Copyright is vested with IMHC

1
DEVELOPMENTS IN CHUTE DESIGN FOR HIGH
CAPACITY MULTI PRODUCT CONVEYING
Phil Staples and Luigi Liccardo

1. INTRODUCTION
Seeing an extensive demand for raw materials in China, India and to a lesser extent in
Europe prompts an ever-increasing need to transport high volumes of base metals, coal and
similar commodities.
Servicing the growing demands for bulk transportation of such materials to fuel this exploding
global infrastructure expansion, the development of belt conveyor systems has seen an
unprecedented increase in popularity.
Simply increasing size, speed and related capacity is today totally unacceptable because in
an environmentally sensitive world, issues such as dust generating, spillage and the
associated pollution is permanently under the scrutiny of the developers and operators alike.
Today we see Ports clogged with bulk vessels waiting to load their cargo and there is not a
single port considering, preparing or developing its facilities to meet this growing worldwide
demand.

To this end, we, as designers have a duty to make the systems we develop stand up to the
rigours of providing truly well designed equipment which offer high availability, coupled to the
associated ease of maintenance in a breakdown situation.
To be able to guarantee quick and simple start up, to rapidly identify failures and to predict the
possible future failure before they occur. This has been identified as introducing intelligence
into the equipment we provide.

Over the years, we have seen the introduction of many innovative solutions to materials
handling problems; the Pipe Conveyor to eliminate transfer points and reduce blow off dust
emissions.
The Triangular Gantry and Maintenance Trolley to allow cost effective elevation of
conveyors away from the problems of Port sterilization and quick access to the maintenance
area.
Presently we are developing idlers with temperature sensors, which will warn of pending
failure, and coupling this to the Maintenance Trolley we will be able to send the trolley to
automatically monitor and replace damaged idlers.

These new innovations are helping with the required improvements in system availability but
we are still to fully address the biggest cause of damage, wear and serviceability, this being
referred to as the transfer point.

The normal requirement at a typical Port can be the transportation of 2,000 to 15,000 tons of
ore per hour, transport as much as 30 different products through the same system of
conveyor belts and transfer points.
These products can vary from pellets, to fine high moisture ores, to dusty powders.
Consideration must also given to conveying high impact materials which are not very forgiving
to poor chute design making prediction of flow paths of immense importance.

This paper sets out to show the processes being applied to the development of transfer points
at three of South Africas export terminals namely Saldanha Bay, Port Elizabeth and Richards
Bay Dry Bulk Terminal.

To highlight the work being undertaken, this paper concentrates on the following aspects of
chute development:-
The effect of flexibility on the availability of associated equipment
Transfer point complication
Computer modeling of material flow
Wear protection
Dust emission
Maintenance and finally
Condition Monitoring


Copyright is vested with IMHC
2
This focus is an ongoing development of what has been termed Condition Monitoring
normally associated with belting, pulleys, idlers and drive components.

However this need to effectively transfer different materials on the same conveying system
results in the need for the establishment of a totally defined procedure to operate and
maintain the transfer points, including simple methods of defining liner wear and undertaking
inspections resulting in the achievement of predictive scheduled maintenance.

2. TERMINAL LAYOUT - THE EFFECT OF FLEXIBILITY ON AVAILABILITY
Terminal layout is considered to offer the biggest challenge to the designer especially when
the upgrades are proceeding with abundance, sketches figures 2.1 and 2.2 below show the
measure of expansion one can see in many of our ports.

However, how do we approach this requirement for upgrade, do we simply increase the
number of storage beds with the increase of infrastructure or do we investigate the cause and
effect of an additional transfer point as related to system flexibility and availability.


Figure 2.1 present Layout


Figure 2.2 Possible New Layout After Upgrade
Today a large amount of work is being done to understand the philosophy of flexibility as
related to availability, any self respecting operator / owner when asked about flexibility will
always answer that the first rule is total flexibility, not understanding that total flexibility results
in unworkable operating solutions, meaning very poor availability.


Copyright is vested with IMHC
3
This is no more significant in a terminal or power plant where even when one calls for total
redundancy, often one should read that as totally redundant, or inoperable. For the purpose
of this paper we considered that in transfer point design, having the ability to place product on
any conveyor from any transfer point to ensure flexibility is possibly a nice to have but the
requirements of the transfer chute then becomes very extensive and a real compromise on
the design itself, certainly negating the guarantee of eliminating the compromises we try to
design out of a transfer point.

Therefore, one should use extensive simulation modeling to help understand the effect of
adding in that additional conveyor and related transfer point.

