Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Presentación Abet 1 Presentación Final
Presentación Abet 1 Presentación Final
Presentación Abet 1 Presentación Final
PROFESSOR :
ROBERTO MALDONADO ASTORGA
MEMBERS:
INDEX:
I. OBJECTIVES
II. INTRODUCTION
III. MATRIX
IV. APPLICATION
V. DISPOSAL METHOD SELECTION
VI. CONCLUSIONS
VII.BIBLIOGRAPHY
I. OBJECTIVES
GENERAL:
To develop a methodology for selecting the best option
of a tailings dam.
SPECIFICS:
Using a decision matrix in the selection of Tailing Pond
with technical and economic criteria.
Show the most important scaling parameters to be
taken into account in a tailings pond.
Allow tailings ponds are friendly to the environment.
II.
INTRODUCTIO
TAILINGS POND
N
minimize
the
negative
public
perception
22%
To
minimize
transporta
tion costs
tailings
site - 18%
Maximize
the stability
of the
deposit 22%
DECISION
MATRIX
Minimize
infiltration
to
groundwate
r 5%
Minimize
the volume
of wall
fillings 18%
Optimizing
the use of
the
tributary
basin
15%
Stability
against
overflow
ANALYSIS
OF
STABILITY
OF
STRUCTUR
E
Stability
against
internal
erosion
-2
Increase in capital
WE
SHOULD
Environmental
management.
Ground water
pollution.
Biodiversity
damage.
TO MINIMIZE TRANSPORTATION
COSTS TAILINGS SITE - 18%
Tailings volume to
transport
KEY
PARAMETE
RS
Process plant to
tailings dam
distance
IV.
APPLICATION
Name of the project : UNI 2016
Surface mining operation producing
copper
Daily production of tailings : 80000
tons.
Life of mine (LOM): 20 years
Production of tailings : 400 Mm3
SITES IDENTIFICATION
PRELIMINARY SELECTION
STAGE
VOLUME OF DAM
(Mm3)
LENGTH OF DAM
(m)
440
15
2200
407
200
1670
445
220
1245
416
130
953
402
120
2225
9b
424
210
1174
SITE
IMPOUND
MENT
STABILITY
(22%)
2.78
2.96
3.63
2.79
2.55
9b
2.85
Site
Minimize
Impound Minimize Minimize Minimize water
Minimize
ment
negative conveyan
dam
manage
Weighted
seepage
Ranking
Stability perceptio c e cost volume
ment
Score
(6%)
(27%)
n (27%)
(0 %)
(22 %
costs
(18%)
2.73
2.73
3.11
2.96
2.89
9b
3.04
Minimize
Minimize Minimize Minimize water
Minimize
negative conveyan
dam
manage
Weighted
seepage
Ranking
perceptio c e cost volume (5 ment
Score
(23%)
n (22%)
(5 %)
%
costs (23
%)
Site
Impound
ment
Stability
(22%)
2.78
2.83
3.50
3.18
2.50
9b
2.72
Site
Minimize
Impound Minimize Minimize Minimize water
Minimize
ment
negative conveyan dam
manage
Weighted
seepage
Ranking
Stability perceptio c e cost volume
ment
Score
(5%)
(20%)
n (20%)
(25%)
(25 %
costs (5
%)
2.80
3.05
3.50
2.80
2.50
9b
2.70
VI.
CONCLUSIONS
VII.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
THANKS FOR
YOUR
ATTENTION !!!