry

The thickener feed slurry was combined into 2 x 200 litre drums to make up a stock slurry

sample. Supernatant was removed form one of the 200 litre drum in order to conduct tests on

the remaining high solids concentration sample and process water separately.

3. TEST WORK PROGRAMME

P&C carried out the following test work programme scope:

� Slurry Behaviour Tests

� Static Sedimentation Tests

� Bench-top Dynamic Thickening Tests

� Thickened Mud Bed Rheology Tests

� Water Release Tests

1 P&C Report : MAM-12-8458 Mamatwan Thickener Audit NFTR dated 29 January 2015.


5 May 2015 Page 2

3.1 Slurry Behaviour Tests

The slurry behaviour tests are designed to determine:

1. The colloidal behaviour of slurries by identifying potentially problematic (i.e. non-settling)

ore/water combinations, which may affect the flocculation and thickening processes.

The slurry behaviour tests included:

� Solids specific gravity measurement

� Particle size distribution measurement

� Detailed clay mineral analysis

� Raw water and process water quality

� Slurry pH and conductivity measurement

� Natural colloidal characteristics of a typical thickener feed slurry.

3.2 Static Sedimentation Tests

The static sedimentation tests are designed to determine:

1. The flocculation and settling characteristics of slurries under static batch conditions in

order to specify the optimum thickener feed operating conditions.

2. The operating parameters for set-up of the subsequent dynamic thickening tests.

The static sedimentation tests included:

� Flocculant type screening

� Optimisation of flocculant demand

� Static settling rate.

3.3 Bench-top Dynamic Thickening Tests

The dynamic thickening tests are designed to determine:

1. The optimum thickening area required for a specific process mass flow (t/h)

2. The mud bed accumulation and consolidation properties under dynamic batch operating

conditions on which a suitable control philosophy for a thickener can be based.

The tests were conducted in a 100 mm diameter bench-top dynamic thickener test rig

simulating PASTE (pickets on rake) thickening conditions. The dynamic thickening tests

included:

� Solids flux tests

� 24h mud bed consolidation tests


5 May 2015 Page 3

Note - The underflow densities obtained during the bench-top dynamic thickening tests are

based on a 100 to 200 mm mud bed height and therefore essentially exclude the effect of

extended mud bed height / residence time on the consolidation behaviour of the material. In

order to fully assess the maximum underflow density achievable by full scale thickening, further

mud bed consolidation test work at a semi-pilot scale level is required.

3.4 Thickener Mud Bed Rheology Tests

The thickened mud bed rheology tests are designed to determine:

1. The un-sheared yield stress of the mud bed which is used by the thickener vendors to

estimate rake drive requirements.

2. The fully sheared yield stress vs. solids concentration relationship for the material.

The tests were conducted in an Anton Paar rotational viscometer with vane measuring system

will be used based on the assumption that the material will present non-Newtonian flow

characteristics. Comparative slump tests were also conducted.

Note - The underflow yield stress data obtained through this test relates only to the mud bed

characteristics within the thickener and cannot be correlated to underflow rheology and pump

and pipeline design.

3.5 Water Release Tests

The water release tests are designed to determine:

� The relationship between the placed density of a thickened slurry at the TSF and the

in situ density after 48 hour consolidation for water balance calculations

Underflow material at a range of starting densities underwent static sedimentation tests in 500

ml measuring cylinders, in which the samples were allowed to compact under their own weight

in an un-drained condition and excluding evaporation.

4. RESULTS


The raw data of the Slurry Behaviour Tests are presented in Appendix A.

4.1.1 Particle Specific Gravity

The particle specific gravity of the thickener feed sample was measured by Helium

stereopycnometer method and presented in Table I.


5 May 2015 Page 4

Table I: Particle Specific Gravity

Sample Particle specific

gravity (g/cm3)

Thickener Feed 3.512

4.1.2 Particle Size Distribution

The particle size distribution of the thickener feed sample was determined by laser diffraction

method and is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Particle Size Distribution

The d20, d50 and d80 particle size is presented in Table II.

Table II: Particle Size Distribution Summary

Particle size parameter Thickener Feed (micron)

d�� 1.36

d�� 5.06

d�� 14.63

4.1.3 Clay Mineralogy

The clay mineralogy of the material is determined by X-ray diffraction following glycolation and

heat treatment steps in order to distinguish between clay minerals which normally overlap on

X-ray diffractograms.


5 May 2015 Page 5

Table III presents the quantitative clay mineral analysis results as determined by SGS on the

head and clay size (-5 µm) fractions of the ore2.

Table III: Clay Mineral Species

Mineral type (approx. formula) Approx. Abundance (mass %)

Comp 1

Head Clay size (-5 µm)

Smectite (Al,Mg)8(Si4O10)4(OH)8·12H20 - 1.6

Braunite (MnMn6SiO12) 34.3 35.5

Calcite (CaCO3) 30.3 22.0

Kutnohotite (Ca(Mn,Mg,Fe)(CO3)2) 25.5 25.4

Pyroxene (Mn,Mg)2Si2O6) 5.4 -

Hausmanite (Mn3O4) 2.2 2.3

Kaolinite (Al4(Si4O10)(OH)8) 1.3 8.0

Quartz (SiO2) 1.0 0.5

Serpentine (Mg3Si2O5(OH)4) - 4.7

Table IV presents general clay mineral species classification information.

2 SGS Mineralogy Report 15/256 dated 30 April 2015


5 May 2015 Page 6

Table IV : Clay Mineral Species Classification3

Type Electric charge of layer

(x = charge per formula unit)

Dioctahedral Trioctahedral

1:1 (x ∼ 0) Kaolinite

kaolinite, dickite, nacrite,

halloysite

Serpentine

amesite, chrysotile, antigorite,

lizardite

2:1

(x ∼ 0) Pyrophyllite Talc

(x ∼ 0.2 – 0.6) Smectite

montmorillonite,

beidellite, nontronite

Smectite

saponite, hectorite, stevensite

(x ∼ 0.6 – 0.9) Vermiculite Vermiculite

(x ∼ 0.75 – 0.9) Illite, Glauconite

(x ∼ 1.0) Micas

muscovite, paragonite,

phengite, celadonite

Micas

phlogopite, biotite, lepidolite

(x ∼ 2.0) Brittle micas

margarite, clintonite

(x ∼ variable) Chlorites

donbassite

Chlorites

clinochlore, chamosite, ripidolite

(x ∼ variable) Sepiolites, Palygorskites

4.1.4 Process Water Quality

The thickener feed process water sample was sent for water quality analysis. The main process

water quality indicators (SAR, Conductivity and pH) are presented in Table V.

The SAR refers to the Sodium Adsorption Ratio, which is the ratio of the monovalent (Na+) to

the divalent (Ca2+ and Mg2+) cations in the water. The larger the SAR value, the greater the

proportion of monovalent (Na+) cations in solution. Conductivity is a measure of the total ionic

strength of the water.

Table V: Process Water Quality Indicators

Parameter Thickener Feed Process Water

pH 6.66

Conductivity (mS/cm) 2.29

SAR 1.34

3 Meunier A. (2005), “Clays”, Springer, Berlin


5 May 2015 Page 7

4.1.5 Natural Colloidal Characteristics

Slurries, in which the suspended solids settled out over a 24 hour period leaving a clear

supernatant above a settled bed, are typically classified as naturally coagulated. Slurries, in

which some or all of the solids remained in suspension after a 24 hour settling period leaving a

dirty supernatant, are typically classified as naturally dispersive.

The thickener feed slurry was allowed to settle naturally (un-flocculated) over 24 hours and

was identified as being in a naturally coagulated (settling) state. No further slurry conditioning

test work was therefore required.

The slurry pH and conductivity for the stock slurry samples are presented in Table VI as

measured on day of stock slurry arrival.

Table VI: Slurry Natural Colloidal Characteristics

Parameter Thickener Feed

pH 7.56

Conductivity (mS/cm) 2.55

Natural colloidal behaviour coagulated (settling)


The raw data of the Static Sedimentation Tests are presented in Appendix B.

4.2.1 Flocculant Type

Table VII lists the range of polyacrylamide flocculants supplied by BASF that were evaluated on

the thickener feed slurry at a dosing concentration of 0.025%m, by way of standard cylinder

tests to determine the optimum flocculant type.


5 May 2015 Page 8

Table VII: List of Flocculant Types

Supplier Flocculant Type Anionic Charge Molecular Weight

BASF

M333 Non-ionic Medium

M24 Low Low

M10 Low Medium

M338 Low High

M156 Medium Low

M5250 Medium Medium

M336 Medium High

M525 High Low

M345 High Medium

M919 High High

SNF Floerger Flomin 923 VHM Medium High

Senmin Senfloc 3360 Medium High

Magnafloc – 336 was selected as the best performing flocculant type based on overall settling

rate and supernatant clarity. Figure 2 and Figure 3 present a summary of the flocculant

selection tests.

Figure 2: Flocculant Selection (based on settling rate)


5 May 2015 Page 9

Figure 3: Flocculant Selection (based on clarity4)

4.2.2 Flocculant Dose Optimisation

A preliminary selection of flocculant dose was determined through 5 x 500 ml cylinder settling

tests on the thickener feed sample at the solids concentration of the supplied slurry (3.4%m).

Figure 4 to Figure 5 present the results of the optimisation tests. The supernatant clarity was

measured with a clarity wedge5.

A flocculant dose rate of 20 g/t for the thickener feed slurry at 3.4%m was selected from the

static settling tests as a starting point for verification during the bench-top dynamic thickening

tests.

4 Relative clarity rating from 0 (poor) to 5 (clear)

5 Clarity wedge rating from 0 (poor) to 50 (clear)


5 May 2015 Page 10

Figure 4: Flocculant Dose Optimisation (based on settling rate)

Figure 5: Flocculant Dose Optimisation (based on clarity)


The raw data of the Bench-top Dynamic Thickening Tests are presented in Appendix C.

4.3.1 Solids Flux Tests

The dynamic thickening tests were conducted in a 100 mm diameter bench-top test thickener.

Even though the tests are conducted at bench-top level, it provides an accurate assessment of

the thickening capabilities of a material under dynamic conditions as would be encountered at

full scale operation.


5 May 2015 Page 11

Table VIII presents the test parameters at which the solids flux tests were conducted under

Paste thickening conditions (pickets on rake). The results of the solids flux tests are presented

in Figure 6 and Figure 7.

Table VIII: Solids Flux Test Parameters


Slurry feed solids concentration (%m) 3.40

Flocculant dose (g/t) 20

Flocculant dosing conc. (%m) 0.025

Mud bed height (mm) 120

Rake speed (rpm) 2

Solids flux range tested (t/(m2.h)) 0.1 to 0.4

Figure 6: Underflow Solids Concentration as a function of Solids Flux Rate (Flux curve)


5 May 2015 Page 12

Figure 7: Overflow Clarity as a function of Solids Flux Rate

Figure 6 shows that relatively good underflow solids concentrations were achieved for all of

the flux rates however as the flux rate was increased the underflow solids concentration

decreased steadily.

Figure 7 shows that the overflow clarities achieved for the thickener feed sample was relatively

good for all of the flux rates tested. During the test at a flux rate of 0.2 t/m2.h the flocculant

dose was increased from 20 g/t that was obtained during the static tests to 30 g/t to improve

the overflow clarity. The overflow clarities for the thickener feed sample decreased steadily as

the solids flux rate was increased. Higher flux rates could not be tested due to the bench-top

unit approaching sliming, which is when the throughput to the thickener is so high that the

mud bed starts to report to the overflow. In the case of the thickener feed slurry the low feed

solids concentration caused the hydraulic rise rate of the water in the thickener to be very high

which in turn causes fine particles to be carried to the overflow. This reduces the overflow

clarity of the thickener and causes sliming at a lower throughput rate.

Figure 8 shows the bench-top unit approaching sliming while testing the thickener feed slurry

with a feed density of 3.4%m at a solids flux rate of 0.4 t/m2.h with a flocculant dose of 30 g/t.

More photos are shown in Appendix C.


5 May 2015 Page 13

Figure 8: Thickener Feed Sample Approaching Sliming in the Bench-top Unit

4.3.2 24-Hour Mud Bed Consolidation Tests

The consolidation profile of the thickener feed slurry mud bed was determined at bench-top

scale over a 24 hour period with picket raking to simulate a Paste thickener. Table IX presents

the test parameters at which the consolidation test was conducted.

Table IX: 24h Bench-top Mud Bed Consolidation Test Parameters


Thickener feed solids conc.

(%m)

3.4

Flocculant dose (g/t) 30

Starting mud bed height (mm) 200

Table X and Figure 9 present the mud bed consolidation characteristics of the thickener feed

sample.

Approaching

sliming


5 May 2015 Page 14

Table X: Mud Bed Consolidation Characteristics


Solids flux rate (t/(m2.h)) 0.3

Final bench-top mud bed solids

conc. after 24 hours (%m) 63

Bench-top mud bed solids conc.

after 6 hours residence time (%m) 60

Figure 9: 24h Bench-top Mud Bed Consolidation Profile

4.4 Underflow Mud Bed Rheology Tests

The raw data of the Mud Bed Rheology Tests are presented in Appendix D.

4.4.1 Un-sheared Yield Stress

The un-sheared vane yield stress of an undisturbed mud bed from the 24h mud bed

consolidation test for the thickener feed sample, is presented in Table XI.


5 May 2015 Page 15

Table XI: Un-sheared Yield Stress Data


Un-sheared yield stress (Pa)

by direct vane measurement 308

Un-sheared yield stress (Pa)

calculated from slump test 204

Mud bed solids conc. (%m)# 63

# at which yield stress measurement was performed.

4.4.2 Sheared Yield Stress

Thickened underflow from the 24h mud bed consolidation test was subjected to vane rheology

and Boger slump test analysis in order to characterise the sheared rheological characteristics

of the thickener mud bed.

The sheared yield stress curve generated for the underflow material by means of a vane

measuring system is given in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Sheared Yield Stress Analysis

Photos of the Boger Slump tests at the different solids concentrations are shown in Appendix

D.


4.5.1 Test Set-up

The thickener feed sample was diluted over a range of densities and the material allowed to

settle under its own weight for a period of 48 hours in a 500 ml measuring cylinder.


5 May 2015 Page 16

Note that no pressure load was applied simulating the weight of overlying tailings layers and

no drainage was provided.

4.5.2 Water Release Curves

Figure 11 presents a summary of the un-drained final settled solids concentration after 48

hours as a function of placed solids concentration. The raw data and photo are presented in

Appendix E.

Figure 11 : Thickener Underflow Un-drained Settled Density (48h)

Figure 12 presents the percentage of water in the thickened underflow that is released after

48 hours in the un-drained condition, as a function of placed solids concentration.


5 May 2015 Page 17

Figure 12 : Thickener Underflow Un-drained Water Release (48h)

5. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS


5.1.1 Particle Specific Gravity

The specific gravity of the thickener feed sample was measured at 3.512 g/cm3 by Helium

stereopycnometer method.

5.1.2 Particle Size Distribution

The d80 of 15 µm for the thickener feed sample indicate that this sample is ultra-fine. Past

experience has shown that the minus 20 µm particle size fraction impacts on the flocculant

consumption. Fairly high flocculant dose rates are therefore expected for this material based

on the high ultra-fines content (88% minus 22 µm).

5.1.3 Clay Mineralogy

The XRD investigation revealed minor differences in the mineralogy between the head sample

and its -5 μm fraction. The results in Table III show that relative to the head sample, the -5 μm

fraction was upgraded in kaolinite, serpentine and swelling smectite clay. The -5 μm fraction

was however downgraded in calcite, pyroxene and quartz.

Glycolation did reveal the presence of a small amount of swelling clays in the sample. Based on

the steep profiles of the diffractograms (Appendix A), there is a strong indication that the

y = -1,8631x + 122,44

R² = 0,9929

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

30,0

35,0

40,0

45,0

40,0 45,0 50,0 55,0 60,0 65,0 70,0

% W

ate

r R

ele

ase

d (

%m

)

Placed Solids Concentration (%m)


5 May 2015 Page 18

Thickener Feed sample, and its -5 μm fraction, contains amorphous material. Unfortunately,

XRD analysis is unable to classify amorphous material.

5.1.4 Process Water Quality

The thickener feed process water sample had a moderate conductivity of 2.29 mS/cm (e.g. the

conductivity of sea water is in the order of 40 to 60 mS/cm and that of drinking water in the

order of 0.1 mS/cm) and pH close to 7.

The low SAR value indicates the prominence of calcium and magnesium over sodium cations in

the process water.

5.1.5 Natural Colloidal Characteristics

The thickener feed sample in the process water were identified as naturally coagulated

(settling) based on the visual clarity of the supernatant after 24 hours of un-flocculated settling.

No further conditioning of the thickener feed slurry prior to flocculation is therefore required.


5.2.1 Flocculant Type

The optimum flocculant type was selected based on overall performance in terms of

supernatant clarity and settling rate. Magnafloc-336 supplied by BASF is a high molecular

weight and medium anionic charge flocculant and is recommended as the optimum flocculant

type for the thickener feed sample.

Figure 13 shows the position of the optimum flocculant in reference to the other flocculant

products tested.

Figure 13: Flocculant Chart


5 May 2015 Page 19

The recommended concentration of the flocculant solution at dosing point is in the order of

0.025 to 0.05%m and the flocculant make-up plant should cater for a minimum 2 hour

hydration period before the solution is used for dosing, as per good practice.

5.2.2 Flocculant Dose Optimisation

Under static settling conditions, a settling rate of 29.4 m/h was achieved at a slurry solids

concentration of 3.4%m (the solids concentration of the received slurry) and a flocculant dose

of 20 g/t. The supernatant clarity at these conditions were 45 on the clarity wedge, with 50

being clear and 0 being very dirty.

Even though static settling tests are still used for thickener sizing by many, they are essentially

a poor simulation of the thickening process and often lead to erroneous conclusions on the

thickening behaviour of especially clay containing ores. These tests are used by P&C to merely

provide a starting point for the dynamic thickening test work where most of the attention is

focused for determining critical parameters for thickener sizing.

The dynamic thickening tests discussed below, indicated that the flocculant dose rate should

be increased to 30 g/t to ensure good overflow clarity under dynamic thickening conditions.


5.3.1 Solids Flux Tests (Thickener Solids Throughput)

The solids flux curve provides a graphical representation of the expected consolidation

behaviour of a material under dynamic thickening conditions. Figure 6 and Figure 7 present the

effect of throughput (solids flux) variance on the underflow density and overflow clarity for the

flux rates tested.

The underflow solids concentration decreased steadily with increasing solids flux rate for the

thickener feed sample. The highest underflow solids concentration (56%m) was achieved at a

solids flux rate of 0.2 t/m2.h with a feed slurry solids concentration of 3.4%m and a flocculant

dose rate of 30 g/t. The underflow solids concentrations in Figure 6 however relate to a mud

bed of only 120 mm and essentially exclude the effect of mud bed height and extended

residence times.

Considering Figure 7 it may be observed that the clarity was relatively good for all of the flux

rates tested with only a slight drop as the flux rates was increased. During the 0.2 t/m2.h test

the flocculant dose rate was increased from 20 g/t obtained during the static tests to 30 g/t in

order to improve the overflow clarity.


5 May 2015 Page 20

5.3.2 24-Hour Mud Bed Consolidation Tests

The results of the 24 hour mud bed consolidation tests showed that the final mud bed solids

concentration that could be achieved in the bench-top dynamic unit with picket raking at a 200

mm mud bed height was 63.25%m after a 24 hour period.

More than 95% of the mud bed consolidation was achieved within the first 6 hours of a 24 hour

period. The mud bed solids concentration at a residence time of 6 hours is in the order of

60%m.

5.4 Mud Bed Rheology

In the un-sheared state, the thickener feed sample achieved a yield stress of 308 Pa at the

underflow solids concentration of 63%m by direct vane measurement. The un-sheared yield

stress value calculated from the slump analysis was 204 Pa. These values are relatively high and

will increase the torque value that the rake drive will be exposed to. It is recommended that

the thickener supplier be consulted regarding the design of the rake drive to handle these high

yield stresses.

After shearing the un-sheared sample, the yield stress decreased to 70 Pa for the thickener

feed sample. The yield stress of the samples thus decreased dramatically when shearing energy

is applied.

The underflow yield stress data obtained in this campaign relates only to the mud bed yield

stress characteristics within the thickener and cannot be correlated to underflow rheology and

pump and pipeline design.


From Figure 11 it can be seen that the final settled solids concentration after 48 hours of un-

drained settling depends on the placed solids concentration. The final settled solids

concentration for a slurry placed at 60%m (expected Paste thickener underflow at residence

time of 5 hours) was around 63%m.

From Figure 12 it can be seen that the percentage of water that is released after placement

decreased as the placement solids concentration was increased. The bleed water limit where

no water is released upon placement is estimated at 65 to 66%m.


5 May 2015 Page 21

6. CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions are made from the thickening test work results:

The Mamatwan thickener feed material was found to be naturally coagulated (settling) in the

un-flocculated state, even though it has a very fine particle size distribution (d80 of 15 micron)

and a very small fraction of swelling clay.

For thickening the optimum flocculant type is Magnafloc – 336.

The optimum thickener operating parameters obtained from the test work and based on the

slurry solids concentration as received (3.4%m), are:

� Flocculant dosing concentration of 0.025% to 0.05%m

� Flocculant dose of 30 g/t

The optimum thickener sizing parameters determined from the test work are:

� Solids flux rate of 0.3 t/m2.h

� Residence time of 6 hours

Estimated thickener performance:

The estimated thickener performance is based on the optimum parameters above for bench-

top dynamic batch operation under Paste thickening conditions (i.e. 200mm mud bed and no

continuous pumping out). For more accurate estimates of the thickener underflow solids

concentrations at full scale, semi-pilot test data under dynamic continuous conditions are

required, which more accurately presents the full scale operating conditions.



Underflow solids conc. (%m) for a picket raked Paste

thickener at a residence time of 6 hours.

60

The un-sheared vane yield stress of the material is in the order of 200 to 300 Pa at 63%m solids

concentration. It is recommended that the thickener supplier be consulted regarding the

design of the rake drive to handle these high yield stresses.

The final settled solids concentration for a slurry placed at 60%m (expected Paste thickener

underflow) was around 63%m, based on un-drained settling of the thickened underflow

material over a 48 hour period.

The bleed water limit of the material is estimated at 65% to 66%m solids concentration.


5 May 2015 Page 22

7. THICKENER SIZING EXERCISE

Paterson and Cooke conducted an independent thickener sizing exercise for treating the

thickener feed sample tested, based on the Process Design Criteria issued by Knight Piésold

and using our own proprietary thickener sizing methodology.

The following assumptions were made in the thickener sizing exercise and should be verified

with the thickener vendor:

• Cone angle = 30° from horizontal

• Feed-well depth = 1.5 metres

• Paste thickener with pickets on rake.

Table XII presents the overall results of the thickener sizing exercise for a lower feed tonnage

limit of 10 t/h and a higher limit of 50 t/h.

Table XII : Thickener Sizing Recommendation

For treating a lower limit of 10 t/h and a higher limit 50 t/h of dry solids, Paterson and Cooke

recommends the following thickener sizing options for the Thickener Feed sample:

Tonnage Solids (t/h) 10 50

Feed solids (%m) 3.4 3.4

Flocculant Type M336 M336

Flocculant Dose (g/t) 30 30

Thickener Diam (m) 7 15

Thickener No. 1 1

Actual Flux Rate (t/m2.h) 0.26 0.28

Actual Mud Bed Rise

Rate(m/h) 0.37 0.41

Floor Slope ( ° from horizontal) 30 30

Cone Height (m) 2.0 4.3

Total Side Wall Height (m) 4.0 3.0

Total Height (m) 6.0 7.3

Mud Bed Height (m) 3.6 5.4

Disch Vol. (m3/h) 14.2 80.2

MB Res Time (h) 6.0 6.0

Est. U/F Conc. (%m) 60.4 60.4

Un Sheared Yield Stress (Pa) 308 308

Thickener Feed

(Higher limit)

Thickener Feed

(Lower limit)

Feed

Tank

Parameter

Underflow


5 May 2015 Page 23

• 1 x 7m diameter Paste thickener with 4m side wall height6 for a feed of 10 t/h.

• 1 x 15m diameter Paste thickener with 3m side wall height6 for a feed of 50 t/h.

Sammy Rabie Fredré Dunn

Process Engineer Director

5 May 2015

6 Side wall height is defined as the height of the cylindrical section above the cone.


5 May 2015 Page A.1

APPENDIX A – SLURRY BEHAVIOUR TESTS RAW DATA

Particle Specific Gravity


5 May 2015 Page A.2



5 May 2015 Page A.3

Clay Mineralogy


5 May 2015 Page A.4


5 May 2015 Page A.5


5 May 2015 Page A.6

Process Water Quality


5 May 2015 Page B.1

APPENDIX B – STATIC SEDIMENTATION TESTS RAW DATA

Flocculant Selection


5 May 2015 Page B.2

Flocculant Dose Optimisation


5 May 2015 Page B.3


5 May 2015 Page C.1

APPENDIX C – DYNAMIC THICKENING TESTS RAW DATA

Solids Flux Tests


5 May 2015 Page C.2

0.2 t/(m2.h) 0.3 t/(m2.h) 0.4 t/(m2.h)


5 May 2015 Page C.3

24 Hour Mud Bed Compression Test


5 May 2015 Page C.4


5 May 2015 Page D.1

APPENDIX D – MUD BED RHEOLOGY TEST DATA


5 May 2015 Page D.2

Un-sheared 63.3%m Sheared 63.3%m


5 May 2015 Page D.3

Sheared 62.9%m Sheared 62.4%m

Sheared 61.0%m Sheared 57.9%m

Sheared 54.2%m


5 May 2015 Page E.1

APPENDIX E – WATER RELEASE TESTS


5 May 2015 Page E.2


APPENDIX D

FILTRATION TEST REPORT

MAMATWAN TAILINGS THICKENING AND FILTRATION

PROJECT

Filtration Test Report

Report Number: MAM-12-8458.1 R02 Rev0

02 June 2015

Mamatwan Filtration Test Report MAM-12-8458.1 R02 Rev 0

02 June 2015 Page ii

TERMS OF REFERENCE

This work has been conducted by Vietti Slurrytec (Pty) Ltd for Knight Piésold Consulting under Order

Number 159385\15.

Rev. No. Date Description Prepared Reviewed

A 28 May 2015 Issued for internal review GW FD

0 02 June 2015 Issued to client GW FD

This report, and accompanying drawings, has been prepared by VIETTI Slurrytec (Pty) Ltd for the exclusive use

of Knight Piesold Consulting for the Mamatwan Project, and no other party is an intended beneficiary of this

report or any of the information, opinions and conclusions contained herein. The use of this report shall be at

the sole risk of the user regardless of any fault or negligence of Knight Piésold Consulting or VIETTI Slurrytec

(Pty) Ltd. VIETTI Slurrytec (Pty) Ltd accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as

a result of decisions or actions based on this report. Note that this report is a controlled document and any

reproductions are uncontrolled and may not be the most recent version.


02 June 2015 Page iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Knight Piésold Consulting commissioned Vietti Slurrytec (Pty) Ltd (formerly Paterson and Cooke

Consulting Scientists (Pty) Ltd) to conduct laboratory filtration test work on a sample of tailings

material originating from the Mamatwan operation of the Hotazel Manganese Mines. For the filtration

test work, the tailings sample was thickened under Paste thickening conditions. Vacuum filtration tests

were carried out on the thickened underflow material for a dewatering application.

The following conclusions were reached:

The material does dewater under vacuum filtration.

For large tonnages, the filtration rates are extremely low, and either

o The use of flocculants or

o Pressure filtration should be considered

Cake discharge moisture of 20%m is readily achieved.

A design flux of 120 kg/m2.hr could be considered.

10tph dry solids would require 95m2 of Horizontal Vacuum Belt Filter

50tph dry solids would require 470m2 of Horizontal Vacuum Belt Filter


02 June 2015 Page iv

CONTENTS

TERMS OF REFERENCE ................................................................................................................ ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. iii

CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................. iv

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1

2. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION AND PREPARATION .......................................................................... 1

2.1 Sample Preparation ................................................................................................................. 1

3. TEST WORK PROGRAMME .................................................................................................... 1

3.1.1 Vacuum Filter Test Work ............................................................................................. 1

4. TEST WORK RESULTS ............................................................................................................ 2

4.1 Material Properties .................................................................................................................. 2

4.2 Vacuum Filter Test Work Results ............................................................................................. 3

4.2.1 Cake Thickness............................................................................................................. 3

4.2.2 Cake Formation Rate ................................................................................................... 4

4.2.3 Cake Moisture ............................................................................................................. 5

5. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ...................................................................................................... 6

5.1 Vacuum Filter ........................................................................................................................... 6

5.1.1 Cake Thickness............................................................................................................. 6

5.1.2 Cake Formation Rate ................................................................................................... 6

5.1.3 Cake Discharge Moisture ............................................................................................. 6

6. CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................... 7

6.1 Vacuum Filter ........................................................................................................................... 7

7. FILTER SIZING EXERCISE ........................................................................................................ 7

7.1 Vacuum Filter ........................................................................................................................... 7

8. RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................... 8


02 June 2015 Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION

Knight Piésold Consulting commissioned Vietti Slurrytec (Pty) Ltd (formerly Paterson and Cooke

Consulting Scientists (Pty) Ltd) to conduct laboratory filtration test work on a sample of tailings

material originating from the Mamatwan operation of the Hotazel Manganese Mines.

The purpose of the test work is to provide Vacuum Filtration design data to the Knight Piésold

Consulting engineering team.

This document details the filtration test results and findings. A separate Thickening Test

Report1 was issued previously.

2. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION AND PREPARATION

The following samples were delivered to the Vietti Slurrytec laboratory facility in Johannesburg,

South Africa:

8 x 50 litre Thickener Feed Slurry

The thickener feed slurry was combined into 2 x 200 litre drums to make up a stock slurry

sample. Supernatant was removed from one of the 200 litre drums in order to conduct tests

on the remaining high solids concentration sample and process water separately.

2.1 Sample Preparation

For the filtration test work, the tailings sample was thickened under Paste thickening

conditions as described in the Thickening Test Report1. The filtration tests were conducted on

the thickened underflow material adjusted to the solids concentration estimated to be

produced by a full scale Paste thickener.

3. TEST WORK PROGRAMME

3.1.1 Vacuum Filter Test Work

Vacuum Belt filtration tests were conducted for a tailings dewatering application (without the

use of any filtration aids and without determining cake washing characteristics) to establish

whether filtration rates conducive to Vacuum Filtration could be achieved.

Vacuum Filtration tests were conducted in a Buchner funnel filter apparatus as described in

Figure 1. Testing was performed using a circular vacuum filter holder with a diameter of 110mm

1 MAM-12-8458.1 THICKENING REPORT R01 Rev1 dated 05 May 2015.


02 June 2015 Page 2

or filtration area of 0.00949m2, which was attached to a standard conical flask. A vacuum pump

(Edwards 2 stage) was used to draw a vacuum.

Figure 1: Vacuum Filtration Equipment

4. TEST WORK RESULTS

4.1 Material Properties

Table I presents the material properties of the thickened underflow sample for reference.

Table I : Material Characteristics

Parameter Mamatwan Tailings

Particle specific gravity (g/cm3) 3.512 d20 (micron) 1.36 d50 (micron) 5.06 d80 (micron) 14.63

Thickened underflow solids

conc. (%m) 60


02 June 2015 Page 3

4.2 Vacuum Filter Test Work Results

The raw data of the Vacuum Filtration tests are presented in Appendix A.

4.2.1 Cake Thickness

Table II presents the mass per unit area against cake thickness for the vacuum filtration tests

at a form vacuum of -70 kPa.

Table II : Cake Thickness

Cake thickness

(mm)

Mass/unit area

(kg/m2)

12 22.74

6 9.93

7 12.55

6 12.69

6 11.81

6 11.16

Figure 2 presents mass per unit area as a function of cake thickness for each of the samples.

This graph should produce a straight line through the data points that passes through X=0 and

Y=0. This data follows expectations and indicates that an incompressible cake is formed.

Figure 2: Cake Thickness vs. Mass per Unit Area

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 5 10 15 20 25

Ca

ke

th

ick

ne

ss (

mm

)

Mass/unit area (kg/m2)

Cake Thickness vs. Mass per Unit Area


02 June 2015 Page 4

4.2.2 Cake Formation Rate

Table XXXX presents the mass per unit area against cake formation time for the vacuum

filtration tests at a form vacuum of -70 kPa, without the use of flocculant.

Table III: Cake Formation Time

Mass/unit area

(kg/m2)

Cake formation time

(min)

22.74 14

9.93 4

12.55 4

12.69 4

11.81 4.5

11.16 4

Figure 3 presents the cake mass per unit area (kg/m2) as a function of cake form time (min).

This graph indicates an incompressible cake, which is to be expected.

Figure 3: Cake Formation Time vs. Mass per Unit Area

1

10

100

1 10 100

Tim

e (

min

)

Mass/unit area (kg/m2)

Cake Formation Time vs. Mass per Unit Area


02 June 2015 Page 5

4.2.3 Cake Moisture

Table IV presents cake discharge moisture (%m) against a drying correlation factor (dry time in

minutes / ”W” in kg/m2).

Table IV: Cake Moisture

Cake moisture

(%m)

Drying correlation factor

20.70 0

20.76 0

19.57 0.32

19.44 0.63

19.22 0.85

20.00 0.18

Figure 4 presents cake discharge moisture (%m) against a drying correlation factor (dry time in

minutes / ”W” in kg/m2).

Figure 4: Cake Moisture vs. Drying Correlation Factor

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Ca

ke

Mo

istu

re (

%m

)

Drying correlation factor

Cake Moisture vs. Drying Correlation Factor


02 June 2015 Page 6

5. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

5.1 Vacuum Filter

5.1.1 Cake Thickness

The time taken to form a cake is considered to be very long for vacuum filtration to be

considered a serious option.

The minimum cake thickness a Horizontal Vacuum Belt Filter can be expected to run at, is about

6 mm.

The balance of tests concentrated on a 6 mm cake thickness.

5.1.2 Cake Formation Rate

The material displayed filtration characteristics not readily acceptable to vacuum filtration.

For this material, a 6 mm cake having a mass per unit area of 12.00 kg/m2 forms in 240 seconds.

This results in a cake formation flux of 180 kg/m2.h.

5.1.3 Cake Discharge Moisture

The material dewatered readily to about 20%m cake moisture.

Considering the poor cake formation rates, the cake moisture achieved is reasonable.

Extended drying times add no benefit to the final cake discharge moisture.

The selection of a drying correlation factor therefore becomes irrelevant.

It would be standard practice for equipment vendors to then select a drying time as ratio of

the cake formation time.

A dry time to form time ratio of 1:1 is typical, however due to the 240 second cake form time,

it is suggested that 1 minute of dry will be appropriate. This is a ratio of 0.25:1.

A 6 mm thick cake under test conditions produces a flux of 120 kg/(m2.h) to achieve a cake

discharge moisture of 20%m.


02 June 2015 Page 7

6. CONCLUSIONS

6.1 Vacuum Filter

i) The material does not display ideal characteristics for vacuum filtration.

ii) A 6 mm thick cake is recommended if vacuum filtration is selected.

iii) No test work was conducted using flocculant.

iv) Cake moistures of 20%m are readily achievable.

v) A design flux of 120 kg/m2.hr would be recommended.

7. FILTER SIZING EXERCISE

Important: The following equipment design specification has been prepared using the data

shown in the previous sections of this report. Since the calculations utilised to size the equipment

does not incorporate proprietary design information (specific to each supplier) they must be

used only as preliminary data. The definitive equipment sizing, based on these test work results,

remain within the responsibility of the equipment supplier.

7.1 Vacuum Filter

The vacuum filter sizing is to be conducted by the supplier based on the test data and on

equipment specific process cycle times. However for the dry solids feed tonnage scenarios of

10 t/h and 50 t/h, based on assumed times and the test data, the following vacuum filter sizes

are calculated:

Table V : Typical Vacuum Filter Sizing Exercise

Input Mamatwan Tailings – Paste U/F

Dry solids throughput (t/h) 10 50

Cake thickness (mm) 6 6

Cake discharge moisture (%m) 20 20

Flux from test work (kg/m2.h) 120 120

Vacuum filter area (m2) = xx tph/(xx(kg/m2.hr)*0.9 scale-up) 95 470


02 June 2015 Page 8

8. RECOMMENDATIONS

The material is not suitable for filtration under vacuum. The client should consider:

i) Investigating the use of coagulant or flocculant; and/or

ii) Pressure Filtration.

Gary Whitford

28 May 2015.


02 June 2015 Page A.1

APPENDIX A – VACUUM FILTRATION TESTS RAW DATA

TEST No. Feed Vol Floc. Dose Vacuum Time Vacuum Time Cake Thickness Filtrate Vol. Dish Wt.Wet +

Dish

Dry +

Dish

Wet Cake

Nett

Dry Cake

Nett

Feed solids

ConcentrationW

Drying

correlation

factor

Cake Moisture Comments

TEST No. ml ml kpa Mins kpa Mins mm ml g g g g g % kg/m2 Dry time/W %

1 200 -80 14 0 12 84 78.20 350.60 294.20 272.40 216.00 60.61 22.74 0.00 20.70

Cake crack.

Not severe,

not many

2 100 -80 4 0 6 36 66.20 185.20 160.50 119.00 94.30 60.84 9.93 0.00 20.76 No

3 100 -80 4 -60 4 7 51 67.30 215.50 186.50 148.20 119.20 59.84 12.55 0.32 19.57

Cake crack.

5.25 Mins. Not

severe, not

4 100 -65 5 -55 8 6 49 72.90 222.60 193.50 149.70 120.60 60.69 12.69 0.63 19.44

Cake crack. 5.8

Mins.Not

severe, not

5 100 -70 4.5 -60 10 6 47 71.70 210.60 183.90 138.90 112.20 60.36 11.81 0.85 19.22

Cake crack. 5.5

Mins. Not

severe, not

6 100 -65 4 -65 2 6 42 58.80 191.30 164.80 132.50 106.00 60.74 11.16 0.18 20.00

Cake crack. 5

Mins. Not

severe, not

1 - 6

FLOC. TYPE

TEST AREA

TEST SEQUENCE

0.0095

FLOC. STRENGTH

VACUUM FILTRATION - NO WASH

FORM DRY CAKE

CLIENT NAME Vietti Slurrytec

TESTED BY G.Whitford

PROJECT NAME

MATERIAL TYPE

Mamatwan

DATE TESTED

FILTER CLOTH

05-05-2015


APPENDIX E

SLURRY TEST REPORT

www.PatersonCooke.com

Rheology Tests for Mamatwan Mine MAM-12-8458

0 25 May 2015 Issued to Client JW FvS -

A 25 May 2015 Issued for Internal Review JW FvS -

Rev No. Date Description

Prepared Reviewed Reviewed

Originator Client

Document Title

Slurry Test Report

Document Number

Office Code

Project Code Area Code Disc. Code Document

Type Seq. No. Rev No.

12 8458 00 TW REP 0001 0

Rheology Tests for Mamatwan Mine 12-8458-00-TW-REP-0001 Rev 0 25 May 2015 Page i

TERMS OF REFERENCE

This work has been conducted by Paterson & Cooke Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd (P&C) for Knight Piésold Consulting under order number 159476/15. The proposal for this work was presented in P&C Proposal 12-8458-00-PM-PRP-0002 Rev B dated 10 March 2015.

This report, and accompanying drawings, has been prepared by Paterson & Cooke Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd for the exclusive use of Knight Piésold Consulting for the Mamatwan Mine Tailings Thickener Upgrade, and

no other party is an intended beneficiary of this report or any of the information, opinions and conclusions contained herein. The use of this report shall be at the sole risk of the user regardless of any fault or

negligence of Knight Piésold Consulting or Paterson & Cooke Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd. Paterson & Cooke Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a

result of decisions or actions based on this report. Note that this report is a controlled document and any reproductions are uncontrolled and may not be the most recent version.

Rheology Tests for Mamatwan Mine 12-8458-00-TW-REP-0001 Rev 0 25 May 2015 Page ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Mr Siduduzo (Sdu) Dladla of Knight Piésold Consulting requested Paterson and Cooke (P&C) to conduct a site and equipment audit for the upgrade of the current 22m diameter Mamatwan tailings thickener to meet the planned Hotazel Manganese Mine’s process and performance targets. Tailings samples were collected and thickening and rheology tests conducted to determine the properties of the slurry. This report presents the rheology test results as part of the original scope of work.

The table below summarises the results of material properties and bench top tests.

Property Tested Value Recorded

Solids density (gas pycnometer) 3507 kg/m3

d90 particle size 25 µm



Average slurry pH at 25°C 7.6

Average slurry temperature 18.3°C

Conductivity 1.8 mS/cm

Freely settled bed packing concentration, Cbfree 35.3%v or 65.7%m

The table below summarises the rheological correlations used to calculate the slurry rheology as a function of mass solids concentration.

Slurry Name Bingham Plastic Model

Plastic Viscosity Bingham Yield Stress

Manganese Tailings Applicable Mass Solids Concentration Range: 46%m < C <67%m = + 4.67 . = 7.58 × 10 .

µw = viscosity of water at 18.3°C (0.0010448 Pa.s)

Rheology Tests for Mamatwan Mine 12-8458-00-TW-REP-0001 Rev 0 25 May 2015 Page iii

CONTENTS

TERMS OF REFERENCE ................................................................................................................. i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... ii

CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................. iii

NOMENCLATURE ........................................................................................................................ iv

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................1

1.2 Referenced Documents .....................................................................................................1

1.3 Test Work Scope ................................................................................................................1

1.4 Samples Supplied for the Test Work .................................................................................1

1.5 Sample Preparation ...........................................................................................................2

1.6 Units and Definitions .........................................................................................................2

2. MATERIAL PROPERTY AND BENCH TOP TESTS ................................................................. 2

2.1 Solids Density, rs ................................................................................................................2

2.2 Particle Size Distribution ....................................................................................................3

2.3 Slurry pH, Temperature and Conductivity .........................................................................3

2.4 Freely Settled Bed Packing Concentration, Cbfree ...............................................................3

2.5 Particle Micrographs ..........................................................................................................4

2.6 Boger Slump Tests .............................................................................................................4

2.7 Summary of Material Properties .......................................................................................5

3. ROTATIONAL VISCOMETER TESTS..................................................................................... 5

3.1 Test Results ........................................................................................................................5

3.2 Rheological Characterisation .............................................................................................6

APPENDIX A : DEFINITION OF TERMS AND BASIC RELATIONS ................................................ A.1

APPENDIX B : PARTICLE SIZE DISTRUBUTION DATA ................................................................ B.1

APPENDIX C : ROTATIONAL VISCOMETER TEST DATA ............................................................ C.1

Rheology Tests for Mamatwan Mine 12-8458-00-TW-REP-0001 Rev 0 25 May 2015 Page iv

NOMENCLATURE

A cross sectional area m2 Cbfree freely settled solids packing volumetric concentration % Cbmax maximum solids packing volumetric concentration % Cv volumetric solids concentration % C mass solids concentration % d particle size m d50 particle size at which 50% of the particles by mass are smaller than d50 m D internal pipe diameter m f friction factor g acceleration due to gravity m/s2

k hydraulic pipe roughness m K fluid consistency index Pa.sn KB Bingham viscosity Pa.s L length m M mass flow rate kg/s n flow behaviour index P pressure Pa Q volumetric flow rate m3/s Re Reynolds number S relative density T temperature C Vdep stationary deposition velocity m/s Vm mean mixture velocity m/s shear rate s-1 G pseudo or bulk shear rate (8V/D) s-1 r density kg/m3 to pipe wall shear stress Pa ty mixture yield stress Pa s coefficient of sliding friction between solid particle and pipe wall viscosity Pa.s Subscripts b bed m mixture (slurry), mass N Newtonian NN non-Newtonian s solids v volumetric w conveying fluid

Rheology Tests for Mamatwan Mine 12-8458-00-TW-REP-0001 Rev 0 25 May 2015 Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Mr Siduduzo (Sdu) Dladla of Knight Piésold Consulting requested Paterson and Cooke (P&C) to conduct a site and equipment audit for the upgrade of the current 22m diameter Mamatwan tailings thickener to meet the planned Hotazel Manganese Mine’s process and performance targets. In addition to the site and equipment audit, thickening and rheology tests was conducted of the tailings in order to establish the slurry’s settling and flow behavior properties.

This report presents the measured material properties and rotational viscometer test results of the manganese tailings sample.

1.2 Referenced Documents

Table I presents the documents issued to date which forms part of this scope of work.

Table I: Referenced Documents

Document Abbreviation/Reference Date Issued

Mamatwan thickener audit report MAM-12-8458 29 Jan 2015

Thickening test report MAM-12-8458.1 R01 Rev 0 28 Apr 2015

1.3 Test Work Scope

The test work scope includes:

(1) Material Property and Bench Top Tests

Solids density

Particle size distribution

Slurry pH, temperature and conductivity

Freely settled bed packing concentration

Particle micrographs

Boger slump tests

(2) Rotational Viscometer Tests

1.4 Samples Supplied for the Test Work

A 10 litre bucket containing flocculated thickener underflow material was delivered to P&C for test work on the 19th May 2015.


1.5 Sample Preparation

The supernatant water was decanted from the slurry and stored. The thickener underflow slurry was sheared to break down the flocculent within the slurry using a bench top mixer. The stored supernatant water was used for dilution to vary the mass solids concentration. All test work was conducted on a fully sheared slurry.

1.6 Units and Definitions

Metric units are used for this document. Appendix A presents a list of hydrotransport terms and definitions used in this report.

2. MATERIAL PROPERTY AND BENCH TOP TESTS

2.1 Solids Density, rs

The solids density of the material is determined using a helium pycnometer, which determines the skeletal solids density of the particles.

Figure 1 shows the relationship between slurry density, solids mass concentration and solids volume concentration at the solids density of 3507 kg/m3.

Figure 1: Relationship between rm, C, and Cv for the Manganese Tailings

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 000 1 200 1 400 1 600 1 800 2 000

Mixture Density, rm (kg/m3)

Mass Solids Concentration, C

Volu

met

ric S

olid

s C

once

ntra

tion,

Cv

C = 52.7%m

Cv = 24.0%v

ρm = 1600 kg/m³

ρw = 997 kg/m³


2.2 Particle Size Distribution

The particle size distribution is determined by laser diffraction. Figure 2 presents the particle size distribution for the manganese tailings that shows that the material is relatively fine with a top size of approximately 52 µm and 70% passing 10 µm.

Appendix B presents the measured test data.

Figure 2: Particle Size Distribution for the Manganese Tailings

2.3 Slurry pH, Temperature and Conductivity

The average pH, temperature and conductivity measured during the test work were 7.6 at 25°C, 18.3°C and 1.8 mS/cm respectively.

2.4 Freely Settled Bed Packing Concentration, Cbfree

The freely settled bed packing concentration by volume is calculated from the volume of the freely settled bed formed by a known volume of solids. A slurry sample is allowed to settle for 24 hours in a measuring cylinder. The actual solids volume is determined from the dry mass of material and the solids density. The freely settled bed packing concentration measured is 35.3%v (65.7%m).