2.1. TRANSFER POINT LAYOUT - TRANSFER POINT COMPLICATION
One of the projects under investigation, offered the writer an opportunity to understand the
acute effects of obtaining a flexible solution; the terminal conveys 30million tons of iron ore
per year and over the next 10 years it is proposed to increase this to 90million tons per year.
Which will increase the number of transfer points from the present 24, (chutes), to 68 transfer
points. Each of which will, at some time in their operation, see all 12 different products.
Theoretically it offers over 1000 different routes to go from the tippler station to the ship loader
and without computer modeling it is totally impossible to understand what flexibility actually
entails, in fact in one case we see consideration being given to introducing an additional
conveyor line to overcome the loss of availability caused by the many flexible transfer
points.
Figure 2.3 following shows the effect of meeting the flexibility requirement, it shows a multi-
position moving head chute which offers extensive improvements on bifurcated or shuttle
transfers, but being able to guarantee accurate positioning, requires extensive
instrumentation control and repeatable placement complications.


Figure 2.3 - Typical Moving Head Transfer

Another solution for a simple two-way transfer is the diverter car shown below figure 2-4. It
offers simple transfer with generally lower height requirements between incoming and
outgoing belts.

Copyright is vested with IMHC
4

Figure 2.4 Typical Diverter Chute

3. PRESENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CHUTE FLOW CRITERIA - COMPUTER MODELING
OF MATERIAL FLOW

3.1. INTRODUCTION
When one embarks on the development of a transfer point, there are a number of expected
norms considered essential in perfecting the design. Firstly, one has to consider the
materials being transferred and with typical Terminals as stated above, multiple products are
the order of the day.
So what do we design for? The answer is to design for the worst product, but what is the
worst product? Is it flow ability, dust generation or abrasion? We generally have a
combination of all aspects in our chute design so a typical approach will be as follows:-
Material Testing
Chute Layout
Computer Modeling of Material Path and
Computer Modeling of Material Velocity
Physical Model Building.

3.2. MATERIAL TESTING
Initially one would attempt to produce a set of laboratory tests on the materials being
transferred, however, this is realistically only carried out on the worst material, (generally the
stickiest), possibly with various degrees of moisture content.
These tests produce a schedule as indicated in Table 3.1, which highlights friction angles
and recommended minimum chute angles for various impact pressures over different liner
types.

Copyright is vested with IMHC
5

Liner Types
Impact
Pressure
KPA
Friction Angle
Deg
Chute Angle
Deg
VRN500
0.00
2.10
3.50
5.50
35
37
39
41
45
47
49
51
Ti-Hand
0.00
2.10
3.50
5.50
37
40
42
44
47
50
52
54
Chromonite-1
0.00
2.10
3.50
5.50
36
38
40
43
46
48
50
53
Chromonite-180
0.00
2.10
3.50
5.50
29
31
33
35
39
41
43
45
Mild Steel
0.00
2.10
3.50
5.50
34
37
39
42
44
47
49
52
Ceramic
0.00
2.1
3.5
5.5
33
36
38
40
43
46
48
50
Dead Boxes
(Material sliding
on material)
0.00
2.10
3.50
5.50
38
40
42
46
48
50
52
56
Table 3.1 Liner types under consideration

It is not normal for the laboratory to recommend the best liner type for the application; this is
generally a function of layout and impact characteristics of both chute and liner material.

Copyright is vested with IMHC
6
3.3. CHUTE LAYOUT



Figure 3.2 Chute Layout

The tests indicated in section 3.2 above, generated the friction angles and recommended
chute angles for the material application in question. This is used to develop the 2 and 3
dimensional layout of the proposed chute. Figure 3.2 above is an application with conveyor
feed too and collection from a primary and twin secondary crusher application.
The next stage in the development of the chute is the introduction of a mathematical model,
which produces chute flow predictions, (routing) and material velocities and impact pressures
to allow correct liner selection and positioning.

3.4. COMPUTER MODELING OF MATERIAL PATH

The last 6 years has seen unprecedented developments in chute flow predictions using
subject matter such has DEM, (Discrete Element Method), theory where predictions of
material flow direction and velocity are considered to be standard practice. Below is a
graphical representation of a modeling technique as demonstrated by Mr. LK Nordell in his
Beltcon 12 paper refer figure 3.3.
This is a mathematical tool, which is now being employed extensively to assist with material
flow problems and predictions.

Copyright is vested with IMHC
7

Figure 3.3 DEM method as considered by Mr. LK Nordell in his Beltcon 12 paper

Here one is able, (using sophisticated computer modeling techniques), to define the total path
of a material through a chute and calculate the material velocity and impact forces on itself
and contact surfaces.

