Gentleman, You can convey the coal through pipe 12 km conveyor. The best suitable size of coal shall be 50 mm.For 2500 tph capacity it is adviseable to go for 2 nos.

If,you need a prefeasibility study of coal handling system including costing ,we can provide you the same.

For your information in past we have also done the feasibility study for Tata Group,Kolkatta where we have shared our experiance for High Speed Rapid Loading system.

We are involved in Two coal loading terminals in Indonesia and

one coal loading terminal in Colombo,Sri Lanka.

Anil

www.libranengineering.com

0091-9811055650 ■

Greetings..

We have a nice 12.4km long curved coal conveyor here in South africa, and it does 2850t/h. It is part of a 24km overland system in 3 flights

It is 1200mm wide St 3150 and we selected 5.7m/second.

It is a normal 3-roll troughed belt conveyor and has a cover for the rain.

It is part of a project we did that was a total success, simple and very reliable.

(We got an award for it)

I would certainly recommend you do the same.

I have a nice computer model that I made for the dynamic behaviour of this conveyor.

Maybe we could help you

Regards

LSL Tekpro ■

Dear Dilip,

You should consider the cost of ownership in your assessment as well as environmental constraints. Both conventional and pipe conveyors are candidates. The conventional conveyor will cost about 30% less and consume 30% less power. It will have a slight loss of coal due to wind erosion which can be quantified.

Total cost of ownership should account for operating and capital cost for long term installations. Power and repair should be minimized by selecting superior rubber covers that minimize power consumption and belt strength. Idler selection and spacing should be optimized in the same way with regard to capital and operating cost impact.

Many manufacturers tout low rolling resistant compounds. However, there are large differences in their performance. We have measured 100’s of compounds and have published on this subject in a number of articles. If you wish these can be supplied for your ready reference.

Dust and other environmental controls should be evaluated to for dust emissions at loading or transfers and for wind erosion along the conveyors length. A pipe can offer superior protection against wind erosion at a substantial cost penalty. You should set your erosion loss criteria and then determine the design which is guaranteed to meet the preset criteria.

We offer overland expertise in conventional trough and pipe conveyors.

A. Overland conventional troughed conveyors include:

1. 1980 9 km coal, 1000 t/h

2. 1989 20 km iron ore, 2200 t/h upgraded to 4600 t/h (2004) – 2 flights

3. 1990 13 km coal, 2000 t/h

3. 1995 16 km iron ore, 600 t/h

4. 1998 14 km coal, 700 t/h – 3 flights

5. 1998 14 km coal,1800 t/h – 3 flights, longest 9 km

6. 1998 24 km limestone, 2500 t/h – 5 flights, longest 9 km

7. 2007 20 km coal, 2500 t/h with 1200mm wide belt

Pipe Conveyor installation in India:

B. Birla Copper 3.2 km ■

Hi,

We Ckit and FFE Minerals are building a number of pipe conveyors at your Mumbai Power Station.

We obviously consider the pipe conveyor to be suitable for the application.

I will be at the site on the 16th December to carry out an inspection.

If you feel the need we could meet.

Kind Regards

Phil Staples

MD Ckit ■

I did a scoping study to show some differences between your jetty conveyor using conventional modern trough vs pipe:

Type Width (mm) Speed Power (kW) Belt Strength

Trough 1200 6 m/s 1770 1500 N/mm

Pipe 2200 4 m/s 3600 2200 N/mm

Difference 183% na 203% 147%

Beware of those that tell you its not this bad. ■

Forum software reformated the thread. I will repost it later in the day. ■

Reformating the above.

Type .........Width (mm).... Speed ..... Power (kW)...... Belt Strength

Trough .......1200...............6 m/s ..........1770................1500 N/mm

Pipe............ 2200............. 4 m/s.......... 3600................ 2200 N/mm

Differences..183%.............. na.............. 203%.............. 147%

Idlers: 3 rolls vs 6 rolls, 5 meter spacing vs pipe ?????

Pipe cannot handle larger lump sizes > 75mm without potential closing trouble. Pipe cannot handle surges - take care to limit surges to available crossectional capacity.

Let us see comments on which is high performance and which is the slug. Let us see others who are willing to post their estimate of performances between conventional vs pipe conveyor (Phil?).

