Dear Shri D S Mallick,

10 km long pipe conveyor is a big issue and I doubt whether you will get point blank reply. The reliable information can only be assessed by inviting quotation where the bidders and their suppliers will apply their efforts in seriousness to arrive at what length of pipe conveyor they can offer. You can ask quotation considering one flight alternative two flights and alternative 3 flights.

Even if somebody quotes a single flight, you may find it uneconomical on investment and also from power consumption point of view because such conveyor’s belt mass will be very large and there will be proportionally more frictional losses for moving this un-useful dead mass. So, quotation in two three alternative will also enable you to analyse such big project in a more appropriate manner.

You can also include conventional belt conveyor in your analysis, wherein you can ask for the quotation. 10 to 15 km long conventional belt conveyors are already working.

Regards,

Ishwar G Mulani.

Author of Book : Engineering Science and Application Design for Belt Conveyors.

Advisor / Consultant for Bulk Material Handling System & Issues.

Email : parimul@pn2.vsnl.net.in

Tel.: 0091 (0)20 25882916 ■

There are many single flight 10 km conveyors of the conventional variety installed throughout the world. Some have been in operation since the early 1970's.

Multiple flights cannot be justified by cost savings. Severe terrain or directional changes of the belt path are the only reasons that can justify multiple flights. Consider each flight decreases availablility and increases risk to puncture or other damage.

What is your meaning of "too rigid"? Please tell about the terrain comnplexity in vertical and horizontal curvature.

We design both pipe and conventional belt conveyors. Why the pipe? It will, in general, be significantly more expensive than conventional.

There are good reasons for applying a pipe conveyor such as extreme vertical or hortzontal curvature and/or lift that exceed the capabilities of conventional designs.

We have stated many times in this forum that pipe convweyors can be justified, but at a significant cost increase unless: 1) terrain dictates large civil excavation, 2) environmental controls exceeding conventional designs are required, 3) added claims by pipe conveyor suppliers are known to be necessary and effective.

Conventional conveyor design, per your brief description, is possible and likely at a very competitive price verses a pipe system. Claims to the contrary come from uniformed.

A curved conventional belt driven by its head station, belt width of 1050-1200mm, power in the range of 1200-1500 kW, belt strength in the range of ST- 1400 N/mm. These values are the upper range of the possible.

Guaranteed kW/ Km / ton together with capital cost should be evaluated when you obtain quotations and review the whole life cycle cost.

Your specifications are too vague to make this claim certain. Terrain variations, degree of horizontal curvature, cost of power, fabrication, structures, civil and erection costs must be considered.

Are you aware that many 20km conveyor are being built and quoted today? Many +15 km conventional conveyors are in operation. ■

Dear Mr.Diptas,

You go for 3 segments with conventional conveyor.Capacity of 1500 t/hr coal , pipe conveyor would not be economical.

Regards.

A.Banerjee ■

Hello,

I think everyone in here knows the advantages and disadvantages of a Pipe Conveyor. So that's not the topic to talk about.

So dear Dipta Sundar Mallick, to make it possible to give a serious answer to your serious question, please give us at least the datas of the conveying line (eg 1) 100m straight /inclination -5°, 2) 20°curve right R200m, and so on - make the horizontal curves as great as possible, it's easier for a Pipe and maybe it opens the possibility to a open belt conveyor, which can be cheaper - it does not has to be so)

By the way, just to think about: for a belt you have to think about EUR 300...350/m for a steel cord belt and EUR 1000/m for Aramid (Pipe Diameter as we all can calculate dia 400..500).

I will be happy to tell you my opinion about this project and we all can discuss it (I mean this is the meaning of this forum, isn't it?).

Hope to have some interesting discussions,

best regards,

Lukas

If anyone does not know it yet, KOCH has the contract to build an over 8km long PipeConveyor. ■

Hello Dipta..

Pipe conveyors? Someone has been doing a good selling job to you..

The application cries out for a conventional horizontally curved overland conveyor, typically as follows:

1050mm wide St 1600 belt at 5 m/s with 4 x 425kW drives, 2 primary 1 secondary and 1 tail.

or

1050mm wide St 2000 belt at 5 m/s with 3 x 550kW drives, 2 primary 1 secondary.

Both above are quite adequate for single flight, and are as per our standard designs as we have done them before, especially for coal over long distances to power stations.

