IDENTIFICATION, CHARACTERISATION AND MODELLING OF DYNAMIC

ADHESION FOR OPTIMISED TRANSFER SYSTEM DESIGN

From

The University of Newcastle

Discipline of Mechanical Engineering

By

MICHAEL JOHN CARR

BE (Mech) (Hons) (Newcastle)

Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

April 2019

This research was supported by an Australian Government

Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship
This page is left intentionally blank
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY

I hereby certify that the work embodied in the thesis is my own work, conducted under normal
supervision. The thesis contains no material which has been accepted, or is being examined, for
the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution and, to
the best of my knowledge and belief, contains no material previously published or written by
another person, except where due reference has been made. I give consent to the final version
of my thesis being made available worldwide when deposited in the University’s Digital
Repository, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 and any approved embargo.

……………….......................................

Michael John Carr

I
This page is left intentionally blank

II
ABSTRACT
The depletion of favourable bulk material deposits in relation to their handleability is prompting
the industry to consider mining material that may have comparatively less favourable flow
properties. Typically found beneath the water-table, less favourable bulk materials frequently
exhibit an increased clay and moisture content, leading to Wet and Sticky Material (WSM) and
problematic behaviours regarding handleability. WSMs can have a significant impact in the
materials handling stream due to the expensive downtime of processing equipment, which is
attributed to the complex inter-particle and boundary adhesion mechanisms found within the
bulk material. To better understand the characteristics of WSMs, new theoretical models are
required and consequently developed within the scope of this research.
For the identification of a WSM, a comprehensive study was undertaken where revised
testing methods have been developed to attain quantifiable measurements for the problematic
characteristics of bulk materials. The wall adhesion and inter-particle adhesion tests were
developed and adapted for iron ore from existing methods that are typically used for fine
powders. These tests have been performed in conjunction with a sweep of traditional flow
property tests which were conducted on three iron ore samples. The three iron ore samples
have been supplied from the Pilbara region of Western Australia and include; Upper Channel
Iron Deposit (UCID), Lower Channel Iron Deposit (LCID) and the Denatured Zone (found between
the UCID and LCID layers). The threshold moisture content for problematic behaviours were
identified, where, Denatured was identified as the most problematic in relation to the adhesive
strength it exhibits.
To further understand the adhesive properties of the iron ore samples, a revised
methodology for the estimation of bulk material adhesion determined from the extrapolation
of the Instantaneous Yield Locus (IYL) produced from Jenike direct shear testing was undertaken.
The predicted adhesion values from this methodology are compared to experimental
measurements using an inter-particle adhesion tester where good correlation was found. Once
the adhesive properties of each iron ore sample were identified, a theoretical model was
developed and validated experimentally to define the dynamic adhesion of the bulk material
samples. The developed model was able to predict the geometrical constraints where the
identification of the effective angle at which the shear failure equates to a zero-bond depth was
found for three typical wall liners used in industry.
Following the identification of the dynamic adhesion geometrical constraints, it was
observed by the author that the natural agglomeration of the iron ore samples assisted in the
flow of the material through transfer systems. Additionally, it was also observed that the formed
III
agglomerates reduced the amount of dust generated during transportation. An investigation
was undertaken on the effects of agglomeration on the materials handling sector where the
benefits of reduced build-up and a reduction of dust generation was shown. It was found that
for an equivalent Run-of-Mine (ROM) iron ore moisture content, there was a significant
reduction for the amount of build-up that commonly leads to potential blockages in industry.
The final aspect of the presented research is the utilisation of numerical simulations for
the prediction of problematic behaviours found in industrial systems. The characteristics of
WSMs can be computationally expensive to model and with the development of the Discrete
Element Method (DEM) in conjunction with the advancement in computational power over the
past decade, it is now more feasible to model WSMs in DEM simulations. Three cohesion models
capable of replicating WSMs are investigated where the potential to replicate problematic bulk
material behaviours and computational solve times are analysed. The models used include; the
Simplified Johnson-Kendall-Roberts (SJKR) model, Easo Liquid Bridging model and the Edinburgh
Elasto-Plastic Adhesion (EEPA) model.
In this study, the coupling of the SJKR and Easo Liquid Bridging models is proposed and
used to predict problematic bulk material behaviour. Additionally, a calibration procedure is
developed and undertaken where the parameters for each cohesion model are discussed in
detail. A series of calibration simulations with systematic parameter variation was undertaken
to define a set of calibration matrices. The developed calibration matrices resulted in the
selection of a unique parameter setting, which can be used for the simulation of on-site
applications to optimise plant geometry and other operational parameters. Finally, numerical
modelling validation was undertaken using a lab scale vertical impact testing facility where good
correlation between experimental and simulation results was found.

IV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincerest thanks to my supervisors for their
support and guidance over the past four years. Firstly, Professor Craig Wheeler for the advice,
encouragement and technical discussions which were critical in producing this thesis. Emeritus
Professor Alan Roberts for taking the time to share the invaluable knowledge he has in the field
of bulk materials handling and for significantly increasing my knowledge and passion for bulk
solids. Thank you. Associate Professor Kenneth Williams for the opportunity to undertake an
industrial PhD. Finally, Professor André Katterfeld for the support and guidance with the
simulation phase of the research and allowing me to work with your group at Otto-von-Guericke
University (OVGU) in Magdeburg. Additionally, I would like to acknowledge the Australian
Research Council (ARC) and BHP, with particular thanks to Mr Greg Elphick and Ms Kylie
Nettleton, for the financial support and in-kind contributions given during the research.
At this point I would also like to thank my friends and colleagues from TUNRA Bulk Solids
(TBS), the Centre for Bulk Solids and Particulate Technologies (CBSPT), the Mechanical
Engineering Workshop at the University of Newcastle and the Institute of Logistics and Materials
Handling (ILM) at OVGU. The significant amount of people from these groups to name
individually is impractical so as a collective group thank-you for the support over the last four
years. I hope each of you know how much I appreciate the assistance given. I would, however,
like to personally acknowledge Mr Daniel Ausling and Mr Bruce Merrotsy for their input into the
technical writing aspects. Mr Hendrik Otto and Mr Thomas Rößler for their assistance given
during my visit to Magdeburg, Germany. To Dr Peter Robinson and Dr Ognjen Orozovic for the
technical discussions throughout this process. Finally, to Dr Jens Plinke, Mr Brodie Hayter and
Mr Jordan Pascoe for their assistance given during the experimental phases.
Lastly, I would like to thank my friends and family. In particular to Ashleigh Alexander,
thank you for your patience, support and understanding over the last four years, this would not
have been possible without you.

V
This page is left intentionally blank

VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY ........................................................................................................................ I

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................... III

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................ V

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................................... XI

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................................... XVII

NOMENCLATURE ....................................................................................................................................... XIX

ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... XXV

PUBLICATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ XXVII

CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 PROBLEMATIC MATERIALS AND THE EFFECTS ON THE MINING SECTOR ............................... 1
1.2 MOHR-COULOMB STRENGTH ASSESSMENT AND CURRENT LIMITATIONS ............................ 2
1.3 THESIS OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................. 7
CHAPTER TWO – BULK MATERIAL PROPERTIES & WALL LINER CHARACTERISATION ................................. 11
2.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 11
2.2 IRON ORE SAMPLES .............................................................................................................. 12
2.3 DEFINITION OF WET AND STICKY BULK MATERIALS ............................................................. 16
2.3.1 TESTING METHODS FOR WET AND STICKY BULK MATERIALS..........................................................16
2.4 BULK MATERIAL FLOW PROPERTY TESTING METHODS AND RESULTS................................. 18
2.4.1 IRON ORE SAMPLE PREPARATION ...................................................................................................18
2.4.2 SATURATED MOISTURE CONTENT ...................................................................................................20
2.4.3 DUST EXTINCTION MOISTURE CONTENT .........................................................................................21
2.4.4 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ..........................................................................................................21
2.4.5 CLAY CLASSIFICATION ......................................................................................................................23
2.4.6 BULK DENSITY ..................................................................................................................................24
2.4.6.1 LOOSE POURED ......................................................................................................................24
2.4.6.2 COMPRESSIBILITY ...................................................................................................................25
2.4.7 PARTICLE SOLIDS DENSITY ...............................................................................................................27
2.4.8 SHEAR TESTING (FLOW FUNCTION DETERMINATION) ....................................................................27
2.4.9 TESTING MEASUREMENTS FOR WET AND STICKY BULK MATERIALS...............................................33
2.4.9.1 WALL ADHESION TESTING......................................................................................................33
2.4.9.2 INTER-PARTICLE ADHESION TESTING .....................................................................................37
2.5 WALL FRICTION TESTING AND WALL LINER PROPERTIES ..................................................... 40
2.5.1 WALL LINER PROPERTIES .................................................................................................................40
2.5.1.1 SURFACE ROUGHNESS ...........................................................................................................41

