NOVA

University of Newcastle Research Online

nova.newcastle.edu.au

Chen, W.; Donohue, T.; Williams, K.; Katterfeld, A.; Roessler, T. (2015) “Modelling cohesion and
adhesion of wet, sticky iron ore in discrete element modeling for material handling processes”.
Published in the Proceedings Iron Ore 2015: Maximising Productivity (Perth, W.A. 13-15 July,
2015) p. 387-392

Accessed from: http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/1340335

Iron Ore 2015 Conference

Paper Number: 105

Modelling cohesion and adhesion of wet sticky iron ores in

discrete element modelling for material handling processes
W Chen1, T Donohue2, K Williams3, A Katterfeld4 and T. Roessler5
1.
MECHANICAL ENGINEER, TUNRA BULK SOLIDS RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, NIER SITE, THE
UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE, CALLAGHAN AUSTRALIA 2308. W.Chen@newcastle.edu.au

2.
ENGINEERING MANAGER, TUNRA BULK SOLIDS RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, NIER SITE, THE
UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE, CALLAGHAN AUSTRALIA 2308. Timothy.Donohue@newcastle.edu.au

3.
GENERAL MANAGER - RESEARCH, TUNRA BULK SOLIDS RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, NIER SITE, THE
UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE, CALLAGHAN AUSTRALIA 2308. Ken.Williams@newcastle.edu.au

4.
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITY OF MAGDEBURG, MAGDEBURGE,
GERMANY 39106. Andre.Katterfeld@ovgu.de

5.
RESEARCHER, OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITY OF MAGDEBURG, MAGDEBURGE, GERMANY
39106. Thomas.Roessler@ovgu.de

1
ABSTRACT
Wet sticky iron ore poses particular difficulties in every aspect of the material handling process. Material hang-
ups in bins, pipes and chutes, carry back and spillage due to insufficient belt cleaning, clogging of screens,
malfunctioning of crusher as well as rat holing of gravity reclaimed stockpiles are all predominantly due to the
inherent cohesion and adhesion characteristics of the wet sticky ore (Roberts 1993). Limited understanding
and quantitative measures on the stickiness of such a material significantly lower the mining operation
efficiency.

This research aims to investigate the cohesion and adhesion characteristics of the wet sticky ore on the
following aspects: physical modelling, experimental techniques and numerical implementation. Initially, the
suitable bridging mechanism which contributes to the cohesive and adhesive forces within the iron ore material
was identified (Hering et al. 1989; Rumpf 1958). A cohesion/adhesion energy density factor based contact
model was then introduced to describe the stickiness of the material. Secondly, an experimental system was
proposed to directly test the stickiness of the material. Such a system is able to obtain both the
cohesive/adhesive shear force and tensile force of the material at a specific moisture content. Lastly, the
implementation of the proposed cohesion/adhesion model into the discrete element modelling (DEM) software
was also discussed. A cohesion/adhesion calibration for modelling wet sticky iron ore in DEM was then
conducted to ensure the material modelled in the simulation is reflective of the reality.

From the study, understanding of the cohesion/adhesion characteristics of the wet iron ore material is
significantly enhanced. Experimental and numerical outcomes can be directly applied for better designing or
optimizing the material handling processes which involve wet sticky iron ore. Consequently, the mining
operating costs can be greatly reduced.

INTRODUCTION
The trend for iron ore mining is to extract the deposits which are located close to or even beneath the water
table, this can cause handling issues due to their enhanced adhesive/cohesive characteristics. These materials
can increase the wear and cause expensive downtime by clogging up processing equipment. Especially
chutes, hoppers and screens are prone to clogging. The high propensity of some materials for adhesion can
also lead to carry back on belt conveyors.

