Belt Conveying
Transfer Station Design
Effects of Changes in Throughput and Material Properties
T
his article continues discussion about the design of
transfer chutes in the iron ore industry of Western Aus-
tralia. It reviews one typical transfer chute and analyses
the changes to the operation of the chute when the capacity
of the conveyor system was increased and also the flow
properties of the iron ore changed.
The transfer throughput capacity and the flow properties of the
material influence the design of the chute. The drop height of the
transfer chute is 5 m and the article reviews the operational im-
pact for wear and blockages when the drop height is increased to
7 m which is typically the current design practice in the Pilbara.
The chute design is analysed using DEM technology but supple-
mented by flow property test work and the continuum flow
method (CFM).
1 Introduction
The earlier approach for the design of transfer chutes was based
on judgement based on experience. Today the methodology has
moved on and designs are based on DEM and CFM methodolo-
gy. Physical modeling is also used but, this method is not dis-
cussed in this article.
The required design capacity for conveyor belts has been nomi-
nally 11 000 t/h but, demand requires capacity increases up to
14 000 t/h. This increase has usually been satisfied by operating
conveyors at 5.5 m/s. With these speeds the impact of wear on
transfer chutes has increased significantly to be a serious con-
cern for future projected capacity.
Simultaneously the transfer height has increased to 7.5 m with
the objective to minimize chute blockages by providing steeper
chute angles and addressing the dribble problem from belt
cleaners fitted around the head pulley. Unfortunately chute
blockages are still a major operational concern.
30 bulk solids handling · Vol. 29 · 2009 · No. 1
A.E. Maton, Australia
Changes in throughput and bulk material properties
can have significant effect not only on the material
flow in a belt conveyor transfer chute, but also on the
chute itself. It is advisable to identify the potential
consequences of such changes at an early stage to
avoid system failure. DEM and CFM models can be
helpful tools in this process.
This article looks at reasons why chute blockages occur by re-
viewing an installation that was built in the early 1960s and was
upgraded in the 1990s. This installation is still operating success-
fully but still suffers in particular from chute wear but changed
flow properties of iron ore make chute blockages a cause for ris-
ing concern.
This article uses real data when the information is available in the
public domain, but, is heavily influenced by experience on the
operation of the system and, where there are gaps in the big pic-
ture, selective data from other operations in the industry is
used.
2 Description of Facility
2.1 Export Terminal
The terminal was commissioned in the 1970s. It was constructed
with one berth and one shiploader. The feed to the ship loader is
reclaimed from on ground yard stockpiles which have been built
in the chevron pattern using long travel luffing stackers. The iron
ore is reclaimed from the stockpiles using long travel bucket
wheel bridge reclaimers.
The system was originally designed to operate at a design capac-
ity of 7500 t/h. If we assume that the net ship loading time is
3000 hours per year this equates to 22.5 million tons per year
shipped from the terminal. The conveyors are 1500 mm wide
and were operated at 3.8 m/s belt speed.
 Belt Conveying

Fig. 1: Transfer station sketch.

Fig. 2:
Flow properties of
Material I and II.

In the 1990s the system design capacity was increased to
11 000 t/h by increasing the belt speed to 5.5 m/s. This equates
to an increase of terminal capacity to 33 million tons per year.
The facility was also upgraded by introducing a layby berth to
increase ship ready for loading berth times and reducing waiting
for ship to berth times which increased terminal capacity to
about 36 million tons per year.
2.2 Transfer Chute
The transfer chute is located on the wharf. It receives feed from
the Jetty conveyor and discharges to the wharf conveyor which
then discharges from a traveling tripper to a long travel, luffing
and slewing ship loader.
The jetty and wharf conveyors are nominal at 90°. The discharg-
ing material was directed down by a flat impact plate. The face of
the impact plate was fitted with removable rubber blocks. The
redirected flow stream was collected by a loading boot formed
by the material, i.e. a rock box. The loading boot discharged the
material on to the receiving conveyor.
The impact plate had features which allowed for adjustment of
its position, vertical and lateral, skew and tilt angles. (6 degrees of
freedom) This was used to ensure that the discharging material
was directed to load the receiving conveyor centrally.
Refer to Fig. 1 for a simple sketch showing the general dimen-
sions and arrangement of the transfer station. The DEM draw-
ings represent the working surfaces of the chute, features such
as access doors, skirt covers and wear billets or lip liners have
been omitted.
3 Material Flow Properties
The tests to determine the material flow properties were under-
taken using the J tester. In the 1970s the design were based
on J [1]). In the 1990s the design was based on TUNRA [2].
Fig. 2 shows the flow properties that for the purposes of this ar-
ticle are considered typical for the different decades. This figure
shows the results from test work and gives the variation of bulk
density, internal friction and flow function of the material to the
major consolidating stress.
The flow function indicates which material has the more difficult
flowability characteristics. Other important properties given by
the testwork for a conical outlet and duaplate liners are shown in
Table 1.
Table 1: Important properties given by the test work for a conical
outlet and duaplate liners.

