4 views

Uploaded by José santana

save

You are on page 1of 10

Centre for Bulk Solids and Particulate Technologies

Faculty of Engineering, University of Wollongong

Northfields Avenue, Wollongong, NSW, 2522

SUMMARY

This paper presents a review of the various methods available to predict the discharge angle of material as

it leaves the head pulley of a conveyor belt. This discharge angle prediction is a vital component in the overall

determination of the discharge trajectory of material and as a result will dictate the design of a transfer chute to

adequately feed downstream components in a system. The discharge angle will also dictate the location of a

stockpile if this is the desired application of the conveyor belt.

Included in this paper are numerical comparisons of the methods presented to quantify similarities and

differences between individual approaches by using a range of belt speeds and pulley diameters. Observations

made on the various methods will be discussed, including advantages, disadvantages and limitations.

NOMENCLATURE

a1 height to material centroid, m

bt belt thickness, m

C constant of integration, -

Dp head pulley diameter, m

g gravity, m s

-2

h material height, m

hd height of material stream at discharge, m

R arbitrary radius, m

Rb belt radius, m

Rc radius to centre/centroid of material stream, m

Rh radius to outer product stream, m

Rp head pulley radius, m

V1 velocity of lower stream, m s

-1

V2 velocity of upper stream, m s

-1

Vcr critical velocity, m s

-1

Vs tangential velocity, m s

-1

(b belt inclination angle,

(d discharge angle,

(d1 discharge angle for the lower trajectory,

(d2 discharge angle for the upper trajectory,

(r angle of wrap on head pulley,

specific gravity of material, kN m

-3

coefficient of friction, -

k coefficient of kinetic friction, -

s coefficient of static friction, -

(a adhesive stress, kN m

-2

. angular parameter,

1 INTRODUCTION

Whether designing a transfer chute or predicting the location of a stockpile, determining the discharge

angle of a material stream from a conveyor head pulley is essential. Accurately predicting the discharge angle

will aid in the design of a transfer chute, leading to flow-on effects for the determination of the material

trajectory and interaction with transfer hoods or impact plates. The horizontal location of a stockpile of material

from the conveyor head pulley will be influenced by the discharge angle. Whether using equipment such as a

spreader for opencast mining or a fixed conveyor, inaccurate positioning of a stockpile might result in the

contamination of an existing stockpile with another product, burying equipment or blocking access.

There are numerous trajectory models available in the literature which determine the discharge angle of

the material stream as it leaves the conveyor head pulley. The focus of this paper will be a review of the methods

used by C.E.M.A. [1,2,3,4,5], M.H.E.A. [6], Booth [7], Golka [8,9], Korzen [10], Goodyear [11] and Dunlop

[12].

2 DISCHARGE ANGLE METHODS

The seven methods reviewed present a variety of formulae to predict the material discharge angle from

the head pulley of a conveyor belt. Some of the methods focus only on the horizontal conveyor geometry [12]

although inference is made to both inclined and declined geometries in the worked example provided. Some

focus only on inclined conveyors [7,8,9,10] but can easily be adapted for horizontal geometries by setting the

belt inclination angle to zero, and then there are other methods which address horizontal, inclined and declined

conveyor geometries [1,2,3,4,5,6,11].

Unless otherwise stated in the following sections, for high-speed belt conditions (defined later) material

will discharge at the point of tangency between the belt and the head pulley.

V

s

V

s

V

s

2

(

2.1 Horizontal and Inclined Conveyor Belts

The methods of C.E.M.A. and M.H.E.A. [1,2,3,4,5,6] use the same set of equations to determine the

discharge angles for the various geometries, with the only quantifiable differences being minor variations to the

tabulated values through subsequent editions of the C.E.M.A. guide and the conversion from imperial to metric

units for M.H.E.A., see Table 1. For horizontal conveyors geometries there are two possible cases, that of low-

speed, determined by equation (1), where the material will wrap around the head pulley to a determined

discharge angle, equation (7), and that of high-speed, determined by equation (2), where the material will

discharge at the point of tangency between the belt and the head pulley.

