• Idlers. These are rollers with bearings that form a trough shape for the belting. The idler sets are typically spaced out between one and three metres.

• Belting. The belting, which carries the load, rests on the idler rollers. Figure 19.1 shows the typical arrangement of the idlers supporting the belt. The belt is pulled around in a loop with tension/power supplied by drive pulley(s).

• Drive. Figures 19.2 and 19.3 show the pulleys and drives used to move the belt.

• Pulleys. The conveyor belt forms a loop. The carry side transports the load and the return side allows continuous cycling of the belt. The pulleys allow the belt to change direction at the loading and discharge ends, as well as direction changes on the return side.

• Transfer chute. This is where the material is loaded onto or discharged from the belt. See Fig. 19.4.

• Conveyor take-up system. The take-up applies tension to the belt to limit the sag between the idlers and prevent slip at the drive pulley. The take-up pulley moves to tension the belt. Take-up systems are typically gravity, but can be winch, screw or hydraulic jack. The typical arrangement has a pulley mounted on a trolley. The trolley is connected to a gravity mass in a tower via a cable. See Fig. 19.5.

19.1.1 Trends in conveyor design

19.2.1 Strength for tension

The technology of belting has been improving over time. Premature failures, manufacturing, operating costs, and the need for stronger belts has forced the change. A change to self-extinguishing fire resistant belting in Germany in the 1970s led to a series of early splice failures. The University of Hannover developed a belt splice fatigue testing machine and ran a crash programme to investigate and solve the problem. Flebbe (1988) describes the machine first being used at the University in 1975. Contitech had a similar machine – see Alles (1982) for details of the machine and investigations of time strength behaviour of belting. The University machine has been in operation since 1975. The research at the University with the support of the local belting suppliers, such as Contitech and others, led to changes to the DIN standards (Deutsches Institut Fur Normung E.V. the German national standard).

The approach adopted by DIN and Hannover University has been to focus on the actual tensions across the belt width, and the fatigue strength of the belt carcass or splice, the ratio giving the safety factor. The common, but perhaps less preferred, approach is to compare the highest average across the belt tension with the non-fatigued carcass ultimate strength. This approach, although common, is not preferred because it masks the actual situation. The work by Flebbe (1988) at Hannover University highlights a problem with using the ultimate belt strength as a reference for belt safety factors. The reference discusses the test results of two belts ST6600 and ST7500 kN/m. At the time, companies were making claims as to which had made the strongest belt in the world. At first glance, the ST7500 belt would appear to have been the stronger. However, the testing at Hannover University established that the fatigue strengths were 50% and 38%, respectively. So the ST6600 had a strength of 3300 kN/m after fatigue and the ST7500 had a strength of 2850 kN/m. Pedro (2004) used Goodyear dynamic splice test machine when reviewing a new splice assembly technique for steel cord belts. Pedro tested a ST1250 kN/m belt and an ST4500 kN/m belt on the Goodyear test-rig.

Hager (2000) gives an overview of the approach taken by DIN 22101.

19.2.2 Belt strength for impact and chute design

Conveyor systems are being built to handle larger volumes and at some mines very coarse materials. This trend may be driven by:

Looking back to the 1970s, some of the early transfers had simple, large open chute arrangements with low impact idler systems. The designs originated out of Germany, where the material was sticky lignite. The situation called for large open chutes that could handle some build-up, but still allow the huge lumps to pass. These lumps originated from the very large bucket-wheel excavators. The designs used suspended or garland idler sets. Colijn (1973) describes how five-roll suspended sets are used successfully in the open mine pits at Rheinbraun in Germany. He provides a graph of the impact force for various support arrangements. Precismeca (1998) has similar curves for the impact loads on various idler support systems. As the large lumps hit the belt, the suspended sets would change shape and reduce the impact force. These arrangements fell out of fashion, due to the maintenance of the links between the idler rolls, cost, and mass of the suspended assembly. The large assemblies required lifting equipment to allow replacement. Even then, the work was not easy.

