COPYRIGHT AND CITATION CONSIDERATIONS FOR THIS THESIS/ DISSERTATION

o Attribution You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if
changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that
suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
o NonCommercial You may not use the material for commercial purposes.

o ShareAlike If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your
contributions under the same license as the original.

How to cite this thesis

Surname, Initial(s). (2012) Title of the thesis or dissertation. PhD. (Chemistry)/ M.Sc. (Physics)/
M.A. (Philosophy)/M.Com. (Finance) etc. [Unpublished]: University of Johannesburg. Retrieved
from: https://ujdigispace.uj.ac.za (Accessed: Date).

An Investigation into the Life Cycle Costs of a Two-Flight

Conveyor versus A Single-Flight Conveyor by Analysis of the
System Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and Overall
Economic Viability
A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Engineering in partial fulfilment of
the degree of
MAGISTER INGENERIAE
in
ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT
at the
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
of the
UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG

by
Noxolo Nkomonde
November 2013

SUPERVISOR: Prof Jan-Harm Pretorius

CO-SUPERVISOR: Dr Arie Wessels

DECLARATION

I Noxolo Nkomonde hereby declare that this dissertation is wholly my work

and has not been submitted anywhere else for academic credit either by
myself or by another person.

I understand what plagiarism implies and declares that this dissertation is my

own ideas, words, phrases, arguments, graphics, figures, results and
organization except where reference is explicitly made to anothers work.

I understand further that any unethical academic behaviour, which includes

plagiarism, is seen in a serious light by the University of Johannesburg and is
punishable by disciplinary action.

Signed...............................

Date................................

Page 2 of 108

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Bateman Engineered Technologies for allowing me to work on
the Sasol Impumelelo Project tender, which is where I first identified the need for a
study of this nature to be conducted. I would also like to thank Mr Rudolf Hose
(senior engineer at BET), Dr Bheki Twala (professor at the University of
Johannesburg), as well as Dr Arie Wessels (post-graduate lecturer) for their
mentorship and guidance throughout the conduction of this dissertation.

II

Page 3 of 108

Abstract
In a tender bid to energy and chemical company Sasol, a request to offer a technical
solution for a two-flight overland conveyor system whose function is to transport coal
from a 15 000 tonne bunker into an external stockpile storage facility in the plant was
made. This conveyor consisted of two conveyor flight sections of lengths 18 423m
and 8 537m each. The prospect of combining the two flights of conveyors to form
one, super-efficient conveyor structure with additional cost saving benefits was
identified. It was found that this occurrence was not unique to the individual project
as other researching engineers have been faced with similar problems before [18].
This then lead the researcher into believing that there could be some advantage in
investigating the possible benefits to the overall cost, maintainability and scheduling
of the fabrication and erection activities for the entire project of combining the
multiple flight conveyors into a single-flight conveyor. It is also the conviction of the
researcher that the achieved outcomes will prove beneficial to the bulk materials
handling industry as a whole.

The problem is traditionally short, multiple flight conveyors have always been used
for performing the function of transporting bulk material from one location in a mining
plant to another hence; long, single-flight overland conveyors of lengths exceeding
26 km have not been commonly installed. In this dissertation the possibility of
employing a single-flight overland as opposed to a two-flight conveyor in the Sasol
Impumelelo coal plant is investigated. This is done against the work of other
researchers who have conducted similar studies in the field as well as by utilizing
project-specific data using applicable industry standards as well as Engineering
Management course theory.

By employing actual project procurement and engineering design data; the

investigation is done by calculating and comparing the individual capital and
operational costs that encompass the total cost of ownership (TCO) for both
conveyor systems as well as the two systems reliability, availability and
maintainability to establish each systems complete life cycle costs. It is the opinion
of the researcher that the investigation method is valid as it is in line with the
guidelines given by The Miami University of Ohio [24] as well as J Hanek [25] and
Page 4 of 108

thus provides the researcher with a plausible technique for establishing which
between the single-flight overland conveyor and two-flight overland conveyor
configurations is overall the more superior system to install.

It was found that even though its initial capital and operational costs are higher; the
single-flight conveyor system is more reliable, readily available and cheaper to run
and sustain over the 30 year expected life-span of the plant. It also is less labour
intensive to perform maintenance on, yields less material degradation and results in
less material spillage because of the elimination of additional transfer points and
transfer towers. These results can be taken as valid on a global scale, for any mining
plant, not restricted to any specific material as they are not subject to South African
temperature, altitude or seismic conditions nor are they constrained to the type of
bulk material being mined.

III

Page 5 of 108

Table of Contents
Definition of Terms........................................................................................................................... 15
Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 16
1.1 Introduction to the Belt Conveyor .............................................................................................. 16
1.1.1 The Anatomy of a Conveyor................................................................................................. 17
1.1.1.1 Take-up Weight ............................................................................................................. 17
1.1.1.2 The Pulley ...................................................................................................................... 18
1.1.1.3 Head Pulley ................................................................................................................... 18
1.1.1.4 Drive Pulley ................................................................................................................... 18
1.1.1.5 Tail Pulley ...................................................................................................................... 19
1.1.1.6 Take-up Pulley ............................................................................................................... 19
1.1.1.7 Snub Pulley .................................................................................................................... 19
1.1.1.8 Idlers.............................................................................................................................. 19
1.1.1.9 Carry Idlers .................................................................................................................... 19
1.1.1.10 Return Idlers................................................................................................................ 20
1.1.1.11 Impact Idlers ............................................................................................................... 20
1.1.1.12 Skirt Board................................................................................................................... 21
1.1.1.13 Discharge Chute .......................................................................................................... 21
1.1.1.14 The Primary Scraper .................................................................................................... 22
1.1.1.15 The Secondary Scraper ............................................................................................... 22
1.1.1.16 Belt/ Vee Plow............................................................................................................. 23
1.1.1.17 Conveyor Drive............................................................................................................ 23
1.1.1.18 Conveyor Belt .............................................................................................................. 24
1.2 Introduction to the Problem Statement ..................................................................................... 27
1.3 Bateman Engineered Technologies History ................................................................................ 28
1.4 Problem Statement ..................................................................................................................... 29
1.5 Importance of Investigation........................................................................................................ 31
1.6 Rationale of Investigation ........................................................................................................... 31
1.7 Scope of the Dissertation Investigation ...................................................................................... 33
1.7.1 Dissertation Objectives ........................................................................................................ 33
1.7.2 Research Questions.............................................................................................................. 34
1.8 Investigation Process .............................................................................................................. 34
1.8.1 Ask the Research Question .................................................................................................. 36
Page 6 of 108

1.8.2 Investigation Design ............................................................................................................. 36

1.8.3 Do Background Research ..................................................................................................... 36
1.8.4 Construct Hypothesis ........................................................................................................... 37
1.8.5 Test with Experiments ......................................................................................................... 37
1.8.6 Analyse Results .................................................................................................................... 37
1.8.7 Draw Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 38
1.8.8 Report Results ...................................................................................................................... 38
1.9 Dissertation Report Layout ......................................................................................................... 38
1.10 Conclusion and Introduction of Next Chapter .......................................................................... 39
Chapter 2: Literature Review ...................................................................................................... 40
2.1 Discussion of Applicable Course Theory ..................................................................................... 40
2.1.1 Life Cycle Costs ..................................................................................................................... 40
2.1.2 Reliability Management ....................................................................................................... 41
2.3 Discussion of Applicable Literature by Other Authors ................................................................ 42
2.3.1 Literature A: Performance Characteristics of the Inlet Section of a Screw Conveyor ......... 42
2.3.2 Literature B: Economic Considerations of Extra Long Flight Conveyors .............................. 43
2.3.3 Literature C: Overland Conveyors Designed for Efficient Cost and Performance ............... 44
2.3.4 Literature D: Lean and Mean Conveyor Design for the Nineties ......................................... 45
2.3.5 Literature E: The Design and Implementation of the LSL/ Tekpro Dual Carry Overland Conveyor..46

2.3.6 Literature F: The Metso Rope Conveyor .............................................................................. 47

2.3.7 Literature G: Enhancing Overland Conveyor Possibilities .................................................... 48
2.3.8 Literature H: The Evolution of Curved Conveyor Systems for the Transportation of Minerals .......... 49

2.4 Discussion of Literature Findings and Benchmarks .................................................................... 51

2.5 Conclusion and Introduction to Next Chapter ............................................................................ 52
Chapter 3: Methodology ............................................................................................................ 54
3.1 Approach and Research Methodology ....................................................................................... 54
3.2 Data Gathering Method .............................................................................................................. 54
3.3 Database of Study ....................................................................................................................... 56
3.4 Validity of Data............................................................................................................................ 57
3.5 Originality and Limitations .......................................................................................................... 58
3.6 Summary and Introduction to Next Chapter .............................................................................. 58
Chapter 4: Experimental Set up One: The Two-Flight Overland Conveyor Design Model ............... 59
4.1 The Proposed Design .................................................................................................................. 59
4.2 Technical Specifications .............................................................................................................. 59
Page 7 of 108

4.2.1 Overland Conveyor 1 ........................................................................................................... 59

4.2.1.1 Product Design Specification ........................................................................................ 59
4.2.1.2 Material Selection ......................................................................................................... 60
4.2.2 Overland Conveyor 2 ........................................................................................................... 61
4.2.2.1 Design Specification ...................................................................................................... 61
4.2.2.2 Material Selection ......................................................................................................... 62
Chapter 5: Experimental Set up Two: The Single Flight Overland Conveyor Design Model ............ 64
5.1 The Optimized Design ................................................................................................................. 64
5.2 Technical Specifications .............................................................................................................. 65
5.2.1 Design Specification ............................................................................................................. 65
5.2. 2 Material Selection ............................................................................................................... 65
Chapter 6: Calculations and Comparisons ................................................................................... 68
6.1 Belting ......................................................................................................................................... 68
6.1.1 General ................................................................................................................................. 68
6.1.2 Capital Costs Calculation ...................................................................................................... 69
6.1.3 Operational Costs Calculation .............................................................................................. 70
6.1.4 Belting Summary .................................................................................................................. 73
6.2 Conveyor Drives and Power Consumption ................................................................................. 74
6.2.1 General ................................................................................................................................. 74
6.2.2 Capital Costs ......................................................................................................................... 75
6.2.3 Operational Costs................................................................................................................. 76
6.2.4 Drives and Power Consumption Summary .......................................................................... 77
6.3 Idlers............................................................................................................................................ 77
6.3.1 General ................................................................................................................................. 77
6.3.2 Idler Capital Costs ................................................................................................................ 78
6.3.3 Idler Operational Costs ........................................................................................................ 80
6.3.4 Idlers Summary .................................................................................................................... 80
6.4 Pulleys ......................................................................................................................................... 81
6.5 Summary of Calculation Findings ................................................................................................ 82
Chapter 7: Presentation of Findings ........................................................................................... 84
7.1 Discussion of the Investigation Findings ..................................................................................... 84
7.2 Application of the Theory ........................................................................................................... 86
7.2.1 Reliability, Availability and Maintainability Definitions ....................................................... 86
7.2.2 System Comparisons: Reliability and Availability ................................................................ 86
Page 8 of 108

7.2.3 Maintainability ..................................................................................................................... 88

7.2.3.1 General .......................................................................................................................... 88
7.2.4 Equipment Maintenance Costs ............................................................................................ 90
7.2.4.1 Belting Maintenance ..................................................................................................... 90
7.2.4.2 Conveyor Drives Maintenance ...................................................................................... 91
7.2.4.3 Idler Maintenance ......................................................................................................... 92
7.2.4.4 Pulley Maintenance ...................................................................................................... 92
7.3 Validity of the Investigation Findings against the Literature of the Benchmarks ....................... 96
7.4 Answers to the Research Questions ........................................................................................... 98
7.5 Hypothesis True or False? ........................................................................................................... 99
7.6 Summary and Introduction to Next Chapter .............................................................................. 99
Chapter 8: Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 101
Chapter 9: Recommendations .................................................................................................. 103
Annexure 1: References ........................................................................................................... 105

Page 9 of 108

List of Figures
Figure 1: Basic conveyor assembly ....................................................................................................... 17
Figure 2: The Conveyor Pulley .............................................................................................................. 18
Figure 3: Carry Idlers ............................................................................................................................. 20
Figure 4: A Return Idler ......................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 5: Impact Idlers .......................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 6: The Skirtboard........................................................................................................................ 21
Figure 7: The Discharge Chute .............................................................................................................. 22
Figure 8: The Primary Scraper ............................................................................................................... 22
Figure 9: The Secondary Scraper .......................................................................................................... 23
Figure 10: The Belt/ Vee Plow............................................................................................................... 23
Figure 11: The Conveyor Drive Unit ...................................................................................................... 24
Figure 12: The Conveyor Belt ................................................................................................................ 25
Figure 13: Multiply Construction .......................................................................................................... 26
Figure 14: Solid Woven Construction ................................................................................................... 26
Figure 15: Steel Cord Construction ....................................................................................................... 27
Figure 16: The Investigation Process .................................................................................................... 35
Figure 17: Overland Conveyor 1 Module .............................................................................................. 60
Figure 18: Overland Conveyor 2 Module .............................................................................................. 62
Figure 19: Single-Flight Overland Conveyor Module ............................................................................ 65
Figure 20: Single-Flight Overland Conveyor Pulley Data ...................................................................... 66
Figure 21: Single-Flight Overland Conveyor Idler Data ......................................................................... 66
Figure 22: Single-Flight Overland Conveyor Take-Up Data ................................................................... 66
Figure 23: Single-Flight Overland Conveyor Belt Cleaners Data ........................................................... 66
Figure 24: Total Cost of Ownership: Overall Review ............................................................................ 84
Figure 25: Overland Conveyor Layouts ................................................................................................. 88

Page 10 of 108

List of Tables
Table 1: Overland Conveyor 1 Design Specification ............................................................................. 59
Table 2: Overland Conveyor 1 Pulley Data ........................................................................................... 60
Table 3: Overland Conveyor 1 Idler Data .............................................................................................. 60
Table 4: Overland Conveyor 1 Take-Up Data ........................................................................................ 61
Table 5: Overland Conveyor 1 Belt Cleaners Data ................................................................................ 61
Table 6: Overland Conveyor 2 Design Specification ............................................................................. 61
Table 7: Overland Conveyor 2: Pulley Data .......................................................................................... 62
Table 8: Overland Conveyor 2 Idler Data .............................................................................................. 62
Table 9: Overland Conveyor 2 Take-Up Data ........................................................................................ 62
Table 10: Overland Conveyor 2 Belt Cleaners Data .............................................................................. 63
Table 11: Single-Flight Conveyor Model Design Specification .............................................................. 65
Table 12: Belting Capital Costs Data ..................................................................................................... 69
Table 13: Belting Operational Costs Data ............................................................................................. 71
Table 14: The Abrasion Index (Sw) Table ............................................................................................... 72
Table 15: The Cover Modifier (Cx) Table ............................................................................................... 72
Table 16: Drive and Power Consumption Data ..................................................................................... 75
Table 17: Carry Idlers Data .................................................................................................................... 78
Table 18: Return Idlers Data ................................................................................................................. 78
Table 19: Summary of the Project Pulley Costs .................................................................................... 81
Table 20: Summary of the Total Costs of Ownership ........................................................................... 82
Table 21: Belting Maintenance Data..................................................................................................... 90
Table 22: Summary of the Maintenance Costs ..................................................................................... 94

Page 11 of 108

List of Equations
Equation 1: Time Operational Available ....................................................................................................... 68
Equation 2: Time Operational Actual .......................................................................................................... 68
Equation 3: Time Operational Downtime ...................................................................................................... 68
Equation 4: Time (SF) Operational Downtime ................................................................................................ 69
Equation 5: Time Operational (TF)............................................................................................................. 69
Equation 6: Time Operational (SF) ............................................................................................................ 69
Equtaion 7: Length (SF) ....................................................................................................................... 70
Equation 8: Length (TF1) ...................................................................................................................... 70
Equation 9: Length (TF2) ...................................................................................................................... 70
Equation 10: Belt Wear Life .............................................................................................................. 70
Equation 11: Belt Life (SF)................................................................................................................... 71
Equation 12: Belt Life (TF1) ................................................................................................................. 71
Equation 13: Belt Life (TF2) ................................................................................................................. 71
Equation 14: Belt Life Actual (SF) ...................................................................................................... 72
Equation 15: Belt Life Actual (TF1) ..................................................................................................... 72
Equation 16: Belt Life Actual (TF2) ..................................................................................................... 72
Equation 17 Splicing Quantity (SF) .................................................................................................... 73
Equation 18: Splicing Quantity (TF1) .................................................................................................. 73
Equation 19: Splicing Quantity (TF2) .................................................................................................. 73
Equation 20: Splicing Allowance (SF) ................................................................................................ 73
Equation 21: Splicing Allowance (TF1) .............................................................................................. 73
Equation 22: Splicing Allowance (TF2) .............................................................................................. 73
Equation 23: Drive Supply Cost (SF) ................................................................................................. 75
Equation 24: Drive Supply Cost (TF1) ................................................................................................ 75
Equation 25: Drive Supply Cost (TF2) ................................................................................................ 75
Equation 26: Idler Capital Costs (SF).............................................................................................. 79
Equation 27: Idler Capital Costs (TF) .............................................................................................. 79
Equtaion 28: Total Cost of Ownership (SF) ...................................................................................... 83
Equation 29: Total Cost of Ownership (TF) ...................................................................................... 83
Equation 30: Availability Definition .................................................................................................. 86
Equation 31: Operational Availability (SF) ........................................................................................ 87
Equation 32: Operational Availability (TF1) ....................................................................................... 87
Equation 33: Operational Availability (TF2) ....................................................................................... 87
Equation 34: Maintenance Belting Replacement (SF) .................................................................................. 91
Equation 35: Maintenance Belting Replacement (TF1) ................................................................................. 91
Equation 36: Maintenance Belting Replacement (TF2) ................................................................................. 91
Equation 37: Maintenance Drives Upkeep (SF) ......................................................................................... 91
Equation 38: Maintenance Drives Upkeep (TF1) ....................................................................................... 91
Equation 39: Maintenance Drives Upkeep (TF2) ....................................................................................... 91
Equation 40: Maintenance Idlers (SF) ................................................................................................... 92
Equation 41: Maintenance Idlers (TF) ................................................................................................... 92
Equation 42: Maintenance Pulleys (SF) ................................................................................................. 92
Page 12 of 108

Equation 43: Maintenance Pulleys (TF1) ................................................................................................ 92

Equation 44: Maintenance Pulleys (TF2) ................................................................................................ 92
Equation 45: Maintenance Labour Costs SF............................................................................................ 93
Equation 46: Maintenance Labour Cost TF1 ............................................................................................ 93
Equation 47: Maintenance Labour Cost TF2 ............................................................................................ 93

Page 13 of 108

List of Acronyms
BET

Bateman Engineered Technologies

LCC

Life cycle costs

TCO

Total cost of ownership

MARR

Most attractive rate of return

PVC

Polyvinyl chloride

SANS

South African National Standards

tph or t/h

Tonne per hour

Meter

mm

Millimeter

m/s

Meter per second

Watt

kW

Kilo Watt

ST

Steel cord

SF

Single Flight

TF

Two Flight

CMA

Conveyor Manufacturers Association

DCC

Dual Carry Conveyor

MRC

Metso Rope Conveyor

CEMA

Conveyor Equipment Manufacturers Association

SABS

South African Bureau of Standards

BS

British Standards

ANSI

American National Standards Institute

AGMA

American Gear Manufacturers Association

ISO

International Organization for Standardization

RAM

Reliability, Availability and Maintainability

Page 14 of 108

Definition of Terms
Conveyor

A mechanical device that is used to transport materials,

packages or items being assembled from one

location to

another.
Transfer Tower

A tall structure mounted inside a conveyor section with the

function of moving material or products at right angles, to
adjacent or parallel conveyor lines.