Our track record demonstrates our understanding. ■

Very interesting Larry..

(I would tend to go for a bit of a stronger belt though.)

The ST 3150 on the RSA 12.4km coal overland doing 2000t/h at 4m/sec was still in good condition after 15 years, and didn't really need to be replaced when we upgraded it to 2850 t/h at 5.7m/sec.

I have found that if you go a bit conservative on the belt class, it lasts quite a lot longer.

But my goodness...from your figures.. no wonder I prefer the good old troughed belt conveyor.

Stick one of Javier's covers on it and youv'e got a Rolls Royce seemingly much cheaper than a pipe conveyor.

Cheers

LSL Tekpro ■

No hyperbole, just the facts.

All this nonsense about the pipe being the trough conveyor's equal is just words. I await to see the contrary claim from those that believe other figures (Phil??). Show us.

One day soon their fables will consume them. Then they will be missed. ■

It is interesting to see above comparative results: trough vs pipe conveyor. Recently I had a chance to do a similar exercise on a +- 5km long conveyor. The results for power demand were 213% and belt strength 156% ( pipe vs trough) so in the similar range as per Mr. Nordell's chart. Which at this stage makes two of us at least.

Regards,

Marian Otrebski ■

Good morning Marian..

Make that three of us!

Cheers

LSL Tekpro ■

Thanks Marian,

Let's see if others will step forward with their assessment on this interesting benchmark. I fear some will hold silent in fear.

CDI applied standard design tools and identical rubber properties to fairly assess the differences. We are willing to provide the comparison details to end users with common interests.

I wonder if there is a Phil out there who is willing to make a professional comment. ■

Hi,

I see Larry is pressing me for a response to his claims that a belt conveyor is superior to a Pipe Conveyor.

I consider that we have to apply technology in the correct place.

This one size fits all concept applied by some of the correspondents to this thread are not what the client wants.

I consider that when one is investigating a jetty type installation, it is negligent not to apply one’s mind to the Pipe Conveyor as a solution considering the obvious environmental issues associated with such a system.

To discuss high speed open belts in such a sensitive area is not really a solution even though capital cost will possibly show an advantage to the belt conveyor.

I say possibly because the extensive cost of covering a conventional conveyor may translate into a more expensive solution when all costs are considered.

This solution of, “narrow and fast”, has its applications however equally, “wide and slower”, also has its applications.

The same applies to the Pipe Conveyor.

I am presently involved in the design of a 16km Belt Conveyor for 2000tph coal where a Pipe Conveyor will never compete, (it is not necessary to apply cleaver THEORETICAL analysis to highlight this, just count the number of idlers in the two alternatives giving an obvious increase in power and belt tension for the Pipe Conveyor).

I am also involved in the design of a 5km Pipe Conveyor for Gold Ore on a mountain where a Belt Conveyor will not be possible. (For those involved we are also applying our minds to put a belt conveyor down a mountain in New Caledonia, the route is so complex that only a Pipe Conveyor should be considered, but scare mongering Experts have put the fear of god into the client).

And finally I am involved in an 8km regen conveyor where a pipe conveyor is being considered because the additional friction lowers the belt class, obviously reducing the amount of regen power available for use elsewhere but we must be open minded and avoid the one size fits all policy.

So I suggest that one should not badger the clients into using the only solution you may have but recommend to the client the solution that meets his requirements.

Be it environmental, capital cost or life of plant cost.

Thanks

Phil

Sorry I took so long to take the bait, but I have so many contented clients to satisfy. ■

Dear Phil,

We all know the advantages of the pipe conveyor. This is not in dispute. For the thread starter, it may or may not be the most appropriate choice. That is his call.

Do not be too glib about the pipe conveyors immunity to spillage. There are installation about the world that do create undesirable spillage on the return strand with long overlands.

As always, you avoid the answer to the question. What is the cost and other operating penalties that need to be considered for the pipe conveyor vs the conventional conveyor? ■

Phil,

The only fear mongering experts involved in the New Caledonia project are the client's internal evaluators and their consultants under contract to X.

The pipe conveyor concept was tabled in 2001. The client did not wish to consider its relevance then or in 2002, 2003 or 2004..