VII
 2.5.1.2 HARDNESS ..............................................................................................................................42
2.5.1.3 X-RAY FLUORESCENCE (XRF) SPECTROMETRY MEASUREMENTS ...........................................43
2.5.2 WALL FRICTION TESTING .................................................................................................................44
2.5.2.1 KINEMATIC WALL FRICTION (SLOW-SPEED)...........................................................................44
2.5.2.2 KINETIC WALL FRICTION.........................................................................................................52
2.6 DISCUSSION ...........................................................................................................................57
2.7 CONCLUSION .........................................................................................................................60
CHAPTER THREE – METHODOLOGY FOR COHESION & ADHESION ANALYSIS OF BULK MATERIALS ............61
3.1 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................61
3.2 COHESION AND ADHESION OF BULK MATERIALS .................................................................62
3.2.1 MOHR-COULOMB STRENGTH MODEL .............................................................................................64
3.2.2 HVORSLEV-ROSCOE YIELD SURFACE ................................................................................................66
3.3 BULK MATERIAL ADHESIVE TENSILE STRENGTH MODELLING ...............................................68
3.3.1 INSTANTANEOUS YIELD LOCUS CONSOLIDATION STRESS CONDITIONS ..........................................73
3.3.2 ADHESIVE STRENGTH VOIDAGE SURFACE MODEL ..........................................................................76
3.4 YIELDING THEORY OF BULK MATERIALS ...............................................................................79
3.5 EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENTS .........................................................................................86
3.6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................95
3.7 CONCLUSION .........................................................................................................................97
CHAPTER FOUR – DYNAMIC ADHESION MODELLING & ANALYSIS OF BULK MATERIALS ............................99
4.1 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................99
4.2 CONTINUUM MECHANICS OF BULK MATERIALS................................................................ 100
4.2.1 DISCHARGE AND TRAJECTORY METHODOLOGIES .........................................................................102
4.2.2 TRANSFER CHUTE IMPACT AND FLOW METHODOLOGIES ............................................................105
4.3 DYNAMIC ADHESION ANALYSIS OF BULK MATERIALS ....................................................... 109
4.3.1 MECHANICS OF PROBLEMATIC BULK MATERIAL TRANSFER SYSTEM BUILD-UP ...........................109
4.3.1.1 DISCHARGE MECHANISMS ...................................................................................................110
4.3.1.2 IMPACT BUILD-UP MODELLING ...........................................................................................117
4.4 VERIFICATION OF DYNAMIC ADHESION ANALYSIS ............................................................ 120
4.4.1 IMPACT BUILD-UP MODELLING VERIFICATION .............................................................................120
4.5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................. 123
4.6 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 125
CHAPTER FIVE – METHODOLOGY FOR THE REDUCTION OF ADHESIVE BONDS ....................................... 127
5.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 127
5.2 METHODS FOR THE REDUCTION OF ADHESION IN BULK MATERIALS ............................... 128
5.2.1 FUNDAMENTALS OF AGGLOMERATION ........................................................................................129
5.2.2 INDUSTRIAL AGGLOMERATION METHODS AND APPLICATIONS ...................................................131
5.2.3 INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS SUITABLE FOR THE MATERIALS HANDLING SECTOR ..................................133
5.3 EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENTS AND VERIFICATION ...................................................... 135
5.3.1 AGGLOMERATE PROPERTIES .........................................................................................................136
VIII
 5.3.1.1 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ...............................................................................................138
5.3.1.2 BULK DENSITY MEASUREMENTS ..........................................................................................139
5.3.1.3 DUST EXTINCTION MOISTURE CONTENT MEASUREMENTS .................................................139
5.3.1.4 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH MEASUREMENTS........................................................................140
5.3.2 DYNAMIC ADHESION EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENTS ...............................................................142
5.3.3 AGGLOMERATE HANDLING PROPERTIES .......................................................................................143
5.3.3.1 BREAKAGE MEASUREMENTS ...............................................................................................143
5.3.3.2 MICROSCOPY ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................147
5.3.3.3 SHEAR BOX TESTING ............................................................................................................149
5.3.3.4 DRAW DOWN TESTING ........................................................................................................150
5.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................. 152
5.5 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 153
CHAPTER SIX – MEASUREMENT OF DYNAMIC ADHESION & TRANSFER SYSTEM OPTIMISATION............ 155
6.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 155
6.2 INCLINED PLATE EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENTS ........................................................... 156
6.2.1 MEASUREMENT APPARATUS .........................................................................................................157
6.2.2 EXPERIMENTAL TESTING PARAMETERS .........................................................................................162
6.2.3 EXPERIMENTAL TESTING PROCEDURE ...........................................................................................166
6.3 INCLINED PLATE EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENT ANALYSIS ............................................. 168
6.3.1 ESTIMATED BULK MATERIAL BUILD-UP PROFILE ...........................................................................168
6.3.2 TRANSIENT FORCE ANALYSIS .........................................................................................................171
6.3.3 RESIDUAL MASS ON WALL LINING MATERIALS .............................................................................172
6.3.4 ROCK-BOX ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................174
6.3.4.1 SHEAR ANGLE DETERMINATION ..........................................................................................175
6.3.4.2 DENSITY PROFILE TESTING ...................................................................................................179
6.4 DYNAMIC TRANSFER SYSTEM OPTIMISATION .................................................................... 183
6.4.1 MATERIALS HANDLING SYSTEMS SUSCEPTIBLE TO DYNAMIC ADHESION .....................................183
6.4.2 CLASSIFICATION AND RANKING OF DYNAMIC ADHESION .............................................................186
6.4.3 CRITICAL RELEASE ANGLE DETERMINATION ..................................................................................190
6.4.4 DESIGN PROTOCOL FOR REDUCTION OF DYNAMIC ADHESION .....................................................191
6.5 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 193
CHAPTER SEVEN – NUMERICAL MODELLING OF WET & STICKY BULK MATERIALS ................................... 195
7.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 195
7.2 DISCRETE ELEMENT METHOD (DEM) OVERVIEW ............................................................... 196
7.3 DISCRETE ELEMENT METHOD (DEM) CONTACT MODELS .................................................. 199
7.3.1 COHESION CONTACT MODELS.......................................................................................................202
7.3.1.1 SIMPLIFIED JOHNSON-KENDALL-ROBERTS (SJKR) CONTACT MODEL ...................................203
7.3.1.2 EDINBURGH ELASTO-PLASTIC ADHESION (EEPA) CONTACT MODEL ....................................207
7.3.1.3 EASO LIQUID BRIDGING CONTACT MODEL ..........................................................................211
7.3.1.4 COUPLED HYBRID CONTACT MODEL....................................................................................216
7.4 DEM CONTACT MODEL INPUT PARAMETERS ..................................................................... 217
IX
 7.4.1 EEPA CONTACT MODEL INPUT PARAMETERS................................................................................218
7.4.2 HYBRID CONTACT MODEL INPUT PARAMETERS............................................................................219
7.4.3 CALIBRATION INPUT PARAMETERS ...............................................................................................220
7.5 DEM CALIBRATION OF WET AND STICKY BULK MATERIALS ............................................... 223
7.5.1 CALIBRATION EXPERIMENTS .........................................................................................................224
7.5.1.1 SHEAR BOX TESTING ............................................................................................................224
7.5.1.2 DRAW DOWN TESTING ........................................................................................................225
7.5.1.3 DYNAMIC ADHESION INCLINED PLATE TESTING (SPOON CASE) ..........................................227
7.5.2 CALIBRATION PROCEDURE AND FLOW CHART ..............................................................................228
7.5.3 CALIBRATION SIMULATIONS AND MATRICES ................................................................................232
7.6 NUMERICAL MODELLING VALIDATION .............................................................................. 240
7.6.1 DYNAMIC ADHESION VERTICAL IMPACT TESTING (HOOD CASE) ..................................................240
7.6.2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................242
7.7 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 246
CHAPTER EIGHT – APPLICATION TO INDUSTRY, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ........................ 247
8.1 APPLICATION TO INDUSTRY ............................................................................................... 247
8.2 CONCLUDING REMARKS..................................................................................................... 248
8.2.1 INDENTIFICATION AND CHARACTERISATION OF PROBLEMATIC BULK MATERIALS ......................249
8.2.2 METHODOLOGY FOR COHESION AND ADHESION ANALYSIS .........................................................249
8.2.3 DYNAMIC ADHESION MODELLING OF PROBLEMATIC BULK MATERIALS.......................................250
8.2.4 METHODOLOGY FOR REDUCTION OF ADHESIVE BONDS ..............................................................251
8.2.5 DYNAMIC ADHESION MEASUREMENT AND TRANSFER SYSTEM OPTIMISATION ..........................252
8.2.6 NUMERICAL MODELLING OF PROBLEMATIC BULK MATERIALS.....................................................253
8.3 FUTURE WORK ................................................................................................................... 254
8.3.1 INDENTIFICATION AND CHARACTERISATION OF PROBLEMATIC BULK MATERIALS ......................254
8.3.2 METHODOLOGY FOR COHESION AND ADHESION ANALYSIS .........................................................255
8.3.3 DYNAMIC ADHESION MODELLING OF PROBLEMATIC BULK MATERIALS.......................................256
8.3.4 METHODOLOGY FOR REDUCTION OF ADHESIVE BONDS ..............................................................256
8.3.5 DYNAMIC ADHESION MEASUREMENT AND TRANSFER SYSTEM OPTIMISATION ..........................257
8.3.6 NUMERICAL MODELLING OF PROBLEMATIC BULK MATERIALS.....................................................258

