SME Annual Meeting

Feb. 24-Feb. 27, 2008, Salt Lake City, UT

Preprint 08-049

INCREASING KALTIM PRIMA COAL OVERLAND CONVEYOR SPEED TO 8.5 MPS

Poltak Sinaga, PT Kaltim Prima Coal, Kalimantan, Timur, Indonesia

ABSTRACT OLC DESCRIPTION

PT Kaltim Prima Coal’s 13.1 km overland conveyor (OLC) was The OLC is running straight over hilly terrain with an overall 9
0
commissioned in 1991. It is of conventional 3 roller 35 trough belt meters lift between tail end and head end. The conveyor was originally
type. Cost and performance optimization during initial design ended up fed by an electromagnetic vibratory feeder. It is now fed by a belt
with 5.4 mps belt speed, 1000 mm belt width to convey 1350tph, and 7 feeder (Figure 1). The belt feeder receives coal from a surge bin.
mtpa of coal.
Despite high initial figure, the belt speed was lifted to 6.5 mps in
1996 to accommodate mine throughput increase. In 2002, new low
loss ST2100 1100mm wide belt replaced the old ST2250 due for
change-out.
An upgrade project was initiated at the end of 2003 to further
increase the belt speed to 8.5 mps, hence to increase the OLC
capacity to 30 mtpa (million ton per annum). Performance data,
experience of site personnel, site observation and tests,
benchmarking, and information from equipment manufacturers were
major inputs to the design review. The project fast track was another
challenge in addition to executing modifications on a production lifeline.
The project was completed within fifteen months and the OLC was
successfully commissioned at 8.5 mps belt speed in February 2005.
The OLC has been to date conveying 4 200 tph satisfactorily.

INTRODUCTION

At the end of 2003, KPC set a target to ship 30 mtpa coal. The
OLC transporting coal from Coal Preparation Plant (CPP) to Tanjung
Bara Coal Terminal (TBCT) needs to be upgraded to facilitate the
achievement of the throughput target. In addition to the OLC upgrade
project, two other projects were also launched in parallel, namely the
upgrade of existing CPP (CPP 1) to 30 mtpa capacity and the
construction of new CPP (CPP 2).
Upgrading the OLC by increasing the belt speed is the lowest
capital option. Increasing belt width and/or modifying the trough angle
to have larger cross sectional area is not economical option as these
options will require expensive changes and significant down time of
OLC.
To achieve 30 mtpa, the belt speed shall be increased to 8.5 mps.
Although such high belt speed looked feasible, there was no
information obtained at that time regarding an actual installation of
overland conveyor running at or beyond that speed at other sites.
There was a risk that the conveyor would not be operating safely
and reliably at higher speed. This risk was escalated by the fact there
is no facility to lower or fine tune the belt speed once the higher belt
speed implemented.
The higher belt speed selection is limited by practical
considerations and running stability is the main aspect to be
considered [1]. High speed conveyor requires state-of-the-art design
methods to realize the economic advantages of doing so. Technical
requirements are discussed in [2].
In KPC’s case, the technical evaluation shall also consider the
ageing of OLC components.
Nevertheless the upgrade is not an extreme leap for KPC. The
OLC belt speed had been previously increased from 5.4 mps to 6.5
mps. Furthermore, the conveyor’s capacity and flow rate had been
increasing steadily as the result of subsequent design optimization.
Knowledge and experience accumulated over the years provided solid
background to execute the upgrade with great confidence.
1 Copyright © 2008 by SME
Figure 1. Belt Feeder.
The carry idler spacing is 3 m and the return idler spacing is 6 m.
0
The carry idler set consists of 3 roll with 35 trough angle. The return
0
idlers are 2 roll 10 vee. The conveyor contains approximately 17,500
idler rollers. The idler rollers are 178 mm diameter.
The conveyor passes a total of 6.5 km of swamp area. The
settlement of the embankment is now over 1 m in some areas when
compared to the initial elevation. The conveyor is supported in 24 m
trusses in these areas (Figure 2). The designs of trusses include
provision of extendable vertical height adjustment on the support pads
at each end.
The remaining sections of the conveyor are in stable cut or fill
areas. The conveyor consists of modules in these areas (Figure 3).
The idler frames are mounted on the legs of the modules. The modules
consist of line stand (Figure 4) every 3 m distance. The line stands
also have vertical height adjustment to accommodate settlement.
The conveyor discharges coal onto stacking conveyor or reclaim
conveyor through a chute capable of splitting the flow. Figure 5 shows
the Head End Transfer Station and the take-up tower.
Two drive pulleys at the head end are driving the conveyor.
Figure 6 shows pulleys arrangement at head end. All pulleys are
lagged with diamond grooved grade M rubber.
The OLC was originally powered by two drives. Third drive was
added during the first upgrade. The fourth drive was fitted during the
last upgrade. Current drives arrangement is shown in Figure 7.
Each drive consists of 1,000 kW AC squirrel cage motor, a scoop
controlled fluid coupling, a high speed flywheel and a 3-stage bevel
helical base mounted speed reducer. The drive is started by applying
an S-curve starting function via PLC to the scoop actuators of the fluid
coupling.
 SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 24-Feb. 27, 2008, Salt Lake City, UT