However, typically a conveying system will not have a standard homogeneous product
passing through it requiring that many variations of chute layout must be considered. As
noted above at a typical Terminal there will be a multitude of different products transferred on
a daily basis with variations in every attribute, including size, moisture content and dust
emissions and abrasion gives the products significant flow property variations.

So the confidence associated in computer model predictions, although a basis for the design
is far from acceptable in obtaining a total solution to the acceptance of a total solution.

Obviously discrete element modeling systems can be used at this time in place of the
simplified spreadsheet approach adopted for most purposes as seen in figure 3.5.

Copyright is vested with IMHC
8


Copyright is vested with IMHC
9


Copyright is vested with IMHC
10




Figure 3.4 Spread Sheet Approach to Material Flow Analysis

However, with the number of tests, that must be undertaken for a multi product Terminal, one
can understand that the required variation in velocity and trajectory, (path), cannot be catered
for in an individual design.

Copyright is vested with IMHC
11
The approach of designing for the worst case can often be to the detriment of the overall
material flow. To explain this, consider a product range from fine material to lumpy ore.
Suggesting that chute angles to prevent build up of fine material will be significantly steeper
(70 degrees) than lumpy ore (50 degrees), you may be able to design for the chute to
eliminate fine material blockage but applying the same 70 degree chute angles to the lumpy
ore will produce high chute exit velocities, uncontrollable spillage and high belt wear.

Using this data provided from material testing Table 3.1, the spread sheet calculations figure
3.4 a velocity profile through the chute can be prepared as follows:-


Figure 3.5 Computer model of chute Cv117 to Cv116 and Cv 117

3.5. TYPICAL MATHEMATICAL OUTPUT
3.5.1. CV 117 to CV 112
The design data employed was obtained from data sheets and drawings provided as follows:
3.5.2. Incoming Conveyor CV117:
Belt width 1650 mm
Velocity 4.2 m/s
Capacity 10 000 tph (at p = 2500 kg/m)
Head pulley diameter 1020 mm
Design density 2500 kg/m
Inclination angle (discharge end) 2
3.5.3. Receiving conveyor CV 112
Belt width 1650 mm
Velocity 4.28 m/s
Toughing angle 45

Copyright is vested with IMHC
12
Capacity 10 000 tph (at p = 2500 kg/m)
Design density 2500 kg/m
Inclination angle (receiving end) 0

The velocity, impact pressures and required areas are as follows:
Point A The stream impact pressure is 19.33 kPa
The velocity after impact is 0.1 m/s
Point E The velocity is 5.26 m/s
The requires material section is 0.2112 m
Point F The stream impact pressure is 6.62 kPa
The velocity after impact is 2.93 m/s
Point G The velocity is 3.11 m/s
The required material section is 0.3573 m
The conclusions from this type of analysis will be as follows:-

The material velocity in the direction of the receiving conveyor is 1.79 m/s and the
kinetic energy caused by a maximum particle of 30x30x30 mm is less than 1 Joule.
The pressure on receiving belt is 6.49 kPa.

From the trajectory plot it was seen that the material impacts low down in the chute
on the left hand side. An oversized dead box will be required in this area to guide
the material to the centre of the belt.

At the point of impact on the belt, the material section is 0.65 m and the available
area is 0.9 m. The front part of the chute need to be brought forward to create
more space in the acceleration area.

While respecting that there is an analytical procedure available in the market place, we are
still in the infancy stage and as stated above applying this approach to multiple products will
produce multiple answers, which cannot be catered for with a one size fits all approach.

We are in the process of comparing the on site observation and the theoretical results from a
typical DEM model but we are far from convinced of the success.
This comparison exercise is considered to be significant in attempting to provide some form of
credibility to the new art and not let it drift into the realms of other so-called new technologies,
which have no on site benchmarking backup.
The spreadsheet approach indicated above can be considered as a real hands on tool,
allowing multiple tests, (materials), to be undertaken quickly and above all cost effectively.
The analysis utilizes the application of material trajectory theory which was extensively
applied to the free fall portions of the chute. Coupling the analyses techniques, (of material
testing and flow velocity calculation), together we were able to prepare a model which allowed
us to predict the routing through the chutes and place the necessary liners in the correct
places.

4. ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO CHUTE DESIGN
Section 3 above showed the difficulty in developing a correct solution to the problems of multi
product transfers. The end user who, being totally familiar with the problem, still insists on a
bottom dollar solution does not assist this problem.
Today we are often reminded that conveyors have not changed in the last hundred years, but,
when attempts are made to effect change, we get confronted with, its worked for years so
why change it well, we as designers are striving for new developments, as note above, so
why not the intelligent chute.