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................. 259

X
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1.1 – HYPOTHETICAL UNIAXIAL COMPRESSION MODEL (SCHULZE,2008). .......................................................... 3
FIGURE 1.2 – TYPICAL COHESIVE HANDLEABILITY RANKING (CR) WITH FLOW FUNCTION FROM JENIKE DIRECT SHEAR TESTER. . 5
FIGURE 1.3 – ADHESIVE STRESSES DETERMINED FROM WYL (ROBERTS, 1998). ........................................................... 7
FIGURE 2.1 – SCHEMATIC CROSS-SECTION OF THE MARILLANA FORMATION CHANNEL IRON DEPOSITS AND THE
CORRESPONDING CONSTITUENT LAYERS (KNEESHAW, 2003)........................................................................... 13

FIGURE 2.2 – WALL ADHESION TESTER. ............................................................................................................... 17

FIGURE 2.3 – INTER-PARTICLE ADHESION TESTER. ................................................................................................. 18
FIGURE 2.4 – SAMPLE PREPARATION FLOW SHEET. ................................................................................................ 19
FIGURE 2.5 – PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF IRON ORE SAMPLES. ........................................................................... 22
FIGURE 2.6 – UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE GUIDE FOR SOIL TEXTURAL CLASSIFICATION (SOIL SURVEY
STAFF, 1951). ....................................................................................................................................... 23
FIGURE 2.7 – SCHEMATIC OF BULK DENSITY (COMPRESSIBILITY) TESTER (AS 3880, 2017)............................................ 25
FIGURE 2.8 – COMPRESSIBILITY BULK DENSITY TESTING RESULTS FOR IOA. ................................................................. 26
FIGURE 2.9 – COMPRESSIBILITY BULK DENSITY TESTING RESULTS FOR IOB. ................................................................. 26
FIGURE 2.10 – COMPRESSIBILITY BULK DENSITY TESTING RESULTS FOR IOC. ............................................................... 26
FIGURE 2.11 – EFFECT OF PARTICLE SIZE ON THE SHEAR STRENGTH OF PYROPHYLLITE (ROBERTS, 1998). ......................... 28
FIGURE 2.12 – SCHEMATIC OF JENIKE DIRECT SHEAR CELL TESTING APPARATUS (ROBERTS, 1998). ................................. 28
FIGURE 2.13 – DETERMINATION OF THE YIELD LOCUS AND CORRESPONDING FLOW FUNCTION USING DIRECT SHEAR TEST
(ROBERTS,1998). .................................................................................................................................. 29
FIGURE 2.14 – FLOW FUNCTIONS FOR IOA. ......................................................................................................... 31
FIGURE 2.15 – FLOW FUNCTIONS FOR IOB. ......................................................................................................... 31
FIGURE 2.16 – FLOW FUNCTIONS FOR IOC. ......................................................................................................... 32
FIGURE 2.17 – SCHEMATIC OF WALL ADHESION TESTING PROCEDURE........................................................................ 33
FIGURE 2.18 – TYPICAL FORCE MEASUREMENT OF A WALL ADHESION TEST (PLINKE ET AL., 2016). ................................. 34
FIGURE 2.19 – WALL ADHESION TESTING RESULTS FOR IOA. ................................................................................... 35
FIGURE 2.20 – WALL ADHESION TESTING RESULTS FOR IOB. ................................................................................... 35
FIGURE 2.21 – WALL ADHESION TESTING RESULTS FOR IOC. ................................................................................... 36
FIGURE 2.22 – SCHEMATIC OF INTER-PARTICLE ADHESION TESTING PROCEDURE. ......................................................... 37
FIGURE 2.23 – INTER-PARTICLE ADHESION TESTING RESULTS FOR IOA. ..................................................................... 38
FIGURE 2.24 – INTER-PARTICLE ADHESION TESTING RESULTS FOR IOB. ..................................................................... 38
FIGURE 2.25 – INTER-PARTICLE ADHESION TESTING RESULTS FOR IOC. ..................................................................... 39
FIGURE 2.26 – SCHEMATIC OF ROUGHNESS SURFACE PROFILE (ROBERTS, 1998). ....................................................... 41
FIGURE 2.27 – SCHEMATIC OF WALL FRICTION TESTING APPARATUS (ROBERTS, 1998)................................................. 45
FIGURE 2.28 – WALL YIELD LOCUS OF IOA FOR CERAMIC TILE LINER AT DIFFERENT MOISTURE CONTENTS. ...................... 46
FIGURE 2.29 – WALL YIELD LOCUS OF IOB FOR CERAMIC TILE LINER AT DIFFERENT MOISTURE CONTENTS. ...................... 46
FIGURE 2.30 – WALL YIELD LOCUS OF IOC FOR CERAMIC TILE LINER AT DIFFERENT MOISTURE CONTENTS. ...................... 47

