Transfer chute redesign guided by DEM modelling
Discrete Element Method modelling identified why a critical transfer chute blocked in wet season ore, and guided a redesign that kept product flowing.
the flow problem solved at its cause
a controlled stream at the load point
options tested in simulation, not in service
The challenge
Transfer chutes are commonly designed from precedent drawings and adjusted in the field once the problems appear, with deflectors added, liners swapped and hoses run to clear hang-ups during wet weather. Recurring blockages force unplanned stoppages on conveying circuits where every stoppage costs production hours.
Fixes applied this way treat symptoms and the underlying flow behaviour stays unknown, so the next shutdown carries the same risk. Engineering and operations personnel require a clear understanding of how the material actually behaves before committing steel and a shutdown window to another modification.
When it's time to act
The signs we commonly see when this initiative is due.
- The same chute blocks every wet season, and the standing fix is a person with a bar or a hose.
- Deflectors and liners changed repeatedly without changing the outcome.
- Spillage and belt wear at the load point absorbed as a cleaning cost.
- A throughput increase coming, with nobody sure the transfer will take it.
- Every modification a bet, because the flow behaviour has never been seen.
How we deliver it
Characterise
Shear cell, wall friction and moisture testing on real samples across the operating range.
Capture geometry
Survey or 3D scan the chute, belts and structure so the model matches what is installed.
Calibrate
Tune the DEM contact model until simulated behaviour matches measured bench behaviour.
Simulate
Run the full range of throughput, moisture and material conditions, not just the design point.
Redesign
Translate flow, impact and wear results into geometry and liner changes, then re-run.
Deliver and verify
Fabrication-ready drawings, then check performance once the chute is in service.
Characterise
Shear cell, wall friction and moisture testing on real samples across the operating range.
Capture geometry
Survey or 3D scan the chute, belts and structure so the model matches what is installed.
Calibrate
Tune the DEM contact model until simulated behaviour matches measured bench behaviour.
Simulate
Run the full range of throughput, moisture and material conditions, not just the design point.
Redesign
Translate flow, impact and wear results into geometry and liner changes, then re-run.
Deliver and verify
Fabrication-ready drawings, then check performance once the chute is in service.
Our approach
- Understand the problem from the operating history and from the people who clear the blockages: when it plugs, on what material, at what moisture and throughput, and what has already been tried.
- Capture existing geometry and operating data so the model reflects the chute and belts as installed rather than as originally drawn.
- Assess the existing transfer against your engineering standards and current design practice, so the gap between what is installed and what good looks like is explicit before any redesign starts.
- Characterise the material by testing, then simulate flow with DEM across the full range of moisture and throughput conditions.
- Redesign the chute geometry and liner selection to control the material stream and remove build-up zones, checked against your engineering standards and relevant industry design practice.
- Deliver fabrication-ready drawings and support the site through installation and commissioning.
Tools and methods
The value it creates
- Blockages eliminated in wet season operation following commissioning.
- Reduced spillage and belt wear on the receiving conveyor.
- Design verified against future throughput targets, avoiding rework in the next expansion.
What changes
Fixes bolted on in the field
The flow problem solved at its cause
Design from precedent drawings
Geometry tested in simulation before steel is cut
Unknown material behaviour
Flow characterised across moisture and throughput
Wear as a recurring surprise
Liner selection matched to predicted impact and shear zones
Where these initiatives fail
The failure modes we design against.
- Simulating without material testing, which produces animation rather than evidence.
- Modelling only the design point, when the failures live at wet, sticky and peak conditions.
- Modelling the chute as drawn rather than as installed, after years of field modification.
- Stopping at the pictures instead of carrying results through to geometry, liners and drawings.
Common questions
How is DEM different from CFD for this work?
DEM models the bulk material as discrete particles with contact physics, which is what governs chute flow, blockage and wear. CFD models continuous fluids and suits slurry and air flows. For transfer chutes handling ore, DEM is the right tool.
What samples and testing are needed?
Representative material across the moisture range, tested for wall friction against the actual liner material and for shear strength using methods such as the Jenike cell. Calibration against that testing is what makes the model worth acting on.
Can the redesign be checked against future throughput?
Yes, and it should be. Once calibrated, the model runs future duty cases as cheaply as current ones, so the geometry is proven against the expansion before fabrication.
Key terms
Plain-language definitions from our glossary for the concepts this page leans on.
Further reading
Articles and calculators on the methods behind this work.
- What DEM modelling actually tells you about a transfer chute (article)
- Conveyor Capacity Calculator (tool)
- Mining solutions (solution)
Related projects
Facing a similar challenge?
Tell us what you are working through and we will bring the right mix of engineering, data and hands-on experience.
Contact us