Acknowledgements : The Bionic Research Institute, Chute Design Conference 1991

A clear understanding of the flow of bulk solids within a chute is essential for rational design. This paper
follows product flow within the chute from the discharge point on the feeder belt to the loading point on the
receiving belt.

John Rozenthals graduated in Mechanical Engineering at the University of West Australia. Since graduating
he has consulted on many materials handling projects including Hammersly Iron. Mt. Newman Mining Co.
and Sishen Iron Ore. He is a partner in BRI Tec Consulting. an associate with Hamilton Associates and
Director of the Bionic Research Institute.

FLOW OF BULK SOLIDS IN CHUTE DESIGN

THE DESIGN of any type of conveying system must meet two basic requirements:

1. the system objectives - in terms of capacity, conveying distance, product distribution, and so on.
2. the characteristics of the bulk solids product in terms of flow properties, degradation limitations,
abrasion resistance of chute materials, and so on.

To meet the process objectives the conveyor system will require a number of transfer chutes.

WHY USE CHUTES?

Chutes are used at conveyor transfer points for a number of reasons:

1. to control the direction of flow of the product

2. to control the shape of the flow stream
3. to control spillage
4. to control dust and environmental pollution
5. to reduce product degradation
6. to retard or control flow
7. to provide surge control

The simple conveyor belt to conveyor belt transfer of product is the single largest contributor to
atmospheric contamination, and to the loss of valuable product within the plant. For this reason we must
ask the question - why use chutes?

Current trends in the mining, and in the conveyor, industry have severely magnified the problem of dust
generation in bulk solids handling systems. Developments in mining methods and equipment have resulted
in product having smaller top lump size and a significant increase in the quantity of fines transported.

In addition the trend is to use narrower belts running at faster speeds. Higher speeds result in a significant
increase in dust generation.

It makes good sense therefore to design conveyor systems using fewer chutes.

LOGICAL DESIGN OF CHUTES

The prime thrust in the First International Chute Design Conference is to focus on the logical design of
chutes. The aim is to help designers approach chute design with clearer understanding of the main issues.

After the conveyor design engineer has conceived the conveyor system he will go on to size critical items
such as belts, idlers, motors, speed reducers, and the like. Often the engineer will leave chute detailing to
someone else.
If the chute detailer has plenty of field experience the resulting transfer point will work well. It not, the
result can be a poor system. The chute may not look radically different from a successful design, but
performance differences may be sufficient to create significant problems and loss of profit.

FLOW THROUGH THE CHUTE

Let us consider what happens as product flows through the chute. Firstly flow through a chute is a transient
phenomenon happening in about 1 second. If the passage of product through the chute takes 2 seconds
then it is along chute of some 20 m.

What happens to the product coming off the feed belt?

1. some of the fines float into the surrounding airstream.

2. some of the product sticks to the sides of the chute.
3. some of the product gets carried back on the return belt.
4. some of the product escapes from the chute and settles on the floor.
5. at times product will block the chute and cause overflow.
6. some of the fines end up in the head pulley and bearings.
7. the balance of the product continues the journey to the next transfer point (Fig.1 ).

The essential aim of good chute design is to successfully transfer as much of the incoming product as
possible from one belt to the next.

To assume that 100% of the incoming product will continue onto the next belt ignores the reality of transfer
point design. Each of the above points need to be given serious consideration at the design stage.

WILL THE PRODUCT LEAVE THE BELT?

How much of the incoming product will actually leave the belt?

To answer that question the chute designer must have a clear knowledge of the product characteristic
properties. It is not sufficient to be given the name of the product and a grading analysis down to 6 mm.
Much of the product behaviour is determined by its fines and powder components. And these are directly
affected by the moisture content.

Consider a 0.1 mm thick film of iron ore on a return belt, say 1200 mm wide and running at 5 m/s. The
quantity of fines discharged from the return belt is a 24 hour period would be approximately 100 tonnes.

Belt cleaning is an essential element of successful transfer point design.