Figure 2. Conveyor trusses in swamp areas.

Figure 5. OLC Take-up and Head End Transfer Station.

Figure 3. Conveyor modules in stable cut or fill areas.

Figure 6. Pulleys arrangement at head end.

Figure 7. Drives Arrangement (FC = Fluid Coupling, FW = Flywheel).

ON-GOING CAPACITY INCREASE

The OLC was commissioned in late 1991 with name plate

capacity of 7 mtpa. The analysis gave 1,350 tph (ton per hour), 5.4
Figure 4. Line stand of conveyor modules. mps belt speed, 1000 mm belt width, and ST2250 belt rating as the
optimum design to achieve the capacity [3]. The design safety factor
2 Copyright © 2008 by SME
 SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 24-Feb. 27, 2008, Salt Lake City, UT

for the belt was 5.0 (running) and 4.3 (starting). These safety factors Surcharge Angle
0
were lower than that normally used at that time (i.e. 6.7). The selected The original design surcharge angle was 5 . The design of first
0
belt speed was also on the limit of industry practice. The belt speed upgrade in 1996 used 15 . Eventually subsequent profile measurement
0
and belt width selection was in line with industry research that confirmed that a higher surcharge angle of 25 can be used as the
concluded fast and narrow belt as the optimum designs both design parameter.
technically and economically [4].
Continuous optimization was taking place since early days. From Testing of Module
operational side, it was achieved by lifting the operating hours The capability of conveyor module to withstand the increasing
originally specified at 5,185 hours to the maximum. Meanwhile, the load was tested to ensure there was no potential for buckling the
potential of OLC operating beyond the nameplate were explored by module upright. Static load represented the actual operating load was
putting progressive increment onto the belt until all available cross applied and the deflection was measured with dial gage as shown by
section filled up. Figures 9 and 10.
In 1996 the OLC was re-commissioned at 6.5 mps belt speed.
This first upgrade increased the design nameplate to 12 mtpa. The
design average rate was 1800 tph. The major change was the
alteration of reduction ratio of two existing drives and the addition of
the third drive [5].
Optimization after the first upgrade increased further the OLC
capacity beyond 12 mtpa. Subsequent incremental load tests
eventually realized 2400 tph flow rate.
When it was due for replacement, the old ST2250 belt was
replaced with lower rating and lower cost ST2100 belt. The new belt is
100 mm wider than the old belt. The wider belt provides slightly larger
cross section. The new belt was guaranteed to safely transport up to
3300 tph. Anticipating the higher flow rate, larger flywheel and
additional take-up mass were fitted.
Due to restriction on upstream conveyor and bottleneck on the
OLC feeder and discharge chute, the new belt could only realize 2,800
tph rate at 6.5 mps belt speed.
The on-going effort to increase the OLC capacity enhanced the
understanding of the system behavior. The knowledge was
progressively accumulated. Previous design margin, standardization,
and design criteria were subsequently optimized as discussed in the
following section.
Figure 9. Buckling Test on a line stand.
DESIGN OPTIMIZATION

Accurate field measurement of actual performance is the key for

optimizing the OLC operation and its design. The measurement
provide the basis data for verifying previous design calculation and for
identifying the area for design optimization.

