PRAMINENT MINE WATER

SUPPLY DESIGN
CIVIL ENGINEERING HYDRAULICS

BY
James-William Brown a1766666

THE UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE

School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering
Praminent Hollow Mine Water Supply Design

Executive Summary
JYB Engineering Solutions has been contracted to design a water supply system for the Praminent
Hollow Mine and Minerals Processing Plant using the nearby natural watercourse, Kennedy Creek.
This report consists of the analysis of suitable water supply systems relying heavily on the potential
energy from the Kennedy Creek Weir to meet the requirements and constraints of the pressure in
the pipes.

The most cost-effective pipe combination along the supply system was found to be within the range
of diameter 400 mm to 675 mm. The optimal pipe diameter combination was found to be 400mm-
450mm-280mm. The changes in diameter within the pipeline (Terrain Rise to Mine Off-Take and
from the Mine Off-Take to the mineral processing plant) were found to be 50 mm and 180 mm
respectively. The overall capital cost of supply and installation of the HDPE Pie combination is
$6,957,500 and the overall supply and installation cost of the service tank connecting the weir is
$52,500 and has a radius of 9.14m.

The overall capital cost of Main A has potentially been decreased by up to $850 000 and costs of
Main B have been decreased by up to $605 500 by selecting the most cost-efficient pipeline.

The total cost for the optimal design of the water supply system is $7.01 million.

I
Praminent Hollow Mine Water Supply Design

Table of Contents
Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................................1

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................3

2. Main A Design ..............................................................................................................................................4

2.1 Assumptions for Main A ............................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Preliminary Hydraulic Assessment for Main A ............................................................................................. 5
2.2 Hydraulic Assessment from Weir to Treatment Station ............................................................................... 6
2.2.1 Weir Height 5m Assessment .............................................................................................................. 13
2.2.2 Weir Height 7.5m Assessment ........................................................................................................... 13
2.2.3 Weir Height 10m Assessment ............................................................................................................ 13
2.3 Optimal Pipe and Weir Height for Main A ................................................................................................. 13

3. Main B Design ............................................................................................................................................15

3.1 Assumptions for Main B ............................................................................................................................. 15
3.2 Hydraulic Assessment from Service Tank to Terrain Rise ........................................................................... 16
3.3 Hydraulic Assessment from Terrain Rise to Mine Off-Take ........................................................................ 17
3.4 Hydraulic Assessment from Mine Off-Take Mineral Processing Plant ....................................................... 18
3.5 Optimal Pipe Combination for Main B ....................................................................................................... 19

4. Service Tank ..............................................................................................................................................21

4.1 Capacity, Diameter, Cost Analysis .............................................................................................................. 21
4.2 Hydraulic Assessment for the Service Tank ................................................................................................ 21
4.3 Assumptions for the Service Tank .............................................................................................................. 21

5. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................22

6. References .................................................................................................................................................22

8. Appendices ................................................................................................................................................23
Appendix A – Main A Spreadsheet ................................................................................................................... 23
Appendix B – Main B Excel Spreadsheet .......................................................................................................... 24
Appendix C – Service Tank Spreadsheet ........................................................................................................... 27

II
Praminent Hollow Mine Water Supply Design

1. Introduction
Our consulting company has been tasked with the project of designing a water supply system for the
Praminent Hollow Mine and Minerals Processing Plant. Utilising the main available water source from
Kennedy Creek, the topography of the landscape allows for use of gravity to drive the water to its
locations via pipelines. The Kennedy Creek water source is separated by a range of hills as shown in
the ground level profile in Figure 1, which maps the features at their distances and elevations. The
water must be delivered from the Kennedy Creek Weir to the Treatment System and Service Tank, to
the Mine Off-take and Mineral Processing Plant respectively. The entire system stems from the Weir’s
elevation, hence a gravity-fed system of various pipe sizes would be installed 1m below the ground
along the chainage to provide the required pressure heads to the Treatment System and Service Tank,
Mine Off-take, and Mineral Processing Plant. The most cost-efficient and effective pipe diameters that
support the constraints will be shown and discussed in the report.