Material I Material II
The upgraded chute included replacing the flat impact plate
with a curved impact plate and the lower loading boot rock box Bmin [m] 0.6 0.5
was replaced with a steel chute with nominal wall angles at 70° to Hopper half angle [°] 10 8
the horizontal. The impact hood had similar features for adjust-
ment as the flat impact plate. Wall friction angle [°] 40 42

bulk solids handling · Vol. 29 · 2009 · No. 1 31

 Belt Conveying

Table 2: Particle properties of Material I and II. 5 Discussion of DEM Results

Material I Material II
5.1 Original Chute handling Material I
SG 4.0 3.0
Observing Fig. 3 shows that the ratio of chute volume to area of
C of R * particle 0.2 0.2
flow stream is adequate. The chute is operating at 7500 t/h.
steel 0.2 0.2
rubber 0.6 0.6 The flow properties of Material I (refer Fig. 2) indicates that the
rock box angle should be about 48° to horizontal. At these angles
Friction steel 0.6 0.8 the valley angle would build up to virtually to the pulley. These
Rubber 0.2 0.2 angles should be stable and there would be no interruption to
* C of R is Coeeficient of Restitution flow. However, after a loaded conveyor stop the chute would re-
tained residual material. The chute should be checked to ensure
it is self cleaning when the conveyors are restarted. The principle
of Funnel flow should be used to check the extent of the dead
4 DEM Analysis material crater.

Data
5.2 Original Chute handling Material II
The testwork results were reviewed and the parameters shown in
Table 2 were assumed for the particle properties. Observing Fig. 4 shows the ratio of chute volume to area of flow
stream has decreased . The chute is operating at 11 000 t/h.
Design Cases
The flow properties of Material II (refer Fig. 2) indicates that the
The following design cases have been examined using DEM mod- rock box angle should be about 55° to horizontal. At this angle
els based on the properties given in Tables 1 and 2: the valley angle would build up to come in contact with the belt
and pulley. This condition alone would be the prime reason for
• Original chute, Material I major spillage at the transfer chute due to carry back by the belt.
- View Y: Fig. 3 Belt cleaners would be effectively bypassed due to the build up
occurring behind the primary and secondary scrapers. The flow
• Original chute, Material II function shown in Fig. 2 indicates much more difficult handing
- View Y: Fig. 4 conditions. In this case cohesive bridging should be checked par-
ticularly if the belt width is less than 1200 mm. Funnel flow crite-
• Modified chute with impact plate, Material II ria should be checked to ensure that the belt is self cleaning after
- View Y: Fig. 5 system loaded stops.
- View X: Fig. 6

• Modified chute with rock box, Material II 5.3 Modified Chute handling Material II with
- View X: Fig. 7 Impact Plate
- View Y: Fig. 8
Observing Figs. 5 and 6 shows the chute operating at 11 000 t/h.
• Modified chute with impact plate, Material II, drop height 7 m The lower chute is manufacture from steel and lined with Dura-
- View X: Fig. 9 plate wear tiles.

Fig. 3: Original chute handing Material I, Fig. 4: Original chute handling Material II, Fig. 5: Steel lower chute handling Material II
View Y. View Y. with impact plate, View Y.