In Australia, in the 1960s, the iron ore and bauxite mines applied the German designs, making changes to the chutes to accommodate the particular nature of the iron ore and bauxite. Iron ore, being abrasive and heavy, forced a move to rock-box design. This minimised the quantity of wear materials and lowered the impact on the belts. It was possible as the ore was dry and free flowing. At the bauxite mines the raw bauxite tended to be small, less abrasive, and sticky during the wetter months.

So the chutes for most materials were kept large and open. The large open simple chute designs worked well. When material is dumped crudely onto a belt, the belt tracking is not that bad.

As the flows increased and the knowledge of the designers improved, the designs slowly changed. The technology improvement had the support of the mining companies and organisations that included: University of Hannover Germany; University of Newcastle in NSW, Australia; Jenike and Johanson, at the University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia; publications by CEMA of the USA; the Mechanical Handling Engineers’ Association in the UK; and others. These organisations have developed tests for flow properties, behaviour, and wear, as well as the science of bin, hopper and chute design.

In the 1970s, soft flow chutes were being used to improve the flows through the transfers. These chutes were useful for granular non-sticky materials. The benefits were reduced dust, degradation, and impact. Bringing the flow up to the outgoing belt speed improved belt life. Coal companies in the Hunter Valley of NSW, Australia and other areas used these chutes with great success at this time. Colijn (1972) reviewed the equations that describe the velocity of the upper and lower impact curved chutes. These designs are known more recently as ‘hood and spoon’. Roberts (1981) looked at the behaviour of the flow along flat walls and around curved plates. These chute designs and the associated equations were used successfully on the 13.1 km overland coal conveyor for Pt Kaltim Prima Coal, Indonesia. This conveyor was designed in 1989 and began operation early 1991. James (1992) describes the use of chutes to accelerate the coal up to the outgoing conveyor belt speed. This conveyor has been through a series of upgrades since 1991. More recently, the chutes have been replaced by commercially available units from Tasman Warajay, Australia. These chutes consist of complex 3D shapes that control and direct the coal flow.

With the increasing use of soft flow chutes for large flows, the issues of material stickiness, liner wear, and belt tracking began to re-emerge.

In recent times, there has been a trend towards conveying larger, heavier lumps and below water table sticky materials. As the soft flow hood and spoon arrangements tend to block or wear, there is a need to revisit the chute designs. Sticky material demands simpler open chute designs. Open chutes tend to be higher impact, so the open design requires belting and loading points with good impact capability.

Böttcher (1978) published a paper on impact strengths as part of the development of the 100 kM overland system in the western Sahara. Manufacturers such as Contitech (see Alles (1988)) include the impact strengths of various belt constructions. It is surprising how often the impact strength is ignored by conveyor designers. The main focus has been on the designs for tension.

A simple review of the major mining company standard drawings will show that the typical transfer height is 5.5 m or more. With lumps weighing above 65 kg, the impact at the loading point can be high. James (2007) described the move to design soft impact loading points for primary crushed material. The method described is a departure from:

19.2.3 Rubber power

Low energy rubber has been used in motorbike and car racing tyres, etc. for many years. Without this technology, tyres overheat, lose grip, and fail. The application of low energy theory to conveyors goes back to the 1960s. Work by Schwarz, Oszter, Behrands, Quass, Spaans, Jonkers, Funke, Hintz, Hager, and many others investigated the topic to address the issue of the resistance components such as idler seal drag, material flexing, etc. For example, Oszter (1980) showed that approx. 70% of the resistance of a long conveyor was due to the imprint, i.e. the rolling resistance of the idler roll on the belt cover. Hintz (1993) published similar results showing the high contribution of the indentation resistance for a large range of belt cover materials. Lodewijks (1995) provides a summary of a dozen or so authors and their indentation loss equations. More recent work has been done by Wheeler (2003) using a rubber viscoelastic test machine, tests of rollers on a travelling belt loop, and finite element analysis of the contact zone. The thesis also looks at the other loss components, including idler seal drag, belt flexure, etc.

The major belt suppliers all offer low energy belting.

19.3.1 Large drive systems

Please refer to Fig. 19.6. This shows a base-mounted drive assembly. This design was developed by James (2010) for the Worsley Alumina Pty Ltd Marradong Bauxite project and has been used more recently on the Rio Tinto Western Turner Syncline (WTS) project. The conveyor system on WTS has a total length of approx. 25 km. of which the longest flight is almost 11 kM long. There are 9 × 1600 kW drives, as shown in Fig. 19.6.

