AS4324.

1-1995 Standard for Design of Bulk Materials Handling

Machines
Richard Morgan
ASPEC Engineering

Abstract
The increasing level of mineral exports from Australia has resulted in the need for expansions to
existing facilities and new export facilities. Rail-mounted materials handling machines such as
shiploaders, stackers and reclaimers are significant investment items for the ports and mines
involved in the supply chain for export of these commodities. Australia is one of the few countries
to have its own standard for such equipment: AS4324.1.

INTRODUCTION important in determining the load imposed on a

AS4324.1 Mobile equipment for continuous handling of
bulk materials Part 1- General requirements for the
design of steel structures was introduced in 1995. The
Standard had a long gestation period [5], with work
commencing in 1978. Its release in 1995 was timely in
response to a number of failures of bulk materials
handling machines in Australia in the early 1990s. This
Standard applies to mobile equipment for continuous
handling of bulk materials, e.g. excavators, stackers,
reclaimers, shiploaders, and ship unloaders. It was
intended that AS4324: Part 1, which deals with steel
structures, would be followed by other parts addressing
mechanical, electrical and other aspects. However this
has not occurred.
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
has published a design standard for bulk materials
handling machines, ISO5049.1 [3] which has been
widely used internationally and was used in Australia
prior to 1995. There are significant differences between
AS4324.1 and ISO5049.1; generally speaking,
machines designed according to AS4324.1 are heavier
than similar machines designed to ISO5409.1. German
Standard DIN 2226 [2] has been written specifically for
machines working in large brown coal open cut mines,
including bucket wheel excavators. AS4324.1 has
adopted material from DIN 22261 and its predecessors
in addition to material from ISO5049.1.
machine. This is an area which requires close attention
both in the design phase and on site to ensure that the
installed devices perform the correct function.
AS4324.1 adopts a philosophy of not overly relying on
electrical protection devices for structural integrity.
APPLICATION OF AS4324.1 TO TYPES OF
MACHINES
AS4324.1 is intended to apply to both rail-mounted yard
machines and continuous mining machines which are
usually mounted on crawlers. Appendix E in the
Standard gives illustrations of the types of machines for
which the Standard is intended to apply. A description
of some of the more common types of rail-mounted
machines follows below.
Stacker Reclaimers
Figure 1 shows the components on an older style of
stacker reclaimer. The machine has a long travel
motion along tracks propelled by driven wheels on the
bogie system. In the stacking mode, bulk material is fed
onto the machine from the yard belt via a tripper which
discharges onto the elevator. Material travels on a
conveyor up the elevator and discharges through a
chute onto the boom conveyor. The bulk material
discharges onto the stockpile from the end of the boom.

Protective or load limiting devices in the electrical,

control, mechanical and hydraulic systems are very

PEC Technical Article,July 2012 1

 Figure 1 - Stacker Reclaimer

In reclaiming mode the boom conveyor reverses
direction. Bulk material is reclaimed from the stockpile
by the bucket wheel which rotates via a driven shaft.
The buckets dig material from the stockpile and
discharge them onto the boom conveyor. The boom
conveyor discharges material through a central chute
onto the yard conveyor.
The boom can pivot in a vertical plane about a central
bearing to follow the stockpile terrain. This motion is
driven by hydraulic cylinders and is termed “luffing”.
The boom can also rotate in the horizontal plane about
a circular bearing. This motion is driven by a gear
system and is termed “slewing”.
Machines of this type are sensitive to changes in
balance about the luffing pivot. Changes in weight and
weight distribution need to be carefully monitored and
controlled. The repetitive loading due to the bucket
wheel motion requires consideration for metal fatigue of
the structure and slew bearing. Other machine
configurations are used, e.g. a “C” frame configuration
can slew to both sides of the rail tracks without the need
to extend the elevator away from the machine with the
tow bridge.
Stackers
Stackers predominately long travel with limited slewing
motions in order to lay the stockpiles for subsequent
reclaiming by a slewing or bridge type reclaimers. On
modern designs luffing is carried out by means of
hydraulic cylinders. Stackers with longer spans are
often articulated to provide less variation in load during
the luffing motion.
Reclaimers
Bucket wheel boom type reclaimers are similar to a
bucket wheel stacker reclaimer (see Figure 1) but
without the stacking function, so they do not include a
tripper and elevator. Bridge reclaimers of the bucket
wheel type are often used for reclaiming on the face of
a blended stockpile. Such machines have “rakes”
which are used to loosen material on the active face.