0 %

10 %

20 %

30 %

40 %

50 %

60 %

70 %

80 %

90 %

100 %

0 µm 1 µm 10 µm 100 µm

Particle Size

Cum

ulat

ive

Per

cent

age

Pas

sing

By

Vol

ume


2.5 Particle Micrographs

Figure 3 and Figure 4 show particle micrographs at low and high magnifications respectively.

Particle micrographs provide an indication of particle shape which provides additional information towards understanding the slurry flow behaviour.

Figure 3: Particle Micrograph – Low Magnification

Figure 4: Particle Micrograph – High Magnification

2.6 Boger Slump Tests

The slump test measures the consistency or “stiffness” of the slurry and can be used as a quality control measure for paste. The variation in slump as a function of solids concentration is a visual indication of the stiffness of the material. A 75 mm x 75 mm Boger slump cylinder was used for all the tests.

The slump is the distance between the top of the cylinder and the top of the slurry expressed as a percentage of the slump cylinder height. Table II shows photographs of the slump test results, slurry concentration and slump.

Table II: Photographs of Boger Slumps

Slump = 60% at 65.4%m Slump = 72% at 64.1%m


2.7 Summary of Material Properties

The results of tests described in this section are summarised in Table III.

Table III: Summary of the Material Properties

Property Tested Value Recorded

Solids density (gas pycnometer) 3507 kg/m3




Average slurry pH at 25°C 7.6

Average slurry temperature 18.3°C

Conductivity 1.8 mS/cm

Freely settled bed packing concentration, Cbfree 35.3%v or 65.7%m

3. ROTATIONAL VISCOMETER TESTS

The objective of these tests is to determine the viscous properties of the material. An Anton Paar QC rotational viscometer with a temperature control bath was used for the test work.

The measured viscometer flow curves are analysed using the ISO 3219 method. The sample was fully sheared before testing and all data is corrected for end effects and secondary flow.

Appendix C presents the rotational viscometer test data files. Each data file contains the following:

Sample name and measuring system used for the tests.

Measured values of torque and speed and calculated values of shear stress and shear rate.

3.1 Test Results

Figure 5 shows a rheogram for the manganese tailings for mass solids concentrations ranging from 51.1%m to 65.4%m. Only laminar flow data was measured at concentrations above 55.4%m, with a combination of laminar and secondary flow (omitted from graph) at 51.1%m.


Figure 5: Rheogram for the Manganese Tailings

3.2 Rheological Characterisation

The rheogram data was analysed by applying the Bingham plastic model that is characterised by the plastic viscosity (KBP) and Bingham yield stress (tyB).

Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the Bingham yield stress and plastic viscosity versus mass solids concentration relationship for the manganese tailings.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

She

ar S

tress

, (Pa

)

Shear Rate calculated according to ISO 3219, (s-1)

65.4%m 64.1%m 62.2%m 59.5%m 55.4%m 51.1%m


Figure 6: Yield Stress versus Mass Solids Concentration for the Manganese Tailings

Figure 7: Plastic Viscosity versus Mass Solids Concentration for the Manganese Tailings

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

45%m 50%m 55%m 60%m 65%m 70%m

Slu

rry

Yie

ld S

tress

, ty

(Pa)

Mass Solids Concentration, CManganese Tailings Yield Stress Correlation

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

45%m 50%m 55%m 60%m 65%m 70%m

Pla

stic

Vis

cosi

ty, K

B(P

a.s)

.

Mass Solids Concentration, C .

Manganese Tailings Plastic Viscosity Correlation


Table IV presents the correlations used to calculate the slurry rheology as a function of mass solids concentration.

Table IV: Rheological Correlations

Slurry Name Bingham Plastic Model

Plastic Viscosity Bingham Yield Stress

Manganese Tailings Applicable Mass Solids Concentration Range: 46%m < C <67%m = + 4.67 . = 7.58 × 10 .

µw = viscosity of water at 18.3°C (0.0010448 Pa.s)

James Wickens Fritz van Sittert

Project Engineer Senior Engineer

Rheology Tests for Mamatwan Mine 12-8458-00-TW-REP-0001 Rev 0 25 May 2015 Page A.1

APPENDIX A : DEFINITION OF TERMS AND BASIC RELATIONS

1. RHEOLOGY

Rheology is the science dealing with flow and deformation of matter. Within the context of slurry pipeline systems, rheology is defined as the viscous characteristics of a fluid or homogenous solid-liquid mixture. There are two terms in this definition that are important:

The term viscous indicates that laminar flow is being considered (where viscous forces dominate) as opposed to turbulent flow (where inertial forces dominate). Thus, it is important to note that rheology refers to laminar flow phenomenon only.

The term homogenous indicates that the solid particles are uniformly distributed within the slurry.

2. RHEOGRAM

A plot of shear stress versus shear rate for laminar flow conditions is called a rheogram.

3. PSEUDO-SHEAR DIAGRAM

A pseudo-shear diagram is a plot of shear stress at the pipe wall versus the pseudo shear rate for laminar flow conditions. The pseudo-shear rate is defined as:

G =8 (1)

where Г = pseudo-shear rate (s-1)

D = internal pipe diameter (m)

Vm = mean mixture or bulk velocity (m/s).

In laminar flow provided that there is no slip at the pipe wall, the relationship between wall shear stress and pseudo-shear rate is independent of pipe diameter.

4. NEWTONIAN FLUIDS AND MIXTURES

Isaac Newton, the originator of the science of rheology, postulated that the relationship between shear stress and shear rate in a fluid is linear, i.e.:


τ = μγ (2)

where τ = shear stress (Pa)

γ = shear rate (s-1)

μ = constant of proportionality known as the dynamic coefficient of viscosity (Pa.s).

Any fluid or mixture that obeys this relationship in laminar flow is considered to be Newtonian and the viscosity is sufficient to characterise the flow. Rheograms for Newtonian fluids and mixtures pass through the origin and the slope of the line is the viscosity.

4.1 Non-Newtonian Fluids and Mixtures

A non-Newtonian fluid or mixture has one or more of the following characteristics:

A non-linear rheogram

The rheogram does not pass through the origin

The rheogram varies with time (i.e. dependant on the shear history).

4.2 Time Independent Mixtures

There are a large number of models that may be used to characterise time independent non-Newtonian mixtures. The most suitable model for most mineral slurry applications is the Herschel-Bulkley model:

τ = τ + Kγ (3)


τy = yield stress (Pa)

K = fluid consistency index (Pa.sn)


n = flow behaviour index.

Rheological models that can be described by the Herschel-Bulkley model are summarised in the table below.

Table V: Rheological Model Equations

Model Yield Stress Flow Behaviour Index Constitutive Equation

Newtonian τy = 0 n = 1 τ = γ

Bingham plastic τy > 0 n = 1 τ = τyBP + KBPγ

Pseudo plastic τy = 0 n < 1 τ = Kγn


Model Yield Stress Flow Behaviour Index Constitutive Equation

Yield pseudo plastic τy > 0 n < 1 τ = τyPP + Kγn

Dilatant τy = 0 n > 1 τ = Kγn

Yield dilatant τy > 0 n > 1 τ = τy + Kγn

The Bingham model (n = 1) is widely used to characterise non-Newtonian mineral slurries. The Bingham model is a two parameter rheological model, i.e.:

= + (4)


τyBP = Bingham plastic yield stress (Pa)

KBP = Bingham plastic viscosity (Pa.s)


The apparent viscosity is defined as the slope of a line drawn from the origin to a point on the rheogram corresponding to a specific shear rate. For a Bingham mixture, the apparent viscosity decreases with increasing shear rate.

Shear thinning refers to a decrease in the apparent viscosity with an increase in shear rate, while shear thickening refers to an increase in the apparent viscosity with an increase in shear rate.

4.3 Time Dependent Mixtures

A mixture that exhibits a reversible time-dependant decrease in apparent viscosity when sheared at a constant rate is said to be thixotrophic. The change in apparent viscosity is due to a structural breakdown of the mixture due to shearing. The structure is re-established if the mixture is left in a quiescent state. This is not common for mineral slurries.

Rheomalaxis is an irreversible decrease in apparent viscosity during shearing. Many flocculated mineral slurries exhibit rheomalaxis behaviour when initially sheared, but the usually apparent viscosity stabilises quickly and the slurries can be treated as time independent.

5. RHEOLOGICAL CHARACTERISATION OF PIPE FLOW DATA

The Herschel-Bulkley equation is used to describe the relationship between shear stress and shear rate for laminar flow. The shear stress in pipe flow is directly proportional to the distance from the centre of the pipe and the pressure gradient. The shear stress at the centre


of the pipe is zero and reaches a maximum at the pipe wall. This linear relation of the shear stress with the radius of the pipe is valid regardless of the nature of the fluid.

For pipe flow the shear rate (i.e. velocity gradient) is a function of radial position, shear stress and fluid rheology so the Herschel-Bulkley model cannot be directly applied to pipeline flow.

To relate the slurry rheology to pipeline flow, the following assumptions are made:

(1) The flow is steady.

(2) The mixture is homogenous and incompressible.

(3) There is no slip at the pipe wall.

(4) There is no velocity gradient at the centre of the pipe.

(5) The tube is sufficiently long that end effects are negligible.

Using these assumptions, the following equation relating flow rate to shear stress at the pipe wall is developed:

8 = 4 1 −3 + 1 + 2 −2 + 1 + + 1 (5)

where D = internal pipe diameter (m)

Vm = mean mixture or bulk velocity (m/s)

τo = shear stress at the pipe wall (Pa)

τy = yield stress (Pa)

K = fluid consistency index (Pa.sn)

n = flow behaviour index.

This equation is fitted to the measured pseudo-shear data to determine the rheological parameters (τy, K and n).

Rheology Tests for Mamatwan Mine 12-8458-00-TW-REP-0001 Rev 0 25 May 2015 Page B.1

APPENDIX B : PARTICLE SIZE DISTRUBUTION DATA

Rheology Tests for Mamatwan Mine 12-8458-00-TW-REP-0001 Rev 0 25 May 2015 Page C.1

APPENDIX C : ROTATIONAL VISCOMETER TEST DATA

Mass Solids Concentration Page Number

60.8%m C.2

65.2%m C.3

65.6%m C.4

67.2%m C.4

69.7%m C.5

71.2%m C.5


Rotational Viscometer Rheolab QCMeasuring System CC39 and CC35/HRTest Procedure ISO 3219Bob Radius (mm) 17.5Cup Internal Radius (mm) 21Bob Height (mm) 52.5

Meas. Pts. Speed Torque Shear Rate Shear Stress(RPM) (Nm) (s -1) (Pa)

1 499 0.01714 290 143.72 482 0.01714 280 143.73 464 0.01705 269 143.04 447 0.01696 260 142.25 429 0.01688 249 141.66 412 0.01678 239 140.77 394 0.01660 229 139.28 376 0.01652 218 138.59 359 0.01643 208 137.8

10 341 0.01625 198 136.311 324 0.01617 188 135.612 306 0.01600 178 134.213 289 0.01592 168 133.514 271 0.01573 157 131.915 254 0.01565 148 131.216 236 0.01547 137 129.717 219 0.01529 127 128.218 201 0.01512 117 126.819 184 0.01494 107 125.320 166 0.01477 96 123.921 149 0.01460 87 122.422 131 0.01433 76 120.223 114 0.01416 66 118.824 96 0.01389 56 116.525 79 0.01363 46 114.326 61 0.01327 36 111.327 44 0.01282 25 107.528 26 0.01222 15 102.5



1 499 0.01367 290 114.62 482 0.01368 280 114.73 464 0.01358 269 113.94 447 0.01359 260 114.05 429 0.01349 249 113.16 412 0.01340 239 112.47 394 0.01332 229 111.78 376 0.01323 218 111.09 359 0.01315 208 110.3

10 341 0.01307 198 109.611 324 0.01298 188 108.912 306 0.01290 178 108.213 289 0.01282 168 107.514 271 0.01274 157 106.815 254 0.01255 148 105.316 236 0.01247 137 104.617 219 0.01229 127 103.118 201 0.01220 117 102.319 184 0.01203 107 100.920 166 0.01194 96 100.121 149 0.01176 87 98.622 131 0.01158 76 97.123 114 0.01140 66 95.624 96 0.01123 56 94.225 79 0.01096 46 91.926 61 0.01069 36 89.727 44 0.01033 25 86.628 26 0.00989 15 82.9



1 499 0.00927 290 77.72 482 0.00917 280 76.93 464 0.00918 269 77.04 447 0.00909 260 76.25 429 0.00910 249 76.36 412 0.00911 239 76.47 394 0.00903 229 75.78 376 0.00903 218 75.79 359 0.00895 208 75.1

10 341 0.00896 198 75.111 324 0.00886 188 74.312 306 0.00879 178 73.713 289 0.00873 168 73.214 271 0.00865 157 72.515 254 0.00859 148 72.016 236 0.00851 137 71.417 219 0.00843 127 70.718 201 0.00834 117 69.919 184 0.00825 107 69.220 166 0.00814 96 68.321 149 0.00803 87 67.322 131 0.00792 76 66.423 114 0.00780 66 65.424 96 0.00766 56 64.225 79 0.00750 46 62.926 61 0.00731 36 61.327 44 0.00708 25 59.428 26 0.00676 15 56.7



1 499 0.00556 290 46.62 482 0.00555 280 46.53 464 0.00553 269 46.44 447 0.00550 260 46.15 429 0.00548 249 46.06 412 0.00545 239 45.77 394 0.00541 229 45.48 376 0.00538 218 45.19 359 0.00535 208 44.8

10 341 0.00532 198 44.611 324 0.00529 188 44.312 306 0.00525 178 44.013 289 0.00521 168 43.714 271 0.00516 157 43.315 254 0.00513 148 43.116 236 0.00508 137 42.617 219 0.00504 127 42.218 201 0.00499 117 41.819 184 0.00492 107 41.320 166 0.00486 96 40.821 149 0.00480 87 40.322 131 0.00474 76 39.723 114 0.00467 66 39.124 96 0.00458 56 38.425 79 0.00448 46 37.626 61 0.00437 36 36.627 44 0.00423 25 35.528 26 0.00404 15 33.8



1 499 0.00317 290 26.62 482 0.00315 280 26.53 464 0.00313 269 26.34 447 0.00312 260 26.15 429 0.00310 249 26.06 412 0.00309 239 25.97 394 0.00307 229 25.78 376 0.00305 218 25.69 359 0.00303 208 25.4

10 341 0.00300 198 25.211 324 0.00298 188 25.012 306 0.00295 178 24.713 289 0.00293 168 24.514 271 0.00291 157 24.415 254 0.00288 148 24.216 236 0.00285 137 23.917 219 0.00282 127 23.718 201 0.00278 117 23.319 184 0.00277 107 23.220 166 0.00272 96 22.821 149 0.00268 87 22.522 131 0.00265 76 22.223 114 0.00261 66 21.924 96 0.00256 56 21.525 79 0.00251 46 21.026 61 0.00244 36 20.527 44 0.00236 25 19.828 26 0.00224 15 18.8



1 464 0.00209 269 17.52 447 0.00206 260 17.33 429 0.00204 249 17.14 412 0.00202 239 16.95 394 0.00199 229 16.76 376 0.00197 218 16.57 359 0.00194 208 16.38 341 0.00193 198 16.29 324 0.00191 188 16.0

10 306 0.00189 178 15.911 289 0.00187 168 15.712 271 0.00185 157 15.513 254 0.00183 148 15.314 236 0.00181 137 15.215 219 0.00179 127 15.016 201 0.00176 117 14.817 184 0.00174 107 14.618 166 0.00172 96 14.419 149 0.00169 87 14.220 131 0.00166 76 13.921 114 0.00163 66 13.722 96 0.00159 56 13.323 79 0.00156 46 13.124 61 0.00152 36 12.725 44 0.00147 25 12.326 26 0.00140 15 11.7


APPENDIX F

GEOCHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISATION REPORT

Mamatwan Geochemical and Physical Characterisation of tailings Executive Summary

© Terry Harck 2015 PMM14-124-D4 | 9 July 2015

Solution[H+] www.solutionhplus.com 1 | 21

Mamatwan Geochemical and Physical

Characterisation of tailings

9 July 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report describes geochemical and physical characterisation of a tailings sample from the Hotazel

Manganese Mine, Northern Cape Province. The mine proposes to develop a new tailings storage facility

TSF. The characterisation results were used to determine the waste type according to the National

Environmental Management: Waste Act and develop a contaminant source term to determine potential

groundwater contamination impact downstream of the proposed tailings facility.

The tailings sample was analysed for:

Mineral identification.

Whole element analysis to determine the chemical composition of the tailings.

Acid base accounting to estimate the potential for acid generation.



Physical properties of the tailings that control permeability, including hydraulic conductivity under

compaction.

The tailings supernatant and the leachates from leach testing were analysed for:

Physico-chemical parameters.

Major anions (F, Cl, SO4).

ICP-OES (Optical Emission Spectroscopy) for major cations and trace elements (including Ag, Al, As, Ba,

Be, Ca, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, K, Mg, Mo, Mn, Na, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, Sr, Tl, V, Zn, Hg)

The mineralogical composition of the tailings is limited to calcite (calcium carbonate), kutnohorite (a

calcium manganese carbonate), braunite (manganese silicate), and birnessite (manganese oxide). The

mineralogy is consistent with the whole element composition which indicates manganese is the most

abundant element in the tailings, followed by calcium and iron.

The tailings are non-acid generating.

The tailings are a Type 3 waste according to GNR 635.

The saturated hydraulic conductivity of the tailings decreases with increasing confining pressure. Therefore,

as the height of the tailings increases, seepage through the TSF footprint will also decrease. The range of

permeability is of the order of 10-8

to 10-7

m/s.

The tailings supernatant is alkaline with a pH of 8

Mamatwan Geochemical and Physical Characterisation of tailings Executive Summary



Magnesium (Mg) and nitrate (NO3) dominate the supernatant chemistry, which also includes significant

concentrations of calcium (Ca) and chloride (Cl). The concentrations of these compounds are several

hundred mg/L.

TDS concentration indicates that the supernatant is saline and exceeds the SANS 241 guideline of

1 200 mg/L.

Manganese is present in the supernatant at 1.3 mg/L, which exceeds the SANS 241 guideline of

0.5 mg/L.

Sequential leaching indicates that the concentrations of most major ions decrease with successive

leaches. However, alkalinity remains constant and is likely to be controlled by dissolution of the mineral

calcite.

The mass of salt moving through the TSF footprint over time (source term) is the product of the seepage

rate and the seepage quality. The results of the characterisation programme were applied to determine

nitrate and manganese source terms for the proposed TSF.

Based on the National Norms and Standards for the assessment of waste for landfill disposal (GNR 635 of

2013) and the National Norms and Standards for disposal of waste to landfill (GNR 636 of 2013), the tailings

are Type 3 and require placement in a facility with a Class C lining.

Considering the permeability results, and the proposed volume of water to be discharged to the tailings, a

liner with an effective permeability of 10-9

m/s would have little impact on groundwater contamination.

The geochemical modelling code PHREEQC (Parkhurst and Appelo 1999) was used to simulate tailings

seepage quality for two scenarios:

Operational phase seepage, during which tailings supernatant percolates through the tailings to the

subsurface. The supernatant was assumed to be concentrated through evaporation from the TSF pool.

This study assumes a 10% volume reduction from evaporation.

Post-closure seepage, during which the moisture content of the tailings is expected to reduce to

approximately 15% (the moisture content on completion of falling head tests). The sequential leaching

results were used as input water quality.

Water in contact with the tailings was assumed to be in equilibrium with the minerals rhodochrosite and

calcite, as indicated from the mineralogy results. The minerals manganite (MnOOH) and barite (BaCO3)

were allowed to precipitate.

Modelled nitrate and manganese concentrations exceed the SANS 241 guideline.

Contaminant transport in groundwater beneath the tailings simulated with assumptions based on site

monitoring data, estimated seepage volume and seepage quality. Simulations were conservative and only

considered dilution in the subsurface, ignoring chemical processes which may reduce concentrations.

Simulation results indicate that it takes 5 to 10 years for contamination from the tailings to reach the

groundwater table beneath the TSF and a further 5 years for contamination to travel to the Mamatwan Pit

in the groundwater. Both nitrate and manganese concentrations decline by approximately 50%

downstream of the tailings.

Mamatwan Geochemical and Physical Characterisation of tailings Contents



CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................................ 5

1.2 Source term ....................................................................................................................................... 7

1.3 Objectives .......................................................................................................................................... 7

2 CHARACTERISATION PROGRAMME ........................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Sampling ............................................................................................................................................ 7

2.2 Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 7

2.2.1 Tailings ....................................................................................................................................... 8

2.2.2 Water ......................................................................................................................................... 8

3 CHARACTERISATION RESULTS ................................................................................................................... 8

3.1 Data validation ................................................................................................................................... 8

3.2 Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 8

3.2.1 Tailings ....................................................................................................................................... 9

3.2.2 Water ....................................................................................................................................... 10

4 WASTE TYPE ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................................... 13

5 SOURCE TERM ESTIMATION .................................................................................................................... 14

5.1 Seepage rate .................................................................................................................................... 14

5.2 Seepage quality ............................................................................................................................... 16

5.2.1 Seepage modelling assumptions ............................................................................................. 17

5.3 Source term ..................................................................................................................................... 17

5.4 Groundwater risk ............................................................................................................................. 18

6 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 19

7 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 20

8 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................. 21

Mamatwan Geochemical and Physical Characterisation of tailings Contents



FIGURES

Figure 1: Proposed layout of TSF site ................................................................................................................ 5

Figure 2: Groundwater elevations at Mamatwan Mine (from GHT 2015). The proposed new tailings facility

is located approximately at the head of the red arrow indicating ("Adams Pit") ............................................. 6

Figure 3: Elemental composition of Mamatwan tailings compared to median concentration of crustal rocks 9

Figure 4: Decreasing concentration of major ions in sequential tailings leachates ........................................ 12

Figure 5: Major ion (Piper) plot illustrating the evolution of leachate composition over successive leaches 13

Figure 6: Class C prescribed lining requirement (from GNR 636) ................................................................... 14

Figure 7: Relationship between tailings confining pressure and saturated hydraulic conductivity ............... 15

Figure 8: Nitrate source term from seepage rate and seepage concentration ............................................... 18

Figure 9: Contaminant transport simulation results for Nitrate (left column) and Manganese (right column).

Top row shows concentrations at the base of the unsaturated zone beneath the tailings. Bottom row shows

concentrations 600 m downstream of the tailings. ........................................................................................ 19

TABLES

Table 1: Tailings permeability estimates from particle size and falling head tests ......................................... 10

Table 2: Analysis of tailings supernatant ......................................................................................................... 10

Table 3: Sequential leach results ..................................................................................................................... 11

Table 4: Modelled seepage quality.................................................................................................................. 16

APPENDICES

Appendix A Laboratory reports (in zip file attached to this report)

Appendix B Waste type assessment

Mamatwan Geochemical and Physical Characterisation of tailings INTRODUCTION



1 INTRODUCTION

Knight Piesold have been appointed by Hotazel Manganese Mines to design a TSF for the Mamatwan Mine.

Tailings facilities are potential sources of groundwater quality impacts. Should potential risks be significant,

mitigation measures can be included in the tailings facility design.

This report presents the results of geochemical and physical characterisation of the tailings material. The

characterisation results are used to assess likely seepage volume and quality from the proposed TSF. Based

on the assessment and available groundwater monitoring information, this report indicates potential

groundwater quality risk and makes recommendations to reduce the risk.

1.1 Background

Hotazel Mine is located near the town of Hotazel in the Northern Cape Province. The proposed TSF is

located 21 km due south of the town. Figure 1 shows a schematic layout of the TSF. The footprint lies

between two mounds of spoil immediately northeast of the Adam's Pit. The TSF footprint area is 95 000 m2

(pers. comm. S. Dladla, 20 May 2015).

Figure 1: Proposed layout of TSF site

The Kalahari Formation, a sequence of sand, clay and limestone beds underlies the site. The Kalahari

Formation is assumed to be 60 m thick and is underlain by the Hotazel Formation manganese beds.

Groundwater elevation is approximately 1065 to 1070 mamsl, about 35 to 40 m below surface (GHT 2015).

The groundwater aquifer in the Kalahari beds has a "low permeability" (GHT 2015). This is assumed to be of

the order of 10-7

m/s.

Mamatwan Geochemical and Physical Characterisation of tailings INTRODUCTION



Based on groundwater monitoring results from Mamatwan (GHT 2015), the groundwater gradient at this

location is approximately 0.04, a steep gradient induced by dewatering of the Adam's open cast pit,

Mamatwan Pit, and other pits northwest of the TSF footprint (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Groundwater elevations at Mamatwan Mine (from GHT 2015). The proposed new tailings facility is located

approximately at the head of the red arrow indicating ("Adams Pit")

Mamatwan Geochemical and Physical Characterisation of tailings CHARACTERISATION PROGRAMME



1.2 Source term

The mass of salt moving through the TSF footprint over time (source term) is the product of the seepage

rate and the seepage quality.

Seepage rate is a physical process, which depends on the hydraulic conductivity of the tailings under

saturated and unsaturated conditions. Hydraulic conductivity depends on the pore space within the tailings

which is affected by grain size of the tailings particles, compaction (the weight of the overlying tailings), and

moisture content.

The water used to carry and deposit the tailings on the TSF determines seepage quality. Evaporation and

geochemical interactions between the tailings and water and gases in the tailings pores will also affect

seepage quality.

The source term can be applied in groundwater transport simulations to indicate the potential impact of

the contaminant source (the proposed TSF) on groundwater quality.

1.3 Objectives

The objectives of this assessment were as follows:

Analyse the tailings sample according to international best practice for geochemical assessment

Determine the waste type according to the National Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 (Act

59 of 2008) (NEMWA)

Develop a source term for the proposed TSF which quantifies the potential leaching of contaminants to

groundwater

Assess, at a conceptual level, the potential groundwater quality risk posed by tailings seepage

Identify measures to reduce significant tailings leaching risk if required

2 CHARACTERISATION PROGRAMME

Characterisation of Mamatwan tailings included sampling and analysis of tailings and associated

supernatant water.

2.1 Sampling

Knight Piesold arranged for one sample of thickener feed slurry (“tailings” hereafter) to be collected by

Solution[H+] from the premises of Paterson and Cooke. It is understood that this material will be deposited

on the proposed new TSF.

2.2 Analysis

Waterlab Laboratories, Pretoria, in association with various subcontracted laboratories, conducted the

analytical programme. The analytical programme included the requirements of the National Norms and

Standards for the Assessment of Waste for Landfill Disposal (Government Gazette, No. 36784, 23 August

2013) under the NEMWA amendment act. This was supplemented by additional analyses to further

understand the potential water quality risks that the tailings represent.

Mamatwan Geochemical and Physical Characterisation of tailings CHARACTERISATION RESULTS



Analysis included samples of tailings and water as detailed below.

2.2.1 Tailings

One sample of tailings was analysed for the following:

Acid base accounting to estimate the potential for acid generation. The modified Sobek method was

used. This included determination of paste pH, sulphur species (including total sulphur, sulphate

sulphur and sulphide sulphur), neutralisation potential, carbonate and total carbon.

Mineral identification by x-ray diffraction (XRD) to identify mineral assemblages that may affect metal

leaching and mineral reaction rates.

Whole element analysis by x-ray fluorescence (XRF) to determine the chemical composition of the

tailings.



Particle size distribution to estimate surface area for interaction with interstitial water.

Saturated hydraulic conductivity at different consolidation pressures to determine potential seepage

rates from the tailings.

Moisture content to determine the likely long-term water content of the tailings.

2.2.2 Water

One sample of tailings supernatant and the leachates from leach testing were analysed for the following:

Physico-chemical parameters (pH, Conductivity, Total dissolved solids (TDS), Alkalinity titration)

Major anions (F, Cl, SO4)

ICP-OES (Optical Emission Spectroscopy) for major cations and trace elements (including Ag, Al, As, Ba,

Be, Ca, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, K, Mg, Mo, Mn, Na, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, Sr, Tl, V, Zn, Hg)

3 CHARACTERISATION RESULTS

This section presents the results of the sampling programme, the results of the chemical characterisation of

water samples, and the results of the geochemical and physical characterisation of tailings samples.

3.1 Data validation

The cation-anion balances of the water analyses were generally within the acceptable level of 10%.

Therefore, the results are considered acceptable for the purposes of this assessment.

3.2 Analysis

This section presents and discusses the tailings and water analysis results. Copies of all laboratory reports

are included in Appendix A.




3.2.1 Tailings

Tailings samples were analysed to determine their mineralogical composition, elemental composition, and

selected physical characteristics such as particle size, hydraulic conductivity, and moisture content.

3.2.1.1 Mineralogy

The crystalline mineralogical composition of the tailings is limited to four main mineral phases:

37.1% Calcite (CaCO3)

32.9% Kutnohorite, calcium manganese carbonate (Ca(Mn2+

,Mg,Fe2+

)(CO3)2)

28.7% Braunite, manganese silicate (Ca(Mn3+

,Fe3+

)14SiO24)

1.4% Birnessite, manganese oxide ((Na0.3Ca0.1K0.1)(Mn4+

,Mn3+

)2O4 1.5 H2O)

This is generally consistent with the findings of Paterson and Cooke (2015) which found braunite (34.3%),

calcite (30.3%), kutnohorite (25.5%), and hausmanite (2.2%). Hausmanite is a manganese oxide like

birnessite.

3.2.1.2 Whole element composition

Manganese is the most abundant element in the Mamatwan tailings with a concentration exceeding

350 000 ppm. The next most abundant elements are calcium (Ca) and iron (Fe) (Figure 3).This is consistent

with the manganese minerals and calcite that dominate the mineralogy. Several elements analysed exceed

the median crustal concentration, including: barium (Ba), bismuth (Bi), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr),

mercury (Hg), molybdenum (Mo), antimony (Sb) and zinc (Zn) (Figure 1).

Note that exceedances of median crustal concentration do not imply a greater propensity for leaching.

Figure 3: Elemental composition of Mamatwan tailings compared to median concentration of crustal rocks




3.2.1.3 Acid base accounting

Acid base accounting (ABA) indicates whether tailings drainage is likely to have a low (acidic) pH. The ABA

results show the following:

The paste pH is 8.4.

The total sulphur is below the limit of detection.

Neutralisation potential (NP) far exceeds the acid potential (AP)

These results indicate that the Mamatwan tailings are non-potentially acid generating (non-PAG) according

to the criteria documented by Price (2009).

While acid drainage from the tailings is not an issue of concern, the quality of tailings drainage may impact

on groundwater quality beneath the TSF and downstream.

3.2.1.4 Permeability characteristics

Particle size distributions indicate that 80% of the tailings particles are less than 15 micron (Paterson and

Cooke 2015). This classes the particles as fine silt and clay. Based on the Kozeny-Carman relationship, and

using the d50 grain size reported by Patterson and Cooke (2015), the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat)

of the tailings sample is estimated to be of the order of 10-7

m/s (assuming porosity of 0.4 to 0.6). The

laboratory falling head tests indicate a higher permeability at a confining pressure of 100 kPa (Table 1).

Table 1: Tailings permeability estimates from particle size and falling head tests

Sample ID D50

µm

Estimated Ksat range

(Kozeny-Carman)

m/s

Ksat

(100 kPa)

m/s

Ksat

(200 kPa)

m/s

Ksat

(300 kPa)

m/s

Mamatwan 5.06 1 × 10-7

5 × 10-7

3 × 10-6

1.2 × 10-7

2.4 × 10-8

The laboratory testing results show a trend of decreasing Ksat as confining pressure increases. This is due to

the reduction in pore volume as the tailings consolidate.

Tailings density and specific gravity yield a calculated void space of 0.45. Residual tailings moisture content

was 16% at the end of the falling head tests.

3.2.2 Water

Tailings supernatant and leach testing of tailings comprised the water samples analysed in this study.

3.2.2.1 Tailings supernatant

Table 2 presents the results of the analysis of tailings supernatant. The results have been compared to

SANS 241 Drinking Water standard (SANS 2011). This is done as a conservative indicator of potential

environmental risk and does not imply that the supernatant will be used for drinking or discharged into the

environment without treatment.

Table 2: Analysis of tailings supernatant

Analyte Units Supernatant SANS 241

Final pH - 7.9 5 to 9.7

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) mg/L 1 946 1 200

Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 84

Chloride mg/L 237 300




Analyte Units Supernatant SANS 241

Sulphate mg/L 167 500

Fluoride mg/L 1.2 1.5

Nitrate as N mg/L 184 11

Aluminium mg/L 0.122 0.3

Arsenic mg/L <0.01 0.01

Barium mg/L 0.051

Beryllium mg/L <0.025

Calcium mg/L 139

Cadmium mg/L <0.005 0.003

Cobalt mg/L <0.025 0.5

Chromium mg/L <0.025 0.05

Copper mg/L <0.025 2

Iron mg/L <0.025 2

Potassium mg/L 4.4

Magnesium mg/L 162

Molybdenum mg/L <0.025

Manganese mg/L 1.30 0.5

Sodium mg/L 89 200

Nickel mg/L <0.025 0.07

Lead mg/L <0.010 0.01

Antimony mg/L <0.020 0.02

Selenium mg/L <0.010 0.01

Strontium mg/L 0.331

Thallium mg/L <0.025

Vanadium mg/L <0.025 0.2

Zinc mg/L <0.025 5

Mercury mg/L <0.001 0.006

The supernatant TDS exceeds SANS 241. However, this is not consistent with the sum of major ions

which makes up approximately half of the reported TDS. The laboratory has been asked to confirm the

TDS value.

Nitrate and manganese significantly exceed SANS 241 guidelines.

3.2.2.2 Short term and sequential leaching

Leach tests involved 500 g of tailings and 500 g of distilled water resulting in a liquid to solid ratio of 1:1.

Three successive leaches of the same tailings sample indicate the likely depletion of elements mobilised

from the tailings over time (Table 3).

Table 3: Sequential leach results

Analyte Leach 1 (1:1) Leach 2 (1:1) Leach 3 (1:1) SANS 241

Weight Sample 500 500 500

Vol_mL 372 496 470

Final pH 7.7 8.2 8.1 5 to 9.7

Conductivity (µS/cm) 984 280 220

TDS (by conductivity) 590.4 168 132 1 200

Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 72 76 70

Chloride 70 <5 <5 300

Sulphate 238.6 50 24 500

Fluoride 1.1 1 <0.2 1.5




Analyte Leach 1 (1:1) Leach 2 (1:1) Leach 3 (1:1) SANS 241

Silver <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Aluminium <0.1 <0.1 0.032 0.3

Arsenic <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01

Barium 0.052 0.048 0.06

Beryllium <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Calcium 52 16 15

Cadmium <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.003

Cobalt <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.5

Chromium <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.05

Copper <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 2

Iron <0.025 0.146 <0.025 2

Potassium 2.4 1 0.7

Magnesium 53 16 13

Molybdenum 0.02 0.016 0.012

Manganese 0.225 0.12 0.185 0.5

Sodium 27 5 3 200

Nickel 0.013 <0.01 <0.01 0.07

Lead <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01

Antimony <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02

Selenium <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01

Strontium 0.178 0.056 0.06

Thallium <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Vanadium <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.2

Zinc <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 5

None of the analysed components exceed the SANS 241 standard.

As expected, the leach concentrations generally decrease from the first to the third leach. However,

alkalinity is an exception (Figure 4). This is consistent with calcite mineral dissolution controlling the

alkalinity concentration. Alkalinity is not a potentially toxic component and does not have a standard

defined in SANS 241.

Figure 4: Decreasing concentration of major ions in sequential tailings leachates

Mamatwan Geochemical and Physical Characterisation of tailings WASTE TYPE ASSESSMENT



A Piper plot of the supernatant and successive tailings leach compositions illustrates the possible change in

chemical signature of TSF seepage from Ca-SO4 during the operational and initial post-closure phase to Ca-

HCO3 in the long-term (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Major ion (Piper) plot illustrating the evolution of leachate composition over successive leaches

Equilibrium geochemical modelling of the leachates indicates equilibrium with calcite (CaCO3) and

rhodochrosite (MnCO3). This combination is chemically similar to kutnohorite (Ca, Mn carbonate) which is

not in the thermodynamic database used in the modelling. Alkalinity, Ca and Mn concentrations in tailings

leachate are probably controlled by dissolution of calcite and kutnohorite.

4 WASTE TYPE ASSESSMENT

The Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) has revised the South African waste classification and

assessment system under the National Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 (Act 59 of 2008)

(NEMWA). The Waste Classification and Management Regulations (WCMR) (GNR 634 of 2013) include the

following Norms and Standards:

National Norms and Standards for the assessment of waste for landfill disposal (GNR 635 of 2013)

National Norms and Standards for disposal of waste to landfill (GNR 636 of 2013)

Mamatwan Geochemical and Physical Characterisation of tailings SOURCE TERM ESTIMATION



As of 2 September 2014 mining wastes, including tailings, from mining related activities are regarded as a

hazardous waste. In terms of Regulation 8 (1)(a) of the Waste Classification and Management Regulations

(WCMR), waste generators must ensure that their waste is assessed in accordance with GNR 635.

This requires analysis of the waste to determine the following:

The Total Concentration (TC) of chemicals substances specified in Section 6 of GNR 635 that are "known

to occur, likely to occur or can reasonably be expected to occur". The TC of the chemical substances is

compared to the total concentration threshold (TCT) limits in Section 6 of GNR 635.

The Leachable Concentration (LC) of the chemical substances must be compared to the leachable

concentration threshold (LCT) limits in Section 6 of GNR 635.

The TC and LC exceeding the relevant TCT and LCT limits will determine the specific waste type according to

Section 7 of GNR 635.

For the Mamatwan tailings, Solution[H+] considered it appropriate to test for metal and inorganic ions.

Organic components and pesticides specified in GNR 635 are considered unlikely to occur in the tailings.

Appendix A includes copies of the laboratory reports. Appendix B includes a tabulated comparison of the

tailings waste analysis with the National Norms and Standards (GNR 635). Based on the comparison, the

Mamatwan tailings are Type 3 waste. Under GNR 636 Type 3 waste is required to be placed in a facility with

a Class C lining (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Class C prescribed lining requirement (from GNR 636)

5 SOURCE TERM ESTIMATION

The results of the characterisation programme are applied in this section to determine a source term for

the Mamatwan tailings.

5.1 Seepage rate

The laboratory results indicate that saturated hydraulic conductivity declines with increasing confining

pressure (Figure 7).




Figure 7: Relationship between tailings confining pressure and saturated hydraulic conductivity

It has been assumed that the tailings are deposited hydraulically. For saturated tailings height of 5 m, the

estimated tailings confining pressure is about 50 kPa. This increases to 230 kPa at a height of 20 m.

Therefore, tailings hydraulic conductivity beneath the pool could range from 1 x 10-7

m/s to 7 x 10-6

m/s

(Figure 7).

Assuming a pool size of 20% of the TSF footprint area, and ignoring the permeability of the underlying soils,

the seepage potential to the subsurface exceeds the 250 m3/day volume of water discharged to the TSF

(pers. comm. S. Dladla, 1 July 2015). In other words, the tailings permeability does not limit the seepage to

the groundwater system.

In contrast, a properly constructed HDPE geomembrane liner might have an effective permeability of about

10-9

m/s. For saturated tailings, this would result in seepage of 1 600 m3/day. This suggests that a TSF liner

will have little impact on groundwater contamination.

Confining pressure in the tailings increases away from the pool and is estimated to reach 400 kPa at the

outer edges of the 20 m height TSF where the height of the interstitial water is one metre or less.

After closure, retained water in the tailings would evaporate from the top surface and sides, seep through

the footprint, or drain from the perimeter drains. Eventually the tailings would achieve equilibrium

between the rate of rainfall recharge and moisture loss. Unsaturated conditions would prevail in the

tailings and the actual rate of seepage through the footprint will be a function of tailings moisture content

and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity.

Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity is generally one or more orders of magnitude less than saturated

hydraulic conductivity. Unsaturated conditions will increase the confining pressure in tailings at the base of

the TSF. The pressure would be similar to the condition at the outer edges of the TSF during operation, that

is, 400 kPa (estimated). Therefore, the laboratory results suggest that unsaturated hydraulic conductivity




may average 10-9

m/s (estimated from Figure 7) in the long-term post-closure. This corresponds to an

effective recharge over the TSF footprint of 31 mm/year (estimated).

5.2 Seepage quality

Solution[H+] applied the geochemical modelling code PHREEQC (Parkhurst and Appelo 1999) to simulate

tailings seepage quality under two assumed scenarios:

Operational phase seepage, during which tailings supernatant percolates through the tailings to the

subsurface. The supernatant was assumed to be concentrated through evaporation from the TSF pool.

This study assumes a 10% volume reduction from evaporation.

Post-closure seepage, during which the moisture content of the tailings is expected to reduce to

approximately 15% (the moisture content on completion of falling head tests). The sequential leaching

results were used as input water quality.

Water in contact with the tailings was assumed to be in equilibrium with the minerals rhodochrosite and

calcite, as indicated from the mineralogy results. The minerals manganite (MnOOH) and barite (BaCO3)

were allowed to precipitate.

Table 4 presents the resulting modelled seepage quality for the operational phase and post-closure. The

modelled nitrate and manganese concentration exceed the SANS 241 guidelines (Table 4).

Table 4: Modelled seepage quality

Parameter Units Supernatant Modelled

seepage

OPERATIONS

Modelled

seepage

POST-CLOSURE

SANS 241

pH 7.9 7.4 7.2 5 to 9.7

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) mg/L 1 946 1166 922 1200

Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 84 101 371

Chloride as Cl mg/L 237 235 17 300

Sulphate as SO4 mg/L 167 185 160 500

Fluoride as F mg/L 1.2 1.3 0.7 1.5

Nitrate as N mg/L 184 203 ~200* 11

Sodium as Na mg/L 89 99 20 200

Potassium as K mg/L 4.4 4.9 4.7

Calcium as Ca mg/L 139 157 62

Magnesium as Mg mg/L 162 180 87

Aluminium as Al mg/L 0.122 0.14 0.21 0.3

Antimony as Sb mg/L <0.020 <0.1 <0.1 0.02

Arsenic as As mg/L <0.010 <0.1 <0.1 0.01

Barium as Ba mg/L 0.051 <0.1 <0.1

Beryllium as Be mg/L <0.025 <0.1 <0.1

Cadmium as Cd mg/L <0.005 <0.1 <0.1 0.003

Total Chromium as Cr mg/L <0.025 <0.1 <0.1 0.05

Cobalt as Co mg/L <0.025 <0.1 <0.1 0.5

Copper as Cu mg/L <0.025 <0.1 <0.1 2

Iron as Fe mg/L <0.025 <0.1 <0.1 2

Lead as Pb mg/L <0.010 <0.1 <0.1 0.01

Manganese as Mn mg/L 1.3 2 0.7 0.5

Mercury as Hg mg/L <0.001 <0.1 <0.1 0.006




Parameter Units Supernatant Modelled

seepage

OPERATIONS

Modelled

seepage

POST-CLOSURE

SANS 241

Molybdenum as Mo mg/L <0.025 <0.1 <0.1

Nickel as Ni mg/L <0.025 <0.1 <0.1 0.07

Selenium as Se mg/L <0.010 <0.1 <0.1 0.01

Silver as Ag mg/L <0.025 <0.1 <0.1

Strontium as Sr mg/L 0.331 0.37 0.4

Thallium as Tl mg/L <0.025 <0.1 <0.1

Vanadium as V mg/L <0.025 <0.1 <0.1 0.2

Zinc as Zn mg/L <0.025 <0.1 <0.1 5

* Value has been approximated from 20:1 leach test results

5.2.1 Seepage modelling assumptions

Geochemical modelling to predict water qualities of complex systems demands assumptions since it is

generally impossible to determine precisely the physical and geochemical characteristics of the systems.

This is particularly so for facilities which do not yet exist, such as the proposed Mamatwan TSF. General

assumptions include:

The water chemistries used in the modelling are representative of input sources. It is not possible to

model water quality without this essential assumption. Input water qualities are derived from the

results of the geochemical characterisation programme. Therefore, the water compositions used in the

modelling do not represent actual water samples but “theoretical” compositions.

Predicting field-scale leaching from lab-scale leach tests is an approximation. Metal leaching at the field

scale is variable through time and controlled by factors not fully applied at the lab scale. These factors

include temperature, nature of the leaching solution, the solution to solid ratio, solution-solid contact

time, particle size of the solid, among others.

Modelled waters are in full thermodynamic equilibrium. Equilibrium is the computational basis of

PHREEQC. Equilibrium is unlikely to be the case for all chemical components throughout all mine

waters. However, geochemical research has shown that assuming equilibrium conditions may usefully

describe the composition of natural and mine waters.

The PHREEQC model appropriately simulates chemical reactions and contains the appropriate

thermodynamic constants.

Due to the assumptions and inherent limitations of predictive modelling, the model results presented in

this report are order of magnitude estimates. Therefore, results do not indicate modelled concentrations

less than 0.1 mg/L.

5.3 Source term

Figure 8 shows a graphical representation of the time varying seepage rate and seepage quality for nitrate

from the TSF footprint. The product of these two quantities yields the nitrate source term entering the

groundwater system beneath the tailings. The duration of the operational phase has been assumed to be

20 years.




Figure 8: Nitrate source term from seepage rate and seepage concentration

5.4 Groundwater risk

Nitrate and manganese are the water quality components that present potential risk to groundwater

quality. Given source terms for nitrate and manganese, the potential downstream impacts of TSF seepage

can be assessed.

Aquifer characteristics, estimated seepage volume and modelled seepage quality were used to assess

groundwater risk. The simulations were conservative in that they only considered dilution of contaminants.



in the groundwater (Figure 9). In both cases, the concentrations decline by approximately 50% downstream

of the tailings.

Local groundwater gradients are directed towards the Mamatwan Pit. The pit is not a sensitive receptor

and acts as a sink for contaminated groundwater, including the proposed TSF. Therefore, the groundwater

quality risk from the TSF is considered to be low.

Mamatwan Geochemical and Physical Characterisation of tailings CONCLUSIONS



Figure 9: Contaminant transport simulation results for Nitrate (left column) and Manganese (right column). Top row

shows concentrations at the base of the unsaturated zone beneath the tailings. Bottom row shows concentrations

600 m downstream of the tailings.

6 CONCLUSIONS

This assessment has considered physical and chemical characterisation of tailings from the Mamatwan

plant thickener as an analogue of the tailings in the proposed TSF.

Analyse the tailings sample according to international best practice for geochemical assessment

Determine the waste type according to the National Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 (Act

59 of 2008) (NEMWA)

Develop a source term for the proposed TSF which quantifies the potential leaching of contaminants to

groundwater

Assess, at a conceptual level, the potential groundwater quality risk posed by tailings seepage

Identify measures to reduce significant tailings leaching risk if required

Considering the objectives of this assessment the following conclusions apply:

Mamatwan Geochemical and Physical Characterisation of tailings RECOMMENDATIONS



The chemical composition and mineralogy of the tailings are dominated by manganese and calcium

carbonate and silicates.

The tailings are not acid generating.

The tailings are categorised as Type 3 waste according to GNR 635

Magnesium (Mg) and nitrate (NO3) dominate the tailings supernatant chemistry, which also includes

significant concentrations of calcium (Ca) and chloride (Cl). The concentrations of these compounds are

several hundred mg/L.