XI
FIGURE 2.31 – WALL YIELD LOCUS OF IOA (13.1% MC) FOR DIFFERENT WALL LINING MATERIALS.................................47
FIGURE 2.32 – WALL YIELD LOCUS OF IOB (14.2% MC) FOR DIFFERENT WALL LINING MATERIALS. ................................48
FIGURE 2.33 – WALL YIELD LOCUS OF IOC (14.6% MC) FOR DIFFERENT WALL LINING MATERIALS. ................................48
FIGURE 2.34 – WALL FRICTION ANGLES OF IOA FOR CERAMIC TILE LINER AT DIFFERENT MOISTURE CONTENTS. .................49
FIGURE 2.35 – WALL FRICTION ANGLES OF IOB FOR CERAMIC TILE LINER AT DIFFERENT MOISTURE CONTENTS. .................49
FIGURE 2.36 – WALL FRICTION ANGLES OF IOC FOR CERAMIC TILE LINER AT DIFFERENT MOISTURE CONTENTS. .................50
FIGURE 2.37 – WALL FRICTION ANGLES OF IOA (13.1% MC) FOR DIFFERENT WALL LINING MATERIALS. ..........................50
FIGURE 2.38 – WALL FRICTION ANGLES OF IOB (14.2% MC) FOR DIFFERENT WALL LINING MATERIALS. ..........................51
FIGURE 2.39 – WALL FRICTION ANGLES OF IOC (14.6% MC) FOR DIFFERENT WALL LINING MATERIALS. ..........................51
FIGURE 2.40 – CIRCULAR BED WEAR AND WALL FRICTION TESTER (WICHE ET AL., 2004). .............................................53
FIGURE 2.41 – BOW WAVE DETERMINATION AT LEADING EDGE OF WALL LINER SAMPLE IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL. ..............53
FIGURE 2.42 – REACTION FORCES ACTING ON WALL LINER SAMPLE DUE TO FRICTIONAL DRAG (WICHE ET AL., 2004). ........54
FIGURE 2.43 – KINETIC WALL FRICTION MEASUREMENTS OF IOA (6.3% MC) FOR CERAMIC WALL LINING MATERIAL. .........55
FIGURE 2.44 – COMPARISON OF KINETIC FRICTION COEFFICIENT OF IOC (11.5% MC) FOR DIFFERENT WALL LINING
MATERIALS.............................................................................................................................................56

FIGURE 2.45 – COMPARISON OF KINETIC FRICTION COEFFICIENT OF CERAMIC TILE FOR IOA, IOB AND IOC. ......................57
FIGURE 3.1 – CAPILLARY MODEL FOR SOLID SURFACES (PLINKE ET AL., 2016). ............................................................63
FIGURE 3.2 – YIELD LOCI FOR CONSOLIDATED BULK MATERIAL (ROBERTS, 1998). ........................................................65
FIGURE 3.3 – HVORSLEV YIELD SURFACE (MODIFIED FROM ROSCOE ET AL., 1958). ......................................................67
FIGURE 3.4 – CONSOLIDATION YIELD SURFACE (ASHTON ET AL., 1965). ....................................................................68
FIGURE 3.5 – SCHEMATIC OF MODIFIED YIELD LOCUS WITH INCREASING INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLES. ...............................69
FIGURE 3.6 – SCHEMATIC OF MODIFIED INSTANTANEOUS YIELD LOCUS USING PARABOLIC PROFILE FOR DETERMINATION OF
ADHESION..............................................................................................................................................71

FIGURE 3.7 – SCHEMATIC OF INSTANTANEOUS YIELD LOCUS SHOWING PRE-CONSOLIDATION STRESS CONDITION................74
FIGURE 3.8 – HVORSLEV YIELD SURFACE INCORPORATING ASSUMED PROFILE FOR ADHESION AND COHESION. ....................78
FIGURE 3.9 – YIELDING FAILURE ENVELOPE FOR REGIME WITH IYL GREATER THAN WYL. ...............................................80
FIGURE 3.10 – YIELDING FAILURE ENVELOPE FOR REGIME WITH WYL GREATER THAN IYL. .............................................81
FIGURE 3.11 – YIELDING FAILURE ENVELOPE FOR SPECIAL CASE REGIME. ....................................................................82
FIGURE 3.12 – ADHESIVE STRESSES DETERMINED FROM WYL (MODIFIED FROM ROBERTS, 1998). .................................83
FIGURE 3.13 – TYPICAL ADHESIVE HANDLEABILITY RANKING (AR) ASSESSMENT FROM THE INTER-PARTICLE ADHESION TESTING.
...........................................................................................................................................................84
FIGURE 3.14 – YIELDING THEORY SHOWING BOUNDARY CONDITIONS FOR FLOW AND NO FLOW REGIME. ..........................86
FIGURE 3.15 – ADHESION ESTIMATION FOR LINEAR AND PARABOLIC PROFILES IN COMPARISON TO INTER-PARTICLE ADHESION
TESTING FOR IOA AT 7.8% MC. ................................................................................................................88

FIGURE 3.16 – ADHESION ESTIMATION FOR LINEAR AND PARABOLIC PROFILES IN COMPARISON TO INTER-PARTICLE ADHESION
TESTING FOR IOA AT 13.1% MC. ..............................................................................................................88

FIGURE 3.17 – ADHESION ESTIMATION FOR LINEAR AND PARABOLIC PROFILES IN COMPARISON TO INTER-PARTICLE ADHESION
TESTING FOR IOB AT 14.2% MC. ..............................................................................................................89

XII
FIGURE 3.18 – ADHESION ESTIMATION FOR LINEAR AND PARABOLIC PROFILES IN COMPARISON TO INTER-PARTICLE ADHESION
TESTING FOR IOB AT 17.8% MC. ............................................................................................................. 89

FIGURE 3.19 – ADHESION ESTIMATION FOR LINEAR AND PARABOLIC PROFILES IN COMPARISON TO INTER-PARTICLE ADHESION
TESTING FOR IOC AT 14.6% MC. ............................................................................................................. 90
FIGURE 3.20 – ADHESION ESTIMATION FOR LINEAR AND PARABOLIC PROFILES IN COMPARISON TO INTER-PARTICLE ADHESION
TESTING FOR IOC AT 18.2% MC. ............................................................................................................. 90
FIGURE 3.21 – PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION (PSD) OF ADDITIONAL BULK MATERIAL SAMPLES. ...................................... 91
FIGURE 3.22 – ADHESION ESTIMATION FOR LINEAR AND PARABOLIC PROFILES IN COMPARISON TO INTER-PARTICLE ADHESION
TESTING FOR NICKEL CONCENTRATE AT 9.4% MC. ....................................................................................... 92

FIGURE 3.23 – ADHESION ESTIMATION FOR LINEAR AND PARABOLIC PROFILES IN COMPARISON TO INTER-PARTICLE ADHESION
TESTING FOR BLACK COAL AT 12.7% MC. .................................................................................................. 93

FIGURE 3.24 – ADHESION ESTIMATION FOR LINEAR AND PARABOLIC PROFILES IN COMPARISON TO INTER-PARTICLE ADHESION
TESTING FOR STONE DUST AT 2.0% MC. .................................................................................................... 93

FIGURE 3.25 – ADHESION ESTIMATION FOR LINEAR AND PARABOLIC PROFILES IN COMPARISON TO INTER-PARTICLE ADHESION
TESTING FOR ZIRCON SAND AT 6.8% MC. ................................................................................................... 94

FIGURE 3.26 – ADHESION ESTIMATION FOR LINEAR AND PARABOLIC PROFILES IN COMPARISON TO INTER-PARTICLE ADHESION
TESTING FOR LIMESTONE AT 8.7% MC. ...................................................................................................... 95