In some respects, the arrangement is a move back to the past. In the 1960s, base-mounted helical drives were used. These reducers used very large through-hardened gears. The housings were large, with large volumes of oil. These drives required good support structures to maintain the alignment of the couplings. As time passed and the required power became larger, the cost of the support structures, reducers and installation became prohibitive. These units were replaced by shaft-mounted bevel helical drives produced by Flender (now Siemens) of Germany and many others. These units used compact case-hardened gears. The small reducer and the shaft mounting arrangement created a low-cost solution that was quick to fit and did not require stiff support structures. As these drives increased in size, additional cooling systems were required. The old helical drives from the 1960s were very large for the power transmitted. Heat was less of an issue. However, the compact bevel helical case-hardened gear drives need fans, radiators, and water- or air-cooled exchangers.

The ever-increasing drive sizes have forced the move back in time to the arrangement shown in Fig. 19.6. The modern conveyors require drives that are measured in megawatts. The reducer alone may weigh 30 tonnes. The flywheel shown may weigh 7.5 tonnes with low-speed coupling of 3.5 tonnes. These are very large components. If this equipment was shaft-mounted, the entire assembly might weigh as much as 50 tonnes. The length might be several metres. The shaft-mounted drive would be difficult to lift, and access would become an issue.

The arrangement shown in Fig. 19.6 has extended couplings on both the high and low speed sides of the reducer. The longer couplings solve the alignment issue that forced designers to move to shaft-mounted drives. The couplings allow large alignment errors.

The holdbacks, backstops or anti-runback systems are devices that prevent a conveyor running backwards. The energy to cause the conveyor to run backwards may come from the conveyed load, the elastic strain energy, thermal transients, etc. The writer would use holdbacks on most conveyors even though the material lift load is less than the system friction. Thermal transients can be large. The method of calculating the loads is described in James (2007). This paper follows up on the work by Timtner (1996, 1998). Timtner discusses the wind-up multiplier effect within a holdback and through the drive system. He also looks at the effects of load sharing. It is common practice for holdbacks to be sized for the load from the lifted material. The work by James (2007) strongly advised that the stalled drive should also be considered. The stalled drive may produce 250% to 300% of the motor full load torque (MFLT). When this torque is multiplied by the wind-up effect, loads of 10 × MFLT are possible. This load is seen by the drives, pulleys, structure, etc. One way to limit these loads is to select holdbacks that slip momentarily when the extreme loads are generated.

19.3.2 Low head drive arrangements

Please refer to Fig. 19.7. This shows a low head drive arrangement. This design was developed by James (2010) for the Worsley Alumina Pty Ltd Marradong Bauxite project and has been used more recently on the Rio Tinto WTS project. Larger conveyors have larger powers and tensions. Larger conveyors have bigger pulleys. The conveyor tensions have moved past 100 tonnes, and the pulleys now weigh more than 25 tonnes each. The response to this trend is the low head arrangement. This arrangement brings the heavy pulleys and drives down to ground level. This provides improved access for maintenance. Smaller cranes can be used to lift the components. The arrangement shows access for a skid-loaded to clean up under the area. Light vehicles can drive up a concrete ramp and be parked beside the drives.

19.3.3 Horizontal curves

The design of horizontal curves has been covered by Grimmer (1972, 1992). More recently CEMA (2005) provided an update to the analysis of these curves. The preferred method of bending a conveyor around a curve is to use negative idler Camber and gravity. Some call this negative super-elevation. Here, the idler set is sloped so that it is higher on the inside of the horizontal curve. As the tensions rise, the belt moves towards the centre of the curve. In doing so, it moves up the idler slope. The extra gravity from the displaced belt resists the belt movement. If the design is correct, the belt will find a balance point with a reasonable belt drift. When the tension reduces, the belt moves outwards to another balance point. As the belt is moving sideways with variation in tension and load, consideration must be given to the material edge clearance and idler set width.