Inclined conveyor geometries present four possible cases. Low-speed conditions are determined based on

the belt inclination angle, as shown in equation (3), the discharge angle again determined from equation (7). As

the belt inclination angle is now being used, there is also a minor change in the maximum tangential velocity

required for the transition from low- to high-speed conditions and is explained further in section 3. There is an

additional case where the material will discharge at the vertical centre line of the head pulley, equation (4). For

high-speed belts, material will discharge at the point of tangency of the belt and the head pulley in most

circumstances, equation (5), however there is a special case, as shown in equation (6) where the material may

leave the belt at the tangency point but may again come in contact with the curved belt surface, interfering with

the trajectory path to follow.

Of note with the C.E.M.A. and M.H.E.A. methods is that the discharge angle calculated is for the centroid

(centre of gravity) of the material stream and the methods assume the discharge angle for the lower and upper

surfaces of the material trajectory are identical.

Table 1 Belt speed conditions for the C.E.M.A. [1,2,3,4,5] and M.H.E.A. [6] methods

Low-speed Medium High-speed

Horizontal

2

gR

c

< 1

(1) N/A

2

gR

c

c 1

(2)

Inclined

V

s

2

gR

c

<

cos

(b

(3)

V

s

2

gR

c

= 1

(4)

> 1

gR

c

cos

(b

<

V

s

2

gR

c

< 1

(5)

(6)

cos

(d

=

V

s

2

gR

c

(7)

The oldest of the methods is provided by Booth [7] and uses an iterative approach to find the discharge

angle. Booths method only determines the discharge angle and subsequent trajectory for the lower stream, that

is for the material directly in contact with the belt. If a discharge angle for the upper trajectory path is to be

assigned, an assumption must be made on how it should be determined. Based on C.E.M.A. and M.H.E.A. it

appears reasonable to assume that the upper discharge angle is equal to the lower discharge angle. To determine

whether low-speed or high-speed conditions apply, either equation (8) or (9) must hold true, see Table 2.

Table 2 Belt speed conditions for the Booth [7] method

For low-speed conditions, an initial estimate of the discharge angle can be found using equation (10)

followed by the angle at which material slip first occurs on the belt, (r, which is determined by equation (11).

The

analytical

analysis

by

Booth

produces

equation

(12)

and

by

setting

V

. )

=

V

b

and

.

=

(r

the

constant

of

Low-speed High-speed

V

s

2

< 1 (8)

gR

b

V

s

2

c 1 (9)

gR

b

=

cos

( r

(11)

sin

( r

(

2

1

)

cos

.

3

sin

.

(

4

)

+1

V

2 1

1

+

R

p

and

h

d

=

R

p

1+

1

(

integration, C, can be determined. Once C has been obtained, equations (10) and (12) can be solved

simultaneously

using

V

(. )

=

V

d

and

.

=

(d

to

determine

the

discharge

angle

and

also

the

discharge

velocity, if required.

cos

(d

=

V

b

2

gR

b

(10)

V

b

2

gR

b

1

V

2

(. )

2

g

R

b

2

= + C e

2

.

2

(12)

Golka [8,9] determines the critical velocity where the transition from low-speed to high-speed occurs

from equation (13), for both the lower and upper trajectory paths which are then compared to the upper and

lower stream velocities as shown in Table 3. Selecting one of the three cases, the final values of the discharge

angles are calculated by equations (14) and (15).

V

cr

=

gR

cos

(b

Table 3 Discharge angle determination for the Golka [8,9] method

(13)

CASE 1

Condition (d1 (d2

V

1

<

V

cr1

and

V

2

<

V

cr 2

Use

equation

(14)

Use

equation

(15)

CASE 2

CASE 3

V

1

>

V

cr1

V

1

<

V

cr1

and

V

2

>

V

cr2

Point of tangency Point of tangency

Use equation (14) Point of tangency

cos

(d1

=

cos

(d 2

=

V

1

2

g

R

p

V

2

2

g

(

R

p

+

h

d )

(14)

(15)

Where,

= V

2h

R

p

0.5

2h

0.5

The method used by Golka [8,9] for the lower trajectory discharge angle is actually the same discharge

angle calculated by Booths [7] first approximation. The upper trajectory discharge angle is slightly different due

to actual calculation of a discharge angle rather than the assumption that it is the same angle as for the lower

discharge.

