Re: Belt Conveyors - Pipe V Sicon V Enerka V Trough
Suspect you are aware of them, though there are some papers which may of of interest:
http://www.ckit.co.za/
http://www.saimh.co.za/
Regards,
Lyle ■
Re: Belt Conveyors - Pipe V Sicon V Enerka V Trough
Hi,
It is not a good idea to compare the basics of Pipe, Trough and Pouch conveyor. Each has its preferred location.
We all know the merits of Pipe verses Trough so I will not go into that but comparing Pouch with the other two is a little different.
The pouch concept has been developed to perform best with low capacity complex routing operating in environments where security is a major issue. It’s most successful installations have been in the diamond mining industry where they are used to convey concentrate which must not be accessible to operating staff.
It is also successful in environments where spillage is a problem finding itself suitable to convey high moisture sludge at high angles. Again very good for boiler bottom ash if one can remove the clinker first.
It also performs well with low capacity fly ash.
The disadvantage of the Pouch is its cost, specifically the belt which has to be specially made for the operation and therefore can not be made in real quantities. It is also very susceptible to damage from bad maintenance requiring very careful setting up and inspections.
Comparing Sicon and Enerka is not that easy as the latter has very few installations compared to Sicon.
Hope this is a start. ■
Untitled
Hi,
I understand you want to compare spillage free conveyors, correct?
In that case would you consider in your comparison an air supported conveyor?
If you do not know it, it is a traditional rubber belt enclosed in a pipe, supported by an air cushion instead of rollers.
Kawasaki makes one named FDC - Flow Dynamic Conveyor - that has an impressive reference list with capacity up to 4000 t/h.
I would be glad to give information about it but being a licensor for Italy of this technology I do not want to give you "puff", you might want to hear from somelse in the forum, if there is anybody familiar with the technology please share your experience with us in this thread.
If you already knew it, may I know why you did not include it in the comparison? ■
Re: Belt Conveyors - Pipe V Sicon V Enerka V Trough
Originally posted by Fabio
a traditional rubber belt enclosed in a pipe, supported by an air cushion instead of rollers.
I knew these in the 1980's under the name of "Sluis Aerobelt".
My primary comparison is between the enclosed belts, the troughed belt was added as a benchmark as it's been around since time immemorial and must be the most widely used conveyor in the world. ■
Pipe Vs Sicon Vs Enerka Vs Trough
Just as there is no best solution for all cases, the best solution depends on the requirements. What are the requirements?
Joe Dos Santos ■
Re: Pipe Vs Sicon Vs Enerka Vs Trough
Originally posted by Joseph A. Dos Santos
What are the requirements?
There are no specific reqirements.
collate some information on the relative advantages/disadvantages
That's all.
All contributions gratefully received. ■
Re: Belt Conveyors - Pipe V Sicon V Enerka V Trough
ContiTech both produce the Sicon belts and even Pipes and conventionell belt types. It is very difficulty to give you a general answer. Every type has its positiv and negative behaviors. Important is to know what you like to transport, which conditions, capacity, goods etc.
Key advantages for the Sicon belt conveyor:
Copes well with steeply rising topography, negotiates inclines of up to 35°.
Eliminates need for transfer points thanks to good curve negotiation, 180° curves within a radius of less than 1m.
Does not pollute because the belt is closed on the return trip.
Allows two-way transportation; the belt can be loaded on the return part which don’t have to go the same route.
Multiple drive units, which reduce the tension in the belt.
Allows for many feed and discharge points.
Proven technology with more than 130 references.
General available for upp to appr 400 m3/h.
The pipe conveyorbelt-types are been used for higher capacities. See also our webb-pages: www.contitech.de / www.contitech.se - or why not sending us your specific request? harald.hauff@contitech.se ■
Re: Belt Conveyors - Pipe V Sicon V Enerka V Trough
I’ve waited to see if I got further comments but it seems now to have reached the end.
To Joe Dos Santos and Hhauff
Those of us who have been in the business a while, know that the correct approach is “tell me your problem and let me suggest a solution”. In this case those in authority want “use this for that .. etc” and it’s not good to give them alternative comments which may end up being “career limiting” !
My own thoughts in general then-
Conventional troughed belt conveyors are the most straightforward, use the cheapest most widely available belts, use commonly available components and can handle high capacities of indifferent materials. Vertical and horizontal curves are possible, but the radii are large. They are not dust tight unless covers are added.
Pipe belt conveyors can also handle significant capacities but are less tolerant of large lumps/agglomerations, but they are dust tight along their length. However the belt is special, not a standard troughed conveyor type. More idlers are needed, so a greater possibility of seized rollers. Vertical and horizontal curves can be tighter radii than a troughed belt.