Commonly these materials are categorized as wet and sticky. The additional handling costs due to downtime
and sub-optimal running conditions for wet and sticky materials ranges between A$ 4-6 per ton (University
2009). This leads to a significant financial impact on the mining industry. It is important to fundamentally
understand the cohesion/adhesion mechanisms in order to qualitatively rank wet and sticky ores in regard to
their performance in material handling processes.

The wet sticky iron ore also presents a challenge for the Discrete Element Modelling (DEM) technique which
has been popular to design and optimize material handling plants and processes. Commonly, the DEM
technique is able to accurately model relatively dry materials, such as sand, gravels and dry coarse coals, by
incorporating the particle friction, rolling friction and wall friction coefficients into the Hertz contact model.

2
However, with the higher moisture coupled with solids particles, particularly in iron ore, the contact mechanism
becomes complex as the effect of particle surface energy (Burbaum 2009), tension between two particles,
chemical bonding, etc. start to emerge. These effects not only will apply additional particle bonding forces, but
will also alter the frictional properties of the particles/walls, thus changing the material flow behaviours
(Katterfeld et al. 2013). Commonly identified cohesion/adhesion mechanisms are tabulated in Table 1.

To incorporate every single cohesion/adhesion model into the DEM is significantly computationally expensive.
To tackle this, this paper introduces a contact model to describe the cohesion & adhesion mechanism to model
wet sticky ore. A wet, sticky ore material calibration process, both experimental and numerical, was also
proposed to establish the link between reality and the simulation environment. The applications of large scale,
wet sticky ore material handling plants were also showcased.

MODELLING COHESION & ADHESION CONTACTS

A modified Johnson-Kendall-Roberts (JKR) (Johnson et al. 1971) contact model was proposed to incorporate
the effect of cohesion/adhesion into the classic non-cohesive/adhesive Hertz contact model. Due to the fact
that the Hertz contact model only models the compressive forces, not the tension forces in the contact zone,
the contact of two bodies can be separated without an ‘cohesive/adhesive force’. In reality, both compression
and tension forces are co-existing in the particle contact. FIG 1 illustrates the principle of the JKR contact
model.

According to the JKR theory, the between particle-particle or particle-wall contact force is described as,

3 3𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋 2
𝐹𝐹𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = 𝐹𝐹𝑛𝑛 + ( 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 + �3𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋 ∙ 𝐹𝐹𝑛𝑛 + � � ) 𝑁𝑁 (1)
2 2

where 𝐹𝐹𝑛𝑛 is the external normal force acting on the particle, 𝑊𝑊 is the work of adhesion per area unit, d is the
diameter of the particle and K is the composite Young’s Modulus. This can be represented by,

𝐹𝐹𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = 𝐹𝐹𝑛𝑛 + 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒/𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑁𝑁 (2)

The cohesion/adhesion energy factor 𝑊𝑊 is the sum of the surface energies of the two contact particles and the
interfacial energy,

𝑊𝑊 = 𝛾𝛾1 + 𝛾𝛾2 − 𝛾𝛾1,2 𝐽𝐽/𝑚𝑚2 (3)

To simplify the additional force from the cohesion/adhesion energy, the following cohesion/adhesion contact
model between the two parties is proposed,

𝐹𝐹𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = 𝐹𝐹𝑛𝑛 + Ω ∙ 𝜋𝜋(𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝 2 − 𝑟𝑟 2 ) 𝑁𝑁 (4)

where Ω - (J/m3) is the cohesion/adhesion energy density and. 𝜋𝜋(𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝 2 − 𝑟𝑟 2 ) is the contact area between the two
parties.

Subsequently, this cohesive/adhesive contact model is implemented in a DEM code – LIGGGHTS (Kloss &
Goniva 2010).