You must control the dynamic behaviour properly, and if there is any possibility that the capacity could go up in future, then put in a 1200mm belt from day one and run at 4m/sec.

Regards

LSL Tekpro ■

This is an interesting exchange of ideas regarding he best solution but in most cases (not all) each is pushing their product. Any good engineer or economist (which any good engineer is) knows that the best way to decide is to develop each solution to the point of discarding or continuing (based on technical/economic merit). This means developing several surviving solutions to the point of technical specification and pricing.

Your project is of such a magnitude that it warrants investment in such a study. The study is best performed by a qualified company without bias. Dos Santos International has performed such studies and would be happy to perform such a study for you.

Joseph A. Dos Santos, PE ■

THE DISCUSSION ON PIPE CONVEYOR SEEMS TO BE GETTING VERY INFORMATIVE AND INTERESTED AND I MUST APPRECIATE THE bulk-online forum TO BRING BIG WIZZARDS IN THIS HEALTHY DISCUSSION ON ONE PLATFORM,SINCE I WAS ALSO INVOLVED IN INDIA'S LARGEST PIPE CONVEYOR STSTEMS AT GUJARAT WHILE WORKING FOR A COMPANY IN DESIGN,ENGINEERING/MKTG DEPT. WHO HAS EXECUTED THIS JOB. AFTER THAT WE HAVE MADE GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DRAWINGS/DETAILED DRAWINGS ON CAD FOR ANOTHER THREE SYSTEMS IN INDIA FOR VARIOUS COMPANIES.WE HAVE GOT CAPACITIES TO DEVELOP THE GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DRAWING AND FABRICATION DRAWINGS IN CONSULTATION WITH A CONSULTANT/DESIGNER.

ANIL

LIBRAN ENGINEERING AND SERVICES ■

Hello Dipta,

we have vast experience in designing, supplying and installing both pipe and horizontally curved long distance conveyors. Some of these conveyors have been operating now for more than 20 years. But the decission for the most appropriate solution can be done only the basis of the individual situation.

I will be in India the week starting February 15 for the next time. So if you should be in Mumbai or Delhi during that week, we could meet each other to talk more closely.

Just coordinate the appointment with our MD, Mr. Naresh Hingorani, ph +91 22 25772874.

Yours

Holger L. ■

Dear Diptasmalik

For this installation both pipe as weas conventional conveyors csn be provided.

In case pollution is not criteria (which I feel is not ) then you should straightway go to conventional conveyor.

In case of conventional belt conveyor 1200 mm wide belt is enough to transport 1500 tph at 4 m/sec speed. whereas for pipe conveyor you will reqire 1800 wide belt considering 500 mm pipe dia, 70 percent fill factor & 4 m/sec speed

Multiflight may not be cheaper . You have to take following hidden costsin to considration

1.0 Additional Transfer points

2.0 Cost of power cables , transformers, MCC , Control cables from each conveyor

3.0 Discharge chutes at every point

4.0 Additional gantry at inlet of transfer point

5.0 manpower at each transfer point

6.0 cost of communication for each transfer point

7.0 dust extraction at each transfer station

8.0 cost of spilled material and wastage due to transfer at each point

moreover you have to consider whether you can handle thiese transfer points effectivly as they may be in remote area having 2/3 km distace between them

If you consider all above points single flight conventional, open conveyor with vertical and horizontal curves as long as a certain radius can be maintained will be most economical and viable solution

Pipe conveyors are expensive and should be used where environmental concerns / larger horrizontal curves do not allow the use of conventional conveyors.

In case of single flight conveyor you may have to go for dynamic analyses of conveyor whilch very few compnies like conveyor Dynamics USA are conducting.

To reduce cost you take only consultancy including dynamic analyses and equipment selection from worlds reputed consultancy organisation and procure equipment indegeniously

with regards

A R SINGH ■

Long Overland Pipe Conveyors

The question is how many flights will one need for a 10km pipe conveyor; the answer is a function of belt strength. To day my information tells me that the strongest pipe belt built is the ST 2400 to be installed in India in 2006.

I also think that prior to that the strongest pipe belt was the St 1000 again installed in India and working for the past 6 years. So one can see that we have advanced significantly with belt strength capabilities over the past 6 years.

