24941-100-30R-G01-00073 Tunra 6299 Report Final

TUNRA BULK SOLIDS HANDLING RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
(a division of The University of Newcastle Research Associates Ltd - inc. in NSW. ACN 000 710 074)
in association with the
Centre for Bulk Solids & Particulate Technologies
FLOW PROPERTIES OF
AZ ZABIRAH BAUXITE
Report No. 6299 June, 2004
Client: Hatch Associates Pty. Ltd.
Address: GPO Box L923

Perth, WA 6842 Australia
Telephone: 08 9428 5000

Facsimile: 08 9428 5555
Attention: John Rosten
This report has been checked and authorised by the undersigned
Signed .................................................
for Tunra Bulk Solids Handling Research Associates

Users of this report are invited to contact Tunra Bulk Solids
if clarification of any aspect is required.
The test results presented are for a client supplied bulk

material sample. Should the material handled
in practice vary from this test sample then
the results in this report
may be far from optimal. In addition, any extrapolation
of the data and / or recommendations to
situations other than those for which they were
specifically intended without confirmation
by Tunra Bulk Solids may lead to erroneous conclusions.
The contents of this report may not be reproduced

without the consent of the client;
and then only in full.
This investigation was performed

using the facilities of the
Bulk Solids Handling Laboratories
of
Tunra Bulk Solids Handling Research Associates
and the
Centre for Bulk Solids & Particulate Technologies
at
The University of Newcastle
POSTAL ADDRESS: COPIES LIST:
Tunra Bulk Solids Client (2)

University of Newcastle Stephen J. Wiche
University Drive, Callaghan Alan W. Roberts
NSW 2308 AUSTRALIA Office File
Telephone: +61 2 4921 7127

Facsimile: +61 2 4921 6094
Email: Tunra-BSHRA@newcastle.edu.au
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................... 1
2 FLOW PROPERTY TESTS ............................................................ 6

2.1 Direct Shear Test ................................................................ 6
2.2 Wall Friction Test............................................................... 8
2.3 Compressibility Test........................................................... 9
2.4 Moisture Content Test ........................................................ 9
2.5 Surface Roughness Test ..................................................... 9
2.6 Particle Size Test................................................................. 9
2.7 Angle of Repose Test........................................................ 10
2.8 Belt Conveyor Surcharge Angle Test................................ 10
2.9 Dust Extinction Moisture Tests ........................................ 10
2.10 Unconfined Uniaxial Test................................................. 10
3 FLOW PROPERTY RESULTS..................................................... 11

3.1 Particle Size Range ........................................................... 11
3.2 Moisture Content.............................................................. 12
3.3 Shear Tests ....................................................................... 15
3.4 Compressibility Tests ....................................................... 17
3.5 Wall Friction Tests ........................................................... 18
3.6 Angle of Repose ............................................................... 19
3.7 Belt Conveyor Surcharge Angle Tests .............................. 20
3.8 Dust Extinction Moisture Tests ........................................ 20
4 STORAGE FACILITY DESIGN................................................... 21

4.1 Mass Flow Design............................................................ 21
4.2 Funnel Flow Design ......................................................... 24
4.3 Chute Design.................................................................... 24
5 REFERENCES............................................................................... 25
Appendix
Test Results A
Modes of Flow B
Storage Plant Design C
ii
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Arching - a dome shaped obstruction formed by a bulk material usually at a

hopper outlet
Angle of Repose - the angle between the horizontal and the surface of a poured bulk
material
Axi-Symmetric Flow - a flow pattern formed during the discharge from a bin of a bulk
material and characterised by particle trajectories that are
symmetrical about the vertical axis of the bin
Bin - a container or vessel for holding a bulk material, frequently
consisting of a vertical cylinder section with a converging hopper -
see Appendix A
Bulk Solid - an assembly of solid particles handled in sufficient quantities such
that the characteristics can be described by the properties of the
mass of the particles rather than the characteristics of each
individual particle. May also be referred to as a granular material,
particulate solid, or powder.
Cohesive Arch - an arch that depends on interparticle, cohesive strength (eg.
unconfined yield strength) for its stability
Cylinder - vertical part of a bin
Dead Zone - an amount of material that cannot be discharged from a bin
Expanded-Flow - flow pattern which is a combination of mass-flow and funnel-flow
- see Appendix B
Feeder - device for controlling the rate of withdrawal of a bulk material
from a bin
Flow Channel - space in bin through which a bulk solid is actually flowing during
discharge
Flow Properties - bulk material characteristic properties utilised to define their
behaviour during storage and flow
Funnel-Flow - the bulk material sloughs off the top surface and discharges
through a vertical channel which forms within the stored bulk
material above the outlet - see Appendix A
Gravity Flow - the flow of a bulk material is induced by gravity alone
Hopper - the converging portion of a bin
Mass-Flow - flow pattern in which all the solids in a bin are in motion whenever
any of it is withdrawn - see Appendix A
Moisture Content - quoted as a percentage of wet weight (%wb)
Plane Flow - a flow pattern characterised by flow trajectories that are
symmetrical about the vertical plane through the longitudinal axis
of the outlet slot
Ratholing / Piping - a no-flow condition in which material forms a stable vertical hole
within a funnel-flow bin - the diameter of the rathole is governed
by the diagonal dimension of the outlet
Silo - As per 'Bin' definition
iii
NOMENCLATURE
a - average vertical acceleration of bulk material in hopper [m/s2]

ac - acceleration of bulk material in hopper due to the
convergence of the flow channel [m/s2]
av - acceleration of bulk material in hopper due to the increase
in the velocity after discharge commences [m/s2]
B - outlet dimension of the silo [m]
Bc - minimum outlet dimension for conical hopper [m]
Bf - dimension of central flow channel in funnel-flow silo [m]
Bm i n - minimum outlet dimension for cohesive arch [m]
Bp - minimum outlet dimension for plane flow hopper [m]
D - diameter of silo [m]
Df - critical rathole dimension [m]
Df m - critical rathole dimension calculated for the base of the silo [m]
Dg - diagonal dimension of the hopper at the transition with the
base of the stockpile [m]
e, exp - base of Napierian logarithms [-]
EYL - effective yield locus [-]
ff - critical flow factor based upon minimum opening dimension [-]
ffa - actual flow factor based upon actual opening dimension [-]
FF - flow function - the plot of unconfined yield strength versus
major consolidation stress for one specific bulk material [-]
g - acceleration due to gravity [m/s2]
G(φt ) - function based upon the static angle of internal friction [2] [-]
h - actual head of solids [m]
hD - effective draw-down of material in funnel flow silo [m]
hf - effective head of bulk material [m]
H - surcharge level of bulk material [m]
Hcr - critical surcharge of bulk material to ensure total mass-flow
in silo [m]
H(α) - factor to take into account the variation in arch thickness,
hopper half angle and hopper type [-]
Kf - rathole geometry factor [-]
Kj - normal stress ratio [-]
L - length of slot hopper [m]
Lh - length of slot hopper at the transition with the base of the stockpile [m]
m - silo geometry parameter [-]
m = 0 for plane flow (end effects neglected)
m =1 for axi-symmetric flow
iv
Q - mass flow rate [kg/s]

R - hydraulic radius [m]
Ra - average surface roughness [µm]
TYL - time yield locus [-]
v - velocity of bulk material in silo [m/s]
vav - average velocity of bulk material in silo [m/s]
WYL - wall yield locus [-]
α - hopper half angle, or slope of hopper, measured from the vertical [˚]
αc - critical hopper half angle for mass-flow for conical hopper [˚]
αp - critical hopper half angle for mass-flow for plane flow hopper [˚]
γ - bulk material specific weight [kg/m2s2]
δ - effective angle of internal friction - the inclination of the effective
yield locus [˚]
θR - angle of repose of bulk material [˚]
π - constant [-]
ρ - bulk material density - mass of a quantity of a bulk material
divided by its total volume [kg/m3]
σc - unconfined yield strength - the major principal stress of the
Mohr stress circle being tangential to the yield locus with the
minor principal stress being zero [Pa]
σo - adhesion [Pa]
σw - the normal stress present at a confining wall [Pa]
σ1 - major consolidating stress - the major principal stress given
by the Mohr stress circle of steady state flow [Pa]
_
σ1 - stress acting in equilibrium arch [Pa]
τo - cohesion [Pa]
τw - the shear stress present at a confining wall [Pa]
φ - kinematic angle of internal friction - the tangent to the yield
locus and the abscissa [˚]
φt - static angle of internal friction [˚]
φw - fully developed or kinematic wall friction angle - describes the
arctan of the ratio of the wall shear stress to the wall normal stress [˚]
TBS Report # 6299 Flow Properties of Az Zabirah Bauxite Client: Hatch Associates Pty. Ltd. 1
____________________________________________________________________________________________
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report has been commissioned by Hatch Associates Pty. Ltd. to determine the flow properties
of a number of samples of Az Zabirah Bauxite so as to provide relevant parameters for the design
of efficient and reliable bulk storage and handling facilities.
Due to the number of samples being referred to in this report, the following abbreviations will be
used in order to identify the material:
ROM AB – Run Of Mine Average Grade Bauxite

ROM HB – Run Of Mine High Grade Bauxite
ROM LB – Run Of Mine Low Grade Bauxite
SSP AB (-80) – Secondary Sizer Product Average Grade Bauxite

SSP HB – Secondary Sizer Product High Grade Bauxite
SSP LB – Secondary Sizer Product Low Grade Bauxite
T2 CAB – Rod Mill Feed Combined Average Grade Bauxite

T2 CHB – Rod Mill Feed Combined High Grade Bauxite
T2 LB – Rod Mill Feed Low Grade Bauxite
UCZ D1-45 to UCZ D3-45 – Rod Mill Feed Upper Clay Zone
LCZ D43-45 to LCZ D45-45 – Rod Mill Feed Lower Clay Zone
SSP AB (-25) – Secondary Sizer Product Undersize Average Grade Bauxite

T1 OAB – Oversize Average Grade Bauxite
T2 OAB – Oversize Average Grade Bauxite
T1 OHB – Oversize High Grade Bauxite
T2 OHB – Oversize High Grade Bauxite
T1 CAB – Combined Average Grade Bauxite
T1 CHB – Combined High Grade Bauxite
T1 LB – Undersize Low Grade Bauxite
AGB RSP – Combined Average Grade Bauxite Roller Screen Product
How these samples were derived is illustrated in Figure 1. T1 refers to 22mm crusher. T2 refers to
16mm crusher.
A particle size distribution only was performed on the following samples, SSP AB (-25), T1 OAB,
T2 OAB, T1 OHB, T2 OHB, T1 CAB, T1 CHB, T1 LB and AGB RSP.
The following samples had particle size distribution, angle of repose, worst case determination, and
wall friction tests (at worst case moisture) performed, ROM AB, ROM HB, ROM LB, SSP AB (-
80), SSP HB, SSP LB.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
ROM ROM BAUXITE

CLAY ZONES HB AB LB
UPPER LOWER
D1-45 D43-45
D2-45 D44-45
D3-45 D45-45 SECONDARY
CRUSHER
80mm
SSP AGB -80mm
SSP
ROLLER
HB AB LB SCREEN
AGB RSP
T2 16 mm
25mm
SCREEN
UNDERSIZE OVERSIZE
-25 mm -80 mm +25 mm
COMBINED
-80 mm
T1 22 mm T2 16 mm T1 22 mm T2 16 mm
UCZ D-451
UCZ D2-45
UCZ D3-45 T2 CHB T2 OHB
LCZ D43-45
LCZ D44-45 SSP AGB T1 CHB T2 CAB T2 OAB T2 OHB
LCZ D45-45 -25mm T1 CAB T2 CLB T2 OLB T2 OAB
Figure 1 – Sample Collection Flow Chart

____________________________________________________________________________________________
The following samples had particle size distribution, angle of repose, belt surcharge angle and worst
case determination tests performed, T2 CAB, T2 CHB, T2 LB, and UCZ D1-45 to UCZ D3-45 and
LCZ D43-45 to LCZ D45-45.
A full range of tests was carried out at the worst case moisture level for T2 CAB, T2 CHB, T2 LB,
and LCZ D44-45 and at best case moisture level for UCZ D3-45 samples.
The requirements of this study are encompassed by Hatch Associates Pty. Ltd. order no.
4500001419 dated 19. 2. 2004.
The bulk material tests depicted in this report were performed using the Jenike type direct shear
tester [3, 4] in order to obtain the relevant material strength and frictional characteristics, and the
compressibility tester [1] for the measurement of the bulk density. Also the worst case
determination of specified samples was undertaken using a uniaxial flowability tester. The
following material flow properties and design parameters are presented in Appendix A:
• Particle Size Distributions

• Worst Case Moisture Levels
• Bulk material strength (Flow Function), effective, δ, and kinematic or static, φ or φt, angles of
internal friction, and bulk density, ρ
• Wall friction characteristics for the lining materials:
(a) ‘Arco plate’ - Grade: Arco Alloy 1600,
(b) Alumina Ceramic Wear Tile,
(c) Mild Steel – mill scale finish,
(d) ‘Tivar 88’ - Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE),
(e) ‘Polycer’- ceramic in rubber wear pads
(f) ‘Duaplate D60’ – Smooth Overlay
(g) ‘Bisalloy 360’ - mill scale finish
• Mass flow hopper design parameters
• Funnel flow design parameters
• Dust Extinction Moisture Levels
For an explanation of the above terms the reader is referred to Appendices B and C, and [1-4].
Flow property testing on the Run Of Mine samples indicates the ROM AB, ROM HB and ROM
LB have ‘worst case’ moisture levels of 18.2%, 21.1% and 22.4% respectively for the –4mm size
fraction which corresponds to a full size fraction moisture levels of 12%, 14.1% and 17.9%
respectively. The results of testing at these moisture levels may be found in Appendix A.
Figure A2.1 contains the results of wall friction measurements at ‘worst case’ moisture levels on
the ROM samples. They indicate similar and high friction for ROM AB and ROM HB with ROM
LB having lower frictional characteristics with increasing normal stress.
Flow property testing on the Secondary Sizer Product samples indicates the SSP AB, SSP HB and
SSP LB have ‘worst case’ moisture levels of 12.9%, 15% and 22.2% respectively for the –4mm
____________________________________________________________________________________________
size fraction which corresponds to a full size fraction moisture levels of 9.2%, 7.2% and 19.2%
respectively. The results of testing at these moisture levels may be found in Appendix A.
Figures A2.2 to A2.4 contain the results of wall friction measurements for SSP AB, SSP HB and
SSP LB at 12.9%, 15% and 22.2% moisture respectively. They indicate reasonably lower wall
friction on the ‘Tivar 88’ material compared to Bisalloy 360 and Alumina Ceramic Tile, making it
the preferred wall lining material for the design of a mass-flow silo, or for when low frictional
characteristics between the bulk material and the wall lining material are required.
Flow property testing on the Rod Mill Feed samples indicates the T2 CAB, T2 CHB and T2 LB
have ‘worst case’ moisture levels of 15.2%, 16.1% and 19.9% for the –4mm size fraction which
corresponds to a full size fraction moisture levels of 13%, 12.5% and 16.8% respectively. From the
Rod Mill Feed Clay Zone samples, the ‘best case’ moisture level was found to be 11.9% for the
UCZ D3-45 sample and the ‘worst case’ moisture level was found to be 14.9% for the LCZ D44-
45 sample. These -4mm size fraction moisture levels correspond to full size moisture levels of
8.6% and 12.2% respectively. The results of testing at these moisture levels are contained in
Appendix A.
Figures A1.1 to A1.4 show instantaneous and time consolidated flow functions, internal angles of
friction and bulk density for T2 CAB and T2 CHB under low and high consolidation stresses. The
results indicate T2 CAB has a high instantaneous flow function indicating high bulk strength with a
moderate increase after 3 days storage. The T2 CAB would be classified as a difficult handling
material. For the T2 CHB, the instantaneous flow function is moderately high indicating moderate
to high bulk strength with a moderate increase after 3 days storage. The T2 CHB would be
classified as a moderately difficult handling material.
Figures A1.5 and A1.6 show instantaneous and time consolidated flow functions, internal angles of
friction and bulk density for T2 LB under low and high consolidation stress. In general the results
indicate an extremely difficult handling material with very high bulk strength which increases
significantly after 3 days undisturbed storage.
Figures A1.7 and A1.8 show instantaneous and time consolidated flow functions, internal angles of
friction and bulk density for UCZ D3-45 under low and high consolidation stress. In general the
results indicate a moderate handling material with moderate bulk strength which increases
moderately after 3 days undisturbed storage.
Figures A1.9 and A1.10 show instantaneous and time consolidated flow functions, internal angles
of friction and bulk density for LCZ D44-45 under low and high consolidation stress. In general
the results indicate a difficult handling material with high bulk strength which increases moderately
after 3 days undisturbed storage.
Figures A2.5 to A2.9 contain the results of wall friction measurements at aforementioned ‘worst
case’ moisture levels (‘best case’ for the upper clay zone). For all five samples, the Tivar ‘88’
material indicates the lowest friction making it the preferred wall lining material for the design of a
____________________________________________________________________________________________
mass-flow silo, or for when low frictional characteristics between the bulk material and the wall
lining material are required.
Figure A3.1 contains graphs of mass flow hopper design parameters for the T2 CAB material.
They show moderately large critical arching dimensions with a small increase after 3 day time
storage. Half hopper angles required for mass flow are steep for all the tested lining materials apart
from ‘Tivar 88’.
Figure A3.2 contains graphs of mass flow hopper design parameters for the T2 CHB material.
They show moderate critical arching dimensions with a small increase after 3 day time storage. Half
hopper angles required for mass flow are steep for all the tested lining materials apart from ‘Tivar
88’.
Figure A3.3 contains graphs of mass flow hopper design parameters for the T2 LB material. They
show large critical arching dimensions under instantaneous conditions and 3 day time storage
arching dimensions outside the graph boundary; that is the critical opening dimensions were greater
than 4m for conical hoppers and 2 metres for plane flow hoppers. Half hoper angles for mass flow
are most favourable for ‘Tivar 88’.
Figure A3.4 contains graphs of mass flow hopper design parameters for the UCZ D3-45 material.
They show small critical arching dimensions with a moderate increase after 3 day time storage.
Tivar ‘88’ wall material provides the most favourable hopper half angle for mass flow.
Figure A3.5 contains graphs of mass flow hopper design parameters for the LCZ D44-45 material.
They show moderate critical arching dimensions a with small increase after 3 day time storage.
Tivar ‘88’ wall material provides the most favourable hopper half angle for mass flow.
Figures A4.1 to A4.5 contain graphs of critical piping diameter as a function of effective material
head for the T2 CAB, T2 CHB, T2 LB and LCZ D44-45 samples at a ‘worst case’ moisture level
of 15.2%, 16.1%, 19.9% and 14.9% respectively and for the UCZ D3-45 sample at a ‘best case’
moisture level of 11.9% . All graphs indicate a high propensity to form stable ratholes with the T2
LB sample indicating the highest.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
2 FLOW PROPERTY TESTS
In order to determine the flow properties of bulk solids, some or all of the following range of tests
may be carried out.
2.1 Direct Shear Test
During the flow of a bulk solid with mixed particle sizes, the large particles move bodily while the
material shears across the fines. Therefore, the strength of the bulk solid and its ability to cause
stoppages of flow is dependent on the strength of the fines component. To determine the strength
of a bulk solid containing large particles, the fines are generally screened through a 4 mm aperture
sieve and tested using the following methods and procedures. The direct shear testing machine is
equipped with a shear cell of circular cross section as shown in Figure 2. The normal load is
applied to the cell by means of a gravity vertical loading system and the shearing action is provided
by means of an electro-mechanically driven loading stem which moves horizontally at a rate of 2.5
mm/min. The shear force is measured with a strain gauge load cell and indicated on a chart
recorder.
Figure 2 - Jenike Shear Test Cell
The bulk material is sheared at a number of different normal loads to generate a series of yield loci
as shown in Figure 3. For each instantaneous yield locus, a minimum of six shear tests are
performed. A complete description of the testing technique is given in [3, 4]. The effect of
undisturbed storage time on consolidation may be determined using a consolidation bench in
conjunction with the shear tester. The consolidated samples are placed in a consolidation bench for
the requisite time under the application of a consolidating pressure and then sheared. From the
instantaneous and time yield loci generated, the following properties of the bulk material may be
determined:
2.1.1 Flow Functions
The flow function (FF) is a measure of the material's strength at a free surface as a function of the
major consolidating pressure and is obtained from the Yield Loci as illustrated in Figure 3. A flow
function may be obtained for both instantaneous and time consolidated conditions.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 3 - Yield Loci and Flow Function
2.1.2 Effective Angle of Internal Friction
The effective angle of internal friction (δ) is the slope angle of the Effective Yield Locus (EYL)
which is a line from the origin, tangential to the Major Mohr circle shown in Figure 3.
2.1.3 Kinematic Angle of Internal Friction
The kinematic angle of internal friction (φ) is the slope angle of the Instantaneous Yield Locus at
the point of intersection with the Mohr circle through the origin.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
2.1.4 Static Angle of Internal Friction
The static angle of internal friction (φt) is the slope angle of the Time Yield Locus at the point of
intersection with the Mohr circle through the origin.
2.2 Wall Friction Test
The wall friction test was performed using the apparatus shown in Figure 4, which is similar to the
direct shear arrangement described in Section 2.1 with a sample of wall material in place of the cell
base. The bulk material is sheared across the wall material under reducing normal stress to generate
a Wall Yield Locus (WYL). For each WYL a minimum of three wall friction tests are performed.
From the WYL the wall friction angle may be determined at any normal stress as:
φw = wall friction angle = tan -1 [ shear stress / normal stress at boundary] (1)
This is shown diagrammatically in Figure 5. A low wall friction angle is particularly important for
practicable mass-flow hopper design.
Figure 4 - Wall Yield Loci Test Apparatus
Figure 5 - Determination of Wall Friction Angle

____________________________________________________________________________________________
2.3 Compressibility Test
The bulk density is determined using a Compressibility Tester. This unit consists of a 63.5 mm
diameter by 19 mm deep cell, which is filled with a - 4 mm sample of the bulk material. Loads are
applied to the sample by means of a lid and weight carrier, and the compression of the sample is
measured with a dial gauge. Knowing the sample volume, a mass and applied load allows the
relationship between bulk density (ρ) and the major consolidation pressure (σ1) to be determined.
2.4 Moisture Content Test
Total moisture content for the test sample is determined using a method derived from AS 1038 Part
1 Method C and is quoted as a percentage of wet weight (%wb).
2.5 Surface Roughness Test
The friction developed between a bulk material sliding on a wall lining material is a function of
various parameters including the bulk material / wall lining material combination, particle size
distribution, and wall lining material surface roughness. Due to the importance of the surface
roughness of the wall lining material in determining the subsequent storage facility design
parameters, the average centreline, Ra, surface roughness of each wall lining material tested in this
report is provided.
The surface roughness of the wall lining samples is determined by the procedure given in [5]. In
this analysis, the roughness of a lining sample shall be given by the centreline average roughness,
Ra, and shall be noted by
1 L
Ra = L ⌠
⌡ | y(x) | dx (2)
0
where y(x) is the coordinate height measured from the mean centreline shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6 - Surface Roughness
2.6 Particle Size Test
The particle size distribution of was determined using a dry sieving technique.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
2.7 Angle of Repose Test
This was determined using the technique described in the International Maritime Organisations
'Code of Safe Practice for Solid Bulk Cargoes' [6]. The method involved forming a conical pile of
the material that was then digitally photographed from two directions at 90˚. The digital images
were then imported into a computer drawing and the repose angles measured obtaining 4 results
that were then averaged. The tests were repeated three times for each material and the results
averaged to obtain the reported result.
2.8 Belt Conveyor Surcharge Angle Test
This test was conducted using a 70m long, 600mm wide belt conveyor located at the TUNRA
laboratories. The conveyor has an idler spacing of 1250mm and a troughing angle of 35˚. A sample
of the ore to be tested was placed along the conveyor belt a distance of 1500mm heaped at the angle
of repose, then transported 30m and back to the original position. The included angle of the sample
was then measured at three points along the pile and the results averaged to obtain the surcharge
angle.
2.9 Dust Extinction Moisture Tests
These tests were conducted in accordance with AS4156.6-2000 with the exception that the test
quantity used in the test rig was 2.5 kg rather than the specified 1.2 kg due to the fact that the
standard was written for coal rather than bauxite.
2.10 Unconfined Uniaxial Test
The test was conducted by first forming a solid cylinder of the bulk material under ‘constrained
consolidation’ and then ‘unconfined compression’ of the formed cylinder until failure occurred.
This was achieved by utilising an arrangement shown schematically i n Figure 7. For the
‘constrained consolidation’ phase, three mould sections were pressed tightly together utilising
pneumatic actuators to form a hollow cylinder with an 80mm inside diameter. Consolidation of the
bulk solid was performed by top and bottom pneumatic actuators connected to loading discs with
sufficient clearance to fit inside the mould cylinder. The lower loading disc was located just inside
the mould cylinder and it was then filled with the bulk sample. The top was screeded off and the
upper loading disc was then located on top of the sample. The top and bottom pneumatic actuators
then applied a pre-determined compressive force, measured by a load cell, for which the
corresponding stress was the major consolidation stress σ1 .
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 7 – Schematic of Unconfined Uniaxial Test Machine
With the lower disc clamped in place, the applied consolidation load was relaxed and the three
mould sections retracted to expose the consolidated cylindrical bulk sample. The top pneumatic
actuator then applied a slowly increasing compressive load until the sample failed. The stress
corresponding to the load, measured by the load cell, at which failure occurred, was the unconfined
yield stress σC. By measuring the unconfined yield stress σC obtained for a range of major
consolidation stresses σ1 , a flow function was plotted that represents the cohesive strength of the
bulk solid.
3 FLOW PROPERTY RESULTS
3.1 Particle Size Range
Appendix A Figures A5.1 to A5.4 contain graphs showing the cumulative percent mass as a
function of particle size for all of the samples tested. The d5 0 equivalent diameters are summarized
in Table 1 below.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 1 – d5 0 equivalent diameter
Zone Sample d5 0 equivalent

diameter (mm)
Average Grade Bauxite ROM AB 28
SSP AB (-80) 35
SSP AB(-25) 8
T1 OAB 20
T2 OAB 14
T1 CAB 12
T2 CAB 4
AGB RSP 3.5
High Grade Bauxite ROM HB 14
SSP HB 30
T1 OHB 20
T2 OHB 12
T1 CHB 5
T2 CHB 9
Low Grade Bauxite ROM LB 4
SSP LB 1.5
T1 LB 3.5
T2 LB 5
Upper Clay Zone UCZ D1-45 4
UCZ D2-45 5
UCZ D3-45 4
Lower Clay Zone LCZ D43-45 5.5
LCZ D44-45 4
LCZ D45-45 5
For convenience, the three ROM and Secondary Sizer Product, and five Rod Mill Feed samples
(‘worst case’ and ‘best case’) have been plotted again in Figures A5.5 to A5.7.
3.2 Moisture Content
The finer portion of a bulk material will have a higher percentage moisture content than the coarser
portion. By measuring the moisture contents at which the full size fraction and the -4 mm size
fraction of the sample supplied reached saturation, and by measuring a typical 'as supplied'
moisture level of the full size fraction and the –4mm size fraction, the relationship between the
moisture contents of the full size fraction and the tested -4 mm size fraction may be determined.
The results of these measurements are given in Table 2 and are graphed in Figure 8 to Figure 10.
Using these graphs, the relationship between the moisture content of the -4mm size fraction and the
full size fraction may be determined for any moisture level from zero to saturated.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 2 – Moisture Contents
Zone Sample Size Fraction ‘as supplied’ Saturated

Average Grade Bauxite ROM AB Full 8.1 % 15.1 %
-4mm 11 % 26 %
SSP AB (-80) Full 7.8 % 11.7 %
-4mm 10.5 % 25.9 %
SSP AB(-25) Full 8.6 % N/A
T1 OAB Full 6.8 % N/A
T2 OAB Full 6.7 % 11.6 %
-4mm 7.6 % 22.8 %
T1 CAB Full 7.4 % N/A
T2 CAB Full 7.8 % 18.4 %
-4mm 8.9 % 21.7 %
AGB RSP Full 9.3 % N/A
High Grade Bauxite ROM HB Full 9.2 % 16.3%
-4mm 11.4 % 26.4 %
SSP HB Full 6.7 % 9.9 %
-4mm 10.9 % 25 %
T1 OHB Full 6.6 % N/A
T2 OHB Full 6.3 % 13.8 %
-4mm 7.2 % 22.9 %
T1 CHB Full 8.5 % N/A
T2 CHB Full 6.8 % 16.6 %
-4mm 8.1 % 23 %
Low Grade Bauxite ROM LB Full 11.6 % 21.9 %
-4mm 13.9 % 28 %
SSP LB Full 12.4 % 23.4 %
-4mm 13.3 % 27.7 %
T1 LB Full 11.4 % N/A
T2 LB Full 10.6 % 21 %
-4mm 12.6 % 24.9 %
Upper Clay Zone UCZ D1-45 Full 5.3 % 13.8 %
-4mm 5.7 % 23.7 %
UCZ D2-45 Full 4.3 % 11.3 %
-4mm 4.7 % 23.2 %
UCZ D3-45 Full 4.7 % 12.2 %
-4mm 5.6 % 19.8 %
Lower Clay Zone LCZ D43-45 Full 8.3 % 16.1 %
-4mm 10.2 % 23.1 %
LCZ D44-45 Full 8.7 % 18.2 %
-4mm 10.2 % 24.9 %
LCZ D45-45 Full 8.9 % 15.6 %
-4mm 10.3 % 25.1 %
____________________________________________________________________________________________
30
ROMAB
ROMHB
25 Saturated
ROMLB
20
-4mm Size Fraction

Moisture Content (%) 15
As Supplied
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Full Size Fraction Moisture Content (%)
Figure 8 - 4mm Versus Full Size Fraction Moisture Content (ROM)
30
Saturated
25
20
-4mm Size Fraction

15
Moisture Content (%) As Supplied
10
SSPAB
5 SSPHB
SSPLB
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 9 – 4mm Versus Full Size Fraction Moisture Content (SSP)

____________________________________________________________________________________________
30
T2CAB
T2CHB
25 T2LB
UCZD3-45
LCZD44-45 Saturated
20
-4mm Size Fraction

15
Moisture Content (%)
10
As Supplied
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 10 – 4mm Versus Full Size Fraction Moisture Content (RMF)
3.3 Shear Tests
For flow property determination and performance evaluation it is advisable to examine samples of
the bulk material which are likely to produce the most difficult flow conditions. Variations in
moisture content can have a major influence on the handleability of a bulk material. For most bulk
materials the bulk strength tends to increase with increased moisture content, reaching a peak at
between 60% and 80% of saturation. Beyond this peak the bulk strength generally reduces with
additional moisture.
3.3.1 Run of Mine Samples
To find the moisture level for maximum bulk strength the moisture content of several portions of
the -4 mm sample of the ROM AB sample were modified from that supplied of 11% to levels of
13%, 15.6%, 18.2%, and 20.8%. For the ROM HB sample, moisture content was modified from
that supplied of 11.4% to levels of 13.2%, 15.8%, 18.5%, and 21.1%. For the ROM LB sample,
moisture content was modified from that supplied of 13.9% to levels of 14%, 16.8%, 19.6%, and
22.4%.
3.3.2 Secondary Sizer Product Samples
Several portions of the -4mm sample of the SSP AB sample were modified from that supplied of
10.5% to levels of 12.9%, 15.5% and 18.1%. For the SSP HB sample, moisture content was
modified from that supplied of 10.9% to levels of 12.5%, 15% and 17.5%. The SSP LB sample
was modified from that supplied of 13.3% to levels of 16.6%, 19.4% and 22.2%.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
3.3.3 Rod Mill Feed Samples
Several portions of the -4mm sample of the T2 CAB sample were modified from that supplied of
8.9% to levels of 10.8%, 13% and 15.2%. For the T2 CHB sample, moisture content was modified
from that supplied of 8.1% to levels of 11.5%, 13.8% and 16.1%. The T2 LB sample was modified
from that supplied of 12.6% to levels of 14.9%, 17.4% and 19.9%.
3.3.4 Rod Mill Feed Clay Zone Samples
The -4mm sample of the UCZ D1-45 sample was modified from that supplied of 5.7% to levels of
9.4%, 11.8%, 14.2% and 16.6%. For the UCZ D2-45 sample, moisture content was modified from
that supplied of 4.7% to levels of 9.3%, 11.6% and 13.9%. The UCZ D3-45 sample was modified
from that supplied of 5.6% to levels of 7.9%, 9.9% and 11.9%.
The -4mm sample of the LCZ D43-45 sample was modified from that supplied of 10.2% to levels
of 11.6%, 13.9% and 16.2%. For the LCZ D44-45 sample, moisture content was modified from
that supplied of 10.2% to levels of 12.5%, 14.9% and 17.4%. The LCZ D45-45 sample was
modified from that supplied of 10.3% to levels of 12.5%, 15% and 17.5%.
3.3.5 Worst Case Determination
The uniaxial tester was used to obtain flow functions from which the worst case moisture levels
were determined. The results obtained from these tests may be found in Appendix A.
For the Run of Mine Samples the results of these tests may be found in Figure A6.1. The graph
indicates that the ROM AB, ROM HB and ROM LB exhibit highest strength at a fines moisture
level of 18.2 %, 21.1 % and 22.4 % respectively. Using the graph given in Figure 8, these moisture
levels equate to a moisture level of 12%, 14.1% and 17.9% respectively in the full size fraction.
For the Secondary Sizer Product Samples the results of these tests may be found in Figure A6.2.
The graph indicates that the SSP AB, SSP HB and SSP LB exhibit highest strength at a fines
moisture level of 12.9%, 15% and 22.2% respectively. Using the graph given in Figure 9, these
moisture levels equate to a moisture level of 9.2%, 7.2% and 19.2% respectively in the full size
fraction.
For the Rod Mill Feed Samples the results of these tests may be found in Figure A6.3. The graph
indicates that the T2 CAB, T2 CHB and T2 LB exhibit highest strength at a fines moisture level of
15.2%, 16.1% and 19.9% respectively. Using the graph given in Figure 10, these moisture levels
equate to a moisture level of 13%, 12.5% and 16.8% respectively in the full size fraction.
For the Rod Mill Feed Clay Zone Samples the results of these tests may be found in Figure A6.4
and A6.5. The graphs indicate that the UCZ D3-45 exhibits lowest strength and LCZ D44-45
exhibits the highest strength at a fines moisture level of 11.9% and 14.9% respectively. Using the
____________________________________________________________________________________________
graph given in Figure 10, these moisture levels equate to a moisture level of 8.6% and 12.2%
respectively in the full size fraction.
3.3.6 Shear Testing of Rod Mill Feed Samples
A full range of tests under low and high consolidation was performed on the five Rod Mill Feed
samples at the aforementioned moisture levels, the results of which are given in Appendix A,
Figures A1.1 to A1.10. The middle graph contains the effective and static angles of internal friction
and the lower graph contains the instantaneous and 3 day time storage flow functions.
For the T2 CAB, the instantaneous flow function is high indicating high bulk strength with a
moderate increase after 3 days storage. The T2 CAB would be classified as a difficult handling
material.
For the T2 CHB, the instantaneous flow function is moderately high indicating moderate to high
bulk strength with a moderate increase after 3 days storage. The T2 CHB would be classified as a
moderately difficult handling material.
For the T2 LB, the instantaneous flow function is very high indicating very high bulk strength with
a large increase after 3 days storage. The T2 LB would be classified as an extremely difficult
handling material.
For the UCZ D3-45, the instantaneous flow function is moderate indicating moderate bulk strength
with a moderate increase after 3 days storage. The UCZ D3-45 would be classified as a moderate
handling material.
For the LCZ D44-45, the instantaneous flow function is high indicating high bulk strength with a
moderate increase after 3 days storage. The LCZ D44-45 would be classified as a difficult handling
material.
3.4 Compressibility Tests
Compressibility tests were performed on the Rod Mill Feed samples. That is on the ‘worst case’
T2 CAB, T2 CHB, T2 LB, and LCZ D44-45 and on the ‘best case’ UCZ D3-45 samples.
The results of these tests for low consolidation are contained in the upper graph of Appendix A,
Figures A1.1, A1.3, A1.5, A1.7 and A1.9, and for high consolidation in the upper graph of
Appendix A, Figures A1.2, A1.4, A1.6, A1.8 and A1.10.
The results show the T2 CAB material is moderately compressible, the bulk density increasing
about 50% from an unconsolidated value of about 1200 kg/m3 to about 1800 kg/m3 at a
consolidation of 100 kPa.
The T2 CHB material is moderately compressible, the bulk density increasing about 40% from an
unconsolidated value of about 1500 kg/m3 to about 2100 kg/m3 at a consolidation of 100 kPa.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Also the T2 LB material is highly compressible, the bulk density increasing about 70% from an
unconsolidated value of about 1200 kg/m3 to about 2000 kg/m3 at a consolidation of 100 kPa.
Furthermore, the UCZ D3-45 material is poorly compressible, the bulk density increasing about
20% from an unconsolidated value of about 1200 kg/m3 to about 1400 kg/m3 at a consolidation of
100 kPa.
Finally, the LCZ D44-45 material is poorly compressible, the bulk density increasing about 20%
from an unconsolidated value of about 1200 kg/m3 to about 1400 kg/m3 at a consolidation of 100
kPa.
3.5 Wall Friction Tests
Appendix A, Figures A2.1 to A2.9 contain graphs of the wall yield loci and associated wall friction
angle for normal stresses up to 22 kPa for the wall materials indicated in Table 3. Also in Table 3
are the results of surface roughness measurements on the wall samples. In practice the surface
roughness, Ra, of the lining material should be similar to those values depicted in Table 3. Failure to
adhere to these values may lead to storage facility designs that are not optimal.
Table 3 - Wall Lining Materials
Wall Material Surface Roughness 'Ra'

(µm)
Arco plate 20.9
Alumina Ceramic Tile 2.2
Mild Steel 5.6
Tivar 88 1.3
PolyCeramic N/A
DuaPlate D60 N/A
Bisalloy 360 5.9
The wall friction tests were carried out in the following format:
The ‘worst case’ Run of Mine samples, ROM AB, ROM HB and ROM LB were tested on the
Bisalloy 360 wall material.
The ‘worst case’ Secondary Sizer Product samples, SSP AB, SSP HB and SSP LB were tested on
Tivar ‘88’, Bisalloy 360, and Alumina Ceramic Tile.
The ‘worst case’ Rod Mill Feed samples, T2 CAB, T2 CHB, T2 LB, LCZ D44-45 and ‘best case’
UCZ D3-45 were tested on Arcoplate, Alumina Ceramic Tile, Mild Steel, Tivar ‘88’, PolyCeramic
and DuaPlate D60.
Figure A2.1 shows that the ROM LB has lowest frictional characteristics on the Bisalloy 360 wall
material when compared to ROM AB and ROM HB with increasing normal stress.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Figures A2.2 to A2.4 contain the wall friction results for SSP AB, SSP HB and SSP LB. The
graphs show ‘Tivar 88’ has lower wall friction compared to Bisalloy 360 and Alumina Ceramic
Tile, making it the preferred wall lining material for the design of a mass-flow silo, or for when low
frictional characteristics between the bulk material and the wall lining material are required.
Figures A2.5 to A2.9 contain the results of wall friction measurements for the five Rod Mill Feed
samples. The results indicate that the Tivar ‘88’ material, followed by the Alumina Ceramic Tile,
lowest friction making them the preferred wall lining materials for the design of a mass-flow silo, or
for when low frictional characteristics between the bulk material and the wall lining material are
required.
Care should be taken in design to fully understand the normal wall pressures acting as this can have
an effect on the wall friction coefficient.
3.6 Angle of Repose
Angle of Repose tests were carried out on the Run of Mine, Secondary Sizer Product and Rod Mill
Feed samples. Examples of the photographs taken during the measurements programm are
contained in AppendixA, Figures A8.1 to A8.15. The results of the tests are summarised in Table 4
below. It should be noted that the results are for the full size fraction of the materials. The repose
angle measurements conducted indicate a maximum angle. Some reduction in the angle should be
expected in practice due to larger particles that roll down the pile surface and other effects such as
drop height.
Table 4 – Angle of Repose
Zone Sample Angle of Repose (0 )

Run Of Mine ROM AB 34
ROM HA 32
ROM LB 32
Secondary Sizer Product SSP AB 36
SSP HB 35
SSP LB 31
Rod Mill Feed T2 CAB 34
T2 CHB 35
T2 LB 34
UCZ D1-45 34
UCZ D2-45 34
UCZ D3-45 34
LCZ D43-45 36
LCZ D44-45 37
LCZ D45-45 36
____________________________________________________________________________________________
3.7 Belt Conveyor Surcharge Angle Tests
The conveyor belt surcharge angle tests were performed on the nine Rod Mill Feed samples and are
summarized in Table 5 below.
Table 5 – Belt Conveyor Surcharge Angle
Sample Included Angle (0 ) Belt Surcharge

Angle (0 )
T2 CAB 138 21
T2 CHB 145 17.5
T2 LB 128 26
UCZ D1-45 137 21.5
UCZ D2-45 143 18.5
UCZ D3-45 141 19.5
LCZ D43-45 134 23
LCZ D44-45 128 26
LCZ D45-45 132 24
3.8 Dust Extinction Moisture Tests
The results of Dust Extinction Moisture (DEM) testing are given in Appendix A, Figure A7.1 for
the Rod Mill Feed materials. The Dust Extinction Moisture (DEM) levels determined from the
graph at a dust number of 10 are given in Table 6. As the dust tests were conducted on the –6.3mm
size fraction, the DEM relates to this size fraction only and as explained in Section 3.2, the fines
will hold a higher proportion of moisture than the larger size fraction. Figure 11 shows the
relationship between the moisture content of the –6.3mm size fraction and the full size fraction for
the Rod Mill Feed materials. The equivalent full size fraction DEM levels are also indicated in
Table 6.
Table 6 – Dust Extinction Moisture
Ore -6.3mm Size Fraction Full Size Fraction

T2 CAB 8.9 % 7.6 %
T2 CHB 9.6 % 8%
T2 LB 11 % 9.5 %
UCZ D3-45 6.9 % 5.8 %
LCZ D44-45 10.4 % 8.6 %
____________________________________________________________________________________________
30
T2CAB
T2CHB
25 T2LB
UCZD3-45
LCZD44-45 Saturated
20
-6.3mm Size Fraction

15
10
As Supplied
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 11 – 6.3mm Versus Full Size Fraction Moisture Content
4 STORAGE FACILITY DESIGN
The reader is referred to Appendix B 'Material Flow Patterns in Silos' and Appendix C 'Storage
Facility Design Notes' for background information. The results of the flow property tests given in
Appendix A, Figures A1.1 to A1.10 and A2.5 to A2.9 can be used to generate storage facility
design information for the five Rod Mill Feed materials as follows.
4.1 Mass Flow Design
In order to design a silo to promote reliable mass-flow, two (2) parameters are of importance:
(a) the hopper (converging portion of the silo) outlet dimension, B, must be chosen to prevent
mechanical and cohesive arching, and
(b) the hopper half angle, α, must be selected to ensure flow of the bulk material along the walls
of the hopper.
The diameter, or width, of the silo, along with the height, are subsequently selected based upon the
storage capacity and silo height constraints.
Appendix A, Figures A3.1 to A3.5 detail plots of the maximum possible hopper half-angle 'α'
required to achieve mass-flow as a function of the hopper outlet dimension 'B' for bins which have
significant surcharge of material above the hopper section. A typical plot is also given in Figure 12.
In hoppers without surcharge, some increase in these angles may be accommodated.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Hopper Half Angle, α

α versus B Curve
α2
Outlet Dimension
Storage Critical
Instantaneous
Time Storage
Critical Outlet
Dimension
α1 α versus B
Design Region
B1 B2
Outlet Dimension, B
Figure 12 - α Versus B Typical Plot
The basic methodology required to design a mass-flow silo is:
(1) decide whether an axi-symmetric (conical) or plane (slot) flow silo is required. A point to
note in this selection is that the minimum opening dimension for an axi-symmetric silo,
based upon the strength of the material, is typically double that of a plane flow silo, however
these dimensions only apply to a plane flow shape where the outlet length is at least three (3)
times the outlet width. In addition, plane flow hoppers show an advantage over conical
hoppers, with an increase of about 10˚ in the hopper half angle. This has implications in
allowing a reduction in the total height of a plane flow silo for a given storage volume.
It should be noted when calculating critical hopper geometries that conical hoppers have a 3˚
tolerance included in the hopper half-angle.
(2) once the geometry of the silo is selected, the opening dimension, B, must be chosen to
prevent both mechanical and cohesive arches forming at the hopper outlet.
(i) The critical outlet dimensions given are to ensure cohesive arches do not form over
hopper outlets. In order to prevent mechanical arching it is recommended that the minimum
outlet dimension be about five (5) times the maximum lump size for conical hoppers and
three (3) times for plane-flow hoppers.
(ii) The critical cohesive arching dimension for a hopper is that dimension at which a stable
arch will not obstruct the outlet and flow will just initiate, based on a 'Flow - No Flow'
criterion. The critical outlet dimensions for the five Rod Mill Feed samples at the 'worst case'
moisture levels of 15.2%, 16.1%, 19.9% and 14.9% (T2 CAB, T2 CHB, T2 LB and LCZ
____________________________________________________________________________________________
D44-45 respectively) and ‘best case’ moisture level of 11.9% (UCZ D3-45) are shown on
graphs contained in Appendix A, Figures A3.1 to A3.5. The results are given for
instantaneous conditions and after 3 days undisturbed storage. All results are presented for
both conical and plane flow hoppers with the tested lining materials. Looking at the plots in
Figures A3.1 to A3.5 and the typical plot of Figure 12, the cohesive arching dimension is B1,
if the material is to be stored in the silo for a minimal amount of time, or B2, if the material is
to be stored undisturbed for a period of time.
The resulting minimum outlet dimension of the silo will be the larger outlet dimension as
given in (i) and (ii). Note that the aforementioned minimum arching dimension is generally
increased by 20% in order to guarantee flow.
(3) The hopper half angle, α, is chosen from the plots of Appendix A, Figures A3.1 to A3.5
corresponding to the chosen outlet dimension determined from (2). For example, looking at
Figure 12 and, say, that the dimension of B2, was selected as the minimum outlet dimension,
then the hopper half angle would be α2.
(4) It is often possible to select a larger outlet dimension, B, over that determined in (2) in order
to increase the corresponding hopper half angle, α. This has the benefit of reducing the silo
height whilst still ensuring the capacity requirements of the silo. Hopper half-angles required
to achieve mass-flow are usually greater at larger opening dimensions. As the outlet
dimension increases the maximum principal stress during discharge also increases. As can be
seen from Appendix A, Figures A2.5 to A 2.9 the wall friction decreases with an increase in
normal stress, within the range of stresses existing at the outlet, giving rise to an increase in
the required hopper half-angle for mass-flow. Tunra Bulk Solids should be contacted if half
hopper angles are required at outlet dimensions greater than those given in Figures A3.1 to
A3.5.
If the plots of Figures A3.1 to A3.5 resemble the trend of Figure 12, then the aforementioned
may be utilised in the design process ie. select a larger B value and, correspondingly, a larger
α value. If, on the other hand, there is no increase in hopper half angle with an increase in
outlet dimension, then there is no benefit from a flow standpoint to increase the silo outlet
dimension (Note: may need to increase the outlet dimension to promote the required flow
rate; see (5)).
(5) The flow rate of a 'coarse' bulk material from a mass-flow silo is determined by the analysis
in Appendix C. In the majority of situations the flow rate exceeds the required rate and a
feeder must be incorporated to restrict the discharge. It must be noted, however, that the
unrestricted flow rate from the silo, as given by the analysis of Appendix C, must be greater
than the potential feed rate from the feeder in all instances. Estimates of the potential flow rate
from mass flow hoppers are contained in Appendix A, Figures A3.1 to A3.5.
Attention must be given to the design of the feeder and feeder / hopper interface to ensure the entire
outlet is active to allow full mass flow to be realised. For plane flow hoppers the discharge capacity
of the feeder needs to increase in the direction of feed to draw material from the entire slot length.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
In the case of belt or apron feeders this can be achieved using a tapered slot. Increasing the pitch of
screw feeders toward the discharge end will have a similar effect.
It is advised to contact Tunra Bulk Solids to review proposed hopper and feeder designs.
4.2 Funnel Flow Design
The effective design of funnel flow discharge systems requires the outlet dimensions to be greater
than the critical piping diameter, Df, to ensure that stable ratholes do not develop. The calculated
critical piping diameter is an upper bound value which has been found in practice to be approached
in flat bottom storage systems with difficult handling materials. Appendix A, Figures A4.1 to A4.5
shows the relationship between the critical piping diameter, Df, and effective head of solids, hf, for
the five Rod Mill Feed samples at moisture levels of 15.2%, 16.1%, 19.9% and 14.9% (T2 CAB,
T2 CHB, T2 LB and LCZ D44-45 respectively) and 11.9% (UCZ D3-45) for both instantaneous
conditions and after 3 days undisturbed storage. All graphs indicate a high propensity to form
stable ratholes with graph A4.3 for the T2 LB sample indicating the largest diameter for a relatively
small effective head of solids. Hence an extremely high propensity to form stable ratholes would be
expected for the T2 LB sample.
It should be noted that the critical piping dimension calculations are based on the bulk strength of
the fines only. Should the tested bulk material have a significant proportion of lump then this will
tend to reduce its ability to maintain a stable rathole particularly if segregation causes areas of lump
concentration. The values given in Figures A4.1 to A4.5 should therefore be treated as the upper
bound with some reductions expected in practice, particularly in bins which are not flat bottomed.
4.3 Chute Design
In many materials handling installations blocked chutes can be a significant cause of interruption to
production. In chutes where bed depths are low, the normal pressures are also low. Appendix A,
Figure A2.1 shows how the wall friction angles can be higher at these low consolidation pressures.
The wall friction angle, φw, is given by:
τw
φw = tan-1 σw (3)
where τw is the shear stress, measured from the wall yield locus at a normal consolidation pressure,
σw.
Equation (3) allows for an estimation of the required chute inclination angle for transfer chute
design. The preferred angle of inclination of chutes can be determined by adding between 5˚ and
10˚ to the measured wall friction angle at the consolidation pressure calculated from the nominal
chute bed depth.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
5 REFERENCES
[1] Arnold P. C., McLean A. G. and Roberts A. W. 'Bulk Solids: Storage Flow and
Handling', TUNRA, The University of Newcastle, 2nd Edition, 1982.
[2] Roberts A.W. 'Basic Principles of Bulk Solids Storage, Flow and Handling'. The
Institute for Bulk Materials Handling Research, University of Newcastle, Australia,
1993.
[3] Jenike, A.W. 'Storage and Flow of Solids', Bulletin 123, University of Utah, 7th
Printing, Revised November 1976.
[4] 'Standard Shear Testing Technique for Particulate Solids using the Jenike Shear
Cell'. The Institution of Chemical Engineers, England, 1989.
[5] Mitutoyo Operation Manual, 178 Series, Surftest 4, Manual No. 4128.
[6] 'Code of Safe Practice for Solid Bulk Cargoes', The International Maritime
Organisation, London, Eighth Edition, 1991.
APPENDIX A
Results
Bulk Density
2200
2000
Bulk Density - kg/m3
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Internal Friction
80
Effective Angle of Internal Friction - δ
70 Static Angle of Internal friction - φ t
Angle -Degrees
60
50
40
30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Flow Function
40
Instantaneous
After 3 days storage
35
Unconfined Yield Strength - kPa
30
25
20
15
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Major Consolidation Stress - kPa
Figure A1.1 - Low Consolidation Shear Test Results
6299 - Rod Mill Feed Average Grade Bauxite @ 15.2% mc.
Bulk Density
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Internal Friction
80
Angle -Degrees
60
50
40
30
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Flow Function
120
Instantaneous
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Figure A1.2 - High Consolidation Shear Test Results
Bulk Density
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Internal Friction
80
Angle -Degrees
60
50
40
30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Flow Function
40
Instantaneous
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
6299 - Rod Mill Feed High Grade Bauxite @ 16.1% mc.
Bulk Density
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Internal Friction
80
Angle -Degrees
60
50
40
30
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Flow Function
120
Instantaneous
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Bulk Density
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Internal Friction
80
70
Angle -Degrees
60
50
40 Effective Angle of Internal Friction - δ

Static Angle of Internal friction - φ t
30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Flow Function
40
Instantaneous
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
6299 - Rod Mill Feed Low Grade Bauxite @ 19.9% mc.
Bulk Density
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Internal Friction
80
Angle -Degrees
60
50
40
30
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Flow Function
120
Instantaneous
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Bulk Density
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Internal Friction
70
60
Angle -Degrees
50
40
30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Flow Function
30
Instantaneous
25
20
15
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
6299 - Rod Mill Feed Upper Clay Zone @ 11.9% mc.
Bulk Density
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Internal Friction
70
60
Angle -Degrees
50
40
30
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Flow Function
120
Instantaneous
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Bulk Density
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Internal Friction
70
60
Angle -Degrees
50
40
30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Flow Function
30
Instantaneous
25
20
15
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
6299 - Rod Mill Feed Lower Clay Zone @ 14.9% mc.
Bulk Density
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Internal Friction
70
60
Angle -Degrees
50
40
30
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Flow Function
120
Instantaneous
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Wall Friction Angle
80
ROM Average Grade Bauxite @ 18.2% mc
70 ROM High Grade Bauxite @ 21.1% mc
ROM Low Grade Bauxite @ 22.4% mc
60
Angle - degrees
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Normal Stress (kPa)
Wall Yield Locus

20
15
Shear Stress (kPa)
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Normal Stress (kPa)
Figure A2.1 - Wall Friction Test Results
6299 - ROM Bauxite on Bisalloy 360 Mill Scale
Wall Friction Angle
80
Bisalloy 360 Mill Scale
70 Ceramic Tile
Tivar 88
60
Angle - degrees
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Normal Stress (kPa)
Wall Yield Locus

20
15
Shear Stress (kPa)
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Normal Stress (kPa)
6299 - Secondary Sizer Product
Average Grade Bauxite @ 12.9% mc
Wall Friction Angle
80
70 Ceramic Tile
Tivar 88
60
Angle - degrees
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Normal Stress (kPa)
Wall Yield Locus

20
15
Shear Stress (kPa)
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Normal Stress (kPa)
High Grade Bauxite @ 15.0% mc
Wall Friction Angle
80
70 Ceramic Tile
Tivar 88
60
Angle - degrees
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Normal Stress (kPa)
Wall Yield Locus

20
15
Shear Stress (kPa)
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Normal Stress (kPa)
Low Grade Bauxite @ 22.2% mc
Wall Friction Angle
80
Mild Steel Mill Scale
70 Arcoplate
Ceramic Tile
Polycer
60 Duaplate D60
Tivar 88
Angle - degrees
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Normal Stress (kPa)
Wall Yield Locus

20
15
Shear Stress (kPa)
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Normal Stress (kPa)
6299 - Rod Mill Feed
Average Grade Bauxite @ 15.2% mc
Wall Friction Angle
80
70 Arcoplate
Ceramic Tile
Polycer
60 Duaplate D60
Tivar 88
Angle - degrees
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Normal Stress (kPa)
Wall Yield Locus

20
15
Shear Stress (kPa)
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Normal Stress (kPa)
High Grade Bauxite @ 16.1% mc
Wall Friction Angle
80
70 Arcoplate
Ceramic Tile
Polycer
60 Duaplate D60
Tivar 88
Angle - degrees
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Normal Stress (kPa)
Wall Yield Locus

20
15
Shear Stress (kPa)
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Normal Stress (kPa)
Low Grade Bauxite @ 19.9% mc
Wall Friction Angle
80
70 Arcoplate
Ceramic Tile
Polycer
60 Duaplate D60
Tivar 88
Angle - degrees
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Normal Stress (kPa)
Wall Yield Locus

20
15
Shear Stress (kPa)
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Normal Stress (kPa)
6299 - Rod Mill Feed Upper Clay Zone @ 11.9% mc
Wall Friction Angle
80
70 Arcoplate
Ceramic Tile
Polycer
60 Duaplate D60
Tivar 88
Angle - degrees
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Normal Stress (kPa)
Wall Yield Locus

20
15
Shear Stress (kPa)
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Normal Stress (kPa)
6299 - Rod Mill Feed Lower Clay Zone @ 19.9% mc
Half Hopper Angle & Flow Rate vs Outlet Diameter
for a Conical Hopper.
40 600,000
α- Mild Steel Mill Scale Q- Mild Steel Mill Scale
α- Arcoplate
Potential Discharge Rate (Q) - T/hr

Q- Arcoplate
35 α- CeramicTile Q- CeramicTile
α- Polycer 500,000
Half Hopper Angle (α) - Deg
Q- Polycer
30 α- Duaplate Q- Duaplate
α- Tivar 88 Q- Tivar 88
3 days time storage 400,000
25 critical outlet dimension
Instantaneous critical outlet dimension

20 300,000
15
200,000
10
100,000
5
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Outlet Diameter (B) - m
Half Hopper Angle & Flow Rate vs Outlet Width

for a Slotted Wedge Shaped Hopper.
Potential Discharge Rate (Q) - T/hr/m(length)

40 60,000
35

Half Hopper Angle( α) - Deg
critical outlet dimension

30
40,000
25
20 30,000
15
20,000
10
10,000
5
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Outlet Width (B)- m
Figure A3.1 - Mass Flow Hopper Design Parameters and Estimated Flow Rates
40 600,000
α- Arcoplate

Q- Arcoplate
35 α- Ceramic Tile Q- Ceramic Tile
α- Polycer 500,000
Q- Polycer
30 α- Duaplate Q- Duaplate
25 critical outlet dimension

20 300,000
15
200,000
10
100,000
5
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4


40 100,000
90,000
35
3 days time storage

critical outlet dimension 80,000

30
70,000
25
60,000
20 50,000
40,000
15
30,000
10
20,000
5
10,000
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Outlet Width (B)- m
40 200,000

35 α- Arcoplate Q- Arcoplate
α- CeramicTile Q- CeramicTile
α- Duaplate Q- Duaplate
30 150,000
25
Instantaneous critical outlet dimensions

20 100,000
15
10 50,000
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4


40 30,000
35
30
20,000
25
20
15
10,000
10
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Outlet Width (B)- m
40 400,000

α- Ceramic Tile Q- Ceramic Tile
30 300,000
25
3 days time storage
20 200,000
15
10 100,000
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4


40 50,000
35
3 days time storage

critical outlet dimension 40,000

30
25
30,000
20
20,000
15
10
10,000
5
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Outlet Width (B)- m
40 300,000

α- CeramicTile Q- CeramicTile 250,000
30
200,000
25
3 days time storage

20 150,000
15
100,000
10
50,000
5
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4


40 40,000
35
3 days time storage


30 30,000
25
20 20,000
15
10 10,000
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Outlet Width (B)- m
Critical Piping Diameter
15
Instantaneous
10
Diameter - Metres
0
0 5 10 15
Effective Head - Metres
Figure A4.1 - Critical Piping Diameter
15
Instantaneous
10
Diameter - Metres
0
0 5 10 15
15
Instantaneous
10
Diameter - Metres
0
0 5 10 15
15
Instantaneous
10
Diameter - Metres
0
0 5 10 15
15
Instantaneous
10
Diameter - Metres
0
0 5 10 15
Particle Size Distribution
100
ROM AB
SSP AB (-80mm)
T1 CAB
T2 CAB
80
T1 OAB
T2 OAB
SSP AB (-25mm)
AGB RSP
60
Percent Finer
40
20
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Sieve Opening Size - mm
Figure A5.1 - Particle Size Distribution
6299 - Average Grade Bauxite
100
ROM HB
SSP HB
T1 CHB
80 T2 CHB
T1 OHB
T2 OHB
60
Percent Finer
40
20
DRAFT ONLY
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
6299 - High Grade Bauxite
100
ROM LB
SSP LB
80 T1 LB
T2 LB
60
Percent Finer
40
20
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
6299 - Low Grade Bauxite
100
Upper Clay Zone Drum 1 - 45
Lower Clay Zone Drum 43 - 45
80
Lower Clay Zone Drum 44 - 45
Lower Clay Zone Drum 45- 45
60
Percent Finer
40
20
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
6299 - Rod Mill Feed Clay Zones
100
ROM AB
ROM HB
ROM LB
80
60
Percent Finer
40
20
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
6299 - ROM Bauxite
100
SSP AB
SSP HB
SSP LB
80
60
Percent Finer
40
20
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
6299 - Secondary Sizer Product Bauxite
100
T2 CAB
T2 CHB
T2 LB
80 Upper Clay Zone Drum3 - 45
Lower Clay Zone Drum44 - 45
60
Percent Finer
40
20
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
6299 - Rod Mill Feed Bauxite
20

15 ROM Average Grade Bauxite @ 20.8% mc
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
20
ROM High Grade Bauxite @ 13.2% mc

15 ROM High Grade Bauxite @ 21.1% mc
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
20

15 ROM Low Grade Bauxite @ 22.4% mc
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Figure A6.1 - Flow Function Comparison Results
6299 - ROM Bauxite
20

SSP Average Grade Bauxite @ 12.9% mc
SSP Average Grade Bauxite @ 15.5% mc
15 SSP Average Grade Bauxite @ 18.1% mc
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
20
SSP High Grade Bauxite @ 12.5% mc

15
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
20
SSP Low Grade Bauxite @ 13.3% mc

15 SSP Low Grade Bauxite @ 19.4% mc
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
20

RMF Average Grade Bauxite @ 10.8% mc
15
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
20
RMF High Grade Bauxite @ 11.5% mc

15
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
20
RMF Low Grade Bauxite @ 12.6% mc

15 RMF Low Grade Bauxite @ 19.9% mc
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
6299 - Rod Mill Feed Bauxite
20

UCZD1-45 @ 9.4% mc
UCZD1-45 @ 11.8% mc
UCZD1-45 @ 14.2% mc
15 UCZD1-45 @ 16.6% mc
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
20
UCZD2-45 @ 9.3% mc
UCZD2-45 @ 11.6% mc
UCZD2-45 @ 13.9% mc
15
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
20
UCZD3-45 @ 7.9% mc
UCZD3-45 @ 9.9% mc
UCZD3-45 @ 11.9% mc
15
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
6299 - Rod Mill Feed Upper Clay Zone
20

LCZD43-45 @ 10.2% mc
LCZD43-45 @ 11.6% mc
LCZD43-45 @ 13.9% mc
15 LCZD43-45 @ 16.2% mc
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
20
LCZD44-45 @ 10.2% mc
LCZD44-45 @ 12.5% mc
LCZD44-45 @ 14.9% mc
15 LCZD44-45 @ 17.4% mc
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
20
LCZD45-45 @ 10.3% mc
LCZD45-45 @ 12.5% mc
LCZD45-45 @ 15.0% mc
15 LCZD45-45 @ 17.5% mc
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
6299 - Rod Mill Feed Lower Clay Zone
1000
Rod Mill Feed Average Grade Bauxite; DEM = 8.9%
Rod Mill Feed High Grade Bauxite; DEM = 9.6%
Rod Mill Feed Low Grade Bauxite; DEM = 11.0%
Rod Mill Feed Lower Clay Zone; DEM = 10.4%
Rod Mill Feed Upper Clay Zone; DEM = 6.9%
100
Dust Number
10
1
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Figure A7.1 - Dust/Moisture Relationship Test
Figure A8.1 – ROM AB Angle of Repose
Figure A8.2 – ROM HB Angle of Repose

Figure A8.3 – ROM LB Angle of Repose
Figure A8.4 – SSP AB Angle of Repose

Figure A8.5 – SSP HB Angle of Repose
Figure A8.6 – SSP LB Angle of Repose

Figure A8.7 – T2 CAB Angle of Repose
Figure A8.8 – T2 CHB Angle of Repose

Figure A8.9 – T2 LB Angle of Repose
Figure A8.10 – UCZ D1-45 Angle of Repose



APPENDIX B
Modes of Flow
TBS Flow Property Report, Appendix B Modes of Flow B2
__________________________________________________________________________________________
B. MODES OF FLOW
B.1 Flow Patterns
There are two basic modes of flow during gravity discharge from storage bins, mass-flow and
funnel-flow. In mass-flow the bulk solid is in motion at every point of the bin whenever material
is drawn from the outlet, Figure B1(a). This flow pattern is obtained when the walls of the
hopper are sufficiently steep and smooth with no abrupt transitions or inflowing valleys and the
feeder or gate allows discharge over the entire outlet area. This flow pattern has the following
characteristics:
• First-in first-out flow sequence, useful for storage of solids which deteriorate with
time
• Where materials segregate on charging there is remixing in the hopper
• Flow is uniform and well controlled giving a constant feed density which is
independent of the head of solids
• There are no dead regions within the bin
Mass-flow is reliable and predictable and should be used where continuous feed of solids is
required. Mass-flow bins may also be applied to the blending and mixing of bulk solids. A
disadvantage of mass-flow is wear of bin and hopper walls when handling abrasive bulk
materials.
(a) Mass-Flow (b) Funnel-Flow
Figure B1: Flow Patterns in Bins
As illustrated in Figure B1(b) funnel-flow occurs when the bulk solid sloughs off the top
surface and discharges through a vertical channel which forms within the stored bulk solid above
the outlet. This mode of flow occurs when the hopper walls are rough and/or insufficiently
steep. This flow pattern has the following characteristics:
__________________________________________________________________________________________
• First-in last-out flow sequence

• Where materials segregate on charging there is no remixing in the hopper
• Flow rate tends to be erratic with widely varying feed density
• Erratic flow rates cause fine powders to aerate, fluidise and flood
• Tendency for stable pipes or 'ratholes' to form resulting in reduced live capacity
Funnel-flow is generally an undesirable flow pattern, mainly due to loss in live capacity but has
the compensating advantage of minimising bin wall wear for some applications.
It needs to be noted that there is a further mode of flow, other than strictly mass-flow, which
often occurs when the surcharge head of material above the hopper is low. This mode of flow is
called intermediate-flow and is characterised by the bulk material flowing more quickly in a
central flow channel and more slowly against the hopper walls.
Figure B3: Hopper Types for Conical and Plane Mass-Flow

__________________________________________________________________________________________
B.2 Mass Flow Hopper Types
Mass flow hoppers can be classified according to the geometry of the stress field which is set up
in the flow channel as material discharges. Essentially, the stress field can be either symmetric
about a central axis, or symmetric about a central plane. The axi-symmetric case applies to
hoppers which have conical or square outlets, and hoppers of this axi-symmetric nature are
classified as conical hoppers.
Transition hoppers use a slotted outlet with a combination of side walls inclined as appropriate
for plane flow, and end walls inclined at angles derived for the conical case. Figure A3 illustrates
some of the principal mass-flow hopper types.
The planar case applies to slotted outlets, where the slot length to width ratio exceeds 3:1. The
end walls of such a hopper are often vertical, and hoppers of this nature are classified as plane
flow hoppers.
When large quantities of bulk solids are to be stored, the expanded-flow bin shown in Figure A4
can be used. This bin combines the storage capacity of the funnel-flow bin, which forms the
upper section, with the reliable discharge characteristics of the mass-flow hopper. For bulk
materials with large rathole dimensions Df (often several metres) the expanded-flow concept,
which incorporates Df as the transition dimension, allows for 100% live capacity with reduced
head height. Expanded-flow bins also have the advantage of minimising bin wall wear. In
addition, expanded flow may be readily applied to multi-outlet bins.
Figure B4: Expanded-Flow Bin

APPENDIX C
Storage Plant Design

TBS Flow Property Report, Appendix C Storage Plant Design C2
__________________________________________________________________________________________
C. STORAGE PLANT DESIGN
The following notes are offered as background information in the design methodology of bulk
materials storage plant design. The subject is discussed in greater detail in [1, 2].
C.1 Critical Hopper Dimensions for Mass-Flow
The critical hopper parameters for mass-flow are the minimum or critical cohesive arch
dimension, Bmin , and the corresponding hopper half-angle, α, for flow to occur. Referring to
Figure C1, the bulk strength, given by the unconfined yield strength, σc, is defined by the Flow
Function, FF, which is a plot of σc as a function of the major consolidation pressure, σ1. The
hopper half-angle is chosen from the mass-flow limits [1, 2]. The stress acting in the arch, σ-1 , is
defined by the Flow Factor, ff [2].
σc No
Flow
Flow
σ1
ff FF
σ1 = σ c α
∆V
σ1 σ1
σ ρ g ∆V
σ1 corresponding to 1
opening dimension B B
min
(a) Flow - No Flow Condition
(b) Critical Arching Dimension
Figure C1: Critical Arching Condition for Flow
The critical arching dimension is determined for the condition when the stress in the arch is just
equal to the bulk strength, i.e. σ-1 = σc. This is obtained from the intersection point of the Flow
Factor, ff, line and Flow Function, FF. The Flow Function is a bulk solid parameter and the
Flow Factor is a flow channel parameter.
The minimum opening dimension, Bmin , is given by
σ-1 H(α)
Bmin = ρg (C.1)
where: H(α) = arch thickness factor given in [2]