Bulk Density
3
Original design uses 820 kg/m as the coal density for capacity
calculation. Measurement of coal profile (Figure 8) confirmed a higher
density of 900 kg/m3 as reasonable design parameter. Observation
confirmed that the coal packs down and becomes denser as it travels
the 13.1 km distance.

Figure 10. Static Loads for Buckling Test.

Dynamic Behavior
In line with the increasing flow rate, low tensions area was
observed during full load braking approximately half way along the
OLC.
To bring the low tensions area into an acceptable range the take-
up tension and drive inertia were increased. The take-up mass was
increased from the original 39.1 t to 46.9 t giving 115 kN take-up
tension at the belt. The drive inertia was increased by approximately
250% by replacing the original with the larger flywheels.

Belt Tracking
Figure 8. Coal Profile Measurements. The frequent causes of belt mis-tracking are idler misalignment
and loading condition.

3 Copyright © 2008 by SME


Constant checking and constant re-leveling of idlers, conveyor
modules and trusses were identified as the critical maintenance task to
allow the OLC transport the coal with 100% cross-sectional capacity.
Stable and constant feeding was another important aspect
identified to keep the good tracking of the belt.
Design Load Cases
In addition to the full load case, the worst partial load case has
been also used to determine the belt tension limit.
There are 11 down hills along OLC as shown in Figure 11. When
the OLC is loaded along the full length the mass of material traveling
down the hill generates more power than the friction of the conveyor in
that section. In contrast when all down hills being unloaded and the
rest of the conveyor loaded there is potential for relatively high, short-
term, power demands that might cause dynamic over-tensioning.
Figure 11. OLC Hill Profile.
In the original design the worst partial load case was defined as
11 down hills unloaded and the rest of the conveyor loaded. This was
rationalized to only include the largest downhill plus 3 down hills
unloaded. The rationalization allowed the selection of smaller rating
ST2100 belt.
Actual Power Demand Analysis
The existing operating data (measured tph versus motor current
draw) was analyzed to establish the demand power and belt tension.
Such analysis was the important control use during subsequent
incremental tests carried out on the OLC.
DIN 22101
When fitted in 2002, the selection of ST2100 and 1100 mm wide
belt also used the criteria from new DIN 22101 standard. The new DIN
22101 set the maximum belt stress over cross section during full load
run as the basis for belt selection. It should be noted that at the time
this new standard was still in draft version.
Maximum tension generated at convex curve on largest hill and
maximum belt edge tensions at transition length were calculated based
on DIN 22101 criteria.
Belt Safety Factor
Static analysis come up with steady-state running tensions and
power consumption for nominated load cases. Dynamic analysis
provides belt tension and power consumption during non-stationary
operation, like starting and stopping of the belt conveyor.
The original design safety factor of 5.0 (running) and 4.3 (starting)
were maintained during the selection of new ST2100 belt.
The calculated safety factors for 2400 tph coal, 6.68 mps belt
speed with belt fully loaded are 6.0 (running) and 5.6 (starting).
Checking with DIN 22101, at this operating case the calculated
maximum belt stress over the cross section at the maximum convex
radius gives dynamic safety factor of 2.74 for belt drifted at 5% of the
width which is still beyond the minimum allowable 2.28.
Analysis of actual power demand at 2800 tph flow rate prior to the
upgrade gave safety factor 5.3 (running) and 5.0 (Starting) for fully
loaded belt design case and 5.0 (running) and 4.7 (starting) for design
partial load case.
4 Copyright © 2008 by SME
SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 24-Feb. 27, 2008, Salt Lake City, UT
8.5 MPS BELT SPEED UPGRADE DESIGN
Design optimization described previously set good foundation for
evaluating upgrade design for 8.5 mps belt speed.
Initial Review
To achieve 30 mtpa capacity target, the OLC shall run at average
rate of 4000 tph over 7500 hours a year. Considering rate fluctuation
from the feeder, a capacity of 4500 tph was established as upgrade
design peak. Using ISO 5048 as the basis for edge clearance and the
information of conveyor drive gear ratio from the manufacturer, an
increase in the belt speed from 6.5 mps to 8.48 mps is required to
realize 4500 tph as the design peak capacity of the OLC.
The worst partial load case was further rationalized to only include
the largest hill unloaded based on the following considerations.
• Higher belt speeds minimize the likelihood of several down hills
unloaded at the same time.
• The new Belt Feeder will minimize gap (zero material loading on
the belt).
The start time was set to be extended from 480 second to 560
seconds.
There would be no additional weight at new belt speed as coal
profile would be similar. Therefore, it was decided the braked stopping
time would be the same to that previously used (i.e. 80 seconds).
The existing take-up tower was designed for the 46.9 ton take-up
mass corresponding to 115kN pretension on the belt. As all take-up
mass had been installed, further addition is not possible.
Upgrade Design Criteria
Initial upgrade review established the following upgrade design
criteria.
à 4500 tph design capacity.
à Belt speed 8.5m/s.
à Starting time 560 seconds from 0 to 8.5m/s.
à Braking time 80 seconds from 8.5m/s to 0.
à Take-up 115 kN belt tension.
à Upgraded Installed Power 4 x 1MW drives.
à The “Full” cases are with the conveyor full over its full length, i.e.
all carry flites load.
à The short term event “Partial Load” cases are with the conveyor
full over its full length except the largest hill unloaded.
à Use of new DIN 22101 for tension limits evaluation.
à Coal density 900kg/m3.
à Surcharge angle 25 degrees.
à Existing Belt ST2100kN/m with 5 x 5 covers.
à Belt Mass 29.7kg/m.
Demand Power
The upgrade power demand, which is proportional to the belt
speed increase, was calculated by scaling up the actual power
demand using existing operating data (measured t/h versus motor
current draw). The increase of power demand require additional 1,000
kW drive to be fitted.
Belt Review
Belt is the highest cost item of the OLC; therefore, the
replacement of existing belt was not acceptable. The belt speed
increase allows the conveying capacity to increase while maintaining
the same belt loading (kg/m). Under steady state running conditions
the belt forces are increased by a negligible amount.
The main review points are briefly outlined below.
• Theoretical run and start demand power and belt tensions (static
and transient).
• Maximum allowable steady state run belt tension and short-term
start or stopping belt tension allowed by the current ST2100 kN/m
rating belt.
• Additional vertical curve tension at the higher belt speed operation
on the convex curve on the largest hill with a belt radius of 2712

