Structural Engineering Review-03-07-07-FINAL

EXCEL CRUSHER TECHNOLOGIES
TINTAYA CRUSHER REPLACEMENT

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING REVIEW

OF EXISTING CRUSHER FOUNDATION
FOR NEW EXCEL CRUSHERS
FINITE ELEMENT DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

FOR
TINTAYA, PERU
PREPARED FOR

543 A.J. ALLEN CIRCLE, SUITE B
WALES, WI 53183
MARCH 2007
M3-PN07010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL ..............................................................................1

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................2
1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 2
1.2 SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................................ 2
1.3 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 2
1.3.1 Dynamic Analysis.................................................................................................. 2
1.3.2 Static Analysis ....................................................................................................... 2
1.4 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 3
1.5 CONTACT INFORMATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES ...................................................... 3
2 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................4
2.1 ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................ 4
2.2 DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE ........................................................................................ 4
2.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODEL ......................................... 5
2.4 REVIEW OF GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION ................................................................. 6
2.5 REVIEW OF CRITICAL DETAILS ..................................................................................... 6
2.6 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 7
2.6.1 Dynamic Analysis.................................................................................................. 7
2.6.2 Static Analysis ....................................................................................................... 9
2.7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 13
3 APPENDIX A – REFERENCE DOCUMENTS.......................................14
4 APPENDIX B – PHOTOS OF EXISTING INSTALLATION ...............15
5 APPENDIX C – M3 EXPERIENCE WITH CRUSHERS ......................33
6 APPENDIX D – REFERENCE DRAWINGS ..........................................41
M3-PN07010 i M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation

3/7/2007
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 BACKGROUND
Ken Klemons of FFE Minerals and Excel Crusher Technologies contacted M3
Engineering & Technology, leading to purchase order 44970-000 dated 1/16/2007
for structural review. The purpose of this structural engineering review is to
provide a review of the existing concrete foundations for the new Excel 1100
Crushers to be installed at the Tintaya Project in Peru.
1.2 SCOPE OF WORK

M3 is to provide a structural engineering review of the suitability of the existing
concrete foundations for new Excel 1100 Crushers. This includes review of the
existing construction drawings prepared by SNC in 1983. M3 will prepare a finite
element analysis (FEA) for the existing crusher support structure. Original
structural calculations were not available for review.
1.3 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
1.3.1 Dynamic Analysis

The results of M3’s independent dynamic analysis show that the existing
concrete foundation appears adequate. As noted in the Structural Analysis
section, the first few modes of vibration are within acceptable design
parameters.
Mode of Vibration Frequency (rpm) Frequency Ratio*

1 433 1.42
2 542 1.78
3 567 1.86
*Based on maximum eccentric frequency of 315 rpm.
1.3.2 Static Analysis

The results of M3’s independent static analysis show maximum stresses as
follows:
Load Case Von Mises Stress

Dead Load + Seismic 1.63 MPa (236 psi)
Dead Load + Crusher Lateral 1.02 MPa (148 psi)
These stresses appear to be within the allowable tensile strength of the

concrete, thereby precluding cracked concrete sections that can have a
significant adverse affect on the dynamic frequency of the structure.
M3-PN07010 2 M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation

3/7/2007
1.4 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The existing concrete foundations appear to meet the minimum acceptable
requirements relative to dynamic frequency response. However, the exiting
concrete foundation has an octagonal discharge opening under the crusher which
is 2550 mm across the flats. The Excel 1100 Crusher requires an opening of
approximately 3000 mm across the flats. The concrete opening requires
significant modification. Sketch 2 and 3 (see Appendix A) show the geometry of
the discharge and suggested modifications.
The service level forces on the structure from the crusher operation and possible
seismic loads appear to cause stresses in the concrete foundation that are less than
the tensile strength of the concrete. This is desirable to preclude deterioration of
the dynamic performance of the structure. Review of the existing concrete
foundation on the construction drawings show typical reinforcement details.
There is no detail for abrasion-resistant liners at the discharge throat of the
crusher. M3’s experience is that liners are required and significant concrete
erosion can be prevented by providing a diverging cone-shaped discharge as
shown in Sketch 1 (see Appendix A).
M3 recommends providing abrasion-resistant liners at the crusher discharge. The

liners should be configured in a diverging conical shape to minimize future
maintenance and concrete erosion. This should be coordinated with enlarging the
discharge opening in the existing concrete for the new crushers.
1.5 CONTACT INFORMATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES

Listed below is the contact information for the main parties who are concerned
with the results of the analysis.
Ken Klemons
Excel Crusher Technologies / FFE Minerals
543 A.J. Allen Circle, Suite B
Wales, WI 53183
+1 262 968 9095 x114
Mobile +1 262 501 2424
KenK@excelcrushers.com

3/7/2007
2 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
2.1 ANALYSIS
A finite element analysis (FEA) model was constructed using the FEA software
RISA-3D. The software is a three-dimensional FEA program used primarily for
structural analysis and design. The model was constructed using plate elements
for the concrete walls, slab and footing. The soil supporting the foundation was
modeled using spring elements. Three basic static load cases were analyzed:
1. Dead Load
2. Dead Load Plus Seismic
3. Dead Load Plus Crusher Lateral
A dynamic analysis was run to evaluate potential harmonic frequencies that could
amplify the response of the structure to the crusher lateral loads. The first few
modes of the dynamic analysis were evaluated.
2.2 DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE

The geometry of the foundation for the FEA analysis was obtained from drawing
number 04300-CI-DR-0020 Rev.1, dated 20 November 2006. This is shown in
Appendix A – Reference Documents. There are three crushers to be installed on
one existing foundation structure. The structure is 36.8m long by 8.475m wide by
11.5 high.
The crushers are supported on a 1.0m thick slab which in turn is supported on
1.6m thick wall segments along the short axis of the structure. The wall segments
are supported by a mat foundation that is 1.70m thick. The mat foundation is cast
on a rock foundation.
The vertical loads of the crushers are carried primarily in bending in the top slab.
Frame action transmits some bending to the support walls and foundation. The
lateral loads from the crusher operation and seismic shear are resisted in the
longitudinal direction by frame action combined with wall segments acting as
shear walls. In the transverse direction, the lateral forces are resisted by shear
walls.
The longitudinal direction of the structure is stiff due to the shear wall segments
and the overall stability from the 36.8m long foundation. The transverse direction
of the structure is relatively more flexible due to the bending stiffness of the frame
action and the shorter 8.475m wide foundation dimension.
The crusher center of gravity is approximately 14.0m above the bottom of the
concrete foundation. This results in an included stability angle of 34°. The

3/7/2007
recommended stability angle is 60° minimum. This structure does no comply

with this design parameter.
The mass ratio of the concrete foundation to the crusher mass is 5.3 to 1. This
exceeds the recommended minimum of 3 to 1.
2.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODEL

A simplified FEA was constructed the 36.8m long foundation incorporating the
three crushers. The model is as follows:
Figure 1 – Existing Foundation
Three load cases were analyzed:
1. Dead Load
2. Dead Load & Seismic Z
3. Dead Load & Crusher Lateral Z
Load Case 1 included the dead load of the concrete and the dead load of the
crusher. This load case was used for the dynamic analysis.
Load Case 2 included Load Case 1 plus seismic lateral load of 28% of gravity on
the concrete and crusher dead load in the transverse (Z) direction.

