As a post nuptial point, I offer an illustration for those who wish to know more about granular physics with gas such as:
1. Image of rock flow without gas file name: chregas
2. Gas flow in rock stream with file name: chrerock
3. Image of rock & gas with file name: chrerock-gas
4. More images will come on another thread demonstrating DEM's many virtues.
This set of illustrations has been tampered with to highlight gas convection currents that occur within the chute and their insight to dust emissions, at many levels of leakage. This illustration is not a demonstration of a proposed solution. It does show where DEM-Gas modeling can take us.
There are very many attributes that can be observed from DEM coupled to gas and DEM coupled to a liquid bridge rheology group.
You comment on rheology properties, which can also be modeled with reasonable accuracy for sticky - cohesive materials. This usually refers to fines with moisture. Jenike-Johanson, Prof. Alan Roberts & Tunra and many others have studied these rheology properties giving rise to doing the math on flow behavior.
We all see a value in building scale modeling and infusing the product or some estimate of the product into a physical model. I will not now debate the + & - of this approach. I do note, none of us has the Midas Touch to guarantee conclusively the solution will not need further tuning or modification.
I anticipate your book will offer good insight, maybe job saving insight to many who practice without a license, and many who do have such a license. I have made my argument on why I posted the initial comments. I leave this and offer, through a series of illustrations, the path some will take to nearly optimize the chutes of tomorrow and the need to redo many chutes of today.
Clients do not possess the wisdom to evaluate their losses from poorly designed chutes. DEM can give much needed insight and guidance to demonstrate the benefits of superior chute designs vs. present practices. DEM provides:
1. power savings,
2. belt life savings,
3. control of belt spillage from mal-designed chutes,
4. degradation of product,
5. elimination of pluggage – sticky, cohesive modeling with buildup and agglomeration
6. etc.
I see us on the same side with different methods to achieve the same goal.
Lawrence Nordell Conveyor Dynamics, Inc. website, email & phone contacts: www.conveyor-dynamics.com nordell@conveyor-dynamics.com phone: USA 360-671-2200 fax: USA 360-671-8450
Rock & Gas Flow Modeling in Chutes
Rock & Gas Flow Modeling in Chutes w/ "ROCKY"
"ROCKY" Illustrates Fragmented Rock w/ Gas
Also posted to: News From Industry --- The Transfer Chute Design Manual
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colin:
As a post nuptial point, I offer an illustration for those who wish to know more about granular physics with gas such as:
1. Image of rock flow without gas file name: chregas
2. Gas flow in rock stream with file name: chrerock
3. Image of rock & gas with file name: chrerock-gas
4. More images will come on another thread demonstrating DEM's many virtues.
This set of illustrations has been tampered with to highlight gas convection currents that occur within the chute and their insight to dust emissions, at many levels of leakage. This illustration is not a demonstration of a proposed solution. It does show where DEM-Gas modeling can take us.
There are very many attributes that can be observed from DEM coupled to gas and DEM coupled to a liquid bridge rheology group.
You comment on rheology properties, which can also be modeled with reasonable accuracy for sticky - cohesive materials. This usually refers to fines with moisture. Jenike-Johanson, Prof. Alan Roberts & Tunra and many others have studied these rheology properties giving rise to doing the math on flow behavior.
We all see a value in building scale modeling and infusing the product or some estimate of the product into a physical model. I will not now debate the + & - of this approach. I do note, none of us has the Midas Touch to guarantee conclusively the solution will not need further tuning or modification.
I anticipate your book will offer good insight, maybe job saving insight to many who practice without a license, and many who do have such a license. I have made my argument on why I posted the initial comments. I leave this and offer, through a series of illustrations, the path some will take to nearly optimize the chutes of tomorrow and the need to redo many chutes of today.
Clients do not possess the wisdom to evaluate their losses from poorly designed chutes. DEM can give much needed insight and guidance to demonstrate the benefits of superior chute designs vs. present practices. DEM provides:
1. power savings,
2. belt life savings,
3. control of belt spillage from mal-designed chutes,
4. degradation of product,
5. elimination of pluggage – sticky, cohesive modeling with buildup and agglomeration
6. etc.
I see us on the same side with different methods to achieve the same goal.
Peace,
Attachments
chre_1_gas_2 (JPG)
chre_1_rock (JPG)
chre_1_rock_gas (JPG)
■