meters.
• Necessary modification of head and tail transitions, and pulley
diameters.
• Effect of higher belt speed on the belt tracking.
• Effects of higher belt speed on belt splice life.
• Improvements to the current Maintenance and Services
Procedures.
The review was carried out by KPC in a good collaboration with
the belt manufacturer. The outcomes of analysis carried out are
summarized below.
• 0.013 is used as fictive friction (DIN factor) based on the analysis
of actual power demand data of existing operation.
• For the design case “all carry flites load” the minimum belt
operation safety factor is 4.45 (running) and 3.9 (starting) as
shown in Figure 12.
• For the design case “partial load” the minimum belt operation
safety factor is 4.1 (running) and 3.6 (starting) as shown in Figure
13.
• Checking with DIN 22101 criteria, the maximum cross belt stress
at the largest vertical curve (full load running) and belt edge
tension at extended transition length are still below the nominal
belt strength.
• Head end transition need to be extended to 21.61 m.
• Existing tail end transition length is sufficient.
• Existing pulleys diameter are acceptable.
• Belt tracking will not be affected by operating the belt at the higher
speed.
• Splices strength is adequate for the upgrade duty.
Figure 12. Belt Tension – all carry flites load.
Figure 13. Belt Tension – partial load design case.
KPC and the belt manufacturer agreed upon the revised
guarantee condition as the effect of upgrade conditions. Despite the
lower calculated belt safety factors under the upgrade duty, the original
300 million ton is still guaranteed tonnage to be conveyed by the OLC.
Drive System
The second stage of the existing gear reducer would be changed
to altered reduction ratio for the increase in the belt speed. Fourth drive
was added for accommodating increased power demand.
5 Copyright © 2008 by SME
SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 24-Feb. 27, 2008, Salt Lake City, UT
External lube pump was added to improve gear set lubrication
and cooling. Pivot and load cell previously attached to the drive base
plate were deleted to provide more robust foundation and to minimize
vibration.
There were no modification or replacement required for the fluid
coupling. Option to replace fluid coupling with VVVF was considered
but then dropped due to capital and down time consequences.
There were no modifications required on all rigid couplings.
Drive inertia generated by existing flywheel was evaluated as
adequate for the upgrade task. However, larger bearings would need
to be fitted on the flywheel’s pedestal to eliminate the sliding of
bearings’ outer race as experienced before.
Pulleys
In consultation with the pulley manufacturer, the design review
resulted in the need for larger locking element and shaft diameter at
the locking element. The adoption of current industry standard
removed conservatism in the previous pulley specifications.
• Shaft. Original endurance limit of 290MPa for 4140 material (AS
1444) is changed to 405Mpa.
• Shell. Previous specification was based on conservative
approach resulting in thicker shell. Current industry recognized
standards that is based on "Investigations concerning the
stresses in Belt conveyor Pulleys" by Dr H Lange, 1963 was used
for shell design calculation.
• End disc. Advanced design that based on "The Design of
Conveyor Belt Pulleys" by Dipl. Ing. W Schmoltzi, 1974 was used.
Shaft design is based on start torque and the associated start belt
tensions as follows.
• Drive pulley. The tension used is that generated during
starts/stops and aborted starts as normal occurrence requiring
fatigue calculations. The stalled torque is used for the yield
calculations.
• Snub and Take-up pulley. The shaft is calculated based on
braking transient tension of partial load design case. Starting
tension calculated for partial load design case is used for yield
calculation.
• The brake pulley was based on braking transient tension.
Shell design is based on maximum belt tension during normal full
load condition.
The option to use ceramic lagging on drive pulleys was rejected
since the ceramic lagging would accelerate the belt wear. The
tolerance of lagging on both drive pulleys must be tightened due to
load sharing. Drive pulley lagging was specified to be ground after final
assembly to achieve matched pulley diameters.
Following are the outcomes of pulley design review.
• Diameter, face width, pulley bearing centers, bearing and housing
of all pulleys are maintained.
• Except for the snub pulley, locking element and shaft diameter at
locking element of all pulleys need to be enlarged.
• The B10 unadjusted life of existing size of pulleys’ bearings were
still greater than 65,000 hours calculated for the upgrade duty.
• Shaft material K1045 (AS 1442/AS1443) originally used on non-
driven pulleys is replaced with the stronger material 4140 (AS
1444) to retain bearing size.
• Thicknesses of new pulleys’ shell are less when compared to old
pulley design.
• Thickness of end disc is less than the original specification.
Idlers and Idlers Frame
To keep a bearing life greater than 65,000 hours B10 life
unadjusted, the existing bearings and shaft diameters of the idlers
need to be uprated as follows.
• Carry Centre Roller - 6308 bearing and 42 mm are replaced with
6310 bearing and 56 mm shaft.
 SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 24-Feb. 27, 2008, Salt Lake City, UT