PEC Technical Article,July 2012 2

 Shiploaders
Long travelling shiploaders with a wheelbase up to
approximately 20 metres commonly have a portal
structure spanning the rails and a fixed boom gantry set
at 90 degrees to the rail track. The boom conveyor and
shiploading chute shuttle in and out to load the hatches
and due to geometry, there are limitations on the length
of in-board travel of the shuttle. The shuttle mechanism
may vary the length of the boom or the boom may be of
fixed length with the shuttle within the boom. Another
configuration is the bridge type which has a large
travelling bridge spanning from the seaward rail to a
second rail or pivot point some distance behind the
berth. A shuttling trolley system, which supports the
boom, tower, and luffing winch system, travels along the
bridge.
The portal slewing type shiploader is suitable for ships
without masts and cargo gear. Trimming of hatches is
accomplished by a combination of slewing and long
travel motions. The portal slewing and shuttling type
shiploader allows for greater flexibility in loading
different ship types than the portal slewing type.
LOADS
The following section describes some of the important
load conditions which have been expanded or covered
in more detail in AS4324.1 than in the ISO or DIN
Standards.
Digging Resistance U and Abnormal Digging
Resistance UU
The calculation procedure for digging resistance
requires this load to be based on drive motor torque. In
the authors experience site measurements generally
show that machines are driven to the limits of the drive
system.
Lateral Digging Resistance S and Abnormal
Lateral Digging Resistance SS
AS4324.1 requires lateral digging resistance to be
based on available slew or long travel drive capacity.
Site measurements generally support this approach,
even for bucket wheel reclaimers or other yard
machines.
PEC Technical Article,July 2012
Permanent Dynamics D
The treatment of permanent dynamics uses dynamic
effects factors which multiply the appropriate dead and
live loads. The factors used in AS4324.1 include
additional values to cover rail-mounted machines as
well as crawler mounted equipment.
Wind Loads Operating W and Wind While Idle
WW
Wind loads, either for operating conditions or for
extreme winds with the machine out of operation, are
referred to the Australian Standard AS1170.2.
Additional requirements are included for gust effects on
the superstructure and for wind at a 45 degree angle to
the main structure axes.
Travel Skew Forces LS
For rail-mounted machines, AS4324.1 nominates a
calculation procedure for travel skew forces which is
similar to that in the Crane Standard AS1418. This
includes consideration of asymmetrical traction forces
on each rail, commonly encountered on bridge-type
shiploaders.
Travel Device Obstructed LL
In AS4324.1, the approach adopted is to assume that
these loads are generated where one side of a
travelling machine is suddenly obstructed and brought
to rest in 300 mm. Consideration of the dynamics of the
event, including inertial effects, is required.
Boom Collision Loads FS, FT
AS4324.1 considers the combined effect of both inertia
and drive torques for a stopping distance of 300 mm.
AS4324.1 includes load cases to address such
accidents for both slewing and non-slewing machines.
In the latter case, the limiting long travel drive force
rather than slew torque will determine impact loads.
AS4324.1 includes a longitudinal boom impact case,
representing the situation for a slewable boom machine,
where the impact might occur while the boom is facing
forward at a shallow angle to the long travel direction.
3
 Buffer Loads OO
The principle adopted is that rail-mounted machines
should be equipped with buffers, and that the machine
structure should be capable of surviving a buffer impact
situation where the machine is driven into the buffers at
full long travel speed. With this impact case as well,
both inertia and drive forces are required to be
considered concurrently.
Bucket Wheel Loss BL
AS4324.1 also includes a requirement to design bucket
wheel machines for the situation following loss of the
bucket wheel, shaft and associated gearbox from the
boom, as a result of a bucket wheel shaft failure or
similar accident. Inclusion of this load case was a result
of several failures of this type.
Non-Permanent Dynamic Effects DD
This applies to inertia forces due to dynamic load
effects, such as abnormal acceleration and braking of
moving parts occurring less than 20,000 times during
the life of the machine (e.g. emergency braking).
Allowance needs to be made during the design phase
for these effects. During the commissioning phase,
care needs to be taken in testing the emergency stops
on the machine. When emergency stopping is via the
braking system, rather than via controlled electrical
stopping, severe forces can be imparted into the
structure if the brakes or rail clamps are not adjusted
correctly and are applied too quickly following power