Figure 1: Ground Level Profile

The Kennedy Creek is a natural water source whereby a weir will be placed across in order to control
its water flow. However, the water source must be treated by the Treatment System on a hilltop 2km
away from the creek in order to be suitable for human consumption. The delivered water from the
creek to the Treatment System must satisfy the necessary pressure and flow rate to this location,
whereby the Treatment system is designed by an external c. The treatment system will then deliver
the water to the Service Tank which provides supply for the mine and processing plant.

The evaluation of hydraulic assessments for Main A (Weir to Treatment Station) and Main B (Service
Tank to Mineral Processing Plant) will be investigated. For Main A, one continuous pipe length of the
same diameter will be used that connected the Kennedy Creek Weir to the Treatment System and
Service Tank. On the other hand, Main B will have various pipe diameters that connects the features
of the Service Tank to the Mine Off-take and the Mine Off-take to the Mineral Processing Plant. The
various diameters allow for accounting of pressure head demands and optimisations of the HGL at
these points. These features can be shown in Table 1.

1
Praminent Hollow Mine Water Supply Design

Table 1: Ground Surface Elevations

This report will detail the decisions of civil engineering infrastructure calculations and
analytics to produce the optimal pipe diameter and cost-effective combination of systems for
Main A and Main B. Additionally, the theoretical equations used will be shown and use of
Excel spreadsheets will assist in evaluating the yield of these results.

2. Main A Design
2.1 Assumptions for Main A
Throughout the calculations using the energy equation between pipe locations, there is a
disregard for the minor losses, which means the minor losses equal zero. It is assumed that
throughout all calculations, the temperature is at 10°C, denoting the kinematic viscosity of
water to be 1.31 x 10-6 m2/s and the specific weight of water is 9810 N/m3.

The treatment system delivers water to the service tank which is fed off to its features for
Main B, however the storage tank must be full for the three hours of peak demand. It must
also be noted that the gravity system provides enough water through the service tank when
it’s in its lowest level (1m above the floor of the tank). This peak demand means that the
water flows through the service tank directly to provide water to where it is needed.

Another assumption when calculating capital costs is that the costs remain unchanged. Any
unforeseen delays or external problems do not occur during construction or operating of the

2
Praminent Hollow Mine Water Supply Design

system. The only costs that are accounted for are the weir height cost, and the entire pipe
length cost. Hence the capital cost would be the sum of the weir cost and pipe length cost for
its associated diameter. It is also assumed that the entire length of pipes is 2000m.

2.2 Preliminary Hydraulic Assessment for Main A

This entire system relies on a gravity-fed main which means there is no net input of energy
anywhere in the system (no pumps) to increase the pressure head of HGL. Thus, resulting in
relying exclusively on potential energy from the Kennedy Creek Weir to meet the
requirements and constraints of pressure at different features. The capital cost also includes
the weir height as shown in Table 2, whereby a smaller weir height costs less but may not
meet certain pressure requirements for its certain pipe diameters - whereas a higher weir
height yields higher costs and would likely meet pressure requirements for smaller pipe
diameter.
Table 2: Water Supply Demands

Finding the best pipe to use must follow the constraints for each pipe diameter variable. There
is a trade-off between using the small pipe diameters which have a smaller cost per unit
length but have a greater head loss due to friction, whereas large diameters have a greater
cost per unit length but have a smaller head loss. The various pipe diameters and their
respective costs are shown in Table 2.

The magnitude of the head-loss for each pipe diameter can be found analytically using the
Darcy-Weisbach equation:
𝐿 𝑉2
ℎ𝑓 = 𝑓
𝐷 2𝑔
Where f is the friction factor, L is the entire length of the pipe, D is the diameter of the pipe,
V is the velocity of water flowing through the pipe, and g is acceleration due to gravity. Since
1
ℎ𝑓 ∝ 𝐷, as the diameter increases, the head loss due to friction decreases, and vice-versa, as
the diameter decreases, the head loss due to friction increases.