The published methods also consider friction as a method to control the belt movement. The friction is achieved by skewing and rotating the idler rolls or sets. This is less preferred because:

The accepted method to control the empty belt high tension case is by side guide rollers.

19.3.4 Conveyor starting systems

There are many systems available, including:

James (1992) describes the successful use of Voith scoop fluid on couplings on a 13.1 km overland coal conveyor located in Indonesia. The system was found to be simple and robust. More recent projects have used VVVF drives. Users such as Port Waratah Coal Services, Newcastle, NSW, Australia use a large number of wound rotor motors with liquid resistance starters. Some of the big miners in Australia use wound rotor motors with step resistors on larger drives. They will also use VVVF drives on specific conveyors.

The writer has not used slipping clutch systems. However, it is understood that slipping clutch systems, by Baldor for example, also have good end-user support.

19.3.5 Dynamics of starting and stopping

19.3.6 Discrete element modelling of chutes

The discrete element modelling DEM method is a computer simulation of discrete particles flowing through a chute. CEMA (2005, Chapter 16) provides a brief overview of the discrete element method. Wypych (2010) goes into the subject in more detail, noting that there is often a lack of validation of the model. A number software packages are available in the market, and companies are offering consulting services. As with any software, the output depends to a large extent on the quality of the inputs. There will also be a difference in the algorithms used and the complexity of the particle model, for example, the stickiness, elasticity and damping behaviour. So how valid are the inputs and outputs, and are the particles behaving correctly? Are the simulations fictitious animations, or is there a scientific basis?

Wypych has taken a scientific approach to the validation process, developing a series of tests and calibration techniques. With this in place the DEM outputs are compared with material flow physical scale chute models. The work shows close alignment between the methods. The work is ongoing.

19.3.7 Noise

Noise from conveying typically becomes an issue when the system is adjacent to local domestic residences. Noise limits at night are more restrictive than daytime limits. An example may be a port adjacent to a nearby town. Often the towns spread over time and the space between the old port and the homes gets smaller. Similarly the activity at the port and its function may increase over time. So over the years issues such as odour, dust and noise emerge. Also the community expectations and environmental standards change as the data of the environmental effects become known. This knowledge flows into the design of new and old facilities.

Brown (2004) discusses the deficiencies in understanding of the issue in some parts of the industry. This lack of knowledge can mean that once a noise issue is identified, there may be a limited number of practical and cost-effective noise management strategies that can be applied. A key input to the noise level is the belt velocity. Noise is generated at the belt/idler interface primarily by the idler surface profile velocity. A better understanding of the noise source would prompt the designer to consider lower belt speeds, larger idler roll diameters and/or better quality idler rolls.

Brown (2004) proposes a parameter called the Maximum Instantaneous Slope (MIS) that can be used as a practical basis to predict the noise levels from the equipment.

Various low noise idlers are available for the suppliers. These include:

The reader is encouraged to investigate issues such as actual noise performance, shell wear, roll life, bearing life, grease retention, seal design, rolling drag, carry back adhesion, cost, availability, mass for replacement, standardisation, fire rating, corrosion resistance, etc.

19.4.1 General

With the shortage of truck tyres, and the cost and availability of labour, trucks and fuel, integrated crushing systems are becoming more popular. In a world where there are penalties for production of CO₂, the move to integrated crushing systems is probably inevitable. Integrated systems have been used sporadically with great success for a number of decades, e.g. the design of the in-pit crushing plant for Bougainville Copper in the 1980s (not erected). At that time, companies such as Mountain States Engineers, Krupp, MAN, and others had built crawler transportable or walking type crushing and or conveying structures. Krupp had a range of out-of-the-catalogue crawler transporters, ranging from 240 t to 1200 t with a centred load. PHB-Weserhütte supplied mobile crushing units to Worsley Alumina Pty Ltd, Western Australia in 1981, and a number of other locations.

James (2010) gave details of a recent project where the ROM hopper for the haul trucks was moved. This is a fixed installation. The project study originally planned to have the ROM approximately 1000 m outside the pit. During the detailed design phase, the ROM was moved into the pit area. This reduced the annual truck travel by 250 000 km. This is about six times around the world. So, getting the ROM near the mining activity has major energy and cost benefits.