THE PRIMARY TRAJECTORY

The simplest discharge from a conveyor belt is to let the product pass over an end pulley and fall onto a
pile.

Air blowing through the product stream will have a winnowing effect- generating a dust cloud which, in
many cases, may travel for hundreds of meters. Dust suppression measures may be required.

By adding a suitable chute the discharge may be directed as desired- to a stockpile, a bin, or to another
conveyor. A fork at the discharge chute, with a gate, will permit the product to flow simultaneously in two
directions, or alternatively in either direction.

Whenever the belt is discharged over an end pulley, the speed of the belt and the diameter of the end
pulley are factors which determine the path of the discharged product. This path is called the primary
trajectory. The shape of the discharged product trajectory is important when designing chutes.
There are several methods available to the designer for making trajectory predictions. These have been
studied by Professor P.C. Arnold and G.L. Hill at the University of Wollongong, Australia. A copy of their
paper is included in the Conference Manual. The salient points are as follows:

The product is carried toward the head pulley by the conveyor belt. If the belt is running at a high enough
speed inertia will carry the product over the pulley in the same direction, and at the same speed, as the
belt. The diameter of the pulley has no influence on the ejection velocity of the product. Formulae which
take into account pulley diameters and material profile on the head pulley tend to overestimate the
trajectory.

If the belt is running more slowly the product tends to roll down the face of the pulley. Calculation methods
which ignore this effect tend to underestimate the trajectory.

The study at the University of Wollongong concludes that for granular product the Dunlop/Booth method for
predicting the product trajectory provides the more reliable calculation method.

Although many products exhibit some degree of adhesion, most formulae for predicting trajectories do not
take this into account. The techniques described by Korzen provide the most .thorough and detailed
analytical method of all the choices available for predicting trajectories for bulk solid flow.

The analysis carried out by Korzen strives to take into account the effects of friction (both static and
dynamic) as well as inertia and adhesion of the product on the belt. All of these factors play an important
role in determining the separation point and discharge velocity of the product from the belt.

Material which exhibits high adhesive stress characteristics, of the order of 0.3 kPa and above, will start to
carry back further around the head pulley - significantly affecting the final impact area after falls of more
than 2 m.

How much information do we give our chute designers to predict the primary trajectory?

If the product under investigation displays a large amount of adhesion, tests should be carried out to
determine the magnitude of the adhesive stress and the value of the friction coefficient between the
product and the belt.

SIMPLE BELT TO BELT TRANSFER

Consider belt to belt transfer shown in Fig. 2.

The feed belt comes in from the side and should deposit product centrally onto the receiving conveyor. If
the product trajectory is not as originally designed off-center belt feeding will take place.

A close examination of the original designs of many transfer points gives the impression that the designer
was counting on some form of magic to induce the product to go in the right direction. Either that, or it was
hoped that the last rebound of product off the chute would, just by luck, be in the right direction and on the
receiving belt centerline.

An alternative school of thought assumes that no flow deflectors can be placed correctly in any case, and
the chute would require field correction. This leaves the problem in the lap of the field engineer.

The trouble with much of this reasoning, or lack of it, is that troubled chutes dramatically delay system
commissioning at a time when nerves are ragged, and threats of penalties are high. Possibly the
commissioning is already behind schedule.

Assuming that field staff, who may have even less experience in chute design that the original designer, are
lucky enough to position and weld-in a flow deflector plate which deals adequately with the flow problem of
the moment. Any change in product flow characteristics, due for example of moisture variations or flow
rate, could again result in off-center loading and a new set of problems. (Ask the plant maintenance
personnel when they're trying to train the belt to guess what shape and where the last site-installed
deflector plate is located.)
It is essential to study very carefully the flow path the product might take. For this characteristic properties
must be established at design stage as accurately as practical. How much product information do we give
our chute designers? Or do they have to look up CEMA tables, take a guess, and leave the rest for site
modifications?