Belt Turnover

Belt turnovers are commonly used in conveyor belts to

rotate the belt so that the clean side of the belt contacts
the return idlers

Degradation

The wearing down or breakdown of organic compound or

material by the erosive action of water, wind or ice.

Spillage

The loss of material production output though the action of

it dribbling out of the conveyor onto the ground due to a
defect in the conveyor system components and system
operation.

Capital Costs

The fixed, one-time expenses incurred on the initial

purchase of construction materials used in the production
process.

Operating Costs

Expenses related to the day-to-day operational activities

of the plant.

Splicing

The joining together of two pieces belting by means of

weaving the strands of each piece into another for the
purpose of strengthening or forming a longer belt.

Belt Class

An indication of the minimum breaking strength of the

conveyor belt related to the belt width and thickness

Page 15 of 108

Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Introduction to the Belt Conveyor
A belt conveyor is basically a mechanical apparatus, connected via pulleys, idlers
and drive systems with the basic function of transporting bulk material from one
location in a mine to another. The conveyor is essentially the linkage between the
mining, processing and storage phases in a plant. Conveyors are manufactured for
the handling and distribution of bulk materials in a plant environment and can be in
many configurations; such as In-plant, Overland, Pipe, Gearless Drive, Shiftable and
Horizontally Curved conveyors [27].
In-plant conveyors are often a part of the production process and must fit specific
needs such as special belt covers to withstand oily, hot or abrasive materials.
Overland conveyors are often employed when bulk materials are to be transported
over long distances. The system is designed in accordance with the type and volume
of material to be handled, the existing topography of the route, as well as the
prevailing climatic conditions [6], [27].

Gearless Conveyor Drives are suitable for deeper mines requiring larger, longer and
more powerful conveying systems to compensate for decreasing ore grades and to
achieve a more efficient materials handling system [6]. Pipe conveyors are suitable
for when there are limitations to the workable landscape of the plant, tight vertical or
horizontal curve requirements, or where the need for protection against weatherrelated or environmental issues is imperative. They are also beneficial where the
need to have accurate belt training and reduced material spillage is amplified. The
shiftable conveyor system consists of portable conveyor modules mounted on
sleepers and connected by rail. The conveyor modules are moved sideways by the
bending action of the rail which is caused by a side tractor with a crane-suspending
shifting unit. The application of horizontally curved conveyors is for when overland
conveyors are unable to link the loading point and the discharge point in a straight a
straight line due to landscape obstructions, right-of-way limitations or any other
reasons [6] [28].

[Introduction]

Page 16 of 108

1.1.1 The Anatomy of a Conveyor

The typical structure of a conveyor assembly is such as depicted in the figure below:

Figure 1: Basic conveyor assembly [7]

Where:
1=

Take-up weight

2=

Tail pulley, also the take-up pulley in this diagram

3=

Impact idlers

4=

Skirt board

5=

Conveyor belt

6=

Carry idlers

7=

Head pulley, also the drive pulley in this diagram

8=

Discharge chute

9=

Belt scraper

10=

Snub pulley

11=

Conveyor drive electric motor, connected via fluid coupling to gearbox which
is coupled to the drive pulley shaft.

12=

Return idlers

13=

Belt plow/ Vee scraper plow

1.1.1.1 Take-up Weight

The take-up weight is the assemblage of the necessary structural and mechanical
parts, in the form of a counter-weight, which provides the means to adjust the length
[Introduction]

Page 17 of 108

of the belt to compensate for stretch, shrinkage or wear and to maintain proper
tension in the system [8].

1.1.1.2 The Pulley

A pulley is a cylindrical cross-section polygonal wheel with a bored centre for

mounting onto a shaft [9]. Pulleys in conveyors are used mainly to lift loads, apply
forces, transmit power and to support the movement of the belt along its
circumference.

The Conveyor
Pulley

Figure 2: The Conveyor Pulley [11]

1.1.1.3 Head Pulley

The head pulley is located at the discharge end of the conveyor belt and is the
location where the ore is pitched out on top in a trajectory motion onto the stockpile.

1.1.1.4 Drive Pulley

The drive pulley is the fixed pulley in the conveyor system that receives energy from
a power source (the conveyor drive motor) via the pulley shaft and transfers it to the
rest of the conveyor.

[Introduction]

Page 18 of 108

1.1.1.5 Tail Pulley

A tail pulley is a pulley mounted at the tail-end of the conveyor with the purpose of
returning the belt [8].

1.1.1.6 Take-up Pulley

The take-up pulley is the pulley that accommodates the changes in the length of the
belt conveyor to maintain proper belt tension.

1.1.1.7 Snub Pulley

The snub pulley, usually smaller in diameter, is used to increase the arc of contact
between the drive pulley and the conveyor belt [8].

1.1.1.8 Idlers

Conveyor belts are typically supported on idler rollers. An idler is essentially a

relatively smaller sized pulley on a shaft that presses against a drive belt in order to
guide it or take up excess slack [10].

1.1.1.9 Carry Idlers

Carry idlers are positioned along the top carry side of the belt. They typically are in
a frame with three or five rolls of equal length forming the belt into the best troughed
profile to carry the material load along the belt cross section.

[Introduction]

Page 19 of 108

Figure 3: Carry Idlers [10]

1.1.1.10 Return Idlers

For handling nominal bulk load and for supporting the belt on the return side, straight
idlers termed return idlers are used. These idlers are mostly single or double
straight rollers positioned between brackets attached directly to the conveyor frame.

Figure 4: A Return Idler [10]

1.1.1.11 Impact Idlers

Impact idlers are positioned where the lump size and weight of the material may
seriously damage the belt; typically at the loading point underneath the conveyor

[Introduction]

Page 20 of 108

chute or hopper. Impact idlers usually consist of three rolls, each being made of
spaced resilient discs.

Figure 5: Impact Idlers [10]

1.1.1.12 Skirt Board

Skirtboards are used to contain the load as the material is placed onto the belt until it
assumes a stable profile. They are installed along the transfer points of the conveyor
in order to reduce spillage as well as maintenance and operating costs by providing
a reliable and continuous dust tight seal along the conveyor belt.

Figure 6: The Skirtboard [11]

1.1.1.13 Discharge Chute

The discharge chute is fundamentally a trough or channel through which material ore
is deposited or guided down by gravity at the discharge end of the conveyor. The
design can be in the form of a slider bed or a roller/ wheel bed.

[Introduction]

Page 21 of 108

Figure 7: The Discharge Chute [11]

1.1.1.14 The Primary Scraper

Sometimes termed the pre-cleaner or the doctor blade, the Primary Scraper is
installed on the face of the head pulley, just before the trajectory of the material
discharging from the belt. The Primary Scraper allows for the material removed from
the belt to fall in with the main cargo as it leaves the belt as well as the shearing of
the coarse grit off the carryback layer of the belt [11], [29].

Figure 8: The Primary Scraper [11]

1.1.1.15 The Secondary Scraper

The Secondary Scraper is located on the secondary position on the return side of the
belt between the head pulley and the snub pulley. The Secondary Scraper is
dedicated to performing the fine cleaning of the material; allowing the removed
carryback to return to the main material flow by gravity [11], [29].
[Introduction]

Page 22 of 108

Figure 9: The Secondary Scraper [11]

1.1.1.16 Belt/ Vee Plow

The Belt Plow is utilized to protect the tail, bend and sometimes head pulleys from
the damage caused by the spillage of large rocks as the belt is being loaded to
capacity on the carrying run [29].

Figure 10: The Belt/ Vee Plow [11]

1.1.1.17 Conveyor Drive

A Conveyor Drive unit consists mainly of a drive motor, a gearbox as well as a

coupling and provides the motive power for a conveyor. The Drive Motor converts
electricity into mechanical energy or motion whilst the Coupling connects the shaft
on the Motor to the one on the Gearbox. The Gearbox transmits the mechanical
energy from Motor, via the Coupling, to the drive pulley in order to give motive power
to the conveyor.
[Introduction]

Page 23 of 108

Drive Motor

Coupling
Gearbox

Figure 11: The Conveyor Drive Unit [13]

1.1.1.18 Conveyor Belt

The Conveyor Belt is a loop of flexible material, positioned between two or more
pulleys, idlers, drives, chutes, structural steel as well as transfer points and is used
to convey and transfer bulk goods in motion from one point in a belt drive system to
another.
The belt is typically made of rubber with three distinct layers:
1. The carcass, which is the inner layer that provides the shape and linear
strength of the belt; typically made of cotton or plastic web or mesh. The
carcass also limits stretch, withstands tension and provides the means for the
belt to be spliced (joined).
2. The top cover, which is the top layer of the belt where the material rests,
made from various rubber or plastic compounds specified by the intended use
and application of the belt.
3. The bottom cover which supports the underneath part of the belt.

Belts are made of various types of materials and come in different configurations;
depending on the material to be conveyed, the operating environment, length of the
conveyor as well as the maximum belt tension.
[Introduction]

Page 24 of 108

The Conveyor
Belt

Figure 12: The Conveyor Belt [11]

The three main types of conveyor belt constructions are: 1. The multiply carcass
construction 2. The solid woven carcass construction and 3. The Steelcord
construction.

The Multiply Carcass Construction

The Multiply carcass construction is the most versatile and hence most widely used
belt construction. This is the best type of configuration for hard ores and other
abrasive materials where the conveyor length is less than 1000 meters and the belt
tension is up to 125 kN /m [14].

[Introduction]

Page 25 of 108

Top Cover

Carcass

Bottom Cover

Figure 13: Multiply Construction [14]

This type of belting is categorized by means of ranges of classes and types,

according to the SANS 1173 standard, and can be manufactured in various forms to
be heat resistant, oil resistant and fire resistant (SANS 971) [14].

The Solid Woven Construction

This type of carcass construction is applicable in fiery mines, particularly where coal
is conveyed, as it is the most economic conveyor belt available for that application. It
is typically manufactured with either cotton reinforced PVC covers or Nitrile rubber
covers for extended life. It is suitable for belt tensions up to 160 kN/m [14].

Top Cover

Carcass

Figure 14: Solid Woven Construction [14]

[Introduction]

Page 26 of 108

This type of belting conforms to the SANS 971 standard and the rubber is Nitrile
covered for abrasion resistance and increased life expectancy [14].

Steelcord Construction

The Steel cord construction is the most economic carcass choice for long conveyors
where the belt tension is greater than 125 kN/m [14].

Top Cover

Carcass

Bottom Cover

Figure 15: Steel Cord Construction

This type of belting is manufactured to the SANS 1366 standard with very high
ranges of tensile strength and belt widths [14].
All the components described in the sub-sections above typically form the belt
conveyor system.

1.2 Introduction to the Problem Statement

Since their inception in the 20th century [54] belt conveyors have been the heart and
soul of mines across the globe as they introduced an economical and efficient
manner of conveying material from one location in a plant to another. This has been
additionally heightened by their growth in length and increase in power and
capacities

whilst

reducing

their

specific

energy

consumption.

Their

main

disadvantage though is that they have a limited ability to negotiate vertical and
horizontal curves because their flexibility decreases as the belt tension increases.
The increase in the belt tension of conveyors is directly proportional to the increase
in belt length [54]. For this reason researchers and engineering practitioners in the
[Introduction]

Page 27 of 108

Bulk Materials Handling industry have been for many years trying to optimize the
design technology around conveyors, aiming to construct conveyors that are not only
longer in flight lengths but also economic to install and maintain in the long run. One
such example is the LSL/ Tekpro Dual Carry overland conveyor at Anglo Americans
Namakwa Sands operations where a dual carry conveyor of length 14km was
installed to replace three flights of conveyors in order to reduce costs [31]. Another is
the conveyors studied by N. Addyman where the economic considerations of extralong flight conveyors were measured. This was done by analysing the reliability and
effects of technical parameters on a single-flight conveyor of 12 900m and another
made up of three flights of conveyors of 5 5150m, 4 300m and 3 450m respectively.
It was found that over the long term the single-flight overland conveyor system
running at a higher velocity was much more favourable than three-flight overland
conveyor system [17]. Furthermore, much research has been conducted by several
investigators aiming to attest the efficiency of single flight conveyors over multiple
flight conveyors, the details of which shall be explored further in the text in chapter 2.

With there being several organizations and engineering practitioners who have
delved into the possibility of combining or extending conveyor flights in order to form
longer, single flights of conveyors so as to economize on the operational and
maintenance costs, it was only fitting for Bateman Engineered Technologies (BET) to
also explore this possibility when it came to quantifying the two overland conveyors
of the Sasol Impumelelo project. The background of the engineering company BET
shall be given next in sub-section 1.3.

1.3 Bateman Engineered Technologies History

BET (Bateman Engineered Technologies) is part of the wider Bateman group and
specialises in supplying niche products and system solutions for the Bulk Materials
Handling, Pneumatic Conveying, Environmental Control, Mineral Processing, Power
Generation and Cement industries. The core of the existence of the Bulk Materials
Handling Division of the business is for the Design and Project Construction
Management of bulk materials handling systems and ore beneficiation plants on a
global basis. Systems designed include: In-Plant Conveyor Systems, Overland
[Introduction]

Page 28 of 108

Conveying Systems, Blending Stockpile Systems, Rail Mounted Stackers and Reclaim Systems, Ship Loading Systems, Rapid Rail/ Road LoadOut Systems,
Crushing and Screening Plants as well as Run of Mine and Product Tips [1].
BET became interested in analysing the trade-off between single flight overland
conveyors and multiple flight conveyors when a proposal for energy and chemicals
company Sasol was being put together for tender purposes. Within this process the
prospect of replacing the recommended two flights of overland conveyors, which
were to transport coal from 15 000 tonne bunker into an external storage facility, with
a single-flight overland conveyor system was identified. This proposed single-flight
conveyor system is believed to be capable of offering substantial savings on the life
cycle costs of the entire plant as well as eliminating the problems that are typically
encountered with the multiple flight conveyor configurations such as material
degradation due to multiple transfer stations as well as high operational costs.
These problems, which form the problem statement for the dissertation, shall be
discussed further in sub-section 1.4 below.

1.4 Problem Statement

Material wastage through spillage or degradation is one of the biggest causes for the
loss of productivity and increase in operational expenses in mining plants [21]. It also
is the main reason for the continual requirement for regular costly maintenance at
the plants [19]. The main cause of spillage and degradation is the existence of
multiple transfer points and transfer stations which are necessary when material is
being transferred from one conveyor to another. Traditionally, shorter, multiple flight
conveyors have always been utilized for the purpose of transporting bulk material
from one location in a mine to another because of the restriction in the attainable belt
tension. Recently however troughed belt conveyors of lengths exceeding 15 km in a
single flight have been fabricated with the necessity to further extend their length,
capacity as well as speed and strength while minimizing power and improving
efficiencies [18]. The motives, stated by L Nordell [18] as to why the use of multiple
flight conveyors should be restricted are for the reason that each additional conveyor
flight [18]:

[Introduction]

Page 29 of 108

Reduces belt life by multiplying the wear rate generated by the transfer.

Reduces conveyor availability or total throughput by 1% per conveyor.

Increases capital and operational costs.

Increases maintenance and downtime to repair transfer equipment and extra

pulleys and turnovers.

Increases risks of belt damage and the consequences from tears, punctures
and fires.

Increases fugitive ore carryback which decreases return idler life.

Decreases power efficiency: each 1000 t/h transferred requires about 4.5 kW
to accelerate the material to 4.5 m/s, this value increases to 10 kW to
accelerate the material to 6 m/s.

Eliminates the transfer sequential flow control required to simultaneously

regulate stopping the conveyors

With the above in mind and taking into consideration the statement by author
Graham Short [20] that the excessive loss of raw materials in mines can be
minimized through efficient conveyor system design and installation; it makes
practical sense that the shortfalls encountered in multiple flight conveyors be
combated by efficient design of longer, single flight conveyors. The problem
statement for this dissertation therefore is:

The configuration and layout of multiple flight conveyors and their supporting
structures contribute to the overall disadvantage in the systems reliability, availability
and maintainability as well as its life cycle costs over the life-span of the plant. For
this reason an alternative conveyor configuration with a single flight configuration
shall be investigated in order to establish possible areas where savings could be
achieved.

The next section of this chapter focuses on the significance of the investigation as
well as the impact its outcomes will have on the global mining industry as a whole.