Chasing the mining activity with mobile or moveable semi-mobile modular systems is even better. Strzodka (1993) investigated the economics of in-pit crushing systems, and discussed the use of semi-mobile crushing systems. The work concluded that there were savings between 30% and 60% in favour of the in-pit crushing system. The example was of a 15 mtpa mine in Mexico.

Roberts (1985) looked at the components that make up the capital and operating costs of conveyors and other transport systems. The cost parameters would have changed, but the methodology is still relevant today. Constructing a series of graphs for operating and capital costs for various capacities and distances allows the methods and designs to be compared. For a conveyor, the optimum solution is normally narrow and fast.

19.4.2 Mobile and semi-mobile systems

The movement of large digging, crushing and conveying machines was not new to German and American designers. The Germans have been building large digging and transporting systems since the 1800 s. The power station in the Latrobe Valley, Victoria, Australia, used bucket-wheel excavator and track-shiftable conveyor technology to move overburden and lignite. The Heritage Victoria National Trust Database notes that LubeckerMaschinenbauGesellschaft (LMG), Lubeck, Germany, supplied the first dredger to Morwell open-cut. It began operation in 1955. The machine weighed 750 tonnes. The design of this machine originated in the German coal mines in the 1930s. The first German bucket chain excavators were used at Yallourn in 1928.

Haddock (2002) notes that a French contractor, Alphonse Couvreux, used a bucket chain excavator in 1859 on the Ardennes railway. In the period 1863–1868, seven Couvreux machines excavated 8 million yards of earth in the construction of the Suez Canal.

Haddock (2002) also notes that the American engineers were good at moving huge machines on crawlers. This reference describes stripping shovels as the ‘kings of the mobile machine world’. The early machines dating back to 1899 were mounted on rails. The book includes the details of many outstanding machines built in the twentieth century. One of the most impressive was the Marion 6360 stripping shovel, built in 1965. Mounted on an eight crawler undercarriage, the machine had a 180 cubic yard bucket. It weighed in at 15 000 t and had an operating radius of 220 ft.

In summary, the world’s engineers have moved huge items of equipment and there is now a real need to just do it!

It is interesting to ponder the question of why the systems have not been used more widely. One would speculate that in open pit mines the mine planners are reluctant to give up the flexibility of trucks. Conveyor systems quarantine parts of the pit, require extra planning, and reduce flexibility.

As we move forward, economic and environmental issues will challenge this view.

Considering the history of moving large equipment, moving ROM hoppers, jaw and gyratory crushers, sizers, apron feeders, electrical rooms, etc. is not a problem.

Kahrger (1987) described a new mobile conveying system to link in-pit crushers to the process plant. Track-shiftable and crawler-mounted bridge systems are also available. Caterpillar manufactures ‘out of the brochure’ crawler assemblies. Placing the typical conveyor truss/bridge on crawlers is not difficult.

Pagels (2008) describes the mobile crawler-mounted conveyors, stackers and reclaimers that have been used in heap leach operations for many years. Neagle (1983) described the moveable face conveyors used at the Loy Yang power station located in Latrobe Valley, Victoria Australia. Mitchell (1983) provided a 20-year history and a detailed tabulation of the 150–2440 kw drive-heads used at Morwell, Yallourn and Loy Yang lignite power stations Latrobe Valley, Victoria, Australia. The belt widths ranged from 1220 to 2000 mm, mass 35 to 400 t, and belts speeds from 4.85 to 5.3 m/s.

If we think about the reluctance of mine planners and the need for flexibility, it is also interesting to note that the writer had patents issued in 1988 for the invention of a mobile elevator conveyor. This could be described as the missing link. The unit is described in James (1985). The mobile machine overcomes the issue of the large earth ramps and fixed conveyors that could upset the mine plan. The strategy would be to have crawler-mounted or track-shiftable conveyors running along the benches, and the mobile elevator unit would then lift the material out of the pit.