Enerka belts are very special with their moulded side sections. Their capacities are more restricted and the “hanging bag” arrangement limits their use with materials containing lumps and agglomerations. The support idlers are not the same as used in off the shelf troughed roller sets but are common within the conveyor and fewer than a pipe conveyor. Tight curve radii are possible for constricted layouts.
Sicon belts are also very special having moulded side sections with embedded cables to take the tensile load. The support idlers are also special, particularly the wheel that gives the vertical support. Comments made about the Enerka capacity and lumpy materials apply. At least in plan, this unit enables the tightest curves to be achieved.
I have not commented on air supported belt conveyors as they are very similar to conventional troughed belt conveyors, but without the idler sets, or sidewall belt conveyors as they tend not to be used for significant distances (unless going steep incline/vertical), or sandwich belt machines for similar reasons.
Personally, I do not like being locked into proprietary components and would prefer having options for where I buy stuff. There must be a compelling reason to use some of these special conveyor types.
I realise that on posting this it may be a case of “light blue touch paper and wait to get flamed”!!! ■
Belt Conveyors - Pipe Vs Sicon Vs Enerka Vs Trough
Mr. Designer,
It looks like you answered your own question with what is obvious to all of us that are knowledgeable in this industry.
Indeed you already knew the answer before you asked it. So why did you ask it? Was this a test?
Joe Dos Santos ■
Re: Belt Conveyors - Pipe V Sicon V Enerka V Trough
My motive in starting this thread is being questioned. There was no test but a genuine search for knowledge, particularly user knowledge and experience.
I am an engineer but as contained in another thread have no strings of letters after my name, nor been the author of numerous papers or books. I have worked in bulk materials handling for a number of years and in so doing you cannot fail to absorb knowledge along the way. I have knowledge regarding belt conveyors of various styles but would never claim to be an expert on them.
As for answering my own question, my comments today were just a resume of things I've experienced and things my little grey cells deduced and as yet no one has disagreed with my statements. I am a little disappointed that the thread did not result in more user response but hey, such is life and I won't loose any sleep over it, just get on with what 2008 throws in my direction. ■
Re: Belt Conveyors - Pipe V Sicon V Enerka V Trough
FABIO,
I am interested in your reference list to 4000 t/h for air-supported conveyors. Do you have air-supported at other similar high tonnage references?
How long have they been in service? How long and what speed? What are the material properties?
Hopefully, these will give greater understanding and acceptance of your alternative method.
Thank You & Happy New Year ■
Aeroconveyor Simplicity
Dear designer,
Your question is relevant and there is definitely need for this type of discussion.
Aeroconveyors has its design from the original Sluis concept. The difference between Aeroconveyors and many of the other air-supported belt options is its simplicity and optimised air requirements (apologies if this sounds like an advertising jingle, it is not intended - please read further).
The absence of idlers and the plate box design enables it to be enclosed, and since the Aeroconveyor-design is optimised not to rely on high pressure, the cover can be shaped to requirements, and need not be air-tight for the system to operate.
The advantage of the true Aeroconveyor is its simplicity, ease of installation and low maintenance cost, and its rugged performance despite dust or damp.
It can not offer the twists and turns of the Sicon, but offers the advantages of trough-belt simplicity plus lower energy and maintenance plus security and containment (e g keeping dust in or stopping wood chips from blowing away) or protection (e g keep contaminating environment out). ■
Conveyors Et. Al.
Originally posted by designer
My motive in starting this thread is being questioned. There was no test but a genuine search for knowledge, particularly user knowledge and experience.
I am an engineer but as contained in another thread have no strings of letters after my name, nor been the author of numerous papers or books. I have worked in bulk materials handling for a number of years and in so doing you cannot fail to absorb knowledge along the way. I have knowledge regarding belt conveyors of various styles but would never claim to be an expert on them.
As for answering my own question, my comments today were just a resume of things I've experienced and things my little grey cells deduced and as yet no one has disagreed with my statements. I am a little disappointed that the thread did not result in more user response but hey, such is life and I won't loose any sleep over it, just get on with what 2008 throws in my direction.
The one conveyor not mentioned at all in your statements is the capsule pipeline:
I know; groan, not this again, etc. etc.
An excellent working example of same is located at the "Karasawa mine" in japan transporting limestone ore from a surface quarry to a mitsubishi cement plant.
This capsule pipeline replaced a railroad over 20 years ago and has an 93 percent plus availability etc.
The system offfered by brink weaver from pnuetrans is simpler in design and information on both systems is readily available etc.