[Introduction]

Page 30 of 108

1.5 Importance of Investigation

In the mining industry, the main modus of transporting bulk materials such coal, iron
ores, sand and rocks over long distances and from one location in the plant to
another is by means of a conveyor. A conveyor is basically a mechanical apparatus,
connected via pulleys, idlers and drive systems with the basic function of
transporting material from one location in a mine to another [22]. The conveyor is
essentially the linkage between the mining, processing and storage phases in a
plant.
Conveyors are manufactured for the handling and distribution of bulk materials in a
plant environment and can be in the form of In-plant or Overland conveyor
configurations. In-plant conveyors are often part of the production process and must
fit specific needs, such as special belt covers to withstand oily, hot or abrasive
materials. Overland conveyors are often employed when bulk materials are to be
transported over long distances. The system is designed in accordance with the type
and volume of material to be handled, the existing topography of the route, as well
as the prevailing climatic conditions [6].
This dissertation is centred on overland conveyors. It is important because the
results emerging from the investigation will influence the way coal and other ore
material plants are designed in terms implementing long single-flight overland
conveyors where shorter, multiple-flight conveyors would have been commonly
used. It will also highlight areas (such as underlined by LK Nordell [18]) where
conveyor systems designing could be significantly improved to eliminate material
spillage and degradation as well as underline the areas where cost savings could be
realized through efficient system design for the global mining industry.
In the next sub-section the details of the rationale of the investigation shall be given.

1.6 Rationale of Investigation

The proposal for the investigation came about as the BETBulk Materials Handling
team was putting together a tender for a client who had a two-flight overland
[Introduction]

Page 31 of 108

conveyor transporting coal from a 15 000 tonne bunker into an external stockpile
storage facility as part of the project outputs [23]. The question came about as to
whether the two-flight overland arrangement was the optimum configuration for the
transportation of the material or if possibly, an optimized, single-flight overland
solution with additional advantages could be offered as an alternative solution.

By performing a quick analysis, the possible additional value and advantages that
could be achieved by opting to utilize the single-flight overland model as opposed to
the two-flight model were established as follows [3]:

The single flight overland conveyor structure would eliminate the need for a
conveyor transfer tower and two belt turnovers to rotate the belt and hence
lead to a reduction in the amount of civil and mechanical work to be
conducted, as well as a decreased degradation and spillage risk.

Technically, reducing and combining the number of overland conveyors from

two to one could lead to a system that is easier to engineer, procure and
maintain in the long run.

Lastly, the overall Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) of a single-flight overland

conveyor could be significantly less than that of the two-flight overland
conveyor. This is due to the estimated decreased amount steelwork, civils,
number of components as well as physical labour and maintenance that
would go into the construction of a single-flight conveyor.

In order for the above assumptions to be fully substantiated; a complete investigation

into the life cycle costs as well as the maintainability, availability, and reliability of the
single-flight overland conveyor versus the two-flight overland conveyor would have to
be conducted. This will be done by means of utilizing actual project data to compare
the two overland conveyor systems economically, practicality, and by analysing the
overall management of each system.

The scope of the investigation shall be defined in the subsequent sub-section where
the research questions shall be fully laid-out with the aim of finding answerers to
match these questions at the end of the dissertation.

[Introduction]

Page 32 of 108

1.7 Scope of the Dissertation Investigation

The scope of the dissertation is to investigate which between the single-flight
overland conveyor and the two-flight overland conveyor models pertaining to the
Sasol Impumelelo project is the more superior design structure. This is done by
analysing the different components that are encompassed in the Life Cycle Costs
(LCC) for the two systems and is rationalized by comparing the two systems in terms
of reliability, practicality, economics and overall system management. The reason for
the investigation is to provide the end-user with the most optimal design and overall
technical solution, the most economical solution with minimal power consumption
and, to provide a solution that leaves the most favourable environmental footprint.
The other reason for the investigation is to provide the global mining industry with
calculated and validated results pertaining to the ever existing question between the
efficiency of single flight versus multiple flight conveyors.

1.7.1 Dissertation Objectives

The dissertation objectives are to:

Use actual project data to do comparative calculations between the singleflight and two-flight overland conveyor systems to prove which design
configuration is the more economical, reliable and efficient one to employ.

To use the same project data to prove which system between the two design
configurations is the more practically maintainable system over the life-span
of the mining plant.

The results emerging from this investigation will identify factors contributing to the
overall total cost of ownership of single-flight conveyors versus two-flight conveyors
for any mining plant on a global scale. They will also add to the existing body of
knowledge in the mining and bulk materials handing industry as a whole.

[Introduction]

Page 33 of 108

1.7.2 Research Questions

To investigate whether the designed layout configuration of conveyor contributed to

its eventual capital and operational costs, as well as the eventual maintenance
demands for its expected life span; the following questions were asked:
a. Research question 1: How much are the individual component costs that
make up the initial capital, and running operational costs for the single-flight
and two-flight conveyor overland systems?
b. Research question 2: How labour intensive will the maintenance
requirements for the single-flight versus the two-flight conveyor configuration
be? And how costly will the maintenance be in terms of time and money?

If it can be proven that the cost of installing and operating the two-flight conveyor
system is much more expensive over the expected life-span of the plant and that the
existence of additional transfer towers leads to material degradation; then it can be
shown that the single-flight conveyor configuration is the better system to employ.
The investigation process followed to answer the research questions is explained in
the next sub-section.

1.8 Investigation Process

To carry out the investigation process a combination of the structured research
approaches adopted by the Miami University of Ohio [24] as well as Jan Hanacek
[25] were engaged. The investigation process that was followed is illustrated in the
figure on the next page.

[Introduction]

Page 34 of 108

Ask the Research Question

Investigation Design
Qualitative

Quantitative

Do Background Research
-

Conduct literature review based on course

theory
Conduct literature review based on
overland conveyors

Construct Hypothesis
-Define and design research, set research objectives and
underline design scope

Test with Experiments

-

Data collection
Experimental setup
Detailed calculations

Re-evaluate
Analyse Results
-

Analysis and interpretation of results

Draw Conclusion

Hypothesis is True

Hypothesis is False
or Partially True
Report Results

Figure 16: The Investigation Process

[Introduction]

Page 35 of 108

The process on figure 16 was applied during the research process and is described
in the paragraphs below.

1.8.1 Ask the Research Question

The trigger point for venturing into the investigation was when the question of
whether the two flights of overland conveyors transporting material from the 15 000
tonne bunker into an external stockpile storage facility could not be replaced with a
more efficient, cost saving single-flight conveyor system. This took place during the
execution of the Sasol Impumelelo tender bid. It was then discovered that this
philosophy was not unique to the BET proposals team as other engineering firms
and researchers such as LK Nordell [18] have previously encountered similar
situations.

1.8.2 Investigation Design

The first step was to decide on the information gathering methodology; there are two
types of methods that currently exist: the qualitative and quantitative methods. The
qualitative approach affirms that a fairly lengthy and deep involvement in the natural
settings of the investigation be taken. It allows the researcher to gain an
understanding of the underlying reasons and motivations behind the research and is
based on a small number of non-repetitive cases. The quantitative approach is
detached and objective. It is done in order to quantify data and generalize results
from a sample to the population of interest. The incidence of various views and
opinions is measured from a chosen sample representing the population of interest
[26]. The quantitative approach was chosen to carry out this dissertation research.

1.8.3 Do Background Research

Firstly background research based on relevant course theory was done and then
general research on the anatomy, components and operation of conveyors was done
in order to give the reader an in-depth understanding of the functionally of overland
conveyors. Afterwards a literature review of similar work done by other researchers
[Introduction]

Page 36 of 108

was conducted with the aim of ascertaining the validity and importance of the
dissertation investigation as well as setting literature benchmarks.

1.8.4 Construct Hypothesis

Following that, the hypothesis for the investigation was constructed. In the case of
this particular dissertation the hypothesis is set as follows: If it can be proven that the
cost of operating a two-flight conveyor system is much more expensive over the
expected life-span of the plant and that the existence of additional transfer towers
leads to material spillage and degradation, then it can be shown that the single flight
conveyor configuration is the better system to employ.
The methodology for the investigation was then defined and designed followed by a
definition of the investigation objectives and underlining the design scope. It was
decided to follow the method of performing the investigation similar to the form of a
trade-off study between single-flight and two-flight overland conveyors taken from
the Sasol Impumelelo project.

1.8.5 Test with Experiments

The next phase in the planning of the investigation process was to test the
hypothesis with some experiments. Thus actual project design, technical and
procurement data was collected and organized into conveyor-component specific
categories and then detailed calculations pertaining to the economical viability and
maintainability of the two conveyor systems were done. The calculations for the twoflight conveyor system were performed under experimental setup number one and
the ones for the single-flight conveyor system were performed under experimental
setup number two.

1.8.6 Analyse Results

Following the detailed calculations, the results obtained from the experimental
setups of the two-flight and single-flight overland conveyor systems were analysed
and interpreted to ultimately establish which, between the two conveyor systems, is
the more superior one.
[Introduction]

Page 37 of 108

1.8.7 Draw Conclusion

From the analysis of the results gathered from the two experiments, a final
conclusion was drawn. It was then re-tested to check whether the initial hypothesis
proved to be true thus agreeing with the results, or false and disagreeing with the
results found.

1.8.8 Report Results

From the experimental design setups, the calculations carried out and analysis of the
results drawn from the comparisons; the overall results are reported. This is done
throughout the body of the dissertation through miniature summaries at the end of
each chapter and then finally at the end at the concluding phase of the dissertation.

1.9 Dissertation Report Layout

In the dissertation, the following reporting layout is followed:
Firstly, a literature review is done on chapter 2 with the aim of studying and
understanding the basic anatomy of a conveyor, including how all the components
synergise and work together to make the conveyor function accordingly.
Then, existing literature of similar studies done by other authors is explored with the
purpose of comparing and contrasting results found and also to establish a
benchmark for my own findings rooting from this dissertation.
Following that, detailed design descriptions for both the single-flight and two-flight
overland conveyors are given in chapters 4 and 5 and furthermore; calculations and
estimations based on life cycle costs and reliability management theory are made in
chapters 6 and 7.
Lastly, final conclusions are drawn and a final recommendation is made after a
detailed analysis of the results.
[Introduction]

Page 38 of 108

1.10 Conclusion and Introduction of Next Chapter

In this chapter the introduction to the content of the dissertation was given. To start
off, the problem statement was outlined and then the importance of the study was
emphasized followed by the scope of the investigation. Towards the final stage of the
introduction the investigation process was mapped out where the research
methodology was broken down into the various steps. After the details of the
dissertation structure and report methodology were illustrated; the relevant conveyor
jargon and terminology were expalined in the subsequent subsection and then an
inclusive literature review was given in chapter 2 following that.

To bring the chapter to a close, the purpose of this dissertation is defined as: to
investigate which between the single-flight overland conveyor model and the twoflight overland conveyor model is the superior design by analysing the different
components that are encompassed in the systems life cycle costs in terms of
reliability, practicality, economics as well as overall system management. This is
done in order to provide the end-user with the most optimal design and overall
technical solution, the most economical solution with minimal power consumption
and, to provide a solution that leaves the most favourable environmental footprint.

[Introduction]

Page 39 of 108

Chapter 2: Literature Review

In this chapter a literature review of applicable course theory is done and related
literature by other researchers is explored. Furthermore, a brief study of other
existing long overland conveyor systems is made including a comparison of the cost
effectiveness as well as reliability of the systems in order to set the literature
benchmarks.

2.1 Discussion of Applicable Course Theory

According to Reliability Management [5] and Engineering Economics [4] course
theory; the following methodologies may be utilized to perform the necessary life
cycle costs and overall system maintainability comparisons between the two-flight
and single-flight overland conveyor configurations: Total Cost of Ownership and
Reliability Management tools:

2.1.1 Life Cycle Costs

The Life Cycle Costs (LCC) analysis method is a tool for comparing one or more
alternatives which encompasses performing cost estimates over the entire system
life span for those alternatives being compared. With this method, the costs from the
very early stages of the project (needs assessment stage) through to the final stage
(phase-out and disposal stage) are estimated. LCC is most effectively applied when
a substantial percentage of the total costs over the system life span, relative to the
initial investment, will be operating and maintenance costs [4].

LCC estimates may be categorised into two main phases of: acquisition and
operation:

Acquisition Phase

Requirements definition phase includes determination of user/ customer

needs, assessing them relative to the anticipated system and preparation of
the system requirements documentation.

[Literature Review]

Page 40 of 108

Preliminary design phase includes performing a feasibility study, conceptual

and early stage plans as well as important go and no-go meetings.

Detailed design phase includes detailed plans for resources, human capital,
facilities, information systems, marketing etc.

Operations Phase

Construction and implementation phase includes purchasing, testing,

construction and implementation of system components etc.

Usage phase where the system products and services are generated.

Phase-out and disposal phase the stage for the transition into a new
system or the removal/ recycling of an old system.

The capital costs will therefore be calculated based on the information emerging
from the acquisition phase of the project and the operational costs will be calculated
based on the information emerging from the operations phase of the project.

2.1.2 Reliability Management

Reliability Management is a measure of the products or systems performance,

dependability and quality [5]. It is determined by establishing whether the product or
system complies with the customers expectations and value systems such as [5]:

Technical performance

Acquisition cost

Operating and running costs (LCC)

Availability

Several calculations and estimations shall be done using these tools on the singleflight overland conveyor as well as on the two-flight overland conveyor in order to
determine which, between the two conveyor configurations is the more sustainable
system. The sustainability between the two conveyor configurations is analysed in
terms of practicality, costs and economical viability as well as overall system
management.
[Literature Review]

Page 41 of 108

In the next sub-section comparable theory by other authors is discussed in order to

get a deeper understanding of similar applicable work that has been done related to
the subject as well as to establish the literature benchmarks.

2.3 Discussion of Applicable Literature by Other Authors

In the sub-section below, an investigation into several existing, similar studies done
by other authors and engineering practitioners is made. This is done with the aim of
setting a benchmark to which to compare the results found throughout the
dissertation investigation.

2.3.1 Literature A: Performance Characteristics of the Inlet Section of a Screw Conveyor

In this paper, C.S Chang and J.L Steele investigate the performance characteristics
of the inlet section of a screw conveyor by constructing the inlet part with a hopper
that is adjustable in flight length. The conveyor rotational speed and incline angle
were also made adjustable in order to evaluate the effects of flight type, incline
angle, intake length and rotational speed on grain damage, power requirement,
conveying capacity as well as the conveying energy efficiency of the conveyor.
Three types of screw flighting were used in the experiments: Type A was a singleflight standard pitch screw; type B was a double-flight standard pitch screw; and type
C was a single-flight standard pitch screw with the outer edge of the screw widened
with an external strip. Corn damage tests for each type of setup were done by
placing each lot of corn in a hopper bottom bin with an adjustable gate at the bottom.
The corn in each scenario was run through a conveyor several times and then fed
through a grain cleaner to determine the weight of the material so as to calculate the
percentage of broken corn and fine materials. The same weight of corn from each
lot was used to determine the power requirements and conveying energy
efficiencies.
After the above mentioned experiments, these were the findings: Flight type B
(double-flight standard) required less power and yielded a slightly higher conveying
[Literature Review]

Page 42 of 108

capacity and energy efficiency but caused more damage to the corn (degradation)
than flight type A and C. It was also found that equipping the conveyor with a long
intake hopper, such as in flight type C, slightly increased the capacity but required
significantly more power [16]. This outcome demonstrates that conveyors with
double flights or more cause breakage or degradation to the material being
conveyed but conveyors with a single flight arrangement are less damaging to the
material and yield a higher conveying capacity even though they require slightly
more power.

2.3.2 Literature B: Economic Considerations of Extra Long Flight Conveyors

In the article Economic Considerations of Extra Long Flight Conveyors the reliability
and effects of the technical parameters on two overland conveyors were considered:
the first was a 12 900m long single-flight overland conveyor and the second was an
overland conveyor of the same length but split into three flights of 5 150m, 4 300m
and 3 450m respectively.

Upon the evaluation of the capital costs; it was noted that for the three-flight
conveyor system costs were distributed evenly between the belting, mechanical and
structural categories whereas for the single-flight conveyor, the belting costs became
very expensive - contributing to 60% of the capital outlay therefore outweighing any
possible savings that could have been achieved on the structural and mechanical
components.

When comparing the belt maintenance and overall operational costs for the two
systems; it was found that the single-flight conveyor had a tendency to be more costeffective with a further slight advantage when the velocity of the belt was increased.
The single-flight systems also proved to be more superior when analysing the
equivalent annual cost for over 30 years of operation for each system. The belt life
expectancy and frequency of replacement calculations on the two models also
showed that the single-flight conveyor yielded a much more improved performance
as opposed to the three-flight conveyor.

[Literature Review]

Page 43 of 108

In conclusion it was found by N. Addyman et al. that over the long term, the singleflight overland conveyor system running at a higher velocity was much more
favourable than the three-flight overland conveyor system but, methodologies for
decreasing belt tensions and hence the belt class and costs still need to be
introduced in order to lower the total overall costs [17].

2.3.3 Literature C: Overland Conveyors Designed for Efficient Cost and Performance

In this paper, the possibility of extending the conveyor length, capacity, speed and
strength while minimizing power requirements and improving cost efficiencies by
utilizing proven technology is investigated. These improvements are measured in
terms of the tonnes of material that can be delivered per km as well as the total life
cycle costs. Capital and operating cost optimization procedures are also discussed.

On investigating how long one really could make a single-flight conveyor and when
one should consider making the conveyor more than one flight, these were the
findings [18]:

The belt cover is responsible for 50 70 % of the power consumption on most

overland conveyors hence; incorporating low rolling resistance rubber
compounds would lead to a reduction in the motor size, belt rating and
structural loads which would in turn make allowance for longer overland
conveyors to be utilized.

Idlers have a significant impact on the capital costs, operating costs and
maintenance level of a conveyor. Employing a mechanically longer conveyor
would allow for idlers spaced at much longer pitch distances on both the carry
and return sides. It was found that, in general, power consumption increases
as idler spacing increases but decreases as idler diameter increases and that
longer idler spacing reduces the capital costs of the conveyor.

