DEM MODELLING

Combined front end DEM analysis and empirical design process to minimise transfer chute blockages
Byline. By Yong-Jin Kim,* BMT WBM advanced analysis team

BMT WBM conducted comprehensive design parameteric studies by DEM analysis in conjunction with the conventional chute design review process. It was proved that the selective DEM analysis enables designers to quantify the effect of design parameters. It also provided the critical operational envelop of the transfer chute if the bulk material handling properties and contact surface characteristics vary significantly.

ithin the mining industry transfer chute blockages account for hundreds of millions of dollars in lost review every year. Such problems are often a consequence of poor and/or inadequate chute designs and significant variation of the raw material properties. In the past the design and operation of transfer chutes for bulk solids has been treated very empirically. In recent years significant advances have been made in the development of numerical programs, such as the Discrete Element Modelling (DEM) for granular particle flows and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) for continuum flows, which handle bulk solid flows accurately and representatively. By utilizing methodologies which combine skilled advanced analysis technology such as DEM, with practical empirical design rules and on site operational experience, BMT WBM engineers support design engineers and provide an additional level of scientific expertise to increase efficiency and optimize the performance of their transfer chutes design. BMT WBM had been commissioned by FL Smidth to provide the third part design review on the transfer chute in the stacker and provide recommendations to improve the design. This new stacker was designed for Worsley Alumina for the Calibre project. The proposed stacker is intended to handle cohesive bauxite at high flow rates. As the performance of the transfer chute is critical to the productivity of the stacker, FL Smidth would like to validate the stacker chute design to investigate potential material flow problems and incorporate the necessary design changes if any problems identified. DEM modelling parameters are correlated to the flow properties test results provide by FL Smidth. DEM analysis has been used aiming to achieve two objectives. The first objective of DEM modelling was to predict and visualize the unfavourable flow characteristics such as blockage, potential spill, build up on the boot chute and spread out of material stream for the worst operational condition. The second objective of DEM modelling was to provide quantitative and comparative information to the designers when they are considering a number of design parameters as well as variations of material properties.
62

Figure 1 DEM model component.

The stacker transfer chute compartment modeled in DEM is shown in Figure 1.

DEM model validation

DEM models granular materials as a collection of rigid particles separated by an appropriate contact law and analysing particle-particle and particle-boundary interactions transiently. BMT WBM adds the mechanical, material and other physical properties to model particles and solid boundaries to provide engineering information including unfavourable flow patterns like build-up and cohesion. FL Smidth has provided BMT WBM the relevant TUNRA Test Reports. TUNRA also has provided instantaneous Yield Loci Data, which corresponds to the test report. BMT WBM has referred the test data result including bulk material density, instantaneous Yield Loci, Instantaneous Wall Yield Loci. The Jenike Shear Test DEM Model and Wall Yield Loci Test DEM Model has been constructed to correlate DEM parameters to the experimental data. The internal friction of bauxite is varied significantly by moisture content and consolidation stress. We assumed the

Australian Bulk Handling Review: March/April 2010

DEM MODELLING

normal stress applied at the bottom of bauxite flow on the tripper conveyor belt to be the maximum normal stress during the normal stacker operation. The predicted maximum normal stress is approximately 1.5kPa. TUNRA has provided the Instantaneous Yield Loci for low consolidation shear test. The DEM parameters were correlated at 1.5kPa normal stress to produce the same shear stress 3.3kPa resulted in TUNRA test. The cohesion between bauxite and lining materials is considered in the modeling by using the instantaneous Wall Yield Loci test result. The slopes of the Wall Yield Loci at lower normal stresses are not much different from one lining material to the other. The DEM parameters were correlated at 1.5kPa of normal stress for the same reason mentioned above. The static friction coefficient is 0.53 at 1.5kPa of normal stress. The shear test cell configurations and DEM model are compared in the following Figure 2.

Item Luff angle Slew angle Tripper conveyor belt speed Boom conveyor belt speed
Rated Bauxite flow rate
Table 1 DEM model condition.

DEM Modelling Condition +14 (Worst scenario) +90 (Worst scenario) 5.1 ms 3.1 ms
3,400 toneshr

DEM model condition

Engineers in FL Smidth have provided the stacker operating

conditions and general arrangement (GA) drawings. The stacker operating conditions used in the DEM modelling are summarized in Table 1.

DEM modelling for the worst operational condition

BMT WBM has generated a 3D CAD model based on the drawings provided by FL Smidth. The 3D stacker chute DEM model includes most of the chute compartment including tripper conveyor belt, top pulley, head chute, impact plate, transition conical chute, boom conveyor chute, skirt plate, boom conveyor belt, and bottom pulley. The inlet flow boundary of the bauxite has applied at the end of the applied tripper conveyor belt. In order to achieve the first objective, DEM modelling was conducted to investigate the flow characteristics for the worst operating luff and slewing angles combined with the bauxite

Figure 2 Shear test and DEM model.