This is not really a new concept; ship-loading chutes have for years had an adjustable spout.
But to now introduce an intelligence level relating chute mass to blockages is a must when
one is trying to optimize chute flow to outlet velocity and therefore belt wear.

Figure 4.1 following shows a typical transfer chute expected to transfer the many different
products at the port.


Copyright is vested with IMHC
13

Figure 4.1 Typical Multi Product Transfer Chute

By redesigning the chute to make it flexible at the lower portion one is able to change the
material flow angles and make it respond to variations of mass of chute, which will equate to
build up in the chute and can then be equated to flow velocity.
Methods of measuring the changes in chute mass can be as simple as pressure
measurement on the hydraulic cylinder or for more accuracy a load cell positioned under and
supporting the chute. See figure 4.2.


Figure 4.2 Chute Re designed to Allow it to Pivot with Hydraulic Cylinder


Copyright is vested with IMHC
14

Figure 4.3 Cut Away of Chute in Back Position (Maximum Flow)


Figure 4.4 Cut Away of Chute in Front Position (Minimum Flow)


Copyright is vested with IMHC
15
One can see that this type of approach will lend itself to improved control on chute flow, will
offer a far more accurate chute blockage warning and will assist with optimization of material
flow, even giving inline adjustment to rapid changes in moisture variations.
Also it could have alleviated such catastrophic failures as the one attributed to a possible
blocked chute as seen in figure 4.5 below.



Figure 4.5 Machine Failure May Have Been Caused By a Blocked Chute

5. WEAR PROTECTION
A short section on wear protection of chute work with the aim of defining the correct liner
material is discussed, not to advise on the best liners, but to indicate what has been
considered in the present projects. The method of minimizing wear was also considered with
an extensive review being given to the use of liner materials which protected the chute plates.

The liner materials considered included the VRN range of VRN 400-500-600, (refer to
appendix for details). Consideration was also given to lining some areas with Ceramic tiles
because of their good wear properties. (Details are given in the Appendix). However due to
the difficulty in fixing and relocation of ceramic tiles we do not recommend their use.

Therefore the use of dead boxes is considered the most practical method of wear protection;
generally the lip liner method was preferred as it allowed ease of replacement and positioning
see figures 5.1 to 5.6 following.


Copyright is vested with IMHC
16

Figure 5.1 Typical head end box


Figure 5.2 Vertical and Horizontal Shelf Liner (Note the Abrasive Wear Areas)


Copyright is vested with IMHC
17

Figure 5.3 Funnel Design Step Chute (Used to centre material in long drop areas)



Copyright is vested with IMHC
18

Figure 5-4 Wear Caused by free fall of ore
Figure 5.4 above shows two liner placements of VRN 400 material, one can clearly see the
effect of operating in high wear areas, however what the focus of the above pictures are the
ability to see the wear in situ and the ease with which the liner can be modified and replaced.

Figure 5.5 Wear on high capacity chute allowing material flow routes to be clearly
demarcated to allow flow analysis


Copyright is vested with IMHC
19

Figure 5.6 Wear on high capacity chute
6. CONDITION MONITORING
We are all aware of condition monitoring to drives, pulleys and belting, we are about to
introduce the idler into this range, but to condition monitor a chute, apart from the ability to
check its mass there is little that can be done.
Except to go back to the tried and tested method of visual inspection. However, we all know
that a typical chute installation allows little or no access to carry out true inspections.

Access doors appear to be the exception rather than the rule; in fact, one generally sees
more of a peephole into a dark chasm rather than a true viewer / inspection / access door.
To day, we are trying to educate the client and engineers into the need for easy removable
panels, which lift off, or swing away from the access area allowing the inspector to literally
walk into the chute view the wear areas and effect changes or modifications under easily
accessible working areas.

Figure 6.1 Man access doors for maintenance

Copyright is vested with IMHC
20

Figure 6.2 Man access doors for maintenance
So understanding that there may be a need to undertake extensive commissioning work,
(modifications), on the chute liners it is important to make the inside of the chute easily
accessible.
All the chute liners are removable to allow accurate positioning and replacement, with dead
boxes being preferred to sliding faces. Obviously when contamination is a problem and
chutes must be cleaned between shipments one must be prepared to offer adjustable chutes
as proposed in figures 4.2 to 4.4 above.