It was also discovered that single-flight, horizontally curved overland

conveyors surpass multiple-flight conveyors as they eliminate transfer
stations. In addition, each additional conveyor flight: [18]

[Literature Review]

Page 44 of 108

1. Reduces belt life by multiplying the wear rate generated by the

transfer.
2. Reduces conveyor availability or total throughput by 1% per conveyor.
3. Increases capital and operational costs.
4. Increases maintenance and downtime to repair transfer equipment
and extra pulleys and turnovers.
5. Increases risks of belt damage and the consequences from tears,
punctures and fires.
6. Increases fugitive ore carryback which decreases return idler life.
7. Decreases power efficiency: each 1000 t/h transferred requires about
4.5 kW to accelerate the material to 4.5 m/s, this value increases to
10 kW to accelerate the material to 6 m/s.
8. Eliminates

the

transfer

sequential

flow

control

required

to

simultaneously regulate stopping the conveyors.

Transfer loading points account for over 95% of the belt covers wear life as
they expose the belt to a greater risk to puncture, gouging, tear and fire
damage. Consequently; the longer the conveyor, the lessor the need for
transfer points and the more reduced the risk of belt cover wear.

Resolving from the findings above, it was found that modern technology software
such as power analysis and viscoelasticity tools show that single-flight overland
conveyors have a distinct advantage over multiple-flight conveyors from a theoretical
point of view. It is left unto the designers, engineers and relevant stakeholders to
verify whether the field test results will yield tangible practical outcomes as expected.

2.3.4 Literature D: Lean and Mean Conveyor Design for the Nineties

In this paper S Zamorano investigates the plausibility of a Mean and Lean modern
conveyor design methodology using the latest technology available to design
conveyor systems with minimal capital and operating costs but with maximum
availability. These latest technologies explored include computer simulations, high
speed belts, belt resistances, the use of horizontally curved conveyors, long single

[Literature Review]

Page 45 of 108

flight conveyors (including their dynamic behaviour) and steep inclined conveyors
[30].

When the Bulk commodities market became depressed due to the world-wide
economic recession increase, the need for economically efficient transport of bulk
materials became more imperative. The main problem was identified as the overly
conservative approach to conveyor design which leads to over-sized and overdesigned conveyor systems that are too expensive. One of the solutions established
by S Zamorano was for the design engineer to reduce the ignorance factor of over
design by putting more effort into producing efficient designs [30].

One such efficient design approach was identified as to eliminate the transfer point.
This resolution came about after a cost analysis of a conveyor indicated that a large
portion of the cost of a conveyor system lies at the transfer points. This was found to
be true for both the capital and operating costs of the conveyor, proving that a single
flight conveyor in most cases will be cheaper to build and operate than a multiple
flight system. According to S Zamorano, in order to avoid the intermediate transfer
stations, linear or booster drives may be employed to achieve the single-flight
conveyor configuration. A booster drive is formed by an auxiliary belt positioned
under the main one that transfers driving power to belt friction by means of the belt.
In this manner the belt tension can be reduced to achieve the configuration of a very
long overland conveyor [30].

In conclusion, S Zamorano established that imperative cost savings can be achieved

by eliminating transfer towers and replacing multiple flight conveyors with long single
conveyors. This can be easily achieved by employing booster drives which proved to
lead to a 30% cost saving after a preliminary study on a 21km conveyor system [30].

2.3.5 Literature E: The Design and Implementation of the LSL/ Tekpro Dual Carry
Overland Conveyor

In this paper G. Shortt et al. investigate three options to reduce operating costs on
the main overland system feeding ROM sands to the primary concentrator plant at

[Literature Review]

Page 46 of 108

the East mine at Anglo Americans Namakwa Sands operations. The operation
consisted of three flights of conveyors over a combined length of 3 km. Tailings from
the plant were trucked over a similar distance but it was later realized that the
distance would need to increase rapidly in the near future as trucking costs were
escalating [31].
The three options considered for reducing future operating costs were:
1. Move the primary concentrator plant closer to the mine.
2. Install a return conveying system for the tails in parallel with the ROM feed
conveyors.
3. Install a dual carry conveyor to replace the existing system.
Upon thorough analysis of all three options, it was discovered that the Primary
Concentrator Plant would be extremely difficult to move in practise so it was no
longer considered feasible. It was also determined that a separate return conveying
system would give rise to low availability and twice the amount of hardware so the
return conveying system was also considered unfeasible. The logical choice then
became the Dual Carry Conveyor (DCC) option [31].
The DCC had an initial design length of 3.5km but was finally increased to a longer
conveying distance of 14km. For the new, longer DCC conveyor to be considered a
success; it had to be extremely easy to maintain despite its length and it had to
possess the highest availability [31].
After an actual operating time of five months at Anglo Americans Namakwa Sands
mine, the LSL Tekpro DCC was found to yield a high availability, low risk and, low
capital and operating costs proving that longer conveyors are far cheaper and more
efficient than shorter conveyors [31].

2.3.6 Literature F: The Metso Rope Conveyor

In this article Metso Minerals Industries gives an overview of their rope cable belt
conveyor which is their latest development in long distance conveying. Cable belt
rope driven conveyors have a long standing reputation for reliability and low
[Literature Review]

Page 47 of 108

operating costs [32].

The cable belt conveyor is customarily employed as the

primary link in the transportation chain and the longest single-flight conveyors in the
world today are cable belt systems [32]. The Metso Rope Conveyor (MRC) cable belt
conveyor builds on the proven technology of the older cable belt designs.

The main advantage of the MRC cable belt conveyor is its ability to negotiate tight
curves making it ideal for long distance, high capacity systems such as single-flight
overland conveyors. It can also negotiate very difficult topography in a single-flight
with minimal disturbance to the environment and without intermediate transfer points.
The elimination of the transfer points added to the build-in robust operability lead to
an additional advantage of minimized maintenance costs on the conveyor belt. Other
advantages cited by Metso are the MRC belts lower comparative installed, operating
and maintenance costs in addition to the fact that the installable conveyor lengths
can reach up to 50 kilometres [32].

In closing, the MRC cable belt is proven technology that efficient single-flight
overland conveyors of lengths reaching up to 50 kilometres can be successfully
installed and operated without much difficulty. Even more so, these conveyors may
lead to lower installation, operating and maintenance costs because of the design
technology as well as the elimination of transfer points.

2.3.7 Literature G: Enhancing Overland Conveyor Possibilities

In this paper M.A Alspaugh et al. investigate the various technological advances that
have been made in enhancing overland conveyor possibilities such as increasing
conveyor lengths, increasing conveyable capacities and designing conveyors with
more diverse routes. Furthermore, significant technological advances in the fields of
system design and virtual prototyping have lead to the notion that the distribution of
drive power in multiple locations can further expand overland conveyor belt
possibilities.
Early in the 1990s designers and engineers recognized that overland conveyors
needed to be longer and the best was to achieve this was to build-in horizontal
[Literature Review]

Page 48 of 108

curves in their design in order to overcome the natural and man-made obstacles that
may exist along their path. In 1989, a 21 km, 2 flight conveyor with 2 horizontal
curves was installed at Channar (Australia). In 1996, a 16 km system with curves
was installed at Zisco (Zimbabwe). In 1997, a 14 km flight was installed at El Abra
(Chile). In 1998, a 14 km flight was installed at Muja/Collie (Australia). In 1999, a 7
km system transporting material in both directions was installed at BHP DRI
(Australia). In 2000, a 14 km system was put in at Ingwe (South Africa) and lastly the
longest conveyor in the world spanning 11 horizontal curves over 19.1km was
installed in the United States of America (USA) in the summer of 2007. These are
just a few examples of the many ground-breaking applications of curved conveyors
[33]. As the overland conveyor applications have gotten longer, distributed drive
technology has become more and more necessary in order to facilitate the
engineering requirements.

In order to determine the efficiency of intermediate belt conveyor drives, M.A

Alspaugh et al set up an experiment illustrating the tension diagrams of several USA
underground coal mines. The results showed that by splitting the drive power into
two locations, the maximum belt tension is reduced by almost 40% while the total
power requirement remained virtually the same. This proves that belt conveyors can
be made longer by simply distributing the power drives along the conveyor instead of
setting them all at the head or tail end of the conveyor; this can be done without
necessarily increasing the belt tension which would increase the belting costs [33].
Although this particular experiment was done on underground conveyors, M.A
Alspaugh believe that the results found on the distribution of power technology can
be extended to suit other conveyor applications and especially to fit the longer,
horizontally curved, overland conveyor requirements.

2.3.8 Literature H: The Evolution of Curved Conveyor Systems for the Transportation of
Minerals

In this paper K.G Milford investigate the potential economic benefits that could be
realized from horizontal and vertical curves when designing long distance belt
conveying systems. Transfer towers have traditionally been included in the belt
conveyor system design because of the topographical layout of the land as well as
[Literature Review]

Page 49 of 108

other restrictions such as land ownership. The principal disadvantage with transfer
points however is that they increase capital and operating costs. Capital costs are
increased because of the additional drive units and associated power along the
conveyor line as well as the sophisticated drive monitoring gear. The Operating costs
are increased due to the additional maintenance required and the reduction in
component life, such as the belt, as a result of the short cycle time [34].

Due to the transfer points predicament; designers and manufacturers have

developed technology allowing them to curve conveyors so as to minimize and
eliminate transfer stations along the conveyor route thus making it possible for the
conveyor belt to be constructed to be much longer than previously considered
probable. The radii of these curves can go as low as 500m and can be installed in
both the left and right-curve configurations along the same system [34].

Upon thorough analysis and comparison of several curved, single-flight and multiflight conveyor systems around the world, the following was found [34]:

The single-flight curved conveyor requires only one high voltage power point
which is usually located at the same area as other high voltage equipment as
opposed to the multi-flight conveyor which require many high voltage points.

Single-flight curved conveyors reduce the probability of spillage along the

conveyor line and minimize the percentage of degradation on the material
being conveyed.

The elimination of transfer points and intermediate drives removes the need
for intermediate sequencing, monitoring and surge capacity.

Lastly, the single-flight curved conveyor offers greater operational availability

as the single flight configuration implies that downtime is minimized and
hence the maximum system output can be achieved.

Analysing the points above, K.G Milford has proven that curved single-flight
conveyors do in fact contribute towards a reduction in the capital and operational
costs of a conveyor system. Their findings are further validated by the discovery that
the single-flight conveyor configuration yields an increased conveyor cycle time
which is directly proportionate to an increase in belt life.
[Literature Review]

Page 50 of 108

2.4 Discussion of Literature Findings and Benchmarks

Drawing from the contents of the literature in the sub-paragraphs above, the
following notions can be taken as the general findings of the research:
a. Conveyors with double flights or more cause breakage or degradation to the
material being conveyed but conveyors with a single flight arrangement are
less damaging to the material and yield a higher conveying capacity even
though they require slightly more power [16].
b. Single-flight overland conveyor systems running at higher velocities are much
more

favourable

than

three-flight

overland

conveyor

systems

but,

methodologies for decreasing belt tensions and hence the belt class still have
to be introduced in order to lower the total overall costs [17].
c. Imperative cost savings can be achieved by eliminating transfer towers and
replacing multiple flight conveyors with longer, single conveyors. This can be
easily achieved by employing booster drives which proved to lead to an
overall cost saving of up to 30% [30].
d. Conveyors that are longer in length were found to yield a high availability,
lower risk and encompass lower capital and operating costs proving that
longer conveyors are far cheaper and more efficient than shorter conveyors
[31].
e. For an efficient technology that has been proven over a number of
experiments, single-flight overland conveyors may be manufactured out of
cable belt rope to enable them to reach distances of up to 21 km without
much difficulty. Even more so, these conveyors may lead to lower installation,
operating and maintenance costs because of their unique design technology
as well as the imperative elimination of transfer points [32].
f. The methodology of the distribution of power along the conveyor instead of
setting all the drives at the head or tail end of the conveyor was found to be
an economical technique of increasing the belt length without necessarily
increasing the belt tension. Experimental results showed that by splitting the
drive power into two locations, the maximum belt tension can be reduced by

[Literature Review]

Page 51 of 108

almost 40% while the total power requirement remained virtually the same
[33].
g. Lastly it was found that single flight conveyors may be curved horizontally and
vertically in order for them to achieve the required length configuration. The
methodology of curving the conveyor proved to lead to a reduction in the
capital and operational costs as well as an increased conveyor cycle time
which is directly proportionate to an increase in the belt life [34].

Based on the above findings, the benchmarks for this investigation are set as
follows:
a. To calculate the individual component costs for both Sasol Impumelelos twoflight and single-flight probable conveyor configurations in order to establish
each systems initial capital costs.
b. To calculate the individual component costs for both Sasol Impumelelos twoflight and single-flight probable conveyor configurations in order to establish
each systems running operational costs.
c. To calculate the individual component costs for both Sasol Impumelelos twoflight and single-flight probable conveyor configurations in order to establish
each systems annual maintenance costs.
d. To use the results from the capital, operational and maintenance cost
calculations to prove that the single-flight conveyor configuration is in fact the
optimum solution to install.

2.5 Conclusion and Introduction to Next Chapter

In conclusion, single-flight conveyors have over the number of years proven to
exhibit far more superior technical and economic advantages as compared to
multiple-flight conveyors. In addition, new technologies such as designing the
conveyors with integral horizontal and vertical curves as well as distributing the drive
power along the conveyor have assisted in giving extra-long conveyors that
additional competitive edge. It is now the duty of the researcher to validate whether
the proposed 26.779 km long Sasol Impumelelo single-flight conveyor will display

[Literature Review]

Page 52 of 108

similar advantages over the two 18.424 km and 8.537 km flights on the original Sasol
Impumelelo tender. In the next chapter the methodology of the investigation process
is discussed. Therein the research approach as well as the data gathering process is
described. Lastly, at the closing phase of the chapter techniques for establishing the
validity of the data utilized during the dissertation investigation are described and
then the originality and limitations of the data are explained.

[Literature Review]

Page 53 of 108

Chapter 3: Methodology
In this chapter the approach and research methodology for the dissertation is
discussed. Several data gathering methods are reviewed whereby the reasons
behind the chosen data gathering method for the dissertation are given. The sources
for the database utilized in the investigation are then given and subsequently, the
validity of the figures and records employed in the calculations and graphs within the
dissertation are affirmed. At the final stage of the chapter the originality and
limitations of the data utilized are substantiated.

3.1 Approach and Research Methodology

The approach strategy undertaken to perform the investigation for the dissertation
was to firstly present a detailed description of the proposed design. Within the
detailed description the two-flight conveyors system technical specification and
material selection process are given. The same process is followed to present the
technical specification and material selection process for the proposed optimized,
single-flight conveyor system. Thereafter, detailed calculations using data from both
overland conveyor systems are done in order to enable the researcher to perform
cost, reliability, availability, maintainability costs and feasibility comparisons between
the two systems. Lastly based on the results obtained from the calculations, a
scientific analysis is done and then a final conclusion and recommendation is made
at the closing phase of the chapter.

3.2 Data Gathering Method

To decide on the method that was to be employed on gathering the data necessary
for executing the dissertation investigation, a paper from the University of Illinois on
Choosing Data-Gathering Methods for your Projects [35] was studied. In this paper
8 (eight) possible data gathering methods are explored.
The first method explored is the technique of collecting data utilizing Surveys and
Questionnaires. In this approach the researcher obtains mandatory information by
[Methodology]

Page 54 of 108

gathering information from a group of individuals using identical procedures for each
person. Surveys can be conducted in writing, over the telephone, face-to-face, or
electronically [35].
The second method studied is the process of conducting interviews. In this
approach, broad questions are asked by the researcher in a predetermined manner
in order to receive a range of free-flowing answers from the subjects being
interviewed [35].
The third method evaluated is the method of conducting focus groups. In this data
collecting technique the interviewer conducts an open-ended interview with a group
of similar respondents who engage in discussion about a specific topic under the
direction of the interviewer. The interviewer is usually an outsider to the organization
and may take a directive or unobtrusive role [35].
The fourth type of method is the process of conducting site visits and observations.
In this methodology the researcher or evaluation consultant attempts to become
more familiar with the program by traveling to the program site and observing
program activities as they occur [35].
The fifth method is the action of reviewing agency records. In this technique the
researcher reviews organizational documents relevant to their program of interest,
such as: work plans, meeting minutes, grant proposals, annual reports, mission
statements, attendance sheets, budget information, correspondence, newsletters in
order to compile the relevant data required for the research [35].
The sixth type of method is the method of conducting pre-tests and post-tests. In this
procedure the program participants knowledge, attitude and skills are tested before
or after a program begins using specific evaluation instruments [35].
The seventh type of method is the technique of using community measures. In this
technique documents or reports collected by groups other than the organization in
question that contains information and statistics related to the study programs
objectives are considered. Community measures may be obtained from government
departments at the federal, state, and local levels, as well as from private agencies
such as community organizations, research institutes and university archives [35].
The eighth and last method explored is the participatory and creative evaluation
method. In this technique staff and program participants collaborate in some or all
facets of the evaluation process in order to obtain the necessary research data.

[Methodology]

Page 55 of 108

Unconventional or innovative approaches are used to design the evaluation, collect

and analyze the data and present the findings in a report [35].
After an in-depth analysis of all the available data collection methods, the reviewing
agency records method was chosen to carry out the dissertation investigation. It
was chosen for the reason that the method calls for organizational records to be
used as a source of information and these provide relevant information about the
history of the subject being investigated as well as internal and external factors
affecting it. These records also allow for the changes in the behavioural pattern of
the subject matter to be studied or predicted over time. The main advantages about
this type of data gathering method is that it is inexpensive and non-obstructive to the
investigation process. The main disadvantages however are that the organizational
records may not be accessible to the external researcher or even be permitted to be
made public. Reviewing the organizational records may also be time consuming and
in addition, the data is limited to what already exists [35].

3.3 Database of Study

The following list of design manuals, standards and specifications was used as the
database for this dissertation:

Engineering design handbooks and conveyor design software.

CEMA 5 conveyor design guidelines.

Pulley design catalogues in accordance with SABS standards.

Idler design catalogues in accordance with SABS and BS guidelines.

Belting manufacturing standards in accordance with SANS specifications.

Conveyor drives and gearbox designing specifications in accordance with

ANSI and AGMA design manuals.

BET Sasol Impumelelo procurement and engineering design databases.

The details of the precise design manuals, standards and specifications that were
utilized to carry out the dissertation are given in annexure 1: References on page
105 of this dissertation.

