Performance Evaluation of Iron ore plant Chutes

Executive Summary

We assessed bulk flow through the transfer chute between the feed and receiving conveyors

using a Simulation model. Inputs reflected the liner materials in service and a 10 mm iron-ore

lump assumption for the base run. We reviewed velocity, trajectory, wall loading, preliminary

wear, and adhesion indicators. The outcome was a short list of geometry and liner zoning

actions to stabilize placement on the receiving belt and reduce peak wall demand.

Scope and Objectives

This pilot study examined the performance of the transfer chute between the feed and receiving conveyors with specific focus on four operational risks:

• Material buildup inside the chute, especially in corners and deceleration zones.

• Blockage formation during high-throughput conditions or with cohesive fines.

• Spillage at the discharge, affecting belt centering and housekeeping.

• Liner breakage and accelerated wear, driven by impact loads and sliding exposure.

The model was prepared to establish baseline flow patterns, identify zones with stagnant or

recirculating material, and quantify local wall loads that might trigger cracking or failure of liner plates. Findings were used to assess the stability of the existing geometry and determine whether flow remained self-clearing under the imposed feed rate

A representation of the 10 mm ironore stream was used to simulate particle motion from the belt release to impact and final discharge. The model incorporated the supplied liner materials - rubber, chromium carbide, and AR400, each with their mechanical properties. The analysis included velocity fields, wallinteraction patterns, adhesion effects at low moisture, and residencetime clustering to reveal any tendency toward material retention

Assumptions and Limits

• Base particle shape set to spheres for the 10 mm case; polyhedral sensitivity explored in

alternative runs.

• No full calibration against plant angle of repose in this pilot; recommended before finalization.

• Liquid fraction used for adhesion probe was nominal; site‑specific moisture varies.

Simulation Cases

The study evaluated twelve cases covering particle sizes from 10 mm to 70 mm, both spherical and polyhedral, with and without liquidbridge adhesion and varying rollingresistance inputs. Case outcomes captured changes in maximum particle velocity (≈7.1 - 7.9 m/s), wear indicators,and adhesion forces, with Case12 (10 mm spheres, adhesion enabled) showing the highest combined sensitivity to wear and sticking behavior.

Results - Flow, Wear, Adhesion

The base run established stable material guidance through the hood and onto the receiving belt. Trajectory families stayed within the designed skirts, with limited spray. Impact demand

concentrated on the primary deflector face, while the downstream panel showed sliding

dominant contact.

Time History Indicators

Moisture and Adhesion Indicators (Liquid Bridge)

A small moisture fraction was applied to probe adhesion sensitivity. The liquid‑bridge model

indicated a measurable cohesive pull at short gaps. This raised sticking risk in corners and

increased sliding work on the first impact panel.

Key Findings :

Material BuildUp

• Lowvelocity pockets were localized at panel transitions and skirt corners, coinciding with

regions where flow speed dropped below ~1-1.5 m/s during the base run, increasing the

likelihood of fines retention.

• With adhesion enabled (liquidbridge case; mₗ ≈ 0.1 kg total wetting mass in the

sensitivity set), thin deposits initiated on the first deflector panel, confirming a moisture-driven buildup pathway.

Blockage Risk

• At the rated 1800 T/h and feedbelt speed 3 m/s, the chute remained selfclearing with

stable attachment and no mass holdups observed.

• Polyhedral shapes and liquidbridge activation produced short residence clusters; total

simulated population ≈ 606,305 particles captured these effects, indicating elevated

blockage sensitivity under cohesive or irregular ore conditions.

Spillage at Discharge

• For the base case (10 mm spheres), the stream stayed within skirts; lateral scatter

remained limited and belt capture was high at the receiving conveyor.

• Larger size sensitivities widened the footprint (peak particle speeds ~7.3 - 7.9 m/s, e.g.,

7.71 m/s in Case - 12), yet the flow was still largely contained; adhesion increased discharge angle, raising edge spillage risk

Liner Breakage & Wear Exposure

• The primary strike face carried the dominant impact energy and is the lead breakage risk zone; downstream panels were sliding-dominated (abrasion risk, not cracking).

• In the highlighted moisture case (Case - 12: 10 mm spheres, rolling resistance 0.5, liquid

bridge = Yes), reported indicators showed: max velocity 7.71 m/s, wear loss ≈ 58,682 mm³, adhesive force ≈ 37.79 N, adhesive stress ≈ 0.028 MPa, all consistent with higher local stress and an increased probability of impact-driven damage at the strike panel.

Recommendations

• Zone liners: impact-resistant material on the primary strike panel; abrasion resistant on sliding panels; tough inserts at skirt corners.

• Maintain belt speed balance to keep the discharge stream centred; verify with belt scale

trends.

• If wet ore is frequent, add a light wash or low stick liner at the first contact zone to cut

adhesion.

• Plan inspection windows at the predicted strike band; compare wear pattern to the model-derived map.