Design and optimisition for ship loaders

Jiahe Shen 1, Gian Naldi 2, Dennis Pomfret 2 and Craig Wheeler 1

1
C entre for Bulk Solids and Particulate Technologies (CBSPT), The University of Newcastle,
Callaghan NSW 2308 Australia
2
Chute Technology, 192 Pacific Hwy, Charlestown NSW 2290 Australia

Abstract
Ship loaders play an important role in the bulk solids transportation at expert terminals. The
performance of a ship loader affects the efficiency and economy of the entire bulk handling equipment
system. The aim of this study is to optimise the profile of a ship loader so as to achieve a better throw
of the material flow. A better throw not only means the acceleration of the material loading process
but also provides safety by preventing the ship loader being in close proximity to hatch coamings.

Both theoretical and numerical methods are adopted for profile optimisation. A python code is
developed and integrated to the theoretical model for selecting the best combination of design
parameters. In addition, DEM modelling is performed to simulate the new design performance and
validate the developed method.

1. Introduction
A ship loader is the key component in the coal processing and handling system. It is a large machine
used for discharging coal into ships. Figure 1 shows a typical ship loader where the main components
of the ship loader are highlighted, including the head pulley, boom, hood, upper part, transition, spout
and trimmer flap. During operation, coal is coming from the belt conveyor constructed on the boom
and deflected by the hood at the end of the head pulley. The upper part, transition and spout are used
to guide the coal flowing into the trimmer flap (TF) from which the coal is discharged into the ship
hatch.

Figure 1 A typical ship loader and its main components

13th International Conference on Bulk Materials Storage, Handling and Transportation

9-11 July 2019, Queensland, Australia
The main components can be adjusted for different operation conditions. These adjustments include
the boom angle, the spout swing and rotation and the TF tilt. The relative movement of each
component can affect the flow patterns of coal inside the ship loader. Deepening understanding and
appreciation of the flow mechanics are vital for assessing the performance and subsequent
optimisation of the ship loader.

2. Theoretical analysis of bulk flow

In this study, our focus is on the optimisation of the TF. The priority is given to achieve the best throw
of the coal flow at a drop height of 5 m which is the distance around hatch corners when material
discharge approaches the end. The behaviour of the coal flow is analysed theoretically, from which
the mechanics including the forces and velocities of the flow along the curvature is quantified.

2.1 Theoretical model

The theory for chute design is developed by pro. Roberts [1] who investigated a bulk solid flow by
using a representative lumped particle extracted from the flow. The theory simplifies the problem
while still provides a relatively high accuracy. Therefore, it is widely used in the design of transfer
chutes, hoods and so on. For a constant curve, the theoretical model is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Bulk flow theoretical analysis

The coal velocity at the curve exit is given by

(1)
2𝑔𝑅
𝑉(𝜃) = √ [(1 − 2𝜇2 )𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃 + 3𝜇𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃] + 𝐾1 𝑒 −2𝜇𝜃
1 + 4𝜇2

2𝑔𝑅 (2)
{𝑣02 − [(1 − 2𝜇2 )𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃0 + 3𝜇𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃0 ]}
⁄
1 + 4𝜇2
𝐾1 =
𝑒 −2𝜇𝜃0

Where V(θ) is the exit velocity corresponding to angle θ; g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.81
m/s); R is the curve radius; μ is the equivalent wall friction; θ is the curve angle at the exit with respect
to the horizontal; K1 is a constant coefficient; V0 is the initial velocity; θ0 is the initial angle of the
curve with respect to the horizon.

For a complex curve, it can be divided into a series of constant curves, and the velocity at the exit can
be calculated by integrating the velocities for each subsection.

2.2 Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analysis is conducted to investigate the relationship of the material throw, curve tip angle
and radius for a range of the initial speed from 12 m/s to 17 m/s. This range is obtained from the DEM
diagnostics of the ship loader and defined as the most likely speed range of the incoming coal flow at
13th International Conference on Bulk Materials Storage, Handling and Transportation
9-11 July 2019, Queensland, Australia
all orientations of the ship loader. The tip angle is varied from 60° to 110° with an increment of 5°,
while the curve radius is varied from 1.4 m to 2.4 m with an increment of 0.2 m. Both free flow and
sticky coal materials are considered, as shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4 respectively.

16 16
Initial Speed of 12 m/s 1.4m 1.6m Initial Speed of 13 m/s 1.4m 1.6m

Material Throw at 5m Depth (m)

15 15
Material Throw at 5m Depth (m)

14 1.8m 2.0m 14 1.8m 2.0m

13 2.2m 2.4m 13 2.2m 2.4m
12 12
11 11
10 10
9 9
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120
TF End Tip Angle (Deg) TF End Tip Angle (Deg)
16 16
1.4m 1.6m Initial Speed of 15 m/s 1.4m 1.6m

Material Throw at 5m Depth (m)

Material Throw at 5m Depth (m)

15 Initial Speed of 14 m/s 15

1.8m 2.0m 1.8m 2.0m
14 14
2.2m 2.4m 2.2m 2.4m
13 13
12 12
11 11
10 10
9 9
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120
TF End Tip Angle (Deg) TF End Tip Angle (Deg)
16 16
15 Initial Speed of 16 m/s Initial Speed of 17 m/s
Material Throw at 5m Depth (m)

15
14
Material Throw at 5m Depth (m)

14
13 13
12 12
11 11
10 10
9 9
8 8
1.4m 1.6m 1.4m 1.6m
7 7
1.8m 2.0m 1.8m 2.0m
6 6
2.2m 2.4m 2.2m 2.4m
5 5
65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120
TF End Tip Angle (Deg) TF End Tip Angle (Deg)

Figure 3 Throw sensitivity analysis for free flow coal

13th International Conference on Bulk Materials Storage, Handling and Transportation

9-11 July 2019, Queensland, Australia
 11 11
Initial Speed of 12 m/s 1.4m 1.6m 1.4m 1.6m

Material Throw at 5m Depth (m)

Initial Speed of 13 m/s

Material Throw at 5m Depth (m)

10 1.8m 2.0m 10 1.8m 2.0m
2.2m 2.4m 2.2m 2.4m
9 9
8 8
7 7

6 6

5 5

4 4

3 3
65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120
TF End Tip Angle (Deg) TF End Tip Angle (Deg)
11 11
Initial Speed of 14 m/s Initial Speed of 15 m/s

Material Throw at 5m Depth (m)

Material Throw at 5m Depth (m)

10 10
9 9
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5 1.4m 1.6m
1.4m 1.6m
4 1.8m 2.0m 4 1.8m 2.0m
2.2m 2.4m 2.2m 2.4m
3 3
65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120
TF End Tip Angle (Deg) TF End Tip Angle (Deg)
11 11
Initial Speed of 16 m/s Initial Speed of 17 m/s
Material Throw at 5m Depth (m)

Material Throw at 5m Depth (m)

10 10
9 9
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 1.4m 1.6m 5 1.4m 1.6m
1.8m 2.0m 4 1.8m 2.0m
4
2.2m 2.4m 2.2m 2.4m
3 3
65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120
TF End Tip Angle (Deg) TF End Tip Angle (Deg)
Figure 4 Throw sensitivity analysis for wet and sticky coal

From the analysis, it can be concluded that the throw improves for both materials with the increase
in the curve radius and incoming velocity, while the best tip angle for throw is in the range from 90˚
to 110˚. When the angle is lower than 90˚, the throw increases proportionally to the tip angle.

In practice, the coal comes into the TF with a flow bed thickness. The impact can change the flow
direction and significantly reduce its speed. As shown in Figure 5, the velocity variation due to impact
can be theoretically quantified with the assumption of no bouncing being involved [2].

Figure 5 Velocity variation due to impact

The velocities before and after impact are given by,

13th International Conference on Bulk Materials Storage, Handling and Transportation
9-11 July 2019, Queensland, Australia
 𝑉2 (3)
= 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃 − 𝜇𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃
𝑉1

Where V1 is the incoming velocity; V2 is the velocity after impact; μ is the friction between the
particles and surface; θ is the impact angle.

17 17
17m/s 17m/s
16 16.5m/s 16 16.5m/s
16m/s 16m/s
15.5m/s 15.5m/s
15 15
15m/s
15m/s
14.5m/s

Velocity after impact (m/s)

14.5m/s 14
Velocity after impact (m/s)

14 14m/s
14m/s 13.5m/s
13.5m/s 13
13 13m/s
13m/s 12.5m/s
12.5m/s 12
12 12m/s
12m/s 11.5m/s
11 11m/s
11 11.5m/s
11m/s 10.5m/s
10 10m/s
10 10.5m/s
10m/s 9
9
8
8
7
7 6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Impact angle (Degree) Impact angle (Degree)

Figure 6 Influence of impact on flow velocity for free flow (left) and sticky (right) materials

As shown in Figure 6, while the velocity after impact is in inverse proportion to the impact angle, the
larger the velocity before impact the higher the velocity after impact. However, larger velocity loss
is observed when the incoming velocity is greater.

For TF profile optimisation, the design criteria need to be identified. The main constrain is associated
with the TF dimension. To keep the supporting structures as original and park the ship loader at the
bay for maintenance, the overall dimension should not exceed the existing TF. Figure 7 shows the
extreme positions of the current TF at the maintenance park. The vertical and horizontal dimensions
are limited to be approximately 3.2 m and 2.3 m respectively.

3. TF optimisation
For TF profile optimisation, the design criteria need to be identified. The main constraint is associated
with the TF dimension. To keep the supporting structures as original and park the ship loader at the
bay for maintenance, the overall dimension should not exceed the existing TF. Figure 7 shows the
extreme positions of the current TF at the maintenance park. The vertical and horizontal dimensions
are limited to be approximately 3.2 m and 2.3 m respectively.

Figure 7 Ship loader maintenance parking position

13th International Conference on Bulk Materials Storage, Handling and Transportation
9-11 July 2019, Queensland, Australia
Another design criterion is to enable a self-clean function that can prevent materials from building up
on surfaces [3]. This mean that any point, the TF must have an angle to the horizon larger than tan -
1
μ, where μ is the TF wall friction. For free flow and wet and sticky materials, the wall frictions are
assumed to be 0.26 and 0.4, giving the angles of 75.4° and 68.2° respectively. Thus, the cut-off angle
of the new design is averaged to be 70˚.

3.1 Optimal profile

According to the previous research [1, 4], the flow velocity at the exit is mainly governed by the drop
height for idealised conditions where no impact occurs. Therefore, constant radius and variable radii
curves will provide similar throw performance with the same vertical dimension.

(a) (b)

Figure 8 Profile optimisation: (a) sketch of the coal flow acting on the TF; (b)
potential configurations of the optimal curve profile

For simplification, a constant radius curve is used in this design. An impact plate is added tangentially
on top of the curve to minimise the effect of impact, as shown in Figure 8 (a). The optimisation
involves discovering the best combination of the impact plate and constant radius curve from a series
of potential designs, as shown in Figure 8 (b).

In Figure 8, T is the flow bed mid thickness; H is the drop height; D is the horizontal geometrical
limit; α is the cut-off angle; R is the radius of the curve. Therefore, the coordinates of the curve centre
are (Rsinα, Rcosα), and the curve can be expressed as

𝑦 = √𝑅2 − (𝑥 − 𝑅𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼)2 + 𝑅𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛼 (4)

According to the geometrical relationship, the point (x0, y0) where the straight line tangential to the
curve can be calculated by combining (4) and (5).

𝐻 − 𝑦0 𝑅𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼 − 𝑥0 (5)
𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃 = =
√(𝐻 − 𝑦0)2 + (𝐷 + 𝑥0 )2 𝑅

Based on the geometrical relationship, the TF profile can be expressed as

For straight line:

13th International Conference on Bulk Materials Storage, Handling and Transportation

9-11 July 2019, Queensland, Australia
 𝑦0 − 𝐻 (6)
𝑦 = 𝑘𝑥 + 𝑐, 𝑥 ∈ [−𝐷, 𝑥0 ), where, 𝑘 = , 𝑐 = 𝑦0 − 𝑘𝑥0
𝐷 + 𝑥0

For constant curve:

𝑦 = √𝑅2 − (𝑥 − 𝑅𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼)2 + 𝑅𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛼, 𝑥 ∈ [𝑥0 , 0] (7)

The process of the coal flow interacting with the TF can be divided into three stages. First is the
impact stage which involves a velocity change as the flow comes into contact with the impact plate.
Then, the particles slide on the straight plate and get accelerated. Finally, the particles enter the curved
section where both the speed and direction of the flow are changed, which is called orientation stage.

For the impact stage:

𝑣1 (8)
= 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛼2 − 𝜇𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼2
𝑣0

Where, 𝛼2 = 90° − 𝛼1, 𝛼1 = 𝑡𝑎𝑛−1 (𝐴𝑏𝑠(𝑘)), k is defined in (6).

For acceleration on the straight plate, the acceleration is given by

𝑎 = 𝑔𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼1 − 𝜇𝑔𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛼1 (9)

The sliding distance is given by

𝐿 = √(𝐷 + 𝑥0 )2 + (𝐻 − 𝑦0 )2 (10)

Therefore, the time of particles travelling on the plate is

−𝑣1 + √𝑣12 + 2𝑎𝐿 (11)

𝑡=
𝑎

The velocity when particles leave the impact plate (before the curve) is expressed as

𝑣2 = 𝑣1 + 𝑎𝑡 (12)

For the orientation stage, the centrifugal force comes into effect. The velocity at the TF exit can be
calculated by Equation (1) and (2) based on the theory discussed earlier.

Due to the complexity of the velocity calculation, it is impossible to determine the optimised profile
manually. Thus, Python programming is employed to automatically try out all the possible
configurations. The incoming velocity is assigned as 15 m/s based on the DEM simulations. Exit
velocity is used as an indication for comparing the throw performance as all profiles share the same
cut-off angle. The results are presented in Figure 9.

It can be found that the best combination providing the highest velocity is when the dimension is
equal to 1.3 m and the curve radius is equal to 1.4 m for both materials. The highest velocities are
12.2 m/s and 10.3 m/s for the free flow and wet sticky coal respectively. For the same configuration,
13th International Conference on Bulk Materials Storage, Handling and Transportation
9-11 July 2019, Queensland, Australia
the sticky coal produces lower velocity due to the higher friction. Additionally, there are several
combinations that can provide the velocity close to the highest value. In practical design, the final
configuration of the TF may depend on many other factors, such as manufacturing and installation.

13 Dimension (D)
2.3m
12 2.2m
2.1m
2m
Exit Velocity (m/s)

11 1.9m
1.8m
1.7m
10 Free flow coal 1.6m
1.5m
1.4m
1.3m
9 1.2m
1.1m
1m
8 0.9m
0.8m
0.7m
7 0.6m
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 0.5m
Curve Radius (m) 0.4m
(a)
11 Dimension (D)
2.3m
2.2m
10 2.1m
2m
1.9m
9 1.8m
Exit Velocity (m/s)

1.7m
Wet and sticky coal 1.6m
8 1.5m
1.4m
1.3m
7 1.2m
1.1m
1m
6 0.9m
0.8m
0.7m
5 0.6m
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 0.5m
Curve Radius (m) 0.4m
(b)
Figure 9 Results of TF profile optimisation: (a) free flow coal; (b) wet and sticky coal

Based on the previous research [1, 5], a cross section with 45˚ chamfers is used. The optimised profile
of the TF is shown in Figure 10. This profile is used subsequently to replace the existing TF for DEM
modelling.

Top cross section

Side profile

Figure 10 Optimised profile of the new TF

13th International Conference on Bulk Materials Storage, Handling and Transportation

9-11 July 2019, Queensland, Australia
3.2 DEM modelling and comparison
DEM simulations are performed at eight main orientations as defined in Figure 11. These orientations
include north, north-east, east, south-east, south, south-west, west and north-west that are commonly
preferred and mostly positioned by ship loader operators.

West orientation

North orientation

South orientation Southeast

orientation

Figure 11 Prime operation orientations

Simulation models are created according to the actual dimension of the ship loader at each orientation.
Key parameters in the simulations, including the particle friction, wall friction and bulk density are
calibrated [6-7]. They are summarised in Table 1 below.

Table 1 Key parameters used in DEM modelling

Key parameters Values Key parameters Values
Wall friction for Ceramic 0.35 Tonnage (tph) 10500
Wall friction for Arcoplate 0.26 Belt speed (m/s) 5.39
Rolling friction 0.5 Particle friction 0.3
3
Coefficient of restitution 0.2 Bulk density, kg/m 784

Figure 12 presents the results of simulations for north, east, south and west orientations. It can be
concluded that the designed TF can provide constant throw for all orientations, varying from 7 m to
8.5 m.

13th International Conference on Bulk Materials Storage, Handling and Transportation

9-11 July 2019, Queensland, Australia
 South Orientation North Orientation

East Orientation West Orientation

Figure 12 Performance of the new TF in DEM simulations

The throw performance of the new and existing TFs for each orientation is compared at a drop height
of 5 m, as shown in Figure 13. It can be observed that improvement of the throw is achieved by the
new design at most orientations. The most improvement is approximately 2 m when the TF is facing
east and west. Therefore, it can be concluded that the optimised TF is able to produce better throw.

13th International Conference on Bulk Materials Storage, Handling and Transportation

9-11 July 2019, Queensland, Australia
 New
West
Existing 10

8
South- North-
West 6 West
4
2
Throw (m)

North
South 0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
-2

-4
-6
North-
South- East
East -8

-10 East
Throw (m)
Figure 13 Throw performance over 5m drop height

4. Conclusion
This study developed a method of optimising a chute profile based on the theoretical analysis of the
bulk flow. Based on this method, parameters related to the design criteria can be determined in order
to produce the best throw. DEM modelling is used to validate the method by comparing the
performance of the new design to the existing. By comparison, it can be concluded that the developed
method is capable of optimising chute profile and can be used as a feasible design tool for industry
applications.

5. References
[1] A.W. Roberts., Chute performance and design for rapid flow conditions, Chemical Engineering
and Technology, Vol. 26, No. 4, 2003, pp. 163-170.
[2] A. Yabuki, M. Matsumura., Theoretical equation of the critical impact velocity in solid particles
impact erosion, Wear, 233–235, 1999, pp. 476-483.
[3] C. M. Wensrich., Evolutionary optimisation in chute design, Powder Technology, 138, 2003,
pp.118–123.
[4] I. Dusan, T. Donohue., On the design and analysis of transfer chute systems, Conference:
Materials Handling Engineers Association (MHEA), 2015.
[5] A.W. Roberts., Chute design considerations for feeding and transfer, Interim Report, University
of Newcastle, Australia, Centre for Bulk Solids and Particulate Technologies, 2004.
[6] J. Shen., Analysis of conveyor belt deflection using FEM and DEM: calculation and measurement,
International Congress on Particle Technology, 2016.
[7] C. J. Coetzee., Review: calibration of the discrete element method, Powder Technology, 310,
2017, pp.104–142.

13th International Conference on Bulk Materials Storage, Handling and Transportation

9-11 July 2019, Queensland, Australia