Korzens [10] method of determining the discharge angle is very similar in approach to that of Booth [7],

however Korzen bases his analysis on the central material stream and also uses the determined central discharge

angle for both the lower and upper trajectory streams. Firstly, the angle at which slip first occurs, (r, is

determined,

equation

(16),

in

order

to

evaluate

the

constant

of

integration,

C,

using

V

. )

=

V

b

and

.

=

( r

as

( )

T

V

b

2

(

( r

=

tan

s

sin

'

sin

tan

s

2

a

T

( )

cos

.

5

k

sin

.

V

(

.

)

=

2gR

c

'

+

Ce

4

k

.

( )

s ]

s ]

(

gR

c

>

cos

(

b

the condition of equation (17). The discharge angle is determined by selecting

.

=

( d

.

1 1 1

'

R

c

g

h

2

'

1+16

k

2

V

2

. )

=

R

c

g

cos

.

and

(16)

(17)

Goodyear [11] provides two cases for horizontal conveyor geometries which are identical to those of the

C.E.M.A. and M.H.E.A. equations (1) and (2). For low-speed inclined conveyors equation (3) is again used,

however for high-speed inclined conveyors equation (18) is used. The Goodyear method determines the

discharge angle for the central material stream, (i.e. h/2), however there is no reference to the determination of

the discharge angles for the lower or upper trajectories. The assumption has been made that all discharge angles

are of equal value.

V

s

2

(18)

Dunlop [12] uses a graphic approach to determine the discharge angles for low-speed conveyor belts. A

series of head pulley diameters are plotted on a graph of belt speed versus discharge angle and by projecting the

belt speed to the appropriate pulley diameter, the discharge angle is determined. If, however the belt speed does

not intercept the desired pulley diameter, Dunlop recommends high-speed conditions apply and material

discharge is at the point of tangency. There is one major limitation with this method, the maximum pulley

diameter presented is 1600mm which does not allow for the determination of the angle of discharge for head

pulleys of larger diameter.

2.2 Declined Conveyor Belts

Only three methods, C.E.M.A. [1,2,3,4,5], M.H.E.A. [6] and Goodyear [12] allow for the determination

of the discharge angle for declined belt conveyors and while Dunlop makes no specific mention of declined

conveyor belts in its guide, it alludes to a declined conveyor belt having the same discharge angle as a horizontal

or inclined conveyor via a worked example. For this reason declined conveyors have not been incorporated into

the comparisons, however will briefly be discussed.

Up to the fifth edition of the C.E.M.A. guide [1,2,3,4] and M.H.E.A [6] the low-speed or high-speed

conditions are determined from equation (18). High-speed discharge is again at the point of tangency whereas for

low-speed conditions equation (3) is used, followed by equation (7).

The sixth edition of C.E.M.A. [5] has a variation to the low-speed condition, now adding the discharge

angle to the belt declination angle. However, in the worked example for this specific case, the discharge angle

calculated is identical to the discharge angle found in the previous five editions of the C.E.M.A. guide which

have the discharge angle determined from the vertical. So this would in actual fact indicate that the graphical

representation of this case is incorrect.

The Goodyear [11] method of determining the discharge angle for declined conveyor belts uses equation

(18) for high-speed conditions resulting in discharge from the tangency point and for low-speed uses equation

(3) and equation (7) and is plotted from the vertical as with the early C.E.M.A. methods and M.H.E.A.

3 CRITICAL BELT SPEEDS

The critical belt speed, touched on previously, refers to the point of transition from low-speed to high-

speed conditions and Table 4 summarises the five unique equations used. As previously explained, Golka [8,9]

determines two distinct discharge angles and following from this there are also two critical belt speeds. The

method by Korzen [10] incorporates an adhesive stress component, however when the adhesive stress equals

zero, the equation is identical to that of Goodyear [11]. For the Dunlop method [12], the critical belt speed is

graphically determined and the inference provided by the worked examples is that the lower and upper discharge

angles are identical. There are however limitations to its determination due to the maximum pulley diameter

depicted graphically being 1600mm.