However how high a strength rating one can adopt is presently conjecture. For the St 2400 belt we developed a test rig to analyze the effect of pipe forming and curve resistance utilizing the services of Prof. Gabriel Lodewijks and Delft University. Our findings concluded that we were well within the upper limits of successful belt selection criteria, however as our tests were static, we wait to see the effects of dynamic operation.

Thus providing the belt strength dose not exceed St 2400 then one could be comfortable offering a single flight pipe conveyor of any length. (I should point out that belt width is also a consideration in ensuring pipe-forming capabilities).

Regarding the statement that a conventional belt will be far more economical, (my friend Mr. Spriggs suggests that some one is doing a wonderful selling job on pipe conveyors, well that someone is Mr SK Nayak of FFE Minerals India).

His approach however is related to environmental issues, not costs; we recently completed a full cost analysis comparing an 1800tph coal operation of 7klm in length. It was almost straight with a small decline, As expected the belt conveyor with 4.5m / 9m idler spacing, a 1200mm wide belt as opposed to a 1400mm wide pipe belt and 20% less power draw worked out to be 10% cheaper than the pipe conveyor.

The client when considering the external issues of coal spill over 7km, the locals removing the sheeting, the noise echoing from the conveyor opted for the pipe conveyor solution. Had it have been profiled to negotiate a 45 to 90 degree horizontal curve however even price would have worked out on the side of the pipe conveyor.

I consider that the pipe conveyor will shortly be operating at distances well in advance of 10km single flight and offering a far more reliable option than a conventional conveyor, I do however worry that with the developments taking place so rapidly, and with many new players coming into the market we will start to see the system getting a bad reputation, (again). Simply because there are no real international standards available to guide the designers in the selection of Idlers, Belting and a Sensible Profile.

Phil Staples

Ckit ■

Mr. Staples,

You offer numbers related to the design of a pipe verses conventional trough conveyor that seems to be heavily biased towards the pipe in order to sell it.

First, the given specs required to transport coal:

---------------------PIPE-----------STAPLES TROUGH -----CDI TROUGH

capacity ......... 1800 t/h

coal den.......... 900 kg/cm

width ............. 1400 mm................1200mm.............900 mm

Requires:

Belt Speed ...... 6 m/s....................4.5 m/s ............7 m/s

% x-sect .......... 74 %.............................................89 %

Belt Overlap ... 143 mm

Why did you penalize the trough belt speed to 4.,5 m/s verses allowing the pipe to run at 6 m/s? May be you argue dust? Too many out there that can argue to the contrary.

Why did you penalized the trough belt width to 1200 mm when there are amble examples of overland belts running at + 7 m/s that can use 900mm width -- a 56% pipe width penalty? Of course the pipe ST strength will also be much higher.

You may argue reasons to use a pipe conveyor, but, your presented comparison is hiughly biased. Based soley on the merits of recognized designs, you run the pipe beyond where such pipe overlands exists and unduly penalize the trough belt commercially to make your pipe arguement. Not unbiased consulting! Good to sell the pipe which is your goal.

Having said the above, I further dispute your economic comparison to say this pipe design is only 10% more. I would venture a wager that it is at least 30% more. Be realistic and couple the total cost of ownership. The pipe, total cost to own, will exceed the conventional belt by more than 50% over a 10-15 year operating cycle with conventional yearly operating hours.

Noise? I argue your 6 m/s pipe, with 152 mm dia. x 6 roll carry and 3 roll return, with a necessary closer spacing will generate more noise!

I am eager to hear your counter arguement and how this comparison is not biased. ■

Interesting exchange. I must admit that I had similar thoughts (similar to Mr. Nordell) regarding fairness of the comparison.

Pipe conveyors have advantages in protecting the environment and clearly they are here to stay. Why isn't more being done to develop design standards for pipe conveyors? Mr. Staples, for the good of the industry, you should accept the burden of leading the effort to develop such standards and ensuring future routine use of pipe conveyors.

My thoughts.

Joe Dos Santos ■

Dear All

It is very easy to show conventional conveyor more costlier than pipe conveyor when either client consultant is in favor of pipe conveyor and completive offers for conventional are invited from bidders dealing with pipe conveyors .