The machine has a flexible boom to support a steep-angle conveyor. A number of steep-angle conveyors are possible. The bench height targeted at the time was 55 m. The USA patent number 4765461 describes the machine as follows – refer to Fig. 19.9:

‘A mobile elevator conveyor, comprising a main support structure (10) mounted on tracks (11), for mobility along an upper level (14) when in use, an elevating conveyor (13) supported on a boom (12) adapted to be extended from a retracted position within the main frame to an extended position outwardly of said main frame. The boom supporting the conveyor is formed from a plurality of boom segments (22), and is adapted, during extension and retraction, to pass over an outwardly and downwardly curving guide frame (29) mounted on said main support structure. The boom segments are hingedly connected at their lower edges such that the boom structure bends downwardly along its bottom chord at the hinges (23) between the boom segments as it moves over the guide frame, and down to a lower level (15). The interaction of the boom segments is such that bending in the opposite direction is resisted so as to form a rigid boom structure. A collecting conveyor (38) extends along the length of the main support structure and receives material from said elevating conveyor and conveys it to a discharge point.

19.4.3 Modular components

With the use of 3D design, large fabrication shops, transport systems, and large cranes, it is possible to build (and disassemble) the ROM hopper in large modular units. Figure 19.10 shows a typical ROM station with apron feeder and sizer. Figure 19.11 shows a module of the ROM hopper. This unit weighs about 250 t. A typical mine may run the ROM stationing one location for several years. At the appropriate time, a second unit could be built in a new position. Then the old unit can be taken out of service, disassembled, and overhauled to be ready for the next task. Under the right circumstances, the schedule may allow one unit to be used. The move may take say 2–3 weeks.

Alles, R., Stressing of Rubber Conveyor Belts and Its Mathematical Treatment. Bulk Solids Handling, 1982. [March 1982.].

Alles, R. Conveyor Belt System Design Manual. Hannover: Contitech; 1988.

Böttcher, G., Measures Concerning the Slitting Protection of Conveyor Belts with Steel Cables, 1978:357–359. [SonderdruckAusBergbau, August 1978.].

Brown, S. Conveyor Noise Specification and Control. Australia: Proc. of Acoustics 2004 QLD; 2004.

CEMA. 6th Edition Belt Conveyors for Bulk Materials. USA: Conveyor Manufacturers Association; 2005.

Colijn, H., Conners, P., Belt Conveyor Transfer Points. AIME Transactions Volume 252. 1972. [1972.].

DIN 22101. Belt Conveyors for Loose Bulk Materials- Basis for Calculation and Dimensioning. German National Standard: Deutscheslnstitut Fur Normung E.V; 2000.

Dumonteil, P. Outline of a theory of the start-up of the conveyor belt. Mineral Industry Review. 1967, 1967.

Flebbe, H., Dynamic Splice Strength – Design Criterion for Conveyor Belts. Bulk Solids Handling, 1988. [March 1988.].

Funke, H., Dr-Ing, The Dynamic Stress of Conveyor Belt Systems During Start-up and Shutdown, 1974. [Braunkohle, March 1974.].

Funke, H., Dr-Ing, Experimental and Theoretical Investigations for the Design of a Long-distance Belt Conveyor System, 1987. [Braunkohle October 1987.].

Gallagher, D., Technology in Motion for the International Rubber Conference Melbourne, 2000. [Australia.].

Grimmer, K., Beumer, B., Design and Operation of Curve Going Conveyors with Standard Belts, 1972. [Fördern and Heben, March 1972.].

Grimmer, K., Kessler, F. The Design of Belt Conveyors with Horizontal Curves. Bulk Solids Handling. 1992. [October 1992.].

Haddock, K. The Earth Mover Encyclopedia: The Complete Guide to Heavy Equipment of the World. St Paul USA: MBI Publishing Company; 2002.

Hager, M., Simonsen, H., Calculation and Design of Belt Conveyors for Bulk Material, 2000. [Braunkohle. May/June 2000].

Harrison, A. Minimising Transient Stress in Conveyor Belts. IEAUST Mechanical Transactions; 1984.

Hintz, A. Influence of the Belt Structure on the Energy Consumption of Belt conveyor Systems. Doctoral thesis University of Hannover Germany; 1993.

James, G. A Non-destructive Test for Belt Splices. How Good Are Your Splices? Bulk Solids Handling. 12, 1992. [Number 4.].