There are obvious reasons for their opinion. First and foremost, there is no 12 km pipe conveyor in existence. There is no downhill pipe conveyor of world class length and drop outside of Skyline 3.3 km long x 170 m drop. There is no pipe conveyor that has anything close to the 800m drop Even today, the Peru 8 km project is not fully commissioned. Outside of the temperature extremes of Lima Cement, it has no comparisons.

You have no installations for long conveyors of the 12 km size range under evaluation.

We all would like to sell our capability beyond our experience factor. By what magnitude does a client wish to experiment with?

I am sure you would step forward to take the next conveyor to the moon or its equivalent. Take a good swig from the humility bottle before making exaggerated claims. ■

Hi,

With regards to power and tension of a pipe conveyor, I have explained that for long overland’s larger idler quantities will obviously result in higher power and tension.

Regarding a trip to the moon well yes I would give it a go but not if I have to deal with initiative destroyers.

Please read my “History of Pipe Conveyors” I explained how Historically Providers of the technology failed to advance the concept; basically tying in clients to overpriced Pipe Conveyor systems and making wonderful profits out of spares.

Basically Killing the Pipe Conveyor By 1995.

We reinvented the Pipe Conveyor in 1995 with the Birla Copper project and a country which has Major power problems supported us. Today India is one of the biggest users of Pipe Conveyors in spite of the additional power requirements ~ why?

Well now we have consultants who specialize in Belt Conveyors applying desperate measures to again kill off the Pipe Conveyor ~ why?

The Pipe Conveyor has its applications it does not meet the criteria of “one size fits all” but it really has the ability to make conveying possible in place of trucking which is an environmental disaster.

And tell me how a jetty system of any length can work with a belt conveyor IF the jetty formed a “Dog Leg” and we needed to convey in both directions.

So can we have a 12km Pipe Conveyor?

Yes

Without any problems?

None that could not be overcome, we know about Peru, it is 8km and is running.

Is it a good installation?

Well from what we understand it is. Remembering it is running under the streets of Peru and a conventional conveyor would not have been impossible. (Again multiple tight radius curves and two way conveying).

So let us compare its success to trucking and belt conveying; it obviously will win hands down.

As mentioned in an earlier posting I am presently working on a large downhill project using a Pipe Conveyor. Why a Pipe Conveyor?

Well because of the terrain, related environmental requirements, problems with the conveyed material and safety. The Pipe solution was preferred.

We Ckit review the forum from time to time and avoid general participation because we consider that like most of the potential participants we are not willing to take the abuse metered out by the so called experts.

Comments like “pity the poor client” and “I would not consider it as a viable alternative even if Meg Ryan slept in it” does nothing to advance “Conveying Technology”.

So I end up with three people in agreement to the fact that Belt is better than Pipe what about the other thousands of engineers and aspiring engineers? We owe it to support and assist them not to make them the subject of ridicule.

I appreciate that there are pros and cons for any solution and I think that in the interest of good engineering practice one should remove the blinkers and maybe with client support we could go to the moon together.

Thanks

Phil Staples ■

Dear Phil,

Regardless your zeel for green cheese, I am sure Graham and the other Experts wish you and your travel mates -----

MERRY CHRISTMAS.

PS we'll get back to the fray after the holidays. ■

Dear Dilip

For 12 km 2500 tph transportation you are having limited options . Each system is having its own advantage/ disadvantage . Each project is having its own requirements keeping in mind proposed route, polution, your taste and your pocket size

First of all you have to think why wants to go for pipe conveyor

1.0 pollution point of view



2.0 Route does not allow instalation of belt conveyor

4.0 you want only one conveyor and same is not feasible in case of belt conveyor

5.0 some body have convinced you that pipe conveyor is better option

Before taking any dicision you should know advantages / dis advantages of pipe conveyors

Pipe conveyor are having following Disadvantages

1.0 High installation cost this may go up to 50 percent higher than conventional belt conveyors ( open type with hood without closed gallery )

2.0 Highly unpredictable after installation of conveyor at birla copper even after 7 years Birla copper is not able to remove its cause for screwing of belt up to 90 degree

3.0 Only few pipe conveyor belt manufacturers due to this belt price is 30 to 40 percent higher than conventional belt of same width and strength