• Carry Wing Roller - 6305 bearing and 27mm shaft are replaced
with 6308 bearing and 42 mm shaft.
• Vee Return Rollers - 6305 bearing and 27mm shaft need to be
replaced with 6308 bearing and 42 mm shaft.

Due to the high speed operation, the idler roll shall be of

machined and dynamically balanced construction with minimum rolling
resistance. To achieve this quality, the previous idler specifications
were upgraded as follows.

• The maximum idler roll out-of-balance shall not exceed 0.056 Nm

(static balance) or G40 AS 3709 (dynamic balance).
• Maximum TIR is 0.65 mm for bare rollers and 0.2 mm for rubber
covered rollers
• Maximum rim drag is specified for respective bearing size. For
6308 bearings, it is 10 N for start up and 6 N. Seal and greasing
shall be designed to give minimum rim drag.

Low noise idlers required to be installed in some sections of the

OLC are specified with more stringent dynamic specifications.
Net additional mass of the uprated idlers is marginal giving no
significant influence to additional rotating mass/inertia of the whole
system.
The OLC consists of approximately 18,000 idlers. Around 4,000
idlers located at several sections with high belt tension were prioritized
to be replaced before the OLC operating under upgrade condition.
Idlers on other sections of the OLC were scheduled to be replaced Figure 14. New OLC Discharge Chute.
after upgrade commissioning or to be replaced as normal maintenance
replacement when the old idlers collapsed. Structural Review
Idler frames were found to be adequate for the upgrade operating For the purpose of structural review various load case
condition. The only modification required was trough angle at the head combinations were applied to simulate extreme loading conditions. The
end to extend transition length. Complete survey and alignment along reviews were carried out to check the adequacy under the upgrade
the length of the OLC was specified as important upgrade task due to conditions, both from strength and from a serviceability viewpoint. The
the higher belt speed. following structures were reviewed.