3/7/2007
Load Case 3 included Load Case 1 plus crusher operating lateral load of 33% of
the crusher dead load in the transverse (Z) direction.
Load Case 2 and 3 were used to analyze the stresses in the concrete structure to
assess potential of cracked concrete sections that can significantly reduce the
structural stiffness and increase dynamic response.
Crusher geometry and foundation loading was obtained from Excel Crusher
drawing RXL 1050-0005 Rev. 3 and drawing RXL 1050-0012 Rev. 0. These
drawings are included in Appendix A – Reference Documents.
2.4 REVIEW OF GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION

No geotechnical information provided to M3 for this review. For M3’s analysis,
the following parameters were assumed:
Elastic Modulus: 2.0x106 psi (13,750 MPa)
Shear Modulus: 0.8x106 psi (5500 MPa)
The elastic and shear modulus values were used to model an equivalent spring on
elastic foundation stiffness for the FEA model. A value of 13,000 k/cubic foot
(2.05 KN/cubic cm) was used for the vertical coefficient of subgrade reaction.
Tributary areas of the foundation finite element grid were used to calculate
equivalent springs. As an example, for a 2 ft. x 2 ft. tributary area (4 sf), a
vertical spring stiffness of 52,000 k/ft (760 KN/mm) was used. The lateral spring
stiffness was modeled as 40% of the vertical stiffness.
For the geometry of the crusher foundation, this equivalent spring stiffness is
fairly rigid and therefore does not influence amplification of the dynamic
response.
2.5 REVIEW OF CRITICAL DETAILS

The following concrete drawings of the existing foundation were reviewed as a
part of this study:
320-42-101 Rev. 4
320-42-102 Rev. 3
320-42-104 Rev. 5
320-42-105 Rev. 3
320-43-203 Rev. 5
320-45-004 Rev. 2
320-45-005 Rev. 3
320-45-314
320-45-320

3/7/2007
These drawings are included in Appendix A – Reference Documents. The

drawings are typical of concrete construction drawings for a crusher installation.
However, the crusher discharge opening of the existing structure is an octagon
with 2.55m across the flats. The new Excel 1100 Crushers require a discharge
opening of 3.00m across the flats of an octagon. Significant modification to the
concrete immediately below the crusher is required. See Sketch 2 and 3
(Appendix A) for suggested modifications.
M3’s experience has shown that extensive erosion of the concrete can occur
below the crusher discharge. Although abrasion-resistant liners are typically
provided, maintenance procedures after startup usually do not replace liners as
frequently as needed. The result is the loss of the liners and then the erosion of
unprotected concrete. Once the concrete has eroded enough to destroy the liner
mounting fixtures, erosion continues until reinforcing steel in the concrete is
compromised. The catastrophic result is failure of the concrete supporting the
crusher. M3 recommends a diverging conical shape below the crusher discharge
that is shown in Sketch 1. This configuration reduces liner wear to near zero and
precludes the destructive erosion of concrete.
2.6 RESULTS
2.6.1 Dynamic Analysis
A dynamic analysis was run using the Existing Foundation (Figure 1). Load Case
1 was used for the foundation mass and the crusher mass. The first three vibration
modes were obtained and are shown in Figures 2, 3 and 4. The two relevant
modes are vertical vibration associated with the top slab supporting the crusher
and transverse vibration associated with the frame action in the Z direction.
Longitudinal modes are not relevant in this model since only a slice of one
crusher and foundations was analyzed. The longitudinal modes will be much
higher.

3/7/2007
Figure 2 – Transverse Mode (433 rpm)
Figure 3 – Longitudinal Mode (542 rpm)

3/7/2007
Figure 4 – Twisting Mode (567 rpm)
These three modes had frequencies of 433 rpm transverse, 542 rpm longitudinal
and 567 rpm twisting. The crusher has a variable speed drive with countershaft
speed of 588 to 836 rpm and eccentric speed of 215 to 305 rpm. The eccentric
speed compared to the transverse frequency is the primary concern due to the
associated unbalanced force of 28,000 pounds. The ratio of the transverse
frequency (433 rpm) to the eccentric speed is 1.42 to 2.01. The recommended
ratio is 1.5 minimum. This simplified analysis indicates that the transverse
stiffness is slightly below the recommended minimum.
This mode shape is excited only if all three crushers are synchronized together.
This phenomenon is considered very unlikely.
2.6.2 Static Analysis
An independent static analysis was run to check the structural strength of the
proposed foundation as follows:
Load Case 1: Dead Load of Foundation and Crusher