There are constraints that need to be followed, most particularly, the pressure head for
respective features at their chainage from the weir, and the peak water consumption
demands. The water consumption demand is shown in Table 3 whereby the units have been
converted to SI units of metres and seconds to allow for ease of calculations.

Table 3: Water Supply Demands

3
Praminent Hollow Mine Water Supply Design

Additionally, the pressure demands must be met, notably, a pressure of 14m must be
provided to the treatment system to ensure adequate water quality. Throughout the entire
pipe system, a positive pressure of 5m must be maintained throughout its length (except for
the first 500m of the gravity main near the service tank). The 5m of pressure head
requirement throughout the pipeline will ensure that air is not drawn into the mains, as
automatic air release valves will be installed to expel trapper air at high points. From the
pressure demands, vertical distance of HGLs can be calculated by the addition of the elevation
of the feature and its required pressure head from the ground as shown in Table 4. The
vertical distance of the HGL is derived in the beginning of section 2.2.

Table 4: Constraints of the Design for Required Pressure Head

2.2 Hydraulic Assessment from Weir to Treatment Station

The energy equation can be applied to the end points of the pipe system to find the pressure
head at the treatment system:
𝑝1 𝑉12 𝑝2 𝑉22
+ + 𝑧1 = + + 𝑧2 + ℎ𝑡 + ℎ𝐿
𝛾 2𝑔 𝛾 2𝑔
As the flow rate at both ends are equivalent, the continuity equation holds where 𝑄 = 𝑉𝐴
which cancelled out V on both sides. Also, minor losses are neglected but friction losses are
𝑝
accounted for. The weir is also open to the atmosphere which makes 𝛾1 = 0.
𝑝2 𝐿 𝑉2
𝑧1 = + 𝑧2 + 𝑓
𝛾 𝐷 2𝑔
𝑝
To find the pressure head required at the treatment we can isolate 𝛾2:
𝑝2 𝐿 𝑉2
= 𝑧2 − 𝑧1 − 𝑓
𝛾 𝐷 2𝑔
𝑝2 𝐿 𝑉2
= 𝛥𝑧 − 𝑓
𝛾 𝐷 2𝑔
Here we have found the pressure head requirement which was used in Table 4 in section 2.2.
The pressure head can be equated for different head losses at their features since the
elevation of the weir height is a fixed parameter. The elevation of the service tank that was
used in calculations is 86m, meaning the pipe is at 84m of ground elevation since the pipe is
1m below ground level and the water tank must maintain a 1m level above ground. This is to
account for a worst-case scenario which means the elevation is at 86m.

For Main A, the treatment system is to be constructed of ductile iron cement mortar-lined
(DICL) pipe, which is a gravity fed system connecting the weir to the treatment system. This

4
Praminent Hollow Mine Water Supply Design

gives us a pipe roughness height for DICL to be 0.35mm or 0.00035m which can be used to
calculate the friction factor. The pipe number with its diameter and cost per unit length is
shown in Table 5.
Table 5: DICL Pipe Information (Supply and Installation Cost)

The most suitable approach with finding the best combination of weir-height and pipe
diameter to use is to asses all the pipes with each weir height to find the smallest diameter
(hence lowest cost) pipe that suits the constraint requirements. These calculations are further
explored and iterated through Appendix A which details clear calculations and an iteration
approach in finding the best combination.

From before:
𝑝2 𝐿 𝑉2
= 𝛥𝑧 − 𝑓
𝛾 𝐷 2𝑔
First the classification of the flow needs to be made using the Reynolds number:
𝑉𝐷
𝑅𝑒 =
𝑣
Where V is the velocity of water flowing through the pipe, D is the diameter of the pipe and
v is the kinematic viscosity of water. All the pipes give a result of the Reynold number being
> 105, which means the flow is a fully rough turbulent flow.