deactivation of the electrical system.
Burying (ZZ)
This load case is for where collapse of a stockpile or
slippage of the bank could cause the reclaiming or
excavating component of an operating machine to
become partially or fully buried. The Standard allows
for the need for any such appropriate loading to be
addressed in the procurement specification and gives
suggestions on how this may be covered.
LOAD COMBINATIONS
AS4324.1 shows how different load components should
be considered in combination. These are summarised
in Table 3.7 of AS4324.1, together with safety factors
and stability margins. Loads are grouped according to
their frequency of occurrence, i.e. main loads, additional
PEC Technical Article,July 2012
loads and special loads. The frequency of occurrence
of these load groups are similar to those stated in the
crane standard, AS1418.1 [8].
STABILITY AGAINST OVERTURNING
In order to check safety against overturning, AS43241.1
requires the stability ratio, (Ms/Mo) to be calculated for
the prescribed load case combinations. Ms is the
minimum stabilising moment due to the total permanent
load referred to a possible axis of tipping and Mo is the
maximum overturning moment due to the prescribed
load case combination of vertical and horizontal non-
permanent overturning forces referred to the same axis
of tipping.
The Standard nominates minimum stability ratios
against overturning to be applied to load case
combinations varying between 1.5 and 1.1, being higher
(1.5) for more frequent operational loading conditions,
lower (1.33) for less frequent operational loading
conditions, and lower again (1.2 or 1.1) for much less
frequent “abnormal” loading conditions.
FATIGUE
AS4324.1 refers to AS4100 [7] for fatigue design.
AS4100 reflects current practice for the design of
welded steel structures subject to fatigue loads. There
are important differences between AS4324.1 and
ISO5049.1. AS4324.1 is prescriptive and gives detailed
guidance on how to calculate the load cases and which
load combinations to consider. ISO5049.1 uses an
outdated “mean stress” approach to fatigue design
which is not adapted to modern standards. It should
also be noted that structures affected by fatigue must
be regularly inspected for fatigue damage for design
code rules such as AS4100 to apply.
For combining the effects of cyclical load components,
the AS4324.1 approach is to consider the fatigue
damage resulting from the cyclical stresses produced
by each component of the loading spectrum and
carrying out a cumulative damage assessment by
Miner's rule summation. AS4100 requires a capacity
factor of 0.7 to be applied for non-redundant load paths
and inaccessible areas for inspection.
4
 STRENGTH ASSESSMENT
AS4324.1 allows for the use of either the permissible
stress method (also termed “working stress”) to AS3990
[9] or limit states method to AS4100 to be used for
strength design.
BUCKLING ASSESSMENT
AS4324.1 permits buckling assessment, either to the
limit state procedures of AS4100 or to the permissible
stress procedures of AS3990. This is directly applicable
to design of beams and columns. Design of plate work
structures for the base and other major components to
resist buckling and to accommodate shear lag effects is
not well covered in the steel design standards AS4100
or AS3990. AS4324.1 covers this to some extent in
section 5.4 and Appendix J.
MACHINE PROCUREMENT SPECIFICATION
The standard method for procuring bulk materials
handling machines is a design and construct contract
with the contractor having responsibility for design,
manufacture, supply and installation. The procurement
specification needs to be written to ensure that the
configuration and performance parameters upon which
the requirements for the machine were determined can
be met realistically in practice. Appendix B in AS4324.1
gives guidance on issues which should be covered
specifically in the purchase specification.
DESIGN AUDIT
Appendix K in AS4324.1 gives guidance for design
auditing and certification by an independent third party
engineering consultant. This may be by means of
independent calculations or by checking and reviewing
the original design calculations and by computer
analysis.
WEIGHING
AS4324.1 requires that after a machine has been
constructed, the mass and centre of gravity of the
machine as built should be accurately determined. The
final weight of a machine is often greater than that
advised at the time of tender even when the supplier
has carried out an upfront concept design phase.
AS4324.1 stipulates that if the construction mass
exceeds the mass used in the calculation of static loads
PEC Technical Article,July 2012
by more than five percent, the stresses in the machine
should be re-checked.
EXPERIENCE WITH AS4324.1 AND
SUGGESTED CHANGES
The following section covers some of the areas where
the author’s organisation has found issues in the
application of AS4324.1 that required resolution. Areas
that may need to be addressed in revisions to AS4324.1
are also identified.
Fatigue – Non-Redundant Load Paths
The requirement in AS4100 to allow for a capacity
factor of 0.7 for non-redundant load paths or for areas
which cannot be readily inspected has caused
difficulties and can be subject to quite different
interpretation by different parties. Procurement
specifications should be specific in this respect to avoid
differing interpretations.
Treatment of Burying Load Case
The burying load case is applicable to reclaimers and
particularly covers the situation where material from the
bank or stockpile slumps onto the end of the boom.
One way of handling this, as suggested in AS4324.1, is
to assume that the boom can support the full weight of
this material. Another way this has been handled is to
allow the luffing hydraulic system to relieve and the
boom to be partially supported by the stockpile.
Procurement specifications should be specific in this
respect.
Blocked Chute – Flooded Belt
The case of blocked chutes and conveyor-flooded belts
happening concurrently can be onerous and there is a
temptation by designers to try to relax requirements to
design for a flooded belt by measures such as installing
a profile plate in the feed chute. This approach should
be treated with caution as the machine can easily be
modified in service to remove the profile plate without
reference to the designer. Similarly, designers may
tend to rely on blocked chute cut-off switches to limit the
load from material overflowing from the top of a clogged
chute. In practice, these cut-offs are not instantaneous
or may malfunction, causing greater loadings than
assumed.
5
 Design Audit
Qualifications of the design audit engineer and the need
to audit mechanical and electrical items are not covered
in AS4324.1. Where the audit engineer’s function is
provided as part of the contract for the machine, the
purchase specifications should be specific in this
respect to avoid differing interpretations.
Boom Collision on Non-Slewing Machines
On non-slewing machines such as shiploaders and
stackers where the boom is fixed at right angles to the
long travel tracks, it is usually not practical to design for
the boom collision load case and it may be necessary to
rely on anti-collision systems. It is suggested that
further guidance be given in revisions to AS4324.1.
Travel Device Obstructed On Bridge Machines
On long span bridge machines such as shiploaders and
reclaimers it is usually not practical to design for the
travel device-obstructed load case and it is necessary to
rely on anti-collision and skew control systems. It is
suggested that further guidance be given in revisions to
AS4324.1.
Digging Cut-Off Settings and Protection
Systems
Typically, bucket wheel drives are sized to provide
sufficient power to dig and lift the stockpile material.
The drive is sized to operate at about 100% of motor-
rated torque for the majority of its operating time.
During operation the digging torque will vary based on a
number of factors, such as the type of material being
reclaimed and stockpile slumps. The primary and
secondary protection settings are provided so that the
load on the machine is not excessive and the machine
can continue to operate without too many overload
stoppages. The normal digging resistance (U) is
calculated based on 1.1 times the first protection setting
but not less than 1.1 times the motor-rated torque. The
abnormal digging resistance (UU) is calculated based
on 1.1 times the greatest protection setting but not less
than 1.5 times the motor-rate torque. Diversity for
protection systems is particularly beneficial. For
example, a protection system implemented using one
mechanical protective device and one electrical
protective device has a high diversity component.
PEC Technical Article,July 2012
Fluid couplings of any type on the bucket wheel drive
train are not generally suitable as a torque limiting
device for normal digging or associated lateral digging
and it is suggested that the Standard be revised so as
not to refer to fluid couplings as a load limiting device.
Permanent Dynamics D
In general more guidance on the application of
permanent dynamic effects would be a useful addition
to the standard.
For stability calculations, a uniform dynamic multiplier
as adopted in AS4324.1 can produce non-conservative
results. A triangular-distributed acceleration as shown
in Figure 2 is more appropriate.
Figure 2. Triangular Distribution of Acceleration
Redundancy of Stays, Ropes and Hydraulic
Cylinders
In cases where an operator's cab is located on a boom,
there a requirement for the boom support to be
redundant, with two totally independent support
systems. The design of ropes or stays is required to
consider the dynamic loading which would occur
following failure of one of the support systems. The
magnitude of the dynamic load multiplier and the need
to have this on top of the safety factors is an area which
can be subject to quite different interpretation by
different parties. It is suggested that further guidance be
given in revisions to AS4324.1.
Loss of Bucket Wheel
This load case was introduced primarily for situations
where the bucket wheel is on a cantilevered section of
shaft. Where the bucket wheel is not cantilevered but
held captive by the boom support structure and the
6
 discharge/circular chute in case of shaft failure, this load
event may not be applicable. It would be appropriate to
revise the Standard to reflect this.
Wind Loads
The Standard is written with reference to the 1989
edition of AS1170.2 and uses wind forces for
permissible stress design, Vp rather than wind forces for
ultimate design Vu. Subsequent editions of the wind
load standard, AS1170.2 published in 2002 and 2011
only include Vu and do not include Vp. specifically. This
is an area where revision would be appropriate. It may
be necessary to define an intermediate wind speed for
relocation to the storm park position and for parking with
rail clamps. Care needs to be taken in cyclonic areas
where wind is a controlling load case, as use of
permissible stress design wind speed may be non-
conservative.
Plate Buckling
The AS4324.1 assessment method for plate bucking
can be difficult to apply. In practice, plate bucking is
generally handled by finite element analysis and
alternative design standards such as BS5400 [1] or the
Merrison Committee recommendations [4] are used. It
is suggested that revisions to AS4324.1 should address
this.
Limit States Code Calibration
Table 3.7 of AS4324.1 gives load multiplying factors to
be used with the limit states method to AS4100.
Normally, the limit states design method uses partial
load factors νP, which differ for each type of load and
range generally between 1.2 and 1.5 depending on the
statistical variability of the load type. However, for
AS4324.1 this factor is taken as the same for all load
components. In AS1418.1 for cranes, the standard
notes that where the limit states design method is used,
care needs to be taken so that the design gives a
degree of safety not less than that for the permissible
stress design method to AS3990. Such a cautionary
note could be included in a revision to AS4324.1 in the
short term. Ultimately a full code calibration of the load
multipliers should be carried out in a similar manner to
that carried out by Warren et al [11] for crane girders.
PEC Technical Article,July 2012
CONCLUSIONS
AS4324.1 has been in use for over 16 years and major
machine suppliers and design audit engineers operating
in Australia are now familiar with the document. Since
the introduction of AS4324.1, the majority of new
machines in Australia have been subject to a third party
design audit. Its application in the procurement of bulk
handling equipment for Australian ports and mines has
generally resulted in robust and reliable machines which
are expected to offer long-term benefits. Some areas in
the Standard have caused issues and pending revisions
to the Standard, this has generally been covered in
purchase specifications. Now that most industry
participants are familiar with the Standard, revisions
would be appropriate as part of continuous
improvement in the industry.
REFERENCES
1. British Standards Institute (1982). BS5400:
Steel, Concrete and Composite Bridges.
2. German Institute for Standardization (2006),
DIN 22261-2 Excavators, Stackers and
Ancillary Equipment in Brown Coal Open Cut
Mines Part 2 Calculation Principals
3. International Organization for Standardization
(1994). ISO5049.1: Mobile Equipment for the
Continuous Handling of Bulk Materials Part 1
Rules for the Design of Steel Structures.
4. Merrison, A. W., Flint, A. R., Harper, W. J.,
Horne, M. R. and Scruby, G. F. B. (1973).
HMSO Merrison Committee Report on the
Design and Erection of Steel Box Girder
Bridges, Part 1 to Part 4.
5. Morgan, R. C. (2011) Design of Materials
Handling Machines to AS4324.1-1995,
Australasian Structural Engineering
Conference, Perth, 12 July 2012
6. Morrison, W. R. B. et al. (1996). A New
Australian Standard for Continuous Bulk
Materials Handling Machines, National
Conference on Bulk Materials Handling 30
September - 2 October 1996, Melbourne.
7
 7. Standards Australia (2008). AS4100: Steel
Structures.

8. Standards Australia (2002). AS1418.1: Cranes,

hoists and winches - General requirements.

9. Standards Australia (1993). AS3990:

Mechanical Equipment – Steelwork.

10. Standards Australia (1995). AS4324.1: Mobile

equipment for continuous handling of bulk
materials Part 1 - General requirements for the
design of steel structures.

11. Warren, J. S. et al. (2005). Reliability models of

overhead traveling crane loading for code
calibration, ICOSSAR, Millpress, Rotterdam.

Every effort has been made to ensure that the

information contained in this article is correct. However,
Aspec Engineering Pty Ltd or its employees take no
responsibility for any errors, omissions or inaccuracies.

PEC Technical Article,July 2012 8