Load Case 2: Load Case 1 plus Seismic in Transverse Direction
Load Case 3: Load Case 1 plus Crusher Lateral in Transverse Direction
The purpose of this analysis is to assess the stresses in the concrete structure due
to dead load, operational load, and seismic load. The stresses must be less than

3/7/2007
the allowable stresses permitted by the governing building code, but also to
prevent cracking in the concrete which can significantly reduce the stiffness of the
structure.
The dynamic analysis was based on uncracked sections of the concrete walls and
slab. This means that stresses due to loading conditions do not exceed the tensile
strength of the concrete. This is important because concrete sections that crack
due to bending stresses that exceed the concrete tensile strength can have cracked
section stiffnesses that are 20% of the uncracked sections. This can reduce the
vibration frequency of the structure by a factor of up to 2, thereby reducing the
frequency ratios from 1.5 to less than 1.0.
Stress contour plots are provided as follows:

Figure Load Case Stress (MPa)
5 1 Von Mises Top
6 1 Von Mises Bottom
7 2 Von Mises Top
9 3 Von Mises Top
Figure 5: Load Case 1, Von Mises Top

3/7/2007
Figure 6: Load Case 1, Von Mises Bottom

3/7/2007

3/7/2007
The Von Mises stress combines axial and shear stress together to represent the
effects of combined stresses on the concrete. The maximum stress for the six
stress contour plots is 1.63 MPa (236 psi). The proposed foundation appears to be
sized to preclude cracked sections.
2.7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the review of the proposed foundation, the proposed crusher static and
dynamic loading, and M3’s independent analysis, the proposed foundation
appears adequate for the proposed installation. However, significant modification
to the concrete below the Crushers is necessary to accommodate the larger
discharge area of the Excel 1100 Crusher.

3/7/2007
3 APPENDIX A – REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

The referenced drawings and other attachments to this document include:
Drawings:
“Sketch 1”
“Sketch 2”
“Sketch 3”

3/7/2007
4 APPENDIX B – PHOTOS OF EXISTING INSTALLATION

3/7/2007

3/7/2007

3/7/2007

3/7/2007

3/7/2007

3/7/2007

3/7/2007

3/7/2007

3/7/2007

3/7/2007

3/7/2007

3/7/2007

3/7/2007

3/7/2007

3/7/2007

3/7/2007

3/7/2007

3/7/2007
5 Appendix C – M3 EXPERIENCE WITH CRUSHERS

M3 ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
CRUSHING AND GRINDING EXPERIENCE

(1987-2006)
M3 is a specialist in study and detail design of crushing and grinding plants worldwide. M3 makes
use of the most proven flowsheet simulation and material handling computer programs. Recently
M3 has installed two (2) SAG mills in North America, the only such projects recently completed.
PROJECT YEAR
Glamis Gold Peñasquito, Mexico 2003-2006

• 60 x 113 Gyratory crusher
• 1 - 38' diameter SAG mill x 20' EGL (18,000 KW)
• 2 - Ball mills 24' diameter x 37.5' EGL (24,000 KW total)
• 1 - Pebble crusher (MD-800)
Las Vegas, Nevada 2005

• 54 x 84 Gyratory crusher and portable base
Pan American Silver, Alamo Dorado 2005 – 2006

• 42” Gyratory crusher with dump pocket
• 1 – 20’ x 7’ SAG mill
• 1 – Ball mill
Pan American Silver, Manantill, Argentina 2005

• 1 – 48” Jaw crusher, truck dump hopper
• 1 – SAG mill
• 1 – Ball mill
Phelps Dodge Bagdad, Arizona 2005

• Relocation of Primary Crush/Convey System
Kinross Refugio, Chile 2003-2005

• Two new secondary crushers (MP-800’s)

