Search Documents

By D. Berkley

The competitive pressure, the increasing energy costs and the environmental regulations impose substantial challenges to the definition of power plants serving industrial facilities. Primary mining and metallurgical facilities have even greater challenges because they are often located remotely, where the fuel supply can be a problem. The absence of a power grid imposes challenges on the reliability and quality of the electrical energy supply. In addition, the facilities usually require thermal energy too, not only electricity. This paper outlines these types of issues that have to be considered when defining a cogeneration plant integrated with a remote located industrial facility. It is addressed to the ?users? of cogeneration facilities rather than to ?generators.? The focus is on analyzing various site-specific design considerations to pre-screen the feasible cogeneration alternatives and minimize the number of options to be analyzed from the economics viewpoint. This approach could substantially reduce the engineering effort and schedule during the feasibility phase of the project. Part 1 of this paper (Berkley, 2003) provides a basic understanding of cogeneration plants of various types to establish a common language. Part 2 outlines and analyzes specific issues that could be of help in the definition of cogeneration installations for remotely located industrial facilities, with a focus on mining and primary metallurgical plants.

Mar 1, 2003

Develop tools that mine personnel can use to comply with 30 CFR,Part 47. Background The new MSHA rule, 30 CFR, Part 47 (also known as the HazCom rule), requires all mines to develop a written program to track hazardous chemicals at their sites. More specifically, the rule requires that mines list all chemicals and determine which are hazardous; develop a written Hazard Communication Program; label all containers used to store hazardous chemicals; obtain or develop Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for all chemicals stored or produced; provide miners with training in working around hazardous chemicals; and make information about hazardous chemicals available to all workers. All mines with six or more employees must have complied with the new rule by September 23, 2002, and mines with five or fewer employees will have to be in compliance by March 21, 2003.

Mar 1, 2003

By Peter Yen

This session consists of five papers. Three involved research on the properties of grout materials, specifically ultrafine cements and polyurethane grouts. Two papers present the development of soil grouting technology and monitoring methods. Of great interest are the papers on ultrafine grout penetrability testing focusing on the pressure filtration effects encountered in permeation grouting applications (Ericksson, Stille and Mittag, Savidis). The comparison testing of hydrophilic and hydrophobic polyurethane grouts submitted by Vrignaud, Ballivy, Perret and Fernagu assessed the long-term performance of these materials for repairing saturated cracks in concrete, subject to thermal expansion and contraction. Two very practical papers present the development of soil grouting, where permeation, fracture, replacement, jetting and other grouting techniques are utilized. The papers by Lees with Chuaqui and Warner present experience with ultrafine and other commonly used grout materials. Methods to measure and monitor the injection process and verify production progress are discussed.

Feb 10, 2003

By John Davie

We used a Remtek survey in Glenrock and had very good luck with it when we first started the initial investigation. We would have loved to have used that more but my understanding is the equipment is hard to find. It also requires a flooded mine workings. If you're in a dry mine the communication between the two holes is not quite as successful.

Feb 10, 2003

By Dawn Shuttle

In trying to find a grout, or some kind of stabilizer that would work in this application, we established some performance criteria. Of those, what I controlled the most was viscosity, then I had a whole list of other criteria. I needed a long, controllable gel time, durability and the ability to set and stabilize the soil. So I looked through a lot of different stabilizers, some really crazy ones and also the typical chemical grouts that are used. The typical chemical grouts were eliminated because of long-term durability concerns, the need for having extended gel times, and several other concerns. I would be happy to discuss that with you further after the talk if you're interested. But, generally it was based on viscosity, gel time, and the need for extended gel time. In terms of the relative density of the sand many other grouts could have been used. But the main issue was trying to develop this way to do low pressure grouting that would not cause invasive disruption of the site. We couldn't go in and grout it, put centers, so most of the other grouts wouldn't work for various reasons. The forty percent relative density samples were prepared by plubiation. That was both during the cyclic testing stage of the research, which happened a few years back, and also during the box model and the laminar box models at RPI. In terms of what criteria were used to determine the success of the grouting, when I initially started this work what I did was take the grouted samples and I subjected them to cyclic triaxial testing. What I did was take a look at the cyclic deformation resistance of different concentrations of grouted colloidal silica treated sand. I looked first at 20% concentration because I wanted something that I knew worked and then I gradually decreased to 15%, 10%, and 5%. What I was most concerned with was that it did not liquefy and that it was able to hold together it and experience some deformation. But most importantly it needed to not liquefy. So, that was the biggest issue in determining the success of the grouting. In terms of the centrifuge modeling it was done by looking at several components: from looking at the pictures of the bending moments, looking at the acceleration records and how the acceleration records were transferred through the soil, looking at the reduction in the lateral displacement and those kinds of issues. So let me show you the difference.

