A properly designed chute would eliminate the need for any intermediate belt. Do a google on WEBA Chute which is a cascading style chute system, this might be a viable option for you.

Of course it all depends on the product you are transferring which would help in determining the best approach for your design. Another option is to install a surge hopper between the 2 belts and if the material allows it, maintain a minimum level in the hopper to eliminate any impact at the bottom of the hopper having the material fall onto itself at all times. ■

It depends on the material and also the plant layout. Your proposal entails loading the belt twice so you must balance the shorter life of a belt against the cost of a cascading chute/intermediary and the suitability of that chute/intermediary. On the subject of plant layout the intermediate floor should not be there for decoration and you need to know what other future plant is proposed. Would you need the bang boards at the lower transfer point if you installed any inermediary? ■

John is right, before anyone can give you advice you need to know what material you are handling, the size distribution and water content. On the face of it there is no necessity for a fixed tripper or new belt, you can design a transfer that will load centrally, no spillage and little or no impact onto the belt. A cascade chute could work or what we call a stall angle chute

Cheers

Colin Benjamin

Gulf Conveyor Systems Pty Ltd

www.conveyorsystemstechnology.com ■

Dear experts,

Would it be possible to provide a only regenerative belt ( without drive ) from the two levels , i.e., receiving at +12 m and discharge at +0 m.

One constraint is that, the feeding conveyor needs to be provided with brake.

Are regenerative conveyors or such arrangements used to produce power any where ?

Thanks & Regards, ■

Dear Amit,

You are right a cascade chute would block with this material but our stall angle chute would not so there is a transfer chute solution that will save a lot of money. If you google stall angle you will see reference to our patent in this regard but more importantly we have designed transfer chutes for very cohesive materials that do not block and which load centrally and very reliably with very low maintenance. If you want to look at this type of transfer you need to email me direct

Cheers

Colin Benjamin

Gulf Conveyor Systems Pty Ltd

colin.benjamin@gcsm.com.au

www.conveyorsystemstechnology.com ■

Your drawing clearly shows a floor at TOS +7,000: or else the floor above could be similar to the level above.

In the absence of a side elevation it seems Mr Ganesh's proposal merits great consideration. Now that we know the belt is very long we can safely assume that the downstream drag will nullify the upstream descent forces. Particularly recognising the external skirting in your proposal I see no reason not to just lift the rsend to lessen the drop height. Such a simple remedy will also relieve the double loading situation. Your argument that the long belt produces lower wear is fallible. Cost of the longer belt, which will still definitely wear out faster, must still be balanced against the chute cost. But you shouldn't need a chute anyway.

Always remember that a chute which can block will block. Putting an extra chute doubles the risk of blockages. It's arithmetic. Then you propose to double the loading wear on a long expensive belt. You ought to remember Mr Ganesh in your festive celebrations. ■

According to your own proposal the difference between belt lines is 6.6m. For a 12^o decline the horizontal length would be 31m. There is 19.7m, at least, available within the building. If you used the 16^oacceptable decline limit the distance reduces to 23m which means you would reach the desired drop within the length of your proposed skirts. Wet coal is always going to slop on the floor and it is easier to clean spillage at a lower level....or what. Here endeth the lesson! ■

Despite not knowing sufficient details to comment with confidence, options for your evaluation, include:

1. Chute as suggested by others.

2. Elevate the tail end of the receiving conveyor as required at the loading point, then after loading, lower the belt [convex/concave curves] to the required level. I believe John proposed similar earlier.

Regards,

Lyle ■

Originally Posted by ambhad

Ganesh's idea is little far fetched for a transfer point. With a declined belt at about 12 degree, the length required is more than 50 meters for 12 M height drop. Hence the idea is not very practical. In stead we have proposed a level belt transfer without any regeneration issues.

Dear Mr.Amit,

As per your drawing, the vertical height from the first drop is 11.3 metres. It needs to be horizontally shifted below by 19.3 metres. So as per my calculations, the slope would be of 30 degree and the slope length would be 22.365 metres. Not 50 meters. The endless length of that regenerative belt ( without drive ) will be less than 45 metres.

Thank you Mr.John, for supporting my idea.

Thanks & Regards, ■

The curve is at the tail end where the tension is minimal so R450 is unrealistic and 60m will suffice at a first guess. For the extra steel involved in supporting a conveyor at a low altitude I also do not see the need for additional piling. If your client thinks piling might be necessary he should look at the disturbance this would cause to the building foundation. ■

Hi John,

I disagree with your suggested solution for 2 reasons, at 12 degrees water laden coal fines will flow everywhere and there is a transfer chute solution that will not block and will nor create any spillage

Cheers

Colin Benjamin

Gulf Conveyor Systems Pty Ltd

www.conveyorsystemstechnology.com ■

Originally Posted by Colin Benjamin

Hi John,

I disagree with your suggested solution for 2 reasons, at 12 degrees water laden coal fines will flow everywhere and there is a transfer chute solution that will not block and will nor create any spillage

Cheers

Colin Benjamin

Gulf Conveyor Systems Pty Ltd

www.conveyorsystemstechnology.com

Hi Colin,

All water will eventually flow downhill. Water in a chute is very undesireable even if it is not in an ore pass where it is downright dangerous. Whether the client prefers to have flooding inside or outside the building is his own affair. If the chute does not leak inside the building then the water will spill outside the building.

Which leads to a question. What is the spillage situation for the inbye? ■

Originally Posted by ambhad

....... DEM analysis also favors the tripper system.

Really?

If you have engaged the expense of a DEM exercise you ought to know the answer...or else. ■

Hi John,

Cohesive materials contain a large proportion of -200 micron material plus water. DEM is incapable of simulating the flow of water laden materials plus once you get below -200 micron the material properties are irrelevant, what is relevant are the liquid bridge forces and the Van Der Waal forces, neither of which are relevant to the ore properties. So while we know some DEM proponents try to manipulate the DEM software to mimic what happens with cohesive materials the reality is at best it is inaccurate and more likely it is useless so DEM is not the solution for cohesive materials. Done so much work in this area now and have so many compelling results that I am extremely confident of my position. Later this year, maybe early next we will share what we have done more generally but DEM is not the answer.

Cheers

Colin Benjamin

Gulf Conveyor Systems Pty Ltd

www.conveyorsystemstechnology.com ■

Hello,

You have not mentioned material name, bulk density and lump size. This information has relevance to solution. So mention this data. Big drop but acceptable magnitude of material landing speed on receiving belt, is generally not a difficult issue for chute design.

Ishwar G. Mulani

Author of Book: ‘Engineering Science And Application Design For Belt Conveyors’. Conveyor design basis ISO (thereby book is helpful to design conveyors as per national standards of most of the countries across world). New print Nov., 2012.

Author of Book: ‘Belt Feeder Design And Hopper Bin Silo’

Advisor / Consultant for Bulk Material Handling System & Issues.

Pune, India. Tel.: 0091 (0)20 25871916

Email: conveyor.ishwar.mulani@gmail.com

Website: www.conveyor.ishwarmulani.com ■