New Feed System • Head End Transfer Station

A new surge bin is provided to receive coal from the existing CPP
1 via a transfer conveyor. The transfer conveyor receives coal from the
old surge bin. The old electromagnetic vibratory feeder was
demolished. The new CPP 2 also discharges to the new surge bin.
A belt feeder under the new surge bin feed coal onto the OLC. It
has a variable speed capability with a maximum capacity of 4500 tph.
The new surge bin was also designed to accommodate the future
second OLC.
OLC Discharge Chute
The old discharge chute could not accommodate the upgrade
duty. In order to minimize modifications hence construction time,
design of the new discharge chute was carried out with the following
design constraints.
• The belt line and head pulleys arrangement must not be altered.
• Launch pulley concept is not acceptable.
• The receiving two yard conveyors are fixed at the existing
orientation and heights.
• The chute shall be capable to handle various type of coal.
• Minimum changes on existing structures for providing chute
mounting support.
• Dump pockets shall hold the volume of coal from at least one
OLC stop.
The old chute used flop gate to split the flow. Such design would
not work for the upgrade duty with pivot point being the weakest part.
Subsequent failures were experienced previously.
The new chute (Figure 14) uses diverter gate to split the flow.
Material discharged by OLC is directed into a vertical stream entering a
diverter. The diverter splits the stream by actuation to either of the
receiving belts. Material from the diverter travel laterally via an
intermediate chute section then onto the receiving belt by a spoon.
In the event that a loaded emergency stop takes place, the hood
will rotate by actuation and deliver material to both of the dump
pockets simultaneously.
6 Copyright © 2008 by SME
• All pulleys frame and footings.
• Take-up tower
• Elevated conveyor trusses.
• Conveyor trusses at swamp area.
• Ground module.
The following modifications are designed at Head End Transfer
Station.
• Additional bay that extend the existing platform to provide space
for additional equipment.
• Steelwork modification to suit the new chute arrangement.
• Additional operating floor bracing on the north side to ensure
symmetry and equal distribution of belt tension forces and to
minimize racking of the floor.
• Additional knee braces to portal frames supporting drive pulleys
lines to minimize vertical deflection.
• Partial replacement of existing vertical bracing and additional
vertical bracing.
Due to the ‘softness’ of the supporting structure and separate
sub-bases for the motor/coupling and the gearbox/flywheel, it was
analyzed significant movement was possible at the fluid couplings
leading to misalignment and vibration issue. More robust drive sub-
bases was designed to replace the old ones. Figure 15 shows the old
and new sub-bases.
The frame and holding down bolts of tail pulley were found to be
inadequate when subject to transient belt tension during brake stop.
The frame need to be extended and additional holding down bolts
provided to adequately anchor the tail pulley.
No other structural modifications were required other than those
described above.