32 bulk solids handling · Vol. 29 · 2009 · No. 1


The material impacts the plate in exactly the same way as in Sec-
tion 5.2 above. This allows a direct comparison from the discharge
chute onto the belt. In practice the curved impact plate is more
popular. Blockages occur at the lower chute, therefore in this re-
spect the alternative collecting arrangement is not relevant. The
alternative collecting arrangements are more an issue of wear. With
impact plates, flat or curved come a very distance last compared
with a rock box. With the arrangement shown in Figs. 5 and 6 ma-
jor congestion occurs from the discharge chute onto the belt. This
condition does not indicate that a blockage will occur but that
there is a flow restriction that needs to be improved. Obviously one
simple improvement is to remove the shear gate restriction by
making the opening longer. Other alternatives can be investigated.
However, the other important issue is the wear that occurs on the
lower chute at the impact point. In addition the chute needs to be
checked for self cleaning after loaded system stops.
Mass flow and funnel flow criteria should be checked. In addi-
tion the intermediate flow condition between mass and funnel
flow should be checked. This requires that the hopper angles are
sufficiently steep and the liner tiles are sufficiently smooth, and
there is no corrosion of the wear tile surface, stainless steel or
ceramic tiles could provide these conditions. However, for iron
ore lump product, stainless and ceramics are not recommended.
Referring to Fig. 2, Material II with duaplate liner tiles the hopper
angle should be 80° to the horizontal. Obviously funnel flow cri-
teria should be checked. In regard to the congestion indicated at
the lower chute outlet the build up must not be sufficient to
activate any plugged chute switch installed in the chute thus
causing spurious loaded stoppages
5.4 Modified Chute handling Material II with
Rock Box.
Observing Figs. 7 and 8 shows the chute operating at 11 000 t/h.
The lower chute is manufactured from steel and lined with Dura-
plate wear tiles. In this case the rock box absorbs most of the
particle energy at impact in the impact area The down flow is
now more in contact with the incline face of the hopper. This
face acts as flow control reducing the impact of the particles on
the belt. The boiling action is reduced and there is less hold up in
the chute and hence belt wear would be reduced.
Fig. 6: Steel lower chute handling Material II Fig. 7: Steel lower chute handling Material II
with impact plate, View X. with rock box, View Y.
bulk solids handling · Vol. 29 · 2009 · No. 1
Belt Conveying
The control of flow may be enhanced by installing small ledges
on the face creating mini rock boxes which in turn will reduce
the wear which would occur on the liner tiles. In either case care
needs to be taken to ensure the correct angle. Fig. 2 for material
II indicates that this angle needs to be greater than 75°. Valley
angles must be considered. The chute must be checked for self
cleaning and similarly a chute angle of 80° may be necessary.
5.5 Modified Chute handling Material II with
Impact Plate
In this case it is assumed that the capacity through the chute is
increased to 13 500 t/h and the drop height is defined as the ver-
tical distance between upper side of the delivering belt and the
upper side of the receiving belt. Fig. 9 shows serious congestion
at the discharge of the lower chute with a shear gate. The shear
gate may be a design feature of the chute design. However, if no
shear gate is provided the lower chute will effectively provide a
shear plane for the material to exit the lower chute.
Obviously the design of the shear gate should be addressed with
providing relief by extending the loading boot and relocating the
shear gate. However the boiling action will still be prevalent and
may require alternative designs for the lower chute to be consid-
ered to reduce impact wear on the chute and belt. However
chute wear or belt wear will increase with no advantage for min-
Fig. 8: Steel lower chute handling Material II
with rock box, View X.
Fig. 9: Material drop height 7 m, throughput
of 13 500 t/h, View X.
33
 Belt Conveying
imizing chute blockages. The main cause here is the increase in References
drop height for no added advantage or justification. It should
also be noted that the increased height for these conditions is an [1]
increase of 73 kW of power consumption
[2]
6 General Discussion
6.1 DEM Methodogy [3]
This method is a powerful tool to assist with the design of trans-
fer stations. Impact velocities can be determined at impact [4]
points such as flat and curved plates, lower chute face faces and
at the belt surface. Therefore, comparisons can be made between