[Methodology]

Page 56 of 108

3.4 Validity of Data

In order to determine the integrity of the information and records used to carry out
the investigation, a statistical data analysis tool by A Maydanchik [36] was utilized. In
this article a data validation method called Cross-System Consistency Checks is
explained whereby data from a specific organization is cross checked in different
database systems to ensure that is it consistent. That is; for an overland conveyor
with a length of above for 8 km for instance, for application in any coal mine, the
following common outcomes should be probable of being extracted from any
conveyor design database in the world: The belt width should be at least 1 200 mm
wide and belt class above 2 500 N/m to accommodate the length of conveyor. The
type of idlers selected should be of the correct size and magnitude in order to be
able to adequately guide a belt of that length and size as well as take up excess belt
slack as required; typically shaft diameters of size 178 mm or 152 mm for a 1 200
mm wide belt of length above 8 km. Conveyor drives of magnitude above at least
1 000 kW would be required in order to be able to supply sufficient power to a
conveyor belt of that class. The head and tail pulley diameters should be at least
1 250 mm to be able to lift and support the load carried by the 1 200mm wide belt
and transmit the power propelled by the 1 000 kW drives.

Now, according to the Price Database of BET, which is founded on a collection of

over 5 years of price, mass and component-size records of conveyor and associated
equipment - gathered from various reputable suppliers in the bulk materials handling
industry; the proposed and optimized designs of the two systems that are the subject
matter conform to the constraints and regulations of the industry requirements as
well as the norms set above [36]. The data utilized in this investigation can
henceforth be taken as valid. Unfortunately, due to company intellectual property
policies, the Price Database in discussion cannot be made publicly available.

[Methodology]

Page 57 of 108

3.5 Originality and Limitations

The data utilized in the investigation process is absolutely legitimate as it is extracted
from actual Sasol Impumelelo tender procurement and engineering design folders.
The limitations of the data however are that it is restricted to one source only and the
researcher is constrained to analysing only the information that is available from the
internal organizational design sheets and records as well as the Sasol Impumelelo
tender information.

3.6 Summary and Introduction to Next Chapter

In this chapter, a presentation of the approach and research methodology for the
dissertation was discussed where the layout of the approach methodology to
establishing which is the most efficient system between the single-flight and twoflight conveyor configurations was made. Then, several data gathering methods
were discussed whereby the reviewing agency records methods was selected as
the method of choice because of its nature of allowing organizational records to be
utilized as a source of information which directly fits the needs of this particular
dissertation. The database of the dissertation was then given where the design
manuals, standards and specifications utilized in the investigation are listed but, not
is so much detail; the detail is given further on in the dissertation at Annexure A:
References (page 105). The validity of the data was then affirmed utilizing the
cross-system consistency checks tool by A Maydanchik [36] and then the originality
and limitations of the data utilized to perform the dissertation investigation were
considered at the final stage of the chapter in paragraph 3.5.

In chapter 4 ensuing the technical specifications and material properties of the twoflight system, termed experimental set up one are discussed in order to give the
reader an in-depth understanding of the proposed design. The optimized, singleflight conveyor system is discussed further on in chapter 5.

[Methodology]

Page 58 of 108

Chapter 4: Experimental Set up One: The Two-Flight Overland

Conveyor Design Model
The proposal for the two-flight overland conveyor model, which is first experimental
set up, shall be presented in this chapter.

4.1 The Proposed Design

The two-flight overland conveyor model consists of two flights of overland conveyors
of lengths 18 424m and 8 537m each. The first overland conveyor (flight 1) is 18
424m long and has a design capacity of delivering coal at 2 400 tph; its core function
is to collect and convey material emerging from the 15 000t throwout stockpile into
the second overland conveyor. The second overland conveyor (flight 2) is 8 537m
long and also has a design capacity of handling coal at 2 400 tph; its core function is
to collect the material emerging from the first overland conveyor flight and to
distribute it evenly to the Tripper conveyor as well as the Reclaim conveyor (both
these conveyors subsequently transport the material to different areas of the plant
for auxiliary uses, for a purpose of which is outside of the scope of this paper).

4.2 Technical Specifications

4.2.1 Overland Conveyor 1
4.2.1.1 Product Design Specification

Conveyor Length
Total lift
Power requirement
Belt class
Belt thickness
Belt width
Belt cover grade
Belt speed
Design capacity

18 424m
-71.6m
3 x 1 000 kW drives (head)
1 x 1 000 kW drive (tail)
ST 2 500
Top 6mm
Bottom 5mm
1 200 mm
M
5.8 m/s
2 400 t/h

Table 1: Overland Conveyor 1 Design Specification [37], [39] and [43].

[Experimental Setup one]]

Page 59 of 108

Figure 17: Overland Conveyor 1 Module [45]

4.2.1.2 Material Selection

After the detailed design process, the following data relating to overland conveyor 1
was established:

Pulleys
Pulley Type

Pulley Diameter (mm)

Quantity

Head Pulley

1250 mm

Drive Pulley

1250 mm

Bend Pulley

1000 mm

Tail Pulley

1250 mm

Turn Over Pulley

500 mm

16

Table 2: Overland Conveyor 1 Pulley Data [46]

Idlers
Description

Quantity

Transition Idlers
2
Troughing Idlers
7322
Impact Idlers
8
Flat Return Idlers
4
Vee Return Idlers
1735
Table 3: Overland Conveyor 1 Idler Data [48]

[Experimental Setup one]]

Roll Diameter (mm)

178/152
178/152
159
152
152

Page 60 of 108

Take-Up
Type

Mass (kg)

Gravity

12 479

Table 4: Overland Conveyor 1 Take-Up Data [51]

Belt Cleaners
Type

Number

Description

Primary Scraper

SC16 Primary Scraper

Secondary Scraper

SC16 Secondary Scraper

Return Plough

SS32 v-plough

Table 5: Overland Conveyor 1 Belt Cleaners Data [53]

4.2.2 Overland Conveyor 2

4.2.2.1 Design Specification

Conveyor Length
Total lift
Power requirement
Belt class
Belt thickness
Belt width
Belt cover grade
Belt speed
Design capacity

8 537m
27.7 m
2 x 1000 kW drives (head)
1 x 450 kW drive (tail)
ST 2500
Top 6mm
Bottom 5mm
1 200 mm
M
5.8 m/s
2400 t/h

Table 6: Overland Conveyor 2 Design Specification [37], [39] and [43]

[Experimental Setup one]]

Page 61 of 108

Figure 18: Overland Conveyor 2 Module [45]

4.2.2.2 Material Selection

After the detailed design process, the following data relating to overland conveyor 2
was established:

Pulleys
Pulley Type

Pulley Diameter (mm)

Head Pulley
1 250 mm
Drive Pulley
1 250 mm
Bend Pulley
1 000 mm
Tail Pulley
1 250 mm
Turn Over Pulley
500 mm
Table 7: Overland Conveyor 2: Pulley Data [46]

Quantity
1
1
5
1
16

Idlers
Description

Quantity

Roll Diameter (mm)

Transition Idlers
2
Troughing Idlers
2 686
Impact Idlers
8
Flat Return Idlers
4
Vee Return Idlers
1040
Table 8: Overland Conveyor 2 Idler Data [48]

178/152
178/152
159
152
152

Take-Up
Type
Gravity
Table 9: Overland Conveyor 2 Take-Up Data [51]

[Experimental Setup one]]

Mass (kg)
10194

Page 62 of 108

Belt Cleaners
Type

No.

Primary Scraper
2
Secondary Scraper
2
Return Plough
2
Table 10: Overland Conveyor 2 Belt Cleaners Data [53]

Description
SC16 Primary Scraper
SC16 Secondary Scraper
SS32 v-plough

As illustrated in the figures and technical details above; the configuration and
geographical structures of the two flights of overland conveyors are such that they
may be smartly joined together to ultimately perform the same functions in a more
efficient and cost effective manner. This brought about the idea of combining these
two conveyors to form one, super, single-flight overland conveyor structure.

The design and technical details of this optimized, cost effective conveyor shall be
given next in chapter 5 following.

[Experimental Setup one]]

Page 63 of 108

Chapter 5: Experimental Set up Two: The Single Flight Overland

Conveyor Design Model
The proposal for the optimized single-flight overland conveyor model, which is the
second experimental set up, shall be described in this chapter.

5.1 The Optimized Design

The single-flight overland conveyor model was designed ultimately to explore the
option of designing a structure that would be simpler to engineer, cheaper to procure
and effortless to maintain in the long-run. In addition it was projected that the singleflight overland conveyor structure would eliminate the need for a conveyor transfer
tower and two belt turnovers and hence, lead to a reduction in the amount of civil
and mechanical work to be conducted. There is also a predicted decreased
degradation and spillage risk.

The design length of the proposed single-flight overland conveyor model is 26 779m
with a product conveying capacity of 2 400 tph. This conveyor would then perform
the combined function of accumulating material from the 15 000t throwout stockpile,
conveying it, and then distributing it to the Tripper Conveyor and Reclaim Conveyor
facilities respectively.

[Experimental Setup Two]

Page 64 of 108

5.2 Technical Specifications

5.2.1 Design Specification

Conveyor Length
Total lift
Power requirement
Belt class
Belt thickness
Belt width
Belt cover grade
Belt speed
Design capacity

26 779 m
-56.708m
4 x 1 000 kW (head)
2 x 1 000 kW (tail)
ST 4000
Top 10mm
Bottom 7mm
1 200 mm
M
5.8 m/s
2 400 t/h

Table 11: Single-Flight Conveyor Model Design Specification [37], [39] and [43]

Figure 19: Single-Flight Overland Conveyor Module [45]

5.2. 2 Material Selection

After the detailed design process, the following data relating to the single-flight
overland conveyor was obtained:

[Experimental Setup Two]

Page 65 of 108

Pulleys
Pulley Type

Pulley Diameter (mm)

Head Pulley
1 400
Drive Pulley
1 400
T/Up Pulley
1 250
T1 Bend Pulley
1 250
T2 Bend Pulley
1 000
Tail Pulley
1 400
Turn-over Pulley
500
Figure 20: Single-Flight Overland Conveyor Pulley Data [46]

Quantity
1
2
2
4
3
1
16

Idlers
Description

Quantity

Roll Diameter (mm)

Transition Idlers
Troughing Idlers
Impact Idlers
Flat Return Idlers
Vee Return Idlers

2
9 347
8
4
4431

178/152
178/152
159
152
152

Figure 21: Single-Flight Overland Conveyor Idler Data [48]

Take-Up
Type
Gravity

Mass (kg)
16 310

Figure 22: Single-Flight Overland Conveyor Take-Up Data [51]

Belt Cleaners
Type

No.

Description

Primary Scraper

SC16 Primary Scraper

Secondary Scraper

SC16 Secondary Scraper

Return Plough

SS32 v-plough

Figure 23: Single-Flight Overland Conveyor Belt Cleaners Data [53]

From studying the tables and figures in chapter 4 and chapter 5 above; it is evident
that conjoining flight 1 and flight 2 of the two-flight conveyor model to form one
super-structure implies utilizing bigger idlers, larger drive motors and a higher belt
class amongst other things which ultimately means an increase in the initial capital
costs.
[Experimental Setup Two]

Page 66 of 108

On the other hand, opting for the single-flight overland conveyor model could result
in a significant decrease in the overall total cost of ownership of the conveyor for the
mine. This is due to the projected decrease in the amount steelwork, civils, number
of components as well as physical labour and maintenance that would accompany
the installation of the single-flight conveyor. It could also result in a system that is
simpler to manage and maintain in the long run.

In the next two chapters some calculations and comparisons are made in order to
determine which of the two conveyor designs in discussion is the most reliable,
economically viable and simpler to manage option to pursue.

[Experimental Setup Two]

Page 67 of 108

Chapter 6: Calculations and Comparisons

In this chapter the total cost of ownership for each system shall be determined and
equated utilizing LCC tools at the acquisition phase (capital costs) as well as the
operations phase (operational costs). This shall be done utilizing actual project
procurement data and engineering design information from chapters 4 and 5
previous to this chapter.

The calculation process shall be initiated by comparing the individual component life
cycle costs (LCC) for the both the single-flight and two-flight overland conveyor
systems.

6.1 Belting
6.1.1 General

The total operational time per annum available for each conveyor is defined by the
number of days in a year multiplied by the number of hours in a day such as:
Time Operational Available 365 24 = 8760hours / annum Equation 1
In a mine it is generally assumed that the normal working time for a conveyor in a
24hour day is 18hours therefore:
Time Operational Actual = 365 18 = 6570hours / annum .Equation 2
Assuming that one 18-hour day out of each month has to be taken to run some
routine maintenance on the plant and, inserting an additional 2.5 hours for
contingency, the operational downtime for each conveyor would be:
Time Operational Downtime = 18 + 2.5 = 20.5 12 = 246 250hours / annum ..Equation 3

Now, in view of the fact that the single-flight conveyor system would require half as
much time to run maintenance on as compared to the two-flight conveyor; it is
assumed from equation 3 that the annual operational downtime on it would be:

[Calculations and Comparisons]

Page 68 of 108

Time (SF) Operational Downtime = 250 = 125hours / annum Equation 4

2

Therefore from equations 2, 3 and 4 above, the actual available operational time for
each conveyor system is the result of the operational downtime subtracted from the
actual operational time such as:

Time Operational (TF) = 6570 250 = 6320hours / annum ...Equation 5

Time Operational (SF) = 6570 125 = 6445hours / annum Equation 6

6.1.2 Capital Costs Calculations

The total cost of procurement for the belting includes for the initial cost of belting
supply, splicing, painting, delivery and erection. The civil works and structural steel
costs calculations have not been included for the purposes of this dissertation.

Description
Length (m)
Belt Class
Total Mass (Kg)
Belt Supply price per meter (R/m)
Total Supply Price (R)

Single-Flight Conveyor
26 779
ST 4000
1 729 076
2 169
97 339 429

Two-Flight Conveyor
18 423
8 537
ST 2500
ST 2500
1 188 438
554 387
1 838
1 838
50 286 168
23 469 588

Table 12: Belting Capital Costs Data

From the table above it is derived that the cost of structuring and commissioning the
single-flight overland conveyor is approximately 13.8% higher that of the two-flight
conveyor when belting is considered. This is due mainly to the higher overall mass of
the single-flight conveyor as well as the increase in the belt class to accommodate
the longer length of belting. It is worthwhile from a systems engineering management
point of view to evaluate the operational cost of each system over the predetermined belt lifespan in order to establish whether the 13.8% single-flight initial
expense surplus can be surpassed by obtaining a savings in the operational costs
over the 30 year expected life-span of the plant.

[Calculations and Comparisons]

Page 69 of 108

6.1.3 Operational Costs Calculations

The operational costs included in this calculation are based on the belt life prediction
and maintenance costs for each system only, the power consumption and
component replacement costs will be determined and combined together further on
in the body of the dissertation in order to establish the final overall figures.

The total installed length (belt line length) for each conveyor is calculated by
multiplying the conveyor flight length by two to accommodate the carry and return
strands of the belt and then adding a further 30m to account for the belt splicing.

Therefore from table 12, the total belt line length for each conveyor is:
Length (SF) = ( 26779 x 2) + 30 = 53588 m .Equation 7
Length (TF1) = (18423 x 2) + 30 = 36876 m Equation 8
Length (TF2) = (8537 x 2) + 30 = 17104 m ..Equation 9

The belt life of the conveyor is largely dependent on how much it can resist wear on
the belt cover as well as how thick the actual cover is. It is also influenced by other
factors such as the belt speed, belt cover abrasion index and operating time. The
formula for estimating the belt wear life according to the CMA conveyor design
handbook is:
Belt Wear Life is: h =

Where t

200.L.((t.C x ) t min )
hours Equation 10
3.6.S .SW

Total cover thickness (mm)

t min

Minimum cover thickness (mm); generally set at zero

Belt Speed (m/s)

SW

Abrasion index

Operating time (hours)

[Calculations and Comparisons]

Page 70 of 108

Belt line length (m)

Cx

Cover modifier depending on the cover grade

Thus, utilizing equation 10 and inputting information from equations 7, 8 and 9 as

well as information contained in table 13 below:

Description
Length (m)
Operating Hours/ Annum
Total Installed Length (m)
Belt Class
Top Cover Thickness (mm)
Bottom Cover Thickness (mm)
Belt Grade
Abrasion Index (Sw)
Cover Modifier (Cx)

Single-Flight Conveyor
26 779
6 445
53 588
ST 4000
10
7
N
2.40
1

Two-Flight Conveyor
18 423
8 537
6 320
6 320
36 876
17 104
ST 2500
ST 2500
6
6
5
5
N
N
2.40
2.40
1
1

Table 13: Belting Operational Costs Data

The belt life in hours for each conveyor system is given by:

Belt Life (SF) = h (SF) =

200 x53588 x ((10 x1) 0)

= 2138729.249hours .Equation 11
3.6 x5.8 x 2.40

Belt Life (TF1) = h (TF1) =

200 x36876 x ((7 x1) 0)

= 1030220.307 hours ...Equation 12
3.6 x5.8 x 2.40

Belt Life (TF2) = h (TF2) =

200 x17104 x ((7 x1) 0)

= 477841.6347 hours ..Equation 13
3.6 x5.8 x 2.40

Where the abrasion index Sw and cover modifier Cx values are derived from standard
conveyor design tables based on the material feeding conditions, material grade and
type of cover used on the conveyor belt. The tables are defined in the CMA conveyor
design handbook as follows:

Feeding
Condition
Favourable
Standard
Unfavourable

[Calculations and Comparisons]

Grade 1
0.4
2.4
1.6

Material Conveyed
Grade 2
0.6
1.4
2.6

Grade 3
1.4
2.4
4.0

Page 71 of 108

Table 14: The Abrasion Index (Sw) Table [38]

Grade
Modifier

N
1,00

M
1,25

A
2,13

C
1,00

F
0,83

NBR
0,6

PVC
0,6

Table 15: The Cover Modifier (Cx) Table [38]

Taking data from table 13 as well as equations 11, 12 and 13 and assuming that the
plant has been designed to be in operation for 30 years, the actual expected belt life
for each conveyor is therefore:

Belt Life Actual (SF) =

2138729.249
= 11.1 years 11 years ..Equation 14
(6445 x30)

Belt Life Actual (TF1) =

1030220.307
= 5.4 years 5 years ..Equation 15
(6320 x30)

Belt Life Actual (TF2) =

477841.6347
= 2.5 years 2 years ..Equation 16
(6320 x30)

From the predicted belt life calculations above, it is evident that the single-flight
overland conveyor has a longer expected lifespan as compared to the two-flight
system. This is mainly due to the thicker top belt cover of 10mm as well as the
distinct continuous length of belting. Having a belting system that could last longer by
6 years would noticeably prove very beneficial to the plant and offer an imperative
cost savings for the entire project as a whole.
But the thicker and longer belting implies that the single-flight belt could be more
expensive due to the required thicker carcass formation as well as the increased
number of spliced sections that must joined together to form the belt. The cost
therefore of the more expensive conveyor belt must be justified against the benefit of
installing a conveyor belt that has a longer lifespan. If a single barrel is able contain
300m of belting before splicing, then the total amount of splices that must be made in
each belting system is given by dividing the total belt line length (taken from
equations 7, 8 and 9) by the total barrel length such as:
[Calculations and Comparisons]

Page 72 of 108

Splicing Quantity (SF) =

53588
= 179 .Equation 17
300

Splicing Quantity (TF1) =

36876
= 123 .Equation 18
300

Splicing Quantity (TF2) =

17104
= 58 ..Equation 19
300

Taking from equations 17, 18 and 19 and basing from a cost of R25 000 per splice,
the allowance per annum that must be made for splicing in each conveyor system is:

Splicing Allowance (SF) = 25000x179 = R 4475000 / annum ..Equation 20

Splicing Allowance (TF1) = 25000x123 = R3075000 / annum .Equation 21
Splicing Allowance (TF2) = 25000x58 = R1450000 / annum ...Equation 22

At R 4 475 000 per annum, the annual cost for splicing on the single-flight conveyor
is almost the same as that of the combined R 4 525 000 cost per annum for the twoflight conveyor system, emerging just R 50 000 cheaper. It is therefore justifiable to
replace the two-flight system with the single-flight system from a splicing costs
savings perspective.