Figure 15. Old (top) and new (bottom) drive foundation .
Electrical
Existing specifications of all power supply components and field
protection devices were found to be adequate for the upgrade duty.
The scope for the upgrade was the extension of existing system to
accommodate the fourth drive and ancillary motors. Nevertheless, the
healthy of all field protection devices were set as important upgrade
execution task.
Drive Control System
Due to the obsoleteness of the old unit, new model of fluid
coupling scoop tube actuator are fitted on the four drives.
The replacement provided the opportunity to smoothen the
startup S-curve of the fluid coupling as the new unit can be controlled
via an analogue 4-20mA signal in addition to through raise / lower
signals. The old units could only be controlled through raise / lower
signals from PLC. Tighter control against the desired startup S-curve
and good load sharing between four connected drives were desirable
for the upgrade due to increasing capacity requirements and torque
capability.
However, it was eventually decided to maintain the control
through raise / lower signals in consideration of the following.
• Software has to be re-written from the beginning.
• Tuning of the existing PLC loops has to be re-done from scratch.
• All experience gained over the years by KPC staff is lost.
• Re-tuning of all actuators has to be done again from the
beginning without the benefit of previous experience.
• Commissioning and downtime will be a lot longer.
The existing current mismatch limit stays the same for the
upgrade.
Other Miscellaneous Components
Other than those described in previous paragraphs, following are
other minor modifications specified during the upgrade design review.
• Relocation of belt weigher to downstream new belt feeder.
• Extension and modification of dust suppression to suit the new
discharge chute.
• Enlargement of fine chute receiving carry back from clean-up belt
(Spillage Conveyor).
• Increasing the volume of dump bunker by raising the wall with
hungry board.
Belt cleaning equipment (i.e. primary scrapper, tertiary scrapper,
straight plough in the mid section of the conveyor, and vee plough at
7 Copyright © 2008 by SME
SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 24-Feb. 27, 2008, Salt Lake City, UT
tail end) only require refurbishment and/or replacement.
UPGRADE PROJECT EXECUTION
Tight time frame to realize the upgrade capacity demanded fast
track approach. The upgrade design was initiated in November 2004.
The first order was issued three months later while the first site
construction was carried-out eight months later. Upgrade installation
was completed during major OLC shutdown at the end of January
2005. The shutdown extended to 11 days as the commissioning took
longer. OLC was back to un-interrupted operation in early February
2005.
The upgrade was fully managed by in-house project team.
Design
The upgrade design review was a collaborative process involving
the in-house project team, original conveyor designers, and original
equipment manufacturers of the OLC components. Separately a
structural consultant was assigned to complete the structural review
while a control system specialist was consulted for PLC programming
and fine tuning of drives control system.
Procurement
The procurement of new and replacement components and parts
required for the upgrade was organized through normal KPC’s supply
chain management. Long lead item (i.e. additional drive and
replacement gear sets, motor, fluid coupling, pulleys, idlers) were
determining the achievement of targeted project time frame; therefore,
the upgrade design evaluation prioritized them.
Some parts and components that had been already obsolete were
replaced with new models. Some purchased item were air freighted to
site to cope with construction schedule.
Construction
The OLC is the lifeline of KPC’s operation as it is the only
infrastructure to convey coal from mine to port. Meanwhile most
upgrade installation requires OLC stoppage. In order to minimize
OLC’s down time, the following construction strategy were
implemented.
1. Upgrade design evaluation was carried out in line with
construction task prioritization.
2. The upgrade design addressed sequencing, methods,
constructability and time requirement for each specified
construction tasks.
3. Work packages that can be executed off line were progressively
carried out prior to the major shutdown.
4. Work packages requiring OLC stoppage were distributed over the
regular maintenance scheduled stoppage.
5. A major shutdown was scheduled to complete the upgrade
installation.
6. Fabricated item were pre-assembled.
7. Equipment were pre-aligned.
8. Mock-up was carried-out for complex installation.
9. Risk assessment and contingency plan were conducted.
The upgrade installation were carried-out by a combination of
maintenance personnel seconded to the project and local contractors.
Before the major shutdown taking place, following tasks had been
completed.
• Extension and reinforcement of OLC Head End Transfer Station.
• Relocation of fluid couplings’ oil cooler.
• Additional anchorage of tail pulley.
• Re-levelling of conveyor modules.
•
th
Power and instrumentation connection for the 4 drive and other
additional motors.
• Replacement of idlers.
• Installation and commissioning of new fluid coupling’s actuators
on three drives.
The OLC major shutdown had been established in KPC’s