The friction factor must be determined in order to fulfil the pressure head constraint. The
DICL pipe’s roughness can be used in order to calculate the friction factor of possible
diameters that range from 100mm to 2100mm. It can be observed that for all the DICL pipe
𝜀
diameters, the 𝐷 > 10−5 which means the Swamee-Jain equation is not valid in calculating
𝜀
the friction factor as 𝐷 is outside of that range. As the flow is a fully rough turbulent flow, the
Colebrook-White equation can be used to find the friction factor of each pipe diameter,

5
Praminent Hollow Mine Water Supply Design

however, it is an implicit function which requires iteration through goal seek to find a solution.
This is further exemplified through Appendix A using LHS and RHS as well as an objective
difference. Setting the objective difference which is RHS – LHS to 0 by changing the friction
factor using goal seek provides close to accurate data for the magnitude of the friction factor
for each pipe diameter. The Colebrook-White equation is given by:
1 𝜀 2.51
= −2𝑙𝑜𝑔10 ( + )
√𝑓 3.7𝐷 𝑅𝑒√𝑓

1 𝜀 2.51
Where the LHS is , and the RHS is −2𝑙𝑜𝑔10 (3.7𝐷 + ). Where f is the friction factor, 𝜀 is
√𝑓 𝑅𝑒√𝑓
the pipe roughness, D is the pipe diameter and Re is the Reynolds number for the pipe
diameter.

The head loss for each pipe diameter which follows the constraints in Table 4 was calculated
using the Darcy Weisbach equation. Hence, the pressure head is given as the difference
between the elevation of the weir and the head loss of the pipe. Through this iterative
process, if the vertical HGL at the treatment system is < 96.5m, then the pipe would fail the
requirement of having a 14m pressure head for the treatment system, if it is > 96.5 then the
pipe would pass the requirement. Tables 6-9 provides insight for the pressure requirement
constraint successes for each pipe length to their respective weir heights.

Table 6: Head Loss and HGL Pressure Requirement at Treatment for Weir Height 5m

6
Praminent Hollow Mine Water Supply Design

Table 7: Head Loss and HGL Pressure Requirement at Treatment for Weir Height 7.5m

7
Praminent Hollow Mine Water Supply Design

Table 8: Head Loss and HGL Pressure Requirement at Treatment for Weir Height 10m

As the HGLS for each pipe for their weir heights are calculated. A graphical representation for
each weir height and the pipeline HGLs can be shown in Figures 2-4, where Figure 5 displays
a summary of these HGL plots. The HGL plots only display the vertical distance of HGLs that
are > 0m, as the vertical distance of HGLs that are < 0m would be displayed going from the
weir height directly past the origin. The required HGL for the treatment as such is given by a
14m pressure head which can be shown in the figures as ‘Required HGL’. Hence pipe numbers
3- 26 were graphed for Figure 2-5. As Pipes 1 for the weir heights were approximately -6600m
and pipes 2 were approximately -700m which are not displayed in the graphs.

8
Praminent Hollow Mine Water Supply Design

Figure 2: All Possible HGL Combinations from Weir Height 5m to Treatment System

Figure 3: All Possible HGL Combinations from Weir Height 7.5m to Treatment System

9
Praminent Hollow Mine Water Supply Design

Figure 4: All Possible HGL Combinations from Weir Height 10m to Treatment System

Figure 5: Summary of All Possible HGL Combinations from Weir to Treatment System

rom Tables 6-8 and their associated graphs in Figures 2-4, the smallest pipe diameter that
reaches the requirement for each weir height can be deduced. Each weir height has their own
pipe diameter that has the sufficient pressure requirement. The plots of all the figures show
the small pipe diameters having a small HGL at the treatment system and the larger diameters

10
Praminent Hollow Mine Water Supply Design

having a smaller head loss meaning their HGL would most likely meet the required constraint.
Finding the reasonable pipe and weir combination is determined in section 2.3.

2.2.1 Weir Height 5m Assessment

The optimal pipe that was discovered for the weir height of 5m was 675mm, which produced
a friction factor of 𝑓 = 0.0192, head loss of ℎ𝐿 = 0.334, resulting in the HGL at the treatment
being 96.666𝑚 as shown in Table 6. This is the largest pipe out of the 3 pipes for the 3
respective weirs that were found. This large pipe diameter can be denoted to the fact that
the HGL at the treatment is satisfied the greater the diameter of the pipe, as the weir height
is decreased, there is not a lot of energy that can be used to drive the water to the treatment
system. The total cost which includes the weir height and the pipe length comes to
$3,816,000.