Table 4 Critical belt speeds for the various methods

4 COMPARATIVE RESULTS

An arbitrary set of conditions was selected from which a range of comparisons were made for the seven

discharge methods, see Table 1, noting that not all parameters are used in each method. A common belt

inclination angle of zero has been used for all comparisons (i.e. horizontal geometry) as there was found to be no

difference in the discharge angles for inclined conveyor geometries until the critical belt speed was reached as

was explained in section 3.

Table 5 Parameters used for comparisons

4.1 Effect of Belt Inclination Angle on Critical Belt Speed

Following on from section 3, a quantitative comparison of the critical belt speeds was undertaken for the

discharge angle methods and is presented in Figures 1 to 4. These figures clearly show the variation in belt speed

as belt inclination angle increases. Although the actual variation of belt speed for any given method and pulley

diameter is quite small (i.e. 0.1 to 0.25 m s

-1

), it will have an effect on the speed at which the transition from

low to high-speed conditions occurs.

Whether the Dunlop [12] method is based on an existing trajectory method is unclear, however the lower

stream Dunlop curves do not appear to follow the trend of any one method as is evident in Figures 2 and 3,

where the Dunlop curve follows the Golka L [8,9] / Booth [7] curve and then the C.E.M.A. [1,2,3,4,5] /

M.H.E.A. [6] curve respectively. The upper Dunlop [12] curve loosely follows the upper Golka [8,9] curve in

Figures 1 and 2 but no upper critical belt speeds could be determined for the 1500mm diameter pulley due to the

actual diameter of the outer surface of the material being 1726mm which is outside the range of the graph. No

determination of the Dunlop critical belt speed was possible for the 2000mm diameter pulley diameter.

C.E.M.A. and M.H.E.A.

V

b,cr

=

2

gR

b

cos

(

b

(19)

R

c

Booth and Golka (lower)

V

b,cr

=

gR

b

cos

(b

(20)

Golka (upper)

V

b,cr

=

2h

gR

b

1+

cos

(b

(21)

R

b

Korzen

V

b,cr

=

( a

gR

c

cos

(b

+

(22)

h

Goodyear

V

b,cr

=

gR

c

cos

(b

(23)

Belt inclination angle, (b 0

belt width, bw 0.762 m

belt thickness, bt 0.01 m

surcharge angle 20

troughing angle 20

Coefficient of friction [7], 0.5

Static friction [10], s 0.5

Kinematic friction [10], k 0.42

Product density, )b 2000 kg/m

3

Specific gravity of bulk solids, 19.62 kN/m

3

Adhesion, (a 0 kPa

Centroid height [1,2,3,4], a1 0.04064 m

Centroid height [5], a1 0.04191 m

Centroid height [6], a1 0.04 m

Material height [1,2,3,4], h 0.09652 m

Material height [5], h 0.10287 m

Material height [6], h 0.096 m

C

r

i

t

i

c

a

l

B

e

l

t

S

p

e

e

d

(

m

/

s

)

C

r

i

t

i

c

a

l

B

e

l

t

S

p

e

e

d

(

m

/

s

)

C

r

i

t

i

c

a

l

B

e

l

t

S

p

e

e

d

(

m

/

s

)

C

r

i

t

i

c

a

l

B

e

l

t

S

p

e

e

d

(

m

/

s

)

CEMA,MHEA

GOLKA L,BOOTH

GOLKA U

KORZEN,GOODYEAR

DUNLOP L

DUNLOP U

2.0

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.6

1.5

1.4

1.3

2.5

2.4

2.3

2.2

2.1

2.0

1.9

1.8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Belt InclinationAngle (deg.)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Belt InclinationAngle (deg.)

Figure 1 Critical belt speed for Dp = 0.5 m Figure 2 Critical belt speed for Dp = 1.0 m

3.0

2.9

2.8

2.7

2.6

2.5

2.4

2.3

3.4

3.3

3.2

3.1

3.0

2.9

2.8

2.7

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Belt InclinationAngle (deg.)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Belt InclinationAngle (deg.)