ACROMET - Dry Material Feeders

IMPACT WEIGHERS
DESIGNED & MANUFACTURED TO REALLY SUIT YOUR NEEDS!
FLOWFORCE impact weighers come in a wide variety of styles to suit your application. Precision instrument engineering combined with rugged heavy duty housing provides industrial long lasting quality and reliability.

A U S T R A L I A ' S P R E M I E R I M PA C T W E I G H E R M A N U FA C T U R E R

MADE IN AUSTRALIA

Australian designed and manufactured. 3 Feed rates from 0.002 - 100 m /hr. Accuracy 0.5%. Industrial and Food Grade Finishes. Suitable for Powders, Grandules, Chips and Flakes. Stand alone or systems available. Gravimetric and Volumetric feeder systems

IN-MOTION WEIGHING BULK SOLIDS & POWDERS

ALSO AVAILABLE WITH BUILT IN SAMPLER!

Acromet (Aust) Pty Ltd

VIC: Ph: (03) 9544 7333 NSW: Ph: (02) 9647 2432 E-mail: chemex@acromet.com.au

www.acromet.com.au

HEAD OFFICE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA 23A Tenth Street, Bowden SA 5007 Ph: (08) 8346 4006 Fax: (08) 8346 4538 Email: sales@flowforce.com.au Web: www.flowforce.com.au

Australian Bulk Handling Review: March/April 2010

63

OVERHEAD DEM MODELLING

Figure 3 DEM model boundary (left) and bauxite ow velocity magnitude (right).

flow properties. The correlated DEM parameters for bauxite internal friction and friction of lining materials are applied for the chute DEM modelling. The friction coefficient for the conveyor belt is not available from FL Smidth. BMT WBM has assumed 0.5 of belt friction coefficient for the chute DEM model to investigate bauxite flow behaviour for the general conveyor belt design. The constructed 3D DEM model boundary and the material flow velocity are shown in Figure 3. The colours represent the particle speed. The unfavourable flow characteristics including material build-up, blockages, spillage, material stream spread-out and stagnation flow region were investigated. The material stream is spread laterally after material flow impinged on the impact plate. The low flow velocity is shown on the bauxite at the boom conveyor belt underneath the boom conveyor belt. However there is no apparent buildup and blockage resulted in the chute for the nominated flow condition.

Figure 5 Material ow velocity magnitude for dierent rear plate angle (Top-left: belt friction coecient 0.2, Top-right: belt friction coecient 0.2 with angled rear plate, Bottom-left: belt friction coecient 0.3, Bottom-right: belt friction coecient 0.3 with angled rear plate).

DEM modelling for the design parametric study

In the second stage the DEM analysis was intended to assess the material flow behaviour at the bottom of the chute as the material is accelerated on the boom conveyor focusing on the material build up at the bottom of the transfer chute. The analysis has been undertaken primarily to investigate the effects of the following design parameters. The effect of belt friction The effect of rear plate angle The effect of skirt friction The effect of cohesiveness of material The effect of the curved impact plate

conveyor chutes. It is clearly identified that the material build-up at the bottom of the transfer chute will block the chute if the belt friction coefficient is lower than 0.2. In cases of friction coefficient 0.3 and 0.4 no blockage resulted in the chute but the large material flow region right underneath the discharge chute shows backwarding flow velocity. The result indicated that there is a high risk of build-up and blockage if the friction of the conveyor belt is decreased.(e.g. rainy days).

The effect of the rear plate angle

In order to investigate flow behaviour for a different rear chute face angle a more gradual inclination angle is applied at the bottom half of the rear chute face. A rectangular plate was added to the rear chute in the DEM model. The rectangular plate starts at the middle of the back face of the existing rear chute and ends at the bottom of the conveyor belt at 45 from the horizontal. The flow result for the conveyor belt friction coefficient at 0.2 and 0.3 is shown in Figure 5. The result indicates that the blockage has disappeared when the gradual inclination angle of the bottom plate is applied in the case of conveyor belt friction coefficient 0.2. For the low consolidated material flow the 45 angled face of the rear chute has accelerated the flow forwarding direction.

The effect of conveyor belt friction

We have lowered the conveyor belt friction coefficient and checked the results to identify the risk of the potential material build-up and blockage at the bottom of the chute at luff angle +14. In this study the friction coefficient of conveyor belt has changed from 0.1 to 0.5 with 0.1 intervals. Practically, the belt surface friction may be decreased when the stacker handles the high moisture content bauxite or it operates in rainy days. The flow results are shown in Figure 4. The higher the belt friction coefficient the higher the forwarding material flow velocity underneath the boom

The effect of skirt friction

The additional parametric studies were conducted to investigate the sensitivity of the lining material for the chute design. In order to compare two extreme lining materials, the modelling

Figure 4 Material ow velocity magnitude for dierent belt friction (Belt friction coecient from 0.1 to 0.5 from top left to top right then bottom left to bottom right).