3/7/2007
PROJECT YEAR
Alamos Mulatos Gold, Mexico 2003-2005/1995-1998

• Feasibility Studies followed by EPCM
• Open pit mine, a three-stage crushing circuit
• Conveyor/stacking system; Heap leach pad
• Carbon in column gold recovery circuit/carbon handling/gold refinery circuit
• Relocated crushing plant - 17,500 metric tons/day
• Miscellaneous infrastructure and support facilities
Leadville Gold, El Chanate 2003

• Relocated circuit: primary, secondary and tertiary crushers
Kennecott Greens Creek, Alaska 2003

• Vertical shaft impactor for lead/zinc circuit
Kennecott Copperton, Utah 2002-2003

• 2 - MP1000's for Pebble Crushing
Peñoles Tizapa, Mexico 2002

• 1 - 18' diameter x 8'-6" EGL SAG Mill, 1000 hp
• 1 - 14' diameter x 21'-6" Ball Mill, 2300 hp
Kerr McGee LVO 2002

• Pneumatic Mills
Teck Cominco Morelos Camp, Mexico 2002

• 1 - 8.53m diameter x 3.05m EGL Sag Mill
• 1 - 5m diameter x 9.14m EGL
ASARCO Mission Dump Pocket Repairs, Arizona USA 2000-2001

• 54" x 74" Primary Gyratory Crusher Modifications
Phelps Dodge Sierrita, Arizona USA 2000-2001

• H8000 Middlings Crusher
Peñoles - F.I. Madero - Silver/Lead/Zinc 8,000 MTPD Project, Mexico 1997-2000

• M3 did all studies and detail design for this major greenfields
• “Fuller” SAG Mill Project and Ball Mills
• Pebble Crushing
Peñoles - Fresnillo - Silver/Lead/Zinc 4,000 MTPD Project, Mexico 1998-2000

• M3 did studies and detail design for a new Mill featuring a
• “Nordberg” shell supported SAG Mill and Dominion Ball Mill

3/7/2007
PROJECT YEAR
Minera Alumbrera - Argentina 1998-2000

• M3 performed studies, improvements and run-in performance test
• Supervision for this 80,000 MTPD copper/gold SAG Mill
• Project – Design repairs for 60 x 109 Gyratory
• Study for Pebble Crushing
Arizona Portland Cement, Arizona USA 1999-2001
• Krupp-Polysius Quadropol Roller Mill 500 TPH, 4,500 HP
• World’s largest such table mill
• Finish Mill Conversion 15-6” diameter x 21’ long ball mill
Echo Bay Paredones, Mexico 2000

• 1-28’ diameter x 8.5' long SAG mill, 4600 hp
• 2-12.5' diameter x 27' long Ball Mills, 4600 hp
• 1-48” x 60” Primary Jaw Crusher
• 1-Future pebble crusher
El Sauzal, Mexico 2000-2001

• 1-28’ diameter x 12'-6" SAG mill, 6000 hp
• 1-18' diameter x 27' long, 6000 hp
• Pebble Crusher
Maricunga 1998
Refugio Chile
• Foundation Base Changes for Crusher Changeout
Hecla Noche Buena 1998-2000

Caborca, Sonora, Mexico
• 42" x 65" Gyratory
• 3 - 7' Nordberg Crushers
Cyprus Cerro Verde, Peru 1998-1999

• Upgrade of Crushing and Conveying Plant to 1,800 MTPH
• 4 - 7' Short Head Tertiary Crushers Speedup with Improved Feed
• 2 - 7' Standard Crushers Speedup with Improved Feed System
ASARCO Ray, Arizona USA 1998-1999

• 1-MP1000 in a crushing/screening plant to crush
all middlings (SAG Mill Critical Size) in Ore Feeding
• Primary Stockpile - precrushing feed to mill, part of overall
circuit that employs pebble crushing

