Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Combined front end DEM analysis and empirical design process to minimise transfer chute blockages
Byline. By Yong-Jin Kim,* BMT WBM advanced analysis team
BMT WBM conducted comprehensive design parameteric studies by DEM analysis in conjunction with the conventional chute design review process. It was proved that the selective DEM analysis enables designers to quantify the effect of design parameters. It also provided the critical operational envelop of the transfer chute if the bulk material handling properties and contact surface characteristics vary significantly.
ithin the mining industry transfer chute blockages account for hundreds of millions of dollars in lost review every year. Such problems are often a consequence of poor and/or inadequate chute designs and significant variation of the raw material properties. In the past the design and operation of transfer chutes for bulk solids has been treated very empirically. In recent years significant advances have been made in the development of numerical programs, such as the Discrete Element Modelling (DEM) for granular particle flows and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) for continuum flows, which handle bulk solid flows accurately and representatively. By utilizing methodologies which combine skilled advanced analysis technology such as DEM, with practical empirical design rules and on site operational experience, BMT WBM engineers support design engineers and provide an additional level of scientific expertise to increase efficiency and optimize the performance of their transfer chutes design. BMT WBM had been commissioned by FL Smidth to provide the third part design review on the transfer chute in the stacker and provide recommendations to improve the design. This new stacker was designed for Worsley Alumina for the Calibre project. The proposed stacker is intended to handle cohesive bauxite at high flow rates. As the performance of the transfer chute is critical to the productivity of the stacker, FL Smidth would like to validate the stacker chute design to investigate potential material flow problems and incorporate the necessary design changes if any problems identified. DEM modelling parameters are correlated to the flow properties test results provide by FL Smidth. DEM analysis has been used aiming to achieve two objectives. The first objective of DEM modelling was to predict and visualize the unfavourable flow characteristics such as blockage, potential spill, build up on the boot chute and spread out of material stream for the worst operational condition. The second objective of DEM modelling was to provide quantitative and comparative information to the designers when they are considering a number of design parameters as well as variations of material properties.
62
DEM MODELLING
normal stress applied at the bottom of bauxite flow on the tripper conveyor belt to be the maximum normal stress during the normal stacker operation. The predicted maximum normal stress is approximately 1.5kPa. TUNRA has provided the Instantaneous Yield Loci for low consolidation shear test. The DEM parameters were correlated at 1.5kPa normal stress to produce the same shear stress 3.3kPa resulted in TUNRA test. The cohesion between bauxite and lining materials is considered in the modeling by using the instantaneous Wall Yield Loci test result. The slopes of the Wall Yield Loci at lower normal stresses are not much different from one lining material to the other. The DEM parameters were correlated at 1.5kPa of normal stress for the same reason mentioned above. The static friction coefficient is 0.53 at 1.5kPa of normal stress. The shear test cell configurations and DEM model are compared in the following Figure 2.
Item Luff angle Slew angle Tripper conveyor belt speed Boom conveyor belt speed
Rated Bauxite flow rate
Table 1 DEM model condition.
DEM Modelling Condition +14 (Worst scenario) +90 (Worst scenario) 5.1 ms 3.1 ms
3,400 toneshr
conditions and general arrangement (GA) drawings. The stacker operating conditions used in the DEM modelling are summarized in Table 1.
IMPACT WEIGHERS
DESIGNED & MANUFACTURED TO REALLY SUIT YOUR NEEDS!
FLOWFORCE impact weighers come in a wide variety of styles to suit your application. Precision instrument engineering combined with rugged heavy duty housing provides industrial long lasting quality and reliability.
A U S T R A L I A ' S P R E M I E R I M PA C T W E I G H E R M A N U FA C T U R E R
MADE IN AUSTRALIA
Australian designed and manufactured. 3 Feed rates from 0.002 - 100 m /hr. Accuracy 0.5%. Industrial and Food Grade Finishes. Suitable for Powders, Grandules, Chips and Flakes. Stand alone or systems available. Gravimetric and Volumetric feeder systems
www.acromet.com.au
HEAD OFFICE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA 23A Tenth Street, Bowden SA 5007 Ph: (08) 8346 4006 Fax: (08) 8346 4538 Email: sales@flowforce.com.au Web: www.flowforce.com.au
63
Figure 3 DEM model boundary (left) and bauxite ow velocity magnitude (right).
flow properties. The correlated DEM parameters for bauxite internal friction and friction of lining materials are applied for the chute DEM modelling. The friction coefficient for the conveyor belt is not available from FL Smidth. BMT WBM has assumed 0.5 of belt friction coefficient for the chute DEM model to investigate bauxite flow behaviour for the general conveyor belt design. The constructed 3D DEM model boundary and the material flow velocity are shown in Figure 3. The colours represent the particle speed. The unfavourable flow characteristics including material build-up, blockages, spillage, material stream spread-out and stagnation flow region were investigated. The material stream is spread laterally after material flow impinged on the impact plate. The low flow velocity is shown on the bauxite at the boom conveyor belt underneath the boom conveyor belt. However there is no apparent buildup and blockage resulted in the chute for the nominated flow condition.
Figure 5 Material ow velocity magnitude for dierent rear plate angle (Top-left: belt friction coecient 0.2, Top-right: belt friction coecient 0.2 with angled rear plate, Bottom-left: belt friction coecient 0.3, Bottom-right: belt friction coecient 0.3 with angled rear plate).
conveyor chutes. It is clearly identified that the material build-up at the bottom of the transfer chute will block the chute if the belt friction coefficient is lower than 0.2. In cases of friction coefficient 0.3 and 0.4 no blockage resulted in the chute but the large material flow region right underneath the discharge chute shows backwarding flow velocity. The result indicated that there is a high risk of build-up and blockage if the friction of the conveyor belt is decreased.(e.g. rainy days).
Figure 4 Material ow velocity magnitude for dierent belt friction (Belt friction coecient from 0.1 to 0.5 from top left to top right then bottom left to bottom right).
Figure 6 Material ow velocity magnitude for skirt friction (Left: belt friction coecient 0.3 and low friction lining material (0.5), Right: belt friction coecient 0.3 and high friction lining material (0.7)).
64
DEM MODELLING
has performed with two friction coefficients found in the TUNRA report. The first friction coefficient modelled is 0.5 and represents the friction coefficient of the HPDE. The second friction coefficient modelled is 0.7 and represents the ceramic tile. The modeling was performed at luff angle +14 and conveyor belt friction 0.3. The 45 of bottom half of rear chute face angle is applied in the modelling to investigate the flow behaviour for the favourable rear chute face angle. The flow result is shown in Figure 6. The bauxite flow travels the chute without a buildup and blockage when low friction lining material (e.g. HPDE) is applied for the model. The flow blocks the chute when high friction lining material (e.g. ceramic tile) is applied for the model. It is clear that the selection of lower friction lining material is very important to minimize the risk of the blockage in the chute.
*Mr Yong Kim is an associate and the advanced analysis manager of BMT WBM in Melbourne. He has over 15 years experience in providing turnkey engineering solutions using high-end computer-aided engineering (CAE) tools such as CFD, FEA and DEM
Figure 7 Material ow result for dierent material cohesiveness (Left: belt friction coecient 0.3 and 50% less cohesive material, Right: belt friction coecient 0.3 and 50% more cohesive material).
65