Feb 10, 2003

By James Warner

Although use of low mobility grout is just now beginning in some parts of the world, its advantage for many applications has been well established through more than 50 years of positive experience. The single largest area of application continues to be densification of soil by way of compaction grouting. Because it is often the safest and least costly method for soil improvement in general, and virtually always that in connection with soil improvement under, or adjacent to structures or in developed areas, use will undoubtedly increase both geographically and in diversity of application.

Feb 10, 2003

By Stephan A. Jefferis

I presume that the questioner is not asking about the reduction of sulfate in groundwater to hydrogen sulfide as a result of biological activity promoted by organics in the grout hardener and that the question relates to sulfate attack on cementitious grout systems. For the project in Spain presented in my paper, we used a very high pulverized fuel ash (PFA) content in the cementitious material. This gives good sulfate resistance and indeed the chemical interaction will actually cause the permeability to drop for about 50 years without any question of sulfate attack and damage to the whole thickness of the grout - of course there will be attack at the exposed face of the grout where it is in contact with the contaminated groundwater. The mix had over 75% PFA, and also a very high overall cementitious content. The mix was the contractor's design and showed excellent behavior in laboratory proving trials. In grouts as distinct from concrete, PFA gives significantly better sulfate resistance than ground granulated blast furnace slag which is often used in Europe as a component of bentonite-cement mixes for slurry trench cut-off walls.

Feb 10, 2003

By Raymond Henn

Yes we have also used some however, again because of the nature of the maintenance window where we have that two hour (at best) window every night and due to the numerous other crews that are wanting to get in to do the other types of maintenance activities, we don't know if we are going to be getting into that same area from one night to the next. So even with the dormancy additives that one can add to cementitious grouts (that are good up to 72 hours) we don't know if we are going to get back in to the same locations from one week to the next. That's why I use the term "the forgiving nature of the acrylamide". It allows us to ream out the hole allowing us to use the exact same hole without having to re-drill a new hole. The program started in 1997 and we have a budget between labor/materials and equipment of 4.5 million dollars on a year to year basis. For the next few years that is going to come down drastically because the program is going to be more of an ongoing maintenance program. The program started in 1997 and we have a budget between labor/materials and equipment of 4.5 million dollars on a year to year basis. For the next few years that is going to come down drastically because the program is going to be more of an ongoing maintenance program. Up to the end of 2001 we were just over 1.7 million liters of between AV100 and AV118 grout. Of that, approximately just under 200,000 was AV100 and the remaining balance was AV118.

Feb 10, 2003

By Jim Henry

I would say mainly the cost. I showed only 3 cases. One of them was the one that Allen just described and there were two other cases. In those cases it was fairly easy to develop a solution using limited mobility grout to treat the soft soils suitable for the limited bearing pressures required by the structures. LMG readily provided a fairly reliable system for the foundation support at a reasonable cost.

Feb 10, 2003

By Richard Berry

The spacing of grout injections is typically about 2 to 2 V½ meters if the purpose of the grouting is densification of the in-situ soils. Hole spacing will vary with the in-situ soil properties and the grout injection rate; faster rates requiring closer hole spacing.

Feb 10, 2003

By Stephan Jefferis

It is my understanding that the Scandinavians have done some fundamental work on durability. I have seen a study published whereby the author, Helen Anderson, comments on the durability of polyurethane grouts and there was -if I am not mistaken- a reference made to another Scandinavian testing institute comparing durability of the polyurethane to cement grout under the same type of circumstances. Circumstances are important so we should actually ask the gentleman to shed some light on this particular method because apparently Scandinavia is the place where durability has been taken very seriously and has been well researched.

Feb 10, 2003

By Trent Dreese

For critical velocities in gravel units we use Bush-Luckner, Sichardt, other empirical equations, and equations derived from laboratory experiments too. On the base of these, we compiled critical velocity - permeability coefficient dependencies. Under the lower border of these dependencies sand particles can't be moved, and thus they are stable. For critical velocities in the fissures of flysh and volcanic rocks we use Ronzhin (1974) criteria derived from laboratory experiments in Russia. Maximal filtration velocities measured by tracer methods in gravel soils and in fissured rocks have smaller values then the critical ones.

Feb 10, 2003

By Marcelo Chuaqui

We certainly have the data to back calculate it. I must admit that I haven't, at the moment my priority is not on what is the stiffness of the jet grout but is making sure that the jet grout is really there. It's a bit like what Stuart Littlejohn was talking about this morning in terms of grouting on the dams a small window causes a big problem so it's having the jet grouting there at all, at the moment must have been my focus rather than just what is the stiffness once you've got it there.

Feb 10, 2003

By Lois G. Schwarz

I did not make studies about this parameter but I can say that some researchers recommend using low C3A cements to repair masonry mortar in order to reduce a possible combination with sulphate that can be present in old mortars.