Figure 3 Critical belt speed for Dp = 1.5 m Figure 4 Critical belt speed for Dp = 2.0 m

4.2 Discharge Angles

Applying the parameters of Table 5 to the discharge angle methods, comparisons were made for four

head pulley diameters, 0.5m, 1.0m, 1.5m and 2.0m and for belt velocities ranging from 0.50ms

-1

to 3.25ms

-1

in

0.25ms

-1

increments. Figures 5 to 10 displays a range of belt velocities (0.5ms

-1

to 1.75ms

-1

) for a head pulley

diameter of Dp=0.5m and the following observations have been made:

a) Figure 5 shows two distinct groupings of discharge angles with slight variations evident in both groups;

b) As the belt velocity increases, there is a noticeable spread in the discharge angles, moving away from the

initial two groupings, see Figures 5 to 9;

c) Figure 9 shows that some methods, C.E.M.A. [1,2,3,4,5], M.H.E.A. [6] and Golka (upper) [8,9] have

already reached high-speed conditions (i.e. discharge at the point of tangency between the belt and head

pulley);

d) Golka (upper) [8,9] reaches high-speed conditions based on the calculated tangential velocity of the upper

stream, whereas Golka (lower) [8,9] is still under low-speed conditions, refer to Table 3;

e) Figure 10 shows that all discharge angle methods are now under high-speed conditions (Vb=1.75ms

-1

),

referring to Figure 1 for the critical belt velocity where the transition from low-speed to high-speed

conditions occurs;

f) Referring to the two discharge angles for Dunlop [12] in Figure 9, there is an indication that there is a

high convergence of the lower and upper paths based on the assumption made that two distinct discharge

angles should be determined (as explained previously). There will in all likelihood be a crossing of the

lower and upper trajectory streams which in reality would not occur. Of course, this situation only occurs

under low-speed conditions. For high-speed conditions (Figure 10), the streams are parallel.

CEMA 1,2,4,5

CEMA 6

MHEA86

BOOTH

GOLKA

KORZEN

DUNLOP

GOODYEAR

0.50

0.25

0.00

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75

-0.25

-0.50

Dimensions in metres

0.50

0.25

0.00

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75

-0.25

-0.50

0.50

0.25

0.00

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75

-0.25

-0.50

Figure 5 Dp=0.5m, Vb=0.50ms

-1

Figure 6 Dp=0.5m, Vb=0.75ms

-1

Figure 7 Dp=0.5m, Vb=1.00ms

-1

0.50

0.25

0.00

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75

-0.25

-0.50

0.50

0.25

0.00

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75

-0.25

-0.50

0.50

0.25

0.00

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75

-0.25

-0.50

Figure 8 Dp=0.5m, Vb=1.25ms

-1

Figure 9 Dp=0.5m, Vb=1.50ms

-1

Figure 10 Dp=0.5m, Vb=1.75ms

-1

Further selected graphical comparisons are presented in Figure 11 to Figure 19 displaying other

combinations of pulley diameter and belt speed. Additional observations have been made from these

comparisons:

g) For a constant belt velocity, the discharge angle for a given method increases as the pulley diameter

increases, see Figures 11 to 13 or Figures 14 to 16;

h) As was previously stated, the upper discharge angle for the Dunlop [12] method is displaying a high-

speed condition once a pulley diameter of 1.5m has been reached due to limitations with the Dunlop

graphical method;

i) Enforcing the statement made in (b) above, as belt velocity increases for a given pulley diameter, there is

more spread in the discharge angles determined, see Figures 12 and 15 and also Figures 13, 16 and 19;

j) As the belt velocity / pulley diameter ratio decreases for a given belt velocity, the two groupings of

discharge angles become more defined, see Figures 11 to 13 and Figures 14 to 16;

k) As pulley diameter increases there is a wider range of belt velocities available to produce low-speed

conditions.