4.0 Closed belt passes thru 6 set of rollers at each panel location due to this only 70% of the pipe cross section filled up with material . For same capacity of conveyor belt width in case of pipe conveyor is higher

5.0 Due to passing of belt between 6set of rollers at each panel point belt crossection compresses and expends . due to this compression there are chances of material degradation

6.0 Only few consultants available their charges are abnormally high

7.0 Power consumption of same length of conveyor is min 30 percent higher

8.0No of idler rolls are very high accordingly idler cost is double

9.0 Due to more tension rating of the pulley shaft sizes bearing sizes are higher

10.0 During commissioning due care to be taken for avoiding belt damage

11.0 Lot of chances of belt damage even after traing the belt

12.0 Regarding pollution /dust nuisance in any conveyor is at head end , tail end and take up location . At these locations pipe conveyor is similar to belt conveyor and there is no additional advantage for these dusty locations

13.0 Pipe conveyors are not suitable for lump sizes bigger than 20-25 percent of pipe diameter

14.0 Pipe conveyors are not suitable for shorter lengths say less than 35 m



In addition to above pipe conveyors are having advantages which cannot be ignored

1.0 At some locations where belt conveyor or combination of belt conveyors are not feasible pipe conveyors can be provided due to negotiating horizontal curves

2.0 Pipe conveyor structure is very light. For conventional conveyor, we generally need closed gallery, the weight of which is approx 500-600 kg for each running mtr of the gallery.

Whereas pipe conveyor itself is closed conveyor and it does not require closed gallery and weight of pipe conveyor gallery is approx 250 kg per running mtr

3.0There is no spillage throughout the route (Eexcept tail head and take up locations)

4.0Pipe is formed by overlapping the two edges one over the other forming tight enclosure. there is no wind / rain effect while material is transported

5.0Pipe conveyor takes less width compared to belt conveyors

A R SINGH ■

Dear Mr. Singh, I appreciate your advise and practical knowledge

about pipe conveyor system.

Regards, Anil Seth ■

I am sure you would step forward to take the next conveyor to the moon or its equivalent. Take a good swig from the humility bottle before making exaggerated claims. [/B][/QUOTE]

This is very kind to Phil... ■

Greetings

Perhaps we can assist with the Bulk Unloading Equipment. Please consider;

(3) Surplus Ship Unloaders rated to 1500tph

(1) Stacker-Reclaimer rated 2500/1500

(1) Dock Unloading facility...Hoppers, conveyors, stacker(1000tph)

Please feel free to contact us for additional information.

Sincerely,

Al Goodmundson

Email norsequip@sasktel.net

Phone Canada (306)-664-7260 ■

Dear Sirs,

Power requirement for pipe conveyor is mirginally higher than trough belt conveyor for same application. But one should not forget the benifit of structural savings in the use of pipe conveyor as against the convensional .

Regards.

A.Banerjee ■

Dear sir,

You can go with a pipe conveyor but at the same time you can also see at the FDC conveyors where the maintanance required is very less compared to pipe conveyor. ■

Hi All,

Does someone knows what alternative was choosen at the end??

Rgds

Alexandre ■

Dear Sirs

I submit also that a pipe conveyor would be an option depending on the route and available belt strengths. It is likely that a pipe conveyor would be more expensive in this case but it does depend a lot if ground mounted or elevated.

If it is largely straight runs then conventianal will be cheaper and more appropriate. Although the pipe conveyor can give better environmental benefit.

Also Mr Nordell's comparison is a little misleading, in general a pipe conveyor could go faster than convential due to less diaturbance of material although still has the same mechanical constraints.

It would not be 1200 trough compared with 2200 pipe.

Assuming the same belt speed it would be 1200mm for trough to 1600mm wide for pipe.

Also pipe conveyor is generally quieter if in sensitive areas. ■

Also I submit that the power consumption would not be such a large difference. ■

I'm glad we're talking about pipes.

I have a project based on a FEED from a large European Contractor. As a realistic alternative I am bound to consider employing a citizen of Hameln (Hamlyn) to charm coke 26km from refinery to jetty and then change pipe pitch so that the coke jumps into the next available ship.

Whadaya tink?

It's as sensible as the brief I've been given. ■

Dear Phil,

First, I recall we have known one another for over 22 years. This has given me time to appreciate what you have done for material handling and the pipe conveyor advancements many times over. Apart from trying to tone down your zeel for the pipe, I count you as a friend and respect you as an avant garde engineer.