6.1.4 Belting Summary

The single-flight overland conveyor has an overall operational downtime of 125

hours/annum as opposed to the 250 hours/annum yielded by the combined two-flight
conveyor system. This leads to a longer available operational time of 6445
hours/annum for the single-flight conveyor and a gain in the mines overall productive
time. This implies a direct increase in the mines profitability.

[Calculations and Comparisons]

Page 73 of 108

The total supply cost for the belting on the single flight conveyor system is
R 97 339 429 and then R 50 286 168 and R 23 469 588 for the conveyors in the twoflight system respectively. The single-flight conveyor system belting supply is 13.8%
more expensive than that of the two-flight conveyor system. This is due to the thicker
top and bottom covers of 10mm and 7mm as opposed to 6mm and 5mm offered on
the two-flight system. Another influencing factor is the belt class of ST 4000 as
opposed to the ST 2500 offered on the two-flight system. But the belting in the
single-flight conveyor system is predicted to be capable of lasting double the number
of years as that of the single-flight conveyor system because of its superior belt
strength and belt thickness. The cost of the initial procurement of the belt would have
to be weighed against the benefit of installing a more sustainable and longer-lasting
belting system. Management should analyse this scenario with a full understanding
that the belting in any of the systems could still not live-out their full predicted life due
to inevitable circumstances in the mine such as sudden belt snapping, belting
damage caused by unwanted rocks or metals in the material to be conveyed or fire
caused by friction between the material and the belt.
Upon the mines operational years, it is generally assumed that approximately 10%
of the belting (by length) would have to be replaced per annum to compensate for
general damages. The splicing allowance that must be made for the single-flight
conveyor system per annum is R 50 000 cheaper than that of the two-flight conveyor
system which would result in a total saving of R 50 000 x 30 = R 1 500 000 in the
designed mine life of 30 years (as per client specification).

It can be concluded that the single-flight conveyor system is the better option to
select from a belting perspective. An investigation into the drive capital and
operational costs for the two systems shall now be done for further analysis.

6.2 Conveyor Drives and Power Consumption

6.2.1 General

Since the quantity and size of the drives installed on a conveyor are directly related
to the amount of energy per hour consumed by the conveyor, the capital and
[Calculations and Comparisons]

Page 74 of 108

operational costs for the drives and power consumption shall be analysed alongside
each other.

6.2.2 Capital Costs

The drives supply, maintenance and power consumption initialization and installation
costs are based on the number of drives, power rating and drive assembly costs of
the conveyors as shown in the table below.

Description
Conveyor Length (m)
Nr. Of Drives

Single-Flight Conveyor
26 779
6

Two-Flight Conveyor
8 537
3

18 423
4

Minimum Installed Power

per Drive Motor (kW)
Total Installed Power (kW)

1 000
6 x 1 000 = 6 000

1 000
4 x 1 000 = 4 000

Drive Assembly Cost

1 257 000

1 257 000

1 000; 450
2 x 1 000 = 2 000
1 x 450 = 450
1 045 318

Table 16: Drive and Power Consumption Data

Evidently, the rate of installation for a 4-drive 1 000 kW conveyor assemblage is

equal to that of a 6-drive 1 000 kW assemblage, the only difference is the number of
drives being installed therefore, a time and cost saving in opting for the installation of
the single-flight overland conveyor as opposed to the two-flight conveyor system is
already realized. From table 16, the drive supply costs for each conveyor are
calculated as follows:

Drive Supply Cost (SF) = no. of drive x drive assembly cost.Equation 23

= 6 x 1 257 000
= R 7 542 000
Drive Supply Cost (TF1) = no. of drive x drive assembly costEquation 24
= 4 x 1 267 000
= R 5 068 000
Drive Supply Cost (TF2) = no. of drive x drive assembly costEquation 25
= 3 x 1 045 318
[Calculations and Comparisons]

Page 75 of 108

= R 3 135 954

The total drive supply costs for the two-flight conveyor system is R 8 203 954, almost
R 700 000 more expensive than that of the single-flight conveyor system. This
renders the single-flight conveyor system as the cheaper option in terms of initial
installation and assembly costs for the system drives.

6.2.3 Operational Costs

The operational cost for each conveyor system is based on the rate of power
absorbed by each drive in the system per operative year. Using data from table 16
as well as results from equations 5 and 6 and; with the absorbed and effective power
taken as 80% of the total installed power and the rate of electricity consumption per
hour taken as R 0.50 /kWh, the total power costs per annum for each system is
given by:

Power Consumption Costs (SF) = 6000x0.8x0.50x6445

= R 15 468 000/ annum

Power Consumption Costs (TF1) = 4000x0.8x0.50x6320

= R 10 112 000/ annum
Power Consumption Costs (TF2) = (2000+450) x0.8x0.50x6320
= R 6 193 600/ annum
Notably the combination of the annual power consumption costs for the conveyors in
the two-flight conveyor system adds up to R 16 305 600, R 837 600 more expansive
than the annual power consumption costs of the single-flight system which sums up
to just R 15 468 000.

[Calculations and Comparisons]

Page 76 of 108

6.2.4 Drives and Power Consumption Summary

In terms of both the capital and operational cost calculations for the Drives and
Power Consumption annual rates for the two systems, the single-flight overland
conveyor system emerges as the optimal solution to employ. This is because the
single-flight overland conveyors capital costs surface R 661 954 cheaper than those
of the two-flight system and the operational costs R 837 600 cheaper. This places
the overall potential savings at R 1 499 554 just by utilizing the single-flight option.
This saving is largely due to the fact that even though the overall belt length and belt
class is increased significantly when utilizing the single-flight system as opposed to
the two-flight system, the drive size remains the same at 1000 kW for both systems
hence rendering the increases insignificant.

From a project engineering management perspective, the single-flight overland

conveyor system is the optimal option to employ when investigating the conveyor
drive and power consumption costs.

In the next section a similar exercise shall be

performed to compare the conveyor Idler costs.

6.3 Idlers
6.3.1 General

The conveyor idlers are made of High Density Poly Ethylene (HDPE) material in both
the single-flight and two-flight conveyor configurations with the roll diameters for the
carry, return and impact idlers being exactly the same at 178mm, 152mm and
159mm. The main difference occurs in the idler spacing (positioning) along the
conveyor where an optimum spacing of 4.5m on the carry side and 9m on the return
side can be realized on the single-flight conveyor option due to the higher belt class1,
as opposed to the 3.75 m and 7.5m carry and return side idler spacings that can be
achieved on the two-flight conveyor system. The cost saving can then be achieved
through the utilization of a lesser number of idlers over a longer span on the single-

The higher belt class essentially means that the single-flight conveyor system has a higher tension along the
length of the belt per meter making it more rigid and capable of having wide idler spacings without inducing
unwanted belt sag.

[Calculations and Comparisons]

Page 77 of 108

flight conveyor system but; the validity of this hypothesis shall be proved or
disproved from the calculations in the current section.

6.3.2 Idler Capital Costs

The idler capital costs are made up of the initial procurement and installation costs at
the beginning phases of the project and are based on the values shown on the
tables below.

Description
Conveyor Length (m)
Belt Width (mm)
Nr Carry Idler Rolls
Carry Pitch (m)
Carry Idler Diameter
Total Nr of Sets
Cost Per Idler set

Single-Flight Conveyor
26 779
1200
5
4.5
152/178
9 347
2 408

Two-Flight Conveyor
18 423
8 537
1200
1200
3
3
3.75
3.75
152/178
152/178
7 322
2 686
2 283
2 283

Table 17: Carry Idlers Data

Description
Conveyor Length (m)
Belt Width (mm)
Nr Return Idler Rolls
Return Pitch (m)
Return Idler Diameter (mm)
Total Nr of Sets
Cost Per Idler set

Single-Flight Conveyor
26 779
1200
2
9.0
152
4 431
1 346

Two-Flight Conveyor
18 423
8 537
1200
1200
2
2
7.5
7.5
152
152
1 735
1 040
1 346
1 346

Table 18: Return Idlers Data

The idler capital supply costs are calculated by multiplying the total number of idler
sets in each system by the cost of the individual idler sets on both the carry and
return strands of the conveyor belt. The costs are calculated by utilizing information
from tables 17 and 18 above as follows:
Carry Idler Costs (SF) = 9 347 x 2 408
= R 22 507 576
Carry Idler Costs (TF1) = 7 322 x 2 283
= R 16 716 126

[Calculations and Comparisons]

Page 78 of 108

Carry Idler Costs (TF2) = 2 686 x 2 283

= R 6 132 138
Return Idler Costs (SF) = 4 431 x 1 346
= R 5 964 126
Return Idler Costs (TF1) = 1 735 x 1 346
= R 2 335 310
Return Idler Costs (TF2) = 1 040 x 1 346
= R 1 399 840
Hence, the sum of the idler capital costs for the single-flight overland conveyor
system adds up to:
Idler Capital Costs (SF) = Carry Idler Costs + Return Idler Costs...Equation 26
= R 22 507 576 + R 5 964 126
= R 28 471 702
And, the sum of the idler capital costs for the complete two-flight overland conveyor
systems adds up to:
Idler Capital Costs (TF) = Carry idler Costs + Return Idlers Costs.Equation 27
= R 16 716 126 + R 6 132 138 + R 2 335 310 + R 1 399 840
= R 26 583 414
Therefore, the summation of the idler capital costs for the single-flight overland
conveyor adds up to R 28 471 702. Similarly, the summation for the two-flight
overland conveyor system comes up to R 26 583 414, almost R 2 000 000 cheaper
than the idler supply costs in the single-flight conveyor system. This is contradictory
to the result that was expected; a comparison of the idler operational costs in each
system shall be done next in order to further clarify the result found.

[Calculations and Comparisons]

Page 79 of 108

6.3.3 Idler Operational Costs

In the bulk materials handling industry it is generally accepted that annually 30% of
the idlers in a conveyor would have to be replaced due to damage caused by
spillage, environmental factors and general negligence. The idler operational costs
will hence be made up of the annual replacement costs which are estimated to be
30% of the total supply cost per annum for each conveyor system. Thus, from
previous equations 26 and 27 we can determine:

Idler Operational Costs (SF) =

30
x 28471702
100

= R 8 541 511

Idler Operational Costs (TF1,2) =

30
x 26583414
100

= R 7 975 025

AS expected from the idler capital costs calculations, the idler annual operational
costs for the two-flight system are cheaper than those for the single-flight system.

6.3.4 Idlers Summary

Theoretically it was projected that the idler supply and operational costs of the
single-flight conveyor system would be cheaper than those of the two-flight conveyor
system due to the optimized idler spacing and configuration. Practically it was
discovered that the two-flight conveyor configuration offered a much cheaper result,
yielding a calculated savings of R 1 888 288 on the capex and R 566 486 on the
opex. This is largely due to the fact that on the single-flight conveyor configuration
idler sets made up of 5 rolls instead of 3 rolls are necessary to carry the belt and
material weight because of the increased belt tension and class. These 5 roll idler
sets are obtained at a rate of R 2 408 per idler set as opposed to the cheaper
R 2 283 required on the 3 roll set.

[Calculations and Comparisons]

Page 80 of 108

Therefore, evaluating the project costs from an idler point of view, it is much more
reasonable to install the two-flight conveyor system as opposed to the single-flight
conveyor system in order to save on the capital and operational costs. Pulley costs
shall be evaluated in the next sub-section for a further analysis of the project capital
and operational costs projections for the two conveyors in discussion.

6.4 Pulleys
From the tables in previous chapters 4 and 5, it can be established that the singleflight conveyor system comprises of a total of 29 pulleys ranging between 1 400mm,
1 250mm, 1 000mm and 500mm. The conveyors in the two-flight system each have
pulleys of diameters ranging between 1 250mm, 1 000mm and 500mm summing up
to 26 for the 18.423 km flight and 24 for the 8.537 km flight consecutively. From a
logistics management perspective, it is evident that the pulleys within the single-flight
conveyor system will be easier to handle, transport and install as they are half the
quantity of those in the two-flight system even though they are slightly larger in
diameter. Also, the cost of the pulleys in the single-flight conveyor system is almost
half of that in the two-flight conveyor system yielding a large saving in the initial
capital costs for the plant.

A summary of these findings is given in the table below.

Description
Conveyor Length (m)
No. of Pulleys
Largest Pulley Size (mm)
Total Pulleys Supply Cost (R)

Single-Flight Conveyor
26 779
29
1 400
R 3 038 165

Two-Flight Conveyor
18 423
8 537
26
24
1 250
1 250
R 2 813 115
R 1 983 682

Table 19: Summary of the Project Pulley Costs

Taking from the results in table 19 above, it can be deduced that the single-flight
conveyor system is the better option to choose. It is so resolved because the singleflight conveyor system comprises of a total of only 29 pulleys as opposed to the 50
that are required in the two-flight conveyor system. This makes it a cheaper and
faster system to manage logistically and when taking into consideration
transportation. In addition, with a total cost of R 3 038 165 versus R 4 796 797, the
[Calculations and Comparisons]

Page 81 of 108

single-flight conveyor system yields a total savings of R 1 758 632 on the pulley
supply costs alone.

In conclusion, it can be drawn from the data in table 19 above that in terms of the
pulley logistics management from the manufacturers shop to site and overall
procurement supply costs, the single-flight conveyor configuration is the better
system to employ. A summary of all the findings from the capital and operational
costs calculations above shall be done next in order to finally establish the actual
total cost of ownership for both the two-flight and single-flight conveyor
configurations.

6.5 Summary of Calculation Findings

From the calculations in sections 6.1 to 6.4, it can be concluded that the total cost of
ownership for each conveyor system is made up of the combination of the capital
and operational costs. That is, the sum of the belting supply costs, annual splicing
allowance, drive supply costs, annual power consumption costs, the carry and return
idler supply and operational costs, as well as the pulley supply costs such as shown
in the TCO summary table below.

Belt Length (km)

Belting Supply Cost ( R )
Annual Splicing Allowance ( R )
Drive Supply Cost ( R )
Annual Power Consumption ( R )
Carry Idler Supply Costs ( R )
Return Idler Supply Costs ( R )
Idler Operational Costs ( R )
Pulley Supply Costs ( R )
TCO ( R )

Single-Flight
26 779
97 339 429
4 475 000
7 542 000
15 468 000
22 507 576
5 964 126
8 541 511
3 038 165
164 875 807

Two-Flight
Flight 1
18 423
50 286 168
3 075 000
5 068 000
10 112 000
16 716 126
2 335 310
3 987 513
2 813 115
94 393 232

Two-Flight
Flight 2
8 537
23 469 588
1 450 000
3 135 954
6 193 600
6 132 138
1 399 840
3 987 513
1 983 682
47 752 315

Table 20: Summary of the Total Costs of Ownership

Therefore, the total cost of ownership for the single-flight conveyor system as well as
the combination of the conveyors that make up the two-flight system is given by:

[Calculations and Comparisons]

Page 82 of 108

Total Cost of Ownership (SF) = Total Capital + Operational Costs....Equation 28

= Belting supply costs + annual splicing allowance +
drive supply costs + annual power consumption
costs + carry idler supply costs + return idler
supply costs + carry idler operational costs +
return idler operational costs + pulley supply costs
= R97 339 429 + R4 475 000 + R7 542 000 +
R15 468 000 + R22 507 576 + R 5 964 126 +
R8 541 511 + R3 038 165
= R164 875 807

Total Cost of Ownership (TF) = Total Capital + Operational Costs...Equation 29

= Belting supply costs + annual splicing allowance
+ drive supply costs + annual power consumption
costs + carry idler supply costs + return idler
supply costs + carry idler operational costs +
return idler operational costs + pulley supply costs
= R73 755 756 + R4 525 000 + R8 203 954 +
R16 305 600 + R22 848 264 + R3 735 150 +
R7 975 025 + R4 796 797
= R142 145 546
From the results of equations 28 and 29 above, the two-flight conveyor system is
unexpectedly the cheaper overall solution when analysing the supply capital and
operational costs only, boasting a system that has a total cost of ownership that is
overall R22 730 261 cheaper than that of the single-flight system. The two systems
reliability, availability and maintainability shall be considered next under the
presentation of findings heading in chapter 7 in order to obtain a RAM costs
analysis and then make a final conclusion regarding the optimum engineering
solution and system design between the single-flight and two-flight conveyor
configurations.