alternative designs with regard to minimizing wear rates. Abso- [5]
lute values are more difficult to determine with real data from op-
erating companies, and test work to determine particle coefficient
of restitution and friction values at particle impact points, and
[6]
wear resistance values of surfaces such as material used for wear
tiles and rubber used for wear tiles and conveyor belts.
6.2 Impact Plates [7]
Flat plates are used in this article while in practice curved plates
(hoods) are more widely used . However, the wear rates for hoods [8]
are equally excessive, the hood is more difficult to locate cor-
rectly in the flow stream and very sensitive to being incorrectly [9]
located, more difficult to manufacture and fix replaceable liner
tiles. Therefore the flat impact plate is considered to be more
cost effective.
[10] M, A.E.: Transfer Station Design – A Review using DEM Tech-
nology. bulk solids handling Vol. 27 (2007) No. 5, pp. 302-306.
6.3 Rock Box
The rock box is better to reduce wear rates in both the mass of
tiles to replace and time to replace per tonne of ore handled.
Also it assist to control flow into the middle and lower chute ar-
eas and most importantly wear of the belt. However with wet,
sticky and ores containing clay the phenomenon of the ‘rhino
horn’ needs to be addressed. Methods need to be introduced in
the chute design to prevent their initiation, and/or their early
breakdown while still of insignificant size to prevent blockages
downstream due to large lumps of material.
7 Concluding Remarks
DEM is a powerful additional tool for the successful design of trans-
fer chutes in material handling systems. However it cannot be used
in isolation of other methodologies such as the continuum flow
method (CFM) because a significant export product is fines
(−6 mm) material. The power of computers is limited when it
comes to analyse simultaneously the number of individual parti-
cles in high capacity material handling systems. Although it should
be noted that it is the best method for cohesiveless materials where
lumps sizes >50 mm are present in the material, see N [5]. It
is also necessary to undertake test work to determine the flow
properties of the material in particular to take samples from an
existing chute that is subject to blockages. This test work is impor-
tant as it provides information about the cohesiveness of the mate-
rial. DEM only analyses discrete elements or particles, it is not suit-
able to analyse fine cohesive materials with clay intrusions. The
forces between particles associated with cohesiveness produce
non discrete particles. Further research is required in this area.
34 bulk solids handling · Vol. 29 · 2009 · No. 1
J, A.W.: Storage and Flow of Solids. Bulletin 123 University of
Utah, Salt Lake City, 1964.
A, P.C., ML, A.G. and R, A.W.: Bulk Solids Stor-
age, Flow and Handling. University of Newcastle Research Associ-
ates (TUNRA) Ltd., Australia.
K, Z.: The Dynamics of Bulk Solids Flow on Impact Plates of
Belt Conveyor Systems. bulk solids handling Vol. 8 (1988) No. 6,
pp. 689-697.
T, H.: Guide to the Design of Transfer Chutes and Chute Lin-
ings. The Mechanical Handling Engineers Association (MHEA),
1989.
N, L.K.: Palabora Installs Curved Transfer Chute in Hard
Rock to minimize Belt Cover Wear. bulk solids handling Vol. 14
(1994) No. 4, pp. 739-743.
R, A.W. and W, S.I.: Interrelation between Feed Chute,
Geometry and Conveyor Wear. bulk solids handling Vol. 19 (1999)
No. 1, pp. 35-39.
M, A.E.: Design Review of Conical Stockpiles comparing Mass
Flow Hoppers and Vibrating Dischargers. bulk solids handling Vol.
20 (2000) No. 3, pp. 285-287.
R, A.W. and MB, B.: Chute Design Considerations for
Feeding and Transfer. Bulkex 2006 Melbourne Australia.
M, A.E.: Transfer Station Design – Developments in the Iron
Ore Industry. bulk solids handling Vol. 27 (2007) No. 2, pp. 94-
100.
About the Author
A.E. Maton
Mr. Bert Maton has been in the engi-
neering industry for 50 years of which
40 years has been in engineering
services to the mining and minerals
processing industry in Western Aus-
tralia. Mr. Maton graduated during 1974 in Mechanical
Engineering at the Western Australian Institute of Tech-
nology. Services have been provided in project and de-
sign engineering for a number of major developments
and operating facilities in the iron ore, nickel, bauxite,
coal and gold. In recent years Mr. Maton has specialised
in mining facilities from the ROM receival, crushing,
screening, belt conveying, unit train loading and un-
loading, shipping terminal stockyards reclaiming and
shiploading.
Contact:
Maton Engineering Pty. Ltd.
Mr. Albert E. Maton
201 Reservoir Road; Orange Grove WA 6106, Australia
Tel.: ++61 (0) 8 9452 3486
Fax: ++61 (0) 8 9452 3496
E-Mail: matonen@bigpond.com