3
MATERIAL CALIBRATIONS
With the above proposed cohesion/adhesion incorporated into the Hertz contact model, the cohesion/adhesion
energy density factor – Ω is required to mimic the influence of the moisture content on bulk materials’ flow
behaviour. However, the in reality correspondence between the moisture level and the cohesion/energy
density factor in the simulated environment needs to be established to ensure the material’s behaviour in DEM
modelling is reflective of the physical performance of the bulk solid. To achieve this, a material calibration
process is essential. Such a calibration process is to access the material performance under static or dynamic
and loosely packed or consolidated conditions experimentally and numerically and adjust the model to reflect
the real world. Considering common material handling processes in the industry, the handling of bulk solids
can basically be categorized into two scenarios, free flowing scenarios such as transfer chutes, conveyor belts
and ship loaders; and consolidated scenarios such as storage bins, ships and stockpiles. Therefore, two
systems were proposed to calibrate the materials for DEM under the two distinct categories.

Free flowing scenario

The system shown in FIG 2 is proposed to calibrate the free flowing materials. It is designed to mimic the
material flow in industrial scenarios. The material at a particular moisture content is fed into the system by a
belt feeder. There are five stages to analyse the material flow performance,

• Stage 1, material flows into the 500 mm by 500 mm Box1, and the accumulated mass forms a shear
angle of α with a ledge length L1 of 250 mm
• Stage 2, material falls into Box 2 from Box 1, and the accumulated mass forms a second shear angle
of β with a ledge length L2 of 150 mm
• Stage 3, material falls into Box 3 from Box 2 and impacts on a wall panel with an inclination angle Φ1
of 60 degrees, the mass adhered to the wall liner is m1
• Stage 4, material falls into Box 4 from Box 3 and impacts on a wall panel with an inclination angle Φ2
of 75 degrees, the mass adhered to the wall liner is m2
• Stage 5, material falls into the collection tray from Box 4 and forms two angles of repose, θ1 and θ2.

Among the parameters obtained, α, β, θ1 and θ2 are reflective of the inter-particle bonding forces including
the frictional and cohesive components. Whilst, the mass adhered to the two wall panels is the indication of
the adhesion forces between the iron ore at particular moisture content and a particular wall type.

With the proposed system, four simulations have been conducted with different cohesion/adhesion settings for
the material. As shown in FIG 3, as the cohesion/adhesion energy density increases in the simulation, the
material behaves closely to, from normal dry ores to wet sticky ores during discharging. Firstly, there is distinct
difference between the dynamic flow streams in the four scenarios. The continuous flow trajectories gradually
become ruptured, particularly in test 4, when the cohesion/adhesion is increasing. Secondly, the different
cohesion/adhesion settings resulted in the formation of different shear angles, angles of repose, and mass
adhered to the wall liners after discharge as shown in FIG 4. The detailed simulation parameter settings and
results are tabulated in TABLE 2. The combination of the dynamic flow behaviours and the static parameters

4
after discharge provide a robust calibration for implementation of free flowing material to be modelled by DEM.
Providing that the material behaviour corresponds to the ore at a particular moisture content in the experiment,
such DEM settings are considered calibrated and can then be used to simulate the actual industrial material
handling process.

Consolidated scenario
The system shown in FIG 5 illustrates the proposed calibration system for consolidated materials. The testing
procedure is detailed as per the following steps,

• Step 1, set the mass flow hopper opening width (B1) based on the flow property test results (Roberts
1993) of the ore material at a particular moisture content, and ensure B1 is smaller than the calculated
critical opening width Bc to achieve arching during discharge. Record the hopper opening (B1) and
hopper half angle – α1.
• Step 2, ore material is centrally loaded into the hopper. A surcharge pressure – Ps is applied by the
pneumatic actuator onto the loaded ore.
• Step 3, open the discharge gate and allow the ore material to arch. Then slowly increase the hopper
opening width until the ore fully discharges from the hopper. Record the opening B2 and hopper half
angle – α2. Measure the angles of repose θ1 and θ2. Also measure the mass adhered to the two side
walls – m1 and m2.
• Step 4, repeat step 1 to 3 with a different surcharge pressure Ps.