business plan since early days. Production and shipping schedule had
been arranged to match with it.
OLC Head End Transfer Station was stripped during major
shutdown (Figures 16 and 17). Old components were removed and
then replaced with new or refurbished ones. Following are major tasks
executed during major shutdown.
• Removal of existing three drives assemblies and installation of
four drives assemblies.
• Drive sub-bases replacement and associated structural
modifications.
• OLC discharge chute replacement and associated structural
modifications.
• Pulleys replacement.
• Head end transition length modification.
• Idlers replacement.
The tie in of new belt feeder to the OLC was deferred as the new
surge bin had not been completed.
Figure. 16. Pulleys replacement.
Figure 17. Upgrade arrangement with four drives.
Pre-commissioning
As the old components stripped out, pre-commissioning
inspection is critical to ensure the replacement were correctly installed.
Pre-commissioning activities included inspection, pre-operational
tests of individual equipment, static testing, calibration including local
mode testing of all field devices. This testing involves the simulation of
8 Copyright © 2008 by SME
SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 24-Feb. 27, 2008, Salt Lake City, UT
trips caused by blocked chute devices, take-up travel limits, conveyor
protection devices, over temperature switches, interlocks etc.
Functionality of all alarms, safety devices, proximity switches, were
also checked. Chutes and pulleys were checked for any obstruction.
Foreign material along the conveyor was removed.
Dry Commissioning
The main agenda of dry commissioning was to demonstrate the
OLC running satisfactorily at the new belt speed (i.e. 8.5 mps). The
project team was very enthusiastic to see the first run of OLC.
Personnel were located at the nominated points along the conveyor.
The first start followed by several subsequent attempts failed.
Before reaching full speed, start was aborted. Majority of problems
were typical control issues such as current mismatch (motors load
sharing), PLC and field devices setting, false sensor due, etc).
Troubleshooting included the extension of starting time from 560
seconds (previously specified) to 720 seconds.
When the start attempt eventually succeeded and the OLC was
running at 8.5 mps, there were no problems observed due to the
increased belt speed.
Belt tracking was found to be extremely good. There were no
evidence of misalignment, component overheating, excessive drives
vibration, or abnormal wear. Belt scrapper and ploughs were properly
attached. Braked stop (auto, manual and local modes) and emergency
stop (trip) were tested. Safety trips and interlocks were verified. Belt
dynamic behavior was observed.
Finally, it was concluded the conveyor is in a reliable and
serviceable condition and ready for load commissioning.
Wet Commissioning
The OLC was fed for a while by the old vibratory feeder as the
new belt feeder had not been operational. The nominal design capacity
of the feeder was 2500 tph but it had been increased to 2800 tph by
increasing the stroke to the maximum level.
The wet commissioning program was started with coal sludge
and then progressively constant 2800 tph was fed onto the OLC
without any problems. Figure 18 shows first coal discharged through at
8.5 mps belt speed operation.
Figure 18. First coal discharge at new belt speed.
To get more coal fed by the vibratory feeder, tray down slope and
gate valve were manipulated. As expected the coal sliding occurred
when the down slope increased causing surge and sever rate
fluctuation. The gate valve was adjusted to minimize the wide range of
rate fluctuation. The feeder was operated with full attendance of an
operator. Within this operational mode, the feed set point was varied in
accordance to loading condition and coal types up to maximum 3900
tph.
The wet commissioning was basically “extended” until the new
belt feeder operational two months later.
 SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 24-Feb. 27, 2008, Salt Lake City, UT

The belt feeder gave a relative constant rate on the OLC. The Additional maintenance tasks are incorporated into the system
4200 tph feed set point was realized without problems. due to addition of the fourth drive and other components. Belt tracking
There were no evidence of abnormal belt tracking, excessive belt is still main operational parameters being monitored with loading
wear and excessive spillage. Belt sag was found acceptable. Belt to condition and idler misalignment are still the common mis-tracking
idler contact was adequate. Drive system components functioned sources. The calibration of surge bin level and its interlock become
satisfactorily without any vibration or overheating issues. Drive pulleys new regular maintenance task to keep constant feeding onto OLC. The
slip was not seen visually. Discharge chute was working fine. There replacement of old idlers is still progressing during the scheduled
were no abnormalities found regard with take up movement. maintenance shutdown.
Consecutive stop/start with full belt were conducted without no issues. Within one year after the upgrade, approximately 39 new idlers
Power reading showed the actual value was within the design failed because the inner shell of fixed bearing rotating on and tracking
calculation. into the shaft. Though the failure percentage of new idlers was only
Some adjustment were carried out. The starting time was further marginal, joint investigation was conducted by KPC and the idler
increased to 780 seconds. Due to low tension / belt lift at tail end, the manufacturer. This resulted in design improvement for the use of
braked stopping time was eventually set at 120 seconds following retainer ring or circlip in lieu of previously used bonding agent (i.e.
subsequent adjustment. The belt weigher was calibrated as an loctite) to fit