James, G. Design of a 13.1 Kilometer Overland Conveyor. Bulk Solids Handling. 12, 1992. [Number 4.].

James, G. A Review of Conveyor Take-up Design. Perth: IEUST International Mechanical Congress and Exhibition; 1994. [1994.].

James, G. Simple Rules to Approximate Transient Tensions in Belt Conveyors. Melbourne: Bulkex 2000; 2000.

James, G. Handling Primary Crushed Ore. IIR Conference Brisbane; 2007.

James, G. Holdbacks ‘The Loads Are Shocking. IIR Conference Perth Australia; 2007. [December 2007].

James, G. Conveyor Belt Design for Optimum Efficiency. Singapore: 3rd Annual Bulk Material Handling IBC ASIA; 2010. [2010.].

James, G., Ozolins, I., von Blomberg, H. Mobile Elevator Conveyors. Bulk Solids Handling. 5(6), 1985. [Republished in the Best of Bulk Handling Open Pit Mines & Quarries/ Conveyor Belt Technology book 1986.].

Kahrger, R., A New Mobile Conveyor System for In-pit Crushing. Bulk Solids Handling, 1987. [June 1987].

Lodewijks, G. Rolling Resistance of Conveyor Belts. Bulk Solids Handling. 15, 1995. [Number 1, January/March 1995.].

Lodewijks, G., Two Decades Dynamics of Belt Conveyor Systems. Bulk Solids Handling., 2002.

Mitchell, D., The Development of Movable Conveyor Drive Heads. International Conference on Bulk Materials Storage, Handling and Transportation, 1983. [Newcastle Australia August 1983.].

Neagle, J., Some Design Aspects of a Movable Open Cut Face Conveyor. Bulk Solids Handling, 1983. [November 1983.].

Nordell, L., Ciozda, Z., The Analysis of Starting and Stopping High Strength. High Capacity Belts Using Modern Engineering Tools. 1984. [SME-AIME Annual Meeting 1984.].

Nordell, L., Ciozda, Z., Transient Belt Stresses During Starting and Stopping: Elastic Response Simulated by Finite Element Methods. Bulk Solids Handling, 1984. [March 1984.].

Oehmen, The starting Behaviour of Conveyor Belt SystemsDissertation. Hannover, Germany: Hannover University of Technology, 1959. [1959.].

Oszter, Z.F. Large Capacity Belt Conveyors. Motion Resistance Evaluation Mining Engineering; 1980.

Precismeca. Idler Design Manual Catalogue #101 F. Precismeca Canada circa; 1998. [1998.].

Roberts, A.W., Harrison, A., Hayes, J. Economic Factors Relating to the Design of Belt Conveyors for Long Distance Transportation of Bulk Solids. Bulk Solids Handling. 1985. [December 1985.].

Roberts, A.W., Scott, O.J. Flow of Bulk Solids Through Transfer Chutes of Variable Geometry and Profile. Bulk Solids Handling. 1, 1981. [Number 4. December 1981.].

Steven, R., High Tech Conveyor Development for the World’s Longest Single-Flight Conveyor. Australian Bulk Handling Review, 2007. [Nov/Dec 2007.].

Strzodka, K., Kraus, P., Sangner, R., Mining in Open Pits State of the Art and Outlook. Bulk Solids Handling, 1993. [May 1993.].

Timtner, K., Dr. Ing, Peak Torque Calculations for Backstops SME 1996, 1996.

Timtner, K., Dr. Ing, Load Sharing Methods of Backstops in Conveyor Drive Systems, 1998. [SME 1998.].

Torsten, B., Dimensioning and Application of Belt Conveyors with Intermediate Belt Drive. T-T System. Bulk Solids Handling, 1982. [March 1982.].

Weigel, Th., The Use of Intermediate Drive Units for Belt Conveyor Systems. Bulk Solids Handling, 1982. [March 1982.].

Wheeler, C., Analysis of the Main Resistances of Belt Conveyors. Doctoral Thesis University of Newcastle NSW, Australia, 2003.

Wypych, P. Predicting Bulk Material Flow and Behaviour for Mining and Handling Operations. Perth: Mine Site Bulk Materials Handling Forum IQPC; 2010. [2010.].