When handling very cohesive product the layout of the conveyor transfer point must, where possible, be
designed to use belt-to-belt transfer of product with a minimum height of drop. The transfer point should
be designed so that the product stream, wherever possible, centers on the receiving belt with little or no
impact on the chute walls.

Should it be necessary to have a transfer point with a receiving belt at right angles to the feeder belt, it is
advisable to ensure that the product is turned into the direction of travel of the receiving belt by flow
directors or kick plates.

THE FIRST IMPACT

The chute designer can determine where the first impact of product against chute wall will take place, and
the nature of that impact.

Take a lump of product and drop it to the ground. The potential energy can be measured by the height
above ground at point of release. By the time the lump reaches ground level all the potential energy has
been converted into kinetic energy. If the lump rebounds after impact to 10% of the drop height, then 90%
of the kinetic energy has been dissipated at impact.

Consider now the question of degradation. We have all seen egg-throwing contests. Throwing the egg is
easy. The trick is in how you catch the egg. If degradation is a major factor in design the chute must be
designed in such away that impact energy is minimised.

If degradation is not a prime concern impact plates, or rock boxes, may be used to obtain a controllable
vertical ore stream. Such devises should have a fine adjustment -which can be adjusted easily even under
ore flow conditions.

SLIDING ACROSS AN INCLINE

When product falls onto an incline, it will generally be coming in on some trajectory. The flow will have a
horizontal velocity component, as well as a vertical one.

Consider first the effect of the horizontal component. Sliding across the incline will be resisted by friction.
The force component normal to the incline will be (see Fig.3):

N = mg.cos Q

where m is the mass of the particle

g is acceleration due to gravity
Q is the angle of incline to the horizontal

The sliding motion will be resisted by friction on the surface:

F = m.a = u.N

substituting:

m.a = u.mg.cos Q

a = g.(u.cos Q) (1)

Once the product starts sliding on the inclined surface of the chute bottom, the horizontal component of
velocity will rapidly decellerate in accordance with equation (1).
Friction rapidly prevents significant sliding across the surface. Thus any transverse trajectory effects are
lost after impact. The product slides down the incline following the line of least resistance.

FLOW DOWN AN INCLINE

If product falls onto a horizontal surface flow cannot take place. The bulk solids accumulate in a heap until,
if they are non-cohesive, they will reach the angle of repose. Then flow resumes. The velocity of flow down
the incline will remain constant irrespective of the length of the chute.

If the angle of the chute bottom to the horizontal is increased, the velocity of flow will be increased. What
happens if the chute angle is decreased? Will flow cease? In a static case - yes. But not necessarily in a
dynamic case. Thus the discharge angle can be less than the angle of repose if the flow has an initial entry
velocity.

For steady , fully developed, constant velocity flow the chute angle should be between the angle of repose
and the dynamic internal friction angle. Studies on millet seed and polythene particles have shown that the
lower and upper chute inclination bounds exist within which constant velocity flow occurs. These angles of
inclination differ by about 4 degrees. Outside this narrow range flow is either accelerating or slowing down.

Flow in most chutes is a transient phenomenon. It is neither steady, nor fully developed. But the same
basic principles apply. The flow is either accelerating or slowing down.

The velocity of flow down the inclined surface will affect the level of abrasion of the chute surface. The rate
of erosion is approximately related to the square of the velocity. Thus doubling the velocity down the chute
increases erosion by a factor of 4. A similar relationship exists with regard to product degradation.

Most product comprises various blends of fine and coarse components. The fine components usually behave
in a different manner to the coarse components.

Depending on the smoothness of the surface, moist bulk product may exhibit an adhesive component.
Adhesion often occurs with a smooth surface. Cohesion and adhesion can cause serious flow blockages to
occur.

We know that a granular particle will slide down an incline if the angle of inclination of the plane is greater
than the angle of friction.

Let the forces on the particle be represented by Fig.4.

To obtain the velocity down the slope we must first find the acceleration. The weight mg has been resolved
into two components: mg COS a perpendicular to the plane and mg sin a parallel to the plane.