TDS concentration indicates that the supernatant is saline and exceeds the SANS 241 guideline of

1 200 mg/L.

Manganese is present in the supernatant at 1.3 mg/L, which exceeds the SANS 241 guideline of

0.5 mg/L.

Sequential leaching indicates that the concentrations of most major ions decrease with successive

leaches. However, alkalinity remains constant and is likely to be controlled by dissolution of the mineral

calcite.

Tailings seepage quality during post-closure was estimated from geochemical modelling which considers

the mineral assemblage in the tailings and the tailings moisture content:

The modelled nitrate and sulphate concentrations exceed SANS 241 guidelines.

Contaminant transport in groundwater beneath the tailings was simulated with assumptions based on site

monitoring data, estimated seepage volume and modelled seepage quality. Simulations were conservative

and only considered dilution in the subsurface, ignoring chemical processes which may reduce

concentrations.



in the groundwater. Both nitrate and manganese concentrations decline by approximately 50%

downstream of the tailings. The Mamatwan Pit is not a sensitive receptor and the groundwater quality risk

posed by the proposed TSF is considered to be low.

7 RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the results of this assessment nitrate and manganese are chemicals of concern in seepage from

the proposed TSF. The potential risk should be further investigated as follows:

Nitrate concentrations in the supernatant are extraordinarily high and are responsible for the high

nitrate concentrations in modelled seepage. Another sample of supernatant should be analysed to

confirm the nitrate concentration. The source of nitrate in the supernatant should be investigated to

identify measures to reduce its concentration.

Manganese has been modelled conservatively as there is no available information regarding its

retardation at the site. The potential retardation of manganese in the shallow subsurface beneath the

TSF should be investigated. Partition coefficients for manganese should be tested using test pit soil

samples.

Mamatwan Geochemical and Physical Characterisation of tailings REFERENCES



The contaminant transport simulations should be revised based on the outcome of the above test

recommendations. The groundwater risk profile should be revised as required.

8 REFERENCES

GHT (2015) "Hotazel Manganese Mines, Assessment Report: Ground / Surface Water Monitoring Phase 30

As Part Of The Water Management Plan, 1st Quarter 2015". GHT Consulting Scientists, Report No.

RVN725.1/1558, April 2015.

Parkhurst DL and Appelo CAJ (1999) User’s Guide to PHREEQC (Version 2) – A Computer Program for

Speciation, Batch-Reaction, One-dimensional Transport, and Inverse Geochemical Calculations. United

States Geological Survey (USGS) Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4259.

Paterson and Cooke (2015) Mamatwan Tailings Thickener Test Work. Paterson and Cooke Report No.

MAM-12-8458.1 R01 Rev 1, 5 May 2015.

Price, WA (2009) Prediction Manual for Drainage Chemistry from Sulphidic Geologic Materials. Mine

Environment Neutral Drainage (MEND) Report 1.20.1, December 2009.

SANS (2011) South African National Standard – Drinking Water. South African Bureau of Standards (SABS)

Standards Division SANS 241-1:2011, June 2011.

Terry Harck (Pr.Sci.Nat 400088/95)

Hydrogeochemist


APPENDIX G

THICKENER PROPOSAL

Project Name: Mamatwan Tailings Thickener Project

Client Name: BHP Billiton via Knight Piesold Consulting

Client Ref No: Email

Equipment Type: 14m Diameter HR Thickener

Tenova Delkor Ref No: 15063-REV00

Total technology solutions for mining, bulk materials handling and minerals beneficiation

Attention: Mr Stuart Douglas Thomson, Senior Study Manager Knight Piésold (Pty) Ltd. 4 De la Rey Road, Rivonia | Gauteng | South Africa | 2128 26/06/2015 Dear Sidudzo Mamatwan High Rate Tailings Thickener

We thank you for giving Tenova Delkor the opportunity to make an offer on your abovementioned enquiry.

Please find our firm proposal, hereunder, for the design, fabrication, and ex works supply of one (1) off 14m

Diameter TAILINGS HIGH RATE THICKENER.

The thickener will be partially trial assembled before packaging and delivery. Trial assembly for welded tanks

is done in sections or a percentage of the total tank and support structure. Full trial assembly of the bridge is

done together with a test run of the drive and power-pack (excluding rakes and torque tube).

TENOVA reviewed the Paterson And Cooke testwork report (MAM-12-8458.1 R01 Rev 1) received from

yourself. Considering the settling rate and the fine material (D80 = 15micron), we have opted to offer you a

14m High Rate Thickener.

Since the material was tested only at a feed solids content of 3.4% Solids in feed (w/W), we have assumed

that this is the optimal slurry content for best flocculation. Since there might be a possibility for the feed

solids to be higher, we suggest to include a forced dilution system to reduce the feed content to acceptable

levels. Please see section 3.9 on page 23 for more detail on the forced dilution system. The forced dilution is

not included in the scope or price herein

A little information about Tenova Delkor below:

Tenova Delkor is an industry specialist in solid / liquid separation and mineral processing applications for

the minerals, chemical and industrial markets. Offering comminution, flotation, sedimentation, filtration,

screening, and gravity separation systems, Tenova Delkor services range from test work, process trade-offs

and flow sheet design, to installation, commissioning and aftermarket support.

Tenova Mining & Minerals is a total integrated solutions provider to the global mining, bulk materials

handling and minerals beneficiation and processing sectors, offering innovative technological solutions and

full process and commodity knowledge across the mining industry value chain. More information is available

at www.tenovagroup.com

Yours faithfully,

Jacques Barkley Grant Millar

Email: [email protected]

Senior Sales Engineer

+27 82 462 2525

Email: [email protected]

Regional Sales Manager


Contents ............................................................................................................................................................ 5

Section 1. - Commercials & Pricing Information ................................................................................................ 7

1.1. Confidentiality Statement ........................................................................................................................ 7

1.2. Scope of Supply / Work .......................................................................................................................... 7

1.3. Pricing Breakdown .................................................................................................................................. 8

Total Pricing Summary ............................................................................................................................... 8

1.4. Battery Limits ........................................................................................................................................ 10

1.5. Exclusions ............................................................................................................................................. 10

1.6. Standard Conditions for Warranty......................................................................................................... 11

1.7. Standard Conditions of Contract ........................................................................................................... 11

1.8. Delivery ................................................................................................................................................. 12

1.9. Validity ................................................................................................................................................... 12

1.10. Escalation ............................................................................................................................................ 12

1.11. Currency Variation .............................................................................................................................. 12

1.12. Taxes .................................................................................................................................................. 13

1.13. Package Price ..................................................................................................................................... 13

1.14. Delivery Penalties ............................................................................................................................... 13

1.15. Payment Terms ................................................................................................................................... 13

1.16. Delays ................................................................................................................................................. 13

1.17. Technical Advice during Erection........................................................................................................ 14

1.18. Technical Advice during Commissioning ............................................................................................ 14

1.19. Aftermarket .......................................................................................................................................... 14

Section 2. - Bid Variations and Technical comments ...................................................................................... 15

Section 3. - Technical Information Primary Equipment ................................................................................... 16

3.1. Thickener Duty ...................................................................................................................................... 16

3.2. Thickener Sizing ................................................................................................................................... 16

3.3. Thickener Specifications ....................................................................................................................... 17

Drive ......................................................................................................................................................... 17

Mechanism ............................................................................................................................................... 17

Tank .......................................................................................................................................................... 17

Instrumentation ......................................................................................................................................... 17

3.4. About Tenova Delkor Thickeners.......................................................................................................... 18

3.5. Drive Mechanism .................................................................................................................................. 19

Contents


3.6. Tank, Support Structure & Rakes ......................................................................................................... 20

3.7. Feedwell ................................................................................................................................................ 21

3.8. Feed Dilution ......................................................................................................................................... 22

Forced Dilution (Optional) ........................................................................................................................ 23

3.9. Global Procurement .............................................................................................................................. 25

Section 4. - Process Testwork and Sizing information .................................................................................... 25

Section 5. Global Procurement ........................................................................................................................ 26

5.1. Tenova Delkor Supply Chain ................................................................................................................ 26

5.2. Tenova Delkor Supply Chain Structure ................................................................................................ 26

5.3. Tenova Mining and Minerals (TMM) Structure ..................................................................................... 27

5.4. Worldwide Fabrication Facilities within the Tenova Group ................................................................... 28

5.5. A Brief History of Tenova Delkor in China ............................................................................................ 28

5.6. Tenova Mining & Minerals China Structure and Personnel .................................................................. 29

5.7. Timec Facility – Tianjin, China .............................................................................................................. 29

5.8. Timec Quality Certificates ..................................................................................................................... 30

5.9. Timec’s Global Customers .................................................................................................................... 30

5.10. A Brief History of Tenova Delkor in India ............................................................................................ 31

5.11. Tenova Delkor India Workshop Structure and Overview .................................................................... 32

1.1. Conf

The content

PIESOLD C

vested in TE

form or co

proposals m

employees

TENOVA D

AND/ OR B

Third Party.

1.2. Scop

Our scope i

of the thicke

commission

All import/ e

clients acco

Section 1

fidentiality

ts of this doc

CONULTING

ENOVA DEL

ommunicated

must only b

for the sole

DELKOR in t

BHP BILLITO

.

pe of Supp

ncludes for t

ener. Spares

ning of the eq

export duties

ount.

1. - Comm

y Statemen

cument are o

AND/ OR B

LKOR. The t

d to any Th

be used by

e purpose of

the event of

ON or the co

ply / Work

the design, m

s are quoted

quipment are

, taxes and o

ercials &

nt

of substantia

BHP BILLITO

technical des

hird Party w

KNIGHT P

f assessing

f the data ce

ontract for th

material supp

as separate

e given in sec

other costs re

Pricing In

al value to TE

ON subject to

scriptions, da

without writte

PIESOLD CO

the merits o

easing to be

he equipmen

ply, and man

line items. R

ction 1.3. Ou

elating to the

nformation

ENOVA DEL

o the conditio

ata and draw

en authority

ONULTING

of the said p

e of interest

t covered by

ufacture and

Rates for sup

ur scope exc

e import/ exp

n

KOR, and it

on that the c

wings must n

from TENO

AND/ OR B

proposal, an

to KNIGHT

y this docum

d ex works de

pervision of e

ludes installa

port of the go

is presented

copyright the

not be reprod

OVA DELKO

BHP BILLIT

nd are to be

PIESOLD C

ment being a

elivery (Joha

erection &

ation and ere

oods shall be

Page | 7

d to KNIGHT

rein remains

duced in any

OR, and the

TON and its

returned to

CONULTING

awarded to a

annesburg)

ection.

e for the

T

s

y

e

s

o

G

a

1.3.

IteNo

1234

IteNo

456

Pricing Break

Total Pricing

em o.

1 Tailings Th2 AS Automa3 Supervision4 Supervision

m o.

4 Commissio5 12 to 24 mo6 Critical/ Stra

kdown

g Summary

EquipmDescri

ickener – Welde

ation 0.6kg/hr Flon of Installation n of Commission

EquDesc

14m HR THICning Spares for onth Operating Sategic Spares fo

SCHEDULE 1

ment ption

ed constructionoc Dosing Plant

ning

SCHEDU

uipment cription

KENER SPAREThickeners

Spares for Thickor Thickeners

A – PRIMARY O

EquS

10.6

ULE 1B - OPTI

ES

keners

OFFER – 10m H

uipment Size Quan

14m 16 Kg/hr 1N/A tbcN/A tbc

ONAL ITEMS P

Equipment Size

All sizes All sizes All sizes

HRT PRICING S

tity Unit

eacheach

c days 11,c days 11,

PRICING SUMM

Quantity Un

1 Lo1 Lo1 Lo

SUMMARY

Unit Price (ZAR)

2,990,835.00732,900

,000 per day ,000 per day Total Project V

ARY

Unnit Pri (ZA

ot TBot TBot TB

TOT

A

(2,99732

Value ZAR

nit ce

AR)

BC BC BC TAL

Page | 8

Amount

(ZAR) 90,835.00 2,900.00

3,723,735

Amount

(ZAR)

TBC TBC TBC TBC

Page | 9

1.4. Batte

Unless spec

Feed

Flocc

Unde

Overf

Electr

Instru

Other

1.5. Exclu

ery Limits

cified elsewh

ulent

rflow

flow

rical connect

umentation

r services

usions

Transport

Offloading

Site instal

Civil, cast

Inspection

Connectin

Switchgea

Access st

Overhung

Feed tank

Interconn

Support s

Feed, Und

Cable rac

Lighting o

Crawl Bea

Hoist for c

Roof over

Utilities an

Wiring, PL

Performan

Training o

Withholdin

Flocculen

Any other

here in this d

Fee

Floc

Out

Out

tions Con

Inst

Con

t excluded

g and storag

llation

t in frames, fo

n by indepen

ng up of elec

ar (except on

tairways

g bridge sect

ks and mixer

ecting acces

structure for t

derflow, Ove

cks

of thickener w

am

crawl beam

r drive Expor

nd consuma

LC programm

nce testing

of site person

ng taxes and

nt storage she

r item not me

ocument the

ed pipe flang

cculent dose

tlet flange on

tlet flange on

nnection box

trument conn

nnection poin

e of the equi

oundation an

ndent authori

ctrics, MCC o

n control pan

ion and asso

rs

ss platforms

the feed tank

erflow & Unde

walkway

rt documenta

bles on site

ming and sys

nnel – daily r

d duties

ed

entioned abo

e battery limit

ge at edge of

e pipe flange

n underflow c

n overflow la

xes on motor

nection boxe

nt for the ser

ipment and m

nd mounting

ities

or cabling of

nel for hydrau

ociated supp

ks

erflow Recyc

ation

stem integrat

rates as per s

ove

ts are as follo

f tank

at edge to ta

cone

under

rs and contro

es

rvice item, e.

materials on

bolts

instrumentat

ulic power pa

ort structure

cle pumps an

tion (except

section 1.18

ows:

ank

ol panels

g. flange on

site.

tion

ack motors)

nd piping

for thickener

P

control valve

r control pan

Page | 10

es

el)

1.6. Stand

We have s

trouble as p

months from

or faulty wo

However sh

provided un

according to

It is anticipa

but at a cha

1.7. Stand

Commercia

Conditions”

within this p

mutually ag

dard Cond

elected and

possible. Ou

m ex-works d

orkmanship.

hould an eng

ntil the cause

o the respon

ated that the

arge to be ne

dard Cond

l terms are g

. Where cert

proposal sha

reeable term

ditions for

designed a

ur normal gu

delivery, whi

gineering inv

e of malfunct

sibility.

regular insp

egotiated. Fo

ditions of

given in this p

tain terms ar

ll supersede

ms and condi

r Warranty

all the equipm

arantee peri

chever occu

vestigation b

tion was esta

ection servic

r this purpos

Contract

proposal doc

e referred to

those of the

tions closer t

y

ment offered

iod is 12 mo

rs first. This

be required f

ablished. The

ce by our sta

se we sugges

cument as we

o in both docu

e standard of

to the time o

d in this ten

onths from t

s covers all f

for fault-findi

e cost of our

aff would con

st that a mai

ell as the atta

uments (such

ffer condition

of order place

der to be re

he date of h

failures due t

ing purposes

r services wo

tinue after th

ntenance co

ached docum

h as paymen

s. We gener

ement.

P

eliable and a

hot commiss

to defective

s our service

ould then be

he initial one

ontract be ent

ment, “Stand

nt terms), the

rally advise d

Page | 11

as free from

ioning or 18

components

es would be

apportioned

year period,

tered into.

dard Offer

e terms

discussing

m

8

s

e

d

,

1.8. Deliv

G

A

C

Eq

Tr

pa

Pa

Barring any

subject to m

excludes fo

1.9. Valid

Our offered

Prices give

days from th

1.10. Esc

Due to the

independen

1.11. Cur

17% of the

7% of the e

Any variatio

verified and

rate at the d

all prices fo

the base da

costs will be

very

GA drawings f

llowance for

ertified draw

quipment Fa

rial Assembly

artial trial ass

acking and T

y unforeseen

material avai

r all religious

dity

price is firm

n for deliver

he submissio

calation

volatility of

nt method of

rrency Var

ex-works s

ex-works su

on from thes

d for the acco

date of settle

r freight, rail,

ate. Any incre

e added to th

for approval

drawing rev

wings (after r

abrication(aft

y (welded tri

sembly inclu

Transport to

delays the e

ilability and f

s and public

m for the ex-w

ry shall be o

on date.

f the steel m

calculating t

riation

upply portio

pply portion

se exchange

ount of the P

ement of the

, wharfage, c

eases to tho

he Contract P

(after receip

iew (Technic

receipt of dra

er completio

al assembly

des for asse

Site (after fa

ex works deli

fabricator wo

holidays.

works portion

open to reva

market we w

he possible i

on is quoted

n is quoted

e rates and

urchaser. In

e foreign curr

clearing rates

se quoted pr

Price.

pt of order - A

cal freeze)

awing approv

on of certified

falls within f

emble and dis

abrication and

ivery period

ork load at t

n and spares

lidation clos

would like to

increases as

d at an exch

at an excha

the rates o

the event th

rency amoun

s, import dut

rices arising

ARO)

val - ADA)

d drawings)

fabrication tim

sassemble)

d acceptance

will be 18 - 2

he time of o

, with the tra

er to time of

o suggest th

ssociated wit

hange rate o

ange rate of

n the date o

hat Forward C

nt shall apply

ties, surcharg

from substa

1

4

me;

e)

20 weeks. Th

order placem

ansport price

f delivery. T

e use of the

h mild steel,

of USD$ 1.00

AUS$ 1.00 =

of securing

Cover is not

y. Our suppl

ges and taxe

ntiated chan

P

Welded

weeks ARO

1 weeks

weeks ADA

12 weeks

1 weeks

5 weeks

he delivery p

ment. Our de

being budge

This quote is

e SEIFSA t

plant and pe

0 = ZAR 12.3

= ZAR 9.3

Forward Co

required, the

liers and we

es, etc. on th

nges or addit

Page | 12

O

A

period is also

livery period

etary nature.

valid for 60

ables as an

ersonnel.

3

ver shall be

en the actual

have based

ose ruling at

tions to such

o

d

.

0

n

e

l

d

t

h

1.12. Tax

Please note

surcharges

added to ou

1.13. Pac

Prices have

revisions. N

re quoted.

1.14. Deli

This will be

1.15. Pay

Our pricing

made in full

1.16. Dela

Should our

goods will b

additional c

Any delays

contract pro

did result fr

prevailing a

Should we

control then

been compl

However, s

such work w

es

e that all pri

that may be

ur prices.

ckage Pric

e been base

No items can

ivery Pena

as per sectio

yment Term

has been ba

, in South Af

Payment M

On receipt

On submis

On placem

On progres

On ex-wor

Supervisio

ays

goods not

be deemed t

osts would b

in the contr

ogramme be

rom the dela

t the time.

be delayed

n for purpose

leted by the d

such paymen

would be com

icing herein

e levied in S

e

ed on the co

be purchase

alties

on 8.1: Teno

ms

ased on Ter

frican Rand,

Milestone

of order (Co

ssion of GA d

ment of major

ssive payme

ks delivery

n of Commis

be able to b

to be deliver

be chargeabl

ract caused

e extended b

ays then co

in commissi

es of invoicin

due date.

nts do not in

mpleted as so

are exclusiv

South Africa

omplete pack

ed separately

ova standard

ms of Payme

into our RSA

overed by an

drawings

r orders

nts during fa

ssioning & Er

be collected

red as and w

e.

by abnorma

by more than

mpensation

oning and te

ng and guara

n any way di

oon as poss

ve of Value

or any othe

kage as quo

y at the price

terms and c

ent, as per t

A bank accou

advance pa

abrication, on

rection (100%

for delivery

when ready f

al inclement

n 5 days pro

would be b

esting our co

antee the co

iminish the r

ible.

Added Tax

er country, an

oted, and pa

es quoted, a

conditions.

the milestone

unt.

ayment insura

n agreed mile

% 30 days fr

y on program

for despatch

weather or b

ovided it can

y application

ompleted eq

mmissioning

responsibility

or any with

nd if require

art orders wo

nd individua

es set out be

ance bond)

estones

om invoice d

mme then fo

h. Any stora

by the Clien

be establish

n of the sch

uipment due

g and testing

y for testing

P

hholding taxe

ed, these wil

ould be sub

l items would

elow. All pay

%

15%

5%

40%

35%

5%

date) N/A

or purposes

age, insuranc

nt and should

hed that incr

heduled supe

e to reasons

g will be deem

and commis

Page | 13

es, duties or

l have to be

bject to price

d need to be

yments to be

of payment,

ce and other

d the overall

reased costs

ervisor rates

beyond our

med to have

ssioning and

r

e

e

e

e

,

r

l

s

s

r

e

d

1.17. Tec

Technical a

rate exclude

Overtim

Sunday

Accomm

Travel

Estimat

Estimat

1.18. Tec

Technical a

This rate ex

Overtim

Sunday

Accomm

Travel

Estimat

Estimat

1.19. Afte

Tenova De

Furthermore

with the em

Our dedicat

machines a

efficiencies.

We trust th

proposal in

hnical Ad

dvice during

es for any tra

me

ys/Public Ho

modation/me

ted number o

ted Cost

hnical Ad

dvice during

xcludes for a

me

ys/Public Ho

modation/me

ted number o

ted Cost

ermarket

lkor has a d

e they can o

phasis on pr

ted after-sale

and offer a

.

hat this prop

more detail,

vice durin

erection wil

ansportation,

lidays

eals/living ou

of days requ

vice durin

commission

ny transporta

lidays

eals/living ou

of days requ

edicated dep

offer “on-goin

reventative m

es Technicia

advice on m

osal is in ac

please do n

ng Erectio

l be charged

, taxes, acco

ut allowance

ired

ng Commi

ning will be c

ation, taxes,

ut allowance

ired

partment spe

ng maintena

maintenance

ans will visit y

maintenance

ccordance w

ot hesitate to

on

d at a rate of

ommodation,

:

:

:

:

:

:

issioning

charged at a

accommoda

:

:

:

:

:

:

ecialising in a

ance and con

which will en

your plant o

and corre

with your req

o contact us.

ZAR 11,000

and meals.

ZAR 1,

ZAR 2,2

At cost

At cost

TBC

TBC

rate of ZAR

ation, and me

ZAR 1,

ZAR 2,2

At cost

At cost

TBC

TBC

aftermarket c

ndition monit

nsure better

n a regular b

ct operation

quirements a

.

.00 per day

650.00 per h

200.00 per h

plus 15%

plus 15%

11,000.00 p

eals.

650.00 per h

200.00 per h

plus 15%

plus 15%

customer and

toring” of all

availabilities

basis and co

n in-order to

and should y

P

(10 hour da

hour

hour

per day (10 h

hour

hour

d product su

our supplied

s of the equip

onduct inspe

to maximize

you wish to

Page | 14

ay). This

hour day).

pport.

d equipment

pment.

ctions of the

e equipment

discuss this

t

e

t

s

This propos

For clarity w

Should ther

process.

Section 2

sal has been

we have furth

re be a perce

2. - Bid Va

n submitted i

her detailed t

eived variatio

riations a

n general ac

the scope of

on we would

nd Techni

ccordance w

work and the

gladly discus

ical comm

with the speci

e terms of ou

ss these item

ments

ifications rec

ur offer.

ms during you

P

ceived with y

ur proposal e

Page | 15

your enquiry.

evaluation

.

3.1. Thick

Des

% S

Sol

Liqu

% S

Exp

3.2. Thic

Sol

Rise

% S

No.

Thic

Sele

Thic

Note that th

expected un

T = Torque,

k = Yield St

D = Thicken

Section 3

kener Duty

sign Solids F

Solids in Fee

ids SG

uid SG

Solids in Und

pected Yield

ckener Siz

ids Flux Rate

e Rate

Solids in Fee

of Units

ckener Diam

ected Drive k

ckener Side

he selected

nderflow slur

, Nm

tress, Pa

ner Diameter

3. - Techni

y

Feed Rate

ed

derflow

Stress

ing – 14m

e

ed Well

meter

k Factor

Wall

drive k facto

rry as per the

r, m

ical Inform

: 30 t/h

: 3.4%

: 3.51 t/

: 1.00 t/

: 55.00

: 12 Pa

m HRT Opti

: 0.19t/h

: 5.59 m

: 3.4 %

: 1

: 14 m (

: 35 (se

: 2.4 m

or is conside

e equation: T

mation Prim

/m3

/m3

%

as per Figur

ion

h.m2

m/h

(as received

(as per client

elected by De

(selected by

ered to be e

14.6 . k. D

mary Equ

re 9 of MAM-

d)

t equipment

elkor for this

y Delkor for t

equivalent to

D

ipment

-12-8458.1-R

datasheet)

application)

his applicatio

o the un-she

P

R01 Rev 1

on)

eared yield s

Page | 16

stress of the

e

3.3. Thick

Dr

Driop

Hyfirs

30an

IP5

Po

Me

Fu

Fe

Fe

Topa

Flo

Ta

Ele

Th

Unma

Ov

In

Be

Be

Ra

Ra

kener Spe

rive

ive Frame cerating torqu

ydraulic powest fill of lubric

0 mm rake d an ultrason

55/NEMA 4 c

olished stainle

echanism

ll span bridg

ed well in pa

ed pipe in ru

orque tube aninted carbon

occulent pipe

ank

evated Mild S

e tank will be

nderflow discass instrume

verflow laund

nstrumentati

ed Level Instr

ed Mass Pres

ake Torque P

ake Height In

ecifications

complete witue of MOT =

er pack comcant).

lift and lowenic instrumen

control pane

ess steel nam

e, with half s

artial rubber l

ubber lined ca

nd low profilen steel.

e and dosing

Steel Thicken

e delivered in

charge cone,nt nozzles.

der complete

ion

rument

ssure Instrum

Pressure Inst

nstrument (lim

s

th 1 x plane101 kNm (In

plete with a

ering systemnt for measu

l for remote I

meplate

span walkwa

lined carbon

arbon steel.

e rakes (2 lo

points in pa

ner Tank; bla

n a piece sm

mild steel p

with weir pla

ment

trument

mit switches

etary gearboncluding the f

4 kW drive a

complete wring rake lift

IO(excludes

ay and hand

steel.

ong and 2 sh

ainted carbon

ast & primed

mall format fo

painted, com

ates and an

only)

oxes rated tfirst fill of lub

and 2.2 kW

with upper antravel distan

PLC)

railings, in pa

hort complete

n steel.

only.

or assembly o

mplete with a

overflow box

to deliver a bricant).

lift motor (Inc

nd lower limnce.

ainted carbo

e with cone

on site by oth

drain, suctio

x, blast & prim

P

maximum

cluding the

mit switches

on steel.

scraper) in

hers.

on and bed

med only.

Page | 17

3.4. Abou

Tenova De

since 1976

technologic

Wo

Des

to e

Inst

con

Sup

Tenova De

internationa

thickener d

structures to

with more th

Tenova De

region alone

50m Diame

designed &

thickeners i

Special atte

43m Thicke

UBC requir

thickener de

ut Tenova

lkor has bee

6 and a lar

al innovation

rld's first Hig

sign of Box f

ensure good

tallation of D

ncentrates.

pply of Hydra

elkor has inv

al standard.

design. As a

o the latest (

han 15 years

lkor has wo

e. The large

eter. This is

built by Delk

n South Ame

ention has be

eners to UBC

rement mak

esign to thes

Delkor Th

en supplying

ge database

n to the indus

gh Rate Auto

frame drive h

pinion / main

Delkor Auto

aulic drives w

vested signifi

The use of

a result, we

(1997) UBC

s thickener d

n contracts i

st contract w

s the larges

kor are 2 x 1

erica, each ra

een given by

C 4 (1997 rev

es Delkor th

se conditions

hickeners

g High Rate T

e of design

stry. Example

-dilution syst

head that allo

n gear tooth

o-dilution com

with variable

icantly in sof

3D and dy

have perha

zone 4 stand

esign know h

n excess of

was for Barric

st thickener

100m Diame

ated to treat

y Delkor to d

vision) requir

he only sup

s.

Thickeners (

n information

es of this are

tems installe

ows overhun

contact to oc

mbined with

speed, soft s

ftware and d

ynamic mode

aps the mos

dards. All de

how.

US$ 10 milli

ck, Pascua L

plant in So

eter High Ra

60,000 tons

design large

res dynamic

pplier in this

(designs whic

n and has

e:

ed in 1983.

ng gearbox m

ccur.

h a Froth R

start and rev

design to dev

elling allows

st extensive

esigns are by

on for large

Lama - 15 x

outh America

ate Thickene

s per day.

Thickeners.

modelling an

s region with

ch are based

been succe

mounting with

Recovery sys

erse directio

velop large t

s Delkor to p

knowledge

y a registered

thickeners in

High Rate T

a. The large

ers. These a

The recent d

nd design. W

h the in de

P

d on the orig

essful in int

hout flexing

stem, in 200

on facilities.

thickeners to

provide first

in the des

d Profession

n the Southe

Thickeners o

est diamete

are the larges

design of 60

We believe th

pth knowled

Page | 18

ginal patent),

troducing its

of the frame

00, for float

o the highest

class large

ign of large

nal Engineer;

ern American

of 60, 54 and

r thickeners

st High Rate

0, 54, 50 and

hat this latest

dge of large

,

s

e

t

t

e

e

;

n

d

s

e

d

t

e

3.5. Drive

Tenova De

through a v

rakes can b

option.

The princip

serviced. Th

of hours.

Key design

Stiff

on t

Rin

fatig

Pin

(pus

bog

Ope

less

e Mechan

lkor offers h

variable flow

be reversed

ple behind th

he Main serv

consideratio

ffened Drive

tooth contac

g Gear Teet

gue life and a

ion gearbox

shing the ge

gged rakes.

erating Torqu

s than 60000

ism

hydraulic driv

valve, rathe

or rocked o

his design i

vice compon

ons in Delkor

Frame preve

ct. An importa

th to minimis

a 35 years’ s

x with DOUB

earbox away

Gearboxes

ue requireme

0 hours.

ves as stand

er than a var

out of a plu

s that the R

ent is the ge

r drives are:

ents gearbox

ant feature in

se forces tra

service life.

BLE BEARIN

from the gea

can be mad

ents, but bea

dard, with va

riable freque

ug condition.

Ring Gear &

earbox, which

xes rotating a

n ensuring >

ansferred to

NGS on the

ar teeth) wh

de smaller a

arings could

ariable spee

ency drive. T

Electro-me

& Raceway

h weighs 500

away from ge

> 25 year com

the Pinion to

output. Thi

en operating

and lighter,

fail prematu

d and revers

The benefit o

chanical driv

bearings sh

0 kg and can

ear tooth ma

mponent life

ooth. This is

is caters for

g at near max

and still com

rely and ser

P

rse drive con

of this desig

ves are ava

hould never

n be replaced

aintaining ma

. Suitable di

s designed fo

r the High R

ximum torqu

mply with th

rvice life wou

Page | 19

ntrol. This is

n is that the

ailable as an

have to be

d in a matter

aximum tooth

ameter PCD

or an infinite

Radial loads

ue or starting

he Maximum

uld reduce to

s

e

n

e

r

h

D

e

s

g

m

o

3.6. Tank

Tenova De

thickener th

for purpose

the develop

Dyn

Pro

Hyd

3D

Det

The utilisati

demanding

43m

req

Min

acc

Delkor thick

following cri

Rak

Rak

Mud

Rak

Buo

Loc

Rak

Floo

And

k, Support

elkor thicken

hat is sold ha

e. Apart from

pment of its n

namic earthq

ofessional en

drodynamic r

parametric m

tailed life cyc

on of these d

applications

m diameter e

uirements;

nimized num

cess to the un

kener rake a

iteria:

ke profile;

ke arm vertic

d load;

ke imbalance

oyancy – low

cking of rakes

ke blade con

or slope;

d rake blade

Structure

ner designs

as gone throu

m FEA, Delko

new generatio

quake model

gineering au

response to e

modelling;

cle calculatio

design techn

s, for instance

elevated stee

mber of tank

nderflow pum

assemblies a

cal deflection

e and tilting;

w profile;

s – ties;

nfiguration;

replacemen

e & Rakes

go through

ugh an FEA

or also uses

on of thicken

ling;

udits;

earthquake l

ns on all me

niques has a

e:

el tank in So

support col

mping equipm

are designed

n;

t.

a very deta

(finite eleme

other state-

ner designs a

loading;

chanical com

allowed Delko

outh America

lumns, allow

ment.

d using the

ailed level o

ent analysis)

of-the-art en

as follows:

mponents.

or to supply t

a, complying

wing maximu

above mod

f engineerin

procedure to

ngineering &

thickeners fo

with the hig

um space un

elling techn

P

ng quality co

o ensure the

modelling te

or the most s

ghest earthqu

nder the tan

iques and b

Page | 20

ontrol. Every

e design is fit

echniques in

stringent and

uake loading

nk and easy

based of the

y

t

n

d

g

y

e

3.7. Feed

Pictured be

then its fee

distributed a

proper flocc

Interna

B

dwell

low is a grap

ed into the E

around the f

culation witho

al Distributer

Baffles

phical repres

Energy dissi

feed well via

out the entra

r

entation of o

pating drop

a the interna

pment of air

our feed well

box, goes

al baffles. Th

that will lead

design. The

through the

his arrangem

d to increase

De-aeration

Launder

feed flow co

de-aeration

ment ensures

ed scum form

P

omes in via t

launder an

s that the fe

mation.

Energy D

Drop

Page | 21

he feed pipe

d finally get

ed achieves

Dissipating

p Box

e

t

s

3.8. Feed

Tenova De

Auto-Dilu

Auto-dilution

facilitate flo

and the ou

feedwell.

The control

1. Fee

2. Fee

3. Fee

4. Fee

flow

d Dilution

lkor has two

tion

n is process

cculation. Th

tside of the

parameter fo

ed density: h

ed flow: lowe

edwell diame

edwell depth

w/dilution.

o methods of

of using clea

he basic prin

feedwell, g

or auto-diluti

igher density

er flow will au

eter: increase

h: increased

f feed dilution

ar overflow p

nciple operat

enerating a

on is as follo

y differential

utomatically r

ed diameter r

d depth re

n, which are

produced by

tes on the d

difference i

ows:

results in mo

reduce dilutio

results in inc

esults in inc

as follows:

the thickene

ensity differe

n liquor hei

ore hydraulic

on flow as de

creased laund

creased hy

er to dilute th

ence betwee

ght, thus all

c head;

ensity drops;

der size thus

draulic hea

P

he incoming f

en the fluid o

lowing overf

;

s increased f

d and thus

Page | 22

feed in order

on the inside

flow into the

flow/dilution;

s increased

r

e

e

d

Fo

Tenova De

dilution dow

orced Dilutio

elkor has a p

wn to 2% feed

on

patented forc

d solids (m/m

ced dilution s

m).

system (Pate

ent US 20100/0300546 A

P

A1) which allo

Page | 23

ows for feed

d

The advanta

1. Low c

2. Varia

3. No d

4. Lowe

ages of this s

capital cost.

able dilution w

isturbance o

er flocculent

system are a

when couple

f mud bed.

consumption

as follows:

ed to a variab

n.

ble speed drive.

P

Page | 24

3.9. Glob

The Tenov

facilities wh

in India, Ch

global quali

section 8.10

The size of

and Cooke

Section 4

al Procure

va Delkor G

here the optim

hina, Philippi

ty control po

0 of the appe

f thickeners o

testwork rep

4. - Proces

ement

Group is a w

mum benefit

nes, Southe

olicy ensures

endices for m

offered was

port - MAM-1

ss Testwo

worldwide o

to the client

rn Africa and

the same co

more details.

suggested b

12-8458.1-R

rk and Siz

organisation,

t occurs. At

d South Ame

ommitment t

by TENOVA

R01 Rev 1

zing inform

and as suc

present, the

erica. We wo

to quality irre

, and based

mation

ch, has con

e bulk of our

ould like to a

espective of g

on testwork

P

centrated its

fabrication i

assure you t

geographic lo

k results of t

Page | 25

s fabrication

s conducted

that Delkor’s

ocation. See

he Paterson

n

d

s

e

n

The Tenova

facilities wh

in India, Ch

global qualit

5.1. Teno

Tenova Del

manufacture

to continue

Minerals org

Our compan

internationa

countries, in

Manager SC

Chinese fab

resources, p

meeting our

In order to g

review the f

5.2. Teno

Our supply

processes,

between the

Section 5

a Delkor Gro

ere the optim

ina, Philippin

ty control po

ova Delkor

kor develope

e, with a focu

providing hig

ganization, th

ny’s supply c

al standards a

ncluding Chin

C and Gerald

bricators, giv

particularly Q

r QA and on-

give a compl

following rele

ova Delkor

chain structu

best practice

e Tenova Mi

5. Global P

oup is a wor

mum benefit

nes, Souther

olicy ensures

r Supply C

ed its global

us on China

gh quality eq

hese abilities

chain was for

and on-time

na, India whe

d Twarkowsk

en China’s s

QA, and havi

-time delivery

ete summary

ease.

r Supply C

ure provides

es, and peop

ning and Min

Procureme

rldwide organ

to the client

rn Africa and

the same co

Chain

supply chain

and India, a

quipment at t

s have been

rmally establ

delivery, inc

ere Tenova D

ki, Manufactu

significance t

ng access to

y goals.

y of the curre

Chain Stru

a unique fra

ple into a unif

nerals family

ent

nisation, and

occurs. At p

South Amer

ommitment to

n function to

nd has made

he best glob

enhanced to

lished in 201

cluding propr

Delkor has a

uring Manag

to global sup

o the Timec f

ent manufact

ucture

amework that

fied structure

in the follow

d as such, ha

present, the b

rica. We wou

o quality irres

benefit from

e great stride

bal value. As

o focus on gl

2 to focus o

ietary source

a factory, and

er SC are ba

pply. Being in

factory is of s

turing capab

t best suits o

e. The struct

wing chart.

as concentrat

bulk of our fa

uld like to ass

spective of g

low cost cou

es to enhanc

part of the T

obal sourcin

n achieving f

ed componen

d Philippines

ased in Beijin

ntegrated into

significant be

ilities of Ten

our clients’ ne

ure also sup

P

ted its fabrica

abrication is

sure you tha

geographic lo

untry procure

ce their existi

Tenova Minin

g and fabrica

fabrication w

nts from low-

. Peter Herb

ng to get clos

o Takraf and

enefit in term

ova Delkor,

eeds and link

pports commu

Page | 26

ation

conducted

t Delkor’s

ocation.

ement and

ng structure

ng and

ation.

which meets

-cost

ert, General

ser to the

sharing

ms of

please

ks

unication

5.3. Teno

Focussed o

managemen

provided thr

ova Mining

on our client’s

nt services a

rough well-es

g and Mine

s needs, Ten

and equipme

stablished w

erals (TMM

nova Mining

nt supply for

wholly owned

M) Structu

& Minerals u

r the product

industry bra

ure

unique sourc

ion of the ful

and leaders.

e of enginee

l range of mi

P

ering and pro

inerals and m

Page | 27

oject

metals is

5.4. World

The Tenova

components

5.5. A Bri

Delkor, now

representat

to supply De

European m

Following th

Enterprise)

global busin

Beijing with

the East coa

and Dalian.

Bateman En

China office

Delkor in te

significantly

capability, m

companies.

drives.

dwide Fab

a Delkor India

s for Europe

ief History

w Tenova De

ive office in C

elkor equipm

market.

he acquisition

company in

ness units, a

Bateman to

ast, and prov

ngineering co

es have been

rms of resou

y Tenova hav

managed by

Tenova Del

brication F

a Facility is a

and Central

y of Tenov

lkor, have ha

Chongqing, W

ment, and to b

n by Batema

Chongqing t

nd to further

provide imp

vide more co

ompanies inc

n integrated i

urces through

ve a factory i

experienced

kor are alrea

Facilities w

a key part to

Asia, and ke

va Delkor i

ad a presenc

Western Chi

build “low co

an in April 20

to further dev

develop the

proved custom

onvenient acc

cluding Delk

into Tenova

h shared serv

n Tianjin, Tim

d expatriates

ady directing

within the

TMM ha

which is

furnace

Thicken

uses pr

of vario

mechan

compon

vacuum

this fabricat

ey compone

in China

ce in China fo

na. The offic

ost” fabricated

008, Delkor e

velop the bus

e China mark

mer contact

cess to the fa

kor were acqu

Takraf Beijin

vices, particu

mec who hav

who unders

fabrication t

Tenova G

as their own

s used prima

es for Pyrome

ner Drives an

re-qualified C

us compone

nisms, tanks

nents includi

m receivers.

ion network,

nts globally.

or more than

ce was estab

d and source

establish a W

siness capab

ket. In additio

since most a

abricators clo

uired by Ten

ng operation,

ularly for QA

ve considera

tand the QA

to Timec, inc

Group

fabrication fa

arily for speci

et as well as

nd other asse

Chinese facto

ents, including

and floor pla

ng frames, p

supplying th

n ten years, in

blished to dev

ed componen

WOFE (Wholly

bility in terms

on, Delkor es

are based in

oser to ports

ova in April 2

, providing si

A and procure

able manufac

and delivery

cluding Filter

P

facility, Timec

ialized fabric

Tenova Del

emblies. The

ories for the

g thickener

ates, and be

pulleys, roller

he majority o

nitially throug

velop the Ch

nts, primarily

y Owned Fo

s of supply to

stablished a p

the major cit

s of Tianjin, S

2012, and th

ignificant ben

ement activit

cturing and fa

y demands o

Frames and

Page | 28

c, in China

cation,

kor

e company

manufacture

lt filter

rs and

f

gh a small

hina market

y for the

reign

o Delkor’s

presence in

ties along

Shanghai

he Delkor

nefits to

ies. Most

abrication

of foreign

d Thickener

e

5.6. Teno

Tenova Min

an experien

5.7. Time

ova Mining

ning & Minera

nced team of

ec Facility

g & Minera

als applies a

f QA manage

– Tianjin,

als China S

vigorous qu

ers and inspe

China

Structure

uality assuran

ectors who s

Tenova

Based in

Tenova

port, just

54,000 s

excellen

Tenova’

out to th

and Perso

nce (QA) reg

pend their tim

Timec is Ten

n the high-tec

Timec is loca

t 2 hours’ dri

sq m, includin

nt quality of p

s worldwide

e strictest re

onnel

gime to all Ch

me within fac

nova’s produ

ch industrial

ated near the

ve from Beij

ng 15,000 sq

roduction is

quality assu

quired stand

P

hina fabricati

ctories.

uction facility

area of Tang

e third larges

ing. The fact

q m that is co

guaranteed

rance progra

dards.

Page | 29

on through

in China.

ggu (Tianjin)

st Chinese

tory is

overed. The

under

am carried

)

5.8. Time

procuremen

and testing

providing an

governing w

5.9. Time

The best fab

Tenova Tim

quality custo

20,000 tonn

ec Quality

nt and testing

prior to ship

n excellent w

workplace he

ec’s Globa

brication com

mec to becom

omers worldw

nes of equipm

Certificate

g of raw mate

ment, are all

working envir

ealth and safe

al Custome

mpetences to

me the prefer

wide. Tenov

ment and com

es

erials, the ela

carried out

ronment for it

ety.

ers

ogether with

rred manufac

a Timec has

mponents, se

Superior q

region; no

organizati

are compe

In product

and on-tim

required s

Under Ten

aboration of

in-house.Ten

ts employees

the most de

cturing facility

s an annual p

erving the m

quality is wha

ot only in prod

on, safety st

etitively align

tion planning

me delivery, T

standards.

nova’s qualit

workshop dr

nova Timec a

s, observing

manding qua

y not only for

production ca

ining and me

at distinguish

duction, but a

andards, and

ned with the C

g, machining

Tenova Time

y assurance

rawings, and

also places p

the latest W

ality requirem

r Tenova but

apacity of bet

etals industri

P

hes Tenova T

also in labor

d efficiency,

Chinese mar

process con

ec adopts the

e program, th

d the final ins

particular im

Western regul

ments have a

t also for oth

etween 10,00

ies.

Page | 30

Timec in the

r

while costs

rket.

ntrol, testing,

e highest

e

spection,

portance on

ations

allowed

er top

00 and

Qualified en

backbone o

time. Use of

customers w

5.10. A B

Delkor esta

2004 where

now grown

spread over

Unit XI with

Unit XII with

Stainless St

voluminous

Unit XIII ha

Flotation Ce

space in thi

unit.

These work

ITP procedu

Policy.

ngineers, tec

of Tenova Tim

f the English

worldwide an

rief Histor

blished its fir

e it started it’s

into a major

r a total of 3

h covered are

h 2084 m2 c

teel and hea

fabrications

s a 1580 m2

ell Mechanis

s unit is utilis

kshops lead t

ures and doc

chnicians, an

mec. They a

h language g

nd responds

ry of Teno

rst office in In

s business fr

manufacturi

areas – Unit

ea of 2322m2

overed area

avy Carbon S

.

2 covered sh

ms etc, apar

sed to store r

the way in te

cumentation,

d skilled wor

are available

reatly facilita

clearly and q

ova Delkor

ndia in Mumb

rom a small o

ng facility for

t No. XI, XII &

2 which cate

and 734m2

Steel fabricat

ed, which ho

rt from a fully

raw materials

erms of QA/Q

SHE comm

rkers are car

to provide te

ates Tenova

quickly to the

r in India

bai in the yea

office cum w

r the Tenova

& XIII.

ers to all type

of open con

ion sections.

ouses fabrica

y enclosed gr

s and finishe

QS and SHE

ittee and uni

refully selecte

echnological

Timec perso

eir requireme

ar 1998. It la

workshop unit

a Delkor Grou

es of Carbon

crete floor sp

. Open space

ation & assem

rit blasting &

ed goods. All

initiatives, in

iversal buy-in

ed and traine

support of th

onnel in build

ents.

ater shifted it’

t. During the

up as a whol

Steel fabrica

pace, this un

e is used for

mbly area for

painting sho

dispatches t

ncluding but n

n for the Ten

P

ed and are th

he highest ca

ding relations

’s base to Ba

last 10 year

le. Worksho

ation.

nit is divided

r trial assemb

r Drives, Agi

op. The 6500

take place fr

not limited to

nova Delkor Q

Page | 31

he

aliber in real

ships with

angalore in

rs, it has

ops are

into

bly of

tators,

0m2 of open

rom this

o defined

Quality

5.11. Ten

Tenova Del

workshops

vacuum box

The total ar

measures 7

permanent

Over the ye

‐ Cla

‐ Hor

‐ Agit

‐ Flot

‐ Line

‐ API

‐ Filte

‐ Aut

‐ Thic

‐ Attr

ova Delko

kor India is e

are equipped

xes, drives, a

ea of the wo

7553 sq m an

employees w

ears, these w

rifiers & High

rizontal Belt

tators, both t

tation Cell ta

ear Screens,

IC JIG, up to

er Press

tomatic Flocc

ckener Drive

rition Scrubb

or India W

equipped wit

d with skilled

agitators, flot

orkshops is13

nd is used fo

with skilled co

workshops ha

h Rate Thick

Filters, up to

top & side en

anks & mecha

, up to 20m2

o 4m size

culation Plan

e Heads, upto

ers

Workshop S

h three work

d manpower

tation cell tan

3478 sq m w

r assembly a

ontractors en

ave been reg

keners, 3m to

158m2 size

ntry, various

anisms, up to

size

nts

o SR310-8 m

Structure

kshops to ma

in fabrication

nks and mec

with a covered

and storing o

ngaged on a

gularly produc

o 100m dia.,

e, in Carbon S

sizes, in Ca

o BQR1500

model

and Overv

anufacture w

n of stainless

chanisms and

d area of 592

of finished go

an as needed

cing the follo

in Carbon S

Steel & Stain

rbon Steel &

size.

view

orld class qu

s steel parts,

d other filtrat

25 sq m. The

oods. Current

d basis.

owing items :

teel & Stainle

nless Steel

Stainless St

P

uality produc

mild steel p

tion equipme

e uncovered

tly there are

:

ess Steel

teel

Page | 32

ts. These

arts,

ent.

area

36

‐ Gra

Tenova Del

Middle East

also been e

Mozambiqu

Thailand, A

avity Sand Fi

kor’s Banga

t and apart fr

exported to m

ue, Turkey, R

ustralia & US

lters

lore office re

rom supplyin

many oversea

Russia, Uzbe

SA.

epresents the

ng these mac

as customers

kistan, Saud

e territory of E

chines to ma

s in South Af

di Arabia, Iran

Europe, Cen

ny reputed In

frica, Zambia

n, Israel, Om

ntral Asia, No

ndian busine

a, Tanzania,

man, China, M

P

orth Africa an

ess houses, t

Madagasca

Morocco, Eng

Page | 33

nd the

they have

r,

gland,

Section 6.