2.2.2 Weir Height 7.5m Assessment

The optimal pipe that was discovered for the weir height of 7.5m was 450mm, which
produced a friction factor of 𝑓 = 0.0198, head loss of ℎ𝐿 = 2.616, resulting in the HGL at the
treatment being 96.884𝑚 as shown in Table 7. As compared to the previous assessment in
section 2.2.1, the pipe diameter is much smaller, being 450mm compared to 675mm. This can
be attributed to the fact that the greater weir height gives a greater change in elevation
between the weir height and the treatment system when it comes to calculating the HGL at
the treatment. Hence, a lot of potential energy is stored from the weir which drives the water
to the treatment system at a water velocity of 0.764m/s. The total cost which includes the
weir height and the pipe length comes to $2,966,000.

2.2.3 Weir Height 10m Assessment

The optimal pipe that was discovered for the weir height of 10m was also 675mm alike the
weir height of 7.5m. This weir height produced a friction factor of 𝑓 = 0.0192, head loss of
ℎ𝐿 = 0.334, resulting in the HGL at the treatment being 99.384𝑚as shown in Table 8. It is
evident to see that the same pipe diameters are used for weir heights 7.5m and 10m. This
can be attributed to the fact that the trade-off between the HGL at the treatment and
difference in elevation of weir and treatment produce the same requirements as the 7.5m
weir height. It can be estimated that as the weir height increases pass 10m, then the pipe
diameter would be less than or equal to 450mm. It should also be noted that there are no
minor friction losses to be accounted for, as this only depends on the weir height. Hence the
total capital cost for the weir height of 10m is $3,266,000.

2.3 Optimal Pipe and Weir Height for Main A

In order to calculate the total pipe costs for each pipe diameter, the pipe cost per unit length
can be multiplied by 2000m to find the pipeline cost:
𝑃𝑖𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 = 2000 × 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ (𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ 𝑝𝑖𝑝𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟).

The most suitable pipe diameter to use for each weir was found through Tables 6-8. Where
for a weir height of 5m, pipe number 9 with diameter 675mm would be used; for a weir height
of 7.5m, pipe number 6 with diameter 450mm would be used; and for weir height of 10m,
pipe number 6 of 450mm would be best suitable. These are the minimum pipe diameters

11
Praminent Hollow Mine Water Supply Design

which pass the pressure head constraints from Kennedy Creek to the Treatment System.
These costs are evaluated and summarised in Table 9.

Table 9: Summary of Weir Height and Pipe Costs

From Table 9, it can be observed that the lowest capital cost can be achieved by using a weir
height of 7.5m and pipe number 9 with a diameter of 450mm yielding $2,966,000. With this
weir height and pipe diameter selected, it can be accounted for that the hydraulic assessment
of Main B can simply me fulfilled as weir height and pipe diameter for Main A has provided
enough energy following the pressure head constraints. The resultant optimal weir height
and pipe diameter’s HGL is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Pipe Level Profile for Optimal Weir Height (5m) and Pipe Diameter (650mm)

In order to assess the entire system of Main A specifically, the weir heights and their
respective pipes need to meet the following constraints in Table 4. It is assumed that the only
costs assessment of optimal weir-height + pipe diameter combinations are the weir-height
costs and pipe length costs for a single point in time. It could be deduced that a greater weir-
height could increase long term capital costs but that was not needed to be assessed for this
design.

The hand calculations of Main A in Appendix D provide an insight in how the optimal
calculations were done for the weir height of 7.5m and pipe diameter of 450mm.

13
12
Praminent Hollow Mine Water Supply Design

3. Main B Design
The design of Main B is centralised around the fact that the system does not possess a net
input of energy, such as a pump, in which the pressure head of HGL would otherwise be
increased. Rather, the system is reliant on the potential energy to efficiently function.