Now apply Newton's Second Law, and equate force to mass times acceleration. Along the plane:

mg sin Q - F = ma

Perpendicular to the plane:

N = mg cos Q

F = u N = u.mg cos Q

By substitution:

a = g (sin Q - u.cos Q) (2)

If the initial velocity is v, the exit velocity V can be calculated as follows:

V = v - at (3)

SECONDARY TRAJECTORY

While a substantial amount has been written regarding the prediction of product trajectory at the head
pulley, very little attention seems to have been paid to the prediction of secondary trajectories the flow of
product within the transfer chutes (Fig.5). The results of such conceptual neglect can often be seen by
watching the flow stream path in the lower sections of the chute.

The first step in calculating a secondary trajectory is to estimate the exit velocity at the point of departure.
If the bottom plate is at the angle of repose of the material, the exit velocity will be the same as the
velocity at entry. The entry velocity is determined from the previous trajectory calculations .

If the chute plate is vertical, product contact along the chute wall will have little effect on velocity. The
product will accelerate in accordance with the demands of gravity.

Between these two angles, the flow will accelerate in accordance with formula 2 above. This depends on the
chute angle, and on the value of the friction coefficient.

THE FRICTION COEFFICIENT

The friction coefficient between the product and the chute lining material is not a constant, however. It
increases with reduced depth of flow in the chute, and changes with variations in moisture content. The
friction coefficient may also include a velocity dependant, or viscous, component. Many products also
exhibit some cohesive and adhesive properties.

Fig.6 shows that for coal at varying moisture contents high friction coefficients can occur at low depths of
flow. The decrease in friction is considerable as depth of flow increases.

It is therefore not reasonable to expect chute designers to guess the values of friction coefficients and
adhesive stresses. Tests are relatively inexpensive and provide far better guidelines to critical chute design
parameters.

In some cases drag curtains need to be provided to increase friction and limit flow surges at the chute feed
point.

CONTINUITY OF FLOW

While the bulk density D at any section of the flowing stream would show some variation with depth, this
variation is small and is usually related to local turbulence at impact points. It is convenient to accept a
constant average value. Thus:

W = D.A.v = constant

where W is the mass flow rate, A the cross sectional area, and v the velocity of flow.

In flowing down the incline the depth of product will decrease as the product accelerates down the slope. If
the slope is long enough a terminal velocity may be reached where steady-state flow is achieved. Surge
waves and granular jumps may be formed when obstructions are placed at the downstream end of the
chute.

TRANSIENT FLOW
In most practical chute design flow is neither steady nor fully developed. The length of contact may be
short, so the deceleration may well be negligible. Exit velocities can therefore be easily calculated using
equations 2 and 3.

Once the exit velocity has been estimated the calculation of the secondary trajectory is fairly straight
forward.

In some cases the flow stream is deflected by further impact surfaces - resulting in further secondary
trajectories (Fig .5) .

One approach to side loaded chutes, where the feed belt comes in at an angle to the receiving belt, is to
use impact plates to obtain a controllable vertical ore stream. A lower kicker plate is then used to direct the
vertical ore stream into the direction of the belt travel. Use adjustable 'V' plates in the bottom of the chute
to centralise the product on the receiving belt.

In cases of fine powders or bulk solids containing a high percentage of fines attention needs to be given to
design details which ensure that during flow within the chute aeration, which leads to flooding problems, is
minimised. For this to be achieved zones of free-fall and zones of high acceleration must be kept to a
minimum.

CURVED CHUTES

Since impact dissipates kinetic energy in a violent way, thereby increasing product degradation, it makes
sense to redirect the kinetic energy in a usefull manner. Thus the concept of using curved chutes is good
where a gentler deceleration of the product is warranted. (See Fig.7)

VELOCITY CONTROL

From the previous discussion it becomes clear that the chute designer can predetermine the velocity of
product down the chute, and therefore can control it.