Google capsule pipelines for a wealth of information regarding same and a neat non profit website illustrating the history of same.
I do not represent pnuetrans or mitsubishi pipe and steel etc.
I know my fellow conveyor veterans and I are at polar opposites about this but the proof is in japan operating every day day in day out etc the mitsubishi system is but one example.
Ironic as they buried it in the old railroad bed used by the quarry :^) to transport the ore out of site and with little or no noise as it is buried below grade.
After working on, servicing and repairing belt conveyors in underground mine service for 22 years I seriously feel that the capsule pipelines time has come; I found out about them in 1994. ■
Pipe Vs Sicon Vs Enerka Vs Trough
Mr. Designer,
I'll try to summarize my point and hope that it is not offensive.
You asked a very open ended question (a broad survey) and then narrowed the possible answers by setting constraints on the discussion, ie:
.....relative advantages/disadvantages of the Pipe v Sicon v Enerka v Trough belt conveyors
.....but no advertising "puff" please
If you ignore those comments that breached your constraints (of which there were several) then you wind up with an affirmation of what you already knew as indicated in your final summarizing post.
I don't dispute your findings. As I indicated these are well known by those experienced in the industry and indeed they were affirmed by several of the posts.
Joe Dos Santos ■
Re: Pipe Vs Sicon Vs Enerka Vs Trough
Originally posted by Joseph A. Dos Santos
these are well known by those experienced in the industry and indeed they were affirmed by several of the posts.
Well, must be more experienced in the industry than I gave myself credit for!
I think this thread has run it's course so bye all, see you in other threads ■
Belt Conveyors - Pipe V Sicon V Enerka V Trough
Gents:
It would be a shame to see this thread stop now. I am currently looking at replacing our SICON conveyor with a simpler more cost effective item and we are having trouble attracting contractors to our program.
I have noted all the comments on the various belt designs and saw why SICON's and the like are normally chosen but would like to add a few more comments:
1. Our SICON's are used for flyash and are 900 meters long. The basic design parameter of having an unsupported bag vulcanised to a wire cable encased in a rubber form means that we see an increase in failures, in the joint between bag and forms, early in the life of the belt.
2. Drives are an issue that are not raised normally. Our machine has 5 drives per unit and this is a serious power and maintenance consumer.
3. Operating costs can be considerable with belt replacement in harsh environments being substantially less than prescribed in the manuals. Belts such as the SICON are prohibitively expensive to replace and may, as in our case, only last as specified if a large sum of maintenance money is spent.
So - when we did our financial evaluation for options we had to look at a wide range of costs and we proposed a simpler system (conventional belting with covers) which noone wanted to tender for.
So back to this thread - what are the best types of belting is probably too broad a question but how you go about selecting individual processes is probably more relevant .
Peter R ■
Re: Belt Conveyors - Pipe V Sicon V Enerka V Trough
Dear Peter,
Maybe you solicited RFPs from the wrong sources. I can assure you there are Australian D&C firms who would offer competitive conventional and pipe conveyor proposals.
How about allowing CDI to comment on your design and demonstrate the potentials of conventional and pipe conveyors. I can provide a installation list and contact details of clients which would validate system successes.
No obligation for a review and comment.
I can also discuss some alternative conveyors which are very competitive for most any installation. ■
Re: Belt Conveyors - Pipe V Sicon V Enerka V Trough
Originally posted by nordell
FABIO,
I am interested in your reference list to 4000 t/h for air-supported conveyors. Do you have air-supported at other similar high tonnage references?
How long have they been in service? How long and what speed? What are the material properties?
Hopefully, these will give greater understanding and acceptance of your alternative method.
Thank You & Happy New Year
Nordell,
as already mentioned we manufacture an air supported conveyor based on a licence agreement with Kawasaki Heavy Industries
Their supply record is impressive and covers a wide range of materials, inclinations, configurations etc....
they have several conveyors with capacity >= 2000 t/h under erection (max. 5250 t/h of coal).
If you are seriously interested in this technology, I can put you in contact with the Japaneses directly, since our licence agreement does not cover the States.
Let me know, Fabio ■
Belt Conveyors - Pipe v Sicon v Enerka v Trough
I've been asked to collate some information on the relative advantages/disadvantages of the Pipe v Sicon v Enerka v Trough belt conveyors.
Would those with some knowledge on the subject care to comment?
Oh, but no advertising "puff" please, I can get that from suppliers web sites and lets be reasonable none of the "my machine is better than your machine" stuff. There isn't one perfect machine, if there were it would be the only one on the market. ■