I have been too harsh with rhetoric. I do apologize. I am now speaking with a morning tongue. Late nights are reserved for sleep.

Aside from the gush, I still see claims that the pipe has special magic. I only ask that claims be supported by either facts or propositional details. Paul makes a point that we have exaggerated the bias towards a conventional conveyor. Yes and no.

We believe the pipe has not reached its zenith in design and performance. To this end we have developed patents and advanced design features on a new generation of pipes that improve performance well beyond conventional pipe technology. I do not think the specifications are an exaggeration of common pipe design standards. I did not include the use of fast conventional belts that travel faster than 8 m/s, have super low rolling resistance and super-special idler designs, or apply low structural strength safety factors < 5.5:1.

Paul: What do you suggest for the modern design standards of the pipe at its outer limits – strength, speed, distance, life and capacity?

CDI does design pipes and has association with companies that also design pipes of significance (strength, diameter, power, speed, capacity,...). We believe there are benefits in the pipe and have adjusted our business plan to include pipe conveyor technology.

Phil, for the long haul I hope to keep our friendship alive, healthy, and maintain a mutual respect/sharing for our collective efforts.

What is good for the material handling industry is good for us all. ■

Dear Larry

Thankyou for your frank and honest 'morning' comment.

Regarding perameters with the present design of pipe conveyors, I only comment the design limits for belt speed etc are restricted by the same factors as conventional conveyors, maximum idler speeds etc.

Fabric Belt strengths are available up to similar limits as conventional maybe a little lower but it depends on pipe diameter some steel cored pipe belts are available, of course there is a smaller number of belt suppliers with the experience.

I believe that and exception is where the material being transported is very dusty or light and fluffy then in this case a pipe conveyor can go faster due to material containment and less disturbance. ■

Dear Paul,

We also advocate and design the pipe conveyor where advantages can be clearly applied. They have many advantages.

I find your comments extremely interesting that pipe conveyor design should follow verbatim the advancements of normal trough conveyors. I interpret the comment to imply they have comparable performance indices.

Normal trough conveyors today have advanced to:

1. Capacity >20,000 t/h iron ore with bulk density = 2200 kg/cm in some cases well above this typical

2. Speed > 10 m/s (one installation to 15 m/s), many > 8m/s.

3. Width > 3 m and to 6 m for a few

4. Steel cord strength ST-10,000 N/mm in testing by multiple mfgrs. (>ST-8000 N/mm built to date)

5 Idler spacing 6m since 1985.

6. DIN f rolling resistance factor ~ 0.008 for some installations and 0.012 for many.

7. Length > 20 km

According to our investigation, pipe construction does produce some handicaps that have restricted its development. The pressure and deformation on the rollers are significantly higher than an open trough. Internal stresses and forces produce rotation that leads to spillage and pressures that produce both higher power and destructive action on the outer belt cover. Power consumption is often measured with DIN f > 0.040 ( up to 5 times the trough) that varies with the belt construction and pipe size. This is substantiated by many field measurements with differing constructions. The trend is now to stiffer construction to maintain the pipe shape in curved conveyor geometry.

To overcome some of the negative behavior and understand the limits, pipe belt construction has been studied with special analytic tools to guide advanced configurations of rubber, steel and fabrics. Special laboratory testing jigs have also been developed to quantify behaviors and limitations (example CKIT). The tools and methods are very complex and are only practiced by a few. Of course, some have advanced the science by trial and error.

I ask what are the comparative levels you are aware of achieved by pipe conveyors? How low a DIN f factor have you measured and what are the specifics?

We are eager to learn more from other experiences that may set new standards of design and performance. ■

Dear Larry

I agree generally with your comment and to add.

When pipe conveyors get to requirement of large diameters the belt width is disproportionate so at the higher capacities the applications are more limited, also it is not so competative on long overland conveyors.

It is more appropriate on medium length up to 3 or 4 km where environmental benefits are a major consideration and transfers can be eliminated.

In some cases I have found the power consumption to be not so different however it can increase significantly where multiple curves are employed.