Velocity control leads logically to questions of surface friction, bottom slope angles, chute shapes and so on.
One solution is to use segmented chutes. Another is to use mini rock boxes. Still another is to use cascade
chutes.

It also becomes clear that even with straight bottom chutes, in many cases, the chute angle should not be
a constant value but should decrease as the velocity down the chute increases.

DUST CONTROL

A major contributor to the dust problem is energy dissipation. Due to the velocity of the product and the
drop height, it possesses both kinetic and potential energy. If these energies are dealt with properly,
product degradation and dust generation will be minimised.

Kinetic energy is imparted to the product by the carrier belt. The higher the belt speed, the higher will be
the resulting impact forces in the chute. Gradual deceleration of the flowing stream is quite difficult, and
requires special chutes.

The usual method with high speed belts is to simply allow the stream to collide with a deflector plate, or the
back wall of the transfer chute, in such a way that all the kinetic energy is dissipated quickly and violently.
The result is obvious dust and deqradation. The first step in controlling dust at the design stage is to
carefully look at reducing belt speeds. A small increase in belt width can have a large effect on reduced belt
speed and resultant dust generation.

The next logical step in minimising dust generation is to minimise the height of fall (the potential energy).

It is all too easy to specify, for example, a 60 degree minimum slope angle on all chutes, as a means of
totally avoiding product hang-ups in the chutes. For most cases, 60 degree is much steeper than necessary
- especially since the product is almost always in motion in the chutes. Testing the dynamic angle of friction
of the product is the best guide available. But test at different moisture contents to allow for wet, sticky,
carryback fines.

For example if a 50 degree chute angle is adequate, increasing this to 55 degree increases the chute height
by 21%, and 60 degree results in a 45% increase. And these increases relate directly to increases in
potential energy and to increased dust generation.

When dealing with dust control at the transfer point make sure the chute has plenty of volume. This will
allow free re-circulation of air before the point of contact of the falling stream with the chute wall.

THE LOADING ZONE

Turbulence in the stream flow occurs at the impact zone as the falling product strikes the receiving belt.
The receiving belt is moving more or less at right angles to the direction of the falling flow stream. The
particles which touch the belt are accelerated by it the most. The other particles are accelerated by shear.

The length of the lone of turbulence along the belt line depends on the relative speed of the belt and the
tangential velocity of product in the direction of the belt travel. If the belt and the incoming product both
travel in the direction of the belt at the same speed the zone of turbulence will be minimal. The greater the
difference the longer is the zone of turbulence, and the greater the difficulty in achieving an efficiently
sealed, clean, loading zone.

The depth of turbulence depends on the bulk density at the impact point, which in turn is proportional to
the amount of potential energy being dissipated. The greater the effective height of fall of the product the
greater the degree of turbulence.

The degree of turbulence can be greatly reduced by providing a curved kicker plate, or adjustable gate,
which will change the direction of the falling flow stream. The gate should be adjusted so that the velocity
component in the direction of belt travel is equal to the speed of the receiving belt. This will reduce
turbulence, reduce belt wear, degradation, and even power requirements for the drive motor.

With high falls it is possible to angle the curved kicker plate so sharply that the velocity component of the
falling stream exceeds the belt speed. This would cause the flow of product to push the belt and possibly
cause the belt to sag between idlers, complicating the sealing and drive power requirements.

LOAD CENTERING

Buildup in the chute, or changing material characteristics, will alter the falling stream of product. This may
tend to pile deeper on one side of the belt than the other, as shown in Fig.8. Such off-center loading can
often be seen in practice.

Flow training gates should be provided which can be adjusted from outside the chute. Such a feature allows
easy load centering during commissioning, and during the life of the plant when the product and its
characteristics change.

Alternatively special idlers can be used to form the belt into a 'U' shape and vibrate the load back into the
center.

SKIRTING DESIGN

Skirting design is an essential part of chute design. This important subject is discussed in detail by Richard
Stahura in his written contribution to this Conference.