I remember the case of Birla copper where tender was invited for pipe conveyor and conventional conveyors

Specification was made to penalize conventional conveyor by specifying closed gallery with both side walkways and aluminum sheet cladding where as pipe conveyor was exposed in sunlight without any guard . (Conventional conveyor should have hood instead of closed gallery with covering on walkways)

For conventional conveyor and belt speed of conventional conveyor was restricted to 3.5 m /sec. Where as there was no speed restriction on pipe conveyor as same was to be selected by bidders and pipe conveyor speed was selected as 4.5 m /sec

I was in final negotiation meeting and even after above juglary it was difficult to reduce cost of pipe conveyor. ultimatly to reduce pipe conveyor cost new supplier of pipe conveyor belt from south korea was selected whose belt cost was about 50 percent of other pipe conveyor belt supplies.

Any way that conveyor is working today with good performance without any spillage thoughout route of that conveyor.

A R SINGH ■

Long Overland Pipe Conveyors

The question is how many flights will one need for a 10km pipe conveyor; the answer is a function of belt strength. To day my information tells me that the strongest pipe belt built is the ST 2400 to be installed in India in 2006.

I also think that prior to that the strongest pipe belt was the St 1000 again installed in India and working for the past 6 years. So one can see that we have advanced significantly with belt strength capabilities over the past 6 years.

However how high a strength rating one can adopt is presently conjecture. For the St 2400 belt we developed a test rig to analyze the effect of pipe forming and curve resistance utilizing the services of Prof. Gabriel Lodewijks and Delft University. Our findings concluded that we were well within the upper limits of successful belt selection criteria, however as our tests were static, we wait to see the effects of dynamic operation.

Thus providing the belt strength dose not exceed St 2400 then one could be comfortable offering a single flight pipe conveyor of any length. (I should point out that belt width is also a consideration in ensuring pipe-forming capabilities).

Regarding the statement that a conventional belt will be far more economical, (my friend Mr. Spriggs suggests that some one is doing a wonderful selling job on pipe conveyors! well that someone is Mr SK Nayak of FFE Minerals India).

His approach however is related to environmental issues, not costs; we recently completed a full cost analysis comparing an 1800tph coal operation of 7klm in length. It was almost straight with a small decline, As expected the belt conveyor with 4.5m / 9m idler spacing, a 1200mm wide belt as opposed to a 1400mm wide pipe belt and 20% less power draw worked out to be 10% cheaper than the pipe conveyor.

The client when considering the external issues of coal spill over 7km, the locals removing the sheeting, the noise echoing from the conveyor opted for the pipe conveyor solution. Had it have been profiled to negotiate a 45 to 90 degree horizontal curve however even price would have worked out on the side of the pipe conveyor.

I consider that the pipe conveyor will shortly be operating at distances well in advance of 10km single flight and offering a far more reliable option than a conventional conveyor, I do however worry that with the developments taking place so rapidly, and with many new players coming into the market we will start to see the system getting a bad reputation, (again). Simply because there are no real international standards available to guide the designers in the selection of Idlers, Belting and a Sensible Profile.

Phil Staples

Ckit ■

Hi All,

LKN has thrown down the gauntlet of proof for my comments, well having been in the wilderness for some time but by the grace of god still being alive, (I was surprised that LKN had not suggested that I had gone to the other place), I base all my comments on actual working facts, projects that I am working on, have worked on or are to be worked on.

You see the belief that smaller and faster will be more competitive is not what the client wants, recently my client said to me that if he could have a belt wide enough to run at 1m/sec and he could switch it on in the morning and switch it off at night he and all his team would sleep happy.

I accept that commercially this is not possible, but the elimination of a transfer point is technically possible and all real operating costs arise from the transfer point.

I know you can curve a belt conveyor, but how do you design for intermittent loading, (build a silo), not acceptable to the mines. And side guide rolls well is that engineering?

I consider that time would be better spent making the pipe conveyor the rule rather than the exception.

Phil Staples

Ckit

ps I don't understand why my replys are being repeated perhaps the forum mailer can sort me out ■

Greetings board memebers from the "Frozen Eastern Wilderness",

I have 22 years experience with conveyors and I am not affiliated with any company involved with the

sale or manufacture of a capsule pipeline system

I simply believe in the system and it has proven itself ever since a capsule pipeline was put under new york city for its first subway and the design is used every day in banking and hospitals anywhere small items have to be delivered quickly.