Feb 10, 2003

By Giovanni Lombardi

In order to get a clear overview of the grouting works carried out, to avoid misinterpretations of the data and functions shown on the display of the grout monitoring device, it is recommended to keep the flow rate as constant as possible. Obviously, at the beginning of the process, the flow rate will increase from nil to the selected "basic" value. An important question frequently addressed is also how to reduce the flow rate in nearing the GIN limit so to finally reach the target intensity. Depending on the actual conditions, there are different manners to proceed. However, the following one appears to be the most convenient. It is represented on Figure 25. Being GIN the target intensity, two new limits at, let's say, 0.95 GIN and at 1.05 GIN as shown in the figure should be defined. The selected basic grout flow rate "q0", is kept as constant as possible all along the grouting process until the 0.95 GIN limit is reached. The flow is then reduced step wise to 2/3 q0, 1/3 q0 and zero at crossing each of the three limits. A similar rule can be used in respect to the maximum pressure, while for the maximum volume the process can be stopped at one time. Obviously the number of successive limits and thus the number of steps in reducing the pressure, as well as the width of the fringes defined in said way may be adapted to the local conditions.

Feb 10, 2003

By Timothy Flaherty

We observed the boiling in the water very close to the water adjacent to where we were drilling. That only happened at the very beginning before it was switched to water flushing. Yes, it was performed with water flush.

Feb 10, 2003

By Peter Iovino

Unfortunately, I don't know the unit cost per cubic yard of treatment. I reflected on that yesterday and I don't think that we considered the use of micropiles. They could have been an option. The challenge may have been picking up some of the lateral load but I think the micropiles could have been installed on a batter and perhaps extended to rock. We could have considered them, but I do not believe we explored micropiles as an option for this project.

Feb 10, 2003

By Jim Bruce

No answer required. From the drilling equipment suppliers, but the specifications must be tailored to be project-specific. Yes, the sonic technique is very interesting as we said, and it is not so much as an issue of the magnitude of power, it's about the efficient use of the power. The efficiency of the machine is not necessarily related to size so it is best to talk to the two contractors that supply the service about that. I think it can be scaled down but it is quite a big head, so therefore there are practical limitations on the size of the door it can walk through and also the size of the casings and rods that it can use. You might defeat the economic advantages if you were to use too short casing lengths. Boart Longyear have a low head room machine that can work within an 8 foot verical clearance.

Feb 10, 2003

By Mary Ellen Bruce

Let me first address the issue of the wet grab samples. The wet grab samples that were attempted to take on the Central Artery were hindered by the fact that the way the mixing was being done was only by injecting grout on the way out, during withdrawal of the mixing tools. They would auger down to the required depth (usually with some water being injected), which took anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour, and then when coming out, the grout would be injected with grout. That was leaving a column of grout in the center where the shaft had been (i.e. inside of the blades of the mixing tools), which would end up being something like a foot in diameter because the pipe that was used for the drill shaft was a foot in diameter. So we had 10 inches to a foot of almost pure grout in the middle of our column and then we had 2 feet on either side that was mixed soil cement. So when they went down with the wet grab sampler not knowing where that was in the column sometimes they/we were getting strengths of 1500 psi, and sometimes they/we were getting strength of 500 psi or 100 psi. So what was it that we were taking into the wet grab sampler? In those cases you don't really know, but it wasn't representative of the core samples we were taking. We were purposely not coring in the center because we knew that was going to be high cement content, almost pure grout. So the issue of wet grab sampling particularly on this project, the Central Artery Project, was that we didn't really know what we were sampling. What becomes an issue with wet grab sampling in other projects is that you have to have another device (machine) in most cases, a cherry picker crane or something similar that can raise and lower with a beam that is used to forces the sampler down into the freshly mixed soil-cement. And regarding economics, is it more economical to have that crane standing by with its operator or to have a drill rig to come along later and do the coring and take the material out that's fairly identical to what you're finding in situ? The complaint of micro-fracturing in the core samples as you're taking the cores was raised by Seiko as causing large strength reductions. But, if you're doing it carefully, then I don't think that's much of an issue anymore, on research basis perhaps but not on a practical level.

Feb 10, 2003

By Lois G. Schwarz

I did a project (Sungai Piah) as a consultant to your firm in Malaysia, where we were faced with a similar situation as sketched out in your question. The following is what we did for the grouting of the primary holes, which were both located upstream of the plug as well as downstream: We used a hydrophobic MDI based semi-rigid polyurethane prepolymer in the first phase of the grouting operation when grouting under water flow conditions. Then in the second phase and also for the contact grouting we used a two component water compatible polyurethane elastomer. And then for deeper formation grouting, when all the water flow had been stemmed in the vicinity of the plug, we used a regular (balanced stable) cement based grout. So it may not exactly answer your question, but we first used hydrophobic grout because it is very efficient to grout a formation through which water flows. We didn't stop all the leaks day-lighting downstream of the plug or all water running through the formation near the plug, but the flow of water through the rock formation adjacent to the plug was reduced by 99.9%, after completing the urethane grouting. This facilitated the placement of cement based suspension grouts without wash-out.

Feb 10, 2003