FIGURE 4.1 – SIMPLIFIED SCHEMATIC OF CONVEYOR-TO-CONVEYOR “HOOD “ AND “SPOON” TRANSFER SYSTEM (HUQUE,
2004)................................................................................................................................................ 102
FIGURE 4.2 – CONVEYOR DISCHARGE MODEL SHOWING BULK MATERIAL ELEMENT TRAVELLING AROUND HEAD PULLEY
(ROBERTS, 2001). ............................................................................................................................... 103
FIGURE 4.3 – PLASTIC DEFORMATION OF A BULK MATERIAL ONTO A FLAT IMPACT PLATE (KORZEN, 1988). .................... 107
FIGURE 4.4 – TRANSFER SYSTEM SCHEMATIC INDICATING STAGES OF FLOW REGIME. .................................................. 110
FIGURE 4.5 – WALL YIELD LOCUS SHOWING BOTH STATIC AND KINEMATIC CASES. ...................................................... 111
FIGURE 4.6 – SCHEMATIC OF THE FORCES ACTING BETWEEN THE CONVEYOR BELT AND THE BULK MATERIAL (CASE A). ...... 112
FIGURE 4.7 – SCHEMATIC OF THE FORCES ACTING BETWEEN THE CONVEYOR BELT AND THE BULK MATERIAL (CASE B). ...... 115
FIGURE 4.8 – SCHEMATIC OF THE FORCES ACTING BETWEEN THE CONVEYOR BELT AND THE BULK MATERIAL (CASE C). ...... 116
FIGURE 4.9 – SHAPE MEASUREMENT VOLUME FOR IRON ORE BUILD-UP. .................................................................. 118
FIGURE 4.10 – ASSUMED BUILD-UP SHAPE AND CHARACTERISING PARAMETERS. ....................................................... 118
FIGURE 4.11 – FORCE BALANCE ON AN ELEMENT AT A TOTAL INCLINATION ANGLE OF . ............................................. 119
FIGURE 4.12 – MEASURED AND PREDICTED BUILD-UP HEIGHT AS A FUNCTION OF PLATE INCLINATION ANGLE. ................. 121
FIGURE 4.13 – MEASURED BUILD-UP MASS VERSUS MEASURED BUILD-UP HEIGHT AND PARABOLIC FIT. ......................... 122
FIGURE 4.14 – TOTAL BUILD-UP INCLINATION ANGLE VERSUS IMPACT PLATE INCLINATION ANGLE. ................................ 123
FIGURE 4.15 – MEASURED AND PREDICTED BUILD-UP MASS AS A FUNCTION OF PLATE INCLINATION ANGLE. ................... 123
FIGURE 5.1 – AGGLOMERATE PARTICLE STRUCTURES IN RELATION TO THE AMOUNT OF BINDING LIQUID, A) PENDULAR STATE;
B) FUNICULAR STATE; C) CAPILLARY STATE; D) DROPPING STATE (NEWITT AND CONWAY-JONES, 1958). ............... 131

FIGURE 5.2 – STEEP ANGLE BELT CONVEYOR AGGLOMERATION (CHAMBERLIN, 1986). ............................................... 133
FIGURE 5.3 – INDUSTRIAL DRUM AGGLOMERATION SYSTEM (CHAMBERLIN, 1986).................................................... 134
XIII
FIGURE 5.4 – INDUSTRIAL DISC (PAN) AGGLOMERATION SYSTEM (CHAMBERLIN, 1986). ............................................ 134
FIGURE 5.5 – GRANULATION DRUM LOCATED AT CENTRE FOR IRONMAKING MATERIALS RESEARCH. ............................ 135
FIGURE 5.6 – AGGLOMERATION FORMATION USING INCLINED PLATE RECIRCULATING SYSTEM...................................... 136
FIGURE 5.7 – AGGLOMERATION FORMATION USING A GRANULATION DRUM. ........................................................... 137
FIGURE 5.8 – PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION COMPARISON BETWEEN ROM AND AGGLOMERATE SAMPLES. ...................... 138
FIGURE 5.9 – BULK DENSITY (COMPRESSIBILITY) COMPARISON BETWEEN ROM AND AGGLOMERATE SAMPLES. ............... 139
FIGURE 5.10 – SHIMADZU AGS-X AUTOGRAPH PRECISION UNIVERSAL TESTER. ........................................................ 140
FIGURE 5.11 – COMPRESSION TESTING PARTICLE SAMPLES WITH MEAN PARTICLE DIAMETER OF 5 MM. ......................... 141
FIGURE 5.12 – COMPRESSION TESTING FOR AGGLOMERATED PARTICLE WITHOUT CENTRAL NUCLEUS (COMPRISED OF ULTRA-
FINE PARTICLES ONLY). .......................................................................................................................... 141

FIGURE 5.13 – COMPRESSION TESTING FOR AGGLOMERATED PARTICLE WITH CENTRAL NUCLEUS (CONTAINING GOETHITE CORE
PARTICLE). .......................................................................................................................................... 142

FIGURE 5.14 – COMPARISON OF BUILD-UP BETWEEN ROM SAMPLE AND INCLINED PLATE RECIRCULATING SYSTEM
AGGLOMERATES AT SIMILAR MOISTURE CONTENT. ...................................................................................... 143

FIGURE 5.15 – IMPACT TEST RIG USED FOR AGGLOMERATION BREAKAGE MEASUREMENTS. ......................................... 144
FIGURE 5.16 – PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION COMPARISON BETWEEN INCLINED PLATE RECIRCULATING SYSTEM AGGLOMERATES
SHOWING PROPENSITY TO BREAKAGE FROM IMPACT TESTING. ....................................................................... 145

FIGURE 5.17 – PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION COMPARISON BETWEEN GRANULATION DRUM AGGLOMERATES SHOWING
PROPENSITY TO BREAKAGE FROM IMPACT TESTING. ..................................................................................... 145

FIGURE 5.18 – PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION COMPARISON BETWEEN INCLINED PLATE RECIRCULATING SYSTEM AGGLOMERATES
SHOWING PROPENSITY TO BREAKAGE FROM LARGE BULK DENSITY TESTING. ...................................................... 146

FIGURE 5.19 – PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION COMPARISON BETWEEN GRANULATION DRUM AGGLOMERATES SHOWING
PROPENSITY TO BREAKAGE FROM LARGE BULK DENSITY TESTING. .................................................................... 147

FIGURE 5.20 – MICROSCOPY ANALYSIS FOR AGGLOMERATES FORMED USING THE INCLINED PLATE RECIRCULATING SYSTEM.
........................................................................................................................................................ 148
FIGURE 5.21 – MICROSCOPY ANALYSIS FOR AGGLOMERATES FORMED USING A GRANULATION DRUM. .......................... 149
FIGURE 5.22 – SHEAR BOX TESTING APPARATUS. ................................................................................................ 149
FIGURE 5.23 – DRAW DOWN TESTING APPARATUS.............................................................................................. 151
FIGURE 6.1 – SCHEMATIC OF IMPACT ZONE OF INCLINED PLATE RECIRCULATING SYSTEM. ............................................ 156
FIGURE 6.2 – FINAL CONFIGURATION OF THE INCLINED PLATE RECIRCULATING SYSTEM LOCATED AT TUNRA BULK SOLIDS. 158
FIGURE 6.3 – IMPACT ZONE SHOWING WALL LINER ASSEMBLY. .............................................................................. 159
FIGURE 6.4 – IMPACT ZONE SHOWING THE ROCK-BOX ASSEMBLY. .......................................................................... 160
FIGURE 6.5 – LOAD CELL CALIBRATION METHOD UNDERTAKEN PRIOR TO AND UPON COMPLETION OF EXPERIMENTAL TESTING.
........................................................................................................................................................ 161
FIGURE 6.6 – LOCATION OF VIDEO CAMERAS FOR BOTH TYPES OF TRANSFER STATION. ............................................... 162
FIGURE 6.7 – RECIRCULATING SYSTEM BURDEN PROFILE LOADING. ......................................................................... 163
FIGURE 6.8 – IOB FREEFALL TRAJECTORIES (FRONT VIEW). ................................................................................... 164
FIGURE 6.9 – IOB FREEFALL TRAJECTORIES (SIDE VIEW). ...................................................................................... 165
XIV
FIGURE 6.10 – METHOD USED FOR MOISTURE CONTENT SAMPLING. ....................................................................... 166
FIGURE 6.11 – DETERMINATION OF BUILD-UP HEIGHT AND ESTIMATED CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA. .................................. 169
FIGURE 6.12 – DETERMINATION OF BUILD-UP HEIGHT AND LENGTH........................................................................ 170
FIGURE 6.13 – RAW TRANSIENT FORCE MEASUREMENTS FOR IOB (18.5% MC) ON CERAMIC TILE FOR VARIOUS WALL LINER
ANGLES............................................................................................................................................... 172