In my opinion a conveyor of any type having distances of over a mile in transit from loadout to delivery cries out for a capsule pipeline system.

The minimum economical amount of product moved by capsule pipeline is 100,000 tons per year.

The capsule pipeline system would fit this gentlemens requirements easily.

The main element involved in a capsule pipeline is the pipe-the pipe is the means of delivering material from A to B this involves the use of hopper trucks that travel in the bore of the pipeline in configurations from one truck/hopper car to trains of 5 cars, any number of cars or trains can be used in the system.

The trucks are moved by a large volume of low pressure air to push the cars from one end of the pipeline to the other. The ends of the cars or trains have a rubber skirt which seals the end of the car or train to the bore of the pipe line.

The trains run unattended and are computer controlled and monitored.

The system may be set up with one pipe or two pipes depending whether a continuos loop is desired or the system may be set up with parallel

pipelines to allow for continous movement and loading in both directions.

The system is unaffected by weather as all componenets are in the pipeline.

The pipeline can be installed almost anywhere even under water- try doing that with a conveyor!

One control station can power the system for very long distances and energy can be regained by the use of synchronus motors.

No idler, no belting, no splices, no mounting frames for the conveyors,no training idlers, no head pulleys, no tail pulleys, no special foundations for tail pulleys or drive units, no long runs of electrical cable to power drive units, no need for emergency stops or wiring for

emergency stops

Maintenance requirements are much less as fewer

people are needed to maintain the system.

The system can be installed on ground with little preparation or buried. it is also very adaptable to changes in delivery sites and load out sites.

I know that old methods are hard to change and resistance to change is always there but time will prove the system out as it in use every day in smaller systems.

look at the mitsubishi cement example if you want proof it is linked from:

<www.capsulepipelines.org> ■

Dear Izaharis



I donot agree with you that old methods are hard to change and resitance to change is always there

I donot think power cosumption and overall cost of pipeline capsule system will be in the range of Belt/ Pipe Conveyor system.

To day most of end user is intellegent enough to select proper system.

A R SINGH ■

Dear A. R. Singh,

I did not mean to offend and if I did I sncerely apologise. I am only interested in improving methods and reducing expenses as you and I both know that energy costs and material costs will only go up in the future.

Compressed air in a low pressure high volume form is a very powerful energy medium and it is used here in the United States every day in many applications in addition to the ones I will describe here in this letter to you.

Probably the biggest user of high volume low pressure compressed air is for sewage treatment in aerobic digestion systems where huge volumes of air at atmospreric pressure is pumped in to untreated sewage to purify it utilizing the aerobic digstion process.

The next largest user would be animal feed delivery companies which use rotary lobe blowers or turbines to move vast quantities of animal feed and concentrate to livestock of all types every day from large trucks to storage silos, bins, and barns which house animals.

The cement industry is also a huge user of low pressure high volume compresssed air to move

cement to upright storage silos at cement batching plants. The system is also used for delivery of salt products in the same way.

The banking and hospital industries:

The tube delivery system has increased the banking businesses by huge amounts as people

want to avoid having to walk into a bank to do there business. in reality you spend as much time

waiting in line as you would in a drive in line in my opinion as it all depends on traffic flow whether it is human or automobile.

The typical hospital is using the tube delivey system to send blood samples to the hospital

laboratory to be analised quickly varsus having a messenger deliver it by walking top the laboratory. They also use the system to deliver records and developed x-ray films where needed by a physician or records department.

Grocery businesses use the tube delivery system to deliver cash from cashier stations to to counting rooms improving security and reducing the possiblity of theft or fraud by reducing the number of links in the chain of possesion.

A lot of air powered hand tools also use low pressure air to do work as well this is possible due to air pressure regulation in the hand tool.

I honestly think that the system better simply because of fewer parts and no belting or idlers to add and create resistance and they fact that it takes less manpower to take care of the systems.

As an example delivery sytems of all types run for thousands of hours with little trouble- we just do not realise it because the systems are something we do not think about as it has become a part of

life here as it is relatively free of mechanical trouble for thousands of hours.

I hope this helps. ■

Mr. Zaharis,

As I mentioned in our Email exchange I don't know much technically about the Capsule in Tube system but from an energy stand point air powered systems are not nearly as efficient as belt conveying systems. Indeed we have built Dos Santos Sandwich Belt High Angle Conveyors to replace blow lines that elevate wood chips to the digester or to screening or to storage. The blowlines typically use 10 times the connected power of our DSI Snakes. The dramatic power savings is part of why we promote these replacements as "The No Cost Solution", because the savings pay for the switch in a relatively short time.