With all the parameters obtained, the hopper opening width B2, angles of repose θ1 and θ2 are reflective of the
inter-particle frictional and cohesive forces. The mass left on the side walls indicates the strength of the
adhesion. Testing at different surcharge pressures also allows better assessment of the ore performance under
consolidation.

Following the above steps, simulations with different cohesion/adhesion and consolidation conditions (0/50
kPa) were conducted. FIG 6 shows the formation of material arching after the discharge gate is opened. For
tests without cohesion/adhesion setting, the simulated material failed to achieve arching. With arched tests,
the profiles of the arch can then be compared with experimental results to indicate further cohesion/adhesion
setting adjustment. Additionally, the arched test with 50 kPa consolidation stress also provides further
indication of the material bulk cohesion/adhesion strength when consolidated. After the arching stage, the
hopper half angle was reduced thus resulting in an increased opening. FIG 7 shows the critical opening width
B2 in each test when the simulated material starts fully discharging. Results with and without consolidation can
then be used to compare the experimental results to gain the indication of the cohesion setting for the ore at
that particular moisture level. Furthermore, the material left on the two side walls is the indication of the
adhesion characteristics for the material in DEM modelling. The detailed simulation parameters and results
are tabulated in TABLE 3.

5
CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents the method for modelling wet sticky iron ores using the discrete element modelling
technique for an industrial scale material handling process. A modified DEM contact model was proposed to
combine the classic Hertz contact with the Johnson-Kendall-Roberts cohesive/adhesive contact to
demonstrate the influence of the moisture content on the material’s behaviour in DEM modelling. Based on
real world common material handling processes, two calibration systems for free flowing material and
consolidated material were proposed to ensure that the modelled of wet sticky material is reflective of the ore
material with a particular moisture in mind. Results showed that the proposed model is able to model various
wet sticky ore behaviours both under the free flowing and consolidated scenarios. Therefore, such a model
can therefore be utilized to simulate industrial scale material handling processes involving wet sticky ores more
accurately once the calibrated DEM model characteristics correspond to experimental material test results.

REFERENCES
Burbaum, U., 2009. Adhäsion bindiger Böden an Werkstoffoberflächen von Tunnelvortriebsmaschinen.
Technische Universität Darmstadt, Institut für Angewandte Geowissenschaften.

Hering, E., Martin, R. & Stohrer, M., 1989. Physik für Ingenieure, VDI-Verlag.

Johnson, K.L., Kendall, K. & Roberts, A.D., 1971. Surface energy and the contact of elastic solids.
Proceedings of the royal society of London. A. mathematical and physical sciences, 324(1558),
pp.301–313.

Katterfeld, A., Donohue, T.J. & Chen, W., 2013. On the calibration of bulk solids for discrete element
modelling. In 11th International Conference on Bulk Solids Material Storage, Handling and Transport.
Newcastle, Australia.

Kloss, C. & Goniva, C., 2010. Liggghts–a new open source discrete Element simulation software. In Proc. of
The 5th International Conference on Discrete Element Methods. pp. 25–26.

Roberts, A.W., 1993. Basic principles of bulk solids storage, flow and handling, Institute for Bulk Materials
Handling Research.

Rumpf, H., 1958. Grundlagen und methoden des granulierens. Chemie Ingenieur Technik, 30(3), pp.144–
158.

University, C., 2009. Wet and sticky ore mystery… a thing of the past? Available at:
http://news.curtin.edu.au/stories/wet-and-sticky-ore-mystery-a-thing-of-the-past/ [Accessed December
8, 2014].

6
FIGURE CAPTIONS
FIG 1 – Contact radius illustration for the cohesive/adhesive Hertz contact model

FIG 2 – Schematic of the calibration system for free flowing ore materials.

FIG 3 – Schematic of the calibration system for consolidated ore materials.

FIG 4 – Free flow DEM calibration test during discharging.