FIGURE 6.14 – SIMPLIFIED SCHEMATIC OF ROCK-BOX TRANSFER SYSTEM FOR STATIC AND DYNAMIC CONDITIONS. ............ 176
FIGURE 6.15 – DETERMINATION OF SHEAR ANGLES FOR ROCK-BOX TRANSFER SYSTEM................................................ 177
FIGURE 6.16 – ROCK-BOX BUILD-UP FOR IOA (11.5% MC) SHOWING A NON-DEFINED SHEAR PLANE. ......................... 178
FIGURE 6.17 – DRILL CORE DENSITY SAMPLER FOR USE IN ROCK-BOX TRANSFER SYSTEM. ............................................ 180
FIGURE 6.18 – ROCK-BOX BUILD-UP FOR IOB (18.5% MC) SHOWING REMOVED DRILL CORE SAMPLE. ......................... 180
FIGURE 6.19 – DRILL CORE DENSITY PROFILE FOR IOA AT DIFFERENT MOISTURE CONTENTS. ........................................ 181
FIGURE 6.20 – DRILL CORE DENSITY PROFILE FOR IOB AT DIFFERENT MOISTURE CONTENTS. ........................................ 182
FIGURE 6.21 – DRILL CORE DENSITY PROFILE FOR IOC AT DIFFERENT MOISTURE CONTENTS. ........................................ 182
FIGURE 6.22 – MINING INDUSTRY FLOW CHART SHOWING TYPICAL PROCESS STREAM FROM EXPLORATION THROUGH TO
EXPORT (RIO TINTO, 2013).................................................................................................................... 184

FIGURE 6.23 – PROCESS FLOW CHART FOR TYPICAL BULK MATERIALS HANDLING STREAM (MODIFIED FROM BHP, 2018). . 185
FIGURE 6.24 – DYNAMIC ADHESION RANKING ASSESSMENT CLASSIFICATIONS. .......................................................... 186
FIGURE 6.25 – IOC AT 18.2% MC SHOWING NO NOTICEABLE CLUMPS. .................................................................. 189
FIGURE 6.26 – DESIGN PROTOCOL PROCEDURE FOR REDUCTION OF DYNAMIC ADHESION. ........................................... 192
FIGURE 7.1 – SIMPLIFIED SCHEMATIC OF HERTZ-MINDLIN CONTACT MODEL (DERAKHSHANI ET AL., 2015). ................... 201
FIGURE 7.2 – SIMPLIFIED SCHEMATIC OF SIMPLIFIED JOHNSON-KENDALL-ROBERTS (SJKR) CONTACT MODEL (CARR ET AL.,
2016)................................................................................................................................................ 206
FIGURE 7.3 – SCHEMATIC OF EDINBURGH ELASTO-PLASTIC ADHESION (EEPA) CONTACT MODEL (MORRISSEY, 2013). ... 208
FIGURE 7.4 – SCHEMATIC OF CAPILLARY FORCES WITHIN A LIQUID BRIDGE (RABINOVICH, Y. I. 2005)............................ 212
FIGURE 7.5 – (A) GEOMETRY OF A LIQUID BRIDGE BETWEEN TWO PARTICLES OF UNEVEN SIZES. (B) DETAILED VIEW OF LIQUID
BRIDGE (SOULIÉ, 2006)......................................................................................................................... 213

FIGURE 7.6 – PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF IOB SHOWING SCALPED PARTICLE DIAMETER RANGE............................... 221
FIGURE 7.7 – SCHEMATIC OF SHEAR BOX TESTING APPARATUS. .............................................................................. 225
FIGURE 7.8 – SCHEMATIC OF DRAW DOWN TESTING APPARATUS. ........................................................................... 226
FIGURE 7.9 – SCHEMATIC OF DYNAMIC ADHESION INCLINED PLATE TESTING APPARATUS. ............................................ 227
FIGURE 7.10 – CALIBRATION PROCEDURE FOR PARTICLE-TO-PARTICLE CONTACT........................................................ 229
FIGURE 7.11 – CALIBRATION PROCEDURE FOR PARTICLE-TO-WALL CONTACT. ........................................................... 231
FIGURE 7.12 – CALIBRATION MATRICES FOR SHEAR BOX SIMULATION RESIDUAL MASS. ............................................... 233
FIGURE 7.13 – CALIBRATION MATRICES FOR REMAINING SHEAR ANGLE, , FOR SHEAR BOX SIMULATIONS. ................... 234
FIGURE 7.14 – COMPARISON BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL AND SIMULATION RESULT FOR SHEAR BOX TESTING. ................... 235
FIGURE 7.15 – COMPARISON BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL AND SIMULATION RESULT FOR DRAW DOWN RESULT (FLOWING CASE –
200 MM OPENING)............................................................................................................................... 236

XV
FIGURE 7.16 – COMPARISON BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL AND SIMULATION RESULT FOR DRAW DOWN RESULT (ARCHING CASE –
150 MM OPENING). ............................................................................................................................. 237
FIGURE 7.17 – COMPARISON BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL AND SIMULATION RESIDUAL MASS FOR INCLINED PLATE TESTING
(ROUGH WELDED OVERLAY WALL LINER AT 35°). ........................................................................................ 238
FIGURE 7.18 – COMPARISON BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL AND SIMULATION RESIDUAL MASS FOR INCLINED PLATE TESTING
(ROUGH WELDED OVERLAY WALL LINER AT 60°). ........................................................................................ 239
FIGURE 7.19 – SCHEMATIC OF DYNAMIC ADHESION VERTICAL IMPACT TESTING APPARATUS. ....................................... 241
FIGURE 7.20 – COMPARISON BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL AND SIMULATION BURDEN THICKNESS FOR VERTICAL IMPACT TESTING.
........................................................................................................................................................ 242
FIGURE 7.21 – COMPARISON BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL AND SIMULATION RESIDUAL MASS FOR VERTICAL IMPACT TESTING
(µS=0.5, µR=0.3, ST=3.5 N/M, AED=12E5 J/M3). ................................................................................... 243
FIGURE 7.22 – CONTACT MODEL COMPARISON OF RESIDUAL MASS FOR VERTICAL IMPACT TESTING. ............................. 245