3/7/2007
PROJECT YEAR
ASARCO Hayden, Arizona USA

• Foundation Review for Speedup of 1999
• 5 - 7’ Shorthead Crushers
Phelps Dodge Ajo, Arizona USA 1996-2000

• 54" Fuller Gyratory Crusher
• 34' x 15' Fuller SAG Mill
• 24' x 38' Fuller Ball Mill
• Pebble Crushing
Peñoles/Newmont - La Herradura Precious Metals, Mexico 1996-2000

• 42" x 65" Gyratory
• 2 x 8,000 Svedala Crushers
Battle Mountain Crown Jewel, Washington USA 1996-2000

• 48" x 60" Primary Jaw Crusher
• 17' x 21½' SAG Mill
• 16½' x 26' Ball Mill
• Pebble Crushing
Echo Bay Aquarius, Canada 1999

• 48" x 60" Primary Jaw Crusher
• 28' diameter x 10' long single stage grinding
BHP/Robinson, Nevada USA 1998

• SAG Drive Foundation Correction
KT Clay , Monterrey Mexico 1998

• Rod Mill
Greenstone Gold 1998

San Andres, Honduras
• 48" x 60" Jaw Crusher
• 7' Symons Secondary
Greenstone Gold 1998

Cerro Mojon, Nicaragua
• Studies

3/7/2007
PROJECT YEAR
Phelps Dodge La Candelaria II, Chile 1998

• DCS Startup Assistance
Cyprus Sierrita, Arizona USA 1996-1997

• Two 60" x 89" Gyratory Crushers, Engineering Due
• Diligence and Complete Construction Management
Phelps Dodge Modernization Mill Studies, Arizona USA 1996

• Morenci and Metcalf Mills
Phelps Dodge Crushing Study Using Roll Crushers 1996

and MP-1000's, Morenci Mill, Arizona USA
B.H.P. OK-Tedi, New Guinea 1995

• Pebble Crushing for 32' SAG Mills - Study
• Plant originally designed by M3 Personnel
Cyprus Bagdad, Arizona USA 1995

• SAG Line #3, 32' Diameter, Test for Conversion from
Autogenous to Semi-Autogenous
Magma San Manuel, Arizona USA 1995

• 10' Dia x 10' Long Marcy Ball Mill Repair
Kerr-McGee West Chicago, Illinois USA 1995-1997

Kerr-McGee West Chicago, Illinois USA 1995-1997

• Primary Gravel Scrubber, 10' Dia x 20'-6"
• Secondary Gravel Scrubber, 38" Dual Blades X 36' Long
Phelps Dodge Morenci, Arizona USA 1995

• 10' Dia x 10' Long Marcy Ball Mill Installation
Phelps Dodge Metcalf, Arizona USA 1995

• 12' Dia x 16' Long Ball Mill Installation
Cyprus Sierrita, Arizona USA 1995

• Tertiary Roll Crusher Installation
ASARCO Ray, Arizona USA 1994

• SAG Mill Bypass Study, 34’ Diameter

3/7/2007
PROJECT YEAR
ASARCO Pima, Arizona USA 1994

• SAG Mill, 28' Diameter, PLC System
Hecla Rosebud, Nevada 1994

• 16'-6" Dia X 5' SAG Mill
Echo Bay McCoy Pebble Circuit, Nevada USA 1994

• HP 200
Chemstar Haley Mountain, Nevada USA 1993

• Jaw Crusher
Magma San Manuel, Arizona USA 1993

• Seven, 7' Short Head Crusher Foundation Upgrades
• Four, 7' Standard Crusher Foundation Upgrades
Cyprus Tonopah, Nevada USA 1993

• 54 - 74, Gyratory Crusher, Fuller
• Two, 7' Cone Crushers
Cyprus Bagdad, Nevada USA 1993

• 60 - 89, Gyratory, Crusher, Allis Chalmers,
M3 Portable Preliminary Study
Cyprus Bagdad, Arizona USA 1987-1993