FIG 5 – Free flow DEM calibration test after discharge.

FIG 6 – Consolidated DEM calibration during arching.

FIG 7 – Consolidated DEM calibration after fully discharged.

TABLE CAPTIONS
TABLE 1

Commonly identified cohesive/adhesive mechanism

TABLE 2

Free flowing material calibration tests parameters and results.

TABLE 3

Consolidated material calibration tests parameters and results.

7
FIGURES

FIG 1 - Contact radius illustration for the cohesive/adhesive Hertz contact model

8
FIG 2 – Schematic of the calibration system for free flowing ore materials.

9
FIG 3 – Free flow DEM calibration test during discharging.

10
FIG 4 – Free flow DEM calibration test after discharge.

11
FIG 5 – Schematic of the calibration system for consolidated ore materials.

12
 Test 1 Test 3
No Consolidation No Consolidation
No Cohesion & Adhesion 400 kJ/m3 Cohesion & Adhesion

Test 2 Test 3
50 kPa Consolidation 50 kPa Consolidation
No Cohesion & Adhesion 400 kJ/m3 Cohesion & Adhesion

FIG 6 – Consolidated DEM calibration during arching. All hopper half angles α are 20o, and hopper outlet
width are 180mm. Only cohesive and adhesive test cases exhibit arching.

13
 Test 1 Test 3
No Consolidation No Consolidation
No Cohesion & Adhesion 400 kJ/m3 Cohesion & Adhesion

α = 20o α = 15.6o

B2 = 180 mm B2 = 248 mm

Test 2 Test 3
50 kPa Consolidation 50 kPa Consolidation
No Cohesion & Adhesion 400 kJ/m3 Cohesion & Adhesion

α = 20o α = 14.6o

B2 = 180 mm B2 = 264 mm

FIG 7 – Consolidated DEM calibration during fully discharge. A reduction of hopper half angle α and increase
of hopper opening width are required when adding cohesion & adhesion to the simulated material in order for
the material to self-discharge.

14
15
TABLES

TABLE 1
Commonly identified cohesive/adhesive mechanism
Without material bridges
• Electrostatic attraction
• Van-der-Waals Forces
• Valence bond
With material bridges
Liquid bridges Solid bridges
• Freely movable liquid surface • Sintering
• Capillary forces • Re-crystallization
• Interfacial forces • Chemical reaction of primary
• Not moveable binder bridges particle
• Binder • Grain growth
• Glue • Crystallization of solids in the
• Absorption layer contact liquid between particle

TABLE 2
Free flowing material calibration tests parameters and results.
Parameter and results TEST 1 TEST 2 TEST 3 TEST 4
Particle friction 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
Rolling friction 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
DEM
Wall friction 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
settings
Cohesion energy density – kJ/m3 0 200 400 600
Adhesion energy density – kJ/m3 0 200 400 600
α - degrees 51.2 49.9 57.6 59.7
β - degrees 51.8 57.2 71.7 75.3
θ1 - degrees 42.9 48.9 78.0 NA
Results
θ2 - degrees 33.9 34.8 45.0 NA
m1 - kg 0 0 0.83 6.71
m2 - kg 0 0 0.62 0.58

16
TABLE 3
Consolidated material calibration tests parameters and results.
Parameter and results TEST 1 TEST 2 TEST 3 TEST 4
Particle friction 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
Rolling friction 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
DEM Wall friction 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
settings Cohesion energy density – kJ/m3 0 0 400 400
Adhesion energy density – kJ/m3 0 0 400 400
Consolidation pressure - kPa 0 50 0 50
α – degrees 20 20 16 13
B2 - mm 180 180 248 274
Results
θ1 - degrees 35.2 36.1 NA NA
after fully
θ2 - degrees 34.8 34.2 NA NA
discharged
m1 - kg 0 0 1.67 5.67
m2 - kg 0 0 0.98 6.26

17