CEMA 1,2,4,5

CEMA 6

MHEA86

BOOTH

GOLKA

KORZEN

DUNLOP

GOODYEAR

1.00

0.75

0.50

0.25

0.00

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50

-0.25

-0.50

-0.75

-1.00

Dimensions in metres

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25

-0.50

-1.00

-1.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

-0.50

-1.00

-1.50

-2.00

Figure 11 Dp=1.0m, Vb=1.00ms

-1

Figure 12 Dp=1.5m, Vb=1.00ms

-1

Figure 13 Dp=2.0m, Vb=1.00ms

-1

1.00

0.75

0.50

0.25

0.00

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50

-0.25

-0.50

-0.75

-1.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25

-0.50

-1.00

-1.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

-0.50

-1.00

-1.50

-2.00

Figure 14 Dp=1.0m, Vb=2.00ms

-1

Figure 15 Dp=1.5m, Vb=2.00ms

-1

Figure 16 Dp=2.0m, Vb=2.00ms

-1

1.00

0.75

0.50

0.25

0.00

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50

-0.25

-0.50

-0.75

-1.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25

-0.50

-1.00

-1.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

-0.50

-1.00

-1.50

-2.00

Figure 17 Dp=1.0m, Vb=3.00ms

-1

Figure 18 Dp=1.5m, Vb=3.00ms

-1

Figure 19 Dp=2.0m, Vb=3.00ms

-1

D

i

s

c

h

a

r

g

e

A

n

g

l

e

(

d

e

g

.

)

Of special note is the Korzen [10] method. As shown in equation (16) and (23) there is an adhesion

component present. In the case of the comparisons presented above, the adhesion stress has been set to zero to

keep comparisons consistent against other methods, see Table 5. As an example of the effect of varying the

adhesive stress a pulley diameter of Dp = 1.0m was selected and a range of adhesive stresses from 0 kPa to 2 kPa

was applied, see the results in Figure 20. It can clearly be seen that as the adhesive stress is increased for any

given belt speed, the resulting discharge angle increases. Also as the adhesive stress increases there is also an

increase in the range of belt speeds before the transition from low-speed to high-speed condition occurs. If the

adhesive stress is increased to 2.5 kPa for this set of comparisons, a discharge angle of 91.3 results for a belt

speed of 0.5 ms

-1

which is obviously at an angle past the most horizontal point on the head pulley and would in

actual fact result in material doubling back on itself. If the adhesive stress continues to be increased no solution

is possible based on equation (16).

Pulley Diameter 1.0m

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

Adhesive stress = 0 kPa

Adhesive stress = 0.5 kPa

Adhesive stress = 1.0 kPa

Adhesive stress = 1.5 kPa

Adhesive stress = 2.0 kPa

20

10

0

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50

Belt Speed (ms

-1

)

Figure 20 Effect of adhesive stress on discharge angle in the Korzen [10] method

5 CONCLUSION

Seven different discharge angle methods have been presented utilising a wide range of formulae and in

the case of Dunlop [12], a graphical approach. With such a range of formulae it is inevitable that there are

differences between the discharge angles produced by each method, which has clearly been shown, yet they

cannot all be correct.

It was found that when comparing horizontal and inclined conveyor geometries there is no difference to

the discharge angle until nearing the critical belt speed at which point, as the belt inclination angle increases, the

belt speed at which the transition from low-speed to high-speed conditions reduces slightly.

The methods presented by C.E.M.A. [1,2,3,4,5] and M.H.E.A. [6] are the same, varying only in the fact

that one is based on imperial units while the other used metric units respectively and also some minor

adjustments to the tabulated data in different editions of the C.E.M.A. guide.

The Korzen [10] method incorporates adhesive stress into its determination of the discharge angle unlike

any of the other methods. If a non-adhesive material is being analysed then the result is the same as that for the

Goodyear [11] method but if the material does exhibit adhesive characteristics, the result will be a larger

discharge angle as the material stays in contact with the belt longer.

In some cases, some assumptions were required to allow for a direct comparison of all the methods

presented. These assumptions were based on whether the discharge angle determined for the lower trajectory

stream could be used for the upper stream also, such as Booth [7], or whether a unique upper stream discharge

angle needed to be calculated, such as Golka [8,9]. In the case of the Dunlop [12] method the assumption that

two unique discharge angles should be determined from the graphical approach was perhaps an incorrect one as

discussed and seen in Figure 9.