• 60 - 89, Gyratory Crusher, Primary Crusher, Modification,
detail engineering for Reconstruction of Foundations and
discharge Throat Liners
• MP-1000, Cone Crushers, Nordberg - Pebble Crushing
• WF800, Waterflush Cone Crush, Nordberg - Pebble Crushing
• 36' x 19' Autogenous Mill - Study
• 20' x 30.5' Ball Mills - Study
Hecla La Choya Sonora, Mexico 1993

• 40"x 48" Jaw Crusher
• 5' Cone Crusher
• Barmac Impactor
Chemstar Nelson, Arizona USA 1992

• Ball Mill Foundation Fortification

3/7/2007
PROJECT YEAR
Granite Tucson, Arizona USA 1992

• 54" Standard Crusher
• 45" Short Head Crusher
• 54" Short Head Crusher
Copper Mine Majdanpek, Yugoslavia 1991

• 60-89, Kobe Gyratory Crusher, Movable Primary Crusher
• Complete Instrumentation for Mills
Phelps Dodge Chino SAG Mill Circuit, New Mexico USA 1991
• Four, WF800, Waterflush Pebble Crushers, Nordberg
Interfacing with 28' diameter SAG Mills
and 16.5' diameter Ball Mills
• Recycle Crusher Foundation Upgrades
Chemstar Cosgrave, Nevada USA 1991

• 5.5' Cone Crusher
Chemstar Tenmile, Idaho USA 1991

Cyprus Sierrita Ball Mill Circuit Study, Arizona USA 1991

• Nordberg WF500, Waterflush Crusher, Nordberg
Molycorp Crushing Plant No. 3, California USA 1990

• 48" x 60" Jaw Crusher, Primary Crusher
• 5' Kone Crusher, Secondary Crusher
• 9600, Vertical Impactor, Barmac, Tertiary Crusher
Cyprus Esperanza, Arizona USA 1990

• 58" Gyratory Crusher, Allis Chalmers, Primary Crusher
Kerr-McGee Henderson, Nevada USA 1990

• 6' x 16' Kue-Ken Jay, Primary Crusher
• 3' diameter, Gyradisc, Secondary Crusher

3/7/2007
PROJECT YEAR
ASARCO Mission, Arizona USA 1990

• Fine Ore Crushing Plant Study
• 1000 HP, 7' Short Head Crushers
• New Screens and Conveyor Modifications
Cyprus Twin Buttes, Arizona USA 1990

• 54" Gyratory Hydroset, Primary Crusher
Magma McCabe Sulfide Gold, Prescott, Arizona USA 1990

• Regrind Mill, 10' Diameter x 12' Long
• Interfacing with Ball Mills, 12' Diameter, 16' Long
Cyprus Deming, New Mexico USA 1990

• Instrumentation, Electrical and Structural for
• Small Regrind Mill and Ball Mill
Phelps Dodge Morenci, Arizona USA 1989

• Primary Crushers: Krupp Portables
with 60-89 Gyratory Crusher (Technical
evaluation of bids and electrical wiring)
Cyprus Sierrita, Arizona USA 1989

• Primary Crusher
• Allis Chalmers 60-89 Gyratory, Relocation Project
ASARCO Ball Mill Feed System, Arizona USA 1989

• 16.5' Diameter x 19' Long Ball Mills
Cyprus Twin Buttes, Arizona USA 1988

• Primary Crusher: 54-80 Gyratory
Precorporate (Huss, Austin and Neff)
Cyprus (Duval) Sierrita 1978

• Complete Design of Dutec Movable 60-89 Gyratory (Allis Chalmers)
with World’s largest apron feeder (FEA, vibration and fatigue analysis)

3/7/2007
6. APPENDIX D – REFERENCE DRAWINGS

Under separate cover:
“EDIFICIO DE CHANCADO SECUNDARIO Y ZARANDEO PLANTAS”

320-43-203 Rev. 5
16 January 1985
“EDIFICIO CHANCADO SECUNDARIO Y ZARANDEO CIEMENTACIONES”