6.1. Standa

6.2. Data S

6.3. GA Dra

- Appendic

ard Offer Co

heets

awing

es

onditions

PPage | 34

Project

Customer

Date

THICKENER DATASHEET

Drive Torque Values

Drive Designation GB100 Maximum Operating Torque 100% 101 kNm

Gearbox Model 314 L4 Normal Operating Torque 30% 30 kNm

Number of Gearboxes 1 Mechanical Design Torque 130% 131 kNm

Gearbox Type Planetary Structural Design Torque 150% 152 kNm

Weight of Drive 1752 kg Alarm & Rakelift Lowering Setpoint 50% 51 kNm

Ring Gear Required No Rakelift Activate Setpoint 65% 66 kNm

Ring Gear Diameter 0 mm Rakelift Stop 55% 56 kNm

Rakelift Travel 600 mm Rake Drive Motor Trip Torque 90% 91 kNm

Drive Dimensions (L x W x H) 1650-1720-2120 mm Hydraulic Pack Pressure Relief Valve 100% 91 kNm

Drive Transport Volume 7 m3Hydraulic Oil Bypass Value 105% 106 kNm

Motor Sizes Combined Motor Only

Drive Motor Size 4.0 kW Motor RPM 1460

Rakelift Motor Size 2.2 kW Frame Size 132M

Combined Drive/Rakelift Motor Size 7.5 kW Current - Full Load 14 A

Rake Speed 0.23 RPM Noise Level dB(A) 55

Motor Voltage 380 V Efficiency of Motor @ Speed Full 91.5

Motor Frequency 50 Hz 3/4 92.0

1/2 91.5

Pipe SizesFeedpipe 400 NS

Overflow Pipe 650 NS Gearbox/Hydraulics

U/F Pipe 90 NS Hydraulic Pump Size 15 L/min

Hydraulic Motor Size 250 cc/Rev

Tank/Launder Dimensions No. of Hydraulic Motors 1

Tank Sidewall Dimension 2400 mm Gearbox Ratio 256.0

Launder Height 600 mm Maximum Operating Pressure 143 Bar

Launder Width 375 mm

Tank Floor Slope Angle 9.00 Degrees Weights and Lifts

Tank Surface Area 154 m2Overall Weight of Tank Steelwork 21349 kg

Tank Overall Volume 398 m3Overall Weight of Bridge + Mech. 8504 kg

Heaviest Lift (Bridge + Drive) 6503 kg

Feedwell Dimensions Weight of Rakes + Torque Tube 1417 kg

Feedwell Diameter 3 m Weight of Feedwell + Feedpipe 2336 kg

Feedwell Depth 1600 mm Heaviest Maintenance Lift (Gearbox) 477 kg

Feedwell Retention Time 33 s

Autodilution Required No Forced Dilution

Required Not In Scope

Flocculant Information Total Dilution Flowrate Provided 0 m3/hr

Flocculant Consumption 1 kg/hr Number Of Mixers 0

Flocculant Concentration 0.050 % Motor Size 0 kW

Flocculant Main Pipe Size 15 NS

Number of Spargers 3

Flocculant Sparger Size #N/A NS

Flocculant Flowrate 1 m3/hr

Control Panel & InstrumentsControl Panel Junction Box

Panel Construction Carbon Steel

Panel Protection IP56/NEMA 4

Bed Level Sensor No Bed Level

Bed Mass Transmitter Endress & Hauser

Torque Transmitter Endress & Hauser

Rakelift Height Sensor Rosemount

Mamatwan

BHP Billiton

2015/06/22

FORM-CRK-103-001 Standard Offer Condition Page 1 of 4

TENOVA OFFER CONDITIONS The Offer is based on the following conditions, unless it is otherwise indicated in the Offer itself. 1.0 Offer Documents: The Offer price is based only on Tenova offer conditions and refers only to equipment/services described in Tenova offer documents. Any tender document issued by or on behalf of Buyer is not considered as a part of the Tenova offer documents. Any change to offer documents due to communications occurred via e-mail, facsimile, letters or minutes of meetings does not constitute a right of the Buyer for any decrease of the selling price and/or increase or reduction of equipment/services, unless it has been explicitly accepted by Tenova. Drawings/sketches annexed to the Tenova technical documentation are to be considered for reference only. 2.0 Price: The price in the specified currency is valid only for the entire scope of the Offer. Price does not include any tax, duties, contributions, excises and levies (including but not limited to VAT, income, profit, remittance, franchise, withholding taxes, custom duties, license & permit fees, tolls & tariffs of any description) related to equipment and services to be rendered in connection with the contract and levied either in Buyer’s country and/or in any country of origin of the goods related to the contract. 3.0 Unforeseeable Events: Any event not reasonably foreseeable by the date of offer submission (such as, but not limited to, unforeseeable physical conditions and/or difficulties, changes in legislation, political or civil commotions, abnormal changes in costs and in general fulfillment of requirements not previously discoverable) will entitle Tenova to claim a Variation, with adequate extension of time and price increase. 4.0 Validity of the Offer: The price is firm for 3 months from the Tenova Offer date. Thereafter the price will be increased by the industrial escalation rate of the country of origin of the major equipment, up to 6 six months from the offer date. After six months the offer is null and void. 5.0 Contract Effectiveness: The contract will be effective after its signature, receipt of advance payment and issuing of Letter/s of credit. Project time schedule starts at contract effectiveness. 6.0 Delivery: Equipment is delivered FOB; engineering is delivered DDU. Delivery will be according to Tenova proposed project time-schedule. Delivery of goods is in accordance to the relevant INCOTERMS definitions being at the time in force. 7.0 Schedule Shortening: The price is based on the Tenova time-schedule (works developed in single or double shift when necessary). If any acceleration of activities is requested by the Buyer or it is necessary to comply with the time-schedule, in case of delay not imputable to Tenova, the relevant extra costs will be born by the Buyer. 8.0 Subcontractors & Vendors: The Offer price is determined taking into consideration the submitted list of vendors & nominated subcontractors. In the absence of any such list, Tenova will select, at its sole discretion, reputable Companies on the basis of its previous experience in similar equipment and services. 9.0 Engineering prior to Contract Effectiveness: No engineering, study, survey or activity of any description related to the project will be part of the project obligations before Contract effectiveness. If such activities are requested by Buyer before Contract effectiveness, they will be included in a separate interim agreement. 10.0 Buyer’s Technical Documentation, Data and Information: Buyer will be fully responsible for the correctness and up-to-datedness of any data, drawing, information of any description submitted to Tenova, on the basis of which Tenova develops studies, engineering and technical documents in general. 11.0 Contract Milestones:

♦ PAC (Provisional Acceptance Certificate): the relevant certificate will be issued at the end of erection and start up of equipment (divided in plant sections if applicable). It will be deemed to have been issued after a fixed time from Contract effectiveness in case of delay not attributable to Tenova.


♦ FAC (Final Acceptance Certificate): the relevant certificate will be issued after successful completion of the performance tests or when the performance guarantees values are achieved in advance during demonstrated commissioning campaigns. The relevant certificate will deem to have been issued after a fixed time from PAC in case of delay not attributable to Tenova.

12.0 Payment Terms: (if not otherwise indicated in the Offer and valid for not financed proposals):

12.1 ENGINEERING; SUPPLY & SUPERVISION CONTRACT

♦ 25% of Contract Value (CV): Advance Payment - against a bank guarantee for the same amount, decreasing pro-quota shipment and cashable only after issue of L/C(s) by Buyer’s bank

♦ 70% CV pro quota deliveries of equipment / services, engineering and supervision paid by a L/C issued by an accepted first class bank

♦ 2.5 % CV at PAC, paid out of L/C

♦ 2.5% CV at FAC – against a bank guarantee for the same amount, valid up to the end of the Defect Liability Period, paid out of L/C

12.2 TURN KEY CONTRACT

A) Equipment and engineering

♦ 25% CV Advance Payment - against a bank guarantee for the same amount, decreasing pro-quota shipment and cashable only after issue of L/C(s) by Buyer’s bank

♦ 70% CV pro quota deliveries of equipment / engineering, paid out of a L/C issued by an accepted first class bank

♦ 2.5 % CV at PAC paid out of L/C

♦ 2.5% CV at FAC – against a bank guarantee for the same amount, valid up to the end of the Defect Liability Period, paid out of L/C.

B) Erection and services

♦ 25% CV Advance Payment – against a bank guarantee for the same amount and cashable only after issue of L/C(s) by Buyer’s bank

♦ 75% CV pro quota erection, supervision and training, paid out of a L/C issued by an accepted first class bank

13.0 Defect Liability Period: Equipment is warranted for a period of 12 months from PAC, or 18 months from the relevant FOB delivery date, or a fixed number of months from Contract Effectiveness, whichever occurs first. Consumables and normal wearing parts are excluded from warranty. 14.0 Liquidated Damages: They are sole remedy both for delay in delivery and shortcomings in performances.

♦ LD for delay: 0.25% per full week of the CV of the delayed portion, with a maximum of 5% CV, considering a 2-week grace period.

♦ LD for shortcomings in performances: to be mutually defined based on Tenova standard technical specifications. Equipment will be tested on the basis of internationally accepted standards and Tenova work instructions. Maximum LD for shortcomings in performances relevant to all the parameters subject to LD is 5% of the CV of the involved section (if applicable). Performance tests will be repeated up to three times in case of failure. No test on reliability and availability of performances are foreseen.

♦ Cumulated LD (LD for delays plus LD for shortcomings in performances): 7.5% of the CV


15.0 Liability: Max overall liability is 10% of CV. Max liability for faulty engineering is limited to re-drawing or re-calculating of the faulty portion. Tenova shall not be liable for any consequential, incidental, prospective, remote, special or speculative damages and/or indirect damages, expenses or losses, including loss of profit, loss of production, loss of any contract or anticipated savings or for any financing costs or increase in operating costs or for any other pure economic losses of similar nature and the like, unless caused by willful acts. 16.0 Contract Termination: In case of termination by Buyer’s default and/or convenience (or for any reason considered as such) Tenova shall be entitled to be paid for any work already carried out, to be reimbursed for any cost of plants, material, services already ordered in connection with the works, any cost or liability (including hedging costs) incurred in the expectation of completing the works, removal of any Tenova temporary works/equipment to be returned to destination, repatriation of any Tenova and/or subcontractor staff and repayment of a termination fee equal to 15% of the CV not already accrued (not including costs for termination). 17.0 Contract Suspension: Suspension of the Contract will entitle Tenova of adequate extension of project time-schedule and price increase. Suspensions by Client exceeding a cumulative period of 3 months entitle Tenova to renegotiate contract terms or at its sole discretion to terminate the contract for Buyer’s default. 18.0 Variations: Any change to the scope of work compared to what described in the technical specification (or equivalent document) must be agreed between the parties before it is carried out and entitles Tenova to price increase and time-schedule extension. 19.0 Confidentiality: The Buyer shall keep confidential for a period of 20 years from the date of submission, any technical documentation inclusive of any information related to Tenova technical knowledge, patented or proprietary technologies in general, in connection with the Contract equipment (including what it is submitted in the offer stage). 20.0 Free Issue Utilities & Services: Buyer will provide free of charge any utility (such as electrical power, water, gases and whatever else required), site offices (including telephone and e-mail and Internet connections) and reasonable facilities (first aid, medical staff and emergency services) for Tenova personnel, necessary to the development and safe execution of the work. 21.0 Inspections & Testing: Inspection & testing shall be carried out also in absence of Buyer’s representatives if not present after having received adequate notice from Tenova. Costs for Buyer’s inspectors and personnel in general (included salary, travel, accommodation and transport) at sub-suppliers’ and Tenova’s facilities as well as on site, including testing repetitions (if any), are at Buyer’s charge. 22.0 Environmental: Any not foreseeable costs incurred during the implementation of the works due to the presence on site or in the subsoil of hazardous material (including waste disposal) or hidden obstacles are excluded from Tenova scope. Any necessary project time-schedule extension and extra cost reimbursement must be granted to Tenova. Tenova-plant pollutant emissions are in line with the type and size of equipment and in line with the technology average-level; any issuing of related plant permit and any local environmental authority restriction are not Tenova responsibility and do not constitute a reason for contract termination. 23.0 Applicable Law and Competent Jurisdiction: The Offer is based on the application of the laws of a West European or Western country. Possible disputes which cannot be amicably settled shall be deferred to arbitration to be held in a West European or Western country according to the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce. 24.0 Insurance: The price does not include project specific insurance. Details (limit and guarantee) of the Corporate Liability policies are available upon request. 25.0 Engineering: Engineering is developed according to ISO standard in metric unit of measures. Any different standard can be adopted at a premium cost and after analyzing the project time-schedule impact.


In case Client approval is required, any comment by Client on Tenova submitted engineering-documents has to be received by Tenova within 15 days. 26.0 Contract Language: Any contract document as well as any communication will be in the English language. If a bilingual contract is requested, the English text will prevail on the second language in case of discrepancies. 27.0 Force Majeure: It is any event which is beyond the control of Buyer and Tenova (such as, but not limited to, war, hostilities, revolutions, civil disturbances, major strikes, riots or due to any law, order, regulation or ordinance of any competent authority, act of God or similar cause not under the control of the affected party). Causes of force majeure will postpone the contractual terms by a period of time at least equal to the duration of the event; however if this duration exceeds the cumulative period of 6 months Tenova will be entitled to renegotiate the contract conditions or at its sole discretion to terminate the contract considering it as a termination for Buyer’s convenience. 28.0 Licenses: All type of licenses for constructions and operation of the plant as well as any type of permit necessary to handle the equipment is not included in Tenova scope of work. 29.0 Patents: The design of any equipment or part of it covered by patent or copyright will be the exclusive property of Tenova. No permission to disclose details or performances of patented items is given to the Buyer. Proprietary equipment is sold without detail drawings; only general arrangement sketches and information necessary for maintenance are included in the scope of work. Control software of level 1 and 2 will be supplied compiled and without any source code, whose property remains with Tenova. 30.0 Spare Parts: Spare parts are included in the price only for commissioning of equipment. Spares will be available as requested by the Buyer for a period of up to 5 years from Contract Effectiveness.

CERTIFICATE

Tenova TAKRAF Africa

58 Emerald Parkway Road

Greenstone Hill, 1609

Johannesburg

South Africa

uMamt

Luüons

—-— ___z-_

Has implemented and maintains a Quality Management System.

Scope:Design, engineering, procurement, construction, after sales service and project management of

equipment and projects

Through an audit, documented in a report, it was verified that the Management System fulfils

the requirements of the following standard:

Iso 9001 : 2008

‘IL LAWRENCE MOR HAMCommissioner of Oaths

‘Atlomey of the High Court of South Afnca58 Emerald Parkway Road

Greensto’,e Hit, Ext 21Johannesburg 1609

Date

This is to certify that

Valid from

Valid until

Date of revision

Certificate registration no. 470831 QMO8

2012-04-11

2015-04-10

2014-10-16

DQS GmbH

( DAkkSDeutscneAkreditierungsstelleD-ZV-6374-Di-DO

GOtz Blechschmidt

_______________________

Managing Director

1RTIFIED A TRUE COAccredited Body, DOS GmbH, August.Schanz-StraRe 21, 60433 Frankfud am Main OF THE ORIGINALAdministrative Office DOS South Africa. P.O Box 672, Randburg 2125 . South Africa[...

I*****

** et*****

THE INTERNATIONAL CERTIFICATION NETWORK

CERTI FICATEIQNet and

DQS GmbH Deutsche Gesellschaft zur Zertifizierung von Managementsystemen

Ex Offil Commssoner Of OathsTenova TAKRAF Afric IT4ttomey ci the High Couri of South

hereby certify that the

58 Emerald Parkway RoadAfrica

Greenstone Hill, 1609 J0hsburg, 1609

South Africa Lam!O r

58 Emerald Parkway Road eflstofleHiIlE2__j

Johannesburg

Date

Has implemented and maintains a Quality Management

ORIGINAL

Scope:

Design, engineering, procurement, construction, after sales service and project management of equipment and

projects

Through an audit, documented in a report, it was verified that the Management System

fulfils the requirements of the following standard

Iso 9001 : 2008

Valid from 2012-04-11

Valid until 2015-04-10

Date of revision 2014-10-16

Registration number: DE-470831 QMO8

— I(44(4’Michael Drechsel Gdtz Blechschmidt

President of IQNet Managing Director of DQS GmbH

IQNet Partners*

AENOR Span AFNOR Certfication France AIB-Vinçotte International Be/gium ANCE-SIGE Meuico APCER Portuga!CCC Cyprus

CISQ Italy COC China CQM China CQS Czech Republic Cr0 Cert Croatia DOS Holding GmbH Germany

FCAV Brazi FONDONORMA Venezuela ICONTEC Colombia IMNC Mexico Inspecta Certitcation Finland RAM ArgentTha

JQA Japan KFQ Korea MIRTEC Greece MSZT Hungary NemkoAS Norway NSAI Ireland PCBC Poland

Qua ty Austr a Austria RR Russia Sli Israel SIQ Sloverria SIRIM QAS lnternatona. Malaysia

SQS Switzerland SRAC Rornania TEST St Petersburg Russia TSE Turkey YUQS Serbia

!QNet is represented 1 the USA by: AFNOR Certification CiSQ DOS Holding GmbH and NSAI nc

* The list of lQNet oartners is valid at the time of issue ot this certificate Updated information is available under www iqnet-certification corn

22m DIAMETER HIGH RATE THICKENER

THICKENER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN

MARAMPA - SIERRA LEONE - IRON ORE APPLICATION

PAGE 1 OF 18

TYPICAL EXAMPLE - FOR TENDER PURPOSES ONLY

OF 18

QUALITY CONTROL PLANPROJECT/TITLE : MARAMPA LONDON MINING

CLIENT : TENOVA DELKOR TAG No :

FABRICATOR : ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS :

CONTRACT/JOB No : ORDER No : 536001005 REV 0

AREA : DRAWING No :

DESCRIPTION : 22 m THICKENER TANK SHELL & LAUNDER REV :

QCP No : DBM 01 REV: 0

OP No DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES SPECIFICATION/ PROCEDUREDATA

BOOK

VERIFICATION /

DOCUMENTREMARKS INTERVENTION POINTS

1._ SIGN 2. T/D SIGN SIGN SIGN

1 APPROVE THIS QCP X M REVIEW & APPROVE H

2 APPROVE DRAWINGS GA M REVIEW & APPROVE H

3 APPROVE CONTRACT WPS's/PQR's/WQR's AWS D1.1 X M REVIEW & APPROVE H

4 REVIEW MATERIAL CERTIFICATES SABS1431 Gr300/350 X CERT. BATCH CERTIFICATES H

5 PROCURE & COLLECT MATERIAL DRWG./GA & BOM DETAILS MAT. CERT. TRACE ABILITY OF MAT. REQ. H

6MARK OF PLATE AND CUT TO REQUIRE SIZE &

ROLLDRGW. / GA DETAILS X ISP. REPORT SIGNIFY ON INSP. REPORT H

7 CARRY OUT RANDOM "FIT-UP" INSPECTION DRGW. / GA DETAILS X ISP. REPORT SIGNIFY ON INSP. REPORT H

8 CHECK ALL DIMENSIONS DRGW. / GA DETAILS X K SIGNIFY ON INSP. REPORT H

9REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES & DE-BURR ALL

HOLES (FETTLING)SANS 1200H F SIGNIFY ON INSP. REPORT H

10 HARD STAMP ALL ITEMS DRGW. / GA DETAILS F DELIVERY NOTE H

11OBTAIN NECESSARY RELEASE AFTER

INSPECTIONDRGW. / GA DETAILS X M

RELEASE NOTE / ALL

NCR'S & TQ'S CLOSED OUTH

12 RELEASE FOR SAND BLASTING & PAINTING DRGW. / GA DETAILS X INSP REPORT RELEASE NOTE H

13

COMPILE AND REVIEW & APPROVE FINAL QC

DATA PACKS, THEN HAND OVER TO CLIENT

FOR APPROVAL.

DATA PACK/DRAWING MREVIEW & APPROVE

APPROVED INDEXH

DATE: 25/02/13 TENOVA DELKOR DATE: DATE DATE

NAME: SIGN: NAME: SIGN: NAME: SIGN: NAME: SIGN:

LEGEND FOR INTERVENTION POINTS LEGEND VERIFICATION

H - HOLD POINT A - F - VISUAL CLASSIFICATION : MAJOR

W - WITNESS B - K - DIMENSIONAL

V - VERIFY C - M - OTHER

S - SURVEILLANCE X - ACTION

R - REPORT / CERTIFICATE


OF 18





AREA : DRAWING No :

DESCRIPTION : 22 m THICKENER FLOOR GORE REV :



BOOK

VERIFICATION /

















RELEASE NOTE / ALL



13



FOR APPROVAL.


APPROVED INDEXH










OF 18





AREA : DRAWING No :

DESCRIPTION : 22 m THICKENER OVERFLOW BOX & NOZZLE REV :



BOOK

VERIFICATION /











8 COMPLETE WELDING OF PLATES WPS F VISUAL INSPECTION H




11DO 100% VISUAL INSPECTION ON COMPLETE

WELDING & 10% MPIAWS D1.1 X F REPORT H




RELEASE NOTE / ALL NCR'S

& TQ'S CLOSED OUTH


15



FOR APPROVAL.


APPROVED INDEXH










OF 18





AREA : DRAWING No :

DESCRIPTION : 22 m THICKENER TOP RING REV :



BOOK

VERIFICATION /

















RELEASE NOTE / ALL



13



FOR APPROVAL.


APPROVED INDEXH










OF 18





AREA : DRAWING No :

DESCRIPTION : 22 m THICKENER FEEDWELL REV :



BOOK

VERIFICATION /





















& TQ'S CLOSED OUTH


15



FOR APPROVAL.


APPROVED INDEXH










OF 18





AREA : DRAWING No :

DESCRIPTION : 22 m THICKENER TORQUE TUBE & UNDERFLOW CONE SCRAPEREV :



BOOK

VERIFICATION /








6 MARK OF STEEL AND CUT TO REQUIRE SIZE DRGW. / GA DETAILS X ISP. REPORT SIGNIFY ON INSP. REPORT H


8 COMPLETE WELDING OF STEEL WPS F VISUAL INSPECTION H







13 TRAIL ASSEMBLY DRGW. / GA DETAILS K SIGNIFY ON INSP. REPORT H




& TQ'S CLOSED OUTH


16



FOR APPROVAL.


APPROVED INDEXH










OF 18





AREA : DRAWING No :

DESCRIPTION : 22 m UNDERFLOW CONE AND CENTER SUPPORT REV :



BOOK

VERIFICATION /
















WELDING 10% MPI & 10% UTIAWS D1.1 X F REPORT H





& TQ'S CLOSED OUTH


15



FOR APPROVAL.


APPROVED INDEXH










OF 18





AREA : DRAWING No :

DESCRIPTION : 22 m THICKENER COLUMNS & BRACES REV :



BOOK

VERIFICATION /





















& TQ'S CLOSED OUTH


16



FOR APPROVAL.


APPROVED INDEXH










OF 18





AREA : DRAWING No :

DESCRIPTION : 22 m THICKENER RAKES REV :



BOOK

VERIFICATION /



1 APPROVE THIS QCP 00-MDME-8D-PR-003 Rev A X M REVIEW & APPROVE H H

2 APPROVE DRAWINGS GAMDME-MES-056-REV0-DRG

RegisterM REVIEW & APPROVE H H

3 APPROVE CONTRACT WPS's/PQR's/WQR's AWS D1.1 X M REVIEW & APPROVE H H

4 REVIEW MATERIAL CERTIFICATES SABS1431 Gr300/350 X CERT. BATCH CERTIFICATES H V

5 PROCURE & COLLECT MATERIAL DRWG./GA & BOM DETAILS MAT. CERT. TRACE ABILITY OF MAT. REQ. H S

6 MARK OF STEEL AND CUT TO REQUIRE SIZE DRGW. / GA DETAILS X ISP. REPORT SIGNIFY ON INSP. REPORT H S

7 CARRY OUT RANDOM "FIT-UP" INSPECTION DRGW. / GA DETAILS X ISP. REPORT SIGNIFY ON INSP. REPORT H W

8 COMPLETE WELDING OF STEEL WPS F VISUAL INSPECTION H V

9 CHECK ALL DIMENSIONS DRGW. / GA DETAILS X K SIGNIFY ON INSP. REPORT H W


HOLES (FETTLING)SANS 1200H F SIGNIFY ON INSP. REPORT H S


WELDING & 10% MPIAWS D1.1 X F REPORT H W

12 HARD STAMP ALL ITEMS DRGW. / GA DETAILS F DELIVERY NOTE H S





& TQ'S CLOSED OUTH H

15 RELEASE FOR SAND BLASTING & PAINTING 1241E1-SEE-0002-REV2 X INSP REPORT RELEASE NOTE H H

16



FOR APPROVAL.


APPROVED INDEXH H










OF 18





AREA : DRAWING No :

DESCRIPTION : 22 m FEEDPIPE REV :



BOOK

VERIFICATION /



1 APPROVE THIS QCP 00-MDME-8D-PR-003 Rev A X M REVIEW & APPROVE H


RegisterM REVIEW & APPROVE H
















& TQ'S CLOSED OUTH

14 RELEASE FOR SAND BLASTING & PAINTING 1241E1-SEE-0002-REV2 X INSP REPORT RELEASE NOTE H

15



FOR APPROVAL.


APPROVED INDEXH










OF 18





AREA : DRAWING No :

DESCRIPTION : 22 m LIFTING FRAME REV :



BOOK

VERIFICATION /



1 APPROVE THIS QCP 00-MDME-8D-PR-003 Rev A X M REVIEW & APPROVE H


RegisterM REVIEW & APPROVE H












12 TRAIL ASSEMBLY DRGW. / GA DETAILS F / K RELEASE CERTIFICATE H





& TQ'S CLOSED OUTH

15 RELEASE FOR SAND BLASTING & PAINTING 1241E1-SEE-0002-REV2 X INSP REPORT RELEASE NOTE H

16



FOR APPROVAL.


APPROVED INDEXH










OF 18





AREA : DRAWING No :

DESCRIPTION : 22 m BRIDGE & WALKWAY REV :



BOOK

VERIFICATION /


1._ SIGN 2. T/D SIGN MDM SIGN ABG SIGN

1 APPROVE THIS QCP X M REVIEW & APPROVE H H H H

2 APPROVE DRAWINGS GA M REVIEW & APPROVE H H H H

3 APPROVE CONTRACT WPS's/PQR's/WQR's AWS D1.1 X M REVIEW & APPROVE H H H R

4 REVIEW MATERIAL CERTIFICATES SABS1431 Gr300/350 X CERT. BATCH CERTIFICATES H V V V

5 PROCURE & COLLECT MATERIAL DRWG./GA & BOM DETAILS MAT. CERT. TRACE ABILITY OF MAT. REQ. H S S S

6 MARK OF STEEL AND CUT TO REQUIRE SIZE DRGW. / GA DETAILS X ISP. REPORT SIGNIFY ON INSP. REPORT H S S S

7 CARRY OUT RANDOM "FIT-UP" INSPECTION DRGW. / GA DETAILS X ISP. REPORT SIGNIFY ON INSP. REPORT H W W W

8 COMPLETE WELDING OF STEEL WPS F VISUAL INSPECTION H V V S

9 CHECK ALL DIMENSIONS DRGW. / GA DETAILS X K SIGNIFY ON INSP. REPORT H W W V


HOLES (FETTLING)SANS 1200H F SIGNIFY ON INSP. REPORT H S S S


WELDING & 10% MPIAWS D1.1 X F REPORT H W W V

12 TRAIL ASSEMBLY DRGW. / GA DETAILS F / K RELEASE CERTIFICATE H W W W

13 HARD STAMP ALL ITEMS DRGW. / GA DETAILS F DELIVERY NOTE H S S S




& TQ'S CLOSED OUTH H H H

15 RELEASE FOR SAND BLASTING & PAINTING DRGW. / GA DETAILS X INSP REPORT RELEASE NOTE H H H H

16



FOR APPROVAL.


APPROVED INDEXH H H H










OF 18

QUALITY CONTROL PLAN 1._ 5

2. TENOVA DELKOR

3

4

QCPNO: DBM 13 REV 0 TAG:

CLIENT: TENOVA DELKOR JOB NO: DRAWING No's:

PROJECT: 22 m THICKENER MARAMPA DATE:25/04/2013

SPECIFICATION: ORD. NO:5360001005 REV 1

DESCRIPTION: PAINTING INTERNALS\

ITEM

NO PROCESS ACTIVITY

QUALITY STANDARDS

REQUIRED

RECORDS REQUIRED FOR

DATA BOOK 1 2 3 4 5 REMARKS

1 APPROVAL OF QCPH

2 RECEIVE PAINT & THINNERS

BATCH CERTIFICATES

REQ.FOR EACH PAINT

ORDER. CHECK THAT

CERTIFICATE PAINT IS

SUITABLE FOR APPL.

COPY THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE

H

3 RECEIVE MATERIALSCHECK THAT MATERIAL IS

READY FOR APPL.

CONTACT DANREC IF PROBLEM IS

DISCOVERED. ANY DAMAGES TO BE

CORRECTED PRIOR TO BLASTING

AND COATING H

4EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION

CERTIFICATES

CHECK IF HUMIDITY &

PAINT THICKNESS

EQUIPMENT ARE

CALIBRATED

COPY THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE H

5 HUMIDITY PRIOR TO SANDBLAST VISUAL INSPECTION REPORT. H

6ABRASIVE BLAST CLEAN TO Sa.

3SYSTEM PROFILE:50-75um INSPECTION REPORT.

H

7APPLY PRIMER CARBOGUARD

891 PIPE BLUE125 UM INSPECTION REPORT.

H

8APPLY FINAL CARBOGUARD 891

PIPE BLUE125 UM INSPECTION REPORT.

H

APPLY FINAL CARBOGUARD 892

BLACK125 UM INSPECTION REPORT.

9FINAL INSPECTION AND

RELEASE TO SITE

ALL SYSTEMS DFT 375 UM

MINIMUM, ALL NCR'S &

TQ'S CLOSED OUT.

APPROVED INDEX

INSPECTION REPORT.

H

10 DATA DOSSIERSAS PER ORDER

REQUIREMENTS H

1._ 2.TENOVA DELKOR 3 4 5

APPROVAL : APPR.: APPR.: APPR: APPR:

SIGNATURE: SIGN: SIGN: SIGN: SIGN:

DATE:25-02-13 DATE: DATE: DATE: DATE:LEGEND: C=CHECK H=HOLD I=INSPECT. S=SURVEILLANCE V=VERIFY W=WITNESS


OF 18


2. TENOVA DELKOR

3

4





DESCRIPTION: PAINTING EXTERNAL\

ITEM

NO PROCESS ACTIVITY

QUALITY STANDARDS

REQUIRED



1 APPROVAL OF QCPH


BATCH CERTIFICATES

REQ.FOR EACH PAINT

ORDER. CHECK THAT


SUITABLE FOR APPL.


H


READY FOR APPL.




AND COATING H


CERTIFICATES

CHECK IF HUMIDITY &

PAINT THICKNESS

EQUIPMENT ARE

CALIBRATED




2.5SYSTEM PROFILE:40-80um INSPECTION REPORT.

H

7 APPLY PRIMER 893 75 UM INSPECTION REPORT. H

8 APPLY FINAL 134 40 UM INSPECTION REPORT.


RELEASE TO SITE



TQ'S CLOSED OUT.

APPROVED INDEX

INSPECTION REPORT.

H


REQUIREMENTS H






OF 18


2. TENOVA DELKOR

3

4





DESCRIPTION: PAINTING PRIMER\

ITEM

NO PROCESS ACTIVITY

QUALITY STANDARDS

REQUIRED



1 APPROVAL OF QCPH


BATCH CERTIFICATES

REQ.FOR EACH PAINT

ORDER. CHECK THAT


SUITABLE FOR APPL.


H


READY FOR APPL.




AND COATING H


CERTIFICATES

CHECK IF HUMIDITY &

PAINT THICKNESS

EQUIPMENT ARE

CALIBRATED




2.5SYSTEM PROFILE:40-80um INSPECTION REPORT.

H

7 APPLY PRIMER 193 75 UM INSPECTION REPORT. H


RELEASE TO SITE



TQ'S CLOSED OUT.

APPROVED INDEX

INSPECTION REPORT.

H


REQUIREMENTS H






OF 18


2.TENOVA DELKOR

3

4





DESCRIPTION: FEED PIPES\

1._ 2._ 3. T/D

1 ORDER H H

2 H V

3 H V

4 H V

5 SIS 055900 H V

6 CARST & WALKER H V



10 SANS 1201 - 2005 H V

11 SANS 1201 - 2005 H V

12 H V

13 TS-11-001 H W

14 H W

15 ISO 813 H W

16 H H

17 H H

1._ 2._ 3.TENOVA DELKOR (T/D) 4 5

APPROVED BY: APPROVED BY: APPROVED BY: APPROVED BY: APPROVED BY:

DATE: 25/2/2013 DATE: 25/2/2013 DATE: DATE: DATE:

SIGN: SIGN: SIGN: SIGN: SIGN:

DESCRIPTION OF OPERATION / FUCTIONCONTROL ACTIVITIES

No: REQUIRED PROCEDURE /

SPECIFICATION

APPLY VS 05

APPLY VS 20

TEST PLATE PER DAY

PRE CURE INSPECTION

9RUBBER: BLACK TYPE 1, GRADE A, CLASS,

6mm

RUBBER TIE COAT 260

H V

S - SURVEILLANCE H - HOLD V - VERIVY W - HOLD R - REVIEW

TS-11-001

APPROVAL OF QCP

ISSUE JOB CARD

CHECK CLEANLINESS

HUMIDITY & TEMPERATURE

SANDBLAST SA 2.5

FINAL INSPECTION

DATA PACK

FINISH (BUFFING & TRIMMING)

HARDNESS 40 SHORE A

SPARK TEST / ADHESION PULL TEST

ADHESION PULL TEST


OF 18


2.TENOVA DELKOR

3

4





DESCRIPTION: FEEDWELL\

1._ 2._ 3. T/D

1 ORDER H H

2 H V

3 H V

4 H V

5 SIS 055900 H V




10 SANS 1201 - 2005 H V

11 SANS 1201 - 2005 H V

12 H V

13 TS-11-001 H W

14 H W

15 ISO 813 H W

16 H H

17 H H

1._ 2._ 3.TENOVA DELKOR 4 5

APPROVED BY: APPROVED BY: APPROVED BY: APPROVED BY: APPROVED BY:

DATE: 25/2/2013 DATE: 25/2/2013 DATE: DATE: DATE:

SIGN: SIGN: SIGN: SIGN: SIGN:

APPLY CHEMLOK 290

RUBBER TIE COAT 286

FINAL INSPECTION

DATA PACK

FINISH (BUFFING & TRIMMING)

HARDNESS 40 SHORE A

SPARK TEST / ADHESION PULL TEST

ADHESION PULL TEST

APPROVAL OF QCP

ISSUE JOB CARD

CHECK CLEANLINESS

HUMIDITY & TEMPERATURE

SANDBLAST SA 2.5

9RUBBER: BLACK TYPE 1, GRADE A, CLASS,

6mmH V

TEST PLATE PER DAY

PRE CURE INSPECTION

TS-11-001

CONTROL ACTIVITIESNo: REQUIRED

PROCEDURE /

SPECIFICATIONDESCRIPTION OF OPERATION / FUCTION

APPLY CHEMLOK 289

S - SURVEILLANCE H - HOLD V - VERIVY W - HOLD R - REVIEW



APPENDIX H

SEEPAGE AND SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS FIGURES

South 32

MAMATWAN TAILINGS STORAGE

FACILITY

Document No

301-00462/04

Rev

0.1

Date

03/07/2015

South 32 Mamatwan Mine 1 of 7 July 2015 TSF Report RI301-00462/04

Appendix H1 Seep and Slope Analysis cases of the Tailings Dam at the

final height

-4

0

4

Name: Case 1: Stabi l i ty_Seismic

F of S: 1.75

Distance

0 50 100 150 200

Ele

va

tio

n

1 090

1 095

1 100

1 105

1 110

1 115

1 120

-4

0

4

Name: Case 2: Stability

F of S: 1.67

Distance

0 50 100 150 200

Ele

vati

on

1 090

1 095

1 100

1 105

1 110

1 115

1 120

-4

0

4

Name: Case 1: Stability

F of S: 1.83

Distance

0 50 100 150 200

Ele

vati

on

1 090

1 095

1 100

1 105

1 110

1 115

1 120

South 32


FACILITY

Document No

301-00462/04

Rev

0.1

Date

03/07/2015


-4

0

4

Name: Case 3 : Slope StabilityF of S: 1.79

Distance

0 50 100 150 200

Ele

va

tio

n

1 090

1 095

1 100

1 105

1 110

1 115

1 120

-4

0

4

Name: Case4: StabilityF of S: 2.56

Distance

0 50 100 150 200

Ele

va

tion

1 090

1 095

1 100

1 105

1 110

1 115

1 120

-4

0

2

Name: Case5: Stability

F of S: 2.56

Distance (m)

0 50 100 150 200

Ele

vati

on

(m

)

1 090

1 095

1 100

1 105

1 110

1 115

South 32


FACILITY

Document No

301-00462/04

Rev

0.1

Date

03/07/2015


Appendix H2 Seep and Slope Analysis cases of the Tailings Dam

at 5m height

-2 0

2

Name: Case6: Stability

F of S: 3.15

Distance (m)

45 95 145 195

Ele

vation (m

)

1 090

1 095

1 100

1 105

1 110

3.05

-2

0

2

Name: Case7: Stabil ity

F of S: 3.05

Distance (m)

45 95 145 195

Ele

vatio

n (m

)

1 090

1 095

1 100

1 105

1 110

3.03

-2

0 2

Name: Case8: Stabi li ty

F of S: 3.03

Distance (m)

45 95 145 195

Ele

vation (m

)

1 090

1 095

1 100

1 105

1 110

South 32


FACILITY

Document No

301-00462/04

Rev

0.1

Date

03/07/2015


Appendix H3 Stability Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity Data

Material "CalcareousAeolian": Phi

Material "LooseAeolian": Phi

Material "Tailings":Phi

Material "Liner":Phi

Fa

cto

r o

f S

afe

ty

Sensitivity Range

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

-1 0 1

South 32


FACILITY

Document No

301-00462/04

Rev

0.1

Date

03/07/2015


Appendix H4 Hydraulic Conductivity of Materials

Fine Tailings, Ksat = 2.5e-08 m/s

Fine Tailings, Ksat =

2.5e-08 m/s

X-C

ond

uctivity

(m/s

ec)

Matric Suction (kPa)

1.0e-06

1.0e-19

1.0e-18

1.0e-17

1.0e-16

1.0e-15

1.0e-14

1.0e-13

1.0e-12

1.0e-11

1.0e-10

1.0e-09

1.0e-08

1.0e-07

Aeolian, Ksat =2.0e-6 m/s

Aeolian, Ksat =2.0e-6

m/s

X-C

ond

uctivity (

m/s

ec)


1.0e-05

1.0e-19

1.0e-18

1.0e-17

1.0e-16

1.0e-15

1.0e-14

1.0e-13

1.0e-12

1.0e-11

1.0e-10

1.0e-09

1.0e-08

1.0e-07

1.0e-06

South 32


FACILITY

Document No

301-00462/04

Rev

0.1

Date

03/07/2015


Calcareous Aeolian, Ksat = 1.e-07 m/s

Calcareous Aeolian,

Ksat = 1.e-07 m/s

X-C

ond

uctiv

ity

(m/s

ec)


1.0e-06

1.0e-19

1.0e-18

1.0e-17

1.0e-16

1.0e-15

1.0e-14

1.0e-13

1.0e-12

1.0e-11

1.0e-10

1.0e-09

1.0e-08

1.0e-07


APPENDIX I

PIPELINE AND PUMP DESIGN CALCULATIONS

SOUTH32 LIMITED

HOTAZEL MANGANESE MINES

MAMATWAN SLIMES HANDLING & BULK WATER STORAGE PROJECT

SLURRY PIPELINE AND PUMPS CALCULATIONS

JULY 2015

Prepared by:

Mohammed Sabi


Reviewed and

Approved by:

Siduduzo D. Dladla PrEng

Senior Civil Engineer – South Africa

Mamatwan Slimes Handling & Bulk Earth Storage Slurry Pipeline and Pump Selection

i of iv JUNE 2015

SOUTH32 LIMITED




TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1

2. SLURRY PIPELINE CALCULATION SUMMARY ........................................................................ 1

2.1. DESIGN CRITERIA ....................................................................................................................... 1

2.2. SLURRY DENSITY CALCULATION ............................................................................................. 2

2.3. FLOW RATE CALCULATION ....................................................................................................... 2

2.4. FLOW RATES AND VELOCITY CALCULATION ......................................................................... 2

2.5. CALCULATION OF THE TOTAL HEAD LOSS ............................................................................ 4

2.6. CHANGE IN TEMPERATURE ...................................................................................................... 4

2.7. SPIGOT VALUES ......................................................................................................................... 4

2.8. RECOMMENDED PIPELINE DIAMETER SIZE ........................................................................... 5

3. PUMP SELECTION FOR SLURRY PIPELINE ............................................................................. 5

3.1. PUMP SELECTION ...................................................................................................................... 5

3.2. RECOMMENDED PUMP .............................................................................................................. 6

4. PIPELINE FOR RWD TO PLANT CALCULATION SUMMARY ................................................... 7

4.1. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR MEASURED FLOW RATE .................................................................. 7

4.2. PIPELINE SELECTION FOR MEASURED FLOW RATE ............................................................ 7

4.3. PUMP RECOMMENDATION BASED ON MEASURED FLOW RATE ........................................ 7

FIGURES

Figure 3-1: Pump 1- KSB-LCC-R50-2302KGB ....................................................................................... 5

Figure 3-2: Pump 2- KSB-LCC-R50-2302EGB ....................................................................................... 6

TABLES

Table 2-1: Design Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 1

Table 2-2: Slurry Density ......................................................................................................................... 2

Table 2-3: Flow Rate for Different Time Periods..................................................................................... 2

Table 2-4: Flow Velocity for type of solid ................................................................................................ 2

Table 2-5: Dimensions for Selected Pipelines ........................................................................................ 3

Table 2-6: Pipeline Summary for 50% Solids Concentration by Mass ................................................... 3

Table 2-7: Pipeline Summary for 55% Solids Concentration by Mass ................................................... 4

Table 2-8: Spigot Data for SDR 17 ......................................................................................................... 4

Table 2-9: Spigot Data for SDR 13.6 ...................................................................................................... 4

Table 2-10: Recommended Pipeline Size ............................................................................................... 5

Table 4-1: Pipeline Summary .................................................................................................................. 7

Mamatwan Slimes Handling & Bulk Earth Storage Slurry Pipeline and Pump Selection

ii of iv JUNE 2015

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 SLURRY DENSITY CALCULATION FOR 50% SOLIDS BY WEIGHT

APPENDIX 2 VELOCITIES IN DIFFERENT PIPELINE SIZES

APPENDIX 3 CALCULATIONS FOR DIFFERENT RUNNING HOURS

APPENDIX 4 TOTAL HEAD CALCULATION APPENDIX 5 PUMP CURVES FOR SLURRY PIPELINE

APPENDIX 6 PUMP CURVE - RWD TO PLANT PIPELINE

Mamatwan Slimes Handling & Bulk Water Storage Project 1 of 7 JUNE 2015 Slurry Pipeline and Pump Selection

SOUTH32 LIMITED




1. INTRODUCTION

This Appendix presents a number of alternative options that have been considered for the

Slurry Pipeline and pumps to the Tailings storage facility.

The process of the pipe and pump selection is illustrated in this section to obtain the most

suitable pipe size and pump for the slurry pipeline to the TSF.

2. SLURRY PIPELINE CALCULATION SUMMARY

2.1. Design Criteria

The calculation to obtain the size of the required slurry pipeline is based on the following

information:

Table 2-1: Design Criteria

Criteria Value

Life of Mine, 19 yrs.

Tailings Solid Throughput 125 280 tpa

Tailings Solids SG 3,5

Minimum Tailings Slurry %w Solids

50%

Maximum Tailings Slurry %w Solids

55%

Water in tails (minimum), 14 m3/hr

Approximate Pipeline Length (m) 1000m


2.2. Slurry Density Calculation

From the design criteria in Table 2-2, the tailings slurry density is as follows:

Table 2-2: Slurry Density

50% - Tailings Slurry % Solids by weight 55 - Tailings Slurry % Solids by weight

Slurry Density – 1.56 t/m³ Slurry Density – 1.65 t/m³

The calculation for the slurry density and flow rate can be found in APPENDIX 1

2.3. Flow Rate Calculation

The calculation of the flow rate is included for both the slurry density of 1.56 t/m³ and 1.65

t/m³.

It must be noted that the pipeline will not be running continuously for 24 hours period. The

amount of time that the pipeline will be active affects the design of the pipeline in order to

meet the required throughput.

The flow rate was thus calculated for 4 different time intervals (8 hours, 10hours, 12 hours, 24

hours) for both densities.

The flow rates for the different densities and time intervals is summarised as in Table 2-3.

Table 2-3: Flow Rate for Different Time Periods

Pumping Period per day Flow Rate(m³/h) Slurry Density – 1.56

Flow Rate(m³/h) Slurry Density – 1.65

8 hours 70 61 10 hours 56 49 12 hours 47 41 24 hours 23 20

2.4. Flow Rates and Velocity Calculation

In transport systems for slurries it's important to avoid the solids to settle. This can be done by

keeping the velocity in the pipe line above a certain levels. The levels depend primarily on the

type and size of the particle as can be seen in Table 2-4.

Table 2-4: Flow Velocity for type of solid

Type of Solid Size of Solids (Sieve Size)(mm) Flow Velocity (m/s)

Fine 0.074> 1-1.5

Sand 0.074 - 0.841 1.5-2

Coarse 0.841 - 4.75 2-3.25

Sludge 3.25-4.25

(2002, WEIR Slurry Pumping Manual, First Edition)


The flow rate obtained in the previous section for the different slurry densities was used to

calculate the various velocities through various pipe sizes available in the industry. The result

of this would indicate which pipeline would return a velocity that would be within the

acceptable range.

The flow rate was then calculated and the velocities observed to find that the most suitable

diameter sizes that can be used for the pipeline are a 90mm or a 110mm Diameter pipeline.

This calculation can be seen in APPENDIX 2

The Pipe material selected for use in this pipeline is HDPE. Two Standard diameter Ratio

(SDR) pipes were used i.e SDR 17 and SDR 13.6 were used to assess the requirements of

the pipeline. It must be noted that pipes with a lower SDR the pipeline can withstand higher

pressures.

The dimensions for the selected pipes are listed in Table 2-5.

Table 2-5: Dimensions for Selected Pipelines

SDR 17 SDR 17 SDR 13,6 SDR 13,6

Outer Diameter(mm) 90mm 110mm 90mm 110mm

Inner Diameter(mm) 79mm 96mm 76mm 93mm

For the type of Slurry that we have flowing through the pipe it was decided based on the

results obtained that an acceptable flow rate of would range between 1-2m/s.

The velocity for the pipeline was conducted through both the 90mm and the 110mm pipeline

for either of the SDR pipes. This included a calculation for each of the time intervals/Flow

rates specified before.

Any values that exceeded the 2m/s velocity were excluded and the most suitable pipeline was

selected. The pipeline however is greatly dependent on the Tailings Slurry % Solids by weight

and taking this into consideration the most suitable pipeline information is summarised in

Table 2-6 and Table 2-7.

Table 2-6: Pipeline Summary for 50% Solids Concentration by Mass

% solids concentration by mass 50

Slurry Density 1,56

Hours Per Day: 12

PE 80 SDR 17

Outer Diameter(mm) 110

Inner Diameter(mm) 96

Flow rate (m³/h) 47

Velocity(m/s) 1,803

Head(m) 26


Table 2-7: Pipeline Summary for 55% Solids Concentration by Mass

A further summary of the other calculations that were done can be found in APPENDIX 3.

2.5. Calculation of the Total Head loss

The calculation of the total head loss within the pipeline is illustrated in APPENDIX 4

2.6. Change in Temperature

Calculations conducted for temperatures 25 ̊C, 30 ̊C, 35 ̊C and 40 ̊C indicate that there will not be any significant change in the Total head loss of the system.

2.7. Spigot Values

The calculation done was based on a number of 10 spigots. A similar procedure was followed

as when selecting the pipeline. The velocity was calculated for various pipelines available in

the industry for both SDR 17 and SDR 13.6. These calculations can be seen in APPENDIX 5.

Table 2-8 and Table 2-9 summarise the Spigot values.

Table 2-8: Spigot Data for SDR 17

Flow = 0,007 cu.m/s SDR 17

OD Wall

Thickness ID Area Velocity 1 Spigot (m/s) Velocity 10 Spigots (m/s)

0,075 0,005 0,065 0,0033 1,9667 0,1966

0,090 0,006 0,079 0,0049 1,3314 0,1331

0,110 0,007 0,096 0,0072 0,9016 0,0901

Table 2-9: Spigot Data for SDR 13.6

Flow = 0,007 cu.m/s SDR 13,6

OD Wall

Thickness ID Area Velocity 1 Spigot (m/s) Velocity 10 Spigots (m/s)

0,075 0,006 0,063 0,0031 2,0936 0,2093

0,090 0,007 0,076 0,0045 1,4386 0,1438

0,110 0,009 0,093 0,0068 0,9607 0,09607

solids concentration by mass 55

Slurry Density 1,65

Hours Per Day: 12

PE 80 SDR 17

Outer Diameter(mm) 110

Inner Diameter(mm) 96

Flow rate (m³/h) 41

Velocity(m/s) 1,565

Head(m) 19


2.8. Recommended Pipeline Diameter Size

The Recommended size for the slurry pipeline is summarised in Table 2-10

Table 2-10: Recommended Pipeline Size

Description Value

SDR 17

Outer Diameter 110mm

Inner Diameter 96mm

3. PUMP SELECTION FOR SLURRY PIPELINE

3.1. Pump Selection

Based on the recommended pipeline information from Table 2-10, 2 suitable pumps have been

selected. The Details of the pumps are summarised in Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2.

Figure 3-1: Pump 1- KSB-LCC-R50-2302KGB


Figure 3-2: Pump 2- KSB-LCC-R50-2302EGB

Both Pumps will be able to perform the required task, there however some noticeable differences with

Pump 2.

Pump 2

Requires higher power to run

Can achieve a greater flow rate

Caters for lower head at higher flow rates compared to pump 1 (Not Required in this instance)

Through the comparison the choice of the KSB- LCC-R50-2302KGB would be the suggested choice for

this pipeline.

It is also recommended that there should be a 100% standby for this pump in case of failure of the main

pump. This will allow the slurry to be pumped after one of the pumps has failed.

It is also required that there is a NPSH of 1.3m for either of the pumps.

The Relevant pump curves can be found in the APPENDIX 6.

3.2. Recommended Pump

The pump recommended for the pipeline is the KSB-LCC-R50-2302KGB as discussed in section 3.1

above.


4. PIPELINE FOR RWD TO PLANT CALCULATION SUMMARY

4.1. Design Criteria for measured flow rate

Criteria Value

Measured Flow Rate 0.0398 m³/s

Length of Pipeline 1000m

Method used for head loss calculation Darcy

Weisbach

Darcy roughness factor 0.007

4.2. Pipeline selection for measured flow rate

Table 4-1: Pipeline Summary

SDR 17 PE 80

Outer Diameter

(m)

Inner Diameter

(m)

Pipe area

(m²)

Velocity

(m/s)

Frictional head

loss (m)

static head

(m)

total head

(m)

0,2500 0,2204 0,0382 1,0434 3,7496 5 8,7496

4.3. Pump Recommendation based on measured flow rate

The Following pump is recommended based on the calculations performed

Manufacturer: KSB

Model: ETANORM 125-100-200

The Pump Curve can be found in APPENDIX 6

Mamatwan Slimes Handling & Bulk Water Storage Project Slurry Pipeline and Pump Selection RI301-00462/04-R1

APPENDIX 1

SLURRY DENSITY CALCULATION FOR 50% SOLIDS BY WEIGHT

Table 1 - Slurry Density Calculation for 50% solids by weight

Solids specific gravity 3,5

Solids volume m³/mon 2 983

% solids by weight % 50 Slurry (solids + water) t/mon 20 880 water tonnages t/mon 10 440

Underflow water volume pumped to TSF/ belt filter m³/mon 10 440 Total Volume pumped to TSF (Solids and water) m³/mon 13 423

Slurry Density t/m³ 1,56

Table 2 - Slurry Density Calculation for 55% solids by weight

Solids specific gravity 3,5

Solids volume m³/mon 2 983

% solids by weight % 55

Slurry (solids + water) t/mon 18 982

water tonnages t/mon 8 542

Underflow water volume pumped to TSF/ belt filter m3/mon 8 542

Total Volume pumped to TSF (Solids and water) m3/mon 11 525

Slurry Density t/m3 1,65

Table 3 –Calculation of Slurry Information and Flow Rate for 50% solids by weight

1 INPUT DATA:

Parameter Symbol Units Value

Solids Density (SG) S t/m3 1,56

Solids Concentration by Mass Cw % 50,00

Mass flow rate Ms t/h 14,30

OUTPUT:


Slurry Density Sm t/m3 1,217

Water Flow Rate

Mw m3/h 14

Mw l/s 4

Slurry Flow Rate

Q m3/h 23

Q l/s 7

Solids Concentration by Volume Cv % 39,130


2 INPUT DATA:




OUTPUT:


Solids Concentration Cw % 50,000


3 INPUT DATA:




Mass flow rate Ms t/h 14,30

OUTPUT:


Slurry Flow Rate

Q m3/h 23

Q l/s 7

Solids Concentration Cw % 50,000


Water Flow Rate

Mw m3/h 14

Mw l/s 4


APPENDIX 2

VELOCITIES IN DIFFERENT PIPELINE SIZES

Table 1 - Velocity in different pipeline sizes (SDR 17)

Table 2 - Velocity in different pipeline sizes (SDR 13.6)

SDR 17

OD(m) Wall thickness (m) ID(m) Flow Area (m²) Velocity )m/s)

0,025

0,032 0,002 0,028 0,001 18,391

0,040 0,003 0,035 0,001 11,770

0,050 0,003 0,044 0,002 7,448

0,063 0,004 0,055 0,002 4,767

0,075 0,005 0,065 0,003 3,413

0,090 0,006 0,079 0,005 2,310

0,110 0,007 0,096 0,007 1,565

0,125 0,008 0,109 0,009 1,214

0,140 0,009 0,122 0,012 0,969

0,160 0,010 0,140 0,015 0,736

0,180 0,012 0,157 0,019 0,585

0,200 0,013 0,175 0,024 0,471

0,225 0,014 0,197 0,030 0,372

0,250 0,016 0,219 0,038 0,301

0,280 0,018 0,245 0,047 0,240

0,315 0,020 0,276 0,060 0,189

0,355 0,022 0,311 0,076 0,149

0,400 0,025 0,350 0,096 0,118

0,450 0,028 0,394 0,122 0,093

0,500 0,031 0,438 0,151 0,075

0,560 0,035 0,490 0,189 0,060

0,630 0,040 0,551 0,238 0,047

SDR 13,6

OD(m) Wall thickness (m) ID(m) Flow Area (m²) Velocity )m/s)

0,025 0,002 0,021 0,000 32,696

0,032 0,003 0,027 0,001 19,779

0,040 0,003 0,034 0,001 12,473

0,050 0,004 0,042 0,001 8,174

0,063 0,005 0,053 0,002 5,133

0,075 0,006 0,063 0,003 3,633

0,090 0,007 0,076 0,005 2,496

0,110 0,009 0,093 0,007 1,667

0,125 0,010 0,106 0,009 1,283

0,140 0,011 0,118 0,011 1,036

0,160 0,013 0,135 0,014 0,791

0,180 0,014 0,152 0,018 0,624

0,200 0,016 0,169 0,022 0,505

0,225 0,018 0,190 0,028 0,399

0,250 0,020 0,211 0,035 0,324

0,280 0,022 0,237 0,044 0,257

0,315 0,025 0,266 0,056 0,204

0,355 0,028 0,300 0,071 0,160

0,400 0,032 0,338 0,090 0,126

0,450 0,036 0,380 0,113 0,100

0,500 0,040 0,423 0,141 0,081

0,560 0,044 0,473 0,176 0,064

0,630 0,050 0,533 0,223 0,051


The Following table is a list of the industry available pipelines.


APPENDIX 3

CALCULATIONS FOR DIFFERENT RUNNING HOURS

Table 1 – Calculation of Total Head (8 hours/50% solids by mass)


Slurry Density 1,56

Hours Per Day: 8

SDR 17 SDR 17 SDR 13,6 SDR 13,6

Outer Diameter(mm) 90 110 90 110

Inner Diameter(mm) 79 96 76 93

Flow rate (m³/h) 70 70 70 70

Velocity(m/s) 3,994 2,705 4,316 2,882

Head(m) 129 51 155 60

Table 2– Calculation of Total Head (10 hours/50% solids by mass)


Slurry Density 1,56

Hours Per Day: 10

SDR 17 SDR 17 SDR 13,6 SDR 13,6



Flow rate (m³/h) 56 56 56 56

Velocity(m/s) 3,196 2,164 3,453 2,306

Head(m) 87 35 104 40



Slurry Density 1,56

Hours Per Day: 12

SDR 17 SDR 17 SDR 13,6 SDR 13,6



Flow rate (m³/h) 47 47 47 47

Velocity(m/s) 2,663 1,803 2,877 1,922

Head(m) 63 26 75 29




Slurry Density 1,56

Hours Per Day: 24

SDR 17 SDR 17 SDR 13,6 SDR 13,6



Flow rate (m³/h) 23 23 23 23

Velocity(m/s) 1,331 0,902 1,439 0,96

Head(m) 19 26 23 10



Slurry Density 1,65

Hours Per Day: 8

SDR 17 SDR 17 SDR 13,6 SDR 13,6



Flow rate (m³/h) 61 61 61 61

Velocity(m/s) 3,446 2,347 3,744 2,501

Head(m) 96 38 115 44



Slurry Density 1,65

Hours Per Day: 10

SDR 17 SDR 17 SDR 13,6 SDR 13,6



Flow rate (m³/h) 49 49 49 49

Velocity(m/s) 2,772 1,877 2,996 2

Head(m) 64 26 77 30




Slurry Density 1,65

Hours Per Day: 12

SDR 17 SDR 17 SDR 13,6 SDR 13,6



Flow rate (m³/h) 41 41 41 41

Velocity(m/s) 2,31 1,565 2,496 1,667

Head(m) 47 19 56 22



Slurry Density 1,65

Hours Per Day: 24

SDR 17 SDR 17 SDR 13,6 SDR 13,6



Flow rate (m³/h) 20 20 20 20

Velocity(m/s) 1,155 0,782 1,248 0,834

Head(m) 15 7 17 8


APPENDIX 4 TOTAL HEAD CALCULATION

The following below is the procedure in which the total head for the pipeline was calculated. NB: This is an example of the calculation that was done for running the pipeline for 12 hours with a 55% Tailings Slurry % Solids by weight.

Table 1 - Input

Pipeline Length 1000 m

Pipeline Length 1000 m Solids Conc by mass 55 %

Re 187 248

Pump Elevation 1106 masl Discharge Elevation 1107 masl

Table 2 – Values obtained from calculations

Q 41 m3/hr

f 0,0039

Sm 1276 kg/m3

(∆P/∆L)w 0,2008

Cv 0,258555

g 9,81

ID 0,096

ρs 3500 kg/m3

ρw 998,6 kg/m3

v 1,565 m/s

CD 120555,35

d50 0,000005 m

uw 0,000801 Pas

d* 0,168

Vts* 0,00158

Vts 0,000043 m/s

Rep 0,0002

Vt 0,000032 75%


Option 1 Vts

* 0,0016 m/s for d* < 4 - Stokes Law

Option 2 Vts

* 0,0354 m/s for 4< d* < 70 - Allen's Law

Option 3 Vts

* 0,7136 m/s for d* > 70 - Newtons Law

Option 1 Vts 0,000043 m/s Option 2 Vts 0,000955 m/s Option 3 Vts 0,019276 m/s

Option 1 Rep 0,0003 Option 2 Rep 0,0060 Option 3 Rep 0,1202 Option 4 Rep 9,7525

Based on Velocity of the slurry

Option 1 CD 90416,51 Option 2 CD 4030,88 Option 3 CD 40,39 Option 4 CD 4,48

Slope (10%) 0,01724138

Table 3 – Values obtained from calculations

∆P/∆L 0,201 kPa/m

jm 0,01610 m/m

HGL 16 m

TH 17 m RL

Total Head(10%) 19,000 m RL


APPENDIX 5 SPIGOT CALCULATION

Table 1- Spigot calculation for different pipeline diameters(SDR17)

Number of spigots: 10

Flow = 0,007 cu.m/s SDR 17

OD Wall Thickness ID Area Velocity 1 Spigot (m/s) Velocity 10

Spigots (m/s)

0,050 0,003 0,044 0,0015 4,292197564 0,429219756

0,063 0,004 0,055 0,0024 2,747006441 0,274700644

0,075 0,005 0,065 0,0033 1,966791594 0,196679159

0,090 0,006 0,079 0,0049 1,331468432 0,133146843

0,110 0,007 0,096 0,0072 0,901659558 0,090165956

0,125 0,008 0,109 0,0093 0,69941036 0,069941036

0,140 0,009 0,122 0,0117 0,55829713 0,055829713

Table 2- Spigot calculation for different pipeline diameters(SDR13.6)

Flow = 0,007 cu.m/s SDR 13,6

OD Wall

Thickness ID Area Velocity 1 Spigot (m/s) Velocity 10 Spigots

(m/s)

0,050 0,004 0,042 0,0014 4,710711159 0,471071116

0,063 0,005 0,053 0,0022 2,958239404 0,29582394

0,075 0,006 0,063 0,0031 2,093649404 0,20936494

0,090 0,007 0,076 0,0045 1,438659017 0,143865902

0,110 0,009 0,093 0,0068 0,960769394 0,096076939

0,125 0,010 0,106 0,0088 0,739559851 0,073955985

0,140 0,011 0,118 0,0109 0,59678932 0,059678932


APPENDIX 5 PUMP CURVES FOR SLURRY PIPELINE

PUMP 1- PUMP CURVE: LCC-R50-2302KGB


PUMP 2 - PUMP CURVE: LCC-R50-2302EGB


APPENDIX 6

PUMP CURVE - RWD TO PLANT PIPELINE

Pump Curve: KSB ETANORM 125-100-200


APPENDIX J

WATER BALANCE DIAGRAMS AND INFORMATION

MAMATWAN SLIMES HANDLING BULK WATER STORAGE PROJECT

Mamatwan Water Balance (With TSF)Period: Average Wet Season 0

Units: m3/month978

Source 58 In Out SinkRainfall RWD 29 Evaporation

58 1 007 1 007 29

949Source 2 113 In Out Sink

Rainfall TSFEvaporation/ seepage/Interstitial Lock-Up

2 113 58 865 8 000 8 000 7 051

3 480 SinkIn Out Product

59 479 OPP 3 48059 479 59 479 55 999 5 886

In OutThickener

58 865 64 751 64 751978

Source 23 463 In Out 80 479 18 830 In Out 8 752 0 SinkMunicipal Process Water Tank 0 DMS Evaporation

24 917 88 055 88 055 18 830 18 830 10 077 10 0777 576

88 0550 2 170 In Out Sink

1 455 0 Sinter Product

In Out 2 170 2 170 2 170 2 170

Aqua Tank

0 0 In Out Product Sink

455 3 152 3 969 7 576 7 576 7 576

In Out Sink

Domestic & Workshop Sewage 1 455

1 455 1 455

Sink0 In Out Total Loss 0

4 750 Adams Pit0 0

Source In Out SinkRainfall Bulk Storage Dam Evaporation

599 5 049 5 049 299In Out

South Pit4 450 4 450

4 450

0Source

Ground Water4 450 4 450

total 32 138 Total 32 138

Gooseneck , Inpit Crusher ,Garden Fire

MAMATWAN SLIMES HANDLING BULK WATER STORAGE PROJECT

Mamatwan Water Balance (With TSF)Period: Average Dry Season 0

Units: m3/month1 998

Source 11 In Out SinkRainfall RWD 6 Evaporation

11 2 004 2 004 6

1 993Source 412 In Out Sink

Rainfall TSFEvaporation/ seepage/Interstitial Lock-Up

412 58 865 6 298 6 298 4 306

3 480 SinkIn Out Product

59 479 OPP 3 48059 479 59 479 55 999 5 886

In OutThickener

58 865 64 751 64 7511 998

Source 21 993 In Out 80 479 18 830 In Out 8 752 0 SinkMunicipal Process Water Tank 0 DMS Evaporation

23 234 87 491 87 491 18 830 18 830 10 077 10 0777 012

87 4910 2 170 In Out Sink

1 241 0 Sinter Product

In Out 2 170 2 170 2 170 2 170

Aqua Tank

0 0 In Out Product Sink

24 2 926 4 063 7 012 7 012 7 012

In Out Sink

Domestic & Workshop Sewage 1 241

1 241 1 241

Sink0 In Out Total Loss 0

4 635 Adams Pit0 0

Source In Out SinkRainfall Bulk Storage Dam Evaporation

117 4 694 4 694 58In Out

South Pit4 577 4 577

4 577

0Source

Ground Water4 577 4 577

total 28 351 Total 28 351

Gooseneck , Inpit Crusher ,Garden Fire

Flow Readings at Mamatwan Mine

Flow to

Pipe specifications Flow

Rate

(m3/h)

Velocity

(m/s) Comment

Outer

Diameter

(mm)

Wall

Thickness

(mm)

Material

Fire Hydrant 50 2,5 PVC 4.5 0,235 Reading taken in the

vicinity of pump station

Inpit/Garden 50 2,5 PVC 0,2 0,054 Reading taken in the


DMS and Sinter process 200 4 PVC 55.8 0.535 Reading taken in the


Portable/drinking water

to Sinter/DMS 50 2 PVC 0.6 0.116

Reading taken in the


Inpit/ sinter

portable/drinking water 75 3,5 PVC 2,5 0,197 From pump station

Thickener/Sinter 50 2,5 PVC 0,5 0,102 Leaking pipe

EVA: change house,

store, workshop, office

block

75 2,5 PVC 11,2 0,8038 Connected to a pressure

vessel

Process water Fire hose

reel 50 2,5 PVC 2,0 0,352

Reading taken in the


Aqua Tanks 250 22 PVC 143.3 1.194 Reading taken in the

vicinity of the tanks

No readings could be taken for all steel pipes, as a result of unknown lining inside the pipes, too

frequent signal fluctuations (too irregular flow) and or incorrect pipe specifications.

The inlet (from source) steel pipes at the pump station were housed in a steel tube, only the outlet

PVC pipes could be measured


APPENDIX K

BILL OF QUANTITIES

Mamatwan Tailings Storage Facility

Schedule of Quantities

Revision 0

DESCRIPTION

30% of the total cost of the project

TOTAL SECTION 1

DESCRIPTION

SITE CLEARANCE

EARTHWORKS AND EXCAVATION

CATWALK

DRAINAGE

CONCRETE STRUCTURES

DESIGN, SELECTION AND INSTALLATION

OF GEOMEMBRANE

PIPEWORK

MANHOLE

MICELLANEOUS

TOTAL SECTION 2

GRAND TOTAL (EXCLUDING VAT)

MAIN COST SUMMARY


SECTION 1 AMOUNT (1 PADDOCK) AMOUNT (2 PADDOCKS)

1.1 R 5 693 850.59 R 5 801 129.99

R 5 693 850.59 R 5 801 129.99

SECTION 2: TAILINGS STORAGE FACILITY (including dams and silt trap)

SECTION 2 AMOUNT (1 PADDOCK) AMOUNT (2 PADDOCKS)

2.1 R 858 600.00 R 858 600.00

2.2 R 4 100 643.96 R 4 405 566.96

2.3 R 306 300.00 R 570 400.00

2.4 R 1 818 060.00 R 1 749 860.00

2.5 R 240 963.00 R 297 313.00

2.6R 11 136 555.00 R 10 772 730.00

2.7 R 953 938.00 R 1 118 188.00

2.8 R 1 080.00 R 1 080.00

R 19 838 101.96 R 20 195 699.96

R 25 531 952.55 R 25 996 829.95

2.9 R 421 962.00 R 421 962.00

Mamatwan Mine

RI301-00462/04 July 2015



Revision 0

ItemPay Ref

Description UnitQuantity-

1Paddock

Quantity-

2PaddocksRate

Amount-

1Paddock

Amount-

2Paddocks

1SANS SECTION 1 : PRELIMINARY & GENERAL

1.1 30% of the total cost of the project Sum R 5 693 851 R 5 801 130

TOTAL CARRIED TO SUMMARY R 5 693 851 R 5 801 130


Mamatwan Mine

RI301-00462/04 1/23 July 2015



Revision 0

ItemPay Ref


1Paddock

Quantity-

2PaddocksRate

Amount-

1Paddock

Amount-

2Paddocks

2.1SANS

1200D SITE CLEARANCE

2.1.1

Clear and grub site, including removal of trees up to

1.5 m girth (spoil to be spread neatly within 2 km

freehaul as directed by Engineer):

2.1.1.1

Tailings dam area (incl. tailings dam basin, starter

wall, catchment paddocks, perimeter access road

and silt trap areas)

ha 14 14 R 13 000 R 182 000 R 182 000

2.1.1.2

Return water, storm water and bulk water storage

dam area ( incl. dam basins, dam walls and pump

platform areas)

ha 2.2 2.2 R 13 000 R 28 600 R 28 600

2.1.2

Remove topsoil to a depth of 150mm, or specified

by the Engineer, and stockpile within 2 km freehaul

to a maximum height of 4m as directed by the

Engineer :

2.1.2.1

Tailings dam area (incl. tailings dam basin, starter

wall, catchment paddocks, solution trench, and

perimeter access road areas)m

2 18700 18700 R 30 R 561 000 R 561 000

2.1.2.2

Return water, storm water and bulk water storage

dam area ( incl. dam basins, dam walls and pump

platform areas)m

2 2900 2900 R 30 R 87 000 R 87 000

TOTAL CARRIED TO SUMMARY R 858 600 R 858 600

SECTION 2: Tailings Storage Facility

Mamatwan Mine

RI301-00462/04 2/23 July 2015



Revision 0

ItemPay Ref


1Paddock

Quantity-

2PaddocksRate

Amount-

1Paddock

Amount-

2Paddocks

2.2 SANS

1200D EARTHWORKS AND EXCAVATION

2.2.1

Restricted excavation in Class A material. Material

to be used for backfill, stockpile, fill, construction of

embankments or disposed as directed by the

Engineer within 2 km freehaul. (Rate to allow for

load, haul, place, shoring, max vertical excavation

1.5 m, cutting back, dewatering etc.):

2.2.1.1 Decant tower foundation m3 6 12 R 50 R 300 R 600

2.2.1.2 Anchor trench around the tailings dam m3 270 260 R 80 R 21 600 R 20 800

2.2.1.3Anchor trench around the return water, storm water

and bulk water storage damm

3

210 210 R 80 R 16 800 R 16 800

2.2.1.4Narrow trench for the surrounding 160mm HDPE

Drainex collection pipe linem

3

140 140 R 80 R 11 200 R 11 200

2.2.1.5Narrow trench for the 110mm HDPE Kabelflex

seepage collection pipe m

3

30 30 R 80 R 2 400 R 2 400

2.2.1.6 Silt trap m3 90 90 R 50 R 4 500 R 4 500

2.2.1.7 Man hole m3 4 4 R 50 R 214 R 214

TOTAL CARRIED FORWARD R 57 014 R 56 514


Mamatwan Mine

RI301-00462/04 3/23 July 2015



Revision 0

ItemPay Ref


1Paddock

Quantity-

2PaddocksRate

Amount-

1Paddock

Amount-

2Paddocks

TOTAL BROUGHT FORWARD R 57 014 R 56 514

2.2.1.8Spillway channel from the silt trap to the return water

damm

3 10 10 R 50 R500.00 R 500

2.2.1.9Spillway channel from the return water dam to the

storm water damm

3 10 10 R 50 R500.00 R 500

2.2.1.10Spillway channel from the storm water dam to the

bulkwater storage damm

3 10 10 R 50 R 500 R 500

2.2.1.11Narrow widths for the concrete anchor blocks

around the damm

3 5 5 R 80 R 400 R 400

2.2.2

Bulk excavation in Class A material. Material to be

used for backfill, stockpile, fill, construction of

embankments or disposed as directed by the

Engineer within 2 km freehaul. (Rate to allow for

load, haul, place, cutting back, dewatering etc.)

2.2.2.1Unsuitable material under impoundment wall

footprint (500mm deep)m

3 10640 11243 R 25 R 266 000 R 281 075

2.2.2.2Return water, storm water and bulk water storage

damm

3 34420 34420 R 30 R 1 032 600 R 1 032 600

2.2.3Extra over Item 2.2.1 & 2.2.2 for excavation in class

B materialm

3 rate only rate only

TOTAL CARRIED FORWARD R 1 357 514 R 1 372 089


Mamatwan Mine

RI301-00462/04 4/23 July 2015



Revision 0

ItemPay Ref


1Paddock

Quantity-

2PaddocksRate

Amount-

1Paddock

Amount-

2Paddocks

TOTAL BROUGHT FORWARD R 1 357 514 R 1 372 089

2.2.4

Base preparation of insitu material (Rip and

Recompact or Compact only as specified by

Engineer) to:

2.2.4.1 Tailings storage facility basin (300mm) m2 82400 79036 R 5 R 412 000 R 395 180

2.2.4.2Starter wall embankment (500mm, 100% Proctor)

m2

21270 22486 R 7 R 148 890 R 157 402

2.2.4.3 Perimeter road (95% Proctor) m2 8980 8980 R 7 R 62 860 R 62 860

2.2.4.4Silt trap, 300mm, before binding (95% Standard

Proctor density)m

2

120 120 R 7 R 840 R 840

2.2.5 Form embankments and fills:

2.2.5.1

Construct compacted embankment walls and fills

with selected and approved material from approved

borrow pits, excavations, stockpiles and compact to

required specification or Engineers approval (rate to

include load, haul [free haul 2 km], spread, level,

trim, tie-in, form side slopes etc) to form:

2.2.5.1.1Starter wall embankment, Earthfill, compacted to

95% MOD ASSHTO in 200mm layersm

3

19650 19650 R 36 R 707 400 R 707 400



Mamatwan Mine

RI301-00462/04 5/23 July 2015



Revision 0

ItemPay Ref


1Paddock

Quantity-

2PaddocksRate

Amount-

1Paddock

Amount-

2Paddocks


2.2.5.1.2Starter wall embankment, Calcrete, compacted to

95% MOD ASSHTO in 200mm layersm

3

16080 16080 R 36 R 578 880 R 578 880

2.2.5.1.3

Centre Dividing wall embankment, Earthfill,

compacted to 95% MOD ASSHTO in 200mm layers m3

n/a 8336 R 36 - R 300 096

2.2.5.1.4

Pollution Control paddock embankments, Earthfill,

compacted to 95% MOD ASSHTO in 200mm layers m3

5740 5740 R 36 R 206 640 R 206 640

2.2.5.1.5

Toe Paddock Wall, Earthfill, compacted to 95%

MOD ASSHTO in 200mm layers or as directed by

the engineerm

3

3250 3250 R 36 R 117 000 R 117 000

2.2.5.1.6

Storm water, Return water and bulk water storage

dam walls, Earthfill, compacted to 95% MOD

ASSHTO in 200mm layers m3 9500 9500 R 36 R 342 000 R 342 000

2.2.5.1.7

Trapezoidal covering over the 355mm class 12

HDPE pipe, earthfilll, compacted as directed by the

engineer m3 240 200 R 36 R 8 640 R 7 200

2.2.6

Backfill with selected and approved material from

approved borrow pit or excavations and compact as

detailed or as directed by Engineer (Freehaul

distance 2 km):



Mamatwan Mine

RI301-00462/04 6/23 July 2015



Revision 0

ItemPay Ref


1Paddock

Quantity-

2PaddocksRate

Amount-

1Paddock

Amount-

2Paddocks


2.2.6.1 Anchor trench around the tailings dam m3 300 300 R 75 R 22 500 R 22 500

2.2.6.2Anchor trench around the return water, storm water

and bulk water storage damm

3

230 230 R 75 R 17 250 R 17 250

2.2.6.3

Vehicle Access Ramp for silt trap, Waste rock, to

95% MOD AASHTO or as directed by the engineer m3

12 12 R 40 R 480 R 480

2.2.6.4Narrow trench for the surrounding 160mm HDPE

Drainex collection pipe linem

3

100 100 R 75 R 7 500 R 7 500

2.2.6.5Narrow trench for the 110mm HDPE Kabelflex

seepage collection pipe m

3

30 30 R 75 R 2 250 R 2 250

2.2.6.6

Perimeter road, 300mm waste rock, to 95% MOD

AASHTO or as directed by the engineer m3

2700 2700 R 40 R 108 000 R 108 000

2.2.8Over Haulage

m3km

rate only rate only



Mamatwan Mine

RI301-00462/04 7/23 July 2015



Revision 0

ItemPay Ref


1Paddock

Quantity-

2PaddocksRate

Amount-

1Paddock

Amount-

2Paddocks

2.3SANS

1200J CATWALK

Supply and install platform and walkway as per

drawing including all excavations, concrete,

uprights, bearers, planking, bracing, bars, stays,

bolts, nuts, washers, nails, gumpoles drums to:

2.3.1 Temporary penstock intake structure - 2 pipelines Non/a 2 R 13 700 - R 27 400

2.3.2 Final penstock intake structure No 1 1 R 13 700 R 13 700 R 13 700

2.3.3Temporary Catwalk walkway with 3m bay lengths as

per detailm

n/a 90 R 1 700 - R 153 000

2.3.4Final and main catwalk walkway with 3m bay lengths

as per detailm

140 140 R 1 700 R 238 000 R 238 000

2.3.5Catwalk walkway with 3m bay lengths as per detail

around the temporary and main decantm

30 75 R 1 700 R 51 000 R 127 500

2.3.6 Supply steel cage as per drawing No 1 3 R 3 600 R 3 600 R 10 800



Mamatwan Mine

RI301-00462/04 8/23 July 2015



Revision 0

ItemPay Ref


1Paddock

Quantity-

2PaddocksRate

Amount-

1Paddock

Amount-

2Paddocks

2.4SANS

1200LD DRAINAGE

2.4.1Supply and place washed filter sand to specification

to form:

2.4.1.1 Toe drain, 200mm thick m3 1380 1330 R 470 R 648 600 R 625 100

2.4.2Supply and place washed 6 mm stone to

specification to form:


2.4.3Supply and place washed 19 mm stone to

specification to form:


2.4.4Supply and place coarse discard to specification to

form:


2.4.5Supply and place selected bedding,approved by the

engineer, to specification to form:



Mamatwan Mine

RI301-00462/04 9/23 July 2015



Revision 0

ItemPay Ref


1Paddock

Quantity-

2PaddocksRate

Amount-

1Paddock

Amount-

2Paddocks


2.4.5.1Beneath the160mm Diameter HDPE collector pipe m

3

30 30 R 400 R 12 000 R 12 000

2.4.6

Supply and install 110 mm diameter slotted HDPE

Drainex pipes with joints to SABS standard

(including all jointing material and fittings) to:

2.4.6.1 Toe drain m 1170 1130 R 55 R 64 350 R 62 150

2.4.7

Supply and install 160 mm diameter closed HDPE

Corrugated Drainex pipes with joints to SABS

standard (including all jointing material and fittings)

to:

2.4.7.1 Surrounding Collection Pipe line m 900 900 R 60 R 54 000 R 54 000

2.4.8

Supply and install 110 mm diameter closed

Kabelflex pipes with joints to SABS standard

(including all jointing material and fittings) to:

2.4.8.1

Seepage collection pipe (connecting the 110mm

diameter slotted HDPE Drainex pipe to the 160mm

closed HDPE Drainex pipes)

m 450 450 R 65 R 29 250 R 29 250



Mamatwan Mine

RI301-00462/04 10/23 July 2015



Revision 0

ItemPay Ref


1Paddock

Quantity-

2PaddocksRate

Amount-

1Paddock

Amount-

2Paddocks


2.4.9

Supply and install the following pipes accessories to

SABS standards( including all flanges and bracing,

nuts and bolts, etc):

2.4.9.1 110mm UPVC Drainex Y junction no 2 2 R 350 R 700 R 700

2.4.9.2 160mm uPVC Y Reducer junction no 8 8 R 350 R 2 800 R 2 800

2.4.9.3 110mm coupling sealing ring no 18 18 R 60 R 1 080 R 1 080

2.4.9.4 160mm Coupling Sealing Ring no 13 13 R 60 R 780 R 780

2.4.9.5 110mm uPVC and caps or plugs no 10 10 R 140 R 1 400 R 1 400

2.4.9.6 160mm uPVC and caps or plugs no 2 2 R 150 R 300 R 300



Mamatwan Mine

RI301-00462/04 11/23 July 2015



Revision 0

ItemPay Ref


1Paddock

Quantity-

2PaddocksRate

Amount-

1Paddock

Amount-

2Paddocks

2.5 SANS

1200GA

CONCRETE STRUCTURES

2.5.1 Formwork

2.5.1.1 Smooth formwork to:

2.5.1.1.1 Manhole m2 3 3 R 500 R 1 500 R 1 500

2.5.1.1.2 Silt trap m2 94 94 R 500 R 47 000 R 47 000

2.5.1.1.3 Gravity Decants m3 19 49 R 500 R 9 500 R 24 500

2.5.1.2 Unformed finish to:

2.5.1.2.1 Manhole m2 5 5 R 30 R 150 R 150

2.5.1.2.2 Gravity Decants m2 13 31 R 30 R 390 R 930

2.5.2

Blinding layer 50 mm thick Class 15MPa/19mm

concrete to:( rate to included preparation of surface

for binding)

2.5.2.1 Manhole m3 1 1 R 110 R 110 R 110



Mamatwan Mine

RI301-00462/04 12/23 July 2015



Revision 0

ItemPay Ref


1Paddock

Quantity-

2PaddocksRate

Amount-

1Paddock

Amount-

2Paddocks


2.5.2.2 Silt trap m3 4 4 R 110 R 440 R 440

2.5.2.3 Gravity decant m3 1 2 R 110 R 110 R 220

2.5.2.4Channel leading from the silt trap to the return water

damm

3

0.3 0.3 R 110 R 33 R 33

2.5.2.5 Anchor blocks around the dams m3 0.5 0.5 R 110 R 55 R 55

2.5.3 25MPa/19mm, concrete to:

2.5.3.1 Manhole m3 0.5 0.5 R 1 750 R 875 R 875

2.5.3.2 Silt Trap m3 35 35 R 1 750 R 61 250 R 61 250

2.5.3.3Spillway Channel ( from the silt trap to the Return

water damm

3

2 2 R 1 750 R 3 500 R 3 500

2.5.3.3 Anchor Blocks around dams m3 4 4 R 1 750 R 7 000 R 7 000

2.5.5 30MPa/19mm, concrete to :

2.5.5.1 Gravity Decant m3 17 39 R 1 850 R 31 450 R 72 150



Mamatwan Mine

RI301-00462/04 13/23 July 2015



Revision 0

ItemPay Ref


1Paddock

Quantity-

2PaddocksRate

Amount-

1Paddock

Amount-

2Paddocks


2.5.6 Cast in items :

2.5.6.1

Supply and cast in 520mm ID pre-cast ROCLA

reinforced concrete penstock rings to specification

to:

2.5.6.1.1 Intermediate penstock intake structure (1) No 15 15 R 350 R 5 250 R 5 250

2.5.6.1.2 Intermediate penstock intake structure (2) No 15 15 R 350 R 5 250 R 5 250

2.5.6.1.3 Final penstock intake structure No 15 15 R 350 R 5 250 R 5 250

2.5.6.2 Suppy and install mesh REF 617 to:

2.5.6.2.1 Silt Trap m2 129 129 R 110 R 14 190 R 14 190

2.4.6.2.2 Gravity Decant (Temporary) m2 36 36 R 110 R 3 960 R 3 960

2.5.6.3 Suppy and install Reinforcement to:

2.5.6.3.1 Gravity Decant (Permanent) t 1 1 R 14 700 R 14 700 R 14 700



Mamatwan Mine

RI301-00462/04 14/23 July 2015



Revision 0

ItemPay Ref


1Paddock

Quantity-

2PaddocksRate

Amount-

1Paddock

Amount-

2Paddocks


2.5.6.4

Supply and cast in galvanised eye bolt and Manila

rope to the anchor blocks and any other items

needed to construct the anchor blocks as per

drawing for the dams

no 38 38 R 700 R 26 600 R 26 600

2.5.7 Pre-Cast items :

2.5.7.1 Concrete lids for man holes No 6 6 R 400 R 2 400 R 2 400



Mamatwan Mine

RI301-00462/04 15/23 July 2015



Revision 0

ItemPay Ref


1Paddock

Quantity-

2PaddocksRate

Amount-

1Paddock

Amount-

2Paddocks

2.6SANS

10409

DESIGN, SELECTION AND INSTALLATION

OF GEOMEMBRANE

2.6.1

Supply and install 1.5 mm HDPE synthetic liner to

SABS standards to: (Rate to include cutting,

strapping, wastage & seaming)

2.6.1.1 Tailings storage paddocks ( Duel Textured) m² 90405 86940 R 85 R 7 684 425 R 7 389 900

2.6.1.2 Return water dam (Smooth) m² 1544 1544 R 70 R 108 080 R 108 080

2.6.1.3 Storm water dam (Smooth) m² 2889 2889 R 70 R 202 230 R 202 230

2.6.1.4 Bulk water storage dam (Smooth) m² 13834 13834 R 70 R 968 380 R 968 380

2.6.2SANS

1200DKGABIONS AND PITCHING

2.6.2

Supply and install Bidim A6 geofabric, under the

HDPE liner to: ( Rate to include for cutting,

strapping, wastage and stitching)

2.6.2.1 Tailings storage paddock m² 90405 86940 R 20 R 1 808 100 R 1 738 800

2.6.2.2 Return water dam m² 1544 1544 R 20 R 30 880 R 30 880

2.6.2.3 Storm Water dam m² 2889 2889 R 20 R 57 780 R 57 780

2.6.2.4 Bulk water storage dam m² 13834 13834 R 20 R 276 680 R 276 680



Mamatwan Mine

RI301-00462/04 16/23 July 2015



Revision 0

ItemPay Ref


1Paddock

Quantity-

2PaddocksRate

Amount-

1Paddock

Amount-

2Paddocks

2.7SABS

1200L PIPEWORK

2.7.1

Supply and install 355mm HDPE class 12 flanged

Decant pipe : (rates to included all nuts, bolts,

connectors etc.)

m 185 300 R 1 150 R 212 750 R 345 000

2.7.2

Supply and install the following pipe specials at the

temporary and permanent decant inlets: (rates to

included all nuts, bolts, connectors etc.)

Sum R 99 000 R 67 000 R 99 000

2.7.2.1 Steel pipe specials at decant inlet Sum inclusive - -

i) 350 mm MOD. Radius sweep tee Sum inclusive - -

ii) 350 mm MOD. 900 radius bend Sum inclusive - -

iii) 950 mm Long 350 mm MED. Extension pipe with

adaptorSum

inclusive - -

iv) 550 mm Long 350 mm MED. Extension pipe Sum inclusive - -



Mamatwan Mine

RI301-00462/04 17/23 July 2015



Revision 0

ItemPay Ref


1Paddock

Quantity-

2PaddocksRate

Amount-

1Paddock

Amount-

2Paddocks


2.7.3

Supply, transport, lay & fit 110mm OD HDPE pipe

Class 12: ( rates to include for all nuts and bolts,

connectors, etc.)

2.7.3.1 As distribution ring around TSF m 1100 1100 R 220 R 220 R 220

2.7.4

Supply and install the following pipe specials at the

for the slurry distribution around the TSF: (rates to

included all nuts, bolts, connectors etc.)Provisional

sum for bends, tees and fittings

Sum R 135 000 R 135 000 R 135 000

i) 110 mm HDPE Class 10 short radius bends No Inclusive

ii) 80/100mm NB CS pipe reducers No Inclusive

iii) 100 NB CS 450 bends No Inclusive

iv) 80mm diameter Saunders valves (For water line)No

Inclusive

v) 100mm diameter Saunders valves (For tailings

delivery line)No

Inclusive



Mamatwan Mine

RI301-00462/04 18/23 July 2015



Revision 0

ItemPay Ref


1Paddock

Quantity-

2PaddocksRate

Amount-

1Paddock

Amount-

2Paddocks


vi) 100 NB CS 450 laterals No Inclusive

vii) 80 NB CS 450 laterals No Inclusive

viii) 80 NB CS equal tee No Inclusive

viiii)Supply and install 100mm flanged Saunders

isolating valves No

Inclusive

2.7.5Supply and install the following to SABS standards

for the Spigots around the TSF:

2.7.5.1 80mm flanged Saunders valves No 55 55 R 4 160 R 228 800 R 228 800

2.7.5.2 110/75mm diameter flanged reducing tees No 55 55 R 1 200 R 66 000 R 66 000

2.7.5.375mm diameter x 500mm long spigot pipes flanged

on single sideNo

55 55 R 255 R 14 025 R 14 025

2.7.5.4125mm diameter x 10 000mm HDPE loose fit

dropper pipeNo

55 55 R 250 R 13 750 R 13 750



Mamatwan Mine

RI301-00462/04 19/23 July 2015



Revision 0

ItemPay Ref


1Paddock

Quantity-

2PaddocksRate

Amount-

1Paddock

Amount-

2Paddocks


2.7.5.580 mm diameter x 400 mm extension pipe flanged

on single sideNo

55 55 R 255 R 14 025 R 14 025

2.7.6Supply and install 250mm HDPE class 12 flanged

Decant pipe : (rates to included all nuts, bolts,

connectors etc.)

2.7.6.1As distibution from the Bulk water storage dam to

the existing process water tankm

1000 1000 R 70 R 70 000 R 70 000

2.7.6.2As distibution from the Bulk water storage dam to

the existing pipelinem

500 500 R 70 R 35 000 R 35 000

2.7.7Supply and install the following pumps as per SABS

standards:

2.7.7.1 Slurry Pump: LCC-R50-2320KGB No 1 1 R 69 148 R 69 148 R 69 148

2.7.7.2Pump for return water dam to processing plant:

Etanorm 125-100-200No

1 1 R 28 220 R 28 220 R 28 220

TOTAL CARRIED TO SUMMARY R 953 938 R 1 118 188


Mamatwan Mine

RI301-00462/04 20/23 July 2015



Revision 0

ItemPay Ref


1Paddock

Quantity-

2PaddocksRate

Amount-

1Paddock

Amount-

2Paddocks

2.8 MANHOLE

2.8.1 110mm Masonary Brickwork m² 1 1 R 720 R 576 R 576

2.8.2 10mm Thick internal plastering with plaster key m3 0.2 0.2 R 20 R 4 R 4

2.8.3 Non shrink grout at pipe penetrations m3 1 1 R 500 R 500 R 500



Mamatwan Mine

RI301-00462/04 21/23 July 2015



Revision 0

ItemPay Ref


1Paddock

Quantity-

2PaddocksRate

Amount-

1Paddock

Amount-

2Paddocks

2.9 MICELLANEOUS

2.9.1 Pump platform base:

2.9.1.1 Supply and install mesh REF 617 m² 18 18 R 110 R 1 980 R 1 980

2.9.1.2 Concrete class 35/19 m3 1.8 1.8 R 1 950 R 3 510 R 3 510

2.9.1.3

Pump platform, Earthfill , compacted to 95%

MOD ASSHTO in 200mm layers ( as to

description 2.2.5.1):

m3

152 152 R 36 R 5 472 R 5 472

2.9.2 Fencing around the Dams

2.9.2.1

Supply and install complete 2.4m High Stranded

Wire Fence as per specification to perimeter of the

RWD, SWD and the BWSD (Rate to include all

excavations, concrete bases, galvanised corners,

bracing posts, stays, intermediate posts and painted

etc.)

m 1000 1000 R 400.00 R 400 000 R 400 000



Mamatwan Mine

RI301-00462/04 22/23 July 2015



Revision 0

ItemPay Ref


1Paddock

Quantity-

2PaddocksRate

Amount-

1Paddock

Amount-

2Paddocks


2.9.2.2

Supply and install sign board complete with

emergency numbers to gate and one on each side

of perimeter wall (Rate to include for attaching sign

board to gate with galvanised binding wire)

No 5 5 R 250.00 R 1 250 R 1 250

2.9.2.3

Supply and install sign board complete with

treatment of drowning to gate and one on each side

of perimeter wall (Rate to include for attaching sign

board to gate with galvanised binding wire)

No 5 5 R 250.00 R 1 250 R 1 250

2.9.2.4

Supply and install sign boards along the perimeter

wall complete with warning notices ("no entry", "no

fishing", "no drinking" and "no swimming") at 30m

intervals (Rate to include for attaching sign board to

fence with galvanised binding wire)

No 34 34 R 250.00 R 8 500 R 8 500



Mamatwan Mine

RI301-00462/04 23/23 July 2015


APPENDIX L

CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS

SOUTH32 LIMITED


CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE MANUAL

(KP REF. NO: RI301-00462/04/R2)

JULY 2015

Prepared by :

Reviewed by:

4 De La Rey Road

Rivonia Johannesburg

South Africa

Telephone: (27) 11 806-7111

Facsimile: (27) 11 806-7100

www.knightpiesold.com

http://www.knightpiesold.com/

SOUTH32 LIMITED



(KP REF. NO: RI301-00462/04/R2)

JULY 2015

CONTENTS

PAGE

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................1

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

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN ................................ 1

1.3 APPLICABLE STANDARDISED AND PARTICULAR SPECIFICATIONS ................................................... 2

1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN ............................................ 3

2. DEFINITIONS RELATING TO CQA................................................................................................................................3

2.1 OWNER ........................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 CONSTRUCTION MANAGER ........................................................................................................................ 4

2.3 ENGINEER ...................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.4 CONTRACTOR ............................................................................................................................................... 4

2.5 RESIN SUPPLIER .......................................................................................................................................... 5

2.6 MANUFACTURERS ....................................................................................................................................... 5

2.7 LINER CONTRACTOR ................................................................................................................................... 5

2.8 CQA CONSULTANT....................................................................................................................................... 6

2.9 CQA LABORATORY ...................................................................................................................................... 7

2.10 LINES OF COMMUNICATION ....................................................................................................................... 7

2.11 DEFICIENCY IDENTIFICATION AND RECTIFICATION ............................................................................... 8

3. CQA CONSULTANTS PERSONNEL ORGANIZATION AND DUTIES.................................................................................9

SOUTH 32 i JULY 2015 TAILINGS STORAGE FACILITY CQA MANUAL REPORT 301-00462/04

3.1 CQA PERSONNEL ......................................................................................................................................... 9

3.2 CQA SITE MANAGER .................................................................................................................................. 10

4. SITE AND PROJECT CONTROL .................................................................................................................................. 11

4.1 PROJECT COORDINATION MEETINGS .................................................................................................... 11

4.1.1 Pre-Construction Meeting...........................................................................................................................................11

4.1.2 Progress Meetings .......................................................................................................................................................12

4.1.3 Problem or Work Deficiency Meeting ........................................................................................................................12

5. DOCUMENTATION .................................................................................................................................................. 13

5.1 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................... 13

5.2 DAILY RECORDKEEPING ........................................................................................................................... 13

5.3 CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS AND RESOLUTION DATA SHEETS ........................................................ 14

5.4 PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION ........................................................................................................ 14

5.5 DESIGN AND/OR SPECIFICATIONS CHANGES ....................................................................................... 15

5.6 CQA REPORT .............................................................................................................................................. 15

6. EARTHWORKS, EXCAVATIONS AND UNDERDRAINAGE ........................................................................................... 17

6.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 17

6.2 GENERAL SETTING OUT............................................................................................................................ 17

6.3 CQA MONITORING ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................. 18

6.3.1 Vegetation Removal ....................................................................................................................................................18

6.3.2 Base Preparation .........................................................................................................................................................18

6.3.3 Classes of Excavation ..................................................................................................................................................19

6.3.4 Materials Suitable for Replacing Overbreak in Excavations for Foundations (SANS 1200D, Sub clause 3.2.2)....20

6.3.5 Safeguarding Excavation (SANS 1200D, Sub Clause 5.1.1.2) ...................................................................................20

6.3.6 Contractor’s Liability in Excavation ............................................................................................................................21

6.3.7 Existing Services (SANS 1200D, Sub Clause 5.1.2.1)..................................................................................................22

6.3.8 Stormwater and Groundwater (SANS 1200D, Sub Clause 5.1.3) .............................................................................22

6.3.9 Stripping and Stockpiling of Topsoil (SANS 1200D, Sub Clause 5.2.1.2) ..................................................................23

6.3.10 Excavations for General Earthworks and for Structures (SANS 1200D, Sub Clause 5.2.2.1)..................................23

SOUTH 32 ii JULY 2015 TAILINGS STORAGE FACILITY CQA MANUAL REPORT 301-00462/04

6.3.11 Excavations of Unsuitable Material below Compacted Walls and Roadways ........................................................24

6.3.12 Unauthorised Excavations ..........................................................................................................................................24

6.3.13 Overbreak ....................................................................................................................................................................24

6.3.14 Borrow Pits (SANS 1200D, Sub Clause 5.2.2.2)..........................................................................................................25

6.3.15 Preparation of Approved Soil beneath Compacted Embankments and Roadways ................................................26

6.3.16 Excavations to be Passed ............................................................................................................................................27

6.3.17 Disposal (SANS 1200D, Sub Clause 5.2.2.3) ...............................................................................................................27

6.3.18 Embankments (SANS 1200D, Sub Clause 5.2.3.1) .....................................................................................................27

6.3.19 Backfilling (SANS 1200D, Sub Clause 5.2.3.2)............................................................................................................29

6.3.20 Fall in of Ground ..........................................................................................................................................................30

6.3.21 Haulage (SANS 1200D, Sub Clause 5.2.5) ..................................................................................................................30

6.3.22 Tolerances (SANS 1200D, Sub Clause 6) ....................................................................................................................30

6.3.23 Moisture Content and Density (SANS 1200D, Sub Clause 6.2) .................................................................................31

6.3.24 Taking and Testing of Samples (SANS 1200D, Sub Clause 7.2) ................................................................................32

6.3.25 Rip-rap (SANS 1200, Sub-Clause 5.2.3.3) if Applicable .............................................................................................35

6.3.26 Anchor Trench Construction .......................................................................................................................................36

6.3.27 Erosion Control ............................................................................................................................................................36

6.3.28 Dust Suppression .........................................................................................................................................................36

6.3.29 Concrete (Small Works)...............................................................................................................................................36

6.4 DEFICIENCIES ............................................................................................................................................. 37

6.4.1 Notification ..................................................................................................................................................................37

6.4.2 Repairs and Re-Testing ...............................................................................................................................................38

7. DRAINAGE AGGREGATE .......................................................................................................................................... 38

7.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 38

7.2 TESTING ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................................................. 38

7.2.1 Compaction Control ....................................................................................................................................................39

7.2.2 Sample Frequency .......................................................................................................................................................39

7.2.3 Sample Selection .........................................................................................................................................................39

SOUTH 32 iii JULY 2015 TAILINGS STORAGE FACILITY CQA MANUAL REPORT 301-00462/04

7.3 CQA MONITORING ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................. 39

7.3.1 Drainage Aggregate....................................................................................................................................................39

7.3.2 Permeable Material (SANS 1200, Sub Clause 3.2.2) .................................................................................................40

7.3.2.3.Coarse Discard ..............................................................................................................................................................42

7.4 DEFICIENCIES ............................................................................................................................................. 42

7.4.1 Notification ..................................................................................................................................................................42

7.4.2 Repairs and Re-testing ................................................................................................................................................43

8. HDPE PIPE AND FITTINGS ........................................................................................................................................ 43

8.1 MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................................................................... 43

8.2 MANUFACTURER ........................................................................................................................................ 43

8.2.1 Submittals ....................................................................................................................................................................43

8.3 HANDLING AND LAYING ............................................................................................................................ 43

8.4 PERFORATIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 44

8.5 JOINTS.......................................................................................................................................................... 44

9. GEOMEMBRANE ..................................................................................................................................................... 44

9.1 GENERAL ..................................................................................................................................................... 44

9.1.1 Installation of Geomembrane System........................................................................................................................44

9.2 GEOMEMBRANE MATERIAL CONFORMANCE........................................................................................ 47

9.2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................47

9.2.2 Review of Quality Control ...........................................................................................................................................48

9.2.3 Conformance Testing ..................................................................................................................................................48

9.3 DELIVERY..................................................................................................................................................... 49

9.3.1 Transportation and Handling .....................................................................................................................................49

9.3.2 Storage .........................................................................................................................................................................49

9.4 GEOMEMBRANE INSTALLATION .............................................................................................................. 50

9.4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................50

9.4.2 Earthwork ....................................................................................................................................................................50

9.4.3 Geomembrane Placement ..........................................................................................................................................51

SOUTH 32 iv JULY 2015 TAILINGS STORAGE FACILITY CQA MANUAL REPORT 301-00462/04

9.4.4 Field Seaming...............................................................................................................................................................53

9.4.5 Defects and Repairs.....................................................................................................................................................61

9.4.6 Lining System Acceptance...........................................................................................................................................63

10. GEOTEXTILE ............................................................................................................................................................ 67

10.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 67

10.2 MANUFACTURING ...................................................................................................................................... 67

10.3 LABELING .................................................................................................................................................... 68

10.4 SHIPMENT AND STORAGE ........................................................................................................................ 68

10.5 CONFORMANCE TESTING ......................................................................................................................... 68

10.5.1 Tests .............................................................................................................................................................................68

10.5.2 Sampling Procedures...................................................................................................................................................69

10.5.3 Test Results ..................................................................................................................................................................69

10.6 HANDLING AND PLACEMENT ................................................................................................................... 70

10.7 SEAMS AND OVERLAPS ............................................................................................................................ 70

10.8 REPAIR ......................................................................................................................................................... 71

10.9 PLACEMENT OF SOIL OR AGGREGATE MATERIALS............................................................................ 72

10.9.1 Earthworks, Substrate Requirements ........................................................................................................................72

SOUTH 32 v JULY 2015 TAILINGS STORAGE FACILITY CQA MANUAL REPORT 301-00462/04

SOUTH32 LIMITED



(KP REF. NO: RI301-00462/04/R2)

JULY 2015

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Terms of Reference

Knight Piésold (Pty) Ltd has prepared this Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan for the

construction of a new tailings storage facility associated with the South 32, Mamatwan Tailings

storage facility (TSF), Return Water Dam (RWD) and Bulk Water Storage Dam (BWSD).

1.2 Purpose and Scope of the Construction Quality Assurance Plan

The purpose of the CQA Plan is to address the CQA procedures and monitoring requirements

for construction of the project. The CQA Plan is intended to:

(i) define the responsibilities of parties involved with the construction;

(ii) provide guidance in the proper construction of the major components of the project;

(iii) establish testing protocols;

(iv) establish guidelines for construction documentation; and

(v) provide the means for assuring that the project is constructed in conformance to the

Technical Specifications, permit conditions, applicable regulatory requirements, and

Construction Drawings.

This CQA Plan addresses all the construction aspects of the project including the soils and

geosynthetic components of the liner system. The soils, geosynthetic, and appurtenant

components include prepared subgrade, geomembrane and drainage aggregate. It should be

emphasized that care and documentation are required in the placement of aggregate, and in

the production and installation of the geosynthetic materials installed during construction. This

SOUTH 32 1 of 76 JULY 2015

TAILINGS STORAGE FACILITY CQA MANUAL REPORT 301-00462/04

CQA Plan delineates procedures to be followed for monitoring construction utilizing these

materials.

1.3 Applicable Standardised and particular specifications

The following South African National Standards (previously South African Bureau of

Standards) Standardised Specifications for Civil Engineering Construction shall apply (not

included in this document):

• SANS 1200 A: General

• SANS 1200 C: Site Clearance

• SANS 1200D Earthworks

• SANS 1200 DE: Small Earth Dams

• SANS 1200 DK: Gabions and Pitching

• SANS 1200 GA: Concrete (Small Works)

• SANS 1200 L: Medium Pressure Pipelines

• SANS 1200 LB: Bedding (Pipes)

• SANS 1200 LE: Stormwater Drainage

The CQA Plan also includes references to test procedures in the latest editions of South

African National Standards specification and the American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM).

GRI GM 13 latest edition specs

• SANS 1526

• SANS 10409

• SANS 1200 (Liner bedding tolerances for earthworks preparation to receive liner)

The following Particular Specifications are applicable to this contract:

• Particular Specification for Excavations, Earthworks and Underdrainage.

• Drainex and Kabelflex Specifications (Attached)

• Saunders Valves Data Sheet (Attached)

In the event of any ambiguity or conflict between specifications the following order of

precedence will apply to the above Specifications:

• Construction Drawings

• Particular Specifications



• Project Specifications

• Variations and Additions to Standardised / Particular Specifications

• SANS Specifications

• Bill of Quantity

1.4 Organization of the Construction Quality Assurance Plan

The remainder of the CQA Plan is organized as follows:

• Section 2 presents definitions relating to CQA;

• Section 3 describes the CQA personnel organization and duties;

• Section 4 describes site and project control requirements;

• Section 5 presents CQA documentation;

• Section 6 presents CQA of earthworks, excavations and underdrainage;

• Section 7 presents CQA of the drainage aggregates;

• Section 8 presents CQA of the pipe and fittings;

• Section 9 presents CQA of the geomembrane;

• Section 10 presents CQA of the geotextile;

2. DEFINITIONS RELATING TO CQA

This CQA Plan is devoted to Construction Quality Assurance. In the context of this document,

Construction Quality Assurance and Construction Quality Control are defined as follows:

Construction Quality Assurance (CQA)

A planned and systematic pattern of means and actions designed to assure adequate

confidence that materials and/or services meet contractual and regulatory requirements and

will perform satisfactorily in service. CQA refers to means and actions employed by the CQA

Consultant to assure conformity of the project “Work” with this CQA Plan, the Drawings, and

the Technical Specifications. CQA testing of aggregate, pipe, and geosynthetic components is

provided by the CQA Consultant.

Construction Quality Control (CQC)

Actions which provide a means to measure and regulate the characteristics of an item or

service in relation to contractual and regulatory requirements. Construction Quality Control

refers to those actions taken by the Contractor, Manufacturer, or Liner Contractor to verify that

the materials and the workmanship meet the requirements of this CQA Plan, the Drawings,

and the Technical Specifications. In the case of the geosynthetic components and piping of the



Work, CQC is provided by the Manufacturer, Liner Contractor, and Contractor.

2.1 Owner

The Owner of this project is South 32 Limited.

2.2 Construction Manager

Responsibilities

The Construction Manager is responsible for managing the construction and implementation of

the Drawings, and Technical Specifications for the project work. The Construction Manager is

selected/appointed by the Owner.

2.3 Engineer

Responsibilities

The Engineer is responsible for the design, Drawings, and Technical Specifications for the

project work. In this CQA Plan, the term “Engineer” refers to Knight Piésold.

Qualifications

The Professional Engineer shall be a qualified engineer, registered with ECSA. The Engineer

should have expertise, which demonstrates significant familiarity with tailings storage facilities

and all the aspects involved, such as piping, geosynthetics and soils, as appropriate, including

design and construction experience related to tailings storage facilities and liner systems.

2.4 Contractor

Responsibilities

In this CQA Plan, Contractor refers to an independent party or parties, contracted by the

Owner, performing the work in general accordance with this CQA Plan, the Drawings, and the

Technical Specifications. The Contractor will be responsible for the construction of the tailings

storage facility as well as the installation of the soils, pipe, drainage aggregate, and

geosynthetic components of the liner systems. This work will include subgrade preparation,

anchor trench excavation and backfill, placement of drainage aggregate for the tailings drain

system, installation of piping, placement of cast-in-place concrete, and coordination of work

with the Liner Contractor and other subcontractors.

The Contractor will be responsible for installation of the liner system and appurtenant

components in general accordance with the Drawings and complying with the quality control

requirements specified in the Technical Specifications.



Qualifications

Qualifications of the Contractor are specific to the construction contract. The Contractor should

have a demonstrated history of successful tailings storage facility related works, earthworks,

piping, and liner system construction and shall maintain current state and federal licenses as

appropriate.

2.5 Resin Supplier

Responsibilities

The Resin Supplier produces and delivers the resin to the Geosynthetics Manufacturer.

Qualifications

Qualifications of the Resin Supplier are specific to the Manufacturer’s requirements. The Resin

Supplier will have a demonstrated history of providing resin with consistent properties.

2.6 Manufacturers

Responsibilities

The Manufacturers are responsible for the production of finished material (geomembrane,

geotextile, geosynthetic, and pipe) from appropriate raw materials.

Qualifications

The Manufacturer(s) will be able to provide sufficient production capacity and qualified

personnel to meet the demands of the project. The Manufacturer(s) must be a well-established

firm(s) that meets the requirements identified in the Technical Specifications.

2.7 Liner Contractor

Responsibilities

The Liner Contractor is responsible for field handling, storage, placement, seaming, ballasting

or anchoring against wind uplift, and other aspects of the geosynthetic material installation.

The Liner Contractor may also be responsible for specialized construction tasks (i.e., including

construction of anchor trenches for the geosynthetic materials).

If required, the Lining Contractor shall conduct tests to confirm that the geomembrane liner

offered is resistant for the duration of the guarantee period to the effects of the liquids intended

for storage. The Engineer may, at his discretion, request that immersion tests be undertaken

for a period of 28 days minimum for the proposed lining in a liquid sample provided by the



client. These samples will be tested for changes in physical and mechanical properties and

compared with those immersed in water over the same period of time.

Qualifications

The Liner Contractor must be be trained and qualified to install the geosynthetic materials of

the type specified for this project. The Liner Contractor shall meet the qualification

requirements identified in the Technical Specifications.

2.8 CQA Consultant

Responsibilities

The CQA Consultant is a party, independent from the Owner, Contractor, Manufacturer, and

Liner Contractor, who is responsible for observing, testing, and documenting activities related

to the CQC and CQA of the construction, earthwork, piping, and geosynthetic components

used in the construction of the Project as required by this CQA Plan and the Technical

Specifications. The CQA Consultant will also be responsible for issuing a CQA report at the

completion of the Project construction, which documents construction and associated CQA

activities. The CQA report will be signed and sealed by the CQA Officer who will be a

Professional Engineer

Qualifications

The CQA Consultant shall be a well-established firm specializing in tailings storage facilities

with expertise in geotechnical and geosynthetic engineering that possess the equipment,

personnel, and licenses necessary to conduct the geotechnical and geosynthetic tests

required by the project plans and Technical Specifications. The CQA Consultant will provide

qualified staff for the project, as necessary, which will include, at a minimum, a CQA Officer

and a CQA Site Manager. The CQA Officer will be a professionally registered engineer.

The CQA Consultant will be experienced with tailings storage facilities, construction, earthwork

and installation of geosynthetic materials similar to those materials used in construction of the

Project. The CQA Consultant will be experienced in the preparation of CQA documentation

including CQA Plans, field documentation, field testing procedures, laboratory testing

procedures, construction specifications, construction Drawings, and CQA reports.

The CQA Site Manager will be specifically familiar with the construction of tailings storage

facilities including earthworks, piping, and geosynthetic lining systems. The CQA Manager will

be trained by the CQA Consultant in the duties as CQA Site Manager.



2.9 CQA Laboratory

Responsibilities

The CQA Laboratory is a party, independent from the Contractor, Manufacturer, Liner

Contractor, that is responsible for conducting tests in accordance with ASTM, TMH, SANS and

any other applicable test standards on samples of geosynthetic materials, soil, and concrete.

The test can be done on the field and in either an on-site or off-site laboratory.

Qualifications

The CQA Laboratory will have experience in testing soils and geosynthetic materials and will

be familiar with ASTM and other applicable test standards. The CQA Laboratory will be

capable of providing test results within a maximum of seven days of receipt of samples and

will maintain that capability throughout the duration of earthworks construction and

geosynthetic materials installation. The CQA Laboratory will also be capable of transmitting

geosynthetic destructive test results within 24 hours of receipt of samples and will maintain

that capability throughout the duration of geosynthetic material installation.

2.10 Lines of Communication

The following organization chart indicates the lines of communication and authority related to

this project.



2.11 Deficiency Identification and Rectification

If a defect is discovered in the work, the CQA Engineer will evaluate the extent and nature of

the defect. If the defect is indicated by an unsatisfactory test result, the CQA Engineer will

determine the extent of the deficient area by additional tests, observations, a review of

records, or other means that the CQA Engineer deems appropriate.

After evaluating the extent and nature of a defect, the CQA Engineer will notify the

Construction Manager and schedule appropriate re-tests when the work deficiency is

corrected by the Contractor.

The Contractor will correct the deficiency to the satisfaction of the CQA Engineer. If a project

specification criterion cannot be met, or unusual weather conditions hinder work, then the

Contractor will develop and present to the Design Engineer suggested solutions for approval.

Defect corrections will be monitored and documented by CQA personnel prior to subsequent

work by the Contractor in the area of the deficiency



3. CQA CONSULTANTS PERSONNEL ORGANIZATION AND DUTIES

The CQA Officer will provide supervision within the scope of work of the CQA Consultant. The

scope of work for the CQA Consultant includes monitoring of construction activities including

the following:

• subgrade preparation;

• tailings, storm water, return water and bulk water storage dam embankment construction;

• concrete works

• installation of geomembrane;

• installation of filter material (sand and aggregate) and drainage pipes;

• installation of slurry delivery piping; and

• installation of geotextile.

Duties of CQA personnel are discussed in the remainder of this section.

3.1 CQA Personnel

The CQA Consultant’s personnel will include:

• the CQA Officer, who works from the office of the CQA Consultant and who conducts

periodic visits to the site as required; and

• the CQA Site Manager, who is located at the site.

• CQA Officer

The CQA Officer shall supervise and be responsible for monitoring and CQA activities relating

to the construction of the earthworks, concrete works, piping, and installation of the

geosynthetic materials of the Project. Specifically, the CQA Officer:

• reviews the project design, this CQA Plan, Drawings, and Technical Specifications;

• reviews other site-specific documentation; unless otherwise agreed, such reviews are for

familiarization and for evaluation of constructability only, and hence the CQA Officer and

the CQA Consultant assume no responsibility for the liner system design;

• reviews and approves the Liner Contractor’s Quality Control (QC) Plan;

• attends Pre-Construction Meetings as needed;

• administers the CQA program (i.e., provides supervision of and manages on-site CQA

personnel, reviews field reports, and provides engineering review of CQA related activities);

• provides quality control of CQA documentation and conducts site visits;

• reviews the Record Drawings; and



• with the CQA Site Manager, prepares the CQA report documenting that the project was

constructed in general accordance with the Construction Documents.

3.2 CQA Site Manager

The CQA Site Manager:

• acts as the on-site representative of the CQA Consultant;

• attends CQA-related meetings (e.g., pre-construction, daily, weekly (or designates a

representative to attend the meetings));

• oversees the ongoing preparation of the Record Drawings;

• reviews test results provided by Contractor;

• assigns locations for testing and sampling;

• oversees the collection and shipping of laboratory test samples;

• reviews results of laboratory testing and makes appropriate recommendations;

• reviews the calibration and condition of on-site CQA equipment;

• prepares a daily summary report for the project;

• reviews the MQC documentation;

• reviews the Liner Contractor’s personnel Qualifications for conformance with those pre-

approved for work on site;

• notes on-site activities in daily field reports and reports to the CQA Officer and Construction

Manager;

• reports unresolved deviations from the CQA Plan, Drawings, and Technical Specifications

to the Construction Manager; and

• assists with the preparation of the CQA report.



4. SITE AND PROJECT CONTROL

4.1 Project Coordination Meetings

Meetings of key project personnel are necessary to assure a high degree of quality during

construction and installation and to promote clear, open channels of communication.

Therefore, Project Coordination Meetings are an essential element in the success of the

project. Several types of Project Coordination Meetings are described below, including:

(i) pre-construction meetings;

(ii) progress meetings; and

(iii) problem or work deficiency meetings.

4.1.1 Pre-Construction Meeting

Pre-Construction Meeting will be held at the site prior to construction of the Project. At a

minimum, the Pre-Construction Meeting will be attended by the Contractor, the Liner

Contractor’s Superintendent, the CQA Consultant, and the Construction Manager.

Specific items for discussion at the Pre-Construction Meeting include the following:

• appropriate modifications or clarifications to the CQA Plan;

• the Drawings and Technical Specifications;

• the responsibilities of each party;

• lines of authority and communication;

• methods for documenting and reporting, and for distributing documents and reports;

• acceptance and rejection criteria;

• protocols for testing;

• protocols for handling deficiencies, repairs, and re-testing;

• the time schedule for all operations;

• procedures for packaging and storing archive samples;

• panel layout and numbering systems for panels and seams;

• seaming procedures;

• repair procedures; and

• soil stockpiling locations.

The Construction Manager will conduct a site tour to observe the current site conditions and to

review construction material and equipment storage locations. A person in attendance at the

meeting will be appointed by the Construction Manager to record the discussions and



decisions of the meeting in the form of meeting minutes. Copies of the meeting minutes will be

distributed to all attendees.

4.1.2 Progress Meetings

Progress meetings will be held between the CQA Site Manager, the Contractor, Construction

Manager, and other concerned parties participating in the construction of the project. This

meeting will include discussions on the current progress of the project, planned activities for

the next week, and revisions to the work plan and/or schedule. The meeting will be

documented in meeting minutes prepared by a person designated by the CQA Site Manager

at the beginning of the meeting. Within 2 working days of the meeting, draft minutes will be

transmitted to representatives of parties in attendance for review and comment. Corrections

and/or comments to the draft minutes shall be made within 2 working days of receipt of the

draft minutes to be incorporated in the final meeting minutes.

4.1.3 Problem or Work Deficiency Meeting

A special meeting will be held when and if a problem or deficiency is present or likely to occur.

The meeting will be attended by the Contractor, the Construction Manager, the CQA Site

Manager, and other parties as appropriate. If the problem requires a design modification, the

Engineer should either be present at, consulted prior to, or notified immediately upon

conclusion of this meeting. The purpose of the work deficiency meeting is to define and

resolve the problem or work deficiency as follows:

• define and discuss the problem or deficiency;

• review alternative solutions;

• select a suitable solution agreeable to all parties; and

• implement an action plan to resolve the problem or deficiency.

The Construction Manager will appoint one attendee to record the discussions and decisions

of the meeting. The meeting record will be documented in the form of meeting minutes and

copies will be distributed to all affected parties. A copy of the minutes will be retained in facility

records.



5. DOCUMENTATION

5.1 Overview

An effective CQA Plan depends largely on recognition of all construction activities that should

be monitored and on assigning responsibilities for the monitoring of each activity. This is most

effectively accomplished and verified by the documentation of quality assurance activities. The

CQA Consultant will document that quality assurance requirements have been addressed and

satisfied.

The CQA Site Manager will provide the Construction Manager with signed descriptive

remarks, data sheets, and logs to verify that monitoring activities have been carried out. The

CQA Site Manager will also maintain, at the job site, a complete file of Drawings and Technical

Specifications, a CQA Plan, checklists, test procedures, daily logs, and other pertinent

documents.

5.2 Daily Recordkeeping

Preparation of daily CQA documentation will consist of daily field reports prepared by the CQA

Site Manager which may include CQA monitoring logs and testing data sheets. This

information may be regularly submitted to and reviewed by the Construction Manager. Daily

field reports will include documentation of the observed activities during each day of activity.

The daily field reports may include monitoring logs and testing data sheets. At a minimum,

these logs and data sheets will include the following information:

• the date, project name, location, and other identification;

• a summary of the weather conditions;

• a summary of locations where construction is occurring;

• equipment and personnel on the project;

• a summary of meetings held and attendees;

• a description of materials used and references of results of testing and documentation;

• identification of deficient work and materials;

• results of re-testing corrected “deficient work;” • an identifying sheet number for cross referencing and document control;

• descriptions and locations of construction monitored;

• type of construction and monitoring performed;

• description of construction procedures and procedures used to evaluate construction;



• a summary of test data and results;

• calibrations or re-calibrations of test equipment and actions taken as a result of re-

calibration;

• decisions made regarding acceptance of units of work and/or corrective actions to be taken

in instances of substandard testing results;

• a discussion of agreements made between the interested parties which may affect the

work; and

• signature of the respective CQA Site Manager.

5.3 Construction Problems and Resolution Data Sheets

Construction Problems and Resolution Data Sheets, to be submitted with the daily field

reports prepared by the CQA Site Manager, describing special construction situations, will be

cross-referenced with daily field reports, specific observation logs, and testing data sheets and

will include the following information, where available:

• an identifying sheet number for cross-referencing and document control;

• a detailed description of the situation or deficiency;

• the location and probable cause of the situation or deficiency; how and when the situation

or deficiency was found or located;

• documentation of the response to the situation or deficiency;

• final results of responses;

• measures taken to prevent a similar situation from occurring in the future; and

• signature of the CQA Site Manager and a signature indicating concurrence by the

Construction Manager.

The Construction Manager will be made aware of significant recurring nonconformance with

the Drawings, Technical Specifications, or CQA Plan. The cause of the nonconformance will

be determined and appropriate changes in procedures or specifications will be recommended.

These changes will be submitted to the Construction Manager for approval. When this type of

evaluation is made, the results will be documented and any revision to procedures or

specifications will be approved by the Contractor and Engineer.

A summary of supporting data sheets, along with final testing results and the CQA Site

Manager’s approval of the work, will be required upon completion of construction.

5.4 Photographic Documentation

Photographs will be taken and documented in order to serve as a pictorial record of work

progress, problems, and mitigation activities. These records will be presented to the



Construction Manager upon completion of the project. Photographic reporting data sheets,

where used, will be cross-referenced with observation and testing data sheet(s), and/or

construction problem and solution data sheet(s).

5.5 Design and/or Specifications Changes

Design and/or specifications changes may be required during construction. In such cases, the

CQA Site Manager will notify the Engineer. Design and/or specification changes will be made

with the written agreement of the Engineer and will take the form of an addendum to the

Drawings and Technical Specifications.

5.6 CQA Report

At the completion of the Project, the CQA Consultant will submit to the Owner a CQA report

signed and sealed by the Professional Engineer. The CQA report will acknowledge:

• that the work has been performed in compliance with the Drawings and Technical

Specifications;

• physical sampling and testing has been conducted at the appropriate frequencies; and

• that the summary document provides the necessary supporting information.

• At a minimum, this report will include:

• MQC documentation;

• a summary report describing the CQA activities and indicating compliance with the

Drawings and Technical Specifications which is signed and sealed by the CQA Officer;

• a summary of CQA/CQC testing, including failures, corrective measures, and retest results;

• Contractor and Installer personnel resumes and qualifications as necessary;

• documentation that the geomembrane trial seams were performed in general accordance

with the CQA Plan and Technical Specifications;

• documentation that field seams were non-destructively tested using a method in general

accordance with the applicable test standards;

• documentation that nondestructive testing was monitored by the CQA Consultant, that the

CQA Consultant informed the Liner Contractor of any required repairs, and that the CQA

Consultant monitored the seaming and patching operations for uniformity and

completeness;

• records of sample locations, the name of the individual conducting the tests, and the results

of tests;

• Record Drawings as provided by the Surveyor;

• daily field reports.



The Record Drawings will include scale drawings depicting the location of the construction and

details pertaining to the extent of construction (e.g., plan dimensions and appropriate

elevations). Record Drawings and required base maps will be prepared by a qualified

Professional Land Surveyor. These documents will be reviewed by the CQA Consultant and

included as part of the CQA Report.



6. EARTHWORKS, EXCAVATIONS AND UNDERDRAINAGE

6.1 Introduction

This section prescribes the CQA activities to be performed to monitor that prepared subgrade

is constructed in general accordance with Drawings and Technical Specifications. The

prepared subgrade construction procedures to be monitored by the CQA Consultant, if

required, shall include:

• vegetation removal;

• subgrade preparation;

• fine-grading;

• anchor trench excavation and backfill;

• pipe trench excavations and backfill;

• manhole excavations,

• return water, storm water and bulk water storage dam excavation and compaction;

• tailings dam wall construction and compaction.

6.2 General Setting Out

The Contractor shall be responsible for maintaining accurately ascertained site datum levels at

his own expense. He shall further ensure that all level control and setting out of the works is

executed in accordance with the survey data given on the construction drawings.

Immediately following the issue of the order to commence, the Contractor shall, at his own

expense, carry out and record a check level grid of the site of works, in order to accept the

contour levels shown on these drawings. Any discrepancies causing non-acceptance by the

Contractor of the levels shown on the drawings are to be pointed out to the Engineer within

two weeks of the above order being given, and the alterations checked and agreed with the

Engineer. Failing this, the original levels as shown on the construction drawings will be

deemed correct and acceptable. In addition to the above, the following survey tasks shall be

undertaken by the Contractor for agreement with the Engineer.

• ground levels shall be recorded at 10 m intervals on the centre line, upstream and

downstream toe positions of all embankments and fills after site clearance and again after

removal of unsuitable material. In the case of large embankments or fills the Engineer may

specify that the intensity of recorded levels be increased to that of a 5 m grid.



• ground levels shall be recorded at 2.5 m and 5.0 m intervals on the entire line left and right

bank positions of all trenches, canals and drains prior to excavation and again on

completion of the excavation to the required depths and grades.

• ground levels shall be recorded on a 10 m grid over discard borrow areas. After removal of

unsuitable material and/or topsoil and/or fill material as required, the Contractor shall re-

survey the ground and record levels as described above. The grids and lines before and

after soil removal shall be coincident in plan.

The Contractor shall allow for these levelling operations in the Preliminary and General section

of the Bill of Quantities. No separate payment will be made for these surveying operations.

The agreed survey data shall be the basis of all earthworks measurement.

All survey submitted by the Contractor is to be approved in writing by the Engineer before

being considered valid as a basis of measurement.

The Contractor is to inform the Engineer in writing upon the completion of impoundment walls

and trenches to design elevations and cross-sections. Thereafter, a check may be carried out

by the Engineer’s Representative to verify these elevations and cross-sections.

The cost of this check survey will be paid for by the Employer only if the results of the survey

show that the design levels and cross-sections have been achieved. The Contractor shall pay

for the costs of the check survey where the results show that the design levels and cross-

sections have not been achieved.

Any further costs involved to check if the required design levels and cross-sections have been

obtained after the corrective measures have been applied shall be borne by the Contractor.

6.3 CQA Monitoring Activities

6.3.1 Vegetation Removal

The CQA Site Manager will monitor and document that vegetation is sufficiently cleared and

grubbed in areas where specified and where geosynthetics are to be placed. Vegetation

removal shall be performed as described in the Technical Specification and the Drawings.

6.3.2 Base Preparation

Construction of the liner system will require minor base preparation certain areas. The CQA

Site Manager shall monitor and document that site base preparation performed meets the



requirements of the Technical Specifications and the Drawings. At a minimum, the CQA Site

Manager shall monitor that:

• the subgrade surface is free of sharp rocks, debris, and other undesirable materials;

• the subgrade surface is smooth and uniform by visually monitoring proof rolling activities;

and

• the subgrade surface meets the lines and grades shown on the Drawings.

6.3.3 Classes of Excavation

SANS 1200, Sub Clause 3.1.2 to be replaced with the following:

All excavation quantities throughout in all classes of material will be measured nett.

Excavations shall be measured per cubic metre and divided into the following classes: (Note:

Excavations shall only be paid in one of the classes of material, i.e. no extra over)

Material Class "A"

This classification shall include all kinds of ground encountered except those defined in Class

"B" hereinafter and shall include made-up ground paving’s, rubbish, gravel, sand, silt and

calcareous material, clay, soft rock, ground interspersed with small boulders of rock not

exceeding 0,5 m3 (one half of a cubic metre), dumped waste rock material in compacted

embankments and all other materials which can, in the opinion of the Engineer, be excavated

by hand or by machine without drilling and blasting.

Material Class "B"

In the case of canal, trench and small excavation, this classification shall mean granite, quartz,

dolomite etc, or rock of similar hardness which in the opinion of the Engineer or his

representative, can only be removed by drilling and blasting. Solid boulders in excess of 0.5

m3 (one half of a cubic metre) will be classified in this category. This classification shall apply

whether or not blasting is authorised.

In the case of bulk excavation this classification shall mean granite, quartz, dolomite etc or

rock of similar hardness found in its original position which cannot be loosened by a bulldozer

having a minimum fly wheel power of 130 kW and operating weight of 23 000 kg (e.g. a

Caterpillar D7, Komatsu D85 or equivalent in good condition, fitted with an approved single

tine ripper and driven by a competent operator). This classification shall apply whether or not

blasting is authorised.



One rate has been allowed in the Schedule of Rates for Class "B" material to cover all types

and depths of excavation work. Spoiling of Class "B" material shall be as for Class "A"

material. The excavation rate for Class "B" shall therefore include any extra required for

spoiling the rock.

Note: If the Contractor considers that any material to be excavated is classified as Class "B"

above, he shall submit a written request to the Engineer or his representative for his ruling.

Failing such a request, the excavations shall be deemed to be in Class "A". The decision of

the Engineer as to the classification of the material shall be final and binding.

6.3.4 Materials Suitable for Replacing Overbreak in Excavations for Foundations (SANS

1200D, Sub clause 3.2.2)

Backfilling to over-excavation below the required levels or depths necessary to obtain a

suitable bottom is to be carried out to the instructions and satisfaction of the Engineer and

entirely at the Contractor's expense as follows:

• Where the material excavated is not required for structural support, the over-excavation will

be filled with selected material, free from stones in 200 mm layers and compacted to a

density not less than that of the surrounding undisturbed material.

• Where the material excavated is required for structural support, the over-excavation shall

be backfilled with 20 Mega Pascal (MPa) concrete, (or concrete of other strength to be

specified by the Engineer) including all necessary work to prevent its inclusion with the

structural concrete.

6.3.5 Safeguarding Excavation (SANS 1200D, Sub Clause 5.1.1.2)

Add the following clause:

Excavations will be measured and paid for only to the NETT sizes required for designed

structures or as indicated on the drawings.

The Contractor shall assume full responsibility for the safety of all excavations, and shall at his

own expense adopt all measures necessary to secure this end, either by planking and strutting

or by side sloping of the ground provided that, the Engineer may instruct the Contractor to

plank and strut banks and sides of excavations, etc. and/or side slope such banks and sides of

excavations etc. without cost to the Employer over any surface where he may consider the

excavations dangerous, and/or to conform with any safety precaution in terms of the relevant

regulations.



Such instructions shall be considered final and binding.

No person shall work in an excavation deeper than 1.5m without the necessary safety

measures in place. All planking and strutting must be of sufficient strength to ensure the

safety of all persons in the excavations and must be suitably arranged to permit the

construction of whatever is necessary, and the Engineer's decision as to this shall be binding

upon the Contractor, who shall immediately proceed to rectify any planking and strutting that is

deemed by the Engineer to be unsafe or of such a character as will impede or impair the

placing of concrete or the construction of the works. The Contractor shall be held fully

responsible. No under-cutting of excavations will be allowed.

No payment will be made for side sloping and timbering and shoring work and these shall be

deemed to be included in the rates for excavation.

The Contractor shall be responsible for making good, or having made good, at his own

expense any slips, falls, cavings-in of ground, damage to walls, structures or works caused by

reason of his acts or works, or by causes within his control and shall indemnify the Engineer

against any claims made in respect of loss of life, or injury or damage to persons, animals or

things, caused by reason of his works or through causes in his control. The Contractor's rates

will be held to cover all such liabilities and the Engineer shall have the right, if they shall have

suffered loss by reason of the above, to deduct the value of such loss from any monies due or

that may become due to the Contractor.

6.3.6 Contractor’s Liability in Excavation

The Contractor shall be responsible for making good, or having made good, at his own

expense any slips, falls, cavings-in of ground, damage to walls, structures or works cause by

reason of his acts or works, or by causes within his control and shall indemnify the Engineer

against any claims made in respect of loss of life, or injury or damage to persons, animals or

things, caused by reasons or his works or through causes in his control. The Contractor’s rates

will be held to cover all such liabilities and the Engineer shall have the right, if they shall have

suffered loss by reason of the above, to deduct the value of such loss from any monies due or

that may become due to the Contractor.



6.3.7 Existing Services (SANS 1200D, Sub Clause 5.1.2.1)


The Contractor shall be responsible for any necessary diversions of existing services and

drains, fences, and groundwater monitoring boreholes.

Where existing services are crossed, care shall be taken to avoid damage to them. The

position of existing services shown on the drawings is approximate and the Contractor must

ascertain the true position and depth thereof. The Contractor will be responsible for any

damage to existing services and shall, at his own expense, take measures to support and

protect these services while exposed in excavations and trenches. Any damage to existing

services during the contract shall be made good by the Contractor at his own expense.

6.3.8 Stormwater and Groundwater (SANS 1200D, Sub Clause 5.1.3)


The Contractor shall provide, operate and maintain pumps, pumping equipment, well points

and all other water devices necessary to properly de-water and maintain free from water all

excavations and all natural ground water until completion of the works, at his own expense.

These devices will include any temporary storm water cut-off trenches, coffer dams and any

such structure that the Contractor may deem necessary for the completion of works in the

tailings dam area and for any work which falls under this contract.

No work shall be excavated in water without, the written permission of the Engineer.

The Contractor shall be entirely responsible for keeping the whole of the works thoroughly

drained and clear of water as long as may be required, and if considered necessary by the

Engineer, continuously day and night.

The Contractor is to be responsible at no extra cost over and above the rates for excavation in

the priced Schedule of Rates for preventing the ingress of water or storm flow into the

excavations and for the construction of proper drainage channels, sumps, supply and running

of pumps and everything necessary for the exclusion of water from excavations, whether such

water arises through storm flow, ground water, springs or seepage, and is likewise to be

responsible for the protection and de-watering of all excavations until all construction and

refilling are complete to the satisfaction of the Engineer. Rates for excavations are to include

for such de-watering.



Channels or sumps excavated outside the works for dewatering purposes, must be refilled and

made good to a standard equivalent the original conditions, (and as directed by the Engineer)

when they are no longer required.

Where the Engineer may order permanent works to be constructed to deal with springs or

seepage liable to endanger the work after completion of the Contract, such will be paid for as

extra work and paid for at scheduled rates.

The rates in the priced Schedule of Rates will be held to cover the cost of any rectification of

work, whether specified under this Contract or not, which the Engineer may order or decide to

be necessary as a result of the Contractor's de-watering or storm flow arrangements being

negligent, inadequate or improper. The cost of all such rectification work will be at the

Contractor's expense.

6.3.9 Stripping and Stockpiling of Topsoil (SANS 1200D, Sub Clause 5.2.1.2)

Topsoil from excavations and borrow pits shall be stripped 150mm or specified otherwise as

indicated on the drawings or Schedule of Quantities . The material removed shall be

transported to and disposed of at a suitable site away from the works, as directed by the

Engineer. The disposal area shall be within 1 500 m of the site area or as specified in the

Schedule of Quantities.

The unit of measurement shall be the cubic metre of in situ material removed. The rate must

allow for the operation as described and haulage to within 2 000m of the site area or as

specified in the Schedule of Quantities. The disposal area is to be left as described in 6.3.17.

6.3.10 Excavations for General Earthworks and for Structures (SANS 1200D, Sub Clause

5.2.2.1)

Add the following clauses:

The Contractor shall excavate whatever materials are encountered to the depths, cross-

sections and grades shown on the drawings. Excavated material not required or unsuitable for

backfill and/or for embankment construction shall be transported to and disposed of at a

suitable site away from the site of works as directed by the Engineer. The unit of measurement

for all excavation shall be the cubic metre of in site material excavated (measured nett). It

should be noted that when excavations are cut through embankments for the placing of drains,

pipes, pipe encasements, puddle flanges etc, the payment for these excavations shall be

based on nett dimensions with the measurable depth of excavation limited to that of the



maximum vertical dimension of the drain pipe or encasement structure at each particular

cross-section. Similarly the measurable width shall be the design width of each particular

cross-section. All costs associated with the excavation greater than these dimensions (i.e.

including backfilling with concrete or soil as required) shall not be considered for payment.

Pipes should not be laid in trenches and backfilled until the invert levels have been surveyed

and approved by the Engineer.

The rates must allow for the operation as described and haulage stated in the Schedule of

Quantities. The disposal area is to be left as described in 6.3.17.

6.3.11 Excavations of Unsuitable Material below Compacted Walls and Roadways

Unsuitable natural soil below compacted walls and roadways shall be removed to such depths

widths and lengths as the Engineer may determine after the completion of the clear site

exercise. The material so removed shall be transported to and disposed of at a suitable site

away from the site of works or stockpiled for re-use as directed by the Engineer.

The unit of measurement for unsuitable material removal shall be the cubic metre of in situ

material removed (measured nett). The rates must allow for the operation as described and

haulage stated in the Schedule of Quantities. The disposal area is to be left as described in

6.3.17.

6.3.12 Unauthorised Excavations

The Contractor is prohibited from making Excavations other than those approved by the

Engineer as necessary for the works.

6.3.13 Overbreak

All excavation quantities throughout, in all classes of material will be measured nett.

6.3.13.1 Excavation in Class "B" Material

Items measured in square metres, of extra for overbreak in Class "B" excavation material

including filling with respective classes of concrete or back-shuttering and filling with selected

earth filling and compacting in 200 mm layers, unless specified otherwise, (the Contractor is to

price for whichever system he considers preferable) have been measured to the area of

vertical concrete structure abutting against Class "B" excavation material for the respective



classes of concrete. These items will be measured and paid for in the final account to all

vertical faces of concrete structure abutting against Class "B" excavation material faces and

the rate will apply irrespective of any discrepancy between the system (as above described)

and the system used in construction.

Similarly, items measured in square metres of extra for overbreak in Class "B" excavation

material including filling with respective classes of concrete have been measured to the area

of horizontal or sloping concrete structure abutting against Class "B" excavation material.

6.3.13.2 Excavation in Class "A" material

a) Where no Class "B" material as described is encountered in any one excavation, the

excavation quantities will be measured nett.

b) Where Class "A" and "B" material as described are encountered in any one excavation,

the excavation in Class "A", material will be measured only as stated in (a) above,

irrespective of any over-excavation for any reason whatsoever, and the excavation in

Class "B" material will be measured only as stated in 0 previously, irrespective of any

over-excavation for any reason whatsoever.

6.3.14 Borrow Pits (SANS 1200D, Sub Clause 5.2.2.2)

Add the following:

The Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that materials obtained from borrow pits

conform to the material requirements specified by the Engineer from time to time. These

criteria include in brief terms the material particle size distribution (i.e. grading envelope)

minimum density and moisture content requirements.

To this end the Contractor will be required to excavate a reasonable number of trial pits at his

own cost in order to prove the suitability of each borrow area location.

The Contractor, unless otherwise directed, shall obtain the required material by borrowing in

these cuttings to such widths, lengths and depths as the Engineer may direct. No payment for

removal of borrow material to fill will be made. (Payment will be for the formation of

embankments, only – refer to 6.3.18). The Contractor is to allowed in his rates for

embankment formation for any staging of borrow materials that may be required.

Payment for the opening of borrow areas not allocated by the Engineer, will not be considered.



Borrow from borrow pits will normally be limited to material which can be loosened by the use

of mechanical rippers having a minimum fly wheel power of 130 kW and operating weight of

23 000 kg (e.g. a Caterpillar D7, Komatsu D85) in good condition and driven by a competent

operator.

All borrow areas are to be left in a safe and neat state as directed by the Engineer at no extra

cost.

Should stripping of unsuitable material overlying a borrow pit be required it shall be to such

depths as determined by the Engineer. This unsuitable material shall be disposed of at a

suitable site away from the site of works as directed by the Engineer. The disposal area shall

be within the haul distance stated in the Schedule of Quantities.

The unit of measurement for unsuitable material removed shall be the cubic metre of in situ

material removed. The rate must allow for the operation as described and haulage stated in

the Schedule of Quantities. The disposal area is to be left as described in 6.3.17.

6.3.14.1 Borrow Pit Restrictions

Fill material for all embankments shall be free of all surface vegetation and shall be approved

by the Engineer. This material will generally be obtained from the following sources:

• basin excavations

• borrow pits

• stockpiles

Should these restrictions not be adhered to, the Contractor shall, at his own expense, restore

the original ground level in the affected areas by compacting selected material to the

specification of the Engineer.

6.3.15 Preparation of Approved Soil beneath Compacted Embankments and Roadways

Prior to the commencement of construction of compacted embankments and roadways, the

approved natural top soil beneath the base areas shall be broken up by ripping or other means

to a minimum depth of 150mm or else specified by the Engineer and compacted to the

approval of the Engineer by not less than eight passes of an approved ten metric tonne roller.

The onus is placed on the Contractor to compact this layer to such a degree to ensure that the

indicated densities or such lesser densities as may be specified by the Engineer can be SOUTH 32 26 of 76 JULY 2015


achieved on subsequent layers. The unit of measurement for ripping and compacting the

approved founding layer is the design square metre.

6.3.16 Excavations to be Passed

Before any concrete is cast all foundation surfaces must be clean and generally prepared to

receive it to the satisfaction of the Engineer. The cost of this work must be included in the rate

for excavation.

In no case must concrete be placed in an excavation until the consent of the Engineer has

been obtained.

6.3.17 Disposal (SANS 1200D, Sub Clause 5.2.2.3)


Dumping areas (which may include used borrow pits) shall be allocated for the disposal of all

surplus material from clear site operations, excavations, removal of unsuitable material, and

for topsoil stripped from the site etc. Such areas shall be within the haul distances stated in the

Schedule of Quantities. These areas shall be maintained in a neat condition and when

completed, levelled off by grading to within 150 mm from level or a given surface as directed.

The rates must allow for all such levelling and trimming and for haulage stated in the Schedule

of Quantities. These areas shall be specified by the Engineer.

6.3.18 Embankments (SANS 1200D, Sub Clause 5.2.3.1)


Embankments and fills shall be constructed by obtaining selected soil from excavations,

approved borrow pits or stockpiles and forming it to the dimensions and elevations given on

the drawings.

Material forming the embankment and fill shall be compacted in layers as detailed in 6.3.23

and 6.3.24to form durable embankments and fill of good, regular appearance with all cross-

sections having the minimum sizes detailed on drawings and having side slopes not steeper

than specified. The sides of the embankments and fill must be compacted to hard durable

faces. Any spoil resulting from this operation is to be removed and disposed of at no extra

cost.

The unit of measurement for embankment and fill construction shall be the design cubic metre

of placed material after compaction, trimming and forming to the specified dimensions.

Contractors will not be paid for embankments and fill constructed in excess of the dimensions SOUTH 32 27 of 76 JULY 2015


specified. The Engineer will decide on acceptance or rejection of embankments and fill which

are oversized.

The Contractor is to allow in his rate for forming and compacting an oversized embankment/fill,

cutting back and compacting the sides of the embankment/fill to the correct size.

(Note: In general the preferred source of borrow material, subject to quality approval by the

Engineer will be excavated material from the new slimes dam basin). Should waste rock,

gravel or filter materials need to be imported, the Engineer should approve the sources and be

provided with material properties prior to use.



6.3.19 Backfilling (SANS 1200D, Sub Clause 5.2.3.2)

6.3.19.1 Backfilling where Compaction is not Required

The unit of measurement for all backfill shall be the net design cubic metre of consolidated

material placed.

6.3.19.2 Backfilling where Compaction is Required

Backfilling to foundations and trench extensions shall be paid for under the items provided in

the Schedule of Quantities and shall be carried out by replacing excavated material with,

selected excavated material in layers as specified on the drawings, each layer being

thoroughly compacted, rammed and consolidated before the succeeding layer is placed or

such other ways as may be directed by the Engineer. In areas where specified compaction

densities are required for backfill then the testing and approval procedures as outlined in

6.3.23 and 6.3.24will be enforced. Only sand replacement testing may be done near concrete

foundations.

Any defects caused due to subsidence of the backfilling, as a result of improper workmanship

shall be made good at the Contractor's expense. At the ground surface, the filling shall be

banked to a height of about 100 mm above the level of the adjacent ground surface to allow

for any settlements and before completion of the works, and, if necessary, again before expiry

of the maintenance period or at such other times as the Engineer may direct, all refilled

excavations shall be examined and dressed and, where depressions have occurred, these

shall be made good by refilling and ramming with suitable material at the Contractor's

expense.

The unit of measurement for all backfill shall be the nett design cubic metre of compacted

material placed.

6.3.19.3 Backfilling to Over-Excavation

Backfilling to over-excavation below the required levels or depths necessary to achieve the

required depth or to obtain a suitable bottom is to be carried out to the instructions and

satisfaction of the Engineer and entirely at the Contractor’s expense.



6.3.20 Fall in of Ground

Should any ground or any of the excavations collapse, other than that required to be

excavated owing to the omission or inefficiency of planking and strutting or any other cause, it

must be dug out, and made good as outlined in 0

These remedial measures will be carried out to the satisfaction of the Engineer at the

Contractor’s expense.

6.3.21 Haulage (SANS 1200D, Sub Clause 5.2.5)

The Contractor shall at his own cost construct and maintain temporary haul roads as required

along the route designated by the Engineer.

If the Contractor chooses, for reasons of his own, to transport material by a different route, the

measurement of distance for transport will be along the routes designated by the Engineer.

In the case of borrow pits, the Contractor shall be restricted to the routes designated by the

Engineer.

Free haulage of material excavated from a borrow pit, excavation etc or cutting shall be limited

to a distance of two kilometre measured from the edge of the borrow pit or cutting along the

designated route.

Overhaul is that portion of the total haulage beyond the free haul limit and is measured

separately.

The unit of measurement for overhaul in the case of compacted fill or placed material shall be

the cubic metre - kilometre being the product of distance measured in kilometres to the

nearest tenth of a kilometre and the cubic metres of compacted or placed (whichever is

applicable) material transported. However, in the case of cut to spoil, or stockpile the unit of

measurement for overhaul shall be the cubic metre-kilometre being the product of the distance

measured in kilometres to the nearest tenth of a kilometre and the cubic metre of undisturbed

in situ material transported.

6.3.22 Tolerances (SANS 1200D, Sub Clause 6)

Add in the following:



All embankments, excavations, trenches, fill areas, canals etc shall be neatly trimmed to the

required widths, cross-sections and levels as specified on the drawings and specifications.

Where not stated the tolerance is to be within ± 50 mm.

The width of the formation measured from the final staked centre line shall in no case be less

than the specified dimension..

6.3.23 Moisture Content and Density (SANS 1200D, Sub Clause 6.2)

Add in the following:

6.3.23.1 General

The standards of compaction required are shown on the drawings and the Contractor shall be

entirely responsible for obtaining a density not less than the minimum specified Proctor density

or Modified AASHTO density whichever is applicable (hereinafter referred to as specified

density).

All compacted fill material is to be placed in horizontal layers and compacted in loose layers

with a depth not greater than 300 mm unless specified by the Engineer, and to a density not

less than the minimum specified density. It should further be noted that a uniform moisture

content (as per specification) is to be achieved throughout the loose layer prior to compaction.

All compaction shall be carried out in a direction parallel to the centre line of the earthworks,

working on a predetermined pattern which shall ensure that the whole area of the layer

receives a uniform compaction.

The moisture content shall unless otherwise specified be in the range between one per cent

below and two per cent above Proctor or Modified AASHTO optimum moisture content, (or any

other range specified on the drawings or by the Engineer from time to time) whichever is

applicable. Compacted layers with moisture contents outside the specified range shall be

deemed to have failed regardless of the densities achieved. The required moisture content

shall be distributed uniformly throughout each layer of material.

Compaction shall be carried out by means of compaction equipment to be approved by the

Engineer.

6.3.23.2 Compaction to a Performance Specification

Certain specified embankments and fill will be constructed by applying a performance

specification to each placed layer (hereinafter referred to as normal or performance



compaction). These embankments and fill shall be formed by compacting selected material in

loose layers not exceeding 300 mm, unless specified by the Engineer, in thickness by applying

a minimum number of passes to be specified by the Engineer of an approved vibratory roller.

The minimum number of passes will be determined on site jointly by the Contractor and the

Engineer and will be based on the number of passes required to obtain a compaction of 95%

Modified AASHTO density (±2%) or any lesser density that the Engineer may specify. The

Engineer reserves the right to re-execute these tests and to re-specify the minimum number of

passes from time to time dependent on material variability, compactor type, moisture content

etc.

If necessary during and/or prior to compaction, water shall be provided to bring the soil to the

correct moisture contents as directed by the Engineer.

The Engineer reserves the right to stop and condemn all "performance" compaction work if in

his opinion the Contractor is seen not to be executing the works as described above. All such

remedial works shall be for the Contractor's account.

6.3.23.3 Preparation of Pipe Trench Floors

The floor of the trenches shall be compacted to at least 95% Modified AASHTO density at

optimum moisture content or any other specified density and moisture content that the

Engineer may authorise, to a minimum depth of 150 mm, unless specified else wise by the

Engineer. The unit of measurement shall be the design square metre of trench prepared.

6.3.24 Taking and Testing of Samples (SANS 1200D, Sub Clause 7.2)

Add in the following Sub Clause:

6.3.24.1 Compaction Control

The Contractor shall provide an adequate site laboratory, with good quality equipment,

facilities and qualified personnel for carrying out the required compaction tests. Should the

Engineer at any time consider any of the above to be inadequate for this purpose, he shall

instruct the Contractor to cease further work on compaction until such time as the Contractor

has remedied the deficiency.

The onus shall be on the Contractor to ensure the following:

• that the state of the material when placed is such that the compaction as specified in

Clause 6.3.23 is obtained;



• that material selected for use in compacted embankments shall be approved by the

Engineer on the basis of the maximum dry density (Proctor or Mod AASHTO, whichever is

applicable) being equal to or greater than a minimum density to be specified by the

Engineer.

Hence with the object of controlling the selection and compaction of all materials used in the

various layers of fill the Contractor shall perform grading analyses, Proctor or Mod AASHTO

density tests whichever is applicable on each type of material which he proposes to use

including mixed or blended materials.

In addition to the tests required for his own control the Contractor shall allow for at least two

density checks per 400 square metre block of material compacted per layer. The recognised

method of determining the density is the sand replacement test. However, the Radio Isotope

or nuclear density method may be used (if approved by the Engineer) for density and moisture

checks, provided suitable agreement is obtained between this method and the sand

replacement method and provided the necessary calibration and specified tests to these

instruments are undertaken at intervals to be specified by the Engineer. If nuclear density

measuring devices are used, they shall be calibrated against sand replacement tests.

If an alternative method of density determination is accepted, the sand replacement method

shall be used to check every fourth density determination, and the moisture content of the

sample shall be determined by oven drying as specified for the Modified AASHTO and

Standard Proctor compaction methods.

To account for material variability, approved density tests will be accepted based on the

following:

(a) Walls/Fill compacted to 100% Proctor Density or Mod AASHTO Density

• If any one of the two density tests per 400m2 block is below 95% then the entire block

will be re-ripped, re-watered and re-compacted.

• If any one or both of the two density tests per 400 m2 block is between 95% and 98%

then two more tests will be undertaken in the particular 200 m2 block. If the average of

the four density tests is greater than or equal to 98% then the block will be passed. If

the average is less than 98% then the entire block will be re-ripped, re-watered and

re-compacted.



• If both of the two density tests per 400 m2 block lie between 98% and 102% then the

block will be passed (i.e. a range of ± 2%). Tests achieving densities in excess of ±

2% will not be accepted. In this case the block will have to be re-ripped, re-watered

and re-compacted.

(b) Walls/Fill compacted to 98% Proctor Density or Mod AASHTO Density

• If any one of the two density tests per 400 m2 block is below 98% then the entire

block will be re-ripped, re-watered and re-compacted.

• Any one density test will be deemed to have passed if a density of + 2% is achieved.

Tests achieving densities in excess of + 2% will not be accepted.

(c) Walls/Fill compacted to 95% Standard Proctor or Mod AASHTO Density

• If any one of the two density tests per 400 m2 block is below 95% then the entire

block will be re-ripped, re-watered and re-compacted.

• Any one density test will be deemed to have passed if a density of + 2% is achieved.

Tests achieving densities in excess of + 2% will not be accepted.

The compaction control tests shall be carried out as laid down in "Standard Methods of Testing

Materials" published by the Department of Transport, Pretoria, unless the Engineer another

test method.

Field density and moisture content tests are to be carried out within twelve hours after the

completion of each section of the layer. If such tests are not carried out by the Contractor

within this period then the Engineer may fail a layer or section of the layer regardless of any

test results which may then or subsequently be provided, and this decision shall be final.

When the compaction of any section of any layer, for which a density and moisture content is

specified, is completed, the Contractor shall supply to the Engineer copies of test results

whether successful or otherwise within 6 hours of determination.

The Contractor is to note that no subsequent layer is to be placed until such time as the

previous layer has been approved by the Engineer in writing.

The Contractor shall maintain updated, accurate records of all compaction control tests, i.e.

test data, chainage and layer elevation.



These records shall be available on site for inspection by the Engineer at all times.

Where tests reveal that the density or moisture content of any layer, at any depth, is not to

specification, the Contractor shall re-rip, re-compact and re-water if necessary such material,

or if the specified density cannot be obtained by further compaction of the material such

material shall be removed and replaced by material capable of yielding the specified density.

All such testing and corrective work shall be undertaken at the Contractor's cost.

Tests to check the density, moisture content and particle size distribution of the compacted

material and/or to check the testing procedures of the Contractor as described above, may be

carried out by the Engineer. The costs of these tests will be paid for by the Employer only if the

results of the tests show that the specified density has been obtained.

The Contractor shall pay for all such tests where the results show that the specified density

has not been obtained; also he shall pay for any further tests to check if the required density,

moisture content and particle size distribution has been obtained after the specified corrective

measures have been carried out.

6.3.25 Rip-rap (SANS 1200, Sub-Clause 5.2.3.3) if Applicable

The Contractor shall supply and place as indicated on the drawings broken hard rock having

an average rock size D50 of 200 mm. The rip-rap shall be well graded from a maximum size at

least 1,5 times the average rock size to 30 mm spalls suitable to fill voids between rocks.

Individual rock fragments shall be dense, sound and resistant to abrasion and shall be free

from cracks, seams and other defects that would tend to increase unduly their destruction by

wave action. The rip-rap need not be compacted but shall be placed to grade in a manner to

insure that the larger rock fragments are uniformly distributed and the smaller rock fragments

serve to fill the spaces between the larger rock fragments in such a manner as will result in

well-keyed, densely placed, uniform layers of rip-rap of the specified thickness. Hand placing

will be required only to the extent necessary to secure the results specified.

The area and final method of obtaining rip-rap will be indicated by the EMPLOYER.

The unit of measurement shall be the design cubic metre of rock placed in the works or the

works as specified.



6.3.26 Anchor Trench Construction

During construction, the CQA Site Manager will monitor the anchor trench excavation and

backfill methods are consistent with the requirements specified in the Technical Specifications

and the Drawings. The CQA Site Manager will monitor, at a minimum, that:

• the anchor trench is free of sharp rocks, debris and other undesirable materials and that

particles are no larger than 150 mm in longest dimension;

• the anchor trench is constructed to the lines and grades shown on the

• Drawings; and

• Compaction requirements are met, through visual observations, as specified in the

Technical Specifications.

6.3.27 Erosion Control

Any runnels or erosion channels greater than 50 mm deep formed during the construction or

maintenance period shall be backfilled and compacted and the surfaces returned to their

original condition. This shall apply to outside embankment faces, embankment crests, inside

slopes, berms and canals.

The Contractor will receive no payment for repairing erosion damage.

6.3.28 Dust Suppression

Dust suppression is to be carried out to the Engineers satisfaction in the vicinity of the drain

construction to ensure no contamination of the filter drains.

6.3.29 Concrete (Small Works)

6.3.29.1 Aggregates (SANS 1200GA, Sub-Clause 3.4)

Use of Plums

"Plums" shall not be used.

6.3.29.2 Concrete (SANS 1200GA, Sub-Clause 5.4)

6.3.29.2.1 Strength Concrete

Strength Concrete shall be used in the WORKS. The grade of concrete and position on the

works shall be as shown on the drawings, and as described in the Schedule of Quantities or

as directed by the ENGINEER from time to time. The maximum nominal size of coarse



aggregate shall be 19 mm. The CONTRACTOR is required to submit mix design details to the

ENGINEER for approval prior to use.

6.3.29.2.2 Concrete Surfaces

Wood and steel float finishes will only be paid to the items listed in the schedule of quantities.

All other floating or striking off shall be deemed to be covered in the shutter and concrete

placing rates.

6.3.29.2.3 Watertight Concrete

All concrete structures in this CONTRACT are to be watertight.

6.3.29.3 .Permissible Deviations (SANS 1200GA, Sub-Clause 6.4)

Degree of Accuracy II applicable.

6.4 Deficiencies

If a defect is discovered in the earthwork product, the CQA Site Manager will immediately

determine the extent and nature of the defect. If the defect is indicated by an unsatisfactory

test result, the CQA Site Manager will determine the extent of the defective area by additional

tests, observations, a review of records, or other means that the CQA Site Manager deems

appropriate. If the defect is related to adverse site conditions, such as overly wet soils or non-

conforming particle sizes, the CQA Site Manager will define the limits and nature of the defect.

Should any ground or any of the excavations collapse, other than that required to be

excavated owing to the omission or inefficiency of planking and strutting or any other cause, it

must be dug out, and made good.

These remedial measures will be carried out to the satisfaction of the Engineer at the

Contractor’s expense.

6.4.1 Notification

After evaluating the extent and nature of a defect, the CQA Site Manager will notify the

Construction Manager and Contractor and schedule appropriate re-evaluation when the work

deficiency is to be corrected.



6.4.2 Repairs and Re-Testing

The Contractor will correct deficiencies to the satisfaction of the CQA Site Manager. If a

project specification criterion cannot be met, or unusual weather conditions hinder work, then

the CQA Site Manager will develop and present to the Construction Manager suggested

solutions for his approval.

Re-evaluations by the CQA Site Manager shall continue until it is verified that defects have

been corrected before any additional work is performed by the Contractor in the area of the

deficiency.

7. DRAINAGE AGGREGATE

7.1 Introduction

This section prescribes the CQA activities to be performed to monitor that drainage

aggregates are constructed in general accordance with Drawings and Technical

Specifications. The drainage aggregates construction procedures to be monitored by the CQA

Consultant include drainage aggregate placement.

7.2 Testing Activities

Aggregate testing will be performed for material qualification and material conformance. These

two stages of testing are defined as follows:

• Material qualification tests are used to evaluate the conformance of a proposed aggregate

source with the Technical Specifications for qualification of the source prior to construction.

• Aggregate conformance testing is used to evaluate the conformance of a particular batch of

aggregate from a qualified source to the Technical Specifications prior to installation of the

aggregate.

The Contractor will be responsible for submitting material qualification test results to the

Construction Manager and to the CQA Site Manager for review. The CQA Laboratory will

perform the conformance testing and CQC testing. Aggregate testing will be conducted in

general accordance with the current versions of the corresponding American Society for

Testing and Materials (ASTM) test procedures. The test methods indicated in Table 1 are

those that will be used for this testing unless the test methods are updated or revised prior to

construction. Revisions to the test methods will be reviewed and approved by the Engineer

and the CQA Site Manager prior to their usage.



7.2.1 Compaction Control

Refer to Section 0.

7.2.2 Sample Frequency

The frequency of aggregate testing for material qualification and material conformance will

conform to the minimum frequencies presented in Table 1A. The frequency of aggregate

testing shall conform to the minimum frequencies presented in Table 1B. The actual frequency

of testing required will be increased by the CQA Site Manager, as necessary, if variability of

materials is noted at the site, during adverse conditions, or to isolate failing areas of the

construction.

7.2.3 Sample Selection

With the exception of qualification samples, sampling locations will be selected by the CQA

Site Manager. Conformance samples will be obtained from borrow pits and/or stockpiles of

material. The Contractor must plan the work and make aggregate available for sampling in a

timely and organized manner so that the test results can be obtained before the material is

installed. The CQA Site Manager must document sample locations so that failing areas can be

immediately isolated. The CQA Site Manager will follow standard sampling procedures to

obtain representative samples of the proposed aggregate materials.

7.3 CQA Monitoring Activities

7.3.1 Drainage Aggregate

The CQA Site Manager will monitor and document the installation of the drainage aggregates.

In general, monitoring of the installation of drainage aggregate includes the following activities:

• reviewing documentation of the material qualification test results provided by the

Contractor;

• sampling and testing for conformance of the materials to the Technical Specifications;

• documenting that the drainage aggregates are installed using the specified equipment and

procedures;

• documenting that the drainage aggregates are constructed to the lines and grades shown

on the Drawings; and

• monitoring that the construction activities do not cause damage to underlying geosynthetic

materials.



7.3.2 Permeable Material (SANS 1200, Sub Clause 3.2.2)

The Contractor’s attention is specifically drawn to the importance of obtaining consistent

supplies of permeable drainage material in accordance with this specification. Each drainage

layer is classed as a structural entity. Stringent quality control checks on the grading of the

material, material thickness, and the dimensional correctness will be applied to ensure the

integrity of each drainage layer.

The following quality control measures will be applied by the Contractor to all permeable

materials at no additional cost.

Generally one grading analysis is to be carried out by the Contractor for every 100 m3 of

material brought to site. However, if materials are observed to be variable, then the Engineer

reserves the right to insist that one grading analysis per truck load be undertaken. The grading

analyses are to be submitted to the Engineer for approval which must be obtained prior to

placement of the permeable material. Any material which fails to meet with the specification

will be rejected, removed from site and replaced at the Contractor’s expense.

Stockpiles are to be formed on approved areas rendered free of vegetation and loose

contaminant matter. Furthermore, in order to ensure an acceptable level of quality assurance

and to minimize contamination, the number of stockpiles used and their location is to be

approved by the Engineer.

Notwithstanding the criteria stipulated below, the Engineer reserves the right to approve the

use of any materials proposed for the filter.

As a guide he may work on the basis of the performances of the material in an actual through

flow test.

Permeable material as used in the filter drains shall comply with the following:

7.3.2.1 Filter Sand

Filter sand shall be clean, washed sand free of all deleterious material and shall comply with

the following general requirements:

D0 between 0.06 mm and 0.14 mm










Current Aeolian soil found on site:

D10 = 0.02 mm < general requirements






D100 = 3.00 mm = within limits

The Aeolian soil found on site appears to be finer than the general requirements for a filter

sand. Therefore the in-situ soil will have to be washed/sieved to achieve the specifications, or

imported from an approved source to serve as the filter sand on site.

D ( filter )

4 < 15 < 20 D

15 (soil )

(Drainage criterion)

D ( filter ) 15 ≤ 5 D85 (soil )

(Erosion criterion)

The filter sand cannot contain more than 5% passing 75micron. The fines should be

cohesionless.

All grading analyses to be carried out on a net sieve according to generally accepted methods

and procedures.

In addition the grain size curve of the filter sand should be roughly parallel to that of the

surrounding material. The unit of measurement shall be the design cubic meter of approved

filter sand in place in the drains.

7.3.2.2 Crushed Stone

The stone shall be in accordance with SANS 1083, except that the stone shall be thoroughly

cleaned and washed and the grading requirements shall be as follows:

(Note: The following grading envelopes are subject to change depending on the final approved

filter material used during construction)



Nominal 6mm









Nominal 19mm









7.3.2.3.Coarse Discard

Coarse discard material to be obtained from the Adams Pit as directed and approved by

Engineer

7.4 Deficiencies

If a defect is discovered in the drainage aggregates, the CQA Site Manager will evaluate the

extent and nature of the defect. If the defect is indicated by an unsatisfactory test result, the

CQA Site Manager will determine the extent of the deficient area by additional tests,

observations, a review of records, or other means that the CQA Site Manager deems

appropriate.

7.4.1 Notification

After evaluating the extent and nature of a defect, the CQA Site Manager will notify the

Construction Manager and Contractor and schedule appropriate re-tests when the work

deficiency is to be corrected.



7.4.2 Repairs and Re-testing

The Contractor will correct the deficiency to the satisfaction of the CQA Site Manager. If a

project specification criterion cannot be met, or unusual weather conditions hinder work, then

the CQA Site Manager will develop and present to the Construction Manager suggested

solutions for approval.

Re-tests recommended by the CQA Site Manager shall continue until it is verified that the

defect has been corrected before any additional work is performed by the Contractor in the

area of the deficiency. The CQA Site Manager will also verify that installation requirements are

met and that submittals are provided.

8. HDPE PIPE AND FITTINGS

8.1 Material Requirements

HDPE pipe and fittings must conform to the requirements of the Technical Specifications. The

CQA Consultant will document that the HDPE pipe and fittings meet those requirements.

8.2 Manufacturer

8.2.1 Submittals

Prior to the installation of HDPE pipe, the Manufacturer will provide to the CQA Consultant:

• a properties sheet including, at a minimum, all specified properties, measured using test

methods indicated in the Technical Specifications, or equivalent; and

• The CQA Consultant will document that:

• the property values certified by the Manufacturer meet the Technical Specifications; and

• the measurements of properties by the Manufacturer are properly documented and that the

test methods used are acceptable.

8.3 Handling and Laying

Care will be taken during transportation of the pipe such that it will not be cut, kinked, or

otherwise damaged. Ropes, fabric, or rubber-protected slings and straps will be used when

handling pipes. Chains, cables, or hooks inserted into the pipe ends will not be used. Two

slings spread apart will be used for lifting each length of pipe. Pipe or fittings will not be

dropped onto rocky or unprepared ground.



Pipes will be handled and stored in general accordance with the Manufacturer’s

recommendation. The handling of joined pipe will be in such a manner that the pipe is not

damaged by dragging it over sharp and cutting objects. Slings for handling the pipe will not be

positioned at joints. Sections of the pipes with deep cuts and gouges will be removed and the

ends of the pipe rejoined.

8.4 Perforations

The CQA Site Manager shall monitor and document that the perforations of the HDPE pipe

conform to the requirements of the Drawings and the Technical Specifications.

8.5 Joints

The CQA Monitor shall monitor and document that pipe and fittings are joined by the methods

indicated in the Technical Specifications.

9. GEOMEMBRANE

9.1 General

This section discusses and outlines the CQA activities to be performed for high density

polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane installation. The CQA Site Manager will review the

Drawings, Technical Specifications, and any approved Addenda regarding this material.

9.1.1 Installation of Geomembrane System

9.1.1.1 General

The lining contractor is to undergo and abide to all the environmental requirements as set out

by the mine. The installation shall be in accordance with SANS 10409.

Before the commencement of a contract, during the planning stage, a sheet layout will be

prepared by the Lining Contractor on a plan of the RWD for approval by the Engineer and the

main Contractor.

The Lining Contractor will submit a method statement for the placing of the plastic lining, given

the effect of weather (rain, wind) and the shape and fall of the RWD (effect of run off on plastic

laying). The final accepted method will be determined after award of the contract and will be a

combined Contractor/ Lining Contractor responsibility.



The membrane sheets shall be laid and welded down the slope and adequate arrangements

must be made for anchoring at the top and bottom of the embankment as well as cognisance

taken for prevailing wind directions. Temporary ballast will be applied to liner to prevent

damage from wind uplift and to prevent surface run-off during rainfall to enter under the liner.

9.1.1.2 Supervision and Manning

The Lining Contractor must supply an Organogram and CV’s for all site personnel to be

employed in the works. As indicated in the Tender Document the Lining Contractor must also

supply a schedule of personnel that it proposes to utilize on site during the carrying out of the

works.

The Engineer must approve any proposed changes to the schedule of personnel in writing.

The Lining Contractor shall allow in its manning levels for adequate coverage of leave

requirements, to allow continuous operation at maximum production levels i.e. working seven

days a week with full crews.

The Lining Contractor will be required to have a competent, experienced Lining Installation

Supervisor on site full time during the lining installation. Both the Contractor and the Engineer

must approve in writing, the proposed lining installation supervisor.

9.1.1.3 Preparation before Laying

The Lining Contractor will be required to thoroughly check the finished earthworks surface

ahead of installing the liner and to remove particles remain that could damage the liner. No

protruding sharp objects will be allowed. Checking and picking of the final clay layer will be

the responsibility of the Contractor.

The surface may require rolling just prior to laying of the geomembrane due typically to erosion

tunnels caused by rain storms and damage due to picking. This rolling is to be done by the

Contractor.

The surface must be inspected in the presence of the Engineer before the sheets are installed.

If the Engineer is satisfied with the finished earthworks, he will sign the Substrate Clearance

certificate to allow the Lining Contractor to commence installation of the plastic liner. Any

subsequent repairs required to finished earthworks shall be the responsibility of the

Contractor.

The Lining Contractor shall perform the works as expeditiously as possible to minimize the

possibility of damage to the completed earthworks due to rain. The Contractor shall make all



reasonable efforts to prevent any occurrences that may cause damage to the finished

earthworks.

9.1.1.4 Procedure

The liner must be installed in accordance with the sheet layout as agreed with the Engineer.

The pattern of sheets laid must be such that no more than three sheets shall lap at any place.

This can be achieved by staggering adjacent strips of sheet forming T-joints instead of “+” joints. A full record of work done with respect to date and position must be kept and forwarded

on a weekly basis to the Engineer.

Individual sheets must be rolled out to ensure that the possibility of damage is kept to a

minimum and the membrane is exposed to subsequent construction activities for the shortest

possible time.

The programme of construction shall be such as to minimise exposure of the sheets before the

filling of the lined facility is commenced.

All joints must be prepared for welding by grinding - (Extrusion Fusion welding only) - the

surface of the membrane over the full width and length of the joint.

9.1.1.5 Issues for Consideration during Tendering:

This section of the specification outlines areas/items, which will require careful attention during

construction.

9.1.1.5.1 Rain

The Lining Contractor must be aware that there will be delays due to rain and that he must

allow for these both in the rates and when determining manning and equipment levels required

to meet construction deadlines.

The plastic lining should be placed from the highest point on the dam down to the lowest point

in order to prevent storm-water flowing under the Liner. However, if the Contractor can show

means for protecting the Liner and sub-strate, he may obtain written permission from the

Engineer to change this philosophy.

9.1.1.5.2 Wind

Very strong winds can occur just prior to and during storm events. It is essential that the Lining

Contractor utilizes sand bags during the laying operation to ensure that lifting followed by

tearing, creasing and other damage is not allowed to occur. This type of occurrence will lead to

time delays associated with relaying and rechecking etc, which could have a severe impact on

the project schedule.



9.1.1.5.3 Measurement

The unit of measurement for the installation of a suitable type of impermeable lining by an

approved lining sub-contractor in accordance with the specifications, shall be the square metre

of lining placed according to the dimensions indicated on the drawings or as specified by the

Engineer. No extras will be paid for overlaps at joints, waste, etc. The lining that is placed in

the anchor trenches, to the dimensions shown on the drawings will be included in the

measured quantity.

Payment will be as detailed in the attached Bill of Quantities and where required separate

items will be scheduled for attachments to concrete structures, pipes, sumps etc.

The rates in the schedule must include for:

• Supply of liner to the specifications (including compatible welding rods)

• all relevant insurances

• transport costs (including delivery to site and offloading

• storage,

• laying,

• welding

• QA/QC requirements,

• experienced supervision,

• labour, and

• preparing the surface just prior to laying (picking and rolling), etc.

No additional payments or claims of any nature will be considered.

9.2 Geomembrane Material Conformance

9.2.1 Introduction

The CQA Site Manager will document that the geomembrane delivered to the site meets the

requirements of the Technical Specifications prior to installation. The CQA Site Manager will:

• review the manufacturer’s submittals for compliance with the

• Technical Specifications;

• document the delivery and proper storage of geomembrane rolls; and

• conduct conformance testing of the rolls before the geomembrane is installed.

• The following sections describe the CQA activities required to verify the conformance of

geomembrane.



9.2.2 Review of Quality Control

Material Properties Certification

The Manufacturer will provide the Construction Manager and the CQA Site Manager with the

following:

• Property data sheets, including, at a minimum, all specified properties, measured using test

methods indicated in the Technical Specifications, or equivalent;

• sampling procedures and results of testing.

• The CQA Site Manager will document that:

• the property values certified by the Manufacturer meet all of the requirements of the

Technical Specifications; and

• the measurements of properties by the Manufacturer are properly documented and that the

test methods used are acceptable.

Geomembrane Roll MQC Certification

Prior to shipment, the Manufacturer will provide the Construction Manager and the CQA Site

Manager with MQC certificates for every roll of geomembrane provided. The MQC certificates

will be signed by a responsible party employed by the Geomembrane Manufacturer, such as

the production manager. The MQC certificates shall include:

• roll numbers and identification; and

• results of MQC tests - as a minimum, results will be given for thickness, specific gravity,

carbon black content, carbon black dispersion, tensile properties, and puncture resistance

evaluated in general accordance with the methods indicated in the Technical Specifications

or equivalent methods approved by the Construction Manager.

• The CQA Site Manager will document that:

• that MQC certificates have been provided at the specified frequency, and that the

certificates identify the rolls related to the roll represented by the test results; and

• review the MQC certificates and monitor that the certified roll properties meet the

specifications.

9.2.3 Conformance Testing

The CQA Site Manager shall obtain conformance samples (at the manufacturing facility or

site) at the specified frequency and forward them to the Geosynthetics CQA Laboratory for

testing to monitor conformance to both the Technical Specifications and the list of properties

certified by the Manufacturer. The test procedures will be as indicated in Table 2. Where SOUTH 32 48 of 76 JULY 2015


optional procedures are noted in the test method, the requirements of the Technical

Specifications will prevail.

Samples will be taken across the width of the roll and will not include the first linear 1 metre of

material. Unless otherwise specified, samples will be 1 metres long by the roll width. The CQA

Site Manager will mark the machine direction on the samples with an arrow along with the date

and roll number. The required minimum sampling frequencies are provided in Table 2.

The CQA Site Manager will examine results from laboratory conformance testing and will

report any non-conformance to the Construction Manager and the Liner Contractor. The

procedures prescribed in the Technical Specifications will be followed in the event of a failing

conformance test.

9.3 Delivery

9.3.1 Transportation and Handling

The CQA Site Manager will document that the transportation and handling does not pose a

risk of damage to the geomembrane.

Upon delivery of the rolls of geomembrane, the CQA Site Manager will document that the rolls

are unloaded and stored on site as required by the Technical Specifications. Damage caused

by unloading will be documented by the CQA Site Manager and the damaged material shall

not be installed.

9.3.2 Storage

The Liner Contractor will be responsible for the storage of the geomembrane on site. The

Contractor will provide storage space in a location (or several locations) such that on-site

transportation and handling are optimized, if possible, to limit potential damage.

The CQA Site Manager will document that storage of the geomembrane provides adequate

protection against sources of damage.



9.4 Geomembrane Installation

9.4.1 Introduction

The CQA Consultant will document that the geomembrane installation is carried out in general

accordance with the Drawings, Technical Specifications, and Manufacturer’s

recommendations.

9.4.2 Earthwork

Surface Preparation

The CQA Site Manager will document that:

• the prepared subgrade meets the requirements of the Technical Specifications and has

been approved; and

• placement of the overlying materials does not damage, create large wrinkles, or induce

excessive tensile stress in any underlying geosynthetic materials.

• The Liner Contractor will certify in writing that the surface on which the geomembrane will

be installed is acceptable. The Certificate of Acceptance, as presented in the Technical

Specifications, will be signed by the Liner Contractor and given to the CQA Site Manager

prior to commencement of geomembrane installation in the area under consideration.

After the subgrade has been accepted by the Liner Contractor, it will be the Liner Contractor’s

responsibility to indicate to the Construction Manager any change in the subgrade soil

condition that may require repair work. If the CQA Site Manager concurs with the Liner

Contractor, then the CQA Site Manager shall monitor and document that the subgrade soil is

repaired before geosynthetic installation begins.

At any time before and during the geomembrane installation, the CQA Site Manager will

indicate to the Construction Manager locations that may not provide adequate support to the

geomembrane.

Geosynthetic Termination

The CQA Site Manager will document that the geosynthetic terminations (Anchor Trench)

have been constructed in general accordance with the Drawings. Backfilling above the

terminations will be conducted in general accordance with the Technical Specifications.



9.4.3 Geomembrane Placement

9.4.3.1 Panel Identification

A field panel is the unit area of geomembrane which is to be seamed in the field, i.e., a field

panel is a roll or a portion of roll cut in the field. It will be the responsibility of the CQA Site

Manager to document that each field panel is given an “identification code” (number or letter-

number) consistent with the Panel Layout Drawing. This identification code will be agreed

upon by the Construction Manager, Liner Contractor and CQA Site Manager. This field panel

identification code will be as simple and logical as possible. Roll numbers established in the

manufacturing plant must be traceable to the field panel identification code.

The CQA Site Manager will establish documentation showing correspondence between roll

numbers, and field panel identification codes. The field panel identification code will be used

for all CQA records.

9.4.3.2 Field Panel Placement

9.4.3.2.1 Location

The CQA Site Manager will document that field panels are installed at the location indicated in

the Liner Contractor’s Panel Layout Drawing, as approved or modified by the Construction

Manager.

Installation Schedule

Field panels may be installed using one of the following schedules:

• all field panels are placed prior to field seaming in order to protect the subgrade from

erosion by rain;

• field panels are placed one at a time and each field panel is seamed after its placement (in

order to minimize the number of unseamed field panels exposed to wind); and

• any combination of the above.

If a decision is reached to place all field panels prior to field seaming, it is usually beneficial to

begin at the high point area and proceed toward the low point with “shingle” overlaps to

facilitate drainage in the event of precipitation. It is also usually beneficial to proceed in the

direction of prevailing winds. Accordingly, an early decision regarding installation scheduling

should be made if and only if weather conditions can be predicted with reasonable certainty.

Otherwise, scheduling decisions must be made during installation, in general accordance with

varying conditions. In any event, the Liner Contractor is fully responsible for the decision made

regarding placement procedures.



The CQA Site Manager will evaluate every change in the schedule proposed by the Liner

Contractor and advise the Construction Manager on the acceptability of that change. The CQA

Site Manager will document that the condition of the subgrade soil has not changed

detrimentally during installation.

The CQA Site Manager will record the identification code, location, and date of installation of

each field panel.

9.4.3.2.2 Weather Conditions

Geomembrane placement will not proceed unless otherwise authorized when the ambient

temperature is below 4.4°C or above 50°C. In addition, wind speeds and direction will be

monitored for potential impact to geosynthetic installation. Geomembrane placement will not

be performed during any precipitation, in the presence of excessive moisture (e.g., fog, dew),

and/or in an area of ponded water.

The CQA Site Manager will document that the above conditions are fulfilled. Additionally, the

CQA Site Manager will document that the subgrade soil has not been damaged by weather

conditions. The Geosynthetics Installer will inform the Construction Manager if the above

conditions are not fulfilled.

9.4.3.2.3 Method of Placement

The CQA Site Manager will document the following:

• equipment used does not damage the geomembrane by handling, trafficking, excessive

heat, leakage of hydrocarbons or other means;

• the surface underlying the geomembrane has not deteriorated since previous acceptance,

and is still acceptable immediately prior to geomembrane placement;

• geosynthetic elements immediately underlying the geomembrane are clean and free of

debris;

• personnel working on the geomembrane do not smoke, wear damaging shoes, or engage

in other activities which could damage the geomembrane;

• the method used to unroll the panels does not cause scratches or crimps in the

geomembrane and does not damage the supporting soil;

• the method used to place the panels minimizes wrinkles (especially differential wrinkles

between adjacent panels); and



• adequate temporary loading and/or anchoring (e.g., sand bags, tires), not likely to damage

the geomembrane, has been placed to prevent uplift by wind (in case of high winds,

continuous loading, e.g., by adjacent sand bags, is recommended along edges of panels to

minimize risk of wind flow under the panels).

The CQA Site Manager will inform the Construction Manager if the above conditions are not

fulfilled.

Damaged panels or portions of damaged panels that have been rejected will be marked and

their removal from the work area recorded by the CQA Site Manager. Repairs will be made in

general accordance with procedures described in Section 9.4.5.

9.4.4 Field Seaming

This section details CQA procedures to document that seams are properly constructed and

tested in general accordance with the Manufacturer’s specifications and industry standards.

9.4.4.1 Requirements of Personnel

All personnel performing seaming operations will be qualified by experience or by successfully

passing seaming tests, as outlined in the Technical Specifications. The most experienced

seamer, the “master seamer”, will provide direct supervision over less experienced seamers.

The Liner Contractor will provide the Construction Manager and the CQA Site Manager with a

list of proposed seaming personnel and their experience records. These documents will be

reviewed by the Construction Manager and the Geosynthetics CQA Manager.

9.4.4.2 Seaming Equipment and Products

Approved processes for field seaming are fillet extrusion welding and double-track fusion

welding.

9.4.4.3 Fillet Extrusion Process

The fillet extrusion-welding apparatus will be equipped with gauges giving the temperature in

the apparatus.

The Liner Contractor will provide documentation regarding the extrusion welding rod to the

CQA Site Manager, and will certify that the extrusion welding rod is compatible with the

Technical Specification, and in any event, is comprised of the same resin as the

geomembrane.



The CQA Site Manager will log apparatus temperatures, ambient temperatures, and

geomembrane surface temperatures at appropriate intervals.


• the Liner Contractor maintains, on site, the number of spare operable seaming apparatus

decided at the Pre-construction Meeting;

• equipment used for seaming is not likely to damage the geomembrane;

• the extruder is purged prior to beginning a seam until all heat-degraded extrudate has been

removed from the barrel;

• the electric generator is placed on a smooth base such that no damage occurs to the

geomembrane;

• a smooth insulating plate or fabric is placed beneath the hot welding apparatus after usage;

and

• the geomembrane is protected from damage in heavily trafficked areas.

Fusion Process

The fusion-welding apparatus must be automated vehicular-mounted devices. The fusion-

welding apparatus will be equipped with gauges giving the applicable temperatures and

pressures.

The CQA Site Manager will log ambient, seaming apparatus, and geomembrane surface

temperatures as well as seaming apparatus speeds.

The CQA Site Manager will also document that:

• the Liner Contractor maintains on-site the number of spare operable seaming apparatus

decided at the Pre-construction Meeting;

• equipment used for seaming is not likely to damage the geomembrane;

• for cross seams, the edge of the cross seam is ground to a smooth incline (top and bottom)

prior to welding;

• the electric generator is placed on a smooth cushioning base such that no damage occurs

to the geomembrane from ground pressure or fuel leaks;

• a smooth insulating plate or fabric is placed beneath the hot welding apparatus after usage;

and

• the geomembrane is protected from damage in heavily trafficked areas.

9.4.4.4 Seam Preparation




• prior to seaming, the seam area is clean and free of moisture, dust, dirt, debris, and foreign

material; and

• seams are aligned with the fewest possible number of wrinkles and “fishmouths.”

9.4.4.5 Weather Conditions for Seaming

The normally required weather conditions for seaming are as follows unless authorized in

writing by the Engineer:

• seaming will only be approved between ambient temperatures of 4.4°C and 50°C.

If the Liner Contractor wishes to use methods that may allow seaming at ambient

temperatures below 4.4°C or above 50°C, the Liner Contractor will demonstrate and certify

that such methods produce seams which are entirely equivalent to seams produced within

acceptable temperature, and that the overall quality of the geomembrane is not adversely

affected.

The CQA Site Manager will document that these seaming conditions are fulfilled and will

advise the Geosynthetics Installer if they are not.

9.4.4.6 Overlapping and Temporary Bonding


• the panels of geomembrane have a finished overlap of a minimum of 75mm for both

extrusion and fusion welding;

• no solvent or adhesive bonding materials are used; and

• the procedures utilized to temporarily bond adjacent panels together does not damage the

geomembrane.

The CQA Site Manager will log appropriate temperatures and conditions, and will log and

report non-compliances to the Construction Manager.

9.4.4.7 Trial Seams

Trial seams shall be prepared with the procedures and dimensions as indicated in the

Technical Specifications. The CQA Site Manager will observe trial seam procedures and will

document the results of trial seams on trial seam logs. Each trial seam samples will be

assigned a number. The CQA Site Manager, will log the date, time, machine temperature(s),

seaming unit identification, name of the seamer, and pass or fail description for each trial

seam sample tested.



Separate trial seaming logs shall be maintained for fusion welded and extrusion welded trial

seams.

9.4.4.8 General Seaming Procedure

Unless otherwise specified, the general production seaming procedure used by the Liner

Contractor will be as follows:

• Fusion-welded seams are continuous, commencing at one end to the seam and ending at

the opposite end.

• Cleaning, overlap, and shingling requirements shall be maintained.

• If seaming operations are carried out at night, adequate illumination will be provided at the

Liner Contractor’s expense.

• Seaming will extend to the outside edge of panels to be placed in the anchor trench.

The CQA Site Manager shall document geomembrane seaming operations on seaming logs.

Seaming logs shall include, at a minimum:

• Seam identifications (typically associated with panels being joined);

• Seam starting time and date;

• Seam ending time and date;

• Seam length;

• Identification of person performing seam; and

• Identification of seaming equipment.

Separate logs shall be maintained for fusion and extrusion welded seams. In addition, the

CQA Site Manager shall monitor during seaming that:

• Fusion-welded seams are continuous, commencing at one end of the seam and ending at

the opposite end.

• Cleaning, overlap, and shingling requirements are maintained.

9.4.4.9 Nondestructive Seam Continuity Testing

Concept

The Liner Contractor will non-destructively test field seams over their length using a vacuum

test unit, air pressure test (for double fusion seams only), or other method approved by the

Construction Manager. The purpose of nondestructive tests is to check the continuity of

seams. It does not provide information on seam strength. Continuity testing will be carried out

as the seaming work progresses, not at the completion of field seaming.



The CQA Site Manager will:

• observe continuity testing;

• record location, date, name of person conducting the test, and the results of tests; and

• inform the Liner Contractor of required repairs. The Liner Contractor will complete any

required repairs in general accordance with Section 9.4.5.

• The CQA Site Manager will:

• observe the repair and re-testing of the repair;

• mark on the geomembrane that the repair has been made; and

• document the results.

The following procedures will apply to locations where seams cannot be non-destructively

tested:

• All such seams will be cap-stripped with the same geomembrane.

• If the seam is accessible to testing equipment prior to final installation, the seam will be

non-destructively tested prior to final installation.

• If the seam cannot be tested prior to final installation, the seaming and cap-stripping

operations will be observed by the CQA Site Manager and Liner Contractor for uniformity

and completeness.

The seam number, date of observation, name of tester, and outcome of the test or observation

will be recorded by the CQA Site Manager.

9.4.4.10 Vacuum Testing

Vacuum testing shall be performed utilizing the equipment and procedures specified in the

Technical Specifications. The CQA Site Manager shall observe the vacuum testing procedures

and document that they are performed in accordance with the Technical Specifications. The

result of vacuum testing shall be recorded on the CQA seaming logs. Results shall include, at

a minimum, the personnel performing the vacuum test and the result of the test (pass or fail),

and the test date. Seams failing the vacuum test shall be repaired in accordance with the

procedures listed in the Technical Specifications. The CQA Site Manager shall document

seam repairs in the seaming logs.

9.4.4.11 Air Pressure Testing

Air channel pressure testing shall be performed on double-track seams created with a fusion

welding device, utilizing the equipment and procedures specified in the Technical

Specifications. The CQA Site Manager shall observe the vacuum testing procedures and



document that they are performed in accordance with the Technical Specifications. The result

of air channel pressure testing shall be recorded on the CQA seaming logs. Results shall

include, at a minimum, personnel performing the air pressure test, the starting air pressure and

time, the final air pressure and time, the drop in psi during the test, and the result of the test

(pass or fail). Seams failing the air pressure test shall be repaired in accordance with the

procedures listed in the Technical Specifications. The CQA Site Manager shall document

seam repairs in the seaming logs.

9.4.4.12 Destructive Testing

Concept

Destructive seam testing will be performed on site and at the independent CQA laboratory in

general accordance with the Drawings and the Technical Specifications. Destructive seam

tests will be performed at selected locations. The purpose of these tests is to evaluate seam

strength. Seam strength testing will be done as the seaming work progresses, not at the

completion of all field seaming.

Location and Frequency

The CQA Site Manager will select locations where seam samples will be cut out for laboratory

testing. Those locations will be established as follows.

• The frequency of geomembrane seam testing is a minimum of one destructive sample per

150 m of weld. The minimum frequency is to be evaluated as an average taken throughout

the entire facility.

• A minimum of one test per seaming machine over the duration of the project.

• Additional test locations may be selected during seaming at the CQA Site Manager’s

discretion. Selection of such locations may be prompted by suspicion of excess crystallinity,

contamination, offset welds, or any other potential cause of imperfect welding.

The Liner Contractor will not be informed in advance of the locations where the seam samples

will be taken.

Sampling Procedure

Samples will be marked by the CQA Site Manager following the procedures listed in the

Technical Specifications. Preliminary samples will be taken from either side of the marked

sample and tested before obtaining the full sample per the requirements of the Technical

Specifications. Samples shall be obtained by the Liner Contractor.



Samples shall be obtained as the seaming progresses in order to have laboratory test results

before the geomembrane is covered by another material. The CQA Site Manager will:

• observe sample cutting and monitor that corners are rounded;

• assign a number to each sample, and mark it accordingly;

• record sample location on the Panel Layout Drawing; and

• record reason for taking the sample at this location (e.g., statistical routine, suspicious

feature of the geomembrane).

Holes in the geomembrane resulting from destructive seam sampling will be immediately

repaired in general accordance with repair procedures described in Section 9.4.5. The

continuity of the new seams in the repaired area will be tested in general accordance with

Section 9.4.4.8.

Size and Distribution of Samples

The destructive sample will be 0.3 m wide by 1.1 m long with the seam centered lengthwise.

The sample will be cut into three parts and distributed as follows:

• one portion, measuring 300 mm × 300 mm, to the Liner Contractor for field testing;

• one portion, measuring 300 mm × 450 mm, for CQA Laboratory testing; and

• one portion, measuring 300 mm × 300 mm, to the Construction Manager for archive

storage.

Final evaluation of the destructive sample sizes and distribution will be made at the Pre-

Construction Meeting.

Field Testing

Field testing will be performed by the Liner Contractor using a gauged tensiometer. Prior to

field testing the Liner Contractor shall submit a calibration certificate for gauge tensiometer to

the CQA Consultant for review. Calibration must have been performed within one year of use

on the current project. The destructive sample shall be tested according to the requirements of

the Technical Specifications. The specimens shall not fail in the seam and shall meet the

strength requirements outlined in the Technical Specifications. If any field test specimen fails,

then the procedures outlined in Procedures for Destructive Test Failures of this section will be

followed.

The CQA Site Manager will witness field tests and mark samples and portions with their

number. The CQA Site Manager will also document the date and time, ambient temperature,



number of seaming unit, name of seamer, welding apparatus temperatures and pressures,

and pass or fail description.

CQA Laboratory Testing

Destructive test samples will be packaged and shipped, if necessary, under the responsibility

of the CQA Site Manager in a manner that will not damage the test sample. The Construction

Manager will be responsible for storing the archive samples. This procedure will be outlined at

the Pre-construction Meeting. Samples will be tested by the CQA Laboratory. The CQA

Laboratory will be selected by the CQA Site Manager with the concurrence of the Engineer.

Testing will include “Bonded Seam Strength” and “Peel Adhesion.” The minimum acceptable

values to be obtained in these tests are given in the Technical Specifications. At least five

specimens will be tested for each test method. Specimens will be selected alternately, by test,

from the samples (i.e., peel, shear, peel, shear). A passing test will meet the minimum

required values in at least four out of five specimens.

The CQA Laboratory will provide test results no more than 24 hours after they receive the

samples. The CQA Site Manager will review laboratory test results as soon as they become

available, and make appropriate recommendations to the Construction Manager.

Liner Contractor’s Laboratory Testing

The Liner Contractor’s laboratory test results will be presented to the Construction Manager

and the CQA Site Manager for comments.



Procedures for Destructive Test Failure

The following procedures will apply whenever a sample fails a destructive test, whether that

test conducted by the CQA Laboratory, the Liner Contractor’s laboratory, or by gauged

tensiometer in the field. The Liner Contractor has two options:

• The Liner Contractor can reconstruct the seam between two passed test locations.

• The Liner Contractor can trace the welding path to an intermediate location at 3 m minimum

from the point of the failed test in each direction and take a small sample for an additional

field test at each location. If these additional samples pass the test, then full laboratory

samples are taken. If these laboratory samples pass the tests, then the seam is

reconstructed between these locations. If either sample fails, then the process is repeated

to establish the zone in which the seam should be reconstructed.

Acceptable seams must be bounded by two locations from which samples passing laboratory

destructive tests have been taken. Repairs will be made in general accordance with Section

9.4.5.

The CQA Site Manager will document actions taken in conjunction with destructive test

failures.

9.4.5 Defects and Repairs

This section prescribes CQA activities to document that defects, tears, rips, punctures,

damage, or failing seams shall be repaired.

9.4.5.1 Identification

Seams and non-seam areas of the geomembrane shall be examined by the CQA Site

Manager for identification of defects, holes, blisters, undispersed raw materials and signs of

contamination by foreign matter. Because light reflected by the geomembrane helps to detect

defects, the surface of the geomembrane shall be clean at the time of examination.

9.4.5.2 Evaluation

Potentially flawed locations, both in seam and non-seam areas, shall be non-destructively

tested using the methods described in Section 9.4.4.8 as appropriate. Each location that fails

the nondestructive testing will be marked by the CQA Site Manager and repaired by the Liner

Contractor. Work will not proceed with any materials that will cover locations which have been

repaired until laboratory test results with passing values are available.



9.4.5.3 Repair Procedures

Portions of the geomembrane exhibiting a flaw, or failing a destructive or nondestructive test,

will be repaired. Several procedures exist for the repair of these areas. The final decision as to

the appropriate repair procedure will be at the discretion of the CQA Consultant with input from

the Construction Manager and Liner Contractor.

The procedures available include:

• patching, used to repair large holes, tears, undispersed raw materials, and contamination

by foreign matter;

• grinding and re-welding, used to repair small sections of extruded seams;

• spot welding or seaming, used to repair small tears, pinholes, or other minor, localized

flaws;

• capping, used to repair large lengths of failed seams;

• removing bad seam and replacing with a strip of new material welded into place (used with

large lengths of fusion seams).

• In addition, the following provisions will be satisfied:

• surfaces of the geomembrane which are to be repaired will be abraded no more than 20

minutes prior to the repair;

• surfaces must be clean and dry at the time of the repair;

• all seaming equipment used in repairing procedures must be approved;

• the repair procedures, materials, and techniques will be approved in advance by the CQA

Consultant with input from the Engineer and Liner Contractor;

• patches or caps will extend at least 150 mm beyond the edge of the defect, and all corners

of patches will be rounded with a radius of at least 75 mm;

• cuts and holes to be patched shall have rounded corners; and

• the geomembrane below large caps should be appropriately cut to avoid water or gas

collection between the two sheets.

9.4.5.4 Verification of Repairs

The CQA Monitor shall monitor and document repairs. Records of repairs shall be maintained

on repair logs. Repair logs shall include, at a minimum:

• panel containing repair and approximate location on panel;

• approximate dimensions of repair;

• repair type, i.e. fusion weld or extrusion weld

• date of repair;



• seamer making the repair; and

• results of repair non-destructive testing (pass or fail).

Each repair will be non-destructively tested using the methods described herein, as

appropriate. Repairs that pass the non-destructive test will be taken as an indication of an

adequate repair. Large caps may be of sufficient extent to require destructive test sampling,

per the requirements of the Technical Specifications. Failed tests shall be redone and re-

tested until passing test results are observed.

9.4.5.5 Large Wrinkles

When seaming of the geomembrane is completed (or when seaming of a large area of the

geomembrane liner is completed) and prior to placing overlying materials, the CQA Site

Manager will observe the geomembrane wrinkles. The CQA Site Manager will indicate to the

Liner Contractor which wrinkles should be cut and re-seamed. The seam thus produced will be

tested like any other seam.

9.4.6 Lining System Acceptance

The Liner Contractor and the Manufacturer(s) will retain all responsibility for the geosynthetic

materials in the liner system until acceptance by the Construction Manager.

The geosynthetic liner system will be accepted by the Construction Manager when:

• the installation is finished;

• verification of the adequacy of all seams and repairs, including associated testing, is

complete;

• all documentation of installation is completed including the CQA Site Manager’s acceptance

report and appropriate warranties; and

• CQA report, including “as built” drawing(s), sealed by a registered professional engineer

has been received by the Construction Manager.

The CQA Site Manager will document that installation proceeded in general accordance with

the Technical Specifications for the project.

9.4.6.1 Acceptance of Sheets or Rolls

The Contractor shall carry out a visual inspection of the sheets or rolls on arrival at site for

possible transport damage. Sheets or rolls showing damage shall be singled out and clearly

labelled as such.



A further inspection by the Lining Contractor is required prior to fabrication or installation. Any

damaged sheets are to be rejected for installation.

9.4.6.2 Suitability of Lining Sub-contractor

In his assessment of the suitability of the lining contractor, the Engineer must be satisfied that

such a contractor can perform according to the functional and organisational requirement of

the works to be undertaken and preference will be given to those contractors which are listed

in accordance with the ISO 9000 standards. The lining contractor shall further be required to

submit the following supportive documentation with his tender:

• Specifications of all materials tendered;

• Liner Production Quality Assurance /Quality Control Schedule;

• On-Site Quality Assurance /Quality Control Schedule;

• Experience list of all similar lining works completed over the last 10 years;

• Organogram and CV’s of site personnel to be employed in the works.

9.4.6.2 Testing Requirements for Liner Welding

The sections below outline the minimum requirements for testing of the liner welds. The

methods proposed by the Lining Contractor are to be outlined in greater detail in the method

statements and QA/QC procedures submitted with the tender. The methods and procedures

used in the works will be subject to the approval of the Engineer.

9.4.6.3 Welding Tests

The Engineer may, at his discretion, call for welding tests to be conducted prior to contract

award and must include the following on the membrane liner:

(i) A single weld at least 10 m long performed in the open;

(ii) Patching of a 400 mm x 300 mm hole by hand welding;

(iii) The welding of three sheets to form a T-joint.

The Engineer reserves the right to take as many samples as and where it is considered

necessary after the demonstration.

9.4.6.4 Testing of Completed Seams

Whether the Double Electric Wedge or the Extrusion-Fusion welding systems are employed on

site, the seams should all be confirmed as continuous and fully integrated by undertaking non-

destructive and destructive tests.



9.4.6.5 Non-destructive Testing

The following methods shall be employed:

9.4.6.5.1 Vacuum Testing

This test creates a vacuum on one side of the joint. If a vacuum of –75 kPa can be maintained

for 3 minutes, the joint shall be considered to be effective. This test must be done where the

sheets are lapped or where patching is done and on straight runs at a rate of one test per 50

linear metres of weld.

9.4.6.5.1 Electric Spark Testing

This method shall be used over 100% of all the extrusion-fusion welds on site and which

method shall be subject to the approval of the Engineer.

9.4.6.5.2 Air Pressure Testing of Double-Wedge Welded Seams

Preparation:

Ensure that all testing equipment is clean and dust-free. Make a straight cut 90°C across the

weld, as close as possible after the beginning of the weld but not further than 100mm from the

edge of the sheet.

Testing:

Force open the void between the welds at the cut end, using a screw driver or similar blunt

object. Insert the pressure gauge/needle assembly into the void, clamp, secure and tighten the

gasket hard up against the cut face over the void, allowing it to flow freely out of the opposite

end.

Immediately after completing a seam, commence the testing procedure. Seal the one end of

the seam by applying heat with a hot air gun until a seal is achieved. While hot, clamp off the

seam end, using the vice grip.

Pump air into the void to a pressure of 3 Bar. Maintain this pressure for a minimum of 2

minutes.

Repairs:

If the pressure of 3 Bar cannot be attained or the pressure drop is greater than specified,

check both ends of the seam to ensure a proper seal and retest.

Should the test still be unsuccessful and no visible leak could be detected, repair the failed

seam by extrusion welding the outside edge of the wedge- welded seam.



Identification of Tested Areas

The Tester shall mark each seam tested individually, by signing his name and date tested with

an indelible pen on the plastic sheet. This position should also be transferred on to the sheet

layout drawing. Once non-destructive tests have been carried out to the satisfaction of the

Engineer, further destructive tests shall be carried out to confirm the integrity of the weld.

9.4.6.6 Destructive Peel Testing

The destructive peel tests will be carried out on all seams at 100m intervals or one per hour

per machine minimum. The Lining contractor must be capable of performing the peel test on

site.

This test determines the effectiveness of the weld by peeling the weld apart at a rate of

50 mm/min on a strip 25 mm wide cut perpendicular to the joint direction at both ends of all

samples. An increasing force is applied to the two strips of membrane forming the joint. If one

of the strips breaks prior to full separation across the weld, it is considered acceptable. If the

weld separates, the weld is considered unacceptable.

9.4.6.7 Corrective Measures

All defects, tears, sample holes or other physical damage to the membrane, must be patched

with a piece of membrane of the same type and thickness as the parent membrane. This

patch shall be welded over the defect using a weld of at least 10mm width, using the extrusion

fusion welding method.

9.4.6.8 Handover/Completion

Acceptance of the laid sheets by the Engineer will happen on a weekly basis. This sign off will

be based on approval of plastic, the welds, the foundation material and the ballast left in place

after moving off the cell. However as plastic lifting is the Lining Contractors responsibility, the

daily signing off will not exempt the Contractor/Lining Contractor from liability for damage

caused to the liner and subgrade due to their negligence on adjacent cells. Taking over in

sections as per sub clause 48.2 of the GCC will only occur if the Employer requests to start

placing geofabric, pipes and gravel on a pad before the final taking over certificate for the

completed Works.



10. GEOTEXTILE

10.1 Introduction

This section of the CQA Plan outlines the CQA activities to be performed for the geotextile

installation. The CQA Consultant will review the Drawings, and the Technical Specifications,

and any approved addenda or changes.

10.2 Manufacturing

The Manufacturer will provide the Construction Manager with a list of guaranteed “minimum

average roll value” properties (defined as the mean less two standard deviations), for each

type of geotextile to be delivered. The Manufacturer will also provide the Construction

Manager with a written quality control certification signed by a responsible party employed by

the Manufacturer that the materials actually delivered have property “minimum average roll

values” which meet or exceed all property values guaranteed for that type of geotextile.

The quality control certificates will include:

• roll identification numbers; and

• results of MQC testing.

The Manufacturer will provide, as a minimum, test results for the following:

• mass per unit area;

• grab strength;

• tear strength;

• puncture strength;

• permittivity; and

• apparent opening size.

MQC tests shall be performed at the frequency listed in the Technical Specifications. CQA

tests on geotextile produced for the project shall be performed according to the test methods

specified and frequencies presented in Table 3.

The CQA Site Manager will examine Manufacturer certifications to evaluate that the property

values listed on the certifications meet or exceed those specified for the particular type of

geotextile and the measurements of properties by the Manufacturer are properly documented,



test methods acceptable and the certificates have been provided at the specified frequency

properly identifying the rolls related to testing. Deviations will be reported to the Construction

Manager.

10.3 Labeling

The Manufacturer will identify all rolls of geotextile with the following:

• manufacturer’s name;

• product identification;

• lot number;

• roll number; and

• roll dimensions.

The CQA Site Manager will examine rolls upon delivery and deviation from the above

requirements will be reported to the Construction Manager.

10.4 Shipment and Storage

During shipment and storage, the geotextile will be protected from ultraviolet light exposure,

precipitation or other inundation, mud, dirt, dust, puncture, cutting or any other damaging or

deleterious conditions. To that effect, geotextile rolls will be shipped and stored in relatively

opaque and watertight wrappings.

Protective wrappings will be removed less than one hour prior to unrolling the geotextile. After

the wrapping has been removed, a geotextile will not be exposed to sunlight for more than 15

days, except for UV protection geotextile, unless otherwise specified and guaranteed by the

Manufacturer.

The CQA Site Manager will observe rolls upon delivery at the site and deviation from the

above requirements will be reported to the Liner Contractor.

10.5 Conformance Testing

10.5.1 Tests

Upon delivery of the rolls of geotextiles, the CQA Site Manager will obtain conformance

samples and forward to the Geosynthetics CQA Laboratory for testing to evaluate

conformance to Technical Specifications. Required test and testing frequency for the



geotextiles are presented in Table 3. These conformance tests will be performed in general

accordance with the test methods specified in the Technical Specifications and will be

documented by the CQA Site Manager.

10.5.2 Sampling Procedures

Samples will be taken across the width of the roll and will not include 1.0 m. Unless otherwise

specified, samples will be 1 metre long by the roll width. The CQA Site Manager will mark the

machine direction on the samples with an arrow.

Unless otherwise specified, samples will be taken at a rate as indicated in Table 3 for

geotextiles.

10.5.3 Test Results

The CQA Site Manager will examine results from laboratory conformance testing and will

report non-conformance with the Technical Specifications and this CQA Plan to the

Construction Manager.

Conformance Sample Failure

The following procedure will apply whenever a sample fails a conformance test that is

conducted by the CQA Laboratory:

• The Manufacturer will replace every roll of geotextile that is in nonconformance with the

Technical Specifications with a roll(s) that meets Technical Specifications; or

• The Liner Contractor will remove conformance samples for testing by the CQA Laboratory

from the closest numerical rolls on both sides of the failed roll. These two samples must

conform to the Technical Specifications. If either of these samples fail, the numerically

closest rolls on the side of the failed sample will be tested by the CQA Laboratory. These

samples must conform to the Technical Specifications. If any of these samples fail, every

roll of geotextile on site from this lot and every subsequently delivered roll that is from the

same lot must be tested by the CQA Laboratory for conformance to the Technical

Specifications. This additional conformance testing will be at the expense of the

Manufacturer.

The CQA Site Manager will document actions taken in conjunction with conformance test

failures.



10.6 Handling and Placement

The Liner Contractor will handle all geotextiles in such a manner as to document they are not

damaged in any way, and the following will be complied with:

• In the presence of wind, all geotextiles will be weighted with sandbags or the equivalent.

Such sandbags will be installed during placement and will remain until replaced with earth

cover material.

• Geotextiles will be cut using an approved geotextile cutter only. If in place, special care

must be taken to protect other materials from damage, which could be caused by the

cutting of the geotextiles.

• The Liner Contractor will take all necessary precautions to prevent damage to underlying

layers during placement of the geotextile.

• During placement of geotextiles, care will be taken not to entrap in the geotextile stones,

excessive dust, or moisture that could damage the geotextile, generate clogging of drains

or filters, or hamper subsequent seaming.

• A visual examination of the geotextile will be carried out over the entire surface, after

installation, to document that no potentially harmful foreign objects, such as needles, are

present.

The CQA Site Manager will note non-compliance and report it to the Construction Manager.

Membrane Placement:

In placing the membrane, protection precautionary measures shall be taken by the Contractor

to minimise the risk of any damage to the liner.

The RWD must be covered with plastic liner according to the program submitted to the

Engineer. The Contractors QA/QC activities and correction of defects must follow directly

behind the laying of the plastic.

10.7 Seams and Overlaps

All geotextiles will be continuously sewn in accordance with Technical Specifications.

Geotextiles will be overlapped 300 mm prior to seaming. No horizontal seams will be allowed

on side slopes (i.e. seams will be along, not across, the slope), except as part of a patch.

Sewing will be done using polymeric thread with chemical and ultraviolet resistance properties

equal to or exceeding those of the geotextile.



Seaming of Adjacent Liner Sheets on Site

The seaming of adjacent liner sheets on site will be carried out in such a way and by such

means that the strength of the seams are at least as strong as the adjacent sheets when

tested in the peel mode of testing at elevated temperatures of not less than 70°C.

The seaming methods should produce totally homogeneously bonded areas which will be at

least as resistant to the effects of the stored liquid and at least as resistant to the effects of

climatic degradation of the adjacent geomembrane sheets.

Automatic or manually operated equipment may be used in the welding process. All welding

shall be undertaken and controlled by competent operators and the Contractor must arrange

to demonstrate the ability of his operators to weld the membrane to comply with this

specification. Field start-up samples will be produced for each machine in the morning and

afternoon before on-site welding commences and when no welding has been done by a

machine for more than 1 hour.

Either or both of the following seaming methods will be employed on site:-

10.7.1 Electric Double Wedge Weld

Adjacent sheets of geomembrane lining are joined together on site based on continuous fusion

by automatic electrically heated double wedges which creates parallel homogeneously bonded

areas either side of a central and continuous air void.

10.7.2 Extrusion Fusion Welding

Adjacent sheets of geomembrane lining are joined together on site, using equipment based on

a continuous fusion welding system that applies extrudate along the prepared overlap to

provide a totally integrated and homogeneous weld which will not fail when tested in shear and

peel configuration, at a test environment temperature of 70°C.

All joints must be prepared for welding by grinding the surface of the membrane over the full

width and length of the joint. The weld area and the heating head must be clean and care must

be taken that no air bubbles or foreign matter is trapped in the weld.

10.8 Repair

Holes or tears in the geotextile will be repaired as follows:



72 of 76 SOUTH 32


JULY 2015

• On slopes: A patch made from the same geotextile will be double seamed into place.

Should a tear exceed 10 percent of the width of the roll, that roll will be removed from the

slope and replaced.

• Non-slopes: A patch made from the same geotextile will be spot-seamed in place with a

minimum of 150 mm overlap in all directions.

Care will be taken to remove any soil or other material that may have penetrated the torn

geotextile.

The CQA Site Manager will observe any repair, note any non-compliance with the above

requirements and report them to the Construction Manager.

10.9 Placement of Soil or Aggregate Materials

The Contractor will place all soil or aggregate materials located on top of a geotextile, in such

a manner as to document:

• no damage of the geotextile;

• minimal slippage of the geotextile on underlying layers; and

• no excess tensile stresses in the geotextile.

Non-compliance will be noted by the CQA Site Manager and reported to the Construction

Manager.

10.9.1 Earthworks, Substrate Requirements

The flexible membrane lining that is offered must be considered an integral part of the total

system. To ensure the integrity of the system, earthworks should be carried out in accordance

with the attached Earthworks Specification. The following requirements are, however,

highlighted:

a) The area to be lined must be free of all protrusions, stones, roots, vegetation and other

materials which may be detrimental to the performance of the liner. A maximum particle

size of 3mm will be allowed, but no sharp edge stones/debris can be tolerated. The material

on which the liner will be placed at the RWD will be a compacted fine grained soil with

possible contamination with stones.

“Picking” of the debris/stones etc. will still need to be undertaken to remove unsuitable

objects that may exist; this work is to be done by the Contractor and is to be included in the

tendered price. The “picking” is considered an essential activity in maintaining the integrity

the geomembrane and the Contractor will be required to submit a method statement to the

73 of 76 SOUTH 32


JULY 2015

Engineer for approval for this operation. Following the picking operation the surface must

be rolled again with a compactor. This is to be done by the Earthworks Contractor.

b) The geo-membrane liner must be underlain with a non-woven geotextile of at least 2.7 mm

thickness under 2 kPa load and a CPA puncture resistance of 14 mm, on all the slopes and

the entire floor of the dam.

c) The base and embankment slopes must be compacted in accordance with the attached

Earthworks Specification and the embankment slopes must be stable.

d) All vegetation must be removed and a suitable weed killer applied, if necessary.

e) The base of the earthworks or structure must be clean and dry. Should ground water be

present, a suitable drainage system must be provided for provision for the continuous

removal of water from the operation area if necessary. This work will be considered a

variation to the contract.

f) Excavation and subsequent backfilling of perimeter lining anchor trenches measuring

500mm x 500mm minimum, is to be done by the liner installation contractor and is to be

included in the tendered price. These are minimum anchor trench dimensions and larger

dimensions should be considered and approved by the engineer, depending on soil type

and liner thickness.

The backfilling must only be carried out once the structure has been filled, air entrapped

there under has been vented out and the liner has settled. Suitable backfill material, which

must be free of rocks, stones and other sharp objects and have maximum particle size of

10mm must be used. Tolerances for the excavation and backfilling of the lining anchor

trenches are.

The work shall be finished to a permissible deviation from designated levels with reference

to the nearest transferred bench mark of ±50mm).

The flatness of the finished surface (i.e. the maximum deviation of the surface from any

straight line of length 3,0m) shall be ±50mm.

Abrupt changes in a continuous surface are to be limited to a maximum of 3mm.

Trench to be backfilled and compacted flush with liner surface to 95% standard proctor

density at OMC –1% to +2%, unless stated otherwise by the Engineer.

74 of 76 SOUTH 32


JULY 2015

TABLE 10-1 : TEST PROCEDURES FOR THE EVALUATION OF AGGREGATE

TEST METHOD DESCRIPTION TEST STANDARD

Sieve Analysis Particle Size Distribution of

Fine and Coarse Aggregates

ASTM C 136

Hydraulic Conductivity

(Rigid Wall Permeameter)

Permeability of Aggregates ASTM D 2434

TABLE 10-2 : MINIMUM AGGREGATE TESTING FREQUENCIES FOR CONFORMANE

TESTING

TEST TEST METHOD DRAINAGE AGGREGATE

Sieve Analysis

ASTM C 136

1 per 3,900 m3

Hydraulic Conductivity

ASTM D 2434

1 per 7,650 m3

75 of 76 SOUTH 32


JULY 2015

TABLE 10-3 : GEOMEMBRANE CONFORMANCE TESTING REQUIREMENTS

TEST NAME TEST METHOD FREQUENCY

Specific Gravity

ASTM D 792

Method A or ASTM D 1505

18,600 m2

Thickness

ASTM D 5199

18,600 m2

Tensile Strength at Yield

ASTM D 6693

18,600 m2

Tensile Strength at Break

ASTM D6693

18,600 m2

Elongation at Yield

ASTM D 6693

18,600 m2

Elongation at Break

ASTM D 6693

18,600 m2

Carbon Black Content

ASTM D 1603

18,600 m2

Carbon Black Dispersion

ASTM D 5596

18,600 m2

Interface Shear Strength1,2

ASTM D 5321

1 per project

76 of 76 SOUTH 32


JULY 2015

TABLE 10-4 : GEOTEXTILE CONFORMANCE TESTING REQUIREMENTS

TEST NAME TEST METHOD MINIMUM

FREQUENCY

Mass per Unit Area

ASTM D 5261

1 test per 24,000m2

Grab Strength

ASTM D 4632

1 test per 24,000m2

Puncture Resistance

ASTM D 4833

1 test per 24,000m2

Permittivity

ASTM D 4491

1 test per 24,000m2

Apparent Opening Size

ASTM D 4751

1 test per 24,000m2

HDPE flexible

slotted

drainage pipe

with smooth

bore

Drainex drainage pipe has an

innovative double wall

sandwich construction, with a

corrugated outer wall and a

smooth inner wall. This

combines high ring stiffness

with excellent flow

characteristics. It is available

in coils and 6m lengths.

Rows of water in-take slots

are symmetrically arranged

around the apex of the pipe

(240°) with a flow channel at

the bottom (120°). The high

infiltration area combined

with the thin inner wall

structure ensures optimum

water intake. The slots are

protected in the valleys of the

corrugated structure which

reduces the possibility of

blocking. The smooth bore

with an extremely low

roughness coefficient results

in greater flow rates, allowing

the utilisation of smaller

diameter pipes.

Compressive strength

Drainex, correctly bedded and

side filled with filter material

(together with the all important

surrounding soil), forms a

complete pipe-soil system. This

can withstand loads in excess

of 150 kN/m which can result from

soil pressure and superimposed

loads.

Impact resistance

As Drainex is manufactured from

HDPE (high density polyethylene)

it is extremely tough and durable.

This facilitates handling and

minimises breakages. It has

excellent impact strength far

exceeding the requirements of

DIN 4262 Part 1 “uPVC and

HDPE subsoil and multi-purpose

drain pipes for use in road con-

struction and civil engineering”.

UV resistance

Drainex is UV stabilised and can

be stored outdoors for one year.

Marking

The apex of Drainex is marked

with an indelible yellow line to

facilitate the correct orientation

during installation.

Chemical resistance Drainex is

manufactured from HDPE which is

one of the most chemically

resistant polymers. It is unaffected

by acids or alkalis in

the most aggressive soils and

effluents. A detailed chemical

resistance specification is

available on request.

EDITION 08.14

Bas

ed

on

Col

ebr

ook

Whi

te fo

rmu

la

Spec

ific

atio

ns

subje

ct t

o c

han

ge

wit

hout noti

ce

Sand Stone No fines concrete Soil

Stone aggregate

Drainex

Drainex

Drainex

Geotextile

Jointing and accessories

Drainex is joined by means of

push fit couplings and a standard

range of pipe fittings is available.

Unslotted drainage pipes are also

available to convey water

collected in the drainage system

to a discharge point (normal

Kabelflex pipes complete with

coupling and seals will be

supplied). To ensure that this part

of the system is watertight, profiled

sealing rings are available. They

should be positioned in the 3rd

valley from the end of the pipe for

sizes DN160 and DN110, and the

4th valley for size DN75. Joints

with sealing rings are watertight

to a 0,2 bar pressure. Pipe fittings

for use with sealing rings are also

available.

Agriculture

In agricultural applications it is

common practice to use drainage

pipes with a single filter consisting

of sand or stone. Fines will

migrate through the filter into the

pipe. These fines are deposited

and build up over time in pipes

with rough or corrugated inner

bores. This necessitates periodic

flushing to remove the deposits

and maintain the integrity of the

drainage system. However, if

Drainex, with its ultra smooth

bore, is installed at the correct

gradient, the system will be self-

cleansing.

Structural

In structural applications, such as

underfloor drainage of reservoirs,

Drainex is used with a filter of no

fines concrete. The strength of

Drainex is a distinct advantage

as it is not easily damaged during

concrete pouring operations.

Civil Engineering

A double filter consisting of stone

and geotextile is most commonly

used in civil engineering

applications.

For a well designed filter to

function a reverse filter must form

between the soil and the

geotextile, allowing fines to pass

into the drainage system. The use

of properly installed smooth bore

Drainex will ensure the efficient

removal of these fines. Stability of

the filter will occur when the

movement of fines has ceased.

Technical data: All specifications are subject to manufacturing

tolerances

Drainex nominal pipe size DN160 DN110 DN75

Outside diameter (mm) 160 110 75

Inside diameter (mm) 137 95 63

Infiltration area (mm2/m)* >5 000 >5 000 >2 500

Nominal slot width (mm) 1,8 1,3 1,3

Standard pipe length (m)# 6 6 6

Ring stiffness (kPa) >450 >450 >450

*Higher infiltration areas are available on request #Coils available on request subject to minimum order quantities

www.nextube.co.za www.duraline.com

l Tel : +27 11 708 1659 l Email : [email protected] l

Postal:

PO Box 334, Kya Sand 2163

South Africa

Fax : +27 11 708 2192

Physical:

No. 9 Ampere Close

Kya Sand 2163, Gauteng

South Africa

C J Graphics (www.cjgraphics.co.za)

http://www.nextube.co.za/

http://www.duraline.com/

http://www.duraline.com/


EDITION 04.10

Underground buried cable conduit and accessories

Engineers often specify or

use uPVC sewer and water

pipes as conduits for

buried electrical and

telecommunication

cables. However

these pipes are

not designed

for electrical

applications, they

are designed for

conveying sewage

and water.

Kabelflex is a revolutionary,

purpose designed flexible

cable conduit system

developed in Germany and

manufactured in South

Africa. Kabelflex has a

unique double walled

corrugated construction and

is manufactured from high

density polyethylene

(HDPE).

Kabelflex - The flexible solution to your cable conduit problems

Sizes

Kabelflex is available in four sizes

(DN50, DN75, DN110, DN160). The

size is quoted as DN (diameter

nominal) followed by

the nominal outside diameter in

millimetres.

Sizes DN75, DN110 and DN160 are

supplied in 6 metre straight

lengths with a knock on coupling

and have a double wall

construction. Sizes DN50, DN75,

DN110 and DN160 are also

available in a very flexible version

supplied in coils. They have a

double wall construction and are

supplied complete with a coupling

and a pilot string with a breaking

strain of 30kgf. This string should

only be used to pull in a more

substantial hauling rope.

Different lengths are available

on request.

Specifications

Kabelflex is manufactured to the

highest quality standards

and carries the SABS certification

mark in respect of South African

National Standard SANS 61386-24 :

2005 (type N 450) entitled “Conduit systems for cable management

Part 24 : Particular requirements

– Conduit systems buried

underground”. This is an IEC

standard that has been adopted by

SABS.

Nextube is an SABS ISO 9001 :

2000 listed company.

Installation

Kabelflex is light, clean and easy

to handle. It should be installed in

accordance with SANS 1200 “Civil Engineering Construction” section

LB “Bedding of Pipes”, with

reference to flexible pipes.

However clause 3.2 can be relaxed

to include fill material with a

plastic index (PI) not exceeding

12. Please ask for our installation

brochure. Proper installation is

extremely important.

Beware of low quality imitations – look for the

yellow line, only on Kabelflex

Pilot string installed in coils

Flexibility

Due to the inherent flexibility of

Kabelflex the number of fittings

such as pre-formed bends can be

kept to a minimum. It also

facilitates installation as the

conduit can be laid around

immovable obstructions. It is ideal

for use in under road boring

applications.

Friction

Kabelflex has a waxy paraffin like

surface with a low co-efficient of

friction which makes the draw-in of

cables very easy. The co-efficient

of friction with a polyethylene

sheathed cable is only 0.3. This

means lower cable pulling forces,

longer pulls, and less cable stretch

and damage.

Chemical Resistance

As Kabelflex is manufactured from

HDPE it is highly chemically

resistant. It is unaffected by acids

or alkalis in the most aggressive

soils and is also resistant to

petroleum. A detailed chemical

resistance specification is

available on request.

Kabelflex - Cost effective

and innovative

Jointing

Kabelflex is joined by means of

push fit couplings (which provide

an IP30 index of protection). For

conduit sizes DN75, DN110 and

DN160 optional profiled rubber

seals are available which are used

with the couplings to provide a

watertight connection resistant to

a 2 metre head of water. Special

cutting tools are available for

quick and accurate cutting of the

conduit.

Impact Resistance

Impact resistance is a measure of

how easily a pipe splits or cracks

when subjected to an impact

force. Pipes with a low impact

strength will tend to crack and

split when handled roughly or

when plate compactors are used

during installation. Kabelflex has

a far superior impact strength to

uPVC sewer pipes especially at

low temperatures, which means

easier handling and less

breakages.

Compression Resistance

Kabelflex has excellent

compression resistance, or “ring stiffness” due to the reinforcing

effect of the external corrugations.

Kabelflex has more than 5 times

the ring stiffness of normal duty

uPVC sewer pipe** (550kPa

versus 100kPa). High ring

stiffness is an important

consideration where conduits are

buried in areas with high

superimposed loads, for example

at road crossings. All buried cable

conduits should have a ring

stiffness of at least 450kPa.

**110mm pipe to SABS 791-1986

Temperature Resistance

Kabelflex has an upper working

temperature of 100°C versus

60°C for uPVC pipe (measured in

accordance with DIN53446). The

thermal conductivity of HDPE

(0.4W/mK) is also better than

uPVC (0.14W/mK) which means

better dissipation of heat

generated by cables.

UV Resistance

Kabelflex is designed to be

buried underground, however, it

is UV resistant and can be

stored outdoors for up to one

year.

uPVC Kabelflex

C J Graphics (www.cjgraphics.co.za)

Spe

cific

atio

ns s

ubje

ct t

o ch

ange

with

out n

otic

e

Technical data: Kabelflex conduit size DN50 DN75 DN110 DN160

Standard conduit colour is black,

other colours available on

request. All specifications are

subject to manufacturing

tolerances.

Outside diameter (mm) 50 75 110 160

Inside diameter (mm) 40 63 95 137

Standard straight length (m) n/a 6 6 6

Standard length coils (m) 50 50 50 25

Min. bending radius (mm) 6m length n/a 1 400 2 500 4 000

Min. bending radius (mm) coils 150 250 350 450

Accessories: Description DN50 DN75 DN110 DN160

Kabelflex is a complete cable

conduit system and a number of

accessories are available to

complement the conduit range.

1. Coupling • • • • 2. Sealing ring • • • • 3. End plug • • • • 4. Spacer module • • • 5. Bell mouth (manhole entry) • 6. Mandrel • • 7. Duct brush • • 8. HDPE flexibend 0° to 90° (radius mm) not >– 250 >– 350 >– 450

9. uPVC long radius bend 90° (radius mm) } required 350 500 600

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9

Technical

properties

HDPE:

Property HDPE Unit Test method

Density appr. 0.95 g/cm3 DIN 53 479

Tensile strength at break 23 – 30 N/mm2 DIN 53 455

Ball indentation hardness 30 – 65 N/mm2 DIN 53 456

Notched bar impact strength > 5 mJ/mm2 DIN 53 453

Thermal conductivity 0.40 – 0.46 W/m K DIN 52 612

Coefficient of elongation 1.5 – 2.0 x 10-4 K-1 DIN 52 328

Dielectric strength 800 – 900 kV/cm DIN 53 481

Specific insulation resistance appr. 1016 Ohm . cm DIN 53 482

Reg. no. 1973/01721/07

Nextube (Pty) Ltd

Postal:

PO Box 334, Kya Sand 2163

South Africa

Tel : +27 11 708 1659

Fax : +27 11 708 2192

Email : [email protected]

Web : www.nextube.co.za

Physical:

No. 9 Ampere Close

Kya Sand 2163, Gauteng

South Africa


http://www.nextube.co.za/

R

STRAIGHT-THROUGH TYPE

KB DIAPHRAGM VALVES

ndicator

Lubrication - position.

life, the bonn additional greprevents ingrand atmosph

ed

Wide range of diaphragms - handles abrasives and suspended particles in the line, but still provides positive

Straight-Through Type KB Diaphragm Valves

THE ORIGINAL AND THE BEST

PK Saunders invented the original diaphragm valve in 1928 in the then known West Rand gold fields of Johannesburg. Since then, we have developed our range through innovative designs and by using the latest materials technology. As a result, Saunders diaphragm valves have gained an excellent reputation for versatility and reliability establishing a presence in the mining and every process industry sector. Today there are millions of Saunders diaphragm valves, manufactured by Dynamic Fluid Control and supplied by our distribution partners to South and Southern African markets.

Handwheel - size for comfortable grip and easy operation.

Rolled thread spindle provide ease of operation and lower torque for open and close.

Yellow valve indicator confirms valve position.

Compressor - supports the diaphragm in all positions for longer life.

Body materials - Cast iron, rubber lined and glass coated cater for abrasive and corrosive conditions. Screwed and flanged ranges.

Wide range of diaphragms - handles

abrasives and suspended particles in the line, but still provides positive shut-off and isolates all bonnet working parts from the line fluid.

Lubrication - lubricated for long life, the bonnet needs no additional grease. Lip seal prevents ingress of dust, dirt and atmospheric contaminants.

Body - smooth non-turbulent body design for unrestricted flow and minimum pressure drop.

STRAIGHT THROUGH BORES

Saunders full bore KB type valve, with their smooth non -turbulent body design have proved to be outstanding in resisting the erosive affects of corrosive/abrasive line media. In addition, the full bore concept is designed for minimum flow resistance whilst allowing rodding out and easy cleaning.

The flexible diaphragms ensure consistent leak tightness even when solids, powders and dry media are present. A range of rubber linings are available for the more exacting cor rosive and abrasive applications to a maximum working pressure of 10 bar.

VALVE USABLE IN ANY POSITION LUBRICATION

The KB valve can be installed in any position without affecting its operation. We recommend six times pipe diameter from pump or bend.

Bonnet assembly lubricated for long life. Needs no further grease. The indicator lip seal stops the ingress of dust, dirt and atmospheric contaminates.

EASE OF MAINTENANCE

Three part design a llows maintenance and actuator retrofitting without removing the valve body from the pipeline. Extended life, reliability and safety, combined with essentially simple design, result in low maintenance and low cost of ownership.

A -

Ope

n

B -

Clo

sed

A -

Ope

n B

- C

lose

d

A -

Op

en

B -

Clo

sed

A -

Op

en

B -

Clo

sed

R

SAUNDERS KB TYPE DESIGN WITH RHI BONNET

E

RHI (Rising Handwheel Indicator) Non - Rising Handwheel

E E

C

Screwed DN15 - DN50

E

Flanged DN65 - DN150

C

C’ (Rubber Lined)

Flanged DN200 - DN350

C

C’ (Rubber Lined)

Flanged DN25 - DN50

C

FEATURES AND BENEFITS OF THE KB BODY WITH RHI BONNET

* Straight through body, high flow, low pressure drop * Low maintenance * Rising handwheel indicator * Immediate indication of open/close position * Leak tight by design * Flexible closure even with solids present * Only two wetted parts * Bonnet working parts isolated from line media

* Specially developed linings and diaphragms available * Indicator sleeve (lubrication reservoir) * Rolled thread spindle * More compact than the previous model * Better resistance to corrosion/abrasion due to the sealed bonnet * Weighs less for easy handling * Space saver for difficult installations * Lower open and closing torques

VALVE SIZE - DN

Screwed

15 25 32 40 50 65 80 100 125 150 200 250 300 350

A - 166 166 166 185 - - - - - - - - -

B - 159 159 159 165 - - - - - - - - -

C - 111 124 143 168 - - - - - - - - -

Aprox Weight - 2 3 4 6 - - - - - - - - -

Flanged

A - 163 163 163 185 224 273 321 347 447 - - - -

B - 157 157 157 165 200 240 285 305 385 415 560 640 680

C 108 127 146 159 190 216 254 305 356 406 521 635 749 980

C' - 133 152 165 196 222 260 310 362 412 527 641 755 986

Aprox Weight 2 4 5 6 11 15 23 31 46 67 110 200 300 400

E 80 120 120 120 120 200 250 250 315 400 400 500 630 720

Operating Pressure - bar 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 6 6 3.5 3.5 3.5 1.5

Weights in Kg. C valve length = EN 558-1 Series 7 (ex BS 5156)

A VALVE PACKAGE FOR CORROSIVE AND ABRASIVE APPLICATIONS

GUIDE TO BODY (LININGS) APPLICATIONS RANGE AVAILABILITY

BODY / LINING TYPICAL APPLICATIONS SIZE TEMP °C

Cast Iron Ductile Iron (SG)

Strength, low cost non corrosive duties DN15-DN350 -20° to 175°

Rubbers - Soft (AAL) - Hard (Ebonite) (HRL) - Butyl (BL) - Neoprene (NL)

Economic handling of corrosive & abrasive media Abrasive duties Acid, chlorinated water, moist chlorine Mineral acids, & slurries Abrasive duties where hydrocarbons are present

DN25 - DN350

-10° to 85° -10° to 85°

-10° to 110°

-10° to 105°

Borosilicate Glass Excellent for strong acids, halogens DN25 - DN200 -10° to 175°

Halar" Excellent resistance to mineral and oxidising acids inorganic bases, salts

DN25 - DN350 -10° to 150°

Fusion Bonded Epoxy FBE Potable water applications DN25 - DN350 -20° to 80°

Halar™ is the registered trademark of AUSIMONT UK Ltd

CAST IRON AA

STAINLESS STEEL / COPPER ALLOYS

GLASS LINED

SOFT NATURAL RUBBER LINED

BUTYL LINED

425

POLYCHLOROPRENE LINED

FBE

SAUNDERS DIAPHRAGMS VALVES - A UNIQUE DESIGN, SEALED FROM THE SERVICE AND PROOFED AGAINST CORROSION AND EROSION IN HOSTILE ENVIRONMENTS

GUIDE TO DIAPHRAGM APPLICATIONS RANGE AVAILABILITY

GRADE TYPICAL APPLICATIONS † SIZE TEMP °C

A Abrasives in slurry or dry powder form . DN15 - DN350 - 40° to 90°

B Acid and alkalis. Up to 85% sulphuric acid at ambient temperatures. Hydraulic hydrochloric phosphoric acids, caustic alkalis and many esters. Sea water, very low vapour and gas permeability. Insert gases and many industrial gases.

DN15 - DN350 - 30° to 90°

C Salts in water, dilute acids and alkalis, abrasives. DN15 - DN350 - 10° to 90° 226 Paraffinic and aromatic hydrocarbons, acids, particularly concentrated

suplhuric and chlorine applications. Not recommended for ammonia and its derivatives or for polar solvents, e.g. acetone.

DN15 - DN250 - 5° to 140°

237 Good acid and ozone resistance certain chlorine services. DN15 - DN350 - 0° to 90°

300 For hot water services applications involving steam sterilisations, therefore, ideally suited for brewing and pharmaceutical applications. For services involving continuous high temperature/pressure combinations consult our technical department.

DN15 - DN350 - 20° to 120°

425 Salts in water, drinking water. DN15 - DN350 - 40° to 100°

Key to grade letters / materials A - Natural Rubber B - Butyl C - Nitrile

226 - Fluororubber 300 - Butyl

237 - Hypalon 425 - Epdm

P.O. Box 5064, Benoni South 1502, South Africa

Tel: +27 (11) 748 0200 Fax: +27 (11) 421 2749

Email: [email protected] Website: www.dfc.co.za

Printed July 2005


http://www.dfc.co.za/