Similar to Main A, the magnitude of the head loss experienced by each pipe diameter, can
be determined through the application of the Darcy-Weisbach equation as follows:

𝐿 𝑉2
ℎ𝑓 = 𝑓
𝐷 2𝑔

As seen in this equation, since head loss is inversely proportional to pipe diameter, the head
loss due to friction increases as the diameter of the pipe decreases.

The following, Table 10, presents the constraints that are considered in the design of Main
B, where according to the specified elevations and pressure heads from the ground, the
vertical distance of the HGL is the sum of these two components. The required pressure
head from the ground is specified to be greater than or equal to 5m, 14m and 25m
respectively.

Table 10: Constraints of Design for Main B

Feature Elevation (m) Required Pressure Head from Vertical Distance of HGL (m)
ground (m)
Rise in terrain 73.5 5 78.5
Mine off-take 58.3 14 72.3
Mineral Processing 9.5 25 34.5
Plant

3.1 Assumptions for Main B

To maintain consistency throughout calculations for both Main A and Main B the following
was assumed. The temperature of the water is assumed to be 10°C, where the kinematic
viscosity of the water is then 1.31 x 10-6 m2/s and is applied to determine Reynold’s number
as well as the subsequent calculations. The peak demand (Q) calculated for Main A was
assumed to be correct until later revaluation. In regards to the calculation of capital costs, it
was assumed that the costs would remain stable and consistent. Hence, any future changes
in material cost is not accounted for in the following calculations.

In addition to the aforementioned, the following was also assumed. Upon applying the energy
equation, it was assumed that minor losses would be disregarded and hence excluded from
the calculations.

14
Praminent Hollow Mine Water Supply Design

3.2 Hydraulic Assessment from Service Tank to Terrain Rise

To identify the various pressure heads at different chainage, the Bernoulli Equation can be
applied between two points along a pipeline. The Bernoulli Equation is as follows:

𝑝1 𝑉12 𝑝2 𝑉22
+ + 𝑧1 = + + 𝑧2 + ℎ𝑡 + ℎ𝐿
𝛾 2𝑔 𝛾 2𝑔

In addition to this, in circumstances where pipe diameters are consistent (pipes of the
diameter), the continuity equation Q=AV is applied. This relationship consequently
demonstrates that the velocity of the water throughout the pipelines is constant. From this,
the following relationship can be derived:

𝑝2
= 𝛥𝑧 − ℎ𝑓
𝛾

Since, the parameters of the service tank are fixed and z is the elevation of the pipe below
the service tank, the pressure head of the pipeline can be determined for different head
losses. The elevation of the service tank utilised in the calculations was 82.5 m as the tank
has a natural ground elevation of 81.5m but must always maintain a water of at least 1m in
the tank.

In reference to the outlined design specifications, only the outside diameter of each pipe
was provided and thus to be able to execute the calculations the inside diameter is also
needed. The inside dimeter can be calculated using the following:

𝐼𝐷 = 𝑂𝐷 − 2 ∗ (𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑡h𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠)

As outlined in the client’s design specifications, the HDPE pipes utilised for the construction
of Main B have a roughness of 0.0015 mm. This results in the range possible inside diameter
values ranging from 76.6 mm – 581.8 mm. The restraint 𝜀 > 10−5 also applies to pipes of all
diameters, meaning that the Swamee-Jain equation is not practical for this application as
this exceeds the range. Hence, the Colebrook-White equation was more suitable as it is
applicable for turbulent flow. This equation was applied to find the value of the friction
factor (f). The Colebrook-White Equation is an implicit function and requires
implementation of Excel’s Goal Seek to find an appropriate solution f.

The Darcy Weishbach equation was also used to calculate the head loss for each pipe
diameter. Resultantly, the pressure was also evaluated as the difference between the
elevation and the head loss. The pressure head and head loss are. summarised in Table 11.

15
Praminent Hollow Mine Water Supply Design

Table 11: Head Loss and HGL Pressure Requirement at Service Tank

It can be seen in the table that out of the first 17 possible pipe diameters, that only 4 pipe
diameters have passed the required criteria. It is evident that pipe diameters ranging from
90 mm to 400 mm are simply not feasible as they did not fulfil the required HGL. It was also
seen that an increase in the outside diameter resulted in a decrease in the pressure as it
plateaus as the HGL was approaching 0.