XVI
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1.1 – COHESION HANDLEABILITY RANKING ASSESSMENT (ROBERTS, 1998). ....................................................... 5
TABLE 2.1 – IRON ORE SAMPLE DETAILS ............................................................................................................. 15
TABLE 2.2 – SATURATED DRAINED MOISTURE CONTENT OF SAMPLES....................................................................... 20
TABLE 2.3 – DUST EXTINCTION MOISTURE CONTENT OF SAMPLES ........................................................................... 21
TABLE 2.4 – PERCENT FINER COMPARISON OF SAMPLES......................................................................................... 22
TABLE 2.5 – TEXTURE OF SAMPLES..................................................................................................................... 24
TABLE 2.6 – LOOSE POURED BULK DENSITY OF IOA .............................................................................................. 24
TABLE 2.7 – LOOSE POURED BULK DENSITY OF IOB .............................................................................................. 25
TABLE 2.8 – LOOSE POURED BULK DENSITY OF IOC .............................................................................................. 25
TABLE 2.9 – PARTICLE SOLIDS DENSITY OF SAMPLES .............................................................................................. 27
TABLE 2.10 – CHARACTERISATION TESTING MOISTURE CONTENT OF -4 MM SAMPLES ................................................. 30
TABLE 2.11 – WALL LINER SAMPLE DETAILS ........................................................................................................ 40
TABLE 2.12 – SURFACE ROUGHNESS VALUES FOR WALL LINING MATERIALS .............................................................. 42
TABLE 2.13 – KNOOP HARDNESS VALUES FOR WALL LINING MATERIALS................................................................... 43
TABLE 2.14 – CHEMICAL ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR WALL LINING MATERIALS USING XRF ........................................... 44
TABLE 2.15 – SUMMARY OF FLOW PROPERTY PEAK STRENGTH FOR IRON ORE SAMPLES .............................................. 58
TABLE 2.16 – COHESIVE HANDLEABILITY RANKING (CR) ASSESSMENT FOR IRON ORE SAMPLES (LOW CONSOLIDATION) .... 59
TABLE 2.17 – ADHESIVE HANDLEABILITY RANKING (AR) ASSESSMENT FOR IRON ORE SAMPLES (LOW CONSOLIDATION) .... 60
TABLE 3.1 – MECHANISMS OF ADHESION (RUMPF, 1958) ..................................................................................... 62
TABLE 3.2 – ADHESION HANDLEABILITY RANKING ASSESSMENT ............................................................................... 85
TABLE 4.1 – INCLINED PLATE IMPACT MODEL PARAMETERS FOR IOB AT 18.5% MC ................................................ 124
TABLE 5.1 – TYPICAL AGGLOMERATION METHODS SHOWING APPLICABLE BULK MATERIALS (SOCHON AND SALMAN, 2010)
......................................................................................................................................................... 132
TABLE 5.2 – DEMC COMPARISON BETWEEN ROM AND AGGLOMERATE SAMPLES ................................................... 140
TABLE 5.3 – SHEAR BOX TESTING RESULTS FOR IOB AT 18.5% MC ....................................................................... 150
TABLE 5.4 – DRAW DOWN TESTING RESULTS FOR IOB AT 18.5% MC ................................................................... 152
TABLE 6.1 – RECIRCULATING SYSTEM MOISTURE CONTENT OF ROM (-11.2 MM) SAMPLES....................................... 157
TABLE 6.2 – RECIRCULATING SYSTEM BURDEN PARAMETERS................................................................................. 164
TABLE 6.3 – RECIRCULATING SYSTEM MOISTURE CONTENT MEASUREMENTS ........................................................... 168
TABLE 6.4 – IOB (18.5% MC) APPROXIMATE CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA ................................................................. 169
TABLE 6.5 – IOB (18.5% MC) MAXIMUM BUILD-UP HEIGHT.............................................................................. 170
TABLE 6.6 – IOB (18.5% MC) MAXIMUM BUILD-UP LENGTH ............................................................................. 171
TABLE 6.7 – IOA RESIDUAL MASS ON WALL LINERS ............................................................................................ 173
TABLE 6.8 – IOB RESIDUAL MASS ON WALL LINERS ............................................................................................ 173
TABLE 6.9 – IOC RESIDUAL MASS ON WALL LINERS ............................................................................................ 174
TABLE 6.10 – ROCK-BOX RESIDUAL MASS FOR IRON ORE SAMPLES ....................................................................... 177

XVII
TABLE 6.11 – ROCK-BOX SHEAR ANGLES FOR IRON ORE SAMPLES ........................................................................ 178
TABLE 6.12 – IOA DYNAMIC ADHESION RANKING ASSESSMENT ........................................................................... 187
TABLE 6.13 – IOB DYNAMIC ADHESION RANKING ASSESSMENT ........................................................................... 188
TABLE 6.14 – IOC DYNAMIC ADHESION RANKING ASSESSMENT............................................................................ 189
TABLE 6.15 – CRITICAL RELEASE ANGLE FOR IRON ORE SAMPLES .......................................................................... 190
TABLE 7.1 – DEM PARAMETERS FOR IOB AT 18.5% MC .................................................................................... 222
TABLE 7.2 – SHEAR BOX TESTING RESULTS FOR IOB AT 18.5% MC ...................................................................... 225
TABLE 7.3 – DRAW DOWN TESTING RESULTS FOR IOB AT 18.5% MC ................................................................... 227
TABLE 7.4 – DYNAMIC ADHESION INCLINED PLATE TESTING RESULTS FOR IOB AT 18.5% MC .................................... 228
TABLE 7.5 – HYBRID CONTACT MODEL PARAMETER ITERATION VALUES ................................................................. 230
TABLE 7.6 – HYBRID CONTACT MODEL CALIBRATED PARAMETER VALUES ............................................................... 232
TABLE 7.7 – SHEAR BOX TESTING RESULTS COMPARISON .................................................................................... 235
TABLE 7.8 – DRAW DOWN TESTING RESULTS COMPARISON (FLOWING CASE) ......................................................... 237
TABLE 7.9 – DYNAMIC ADHESION VERTICAL IMPACT TESTING RESULTS FOR IOB AT 18.5% MC ................................. 241
TABLE 7.10 – DYNAMIC ADHESION VERTICAL IMPACT TESTING RESULTS COMPARISON ............................................. 243
TABLE 7.11 – SHEAR BOX TESTING RESULTS COMPARISON .................................................................................. 244
TABLE 7.12 – DRAW DOWN TESTING RESULTS COMPARISON (FLOWING CASE) ....................................................... 244
TABLE 7.13 – DYNAMIC ADHESION VERTICAL IMPACT TESTING CONTACT MODEL COMPARISON ................................. 245

XVIII
NOMENCLATURE
ROMAN SYMBOLS


contact area of adhesion partners m2


area of material stream at exit to “flow-round” zone m2


area of material stream at entrance to “flow-round” zone m2


contact radius of particles in contact m


contact area between two particles m2


contact radius of particles in contact m


contact area of wall liner sample m2


intersection point on shear stress axis Pa


bulk material stream width m


scaling factor -


bulk material cohesion Pa


resultant force vector for kinetic wall friction tester N


cohesion determined using Jenike direct shear tester Pa


correction factor for hardness indenter shape -


scaling factor -


inter-particle distance m


thickness of capillary liquid m


liquid bridge rupture distance m

/
diameter of particle m


interaction of two spheres in contact m

∗
coefficient of restitution -


equivalent particle Young’s modulus Pa


adhesive force N


adhesive force acting between particles N


capillary force N


particle cohesion force N


frictional drag force N


sum of hysteretic spring force N


inter-particle adhesion force N


force acting in normal direction N


external normal force acting on particle N


normal force acting on particle for EEPA model N


normal damping force N


pull-off force N


pull-off force required to separate two contacting particles N

/
force required to separate two contacting particles N

/
capillary force for particle-to-wall contact N


capillary force for particle-to-particle contact N


force acting in tangential direction N


viscous force normal component N


viscous force tangential component N


wall adhesion force N

ℎ
acceleration due to gravity m/s2


adjusted bulk material stream drop height m

ℎ
horizontal force component for kinetic wall friction tester N

ℎ
thickness of material stream at exit to “flow-round” zone m
bulk material burden height m
XIX

ℎ
build-up height m

ℎ
critical build-up height where build-up stops m


build-up height as defined in Figure 4.10 m

ℎ
minimum distance of liquid bridge m

ℎ
initial bulk material stream drop height m

ℎ
thickness of material stream at entrance to “flow-round” zone m


height of rock-box transfer mm


initial loading stiffness N/m


unloading/loading stiffness N/m


adhesive handleability ranking -


adhesive stiffness N/m


cohesive handleability ranking -


flowability ranking -


Hertzian normal stiffness N/m


stiffness in normal direction N/m


stiffness in tangential direction N/m


length of roughness measurement mm


initial thickness of bulk material stream m


length of indentation along its axis mm


thickness of bulk material stream m


shear index -


mass flow rate kg/s

∗
mass flow rate after impact kg/s


equivalent particle mass kg


residual mass from dynamic adhesion testing kg


final mass of filter bag and dust g


initial mass of filter bag g


mass of empty cone g


draw down remaining mass kg


final mass of drained sample g


mass of cone filled with sample g


shear box remaining mass kg


mass of sample in tumble drum g


build-up remaining mass kg


mass of bulk material sample g


mass of bulk material particle g


shear index -


normal force N


power value for force overlap relationship -


applied load for Knoop hardness measurement kgf

∗
radius of particle centre to contact point m


equivalent particle radii m


radius of steel surfaces m


radius of particle m


radius of particle m


centre line average roughness µm


radius of material burden centroid m


radius of head pulley m


mean radius of material stream curvature m


radius of particle m
radius of major Mohr stress circle Pa
XX


centroid radius of element m


radius of major Mohr stress circle Pa


root mean square roughness µm


separation distance between particles m


tensile strength determined using tensile tester Pa


element thickness m


⃗
belt carry back element thickness m


normal vector from particle centre to contact point -


velocity of mass element m/s


thickness of material stream at exit to “flow-round” zone m/s


thickness of material stream at entrance to “flow-round” zone m/s


vertical force component for kinetic wall friction tester N


belt velocity m/s


volume of liquid bridge m3


discharge velocity m/s


volume of liquid bridge m3

 