Future work in the area of discharge angles will focus on actual measurement of these angles from the

conveyor transfer research facility being developed currently at the University of Wollongong.

6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the Australian Research Council, Rio Tinto OTX and

Rio Tinto Iron Ore Expansion Projects for their financial and in-kind contributions to the Linkage Project which

allows this research to be pursued.

7 REFERENCES

1. C.E.M.A. Belt Conveyors for Bulk Materials. 1st Ed, Conveyor Equipment Manufacturers Association,

1966.

2. C.E.M.A. Belt Conveyors for Bulk Materials. 2nd Ed, Conveyor Equipment Manufacturers Association,

1979.

3. C.E.M.A. Belt Conveyors for Bulk Materials. 4th Ed, Conveyor Equipment Manufacturers Association,

1994.

4. C.E.M.A. Belt Conveyors for Bulk Materials. 5th Ed, Conveyor Equipment Manufacturers Association,

1997.

5. C.E.M.A. Belt Conveyors for Bulk Materials. 6th Ed, Conveyor Equipment Manufacturers Association,

2005.

6. M.H.E.A. Recommended Practice for Troughed Belt Conveyors, Mechanical Handling Engineers

Association, 1986.

7. Booth, E. P. O. "Trajectories from Conveyors - Method of Calculating Them Corrected". Engineering

and Mining Journal, Vol. 135, No. 12, December, 1934, pp. 552 - 554.

8. Korzen, Z. "Mechanics of Belt Conveyor Discharge Process as Affected by Air Drag". Bulk Solids

Handling, Vol. 9, No. 3, August, 1989, pp. 289 - 297.

9. Golka, K. "Discharge Trajectories of Bulk Solids". 4th International Conference on Bulk Materials

Storage, Handling and Transportation, Wollongong, NSW, Australia, 6th - 8th July, 1992, pp. 497 - 503.

10. Golka, K. "Prediction of the Discharge Trajectories of Bulk Materials". Bulk Solids Handling, Vol. 13,

No. 4, November, 1993, pp. 763 - 766.

11. Goodyear Handbook of Conveyor & Elevator Belting: Section 11, 1975.

12. Dunlop Industrial Conveyor Manual, 1982.

- Belts Failure Book Final CE8149Uploaded byvulpinor
- Sheave TolerancesUploaded byjoebraz
- PulleyUploaded by86babu
- A Presentation on Fusing MachinesUploaded byadibhai06
- Tkba ManualUploaded byDavid Baez
- 2009-Exhibit22 Friction WinchUploaded bymwrsbs
- Belt ConstUploaded bysanthoshkumarpl
- Belt Tensioning ProcedureUploaded byanguyen22153319
- Topic BeltsUploaded byAstri Ngent
- Flexco Secondary Cleaner-U_TypeUploaded byNaser Hasan Fauzi
- MN4041_4041-110Uploaded byAnonymous iQMKqMqqW
- Correias gates.pdfUploaded byMauricio
- 1-1-2018-LEVEL-1-pricingUploaded byDenbe Santos
- Power Transmission CatalogUploaded byRicardo Jose Pirela
- Mine Duty StandardUploaded byFerAK47a
- Manual Gates DesignUploaded bymariodru
- CATALOGO SKF correasUploaded byLeandro Almandoz
- Proiect Om 2Uploaded bySchiopu George
- UNIT I Part IUploaded bySenthil Kumar Periyasamy
- Coupling Drive SystemsUploaded byBrahim Letaief
- Raw Milling and BlendingUploaded byakshaybj4396
- R8 NOV-DEC-2015Uploaded byHari Venkit
- Example of Gearbox CalculationUploaded byWassihun Amdie
- Modification in the Design of an Already Existing Palm Nut - Fiber SeparationUploaded byNur Oktavia
- Mvjce Me 1 2 SemUploaded byAkash Aku
- WelshUploaded byjapullin
- CB Corrugated Technical OverviewUploaded byMarcos Samsoniuk
- Martin SafetyUploaded byHayley Burns
- Machine Design GATE bitsUploaded byVenkateswar Reddy Mallepally
- 392493 AHU Supply Front PackageUploaded byjnmanivannan