[Calculations and Comparisons]

Page 83 of 108

Chapter 7: Presentation of Findings

In this chapter a presentation and analysis of the results found in the calculations
from chapter 6 shall be done. This is done so as to draw a final conclusion from the
dissertation investigation in order for a definitive recommendation, which will be
applicable to the Bulk Materials Handling industry universally, to be made. The
chapter opens with an in-depth discussion of the investigation findings where several
estimations and measurements are made using charts derived from the calculation
results. Then the reliability, availability and maintainability for both systems, which is
the area where the course theory is applicable, are discussed. The validity of the
investigation findings is then measured up against the benchmarks of the literature
and then to conclude, the answers to the research questions are given at the closing
phase of the chapter.

7.1 Discussion of the Investigation Findings

Based on the results calculated in chapters 5 and 6 previously, a graph showing
comparisons between the supply and operational costs for the single-flight and twoflight conveyors is drawn up. This is done in order to give a quick and clear visual
illustration of the differences in the total cost of ownership between the two systems.
This graph is shown in figure 24 below.

TCO: Single-Flight vs Two-Flight

Total Supply Costs (R)

120 000 000

Belting Supply Costs

100 000 000

Annual Splicing
Allowance
Drive Supply Costs

80 000 000
60 000 000

Annual Power
Consumption
Carry Idler Spply Costs

40 000 000
20 000 000
0
Single Flight

Two Flight

Conveyor Flight Configurations

Figure 24: Total Cost of Ownership: Overall Review
[Presentation of Findings]

Page 84 of 108

Analysing figure 24 above it is immediately noticeable that the belting supply costs of
the single-flight conveyor exceed those of the two-flight conveyor by a considerable
amount. This amount is 31.9% and is attributed to the costly belt class and belt
thickness which is necessary to achieve the strength and rigidity necessary for the
single-flight configuration. This higher belt class however allows the single-flight
conveyor to be able to efficiently carry the material over the required long overland
distance and was proven to be capable of lasting for 11 years which is twice the
amount of years that the two-flight conveyor system is able to last. From the plant
management perspective, not having to replace the belt every two years of operation
would lead to a tremendous amount of savings in terms of costs and time spent
performing the maintenance functions on the belts.

Thereafter the single-flight and two-flight conveyors follow similar trends and show
minimal differences between their individual component costs: the single-flight is:
1.1% cheaper on the splicing allowance costs, 8.8% cheaper on the drives supply
costs, 5.4% cheaper on the annual power consumption costs, 1.5% cheaper on the
carry idler supply and 36.7% cheaper on pulley supply costs. However, on the return
idler supply and total idler operational costs, the single-flight conveyor system is
59.7% and 7.1% more expensive. Overall, the total cost of ownership (TCO) of the
single-flight conveyor is 15.9% more expensive than that of the two-flight conveyor.
This is largely due to the extreme return idler supply costs that have been
encountered on the single-flight conveyor system.

Nonetheless, this account of the total cost of ownership for the two systems is only
based on the capital and operational costs at the implementation phase of the
project. The annual labour and maintenance costs for the duration of the 30 year
expected life-span of the plant still have to be taken into consideration in order to
establish which between the two conveyor configurations really is the more
sustainable system to install.

The reliability, availability and maintainability of both systems shall be determined

next in the application of theory sub-section where the annual maintenance costs for
both the single-flight and two-flight conveyor systems will also be established.
[Presentation of Findings]

Page 85 of 108

7.2 Application of the Theory

7.2.1 Reliability, Availability and Maintainability Definitions

The system availability is defined as the probability that the system will work as and
when required during the period of operation. It is a measure of the system
performance, quality and dependability and is a function of the systems
maintainability and reliability. A system is considered reliable when it complies to the
customers expectations and value system such as technical performance,
acquisition costs, operating/ running costs and availability [5].
A systems maintainability is its ability to be maintained. It is a design parameter
based on the systems ease of repair, speed of repair, cost of repair, efficiency of
repair and the minimum infrastructure to be repaired. The amount of maintenance
associated with a system is dependent on its design and is a function of the number
of inspections and checks that must be performed on the system on either a
preventative basis or a corrective basis [5].
In this section, the availability, maintainability and reliability of each conveyor system
shall be established and compared for the purpose of determining which of the two
systems would be the more practical configuration to erect and sustain in the long
run.

7.2.2 System Comparisons: Reliability and Availability

By definition Availability =

MTBF
...Equation 30
MTBF + MTTR

Where MTBF = Mean Time before Failure and

MTTR = Mean Time to Repair

Hence, from equation 30 and with regards to the operational availability for the
conveyor systems in the subject matter, the definition is modified to be:
[Presentation of Findings]

Page 86 of 108

OperationalAvailability =

TotalAvailableOperatioalTime OperationalDownTime
TotalAvailableOperationalTime

Thus, based on the operational hours determined previously in equations 2, 3 and 4

in chapter 6, the operational Availability of each conveyor system is calculated as:

Operational Availability (SF) =

6570 125
= 98.1% ..Equation 31
6570

Operational Availability (TF1) =

6570 250
= 96.2% Equation 32
6570

Operational Availability (TF2) =

6570 250
= 96.2% Equation 33
6570

Hence, from equation 31 it is evident that the single-flight conveyor system is nearly
2% more operationally available than the conveyors in the two-flight system. From
an engineering management perspective; the single-flight conveyor system is more
favourable as it warrants a more reliable and operationally available system with
fewer probabilities of failure and profit losses due to operational down time.
In Addition, the clients technical specification states that the following limitations and
standards must be adhered to with regards to equipment availability:

98% mechanical availability including belting

99.9% electrical availability

99.9 control, instrumentation and communication availability

99.9% civil/ structural infrastructure availability

Thus, the single-flight conveyor system is the only system that guarantees the
desired performance as and when required as well as satisfies the definition of
availability according to the clients requirements.

[Presentation of Findings]

Page 87 of 108

For this reason, the single-flight overland conveyor layout is the more operationally
reliable system of the two projected overland conveyor configurations.

7.2.3 Maintainability

7.2.3.1 General

Ideally all structures in a conveyor should be designed such as to ease the amount
of maintenance that needs to be performed on it thus limiting or eliminating the
necessity to dismantle too many components in order to execute the required
maintenance. The maintainability of both systems shall be established by analysing
the single-flight and two-flight overland conveyor configurations in one landscape as
illustrated below.

A: Transfer Tower
D: Transfer Point

Flight 1: 18 424 m

B: Overrun
Surge Facility

C: Belt Turnover

C: Belt Turnover

Flight 2: 8 537 m

D: Transfer
Point

C: Belt Turnover

C: Belt Turnover

C: Belt Turnover
D: Transfer Point

Single Flight: 26 779 m

C: Belt Turnover

Figure 25: Overland Conveyor Layouts [45]

By analysing the conveyor layouts above, it is immediately noticeable that by

employing the single-flight conveyor system configuration the transfer tower, point A,
is eliminated. Eliminating the transfer tower increases the belt life by decreasing the
wear rate generated by the transfer. It also decreases the risk of material
degradation and belt damage as well as the possibilities of tears, punctures and
[Presentation of Findings]

Page 88 of 108

fires. In addition, the amount of operational downtime lost to the maintenance and
repair of transfer equipment as well as the extra pulleys and turnovers is reduced.
Lastly, the conveyor availability or total throughput is increased by 1% per conveyor,
such as observed earlier in the availability calculations in section 6.1.

Examining point B, the need for the overrun surge facility is completely annihilated
when the single-flight overland conveyor layout is employed. This is due to the
existence of a single flight of conveyor as opposed to two flights as well as the
absence of the transfer tower and hence the absence of any possible material
spillage or overrun, resulting in a significant decrease in the amount of maintenance
that must be performed at that point on the conveyor.

At point C, the single-flight conveyor consists of only two belt turnovers as opposed
to four that exist on the two-flight conveyor system. The belt turnover is the location
on the conveyor belt where the dirty side of the conveyor (the carry strand where the
material was positioned) is turned over so that the clean side of the conveyor (the
return strand) touches the return idlers. Minimizing the number of belt turnovers
decreases the number of areas where possible spillage can occur thus decreasing
the number of areas where routine maintenance has to be performed to combat the
effects of spillage. The maintenance that has to be performed on the belt turnover
equipment is also significantly reduced.

Analysing point D, the transfer points, one can observe that making use of the
single-flight conveyor system would result in there being only one transfer point as
opposed to the two that would be required on the two-flight conveyor system.
Eliminating the transfer point would result in there being one less area where
material would have to be transferred from one conveyor to another, and hence one
less area where material spillage is most likely to occur thus one less area where
maintenance would have to be carried out. In addition, the maintenance required on
the transfer point equipment such as the chutes, skirting and liners would also be
significantly decreased.

[Presentation of Findings]

Page 89 of 108

From the paragraphs above, it is evident that the single-flight conveyor system
option yields a less maintenance intensive system with fewer areas where spillage
could occur. Moreover, there will be a lighter demand on the maintenance that has to
be carried out on the transfer towers and their associated equipment as well as other
equipment such as idlers, pulleys and drives.

In the next sub-section the maintenance costs for each of the equipment shall be
calculated in order to determine how much each overland conveyor system
configuration would cost to maintain per annum over the 30 year expected life-span
of the plant. This will also assist the researcher in establishing which between the
two systems is the more sustainable.

7.2.4 Equipment Maintenance Costs

According to the results obtained previously in chapter 6, the sum of the calculations
of the components below makes up the expected annual maintenance costs for each
conveyor system. The final figures will be then be used to determine which of the two
conveyor systems would be cheapest to maintain per annum and hence be
preferable to install and operate over the life-span of the plant .

Description
Total Installed Length (m)
10% of belt length (m)
Belt Supply price per meter (R/m)
Total Supply Price (R)

Single-Flight Conveyor
53 588
5 358.8
2 169
97 339 429

Two-Flight Conveyor
36 876
17 104
3 687.6
1 710.4
1 838
1 838
50 286 168
23 469 588

Table 21: Belting Maintenance Data

7.2.4.1 Belting Maintenance

Taken from table 20 above and assuming a 10% loss of belting length on each
conveyor system per year, the maintenance costs for replacing the belting per
annum is given by:

[Presentation of Findings]

Page 90 of 108

Maintenance Belting Replacement (SF) = 10% of belt supply length x belt supply per meterEquation 34

= 5 358.8 x 2 169
= R 11 623 237

Maintenance Belting Replacement (TF1) = 10% of belt supply length x belt supply per meter..Equation 35

= 3 687.6 x 1 838
= R 6 777 809

Maintenance Belting Replacement (TF2) = 10% of belt supply length x belt supply per meter..Equation 36

= 1 710.4 x 1 838
= R 3 143 716

7.2.4.2 Conveyor Drives Maintenance

For the drives it is generally assumed that the annual maintenance costs will be
equal to 6.5% of the overall supply costs and that the technological value of the
drives will deprecate by 35% per annum. Deriving from equations 23, 24 and25, the
annual drive maintenance costs for each conveyor system is therefore given by:

6 .5
(100 35)
....Equation 37
x (7542000) x
100
100

Maintenance Drives Upkeep (SF) =

= R 367 672.50

Maintenance Drives Upkeep (TF1) =

6 .5
(100 35)
.Equation 38
x (5028000) x
100
100

= R 245 115.00

Maintenance Drives Upkeep (TF2) =

6 .5
(100 35)
x (1045318) x
100
100

..Equation 39

= R 152 877.76

[Presentation of Findings]

Page 91 of 108

7.2.4.3 Idler Maintenance

The annual maintenance cost for idlers is assumed to be 15% of the supply costs
therefore; with the single-flight conveyor system supply costs summing up to
R 28 471 702 and those of the two-flight conveyor system summing up to
R 26 583 414, the annual Idlers maintenance costs on each system are:

Maintenance Idlers (SF) =

15
x 28471702 Equation 40
100

= R 4 270 755.3

Maintenance Idlers (TF) =

15
x 26583414 .Equation 41
100

= R 3 987 512.1

7.2.4.4 Pulley Maintenance

It is generally accepted that the annual pulley maintenance costs are estimated at
7.5% of the total pulley supply costs therefore, based on the pulley supply costs from
table 19 in chapter 6, the annual pulleys maintenance costs on each system are
calculated as:

Maintenance Pulleys (SF) =

7.5
x3038165 ..Equation 42
100

= R 227 862.375

Maintenance Pulleys (TF1) =

7.5
x 2813115 ...Equation 43
100

= R 210 983.625

Maintenance Pulleys (TF2) =

7 .5
x1983682 .Equation 44
100

= R 148 776.15

[Presentation of Findings]

Page 92 of 108

A big portion of the systems maintenance costs will be the physical labour that will
be required to execute the maintenance functions on the conveyor systems.
Assuming that three teams each consisting of one artisan and two unskilled
labourers would be necessary at a rate of R150 per hour for the artisans and R50
per hour for the unskilled labourers, then the yearly labour operating costs on each
conveyor system will be equal to the work rate per labourer multiplied by the
operational time (from equations 5 and 6) of each conveyor such as:

Maintenance Labour Costs SF = R750 x 6445 ...Equation 45

= R 4 833 750

Maintenance Labour Cost TF1 = R750 x 6320.Equation 46

= R 4 740 000

Maintenance Labour Cost TF2 = R750 x 6320.Equation 47

= R 4 740 000

Drawing on the results obtained from the maintenance labour costs above, one
observes that a great cost advantage can be realized by utilizing the single-flight
conveyor system configuration as opposed to the two-flight conveyor system
configuration. This is because the same amount of manpower is needed to run
maintenance on the single-flight system as well as on both flight 1 and flight 2 of the
two-flight conveyor system. With the requirement being nine persons per conveyor
for maintenance, the two-flight conveyor system ends up costing double that of the
single-flight conveyor system when comparing the maintenance labour costs. The
single-flight conveyor system is evidently the better option when analysing the labour
maintenance costs.

Summing up, the total annual cost for maintenance on each conveyor system is the
sum of the belting maintenance costs, drives maintenance costs, idler maintenance
costs, pulleys maintenance costs and, the labour costs to execute the actual
maintenance function such as shown in the RAM costs summary table below.

[Presentation of Findings]

Page 93 of 108

Single-Flight
26 779
11 623 237
367 673
4 270 755
227 862
4 833 750
21 323 277

Belt Length (km)

Belting Maintenance ( R )
Conveyor Drives Maintenance ( R )
Idler Maintenance ( R )
Pulley Maintenance ( R )
Maintenance Labour Costs ( R )
Total Maintenance Costs ( R )

Two-Flight
Flight 1
18 423
6 777 809
245 115
1 993 756
210 984
4 740 000
13 967 664

Two-Flight
Flight 2
8 537
3 143 716
152 878
1 993 756
148 776
4 740 000
10 179 126

Table 22: Summary of the Maintenance Costs

The total maintenance cost of each conveyor is therefore:

Total Maintenance Cost (SF) = The Belting maintenance costs + drives maintenance
costs + idler maintenance costs + pulleys
maintenance costs + the labour costs
= R11 623 237 + R367 673 + R4 270 755 +
R227 862 + R4 833 750
= R 21 323 277

Total Maintenance Cost

(TF)

= The Belting maintenance costs + drives maintenance

costs + idler maintenance costs + pulleys
maintenance costs + the labour costs
= R9 921 525 + R397 993 + R3 987 512 + R359 760
+ R9 480 000
= R 24 146 790

The single-flight conveyor systems total annual maintenance cost is R 2 823 512
cheaper than that of the two-flight conveyor. This is mainly due to the physical labour
costs which are half of those of the two-flight conveyor system. But, with an expected
plant life span of 30 years, the actual savings that will be achieved by opting to
employ the single-flight conveyor system instead of the two-flight system is:
R 2 823 512 x 30 = R 84 705 360 which is a significant amount. A total summary of
all the TCO costs as well as the maintenance costs and the impact of each item shall
be presented alongside the visual illustration in the section below.

[Presentation of Findings]

Page 94 of 108

Maintenance Costs: Single-Flight vs Two-Flight

Maintenance Costs (R)

14 000 000
12 000 000
10 000 000
Belting Maintenance

8 000 000

Conveyor Drves Maintenance

6 000 000

Idler Maintenance

4 000 000

Pulley Maintenance

2 000 000

Maintenance Labour Costs

0
Single Flight

Two Flight

Conveyor Flight Configurations

Figure 25: Maintenance Costs: Overall Review

Evaluating the annual maintenance costs in figure 25 above; a big difference

between the maintenance labour costs of the single-flight and two-flight conveyors is
immediately noticeable. This difference is due to the fact that the same amount of
manpower is needed to run maintenance on the single-flight system as well as on
both flight 1 and flight 2 of the two-flight conveyor system. With the requirement
being nine persons per conveyor for maintenance, the two-flight conveyor system
ends up costing 96.1% more than the single-flight conveyor system - making its
labour costs twice as expensive. Apart from this single major difference, the singleflight is: 8.2% cheaper on the on the conveyor drives maintenance costs, 57.9%
cheaper on the pulley maintenance costs but 17.2% and 7.1% more expensive on
the belting maintenance and idler maintenance costs respectively. Overall, the
annual costs for running maintenance on the single-flight conveyor are 13% cheaper
that than those of the two-flight conveyor system. For a plant with a life expectancy
of 30 years, a continual annual 13% saving on the annual maintenance costs is a
very considerable amount.

Analysing the Life Cycle Costs for both systems; the capital costs of installing the
two-flight conveyor configuration at the beginning phase of the plant is more
[Presentation of Findings]

Page 95 of 108

economical than that of the single-flight system. At the operational phase however
the single-flight conveyor configuration yields cheaper running costs and shows even
more favourable results when comparing annual maintenance costs for the 30 year
life expectancy of the plant. Overall, comparing the complete life cycle costs for both
systems; at R 804 574 117, the single-flight conveyor configuration yields a much
more cost efficient system than the two-flight conveyor configuration which sums up
to R 866 549 246. This implies that should the single-flight conveyor configuration be
installed as the system of choice, a total cost saving of R 61 975 129 would be
achieved over the 30 year expected life-span of the plant; and this is in addition to
the other previously discussed advantages of the system namely its appropriate
availability of 98.1%, the elimination of the extra transfer tower on its system and
hence the limitation of probable material spillage and material degradation and, its
easy maintainability. A full conclusion of all the findings from the dissertation
investigation shall be conducted in chapter 8.