particle normal relative velocity m/s


normal component of relative velocity m/s


surficial liquid volume to solids volume %


particle i surface liquid volume m3


particle j surface liquid volume m3


particle tangential relative velocity m/s


volume of bulk material particle m3


volume of bulk density testing apparatus m3


stream velocity off build-up m/s


width of rock-box transfer dynamic zone mm


width of rock-box transfer static zone mm


total energy of liquid bridge J


power value for adhesion branch -


distance from centre to edge of liquid bridge m
distance from centre to edge of liquid bridge m

XXI
GREEK SYMBOLS


stress angle acting on arbitrary plane °


conveyor inclination angle °


liquid bridge embracing angle °


discharge angle °


angle of impact plate °


angle of material stream inflow to impact plate °


damping coefficient -


ore surface angle °


impact plate inclination angle °


wall liner angle °


liquid surface tension N/m


bulk material specific weight kN/m3


dynamic shear angle determined from rock-box transfer °


coefficient of critical damping in normal direction -


static shear angle determined from rock-box transfer °

∆
coefficient of critical damping in tangential direction -

∆
element contact area m2

∆
stream element contact area m2

∆
element contact area between inter-particle bonds m2

∆
element contact area between element and belt surface m2

∆
belt carry back element contact area m2

∆
centrifugal force N

∆ℎ
gravitational force N

∆
incremental change in build-up height m

∆
element mass kg

∆
change in radius m


contact surface energy N/m


effective angle of internal friction °


half filling angle °


half filling angle °


particle overlap for JKR contact model m


particle overlap where minimum hysteretic force occurs m


particle overlap in normal direction m


plastic particle overlap m


plastic overlap m


voidage acting between particles -


admissible relative deviation value %


shear angle determined using draw down test °


co-efficient of restitution -


shear angle determined using shear box test °


total inclination angle °


Horizontal angle of material stream inflow to impact plate °


liquid bridge contact angle °


effective contact angle between particles i and j °


coefficient of friction -


viscosity of fluid m2/s


kinematic surface friction -


particle-to-particle friction -
particle rolling friction -

XXII


particle sliding friction -


static surface friction -


bulk density of bulk material sample kg/m3


particle solids density of bulk material sample kg/m3


normal stress Pa


major principal stress Pa


nominated consolidation pressure Pa


minor principal stress Pa


acting normal stress Pa


adhesive stress Pa

()
adhesive strength Pa

()
adhesive stress linear prediction Pa


adhesive stress parabolic prediction Pa


average principal stress Pa


unconfined yield strength Pa


cohesive strength Pa


inter-particle adhesion stress Pa


normal stress for kinetic wall friction tester Pa


pre-consolidation normal stress Pa


shear stress for kinetic wall friction tester Pa


liquid surface tension N/m


tensile adhesive strength Pa


normal stress component connecting IYL and major Mohr circle Pa


normal stress to the wall Pa


tensile strength from wall adhesion tester Pa


wall adhesion stress Pa


shear stress Pa


acting shear stress Pa


kinematic shear stress Pa


cohesive stress Pa


pre-consolidation shear stress Pa


static shear stress Pa


shear stress component connecting IYL and major Mohr circle Pa


shear stress at the wall Pa


cohesive stress at the wall Pa


planing angle for kinetic wall friction tester °


angle co-ordinate of flow round zone °


impingement angle °


angle of internal friction °

Ω
wall friction angle °

Ω
adhesion energy density J/m3


cohesion energy density J/m3
angle of repose determined using draw down test °

XXIII
This page is left intentionally blank

XXIV
ABBREVIATIONS
AED Adhesion Energy Density
AOR Angle of Repose
AR Adhesive Handleability Ranking
BIF Banded Iron-Formation
CED Cohesion Energy Density
CID Channel Iron Deposit
CLA Centre Line Average
COR Coefficient of Restitution
CPU Central Processing Unit
CR Cohesive Handleability Ranking
DEM Discrete Element Method
DEMC Dust Extinction Moisture Content
DMT Derjaguin-Muller-Toporov
EEPA Edinburgh Elasto-Plastic Adhesion
EYL Effective Yield Locus
GPU Graphics Processing Unit
HK Knoop Hardness
IOA Iron Ore A
IOB Iron Ore B
IOC Iron Ore C
IYL Instantaneous Yield Locus
JKR Johnson-Kendall-Roberts
LAMMPS Large-scale Atomic/Molecular Massively
Parallel Simulator
LCID Lower Channel Iron Deposit
LIGGGHTS LAMMPS Improved for General Granular
and Granular Heat Transfer Simulations
MC Moisture Content
PF Particle Sliding Friction
PFA Powder Flow Analyser
PSD Particle Size Distribution
RF Particle Rolling Friction
RMS Root Mean Square
ROM Run-of-Mine
RSD Rotary Sample Divider
SDMC Saturated Drained Moisture Content
SJKR Simplified Johnson-Kendall-Roberts
ST Surface Tension
UCID Upper Channel Iron Deposit
WSBCT Warren Spring-Bradford Cohesion Tester
WSM Wet and Sticky Material
WYL Wall Yield Locus
XRF X-Ray Fluorescence

XXV
This page is left intentionally blank

XXVI
PUBLICATIONS
The following publications have been produced during the time of the PhD candidature:

JOURNAL

Carr, M. J., Roberts, A. W. and Wheeler, C. A., 2019. A Revised Methodology for the
Determination of Bulk Material Cohesion and Adhesion. Advanced Powder Technology, Vol. 30,
No. 10, pp. 2110-2116. (doi:10.1016/j.apt.2019.06.025)

CONFERENCE

Carr, M., Roberts, A. and Wheeler, C., 2018. A Revised Methodology for Cohesion and Adhesion
Analysis of Bulk Materials. In: Proceedings 9th International Conference for Conveying and
Handling of Particulate Solids - CHoPS 2018. London, United Kingdom.

Carr, M., Wheeler, C., Williams, K., Katterfeld, A., Elphick, G., Nettleton, K. and Chen, W., 2018.
Discrete Element Modelling of Problematic Bulk Solids onto Impact Plates. In: Proceedings 9th
International Conference for Conveying and Handling of Particulate Solids - CHoPS 2018.
London, United Kingdom.

Carr, M., Plinke, J., Williams, K., Roberts, A. and Chen, W. 2017. Determination of the
Handleability Index of Adhesive Bulk Materials. In: Proceedings AusIMM (6th Ed.), Iron Ore 2017
Conference Proceedings. Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM), Perth,
Australia.

Carr, M., Williams, K., Chen, W., Hayter, B., Roberts, A. and Wheeler, C., 2017. The Dynamic
Adhesion of Wet and Sticky Iron Ores onto Impact Plates. In: Proceedings AusIMM (6th Ed.), Iron
Ore 2017 Conference Proceedings. Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM),
Perth, Australia.

Carr, M. J., Chen, W., Williams, K. and Katterfeld, A., 2016. Comparative Investigation on
Modelling Wet and Sticky Material Behaviours with a Simplified JKR Cohesion Model and Liquid
Bridging Cohesion Model in DEM. In: Proceedings 12th International Conference on Bulk Solids
Material Storage, Handling and Transport (ICBMH), Darwin, Australia.

XXVII