3.3 Hydraulic Assessment from Terrain Rise to Mine Off-Take

The following segment was analysed for 3500m from the service tank to the rise in terrain which
must have has a surface elevation 14m greater than the weir, the pressure head must be greater
than 5m with the respect to the pipe at a chainage of 5500 m.

For this segment of Main B, the mine off-take has a peak demand of 2.5 ML/day and has a
design requirement that the pipes be a length greater than 250m to align with the provided
costing table. The calculations in this section, to analyse the most effective pipe diameter, a
similar method described in the 3.2 was applied.

It was again assumed that the previous endpoint of the HGL for the service tank to the
terrain, would be taken as the starting point for the HGL from the terrain rise to the mine
off-take. The equation to represent the relationship of the resulting pressure head is given
below:

𝑝2
= 𝛥𝑧 − ℎ𝑓
𝛾

In Table 12 below, the pressure head and point of HGL at the terrain rise for each of the
given diameters is displayed, showing both failing and passing pipe diameters.

16
Praminent Hollow Mine Water Supply Design

Table 12: Head Loss and HGL Pressure Requirement at Mine off-take

For this segment it can be seen that out of the possible 173 combinations, the design
requirements have narrowed it down to 125 possible combination.

3.4 Hydraulic Assessment from Mine Off-Take Mineral Processing Plant

The following segment was analysed for 2500m from the rise in terrain to the mine off-take
which must have has a surface elevation 25m greater than the weir, the pressure head must be
greater than 5m with the respect to the pipe at a chainage of 8000 m.

For this segment of Main B, the mineral processing plant has a peak demand of 8 ML/day
and thus has a maximum remaining flow of 4 ML/day. As previously applied, the assumption
that minor losses are ignored was taken along with the specified pipe length required. It is a
requirement that the pipe lengths be greater than 250m to align with the provided costing
table.

Due to the initial assumption that the HGL from the terrain rise to the mine off-take starts
from the ending point of the HGL for service tank to the terrain rise, the same is applied
here. This assumption is denoted by the following pressure head equation:

𝑝2
= 𝛥𝑧 − ℎ𝑓
𝛾

Table 13 below displays the pressure head and point of the HGL at the mine off-take for
each given outside diameters. Although, this is bearing in mind that all the diameters would
not be suitable and thus suggested for application despite passing the requirement,
however it displays the exact values of unfeasibility.

17
Praminent Hollow Mine Water Supply Design

Table 13: Head Loss and HGL Pressure Requirement at Mineral Processing Plant

For this segment out of the possible 173 combinations, the design requirements have
narrowed it down to 512 possible combinations.

3.5 Optimal Pipe Combination for Main B

Through applying a similar method from 3.2-3.4, the pressure head of the maximum
diameter pipe was used as the starting point of the HGL from the rise in terrain to the mine
off-take.

Three pipe diameters that met the design requirements were selected for each segment of
Main B and consequent total costs were calculated. These pipe diameters then represented
the three potential combinations of pipelines for Main B as displayed in Table 14.

With all the design constraints and requirements, the design calculation process was largely
simplified from 173 (possible combinations from each of the three segments) to 64 possible
combinations.

Table 14: Combinations of pipes and capital costs

HGL at
Pipe 1 OD HGL at Pipe 2 OD HGL at Mine Pipe 3 OD Processing
(mm) Terrain (mm) Off-Take (mm) Plant Capital Pipe Cost ($)
400 77.06932841 450 77.6139 280 53.1245 $ 4,044,000.00
450 79.077495 500 78.9885 315 64.9209 $ 4,247,500.00
500 80.08756313 560 79.8620 355 71.7096 $ 4,649,500.00

18
Praminent Hollow Mine Water Supply Design

From the graph in Table 14, the outside diameter pipes that were closest to the minimum
pressure constraints are summarised in Figure 7 below.