TRANSFER CHUTE ACTING AS A HOPPER

If the transfer chute becomes blocked with product due to an abnormal condition, spillage will occur when
the belt is restarted. As there is usually no means to control product flow, the belt will be greatly
overloaded.
When the chute plugs at shutdown - normal or emergency - it becomes a hopper. When the belt is
restarted it draws product to the full depth of the skirts. When the product reaches the end of the skirt-
boards, the excess product spills over the edges of the belt onto walkways, floors, and between the idlers.
But, as the belt is still brim-full, it will continue to dribble material between carrying idlers.

The conveyor system should be designed so that, when the system shuts down under normal or emergency
stop conditions the chutes do not plug. This can be accomplished during normal shutdown by stopping the
system sequentially - beginning with the most upstream belt, and allowing sufficient time for each belt to
purge itself before stopping.

Sequential shutdown cannot work during emergency conditions. If at any transfer point the receiving belt
tends to coast for a shorter time than the feed belt, product will pile up in the chute.

If chute plugging cannot be avoided, then the transfer chute must be considered as a hopper, and designed
accordingly. Design must then make allowance for plugged chute restarts. A control gate may be fitted to
manually adjust the amount of product fed onto the belt during a full chute restart.

SPILLAGE CLEANUP DOORS

Cleanup of spillage can be both difficult and, in some cases, dangerous if attempted while the conveyor is
running.

To reduce the cost of cleanup of spillage the following points should be taken into consideration:

1. Raise the tail end of the conveyor high enough to allow cleanup by a front end loader. Spillage
around a tail pulley can cause serious belt wear if the belt is left to run through the accumulated
product.
2. Provide a well drained concrete slab under the transfer area.
3. Fit 45 degree shedder angles under the troughing idlers at the loading points.
4. Fit a profile plant inside the chute to prevent a flooded belt situation occurring when restarting a
loaded belt (fine material only).

A simple cleanup door should be located near the tail pulley as shown in Fig.9. If the door is correctly
located, and the tail pulley safety screen designed for easy removal, cleanup of loading zone spillage will be
made easy.

Where the tail pulley is not located near the floor, or it is impractical to return the spilled product to the tail
section, fixed or portable cleanup conveyors may be used. It is important to take cleanup measures into
consideration when designing the load transfer point.

PROVISION FOR INSPECTION OF FLOW

Very often flow problems within chutes could be more easily solved if the flow stream could be observed.
Product flow within the chute cannot always be accurately calculated. Therefore observation is necessary to
enable appropriate flow adjustments to be made.

Many chutes have only one inspection door - and that usually near the head pulley. This does not permit a
view of the actual flow path in the lower chute and in the skirt area. This is where problems usually
develop.

Provide at least two inspection or access doors - one in the head pulley area, and one in the loading zone.
If the chute has more than a 3 m drop, locate another door at about the midpoint and out of the expected
product trajectory. In cases where drops of 6 m or more occur, a door every 3 m is recommended. This will
greatly simplify any corrective action required inside the chute - Including liner replacement, flow
correction, removing tramp material, and unblocking chutes. Such doors must be dust tight and located on
the non-wearing side of the chute. Depending on their location they must also be capable of withstanding
the side pressure from a plugged chute condition.

CHUTE WEAR
'Rock boxes' are one method of absorbing the energy and abrasive wear of falling ore. However, if the
product is wet, cohesive and/or adhesive, or, as in the case of lignites or sub-bituminous coals, tends to
ignite spontaneously, the rock box solution should not be considered.

When the rock box shelf builds up with material and then continues to build-up beyond the anticipated
design slope, the deflected product may rebound onto the belt cleaners, affecting their performance. The
rebound lumps may also hit the end of the dribble chute, causing it to build-up and plug.

The rock boxes may need to be cleaned periodically to eliminate excessive buildup.

Most chute designers will provide for wear by the use of abrasive resistant material at points where the
product impacts upon, and slides on, the chute surfaces.

Sooner or later the liner material will have to be replaced. Access to the inside of many chutes and skirt
areas is extremely difficult, if not impossible.