320-42-102 Rev. 3
22 August 1983
“EDIFICIO CHANCADO SECUNDARIO Y ZARANDEO MECANICA”

320-43-004 Rev. 2
10 August 1983
“DISPOSICION GENERAL DE TRANSPORTE Y CHANCADO DE MINERAL

MECANICA”
320-45-320 Rev. 0
May 2004
“EDIFICIO CHANCADO SECUNDARIO Y ZARANDEO MECANICA SECCION

LONGITUDINAL”
320-45-005 Rev. 3
01 January 1984
“EDIFICIO DE CHANCADO SECUNDARIO MECANICA PLANTAS”

320-45-314 Rev. 0
25 May1994
“EDIFICIO DE CHANCADO SECUNDARIO Y ZARANDEO CIENTACIONES”

320-42-101 Rev. 4
22 August 1983
“EDIFICIO DE CHANCADO Y ZARANDEO CIMENTACION CHANCADORAS

SECUNDARIA Y TERCIARIA”
320-42-104 Rev. 5
05 October 1983
“EDIFICIO DE CHANCADO Y ZARANDEO CIMENTACION CHANCADORAS HOJA”

320-42-105 Rev. 3
20 January 1984

3/7/2007

Structural Engineering Review-03-07-07-FINAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Structural Engineering Review-03-07-07-FINAL

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structural Engineering Review-03-07-07-FINAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EXCEL CRUSHER TECHNOLOGIES

TINTAYA CRUSHER REPLACEMENT

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING REVIEW

FINITE ELEMENT DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

EXCEL CRUSHER TECHNOLOGIES

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL ..............................................................................1

M3-PN07010 i M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation

1.2 SCOPE OF WORK

1.3 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS

1.3.1 Dynamic Analysis

Mode of Vibration Frequency (rpm) Frequency Ratio*

1.3.2 Static Analysis

Load Case Von Mises Stress

These stresses appear to be within the allowable tensile strength of the

M3-PN07010 2 M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation

1.4 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

M3 recommends providing abrasion-resistant liners at the crusher discharge. The

1.5 CONTACT INFORMATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES

M3-PN07010 3 M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation

2.2 DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE

M3-PN07010 4 M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation

recommended stability angle is 60° minimum. This structure does no comply

2.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS MODEL

Figure 1 – Existing Foundation

Three load cases were analyzed:

M3-PN07010 5 M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation

2.4 REVIEW OF GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION

Elastic Modulus: 2.0x106 psi (13,750 MPa)

Shear Modulus: 0.8x106 psi (5500 MPa)

2.5 REVIEW OF CRITICAL DETAILS

M3-PN07010 6 M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation

These drawings are included in Appendix A – Reference Documents. The

2.6.1 Dynamic Analysis

M3-PN07010 7 M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation

Figure 2 – Transverse Mode (433 rpm)

Figure 3 – Longitudinal Mode (542 rpm)

M3-PN07010 8 M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation

Figure 4 – Twisting Mode (567 rpm)

2.6.2 Static Analysis

Load Case 1: Dead Load of Foundation and Crusher

M3-PN07010 9 M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation

Stress contour plots are provided as follows:

Figure 5: Load Case 1, Von Mises Top

M3-PN07010 10 M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation

Figure 6: Load Case 1, Von Mises Bottom

Figure 7: Load Case 2, Von Mises Top

M3-PN07010 11 M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation

Figure 8: Load Case 2, Von Mises Bottom

Figure 9: Load Case 3, Von Mises Top

M3-PN07010 12 M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation

Figure 10: Load Case 3, Von Mises Bottom

2.7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

M3-PN07010 13 M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation

3 APPENDIX A – REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

M3-PN07010 14 M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation

4 APPENDIX B – PHOTOS OF EXISTING INSTALLATION

M3-PN07010 15 M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation

M3-PN07010 16 M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation