You are on page 1of 42

Accepted Manuscript

Analysis of abrasive damage of iron ore pellets

A. Hossein Madadi Najafabadi, Abolfazl Masoumi, S. Mehdi


Vaez-Allaei

PII: S0032-5910(18)30151-7
DOI: doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2018.02.030
Reference: PTEC 13206
To appear in: Powder Technology
Received date: 30 September 2017
Revised date: 8 February 2018
Accepted date: 12 February 2018

Please cite this article as: A. Hossein Madadi Najafabadi, Abolfazl Masoumi, S. Mehdi
Vaez-Allaei , Analysis of abrasive damage of iron ore pellets. The address for the
corresponding author was captured as affiliation for all authors. Please check if
appropriate. Ptec(2017), doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2018.02.030

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As
a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The
manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before
it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may
be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the
journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Analysis of abrasive damage of iron ore pellets

A. Hossein Madadi Najafabadi a, Abolfazl Masoumi a,, S. Mehdi Vaez-Allaei b

T
a
School of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran,

IP
P.O. Box 11155-4563, Tehran, Iran.

CR
b
School of Physics, College of Science, University of Tehran,

US
P.O. Box 11155-4563, Tehran, Iran.
AN
Abstract

The abrasive wear of iron ore pellets (IOP) during transportation and storage in the iron making industry
M

influences process quality and leads to air pollution. Therefore, prediction of the abrasive wear of IOP
ED

enables one to eliminate possible damages during processing. In the present research, the abrasive wear of

IOP is analysed by numerical simulation using the discrete element method (DEM) and an analytical
PT

model. The variable parameters of the analytical model, including average normal contact force and
CE

sliding distance, were predicted from DEM simulation results. To evaluate the proposed numerical-

analytical technique, a standard abrasion resistance test of IOP (ASTM E279) was carried out and the
AC

experimental results were compared to numerical-analytical results. The comparison was made for two

types of IOP with different mechanical properties. The error of the numerical-analytical method in

prediction of abrasive wear of IOP was +21.7% and -34.4% for optimised quality and low quality pellets,

respectively.


Corresponding author. Tel/Fax: +98 9123841995 /+98 2188013029

E-mail address: amasomi@ut.ac.ir – Abolfazl Masoumi.


ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Keywords: Iron ore pellet; Discrete element method; Abrasive wear; Analytical model

1. Introduction

Numerous studies have been performed addressing numerical simulation of granular materials in which

the surface wear of granules is predicted based on analytical models or experimental techniques. Previous

studies can be classified into two major categories. In the first category, abrasive wear and breakage of

T
IP
granules are carried out deliberately, as in comminution processes of mineral materials. The work of

CR
Cleary and Morrison [1] and Powel and McBride [2] are examples of such studies. In the second

category, the size reduction of granules is considered as undesired damage, and the aim is to reduce their

US
wear and breakage extents. In such researches, conveying, storage, and packing of granular materials are

studied in order to estimate the amount of damage that may occur during these processes. Studies by
AN
Ahmadian et al. [3] and Ning and Ghadiri [4] are good examples of works in this category.
M

Analytical, numerical, and experimental research approaches have been widely used to predict the

breakage and abrasive wear of granular materials. In these works, variable parameters (such as energy,
ED

force, and velocity) of the experimental or analytical models can be obtained from the numerical
PT

simulation. Ghadiri and Zhang [5, 6] propose one of the most important analytical models based on

fracture mechanics principles to evaluate the attrition of granular materials. They present an analytical
CE

model based on indentation facture mechanics to determine the impact attrition of granular materials.

Ning and Ghadiri [4] extended this model to predict the surface wear of catalyst beads in a shear cell test.
AC

From a computational point of view, one of the well-known methods for the simulation of granular

materials is the discrete element method (DEM), first proposed by Cundall and Strack [7]. Nowadays,

there are many commercial and open-source computer codes and software available for DEM simulation

of granular materials.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

One of the most important industrial granular materials is the iron ore pellet (IOP). IOP is the initial form

of iron production in direct reduction plants. Generally, production of this granular material contains two

major stages: agglomeration and firing. The chemical composition and production process factors affect

reduction behaviour and mechanical strength of IOP. Producing iron by direct reduction method is more

environmentally friendly than other common methods. However, the damage vulnerability of IOP to

T
collisions results in excessive wear and breakage damages during handling, storage, and reduction

IP
processes. These damages lead to size reduction of IOPs and generation of fines. Generated fines may

CR
lead to the following problems:

 Risk of explosion and fire of reduced fines after reduction process.

US
 Clustering of IOPs during reduction process.


AN
Environmental pollution.

Gustafsson et al. [8, 9] used smoothed particle hydrodynamic (SPH) and multi-particle finite element
M

method (MPFEM) to simulate IOP flow and storage into a silo. They focussed on predicting the breakage
ED

damage of IOP and did not pay attention to the abrasive wear of IOP. Morrissey [10] and Thakur et al.

[11] simulated IOPs through DEM by including moisture and fines factors and considered them on
PT

cohesion. Nabeel et al. [12] experimentally investigated the influence of IOP characteristics (weight,
CE

density, and hardness) on abrasive wear and dust formation.

Prediction of the abrasive wear of IOPs during handling and storage based on a numerical-analytical
AC

approach has not been previously reported. In the present research, a numerical-analytical method for the

prediction of abrasive wear of IOPs has been proposed. The analytical model of abrasive wear of Ning

and Ghadiri [4] has been used, for which variable parameters are generated via DEM simulation.

Application of the proposed method would lead to the following advantages:

 Identification and optimisation of the effective physical and mechanical properties of IOP during

the production process.


ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

 Determination of the damaging points within the equipment, such as chutes, diverters, and day

bins.

In order to validate experimental and analytical parts of this research, two types (normal and weak) of

IOPs with different mechanical strength have been tested.

2. Characteristics and parameters of IOP

T
IP
This section presents a brief description of determination methods for the physical and mechanical

CR
parameters of IOPs, for both analytical model and DEM simulation.

US
Here, 20 kg pellets were taken from production line of pelletizing plant of Mobarakeh Steel Company

(MSC) as the normal type IOP, and 20 kg of pellets were produced under inefficient conditions as the
AN
weak type IOP in laboratory of the pelletizing plant. In fact, the firing temperature was set to 1180-1220

ºC instead of 1300 ºC, to produce IOPs with a lower mechanical strength. The parameters and
M

characteristics of both types are presented in the following context. It is worth mentioning that a
ED

combination of three bed-levels have been chosen for testing each type of IOP.
PT

2.1. Chemical composition and porosity

Both types of IOPs tested in present research contain 95% Hematite (Fe2O3) and their chemical
CE

composition is presented in Table 1.


AC

The porosity of IOPs is measured in the laboratory of the pelletizing plant according to ASTM C20. The

porosity of tested IOPs have been 20 to 22% for both types of IOP.

2.2. Crushing strength and abrasion resistance

The extent of damage (abrasive and breakage) of IOPs during handling, storage, and the reduction process

is strongly affected by the firing process parameters. The crushing strength (according to ASTM E382)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

and abrasion resistance (according to ASTM E279) are two standard tests to qualify the mechanical

quality of IOPs. The results of the abrasion resistance test and crushing strength test for both types of

IOP, are presented in Table 2. For the abrasion resistance test, according to ASTM E279, a one diameter

tumbler containing 11.3 kg IOPs rotates for 8 minutes at rotational speed of 25 rev/min.

2.3. Size distribution

T
IP
Size distribution of IOPs is identified according to ASTM E11. Table 3 presents a typical size distribution

CR
chart of IOPs produced in MSC. The acceptable size range for IOPs is 9 to 16 mm; pellets out of this

range are prevented from entering the direct reduction process.

US
It can be observed from Table 3 that the major percentage of IOPs is within the range of 9 to 16 mm. The

unacceptable pellets account for only 10% of a total batch. Since the purpose of this study is to predict the
AN
abrasive wear of IOPs during handling and transport to the direct reduction plant, only the IOPs of fifth
M

and sixth ranges (9-12.5 and 12.5-16) are selected for simulation. The size range of 9 to 12.5 mm is

labelled as group 1 with a mean diameter of 10.75 mm and the range of 12.5 to 16 mm is labelled as
ED

group 2 with a mean diameter of 14.25 mm, in the following context.


PT

2.4. Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio


CE

Young’s modulus is the most important parameter in present study. However, conventional methods are

not applicable for measurement of this parameter for granular materials such as IOP. Here, Young’s
AC

modulus of IOP is specified based on the work of Gustafsson [8].

Gustafsson [8] calculated Young’s modulus of IOP, based on Eq. 1, presented by Bruno et al. [13]. This

equation calculates Young’s modulus in terms of material porosity (ε), morphology factor (m), and

Young’s modulus of the solid domain (Ed).

𝐸 = 𝐸𝑑 (1 − ε)𝑚 (1)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Gustafsson [14] suggested a morphology factor m=2 for overlapping spherical pores and m=4 for

overlapping spherical solids in order to achieve IOP’s Young’s modulus according to Eq. 1.

As mentioned above, tested IOPs consist of 95% hematite and their porosity is 20 to 22%. Considering

Ed=160 GPa for hematite [19] and p=0.22, Young’s modulus for these IOPs is within the range of 59 GPa

< E < 97 GPa. Therefore, Young’s modulus of both types of IOP is set as 78 GPa for DEM simulation

T
and analytical modelling.

IP
Bruno et al. [13] consider Poisson’s ratio to be independent of porosity and set it to υ=0.2, according to

CR
Poisson’s ratio of hematite.

US
The determined values of Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio are applied for both types of IOP. This

seems to be one of the main factors of error in DEM simulation and the analytical model, especially for
AN
weak IOPs.
M

2.5. Fracture toughness


ED

Due to the non-homogenous and porous structure of IOP, usual measurement techniques for fracture
PT

toughness are not applicable. For measuring the fracture toughness, a special method, proposed by

Warren [16] was used for IOP. In this method, a sphere with radius R penetrates the material and the
CE

exerted force increases gradually up to the material fracture; fracture toughness is calculated using:
AC

𝐸 ∗ 𝑃𝐹𝑚𝑖𝑛 1/2
𝐾𝐶 = ( 𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑅 ) (2)
𝑃𝐹𝑁

In which,

1 1−𝜈2 1−𝜈𝐼2
= + (3)
𝐸∗ 𝐸 𝐸𝐼
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

E* is obtained via Eq. 3 where 𝜈 , E, 𝜈𝐼 , and EI, are Poisson’s ratio and Young’s modulus of the material

and spherical indenter, respectively. PFmin is the minimum fracture force and can be measured through the

𝑚𝑖𝑛
steps described by Warren [16]. 𝑃𝐹𝑁 is the normalised minimum fracture force, which has been provided

𝑚𝑖𝑛
for different Poisson’s ratios by Warren [16]. The expected value of 𝑃𝐹𝑁 for IOP is 1883 N, according to

the Poisson’s ratio of 0.2 for IOP.

T
The advantage of Warren’s approach is its simplicity. However, this has led to uncertainty in the results.

IP
His method is especially imprecise for porous and non-homogenous materials. Therefore, Warren’s

CR
method is expected to give a rough estimation of IOP fracture toughness.

US
Before the test, the assumptions used in Warren’s method should be checked for applicability to IOP. In

Warren’s tests, an acoustic emission transducer was used to detect the moment at which the crack
AN
instigates from a small surface flaw. Meanwhile, measuring the minimum fracture force via trial and error
M

is suggested [16]. The penetration surface of the specimen should be polished to reduce the surface flaws

depth to the range of 5 to 10 µm. Another issue is the difference between the elastic properties of the
ED

testing material and spherical indenter material. Thus, the material of the penetrating sphere should be

selected correctly in order to minimise the elastic mismatch [16]. For this reason, the sphere's material
PT

was chosen as soda lime glass, which has a Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio very close to that of
CE

IOP. Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio of soda lime glass are reported to be 72 GPa and 0.2,

respectively [17].
AC

The soda lime sphere with a diameter of 9 mm was placed in a Brinell indenter holder, mounted on an

IOP crushing strength test machine using a specific component (Fig. 1). The glass sphere was replaced for

each fracture test.


ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

A total of 25 pellets were polished and tested under Hertzian loading with the soda lime glass sphere;

similar tests were done for weak type IOPs. Minimum fracture force and standard deviation of results, as

well as calculated Kc, are presented in Table 4 for both types of IOP.

For validation, the procedure was repeated for two groups of normal IOPs from different production

batches. Although comparison of results shows an acceptable agreement, application of Warren’s method

T
for IOPs involves uncertainty during complexity and porous structure of the material. This uncertainty is

IP
expected to be one of the main factors of error in the analytical model used in the present study.

CR
2.6. Hardness

US
Huang et al. have found micro hardness of oxide pellet (IOP) to be constant in the whole regions

(periphery, core, and mantle) [18]. They specified the periphery region to be a 2 mm thickness from the
AN
pellet surface. However, Nabeel et al. have concluded that hardness of IOP differs from the outer layer to
M

the inside [12].


ED

Here, a digital micro hardness tester (HVS-1000) was utilized to measure the micro hardness of 25 IOPs

in the peripheral region, where it is expected to be exposed to abrasive wear. Table 5 presents results as
PT

the mean value of 25 tests and standard deviation of results for both types of IOP.
CE

2.7. Contact parameters of IOP


AC

Since, from the chemical and physical points of view, IOPs produced by different producers are very

similar to each other, in the present study, the coefficients of rolling friction and restitution are selected

based on results by Barrios et al. [19]. However, for coefficient of sliding friction of IOP an innovative

method is developed and utilized in this study, as described below. Contact parameters are assumed to be

the same for both types of IOP.

 Coefficient of sliding friction


ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

To estimate the coefficient of sliding friction, in particle-particle contact or particle-wall contact, Barrios

et al. [19] proposed the pin-on-disk tribometer method. This method cannot yield an acceptable accuracy

for particle-particle contact for two reasons. First, the thin layer of iron ore resin, which covers the

rotating plate, does not represent the actual IOP properties because the production and hardening process

of IOP is quite complicated. Second, in the pin-on-disk tribometer test, the sliding contact is long and

T
continuous, while in real conditions, pellet contact occurs over a very short distance. In the present study,

IP
a special experimental setup was designed to estimate the coefficient of sliding friction (Fig. 2).

CR
A cylindrical part was fixed to the spindle and a linear tool was installed on the cross slide of a high

precision lathe machine. Each component holds a pellet and due to spindle rotation and adjusting cross

US
feed, the tangential contact of pellets is properly simulated. A Kistler 3-axis dynamometer was assembled

on the cross slide. The tangential component of collision velocity was adjusted via spindle rotational
AN
speed and the normal contact force was adjusted by the cross feed. Thus, the collision velocity and normal
M

contact force were in the range obtained from the initial simulation results.
ED

The test was performed for different tangential velocities and normal forces, and the average coefficient

of sliding friction was obtained according to: Ft = µ.Fn, where Ft and Fn are tangential and normal
PT

components of contacting force and µ is coefficient of sliding friction. In addition, the test was performed

for contact between the pellet and steel. The results are presented in Table 6.
CE

 Coefficient of rolling friction


AC

Considering the fact that each IOP has a unique shape, simulation of IOP with a real shape is practically

impossible. Barrios et al. [19] discussed the adjustment of the coefficient of rolling friction in order to

reduce the effects of shape. They predicted the coefficient of rolling friction for both spherical and

overlapping models. They used EDEM software and simulated the pellets as overlapping spheres. In the

present work, due to limitations of post-processing the LIGGGHTS results in overlapping mode,
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

simulations were performed in spherical mode. Therefore, the coefficient of rolling friction is set for the

sphere model based on the results presented by Barrios et al. [19], as given in Table 6.

 Coefficient of restitution

Barrios et al. [19] also measured the coefficient of restitution through high-speed recording of drop tests

of IOP. Here, the coefficient of restitution is assigned based on their results.

T
IP
3. Analytical

CR
3.1. Theoretical model of Ghadiri and Zhang

US
Ghadiri and Zhang [5] studied the chipping mechanism of semi-brittle materials by focusing on

microscopic and macroscopic damages in contacts. They classified wear damage of particles into two
AN
types: I) damage during sliding and rolling contact of particles on each other (abrasion), and II) wear
M

damage caused by impacts (erosion). They identified the aforementioned damages via subsurface lateral

cracks based on microscopic observations. The model of Ghadiri and Zhang, which is based on the
ED

analytical approach of indentation fracture mechanics, is presented in Eq. 4.


PT

𝑐 𝐻√𝑎
= (4)
𝑎 17.1𝐾𝑐
CE

Where H, Kc, c, and a are hardness, fracture toughness of material, crack length, and radius of impression,
AC

respectively. Using the model of Ghadiri and Zhang [5] for subsurface lateral crack extension, Ning and

Ghadiri [4] estimated the volume of abrasive wear of sliding spherical particles by:

5/4 3/4
0.07𝐹 𝜋1/4 𝐻 1/4 𝐹𝑛
𝑉𝑚 = 𝐾 𝜋5/4𝑛𝐻1/4 [2𝐿 + 17.1𝐾𝑐
] (5)
𝑐

Where H and Kc are hardness and fracture toughness of the colliding granules, respectively. F n and L are

normal contact force and sliding distance of the collision which are calculated using DEM simulation.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Therefore, the volume of abraded fines during a process would be estimated using the conjunction of

DEM and the analytical model of Ning and Ghadiri.

3.2. Analytical model for abrasive wear of IOP

A general form of Ning and Ghadiri model (Eq. 5) could be written as follows:

T
5/4 3/4
𝑚𝑤 = 𝐴 𝐹𝑛 (2𝐿 + 𝐵𝐹𝑛 ) (6)

IP
CR
Fn is the normal contact force in Newtons, L is sliding distance in metres, and mw is the wear mass of

collided IOP in milligrams. A and B are material constants, which are calculated as follows:

US
Where ρ indicates density of the IOP,
AN
7×104 𝜌
𝐴=𝐾 5/4 𝐻 1/4 (7)
𝑐𝜋
M

And,
ED

𝜋1/4 𝐻 1/4
𝐵= 17.1𝐾𝑐
(8)
PT

According to Eqs. 6, 7, and 8, the amount of wear in each collision is independent of pellet’s diameter and
CE

its radius in the contact point. Therefore, the calculated wear mass is independent of the shape and size of

the pellets.
AC

The values of A and B for normal and weak type IOPs, are shown in Table 7.

Clearly, wear mass of a collision strongly depends on the normal contact force and wear mass in

collisions with a normal force less than 50 N is insignificant.

4. Numerical

4.1. DEM
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

In DEM the procedure starts with contact detection and the calculation of contact forces and

subsequently, the acceleration, speed, and new position of each particle. Hertz-Mindlin’s contact law is

used in this study. The impact force is calculated based on the normal and tangential overlap of two

spheres [20]. These calculations are performed for the entire simulation environment at each time step.

Contact force is calculated using:

T
IP
𝐹 = (𝐾𝑛 𝛿𝑛𝑖𝑗 − 𝛾𝑛 𝑣𝑛𝑖𝑗 ) + (𝐾𝑡 𝛿𝑡𝑖𝑗 − 𝛾𝑡 𝑣𝑡𝑖𝑗 ) (9)

CR
where, 𝐾𝑛 is elastic constant for normal contact, 𝛿𝑛𝑖𝑗 is normal overlap, 𝛾𝑛 is viscoelastic damping

constant for normal contact, 𝑣𝑛𝑖𝑗 is normal relative velocity, 𝐾𝑡 is elastic constant for tangential contact,

US
𝛿𝑡𝑖𝑗 is tangential overlap, 𝛾𝑡 is viscoelastic damping constant for tangential contact, and 𝑣𝑡𝑖𝑗 is tangential
AN
relative velocity. These coefficients are calculated using Eq. 10 to 13.

4
M

𝐾𝑛 = 3 𝐸 ∗ √𝑅 ∗ 𝛿𝑛 (10)
ED

5
𝛾𝑛 = −2√ 𝛽√𝑆𝑛 𝑚∗ ≥ 0 (11)
6
PT

𝐾𝑡 = 8𝐺 ∗ √𝑅∗ 𝛿𝑛 (12)
CE

5
𝛾𝑡 = −2√6 𝛽√𝑆𝑡 𝑚∗ ≥ 0. (13)
AC

The coefficients Sn, St, β, E*, G*, R*, and m* are calculated using Eq. 14 to 20.

𝑆𝑛 = 2𝐸 ∗ √𝑅 ∗ 𝛿𝑛 (14)

𝑆𝑡 = 8𝐺 ∗ √𝑅∗ 𝛿𝑛 (15)

ln(𝑒)
𝛽= (16)
√𝑙𝑛2 (𝑒)+𝜋2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 (1−𝜐12 ) (1−𝜐22 )
= + (17)
𝐸∗ 𝐸1 𝐸2

1 2(2+𝜈1 )(1−𝜈1 ) 2(2+𝜈2 )(1−𝜈2 )


= + (18)
𝐺∗ 𝐸1 𝐸2

1 1 1
=𝑅 +𝑅 (19)
𝑅∗ 1 2

T
1 1 1

IP
=𝑚 +𝑚 (20)
𝑚∗ 1 2

CR
Where E, G, υ, e, m, and R are Young’s modulus, shear modulus, Poisson's ratio, coefficient of

restitution, mass, and radius of a particle, respectively. The subscripts 1 and 2 stand for the two particles

US
in contact.
AN
Open-source LIGGGHTS code has been used for DEM simulation in this work. “LIGGGHTS stands for

LAMMPS Improved for General Granular and Granular Heat Transfer Simulations” and is based on
M

LAMMPS (Large Atomic and Molecular Massively Parallel Simulator), an open source molecular
ED

dynamics code created by "Sandia National Laboratories" for “massively parallel computing on

distributed memory machines” [21]. Both LIGGGHTS and LAMMPS are distributed as open source
PT

codes under the terms of the GNU General Public License [22].
CE

A major step in DEM simulation of granular material is to set the simulation parameters properly. This

step is complicated, especially when the material is not uniform and homogenous, both in terms of shape
AC

and mechanical properties. The physical and mechanical properties of the granular material define the key

parameters of simulation, including: number and diameter of particles, coefficient of restitution, Young’s

modulus, Poisson's ratio, and coefficients of static and rolling friction. Required parameters have been

determined as described above (section 2).

4.2. Simulation and visualization


ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The initial simulation was performed according to standard abrasion resistance test for IOP (ASTM

E279). An STL file of the tumbler was created and its rotational speed was set in LIGGGHTS code

according to the standard. The number and size of particles were set to the average diameter and volume

weight of the two major IOP groups, according to Table 3. The density of particles was set to IOP density

of 3948 kg/m3 [19] and other simulation parameters were assigned as described above.

T
To insure accurate results, a minimum time step was calculated based on the Rayleigh method (Eq. 21)

IP
and simulation outputs were stored for each time step which led to a massive amount of data production.

CR
𝜋𝑟√𝜌/𝐺
𝑇𝑆𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.1631𝜐+.8766 (21)

US
Where, r, ρ, G, and υ are radius, density, shear modulus, and Poisson's ratio of particle, respectively.
AN
The visualization of simulation was performed in open-source Paraview software. The output data of
M

LIGGGHTS were prepared for Paraview, using Pizza compiler. Fig. 3 displays Nine screenshots of

simulation visualization (particles are magnified).


ED

4.3. Post-processing
PT

As kinetic energy can be a good general indicator of a system’s condition, variations of this parameter for
CE

2.5 cycles of tumbler rotation is shown in Fig. 4.


AC

Obviously, the system reaches a steady state in a short time and kinetic energy fluctuates with a particular

pattern. Therefore, data related to a period of 300,000 time steps (1.2 s) seems to be sufficient for

analysis. The simulation process has been repeated 3 times and post-processing has been done for 3

periods of every simulation. Comparison of results shows a very good repeatability, thus 300,000 TS (0.5

cycle of rotation) is sufficient for extension to the whole simulation.


ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The data of pellet-pellet contacts and pellet-wall contacts were obtained via post-processing of

LIGGGHTS outputs using a special code in C#. These data include: tangential and normal components of

force, and sliding distance of each contact in every time step. As shown in Fig. 5 each collision takes

place during several time steps and normal force changes along the contact time, thus, post-processing

code should detect and collect data of collisions through the whole period.

T
Normal force of a collision is calculated by averaging normal force data of the collision time steps and

IP
sliding distance of a collision is calculated by summing sliding distance data of the collision time steps.

CR
5. Results and discussion

US
5.1. Numerical-analytical results AN
Firstly, outputs of 300,000 TS of simulation was stored and post-processed for collisions with normal

force more than 7 N. Applying the analytical model to the simulation results gave a prediction of abrasive
M

wear for each collision. Total mass loss (produced fine particles) is calculated as the sum of wear mass of
ED

collisions.
PT

Table 8 presents a summary of results obtained from 300,000 TS (1.2 second) of simulation for pellet-

pellet and pellet-wall collisions for the normal type IOP. The wear mass of pellet-pellet collisions is
CE

multiplied by two since both pellets are worn during such collisions.
AC

The total wear mass for 8 minutes of the tumbler test (200 cycles) is estimated to be 301.35 g for the

normal type IOP, which is calculated by extrapolation of results presented in Table 8. Similar calculations

have been done for weak type IOPs; the proposed numerical-analytical approach estimated the wear mass

of this type IOP to be 1016 g during the tumbler test.

Primary analysis of the results shows that approximately 10% of collisions have taken place with a

normal force of more than 50 N which leads to nearly 90% of total wear. Therefore, the major fraction of
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

simulation results have not contributed to wear. Table 9 presents a summary of results for collisions with

a normal force of more than 50N (for normal type IOPs).

According to the results presented in Table 9, the total fine particles produced by collisions with a normal

force of more than 50 N in 8 minutes of the tumbler test is estimated to be 269.1 g based on the

numerical-analytical approach. This value is 10.7% less than fine particles produced by collisions with a

T
normal force of more than 7 N. Similar comparison for collisions with a normal force of less than 7 N,

IP
have shown that, despite huge number of collisions, the amount of wear mass is negligible compared to

CR
the total wear mass.

US
It can be concluded that post-processing can be done for collisions with a normal force of more than 50 N,

which leads to a significant post-processing simplification. Such a simplification would be greatly helpful
AN
in industrial scale applications of the proposed numerical-analytical method.
M

5.2. Experimental validation


ED

In order to validate the numerical-analytical approach, a comparison was done between numerical-

analytical estimation and experimental results for the abrasion resistance test (ASTM E279).
PT

The experimental results (according to Table 2), numerical-analytical estimation, as well as error of
CE

estimation for both types of IOP are presented in Table 10.


AC

5.3. Discussion

Experimental validation has verified the precision of the proposed numerical-analytical method. Thus, at

this step the causes of discrepancy between the numerical-analytical estimation and experimental results

have to be surveyed. The main sources of error are specified as follows:

1. The intrinsic error of the analytical model (Ning and Ghadiri have mentioned to the point that their

model provides an overestimation of the wear [4]).


ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2. Uncertainty in measurements of IOP parameters (E, υ, Kc, H, and contact parameters).

3. Ignoring some data (related to the collisions with Fn < 7 N) in post-processing section.

4. Some fines have been produced as the result of fragmentation of some IOPs during the tumbler test.

5. Some fines have been lost during the gathering and weighing in the tumbler test (negligible).

T
IP
According to Table 2 only 0.6% of fragmented particles are generated during the tumbler test, therefore

the extent of fragmentation damage of normal type IOPs have not been considerable. Therefore, fine

CR
particles produced during fragmentation of IOPs (item 4) is negligible.

US
In fact, the first three items have considerable effects on the error of the numerical-analytical estimation.

Unlike the first two items, the magnitude of error caused by the third item is approximately specified
AN
(nearly -10 percent).
M

Focusing on the results for normal type IOPs, the first item seems to be the main factor, which leads to a
ED

+21.7% disagreement. The percentage of error has changed to -34.4% for weak type IOPs, which seems

to be due to uncertainty in IOP parameters as the main reason, and the fine particles produced due to
PT

fragmentation of weak type IOPs during the tumbler test, as the secondary reason.
CE

Among IOP parameters, Young’s modulus and fracture toughness have been the most important factors

influencing the precision of the numerical-analytical method. Especially Young’s modulus, which has
AC

been effective on both the analytical model and with DEM simulation, is specified to be the most

important factor influencing the precision of the numerical-analytical estimation.

6. Conclusions

Numerical simulation and experimental work were carried out to analyse the wear of iron ore pellets.

Required parameters for DEM simulation and the analytical model were obtained in section 2. In the
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

numerical section, the open source LIGGGHTS code was used to calculate the normal force and sliding

distance of collisions, which are variables in the analytical model of IOP wear. The theoretical model of

Ghadiri and Ning [4] for abrasive wear of granular materials was incorporated to predict IOP wear. The

main findings of this research can be summarised as:

 In the experimental work (based on ASTM E279) using 11.3 kg of IOPs, corresponding to 1660

T
pellets, tumbled in a 1 m diameter drum, for 8 minutes produced 247.5 g of fine debris. The

IP
numerical simulation of the same process, but for a much shorter time of 300,000 time steps,

CR
corresponding to 1.2 s of operation, which predicted 753.4 mg of debris. Once this value is

extrapolated for the whole experimental operation time of 8 minutes, the total debris is estimated

US
as 301.3 g.


AN
A similar piece of work was carried out on weaker IOPs, for which the amount of debris for 8

minutes of operation was 1548.1 g (as measured) and 1016 g (as predicted by simulation).
M

Therefore, the difference between the model predictions and experimental measurements of

abrasive wear of two types of IOP produced in the laboratory were +14.7% and -22.1%.
ED

 Intrinsic errors in the theoretical model of Ghadiri and Zhang, as well as numerical data loss due
PT

to post-processing simplifications, are designated to be main factors of estimation error for

normal type IOPs. Therefore, consideration of a correction factor can improve estimation
CE

accuracy of the numerical-analytical approach for this type of IOP. As for the inefficient IOPs,

determination of Young's modulus and fracture toughness of IOPs are highly critical in the
AC

presented numerical-analytical approach.

 As of yet, the fracture toughness and hardness have not been recognised as significant properties

of IOP responsible for wear and abrasion in the literature. However, according to this study, these

properties are highly influential and should be considered in any analysis of wear. Further

improvement in their measurement is likely to reduce the above difference between

measurements and numerical predictions.


ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Acknowledgments

The experimental and simulation parts of this research were done with equipment through the support of

MSC. Authors are grateful to the “Chief Operating Officer” and departments of “R&D”, “Hardware &

Data Center”, “Laboratory of Pelletizing Plant”, and the “Product Laboratory” of the Mobarakeh Steel

Company for technical assistance. The authors are also grateful to Azad University of Najafabad, for

T
providing a dynamometer for the testing of sliding friction for this research.

IP
CR
References

[1] P. W. Cleary, R. D. Morrison, Understanding fine ore breakage in a laboratory scale ball mill using

US
DEM, Minerals Engineering 24.3 (2011) 352-366.

[2] M. S. Powell, A. T. McBride, What is required from DEM simulations to model breakage in mills?,
AN
Minerals engineering 19.10 (2006) 1013-1021.

[3] H. Ahmadian, A. Hassanpour, M. Ghadiri, Analysis of granule breakage in a rotary mixing drum:
M

experimental study and distinct element analysis, Powder technology 210.2 (2011) 175-180.
ED

[4] Z. Ning, M. Ghadiri, Distinct element analysis of attrition of granular solids under shear deformation,

Chemical Engineering Science 61.18 (2006) 5991-6001.


PT

[5] M. Ghadiri, Z. Zhang, Impact attrition of particulate solids. Part 1: a theoretical model of chipping,

Chemical Engineering Science 57.17 (2002) 3659-3669.


CE

[6] Z. Zhang, M. Ghadiri, Impact attrition of particulate solids. Part 2: experimental work, Chemical
AC

Engineering Science 57.17 (2002) 3671-3686.

[7] P. A. Cundall, O. D. L. Strack, A discrete numerical model for granular assemblies, Geotechnique

29.1 (1979) 47-65.

[8] G. Gustafsson, H. –Å. Häggblad, P. Jonsén, P. Marklund, Determination of bulk properties and

fracture data for iron ore pellets using instrumented confined compression experiments, Powder

technology 241 (2013) 19-27.


ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[9] G. Gustafsson, H. –Å. Häggblad, and P. Jonsén, Multi-particle finite element modelling of the

compression of iron ore pellets with statistically distributed geometric and material data, Powder

technology 239 (2013) 231-238.

[10] J. P. Morrissey, Discrete element modelling of iron ore pellets to include the effects of moisture and

fines, Diss., University of Edinburgh, (2013).

T
[11] S. C. Thakur, J. P. Morrissey, J. Sun, J. F. Chen, J. Y. Ooi, Micromechanical analysis of cohesive

IP
granular materials using the discrete element method with an adhesive elasto-plastic contact model,

CR
Granular Matter 16.3 (2014) 383-400.

[12] Nabeel, Muhammad, Andrey Karasev, and Pär Göran Jönsson, Evaluation of Dust Generation during

US
Mechanical Wear of Iron Ore Pellets, ISIJ International 56.6 (2016): 960-966.

[13] G. Bruno, A. M. Efremov, A. N. Levandovskyi, B. Clausen, Connecting the macro-and microstrain


AN
responses in technical porous ceramics: modeling and experimental validations, Journal of Materials

Science 46.1 (2011) 161-173.


M

[14] G. Gustafsson, H. –Å. Häggblad, and P. Jonsén, Characterization modelling and validation of a two-
ED

point loaded iron ore pellet. Powder technology 235 (2013) 126-135.

[15] B. Sundström, Handbok och formelsamling i hållfasthetslära. Institutionen för hållfasthetslära,


PT

Tekniska högsk, (1999).


CE

[16] P. D. Warren, Determining the fracture toughness of brittle materials by Hertzian indentation,

Journal of the European Ceramic Society 15.3 (1995) 201-207.


AC

[17] W. Martienssen, H. Warlimont, Springer handbook of condensed matter and materials data, Springer

Science & Business Media, (2006).

[18] Huang, Zhucheng, Lingyun Yi, and Tao Jiang. "Mechanisms of strength decrease in the initial

reduction of iron ore oxide pellets." Powder technology 221 (2012): 284-291.

[19] G. K. P. Barrios, R. M. de Carvalho, A. Kwade, L. M. Tavares, Contact parameter estimation for

DEM simulation of iron ore pellet handling, Powder technology 248 (2013) 84-93.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[20] S. Just, G. Toschkoff, A. Funke, D. Djuric, G. Scharrer, J. Khinast, K. Knop, P. Kleinebudde,

Experimental analysis of tablet properties for discrete element modeling of an active coating process,

AAPS PharmSciTech. 14 (2013) 402–411.

[21] LAMMPS, LAMMPS User Manual, Sandia National Laboratories, USA, 2014. (Retrieved from

http://lammps.sandia.gov/doc/Manual.html).

T
[22] GPL, GNU General Public License, 2014 (Retrieved from http://www.gnu.org/licences/gpl.html).

IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 1. The fracture test of IOP under conditions described by Warren.

Fig. 2. Test setup for coefficient of sliding friction of IOP.

T
Fig. 3. 3D diagrams of analytical model of wear mass as a function of normal force and sliding distance.

IP
CR
Fig. 4. Fifteen screenshots of simulation of the tumbler test.

US
AN
Fig. 5. Periodic changes of total kinetic energy of the system during 2.5 cycles of tumbler rotation.
M
ED

Fig. 6. Normal force in time steps of a pellet-wall collision (TS=4e-6, Collision velocity=5m/s).
PT
CE
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1: Chemical composition of studied IOPs (normal and weak types)

Table 2: Results of crushing strength and abrasion resistance tests for normal type and weak type IOPs

Table 3: A typical size distribution chart and percentage of each range

Table 4: Fracture toughness results

T
IP
Table 5: Micro hardness results

CR
Table 6: Summary of contact parameters of IOP

US
Table 7: The material constants of analytical model for both types of IOP

Table 8: A summary of numerical-analytical method for normal type IOPs, for 300000 TS (FN ≥ 7N)
AN
Table 9: A summary of results for normal type IOP for 300000 TS (FN ≥ 50 N).
M

Table 10: Experimental results, numerical-analytical estimation and disagreement percent


ED
PT
CE
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1

Chemical composition of studied IOPs (normal and weak types)

Composition TFe FeO SiO2 Al2O3 P TiO2 Mn CaO MgO V2O5 S

Mass% 65.81 0.52 2.88 0.51 0.07 0.32 0.02 0.61 0.55 0.3 0.002

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 2

Results of crushing strength and abrasion resistance tests for normal type and weak type IOPs

Crushing strength Abrasion resistance (%)


IOP type (kgf/pellet)
>6.3 0.6-6.3 <0.6
(Fragmented) (Fines)
Normal IOP 304.76 97.2 0.6 2.19
Weak IOP 183.47 85.0 1.3 13.70

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 3

A typical size distribution chart and percentage of each range

Standard range (mm) Wt %

<0.6 2.3

0.6-6.3 1.4

T
6.3-8 1.1

IP
8-9 2.6

9-12.5 30.9

CR
12.5-16 59.5

16-18 2.2

US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 4

Fracture toughness results

Tests results
IOP type 𝑃𝐹𝑚𝑖𝑛 (N) 𝑃𝐹𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 (N) SD Kc (M.Pa.m1/2)
Normal IOP 1205 1967 388 2.36
Weak IOP 314 506 156 1.20

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 5

Micro hardness results

Tests results
IOP type Hmean (MPa) SD
Normal IOP 5112 878
Weak IOP 2554 301

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 6

Summary of contact parameters of IOP

Contact type
Parameter
Pellet-pellet Pellet-steel
Coefficient of sliding friction 0.43 0.47

T
a
Coefficient of rolling friction 0.21 0.25a

IP
Coefficient of restitution 0.48a 0.39a
a
Barrios et al. [19]

CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 7

The material constants of analytical model for both types of IOP

IOP type A B
Normal 0.105 8.81x10-6
Weak 0.225 1.46x10-5

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 8

A summary of numerical-analytical method for normal type IOPs, for 300000 TS (FN ≥ 7N)

Normal force Sliding distance Wear mass per Number of Total wear mass
(N) (µm) collision (mg) collision (mg)

Min Max Min Max Min Max


-3 -5
Pellet-pellet 7 1123 1.8x10 430 4.5x10 1.18 99818 222.82 x 2 = 445.64

T
-3 -5
Pellet-wall 7 1363 9e 226 4.5x10 1.75 35076 307.74

IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 9

A summary of results for normal type IOP for 300000 TS (FN ≥ 50 N).

Number of collision Total wear mass (mg)

Pellet- 8507 187.5 ˟ 2 = 375


pellet (8.5% of total)

Pellet- 3757 297.7

T
wall (10.7% of total)

IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 10

Experimental results, numerical-analytical estimation and disagreement percent.

IOP type Experimental results (g) Numerical-analytical estimation (g) Disagreement %


Normal IOP 247.5 301.3 +21.7
Weak IOP 1548.1 1016 -34.4

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights

 Obtaining fracture toughness and hardness of iron ore pellet(IOP).

 Using open-source LIGGGHTS code for DEM simulation of IOP.

 Innovative technique to measure coefficient of static friction of IOP.

 Analytical model for abrasive wear of IOP based on model of Ghadiri and Zhang.

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
Graphics Abstract
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6

You might also like