- Minera Cerro Bayo LTDAUploaded byjuangomezsan
- MEMORIA PANEL SOLAR.pdfUploaded byJosé santana
- Ley18290 de TransitoUploaded byJosé santana
- luis 70Uploaded byJosé santana
- SIMULA Manual UsuarioUploaded bySebastián Cortés Araya
- LUIS 74Uploaded byJosé santana
- luis 68Uploaded byJosé santana
- luis 67Uploaded byJosé santana
- Manual Bomba VTPUploaded byLuis Cuaxilo
- luis 69Uploaded byJosé santana
- luis 71Uploaded byJosé santana
- W13018-YT01-GDF-457110 Rev 5-APVUploaded byJosé santana
- 219009374-RIESGOS-MATERIALESUploaded byJosé santana
- VTP-VPC 71569224 10-2013 (E)Uploaded byJosé santana
- luis 72Uploaded byJosé santana
- luis 62Uploaded byJosé santana
- luis 66Uploaded byJosé santana
- luis 63Uploaded byJosé santana
- luis 63Uploaded byJosé santana
- luis 58Uploaded byJosé santana
- luis 55Uploaded byJosé santana
- luis 69Uploaded byJosé santana
- luis 59Uploaded byJosé santana
- luis 57Uploaded byJosé santana
- luis 60Uploaded byJosé santana
- luis 56Uploaded byJosé santana
- luis 53Uploaded byJosé santana
- luis 53Uploaded byJosé santana
- luis 61Uploaded byJosé santana
- luis 54Uploaded byJosé santana

- Solid 186Uploaded byBhavik Makani
- Opt 2008 Advanced Deepwater Spool Analysis Paper 27-02-08Uploaded byhiyeon
- BS 8009_2Uploaded bySonalMhaisalgikar
- Structural Design ConceptsUploaded bypws111
- ENGENHARIA MECÂNICA _MEC_ VERSÃO A.pdfUploaded byDiogo Monteiro
- Earthquake Resistant Design of Steel StructuresUploaded byFranklin Garcia
- 14 Parachute Materials and Stress Analysis Wolf.pdfUploaded bySuza Ahmed Auporbo
- World Stress MapUploaded byTarun Singhal
- Materiales de Ingenieria - Cap 2 Naturaleza y Propiedades de Los MaterialesUploaded bydanteunmsm
- ENG 118 - CAP 5 - lajesUploaded bySBFOA
- ISO_DIS_6336!6!2004_Calculation of Service Life Under Variable Load(en)Uploaded byWildkad Américo Rodríguez Reyes
- HYDRILL - 533Uploaded bypither_zurita
- Mechanics of Deformable Bodies1Uploaded byNicole Perez
- Apres LaminacaoUploaded byVictor Abreu
- esfuerzoUploaded byChristian T. Horna
- Circulo de Mohr Resistencia de MaterialesUploaded byAlonso Urquizo
- Design Notes for ALL Memebres_sefi ForumUploaded bycoolkaisy
- Rock-strength and Physical Properties of Norites of the Merensky and Bastard Units, Western Bushveld ComplexUploaded byAlbert Pontus
- Thin Walled AluminiumUploaded byRada Ioan
- Diseño de columnas sometidas a carga axial y flexiónUploaded bychan_rul
- Ameron Bondstrand 5000 Pipe and Fitting SpecificationUploaded byDGW
- Falguera Et Al 2010. (Jugo de Mandarina)Uploaded byRudy Garcia
- Análise Do Comportamento Estrutural e Funcional de Um Pavimento Experimental Com Blocos Pré-moldados de Concreto.Uploaded byLuis Ñunez Marquina
- Apo Fundac3a7c3b5es CompletaUploaded byDiego Diego
- Esfuerzos Estáticos t Dinámicos en Elem MecUploaded bymmling
- Comportamiento MecanicoUploaded bysegundocastaneda
- Chap 6Uploaded byKarl Mitri
- Calibration of CPT in SandUploaded byqwesrt
- EWS-T300-DUploaded byFidan Daskalov
- A Flow-partitioned Deformation Zone Model for Defect Formation During Friction Stir WeldingUploaded byAndres_Pastor1987