Figure 7: Combinations of pipes for Main B

It is quite clear from this table that the smallest pipe diameter of 400 mm installed from the
service tank to the terrain rise will also resultantly yield in the cheapest pipe cost of
$4,044,000. Following this, a pipe diameter of 450mm would have be installed from the
terrain rise to the mine off-take and thus a 280mm diameter pipe would have to be installed
from the mine off-take to the mineral processing plant.

19
Praminent Hollow Mine Water Supply Design

4. Service Tank
4.1 Capacity, Diameter, Cost Analysis
The service tank needs to fulfil the annual demands as well as its peak demands given in Table
3. Where the peak demand is 10.5ML a day for a 3-hour period. The optimal height of the
tank is given as 6m from the brief, and using this, the diameter of the tank needs to be
determined. However, as the entire system of Main A and Main B is a gravity-fed system, the
water height could not go below 1m above the tank floor. This means that the tank must have
the capacity to hold enough water for 3 hours at a height of 5m. The peak demand volume
for 3 hours is given as a 1312.5 m3.

Using the formula for the volume of a cylinder:

𝑉 = 𝜋𝑟 2 ℎ
Where V is the volume of the tank, r is the radius of the tank, and h is the height of the tank,
the equation can be re-arranged to find the radius:
𝑉
𝑣=√
𝜋ℎ
Where the radius is a positive magnitude.

As shown in Appendix C, the radius of the tank is 9.141m, the diameter being 18.282m. The
cost for the construction of the tank is $40,000 per megalitre of volume needed, which results
in the total tank cost being $52,500.

4.2 Hydraulic Assessment for the Service Tank

The height of the service tank of 6m was used, where the service tank is at an elevation of
81.5m from the ground level. As the treatment system feeds water through the service tank,
the tank has an enough required pressure head from Main A calculated in section 2 of the
report. If the HGL were to be drawn for a flow rate less than the peak demand of 10.5ML/day
1
then this would result in a decrease in head loss – where from section 2.2, ℎ𝑓 ∝ 𝐷 . As the
head loss is proportional to the square of the flow rate:
𝐿 𝑉2 𝐿 𝑄2
ℎ𝑓 = 𝑓 =𝑓
𝐷 2𝑔 𝐷 2𝑔𝐴2

4.3 Assumptions for the Service Tank

It is assumed that the dimensions of the service tank are relatively small compared to the
Mine Off-take and Mineral Processing Plant demands. However, the water would not be
stored in the tank for a prolonged period of time.

It is also assumed that when considering costs of the tank, there are no external losses of
water and the costs are only for the volume of water held – not for constructing the material
of the tank. Notably, any construction faults, costs, and damages are negligible when
considering the capital costs for the service tank.

20
Praminent Hollow Mine Water Supply Design

5. Conclusion

The recommendation for the design is based off optimal values for their constraints and
economic impacts in order to yield a viable and sustainable solution. For Main A, the most
cost-effective option was to use a 675mm pipe in conjunction with a weir height of 7.5m. The
storage tank’s total cost resulted in $52,000 where the radius of the tank is 9.141m in radius,
and 6 m in height. For Main B, the cheapest option was to go with: was 400mm for the pipe
diameter from service tank to rise in terrain, 450mm of pipe diameter from rise in terrain to
mine off-take, and 280mm of pipe diameter from the mine off-take to the mineral processing
plant.

The total costs for the entire system resulted in a capital expenditure of $7,062,500. These
calculations include the installation costs for the weir at Kennedy creek, the service tank and
all the pipelines of the entire system. These costs do not include maintenance costs that may
be incurred associated with the maintenance and upkeep of the entire system.

6. References
Elger, D. (201)6. Engineering Fluid Mechanics. 11th ed. United States of America: John Wiley & Sons
Inc. pp 242, 247.

21
Praminent Hollow Mine Water Supply Design

8. Appendices
Appendix A – Main A Spreadsheet
Praminent Hollow Mine Water Supply Design

Appendix B – Main B Excel Spreadsheet

Praminent Hollow Mine Water Supply Design
Praminent Hollow Mine Water Supply Design
Praminent Hollow Mine Water Supply Design

Appendix C – Service Tank Spreadsheet