Typically, we need to feed the centre roll only to obtain a central feed into the conveyor, with
these high capacities any off centre feeding will result in belt run of and the associated
spillage.
Figure 6.3 below shows a combination of moving head chute to multiple outlets together with
a funnel chute for correct material positioning onto the following belt.

Figure 6.3 Design to feed centre roll


Copyright is vested with IMHC
21
7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - DUST EMISSION
There were two major considerations when applying the Environmental Impact Assessment,
firstly dust emission and secondly noise. Here we will only consider the dust emission
problems.

There are four factors, which cause dust; we have long drop heights, poor containment,
complications of flexibility and belt speed.

When considering a layout, one is always constrained by the footprint available for
construction; normally height is a compromise, which is usually dictated by operatives who
have little or no understanding of the complexities of transfer point design.

We are often met with the same constraints which make us opt for moving head constructions
for multiple transfers, (in excess of two), as opposed to bifurcated chutes, where constraints
were released, we did however utilize diverter cars, (two way transfer), with their associated
dead box constructions to effect two way transfers.

However even with moving heads, layouts dictated that we were forced to build some very
large chutes with long falls as seen below:-


Figure 7.1 High chute design to accommodate layout constraints

Convention suggested that for this type of design a more vertical shelf design, (cascade
layout), should be implemented, however the variations of product dictated that speed could
not be compromised and that applying stops to the material flow may cause blockages.

Also the issue of containment was extensively discussed, operator experience of dust
collection units was at best considered to be poor, with the iron ore dust having a
considerable impact on equipment life. Therefore, we adopted the containment option of
water sprays where possible.


Copyright is vested with IMHC
22
The use of water sprays however had some drawbacks, firstly we are normally restricted to
2% water in the ore, (considering Port Headland in Australia is working with 5 to 7%) and we
could not add water after the Sampling Plant.

As one would expect, the addition of water at the transfer point, resulted in the reduction in
the dust emission, however it is still considered a major concern, dust on the stockpiles is
contained to some extent with water cannons but as we approach the sampling plant and
continue on to the Ship Loaders real concern with dust and spillage emissions was evident.

Also after Sampling no water can be added to the ore again making the suppression at the
Ship Loader very difficult.

This in itself is detrimental to good materials flow and the associated diversity of the product
being transferred through the chute requires too many compromises to make the chute an
effective transfer facility.

When opting to use a high belt speed even though this could have a beneficial capital cost the
effect on the environment is considered to be unacceptable bearing in mind the high winds
and associated high belt speeds causing blow off of dust particles.

Presently we are experimenting with what are commonly known as Calming Tunnels which
we position directly after the feed in the skirt area. This has the effect of giving the dust laden
air a place to escape to but in a controlled environment.

Consideration is being given to variable speed drives for conveyor systems and the possibility
will then exist to vary the conveyor speed for the different materials, (high speed for fine ore
and low speed for lumpy ore), in principal this concept is worth considering, however variation
in material trajectory, (with variation in speed), will introduce further complications in chute
layout predictions, especially the correct location of dead box and liner plate.

Shown below, the impact bed has been employed with tremendous success at transfer
points, giving consideration to the ability to change the impact idler rolls without any disruption
to the skirt / chute arrangement and allowing the rolls to be replaced easily and quickly.


Figure 7.2 Typical impact arrangement

Copyright is vested with IMHC
23
Also to reduce the amount of spillage between the skirt rubber and the belt, a simple sliding
pad arrangement is used, again, with a quick release feature to allow for quick replacement.

The words we as designers are always confronted with are, zero spillage, probably we could
achieve this but would have to eliminate the transfer point itself. We rather suggest a
compromise of spillage containment and look to the operator to instill discipline into its clean
up team and look to total maintainability in place of total flexibility.

8. CONCLUSION
Environmental Impact Assessments are to-day the norm when considering any new
developments, attacking the concerns of the assessment no longer fall on simple design
procedures but extensive mathematical modeling to assist in predicting the outcome of the
system layout.

Two such models are the DEM material flow model and Dynamic Simulation model. The
work undertaken at Saldanha Bay has done much to support the cause of material flow
modeling and the work by Bulk Solids Flow has been seen to offer a very acceptable start
point in transfer chute layout.

Concerning Dynamic Simulation of plant layout and the concepts of flexibility, as opposed to
availability, one must consider flexibility often inhibits the total availability of the system by
necessitating the need for highly complex transfer point layout.

The complexity of layout also contributes to excessive spillage, conveyor belt damage, chute
blockages and often major structural damage. Even consideration of speed variations for
different products may solve some problems but can introduce other more severe issues of
incorrect trajectory analysis and dust emission.