ρ = bulk density
g = gravitational acceleration
C.1.1 Variation of Hopper Half Angle and Flow Rate with Hopper Opening
Dimension
__________________________________________________________________________________________
To generate the required discharge flow rate, a larger opening dimension than that determined by
equation (C.1) is required. Since the consolidating pressures within a stored bulk solid in the
region of the outlet increase with an increase in outlet dimension, this is usually accompanied by
a reduction in wall friction angle, φw; as illustrated by the graphs shown in Appendix A, Figures
A3. Thus, an increase in hopper half-angle is possible when a larger opening dimension is
selected.
Referring to Figure C2, the critical Flow Factor, ff, corresponds to the minimum opening
dimension, Bmin . The actual Flow Factor, ffa, defines the stress condition in the arch
corresponding to the actual opening dimension, B. For this stress condition, the stress in the
arch, σ-1 , exceeds the unconfined yield strength, σc, and accelerated flow will occur. For a coarse
bulk solid the stress in the arch is given by
ρgB a
σ-1 = H(α) ( 1 - g ) (C.2)
Figure C2: Flow in a Hopper
It may be shown that the acceleration, a, in equation (C.2) becomes
ff
a = g [ 1 - ffa ] (C.3)
σ1
where: ffa = σc for σc < σ-1 (C.4)
__________________________________________________________________________________________
σ1 = major consolidation pressure at outlet corresponding to
outlet dimension B
The acceleration, a, has two components:
a = ac + a v (C.5)
where: ac = convergence component due to the flow channel

av = component due to the velocity increase as flow is initiated
It may be shown that
 ff  2 v2 (m + 1)
av = g  1 - ffa - B tanα (C.6)
This shows that as the discharge velocity increases, av → 0. Thus, an average terminal discharge
velocity va is reached. With av = 0
 ff  gB (C.7)
vav =  1 - ffa 2 tanα (m + 1)
and the flow rate is
π m
Q = ρ B(1+m) L(1-m)  4  vav (C.8)
where: m = 0 for a plane-flow hopper

m = 1 for an axi-symmetric or conical hopper
B = width of slot or diameter of circular opening
L = length of slot
The flow rate given by equation (C.8) is the maximum possible for unrestricted discharge. In the
majority of cases the discharge rate needs to be controlled and this is accomplished by means of
a feeder.
C.2 Funnel-Flow
Funnel-flow is depicted in Figure C3. In this case flow occurs by material sloughing off the top
surface and flowing down a central flow channel which forms above the opening. Flow is
generally erratic and gives rise to segregation problems. In the case of cohesive bulk solids, flow
will continue until the level of the bulk solid in the bin drops an amount HD equal to the draw-
down. At this level, the bulk strength of the contained material is sufficient to sustain a stable
rathole of diameter Df = Bf as illustrated in Figure C3. Bf will be slightly larger than the hopper
opening, B. Once the level defined by HD is reached, there is no further flow and the material
__________________________________________________________________________________________
below this level represents 'dead' storage. For complete draw-down, Bf should be equal to Dfm,
which is the rathole diameter calculated for the base of the bin.
Effective
h
D Draw-
h Down
'Dead'
Capacity
hf Df
B Bf
Effective Head
Bf of Solids D fm
Rathole Diameter
Figure C3: Funnel-Flow
For a funnel-flow bin, the effective head of solids, hf, is defined as
R
hf = Kj tan φw ( 1 - e- Kj tan φ w h/R ) (C.9)
area of bin cross-section

where: R = perimeter of bin cross-section
Κj = ratio of horizontal to vertical pressure in the bin. Assumed
to be 0.4.
φw = wall friction angle in degrees
h = actual head of solids
However, when the width of the storage bin is greater than or equal to the maximum height of
the stored material then equation (C.9) can be simplified to :-
hf = h (C.10)
That is, the effective head, hf, is equal to the 'hydrostatic' head, h.
hf defines the major consolidation pressure, σ1 , as follows
σ1 = ρ g hf (C.11)
__________________________________________________________________________________________
- 1 = σc acting at the rathole is
For the given value of σ1 , the corresponding value of the stress σ
obtained from the extended Flow Function in accordance with Figure C4.
σc
Extended FF
σ1 = σc
σ1
σ1
Figure B4: Extended Flow Function
The critical rathole dimension, Df, is determined from the following equation
σ-1 G(φt)
Df = ρg (C.12)
where: φt = static angle of internal friction

ρ = bulk density
g = gravitational acceleration
The function G(φt ) is given in graphical form in [2].
It should be noted that the critical rathole dimension calculations are based on the bulk strength
of the fines only. Should the bulk material tested have a significant proportion of lumps, then
this will tend to weaken the rathole structure, particularly if segregation causes areas of lump
concentration.
C.3 Expanded-Flow Bin Geometry
In view of the large rathole dimensions Df (often several metres) in funnel-flow, the expanded-
flow type bin of Figure C5, which incorporates Df as the transition dimension, allows for 100%
live capacity with reduced head height. The effective design of an expanded-flow bin requires the
transition dimensions to be greater than the critical piping diameter, Df, to ensure that stable
ratholes cannot develop.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Funnel
H Flow
Df
α Mass
Flow
Figure B5: Expanded-Flow
C.4 Chute Design
In many materials handling installations blocked chutes can be a significant cause of interruption
to production. In chutes where bed depths are low, the normal pressures are also low. Graphs
shown in Appendix A, Figures A3 show how the wall friction angles can be higher at these low
consolidation pressures. The wall friction angle, φw, is given by:
τw
φw = tan-1 σw (C.13)
where τw is the shear stress, measured from the wall yield locus, at a normal consolidation
pressure, σw.
Equation (C.13) allows for an estimation of the required chute inclination angle for transfer
chute design. The preferred angle of inclination of chutes can be determined by adding between
5˚ and 10˚ to the calculated wall friction angle at the consolidation pressure determined from the
nominal chute bed depth.
C.5 Gravity Reclaim Stockpiles
Gravity reclaim stockpiles, such as that illustrated in Figure C6, operate on the expanded flow
principle. It is essential that they be fitted with mass-flow hoppers which are correctly interfaced
with the feeders. The mass-flow hoppers guarantee reliable flow as well as ensuring that the
loads on the feeders and corresponding drive torques remain within acceptable limits. This is
__________________________________________________________________________________________
made possible as a result of the 'arched stress field' that is established in the hoppers once flow
has occurred. Details of stockpile and feeder design are given in [2].
C.5.1 Draw-Down Characteristics
For a given hopper geometry, the ‘rathole’ diameter Df is based on the diagonal dimension, Dg,
of the hopper at the transition with the base of the stockpile. That is
Dg = Lh2 + D 2 (C.14)
Df
θR
H
T
hD
H
ε
Z Z
Dg
X X
Lh
Figure C6: Gravity Reclaim Stockpile (Example)

__________________________________________________________________________________________
The rathole will open out at some slope angle, ε, which may be in the order of 5o, but will depend
on the size distribution of the bulk material. Alternatively, it may be assumed that the rathole
diameter, Df, is such that
Df = K f Dg (C.15)
Kf is a rathole geometry factor to allow for the opening up of the rathole due to the variation in
particle size range of the stored bulk solid.
1.0 < Kf < 1.2 (C.16)
The draw-down is computed as follows. The stress acting at the surface of the rathole is
− γ Df
σ 1 = G(φt) (C.17)
where: φt = static angle of internal friction.

G(φt) = rathole factor [1]
γ = ρg
= bulk specific weight
ρ = bulk density
At the rathole surface, the unconfined yield strength σc = −σ 1. For this condition, the
corresponding major consolidation stress, or pressure, σ1 is read from the Flow Function curve
as illustrated in Figure C7.
σc
σ1 = σc Extended FF
σ1
Figure C7: Use of Extended Flow Function to Obtain 1
σ1 is given by σ1 = γ hf (C.18)
where: hf = effective head of solids
The effective head of solids will vary according to the conditions as follows:
__________________________________________________________________________________________
(i) Upper Bound Value
This is the 'hydrostatic' head which might occur in a loosely packed stockpile
hf = hD (C.19)
where: hD = draw-down
(ii) Likely Value
A less conservative value of hf is
hf = hD cos θR (C.20)
where: θR = angle of repose
(iii) Lower Bound Value
Where a flow channel is pre-formed, then hf may be estimated using equation (C.9) with the
Df
'hydraulic radius' R = 4 .
C.5.2 Live Capacity
The live capacity of a gravity reclaim stockpile may be optimised by strategically placing the
mass-flow reclaim hoppers and feeders to maximise the intersection of the flow channels. A
CAD geometrical modelling package is used for this purpose as illustrated by the example
shown in Figure C8.
Figure C8: Example of Three-Dimensional Stockpile Model

24941-100-30R-G01-00073 Tunra 6299 Report Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

24941-100-30R-G01-00073 Tunra 6299 Report Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TUNRA BULK SOLIDS HANDLING RESEARCH ASSOCIATES

in association with the

Centre for Bulk Solids & Particulate Technologies

Report No. 6299 June, 2004

Client: Hatch Associates Pty. Ltd.

Address: GPO Box L923

Telephone: 08 9428 5000

Attention: John Rosten

This report has been checked and authorised by the undersigned

for Tunra Bulk Solids Handling Research Associates

The test results presented are for a client supplied bulk

The contents of this report may not be reproduced

This investigation was performed

POSTAL ADDRESS: COPIES LIST:

Tunra Bulk Solids Client (2)

Telephone: +61 2 4921 7127

2 FLOW PROPERTY TESTS ............................................................ 6

3 FLOW PROPERTY RESULTS..................................................... 11

4 STORAGE FACILITY DESIGN................................................... 21

Arching - a dome shaped obstruction formed by a bulk material usually at a

a - average vertical acceleration of bulk material in hopper [m/s2]

Q - mass flow rate [kg/s]

ROM AB – Run Of Mine Average Grade Bauxite

SSP AB (-80) – Secondary Sizer Product Average Grade Bauxite

T2 CAB – Rod Mill Feed Combined Average Grade Bauxite

SSP AB (-25) – Secondary Sizer Product Undersize Average Grade Bauxite

ROM ROM BAUXITE

SSP AGB -80mm

Figure 1 – Sample Collection Flow Chart

• Particle Size Distributions

2.1 Direct Shear Test

Figure 2 - Jenike Shear Test Cell

2.1.1 Flow Functions

Figure 3 - Yield Loci and Flow Function

2.1.2 Effective Angle of Internal Friction

2.1.3 Kinematic Angle of Internal Friction

2.2 Wall Friction Test

Figure 4 - Wall Yield Loci Test Apparatus

Figure 5 - Determination of Wall Friction Angle

2.4 Moisture Content Test

2.5 Surface Roughness Test

Figure 6 - Surface Roughness

2.6 Particle Size Test

2.7 Angle of Repose Test

2.8 Belt Conveyor Surcharge Angle Test

2.9 Dust Extinction Moisture Tests

2.10 Unconfined Uniaxial Test

Figure 7 – Schematic of Unconfined Uniaxial Test Machine

3 FLOW PROPERTY RESULTS

3.1 Particle Size Range

Zone Sample d5 0 equivalent

3.2 Moisture Content

Zone Sample Size Fraction ‘as supplied’ Saturated

-4mm Size Fraction

Figure 8 - 4mm Versus Full Size Fraction Moisture Content (ROM)

-4mm Size Fraction

Figure 9 – 4mm Versus Full Size Fraction Moisture Content (SSP)

-4mm Size Fraction

Figure 10 – 4mm Versus Full Size Fraction Moisture Content (RMF)

3.3 Shear Tests

3.3.1 Run of Mine Samples

3.3.2 Secondary Sizer Product Samples