Also it depends very much on the belt profile used as availablity is Normal, High rigidity and High profile, the latter can add significantly to power requirement. ■

Paul,

We agree that the pipe is less competitive on long overlands. Although is has not stopped parties from the shown 7 km in China with Zigong and 8 km in Peru. Longer belts are now in the works. Power to 6000 hp, belt strength above ST-3000. Pipe diameter >= 700mm.

PLease elaborate on:

1. Belt width being disproportionate with pipe diameter.

2. Higher capacities are more limited

3. Power consumption not differing with conventional trough belts if there are no curves. What DIN factors do you design with for typical small and large diameters?

One point not discussed is the pipe diameter and lump size. Large lumps require larger diameters. Do you have a factor for increase in pipe diameter necessary to accomodate the large lumps? ■

Dear Larry

In answer to your questions.

1. regarding belt widths and pipe diameters for example a diameter 250mm requires belt width 1000mm a diameter 500mm requires belt width 1900mm

assuming 1 t/m3 a dia 250mm would carry 330 T/hr at 140m/min a 1000mm belt would carry 800 T/hr at the same speed and assume 30 deg trough.

A 500mm pipe at 225 m/min would carry 2100 T/hr and a 1900mm wide belt would carry 5000 T/hr at the same speed. So due to overlap requirements in pipe conveyors belt width is used for enclosure rather than carrying capacity.

2. In terms of high capacities the largest diameter pipe is 700mm which would handle 3600 T/hr of coal and very few of these it is difficult to see this going much further in the medium term due to requirement of belt rigidities versus diameter.

3. Regarding power consumption I have done one project where a pipe conveyor was at the side of a conventional conveyor doing the same job and the power consumption was very similar. In this case it was straight and of course curves will add to the power required. In the calculation there are elements for foming and maintaining the pipe shape but also the rigidity of the pipe tube gives some advantage which is not calculated. Initially due to the rigidity of the pipe and contact with idlers the power can be higher and after say 2 months the power can drop significantly due to factors such as less idlers rotating etc.

4. Regarding lump size yes there is a factor and with pipe conveyors must be considered. generally if a pipe is full i.e. 75% the max lump size is 1/3 of the pipe diameter although this is adjust for lower fills and also the quantity of maximum lumps. ■

Paul,

I ask again what are typical power draw factors (DIN f) of pipe conveyors without considering the vertical and horizontal curve demands?

You repeatedly comment that the difference is small between pipe and trough.

We have published many overland trough conveyor performance findings from commissioned designs dating back to 1980's. We will also publish pipe conveyor performance from a significant number of pipe conveyors. I would have done this before now, except the data is owned by others who do not wish it published.

Please share your better performance facts. We are all eager to know and learn. ■

Paul,

I did some due diligence on your selection to wit:

1. 500 dia., 1900 mm wide, 1 t/cm and 225 m/min. transports 2100 t/h

2. Conventional belt at 1900 mm wide can transport 5000 t/h at 225 m/min.

I find the above strange facts:

3. Item 1: It will have a x-sectional filling of > 79%, which I claim to be abnormally high and belt speed to be on the low side even for a pipe conveyor handling coal.

4. Item 2: Conventional 1900 mm belt width, transporting coal, at today's belt speed of 7.5 m/s and 45 deg trough, will be able to carry ~12,000 t/h. It can handle 13,500 t/h, with your physical spec, at the upper practice of 8.5 m/s speed.

My point here is the selections are not congruent with today's practices. If you must compete with known technology and expect to win an order, then you need to use practical numbers. Your pipe design is liberal in loading but conservative in speed. Your conventional trough design is handicapped in its overtly conservative specifications against common practice. You must be fair.

Pipe belt: Item 1, for a 3 km long pipe conveyor x8.5 m lift will draw ~1500 kW transporting 2100 t/h or about 0.50 t/kW/km.

Conventional belt per proposed design: Item 2 for same 3 km long pipe will draw about 2600 kW ( modern rubber) and transport 13,000 t/h or about 1.66t/kW/km.

Here the pipe is about 3.3times the transport index when tons/ kW/km is the true measure.

Can you dispute the indices? Can you offer any reasonable comparison?

Pipe conveyors do good, can go places conventional belts cannot, and can offer environmental friendly design. These are given. How do they compare in with strictly price and performance? ■