The Capsule in Tube system is not really new and many years ago the U. S. Bureau of mines invested substantial money into its development for bulk materials handling. Clearly that effort did not result in its routine use (or even occasional use) today. I don't know why and I wonder if other forum participants can shed light on this matter.

Joe Dos Santos, PE ■

Long Overland Pipe Conveyors

The question is how many flights will one need for a 10km pipe conveyor; the answer is a function of belt strength. To day my information tells me that the strongest pipe belt built is the ST 2400 to be installed in India in 2006.

I also think that prior to that the strongest pipe belt was the St 1000 again installed in India and working for the past 6 years. So one can see that we have advanced significantly with belt strength capabilities over the past 6 years.

However how high a strength rating one can adopt is presently conjecture. For the St 2400 belt we developed a test rig to analyze the effect of pipe forming and curve resistance utilizing the services of Prof. Gabriel Lodewijks and Delft University. Our findings concluded that we were well within the upper limits of successful belt selection criteria, however as our tests were static, we wait to see the effects of dynamic operation.

Thus providing the belt strength dose not exceed St 2400 then one could be comfortable offering a single flight pipe conveyor of any length. (I should point out that belt width is also a consideration in ensuring pipe-forming capabilities).

Regarding the statement that a conventional belt will be far more economical, (my friend Mr. Spriggs suggests that some one is doing a wonderful selling job on pipe conveyors! well that someone is Mr SK Nayak of FFE Minerals India).

His approach however is related to environmental issues, not costs; we recently completed a full cost analysis comparing an 1800tph coal operation of 7klm in length. It was almost straight with a small decline, As expected the belt conveyor with 4.5m / 9m idler spacing, a 1200mm wide belt as opposed to a 1400mm wide pipe belt and 20% less power draw worked out to be 10% cheaper than the pipe conveyor.

The client when considering the external issues of coal spill over 7km, the locals removing the sheeting, the noise echoing from the conveyor opted for the pipe conveyor solution. Had it have been profiled to negotiate a 45 to 90 degree horizontal curve however even price would have worked out on the side of the pipe conveyor.

I consider that the pipe conveyor will shortly be operating at distances well in advance of 10km single flight and offering a far more reliable option than a conventional conveyor, I do however worry that with the developments taking place so rapidly, and with many new players coming into the market we will start to see the system getting a bad reputation, (again). Simply because there are no real international standards available to guide the designers in the selection of Idlers, Belting and a Sensible Profile.

Phil Staples

Ckit ■

Dear sir

St 1000 steel chord belting is running for last six years in india without any splice failure or spillage till date.

THe main problem is life of belt selected and its sutablity for selected pipe.

The belt was selected for 450 mm dia pipe , its sample were tested at south africa and belt was found in order for taking 90 degree curve at required tension and idler spacing . Undersigned have also visted and seen the test. Based on above permission was given to belt manufacturer to manufacture the belt as per there original sample.

That time Belt manufacturer have ensured more than 10 years life of the belt as he has first time manufactered the steel chord pipe conveyor belt.

I regret to say after six years of conveyor running clint have make up his mind to replace the belt.

the main problem on this conveyor steel chord belt are as follows

1.0 Return side pipe is never 450 mm it is reduced to evn 350 mm . from performance point of view there is no problem

2.0 Conveyor is exposed in sun light cover hardness on return side is increased to 70-75 at edges

3.0 70 percent of conveyor belt conners are damaged due to belt strucking between roller edges . conveyor looks vary shabby

4.0 Belt is detorated to the extent at some locations belt corner material looks like unbaked rubber without any structural strenth

5.0 Last 50 mm of belt at corners is not provided with any steel chord clint feels this portin is not having any strength and belt worns out from this place

To avoid this belt stucking problem clint have changed some of the top rolles of bigger length to have minimum 50 mm over lapping of rollers to avoid belt strucking between rollers. This 50 mm overlapping have shown significant improvement in belt corner damage

one should be very carefull while selecting the steel chord pipe conveyor belt

Above are only facts not to hurt anybody

A R SINGH ■