In the next sub-section, the validity of the findings derived from the investigation shall
be measured up against the literature benchmarks set at the beginning of the
dissertation. This is done so as to establish the integrity of the findings as well as to
highlight possible areas where there may be deviations and then to uncover the
reasons for those deviations.

7.3 Validity of the Investigation Findings against the Literature of the

Benchmarks
From chapter 2, the literature benchmarks were set as:
a. To calculate the individual component costs for both Sasol Impumelelos twoflight and single-flight probable conveyor configurations in order to establish
each systems initial capital costs.
b. To calculate the individual component costs for both Sasol Impumelelos twoflight and single-flight probable conveyor configurations in order to establish
each systems running operational costs.

[Presentation of Findings]

Page 96 of 108

c. To calculate the individual component costs for both Sasol Impumelelos twoflight and single-flight probable conveyor configurations in order to establish
each systems annual maintenance costs.
d. To use the results from the capital, operational and maintenance cost
calculations to prove that the single-flight conveyor configuration is in fact the
optimum solution to install.

Drawing from points a, b and c above, the investigation findings are in fact
corresponding to the literature of the benchmarks as both the two-flight and singleflight conveyor systems capital, operational and maintenance costs were
established utilizing their individual component costs as discussed in chapters 2 and
6. With regards to point d, the calculations and comparisons of the total cost of
ownership for the two-flight and single-flight conveyor systems surprisingly on
chapter 6 showed that the two-flight conveyor system would be the cheaper system
overall; boasting a savings of R 22 730 261 on the capital and operational costs
only. However, when the practicality of the two systems were equated through RAM
calculations in chapter 7, it was discovered that the annual maintenance costs of the
single-flight conveyor were in fact cheaper by R 2 823 512, which amounts to
a savings of R 84 705 360 when calculated over the 30 year expected life span of
the plant. This ultimately means that with the overall TCO for the single-flight
conveyor system calculated as the sum of its capital and operational costs plus the
annual maintenance costs such as:
(R 21 323 277 x 30) + R 164 8750807 = R 804 574 117
And the overall TCO for the two-flight conveyor system calculated as the sum of its
capital and operational costs plus the annual maintenance costs such as:
(R 24 146 790 x 30) + R 142 145 546 = R 866 549 246
The total savings that could be achieved if the single-flight conveyor system is
implemented instead of the two-flight conveyor system is R 61 975 129. In addition,
the single-flight conveyor configuration is the only system out of the two that
achieves the 98.1% operational availability specified in the clients requirements.

[Presentation of Findings]

Page 97 of 108

Ultimately, the experimental findings from the single-flight conveyor configuration

proposed for the Sasol Impumelelo project are in agreement with the findings of the
literature benchmarks, displaying an overall savings of R 61 975 129 on the total
cost of ownership as well as the required 98.1% operational availability. And this
was achieved without considering the cost of the additional transfer tower and the
associated civils thereof that are mandatory to the two-flight conveyor system; which
would yield and even bigger economic advantage.

7.4 Answers to the Research Questions

From chapter 1, the research questions were set as:
a. Research question 1: How much are the individual component costs that
make up the initial capital and running operational costs for the single-flight
and two-flight conveyor systems?
b. Research question 2: How labour intensive will the maintenance
requirements for the single-flight versus the two flight conveyor configuration
be? And how costly will the maintenance be in terms of time and money?
Upon analysis of the nature of the dissertation requirements, it was decided by the
researcher that the best way to approach the investigation was to answer questions
to the dissertation pertaining to the research questions as set in points a and b
above such as:
a. Answer to research question 1: The individual component costs that make
up the capital and operational costs for both systems were calculated in
chapter 6 and it was found that the two-flight conveyors supply and
operational costs were R 22 730 261 cheaper than those of the single-flight
conveyor. This discovery was contrary to the expected result but, the answer
to research question number 2 was yet to be considered.
b. Answer to research question 2: Upon analysis of the labour intensiveness
of the two systems, it was discovered that the single-flight conveyor system
required less manpower for maintenance for the reason that twice as much
people would be required to perform the maintenance functions on the two[Presentation of Findings]

Page 98 of 108

flight conveyor system. Furthermore, the maintenance costs estimation

revealed that executing the annual maintenance functions on the single-flight
conveyor would be R 2 823 512 cheaper than those on the two-flight system
which, when calculated over the 30 year life span of the plant, will lead to a
total of R 84 705 360 in savings. This outcome is true even when neglecting
the cost of the additional transfer tower that would be required to transfer
material between the two conveyors encompassed in the two-flight system.

7.5 Hypothesis True or False?

From the statements above it can be taken that the research questions have been
adequately answered. Since it was shown that the cost of installing and operating
the two-flight conveyor system is much more expensive over the 30 year expected
life span of the plant and that the existence of additional transfer towers leads to
material degradation [18] and an increase in the maintenance requirements for the
plant; then it was proven that the single-flight conveyor system is in-fact the optimum
system to install.

The hypothesis for the dissertation has hence been proven to be true.

A summary of the findings established in this chapter shall be given next in subsection 7.6 followed by a final conclusion to the dissertation in chapter 8.

7.6 Summary and Introduction to Next Chapter

In this chapter a presentation and analysis of the results found from the calculations
in chapter 6 was made. This was done for the reason that a final conclusion from
the investigation may be reached so that a definitive recommendation, which will be
applicable universally, can be made. This shall be done in chapters 8 and 9
following. Then the reliability, availability and maintainability for both systems, which
is the area where the course theory is applicable, were assessed from both an
analytical and economies of scale point of view. It is discovered that at 98.1%, the
single-flight conveyor configuration was the only system that yielded the required
[Presentation of Findings]

Page 99 of 108

availability by definition and according to the clients requirements. The single-flight

conveyor system was also found to be the one that will demand less physical
maintenance as it contains less transfer points, less belt turn overs, no transfer
station or overrun surge bin facility and, fewer equipment such as idlers and pulleys
that will require continual maintenance at a higher frequency. In addition, the annual
maintenance costs for both systems were calculated and the single-flight conveyor
system was found to be the system that will be less expensive to sustain in the longrun, showing an overall savings of R 84 705 360 over the 30 year expected life-span
of the plant. The result above then has proven that the outcomes of the dissertation
investigation are indeed in line with the literature of the benchmarks and
subsequently that the answers to the research questions have been addressed
accordingly.

The final conclusion to the dissertation and consequent recommendations shall be

given next in chapters 8 and 9.

[Presentation of Findings]

Page 100 of 108

Chapter 8: Conclusion
In a tender bid to energy and chemical company Sasol, a request to offer a technical
solution for a two-flight overland conveyor system whose function is to transport coal
from a 15 000 tonne bunker into an external stockpile storage facility in the plant was
made. This conveyor consisted of two conveyor flight sections of lengths 18 423m
and 8 537m each. The prospect of combining the two flights of conveyors to form
one, super-efficient conveyor structure with additional cost saving benefits was
identified.

It was decided by the researcher to further explore the prospects of this proposed
single-flight conveyor system by performing an in-depth analysis of the two systems
through various total costs of ownership calculations ultimately leading to the
determination of the life cycle costs for each system.

This was reinforced with

further calculations of the practicality and sustainability of each system for the 30
year expected life-span of the plant together with a comparison of the reliability,
availability and maintainability for both conveyor configurations.

Upon evaluation of the results found from the various calculations and comparisons
performed to establish which, between the two overland conveyor configurations is
the optimum system to employ, it was found that even though its initial capital and
operational costs are higher at R 164 875 807; the single-flight conveyor system is
the optimum system to install. This is due to the finding that at a rate of 98%, the
single-flight conveyor configuration is more reliable, readily available and cheaper to
operate and sustain over the 30 year expected life-span of the plant; yielding a
complete life-cycle-cost that is R 84 705 360 cheaper than that of the two-flight
system.

It also is less labour intensive to execute maintenance on, yields less

material degradation and results in less material spillage because of the elimination
of the additional transfer points and transfer towers.

These results are in agreement with the findings of the literature benchmarks set
through analysis of work done by other authors and practising engineers and hence
[Conclusion]

Page 101 of 108

can be taken as valid on a global scale, for any mining plant, not restricted to any
specific material as they are not subject to South African temperature, altitude or
seismic conditions nor are they constrained to the type of bulk material being mined.

[Conclusion]

Page 102 of 108

Chapter 9: Recommendations
Based on the comparisons, graphs and results drawn from the calculations in the
various chapters in the dissertation; the following closing statements and final
recommendations are made:

The single-flight overland conveyor structure configuration does indeed

eliminate the need for a transfer tower and two belt turnovers and hence leads
to a decreased particle degradation and material spillage risk.

Logistically reducing and combining the number of overland conveyors from

two to one does lead to a system that is easier to engineer and procure as the
Single-flight conveyors layout demands for a lesser number of drive, idler and
pulley components making it lighter to handle and transport and erect.

The total cost of ownership of the single-flight conveyor is 16% more

expensive than that of the two-flight conveyor but, its operational and
maintenance costs are 2% and 13% cheaper respectively. The Life Cycle
Costs of the single-flight conveyor system however yield a total savings of
R 84 705 374, making it the more sustainable system to operate and maintain
over the 30 year expected life cycle of the plant. In addition, the single-flight
conveyor boasts a system-layout and component structure that demands less
maintenance, leads to minimal losses through material degradation and
spillage and, calls for cheaper labour maintenance costs.

Lastly, the single-flight conveyor system is the only system that yields the
mandatory functional availability of 98%, rendering it the only reliable and
hence acceptable system configuration by definition and according to the
clients specification.

On the basis of the statements and findings above it is recommended that the singleflight conveyor system is the best conveyor configuration to install. The reason for
this recommendation is that the single-flight conveyor configuration would provide
the end-user with the most optimal design and overall technical solution. It also
yields the most economical solution with minimal power consumption and, provides a
solution that leaves the most favourable environmental footprint. This has been

[Recommendations]

Page 103 of 108

proven and validated in the calculations and conclusions found throughout the body
of this dissertation.

With the validations as set above; I would further recommend that future research be
conducted measuring actual data from an existing plant to prove that the combined
single-flight overland conveyor configuration would in fact yield tangible results as
expected.

[Recommendations]

Page 104 of 108

Annexure 1: References
[1].

K Jonker and P Le Roux, Bateman Engineered Technologies (BET)

Bulk Materials Handling Division Introduction, 27 January 2011.

[2].

Ryan Lemmon, Local Stresses in Belt Turnovers in Conveyor Belts,

15 December 2004.

[3].

N Nkomonde, Sasol Impumelelo Optimized Mechanical Offer,

Bateman Africa 13 March 2012.

[4].

Leland Blank and Anthony Tarquin, Engineering Economy, sixth

Edition, Mc Graw Hill Higher Education.

[5].

Alex Rooney, Reliability Engineering and Management, Lecture

Notes, February 2011.

[6].

TyssenKrupp

Robins,

Conveyors,

article

sourced

from

www.kruppobins.com, accessed on 13 August 2012.

[7].

Simon Curry, TENOVA Basic Conveyor Design Handout, 2 July 2012.

[8].

Conveyor Terminology Glossary, article sourced from www.ciscoeagle.com, accessed on 3 July 2012.

[9].

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth

Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2009.

[10].

Mechanical

Engineering

Blog,

www.mechanicalengineeringblog.com,

article
accessed

sourced
on

17

from
August

2012.
[11].

Tega India Limited, Skirtboard Sealing System, Installation and

Maintenance Manual, June 2013.

[12].

Martin Engineering, Foundations, The Practical Resource for Cleaner,

Safer, More Productive Dust and Material Control, Fourth Edition,
Worzalla Publishing Company, 2009.

[13].

Image obtained from Brevini, available of www.brevini.com, as

accessed on 27 September 2012.

[14].

Rema Tip Top and Dunlop Belting Products, Belting Range, article
viewed on 5 October 2012.

[Annexure 1: References]

Page 105 of 108

[15].

N Nkomonde, Sasol Impumelelo Technical Description, Bateman

Africa, 13 March 2012.

[16].

C.S Chang and J.L Steele, Performance Characteristics of the Inlet

Section of a Screw Conveyor, citation made on 25 March 2013.

[17].

N. Addyman, M. Otrebski and R.S. Bender, Economic Considerations

of Extra Long Flight Conveyors, Keeve Steyn Incorporated, citation
made on 27 March 2013.

[18].

Lawrence K. Nordell, Overland Conveyors Designed for Efficient Cost

and Performance, Conveyor Dynamics Incorporated, citation made on
27 March 2013.

[19].

Anglo American, Mechanical and Materials Handling Engineering for

Practising Engineers, Belt Conveyors, Johannesburg, April 2002.

[20].

Graham Short, Conveyor Manufacturers Association, The Design and

Operation of Belt Conveyors, March 2012.

[21].

Environment Australia, Best Practice Environmental Management in

Mining, ISBN 0 64254570 7, 1998.

[22].

Conveyor

Equipment

Manufacturers

Association

(CEMA),

Belt

Conveyors for Bulk Materials, Sixth Edition, 2005, Naples, Florida.

[23].

J Botes, Scope of Work, Sasol Mining Impumelelo Mine Project, 18

October 2011.

[24].

The Miami University of Ohio, Writing a Scientific Research Proposal,

article cited from on 8 August 2013.

[25].

Jan Hanacek, Phases of Research Process, article cited on 8 August

2013.

[26].

Snap Surveys, Qualitative versus Quantitative Research, article cited

from www.snapsurveys.com on 24 August2013.

[27].

The

Belt

Conveyor

Guide,

article

sourced

from

www.conveyorbeltguide.com, as cited on 31 August 2013.

[28].

Siemens Drive Technology Division, Gearless Drive Systems for Belt

Conveyor and Grinding Mills, 18 February 2013.

[29].

Swinderman, R Todd, Lindstrom and Douglas, Belt Cleaners and Belt

Top Wear Martin Engineering, National Conference Publication
Number 93/ 8, 1993.

[Annexure 1: References]

Page 106 of 108

[30].

S. Zamorano, Lean and Mean Conveyor Design for the Nineties,

Bateman Engineering, Chile, September 1993.

[31].

G. Shortt and G.H Spriggs, The Design and Implementation of the

LSL/ Tekpro Dual Carry Overland Conveyor, Beltcon paper number
1204, August 2011.

[32].

Metso Minerals Industries, The Metso Rope Conveyor Cable Belt,

article cited from www.metso.com, 22 March 2013.

[33].

M.A. Alspaugh, P.E. Timothy Mess and E.I. Overland Conveyor Co.
Inc., Enhancing Overland Conveyor Possibilities, Bulk Solids
Handling, 2004.

[34].

K.G. Milford, The Evolution of Curved Conveyor Systems for the

Transportation of Minerals, Cable Belt Conveyors (Pty) Ltd, 2007.

[35].

The University of Illinois, Choosing Data Gathering Methods for your

Project, article cited from www.uic.edu on 19 September 2013.

[36].

Arkady

Maydanchik,

Data

Quality

Assessment,

Technics

Publications LCC, 2007.

[37].

Sidewinder

plus

V5.02

Design

Software,

Advanced

Conveyor

Technologies Inc., copyright 2004 2013, in accordance with CEMA 5

regulations.
[38].

Conveyor

Equipment

Manufacturers

Association

(CEMA),

Belt

th

Conveyors for Bulk Materials, 5 Edition, 2007.

[39].

Dunlop Belting, Conveyor Belt Design Manual, design manual in

accordance with SANS 1366/ 2000, SANS 971/2003 and SANS 1173/
2006, manual obtained from 22 -24 Lincoln Road, Nestadt Industrial
Sites, Benoni, Gauteng, South Africa.

[40].

South African National Standards (SANS), specification for Steelcord

Reinforced

Conveyor Belting for Use in Fiery Mines, SANS 1366,

2000.
[41].

South African National Standards (SANS), specification for Fireretardant Textile Reinforced Conveyor Belting, SANS 971, 2003.

[42].

South African National Standards (SANS), specification for General

Purpose Fabric-reinforced Conveyor Belting, SANS 1173, 2006.

[43].

Valk Gear Drives, Gear Drives Design Manual, Design Manual in

accordance to ANSI/ AGMA 6123-B06, 2006.

[Annexure 1: References]

Page 107 of 108

[44].

American Gear Manufacturers Association (AGMA), Design Manual

for Enclosed Epicyclic Gear Drives, AGMA 6123-B06, 2006.

[45].

Phillip Human, In-plant and Overland Conveyor Design Program,

Bateman Engineering Technologies, 2011.

[46].

Bosworth, Bosworth Conveyor Pulley Design Catalogue, SABS ISO

9001, catalogue obtained from corner Vereeniging and Juyn roads,
Alrode, Gauteng, South Africa.

[47].

International

Organization

for

Standardization

(ISO),

Quality

Management Systems Requirements, ISO 9001:2008.

[48].

Lorbrand Conveyor Technologies, Belt Conveyor Idlers design

catalogue, in accordance with SABS 657/3, 2008 and BS 970-1,
catalogue obtained from 6 Hennopspriver Street, Sunderland Ridge,
Centurion, South Africa.

[49].

South African Bureau of Standards (SABS), Steel Tubes for Nonpressure Purposes Part 3: Steel Tubes for Rolls for Conveyor Belt
Idlers, SABS 657/3, Edition 1, 1980.

[50].

British

Standards

(BS),

Specification

for

Wrought

Steels

for

Mechanical and Allied Engineering Purposes Central Inspection and

Testing Procedures for Carbon, Carbon Manganese, Alloy and
Stainless Steels, BS 970-1, 1996.
[51].

Dymot Engineering Company, Dymot winches and sheaves catalogue,

in accordance with British Standard 3701, catalogue obtained from 11
Derrick Road, Spartan, Kempton Park, South Africa.

[52].

British Standards Institution (BS), Specification for Hand Operated

Plate Sided Winces, BS 3701, 1964.

[53].

Martin Engineering Bulk Handling Solutions, Belt Cleaners Design

Catalogue,

Catalogue

obtained

from

Antwerpen

Street

and

Arnhemsingel, Die Heuwel, Witbank, Mpumalanga, South Africa.

[54].

Marcel Drottboom, Long Distance Conveying Choosing the Rigth

Option, 3 March 2011.

[Annexure 1: References]

Page 108 of 108