Figure 6 Material ow velocity magnitude for skirt friction (Left: belt friction coecient 0.3 and low friction lining material (0.5), Right: belt friction coecient 0.3 and high friction lining material (0.7)).

64

Australian Bulk Handling Review: March/April 2010

DEM MODELLING

has performed with two friction coefficients found in the TUNRA report. The first friction coefficient modelled is 0.5 and represents the friction coefficient of the HPDE. The second friction coefficient modelled is 0.7 and represents the ceramic tile. The modeling was performed at luff angle +14 and conveyor belt friction 0.3. The 45 of bottom half of rear chute face angle is applied in the modelling to investigate the flow behaviour for the favourable rear chute face angle. The flow result is shown in Figure 6. The bauxite flow travels the chute without a buildup and blockage when low friction lining material (e.g. HPDE) is applied for the model. The flow blocks the chute when high friction lining material (e.g. ceramic tile) is applied for the model. It is clear that the selection of lower friction lining material is very important to minimize the risk of the blockage in the chute.

The effect of cohesiveness of material

The internal friction of the bauxite varies extensively and depends on the mining zones, consolidation conditions and moisture contents. In order to understand the relationship between the flow behaviour and material Figure 8 Flow result for the dierent impact plate designs (Top-left: original impact plate design, Top-right: cohesiveness, additional parametric studies were concurved impact plate design, Bottom-left: material ow velocity magnitude for the original impact plate ducted by varying the material cohesiveness. This study design, Bottom-right: material ow velocity magnitude for the original impact plate design). was focused on the flow behaviour at the bottom of the chute. flow impinged on front side of the boom conveyor chute conThis parametric study was carried out at two different tributes to decelerate the flow underneath the discharge chute. bauxite internal frictions, which were arbitrarily chosen to In order to investigate the effect of the curved impact plate cover the scope of the study extensively. The first internal design, BMT WBM has modeled flow with a representative friction modelled is 50 % less cohesive than the correlated incurved impact plate design. The modeled curved impact plate ternal friction as explained in the previous section. This madesign and flow result are shown in the right-hand side of Figterial property represents less consolidated, dried and larger ure 8. The result shows that flow stream is more compact and particle size bauxite. The second internal friction modelled is centralized while traveling the chute. The bauxite flow col50% more cohesive than the correlated internal friction. This lided much less with the conical transition chute structure. material property represents more consolidated, wet, and It also improved the bauxite flow at the bottom of the chute. smaller particle size bauxite. The modelling was performed The smaller stagnant flow region has been identified in the at luff angle +14 and conveyor belt friction was set to 0.3 to result. have a consistency with the modellings in previous sections. The flow result is shown in Figure 7. Conclusions The bauxite flow travels the chute without build-ups and BMT WBMs design review combined with the DEM analysis of blockages when 50% lower cohesive material property was apthe proposed stacker chute has identified a number of areas plied in the chute modeling. The result also shows that the stagwhere the chute design can be optimised. It is apparent that nant flow region is decreased underneath the boom conveyor the variation in bauxite characteristics and friction changes chute. The result shows flow blocks the chute if 50% more coof the contact surfaces are critical factors for the chute dehesive material property is applied for the same chute design. sign. DEM analysis has been successfully used to investigate the variation of the design parameters and to provide quantitative predictions. It also has been used to predict and visualize The effect of the curved impact plate unfavourable flow characteristics such as blockage, potential The current impact plate design and the flow result are shown spill, build up on the boot chute and spread out of material in the left-hand side of Figure 8. The material flow is scattered stream for the worst operational condition. into the impact plate when it leaves the top conveyor belt as BMT WBMs DEM modelling approaches demonstrated the tripper conveyor belt changed its shape from curved prohow DEM modelling can be incorporated in the conventional file to flat as it approaches to the top pulley. The scattered chute design review process to minimize unfavourable mateflow stream hits the side of the impact plate as well as the side rial flow results in the transfer chute. of the conical transition chute. The result also shows that the

*Mr Yong Kim is an associate and the advanced analysis manager of BMT WBM in Melbourne. He has over 15 years experience in providing turnkey engineering solutions using high-end computer-aided engineering (CAE) tools such as CFD, FEA and DEM
Figure 7 Material ow result for dierent material cohesiveness (Left: belt friction coecient 0.3 and 50% less cohesive material, Right: belt friction coecient 0.3 and 50% more cohesive material).

Contact: Email - ykim@wbmpl.com.au, tel - 03 8620 6100

Australian Bulk Handling Review: March/April 2010

65