Chutes with belts 900 mm or wider should have ample room for maintenance men to enter the chute and
replace liners. Even so, extra access doors should be included in chutes 3 m or more in length. These doors
should be large enough to pass liner plates through, and must be bolted and gasketted. The doors should
be located in pairs, directly opposite one another, and be no smaller than 450 mm square. By locating two
doors opposite each other the openings make a convenient place to insert planks or scaffolding.

For smaller chutes on narrow belts careful design and detailing is required to make adequate provision for
liner replacement. Fabricating the chutes in short lengths for easy disassembly is one approach. The non
wear side of the chute can be flange bolted to facilitate maintenance access.

Good access does not just happen. It takes careful thought during design. Such consideration at the design
stage can be stimulated by appropriate specification by the conveyor end users.

CONCLUSION

In view of their apparent simplicity transfer chutes have all too often received insufficient attention to their
design.

The aim of this paper has been to focus attention on the flow of product within chutes. Flow visualisation is
only one aspect of chute design. Even this one-day Conference cannot do more than awaken a more vivid
interest in the subject of chute design.

Many instances can be given where chutes are the weakest link in the bulk handling system. Lack of
understanding and lack of attention to design details have caused problems of environmental pollution,
spillage, accelerated belt wear, and flow blockages, to name but a few.

This First International Chute Design Conference provides an opportunity for designers and conveyor users
to pool their knowledge. It is hoped this Conference has made a positive contribution toward more
successful transfer point design.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Although he has not been able to attend this Conference, the contribution of Richard P. Stahura to the
success of this First International Chute Design Conference, and to the understanding of flow in transfer
chutes, is greatly appreciated.

REFERENCES

Roberts, A.W. and Scott, O.J., "Flow of Bulk Solids through Transfer Chutes of Variable Geometry and
Profile", Bulk Solids Handling Vol 1, No 4, Dec 1981.

Rober ts , A .W ., "Modern Technological Developments in the Storage and Handling of Bulk Solids", The
University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia, 1990.

Rober ts , A .W ., "Design and Application of Feeders for the Controlled Loading of Bulk Solids on to
Conveyor Belts", Supplementary Paper 3.

Rober ts , A .W ., "Transfer Chute Performance and Design ", Supplementary Paper 4.

Rozentals, J.J., "Rational Design of Conveyor Chutes", Proc. Beltcon 2, International Conference on
Materials Handling, South Africa, May 1983.
Goodwin, P.J., and Ramos, C.M., "Belt Conveyors in Bulk Terminal Applications", Proc. Beltcon 3,
International Conference on Materials Handling, South Africa, Sep 1985.

Korzen, Z. , "Mechanics of Belt Conveyor Discharge Processes", Bulk Solids Handling Vol. 9 (1989) No 3, p
289-297.

Sabina, W .E ., Stahura, R .P ., and Swindeman, R .Todd "Conveyor Transfer Stations -Problems and
Solutions " , Martin Engineering Co., (1988).

Arnold, P.C., and Hill, G.L., "Predicting the Discharge Trajectory from Belt Conveyors", Bulk Solids Hand ling
, Vol. 10 (1990) No 4, p 379-382.

CEMA, "Belt Conveyors for Bulk Materials" , Cahners Books .

Roberts, A.W., Ooms, M., and Wiche, S.J., "Concepts of Boundary Friction, Adhesion and Wear in Bulk
Solids Handling Operations", Bulk Solids Handling, Vol 10 (1990), No 2, May 1990.

Beckley, D.E. , "Belt Conveying Systems in West Australian iron ore industry", Day 3, Paper 1 .

Wright, H., "Large scale handling of bulk materials", Bulk Solids Handling, Vol. 10, No 2, 1990.

Mills, Mason and Agarawal, "Some Aspects of Bend Erosion in Pneumatic Conveying System Pipelines", First
National Symposium on Hydraulic Transportation of Solids through Pipelines, Ranchi, India, (1985).