Materials handling in the mining

industry: Challenges and solutions

TUNRA Bulk Solids

Dr Tobias Krull
General Manager
TUNRA Bulk Solids
The University of Newcastle
Australia
 Contents

About TUNRA

Importance of Bulk Materials Handling

Characterisation

Bins, Hoppers & Stockpiles

Wear Computational Modelling

Transportable Moisture Limits

 About TUNRA Bulk Solids
A University of Newcastle fully owned not-for-profit entity
• Largest independent bulk materials handling research and
consultancy organisation in Australia
• Facilitator of industry research and consultancy since 1975
• Areas of specialist expertise include
• Bulk Materials Characterization
• Materials Handling Troubleshooting
• Physical and Computational Modeling
• Belt Conveying
• Hydraulic & Pneumatic Conveying

• > 250 projects per year are completed across all mining
commodities but mostly iron ore
 Bulk Materials Handling
Characterisation

Improve
Equipment
Reliability

Improve
Occupational Maximise
Safety and Plant Uptime
Health
Why is the
characterisation
of bulk materials
for their handling
properties so
important?
Minimise
Improve Unplanned
Efficiency Shutdown
Times

Standard
Practise in
Australia and
South Africa
 Bulk Strength

What is bulk strength?

The resistance or force required to shear a bulk
material.

How does this affect operations?

The higher the bulk strength the higher the
propensity for:
• Blocked chutes
• Bulk material hang-up
• Ratholes in stockpiles and bins
• Blockages in hoppers
• General feeding and transfer difficulties

What changes bulk strength?

• Moisture content
• Fines proportion
• Clay (alumina) content
 Wall Friction & Adhesion

What is adhesion?
It describes how well /easy the bulk material
sticks to a wall or wear liner surface

How does this affect operations?

With the presence of adhesion, there is:
• High risk for material hang-ups in chutes and
transfers
• Risk of blockages
• Increase in conveyor carry-back
The level of adhesion is a function of the wear
liner!

What changes wall friction & adhesion?

• Moisture content
• Fines proportion
• Clay (alumina) content
Wall friction can often be improved by
removing fines and/or reducing moisture
content
 Importance of Bulk Strength
Characterisation
30
Low Rank Coal 22%TM
Low Rank Coal 26%TM
Extremely
Low Rank Coal 30%TM
Low Rank Coal 31%TM Difficult
25

20
Bulk Strength

INCREASE
15

10

5
Easy/Free
Flowing
0
0 10 20 30 40
Consolidation Pressure [kPa]
 Understanding Material Flow Patterns

50
AXI-SYMMETRIC
 deg OR CONICAL HOPPERS
70
40 60
(deg)

50
40
30 FUNNEL-FLOW

WALL FRICTION ANGLE

30

 deg
30
20 40
50
MASS-FLOW 60
70
10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
HOPPER HALF-ANGLE  (deg)
Dynamic Loads in Hoppers and Bins

Tic

Fic
TD T vi

Fvi FD

o Fiy
= 50 Vo

Fix Vex

Vey

Pivot Point for Swing Chute

FH
Pivot Point for Clamshell
FV
Top of Wagon Trim Level
Silo Failures
Iron Ore Abrasive Wear Analysis

80

70

60

Thickness Loss (micron)

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (h)

D80 PU embedded Ceramic

Nihard Ceramic Tile
Bisplate 500 Ceramic Studded
 Computational Modelling
Continuum vs DEM

• In contrast to classical continuum methods, DEM considers each discrete

particle

Continuum DEM

• Bulk solid material properties defined by the contact model used and
include Young’s modulus, particle/boundary (wall) stiffness, damping,
Poisson’s ratio, rolling/sliding friction, particle density
DEM Application Examples

• Main components of DEM

modelling
• Normal contact
• Shear contact
• Rolling friction model
• Cohesion/adhesion model
• Different DEM software codes
implement different models to
account for each of these
• The effect of this is that the
translation of parameters
between codes is not possible
 Model Calibration Examples - CoR

• Illustration of
damping (damping
ratio or coefficient of
restitution)

• Low CoR

• High CoR
 Model Calibration Examples - AoR

• A common and useful calibration method is the angle of repose test

• This requires performing the same test in DEM and experiment
• A cylinder of material is raised at a constant rate so that the
material can flow out of the cylinder and form a conical heap
• The angle between the horizontal and the slope of the heap is the
angle of repose
Angle of Repose Calibration

• A range of these type of tests

need to be performed for a
variation in parameters such as
sliding friction, rolling friction (for
spheres)
• We have varied ball friction, wall
friction, rolling friction, cylinder
raising velocity, diameter of
cylinder
• This graph is for spherical particles
 Iron Ore Impact Hood Wear
Problems

Impact damage and increased areas of wear on the deflector

Material = Iron Ore
Throughput = 6500t/hr
Conveyor Velocity = 4.2m/s
 Iron Ore Impact Hood Wear
Problems

Design Impact
Label Angle
(degrees)

Existing 17.5º

Existing-1 12.9º

Existing-2 10.4º

Existing-3 7.9º

Minimising both the top and middle streamline impact angle (under
geometrical/structural constraints – sample cutter position)
 Iron Ore Impact Hood Wear
Problems
Impact Power (L) & Shear Power (R)

Existing Existing-1 Existing-2

Existing-3 New Proposed

 Belt Feeder Wear Problems

Throughput 1400tph
Belt Velocity 0.52m/s
Belt width 2000mm
PSD 9-150mm

Project aim was to look at wear on receiving belt:

Current belt is wearing out in approximately 4 months
 Belt Feeder Wear Problems -
Solutions

Existing One Insert – 0.5 length Two Inserts – 0.25 & 0.75
length

Two Inserts – 0.33 & 0.66 Rear guillotine gate closed Rear of hopper plated in
length
 Belt Feeder Wear Problems –
Sliding Wear
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Existing
2. 1 Insert – 0.5
length
3. 2 Inserts – 0.25 &
0.75 length
4. 2 Inserts – 0.33 &
0.66 length
5. Rear guillotine
gate closed
6. Rear of hopper
plated in

Average Shear Intensity (steady flow)

 Belt Feeder Wear Problems –
Impact Wear
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Existing
2. 1 Insert – 0.5
length
3. 2 Inserts – 0.25 &
0.75 length
4. 2 Inserts – 0.33 &
0.66 length
5. Rear guillotine
gate closed
6. Rear of hopper
plated in

Average Impact Intensity (steady flow)

 Belt Feeder Wear Problems

• Bottom plate configuration gives lowest normal force and frictional

power – consistent with a feeder having the same effective opening
size
• There will be a large dead zone of material above the bottom plate
 Reclaimer Feeder Wear Problems

Feeder belts were wearing out in

approximately a 6 month period
requiring a design review to
improve wear

1. Throughput 9300 tph

2. Incoming belt velocity 4.8 m/s
3. Outgoing belt velocity 5 m/s
4. Feeder velocity 1.3m/s
 Reclaimer Feeder Wear Problems

Existing design - impact Existing design - shear

Redesign - impact Redesign - shear

Wear contours viewed from below feeder belts
 Reclaimer Feeder Redesign
Solution

• Old design: Belt thickness went from 10mm to 4.7mm over 9

months and ~320,000 tonnes – 1.65mm/MT
• New design: Belt thickness went from 10mm to 9mm over
~300,000 tonnes (in 4 months) – 0.33mm/MT
 Iron Ore Fines Transportable
Moisture Limit

Project Sponsors:
• Vale
• BHP Billiton
• Rio Tinto
• Fortescue Metals
• Cliffs NR
• Roy Hill

• Current IMO TML test options

• Comparison of measured TML values of Iron Ore Fines
• Modified Iron Ore Fines TML test
• Bulk failure modelling within the ship
• Slope failure assessment
• Sub-Surface failure assessment
 Transportable Moisture Limit
The TML represents the upper limit that a bulk commodity can inherently contain which
ensures sufficiently cargo stability is attained for safe shipborne transportation

The Trigger for Iron Ore Fines TML requirement were:

08/2009 Calcutta to China - Capsized - sank off Malaysia.
09/2009 India to China - Sank off Paradip Port, India
09/2009 India to China - Developed a list at Paradip Port

• In October 2010, the DSC released a circular (IMO, 2010) which stated that “iron ore fines
may liquefy and should be treated as such”.
• Iron TML Investigation begins in 2011
 TML Methods - Overview

• TML is 90% of the Flow Moisture Point (FMP) value for the Flow Table
and Vibration Test.

• TML is the intercept between the Proctor-Fagerberg compaction

curve and the 70% saturation line

• Three methods prescribed by IMO:

• Flow Table Test
• Based on hydraulic slumping of cements. Refined for mineral
concentrates.
• Proctor-Fagerberg Test
• Based on soil compaction science. Refined for mineral concentrates.
• Vibratory Penetration Test
• Based on loss of shear strength due to loss of shear strength.
Devised by JSA for coal
 IMO Defined TML Tests

Devices and Size Fraction Limitations

(1) IMO/ISO Flow Table (-7mm) (2) IMO Penetration (-25mm) (3) IMO P/F (-5mm)

Iron Ore Fines

typically sub 10mm, sometimes up to sub 16mm

 Comparison of Test Results
Comparison of Test Results
14.0%
X+12%

Flow Table Test (-7mm)

Penetration Test (Full size)
12.0%
X+10% Proctor-Fagerberg Test (-5mm)
TML (%)

10.0%
X+8%

X+6%
8.0%

X+4%
6.0%
A B C E
Iron Ore Sample
 TML Methods
Issues for Iron Ore Fines (IOF)
• Two of the three IMO methods for TML determination fit the broad spectrum of
IOF size distributions
• The penetration test provides excessively conservative moisture values – Some
below the dust extinction moisture level
• No direct relationship apparent between any of the tests and the effects on IOF
cargo stability during a ship voyage
• Proctor Fagerberg recommended as best method for assessment using a current
TML approved equipment
 Comparison of TML Test Results
by varying PF parameters

Variations:
1. Upper Particle Size: -5mm size to Full Size
2. Moisture equilibrium: 5 mins and 12 hour
3. Consolidation: 350g hammer (C energy) and 150g hammer (D energy)
4. Percentage of void saturation: 70% and 80%

Example of saturated sample in PF test

IMO Iron Ore Fines Methodology

IMO APPROVED TEST METHOD:

Modified PF
• Full Size Material
• Stanard size mould
• 25 drops of a 150g hammer (D Energy) from
15cm onto 5 layers
• Moisture equilibration Overnight (approx. 12
hours)
• Particle density measurement is
recommended to be by an appropriate water
density standard
• Suggest to perform tests in duplicate

IRON ORE FINES:

>50% under 10 mm
>10% under 1 mm
 Thank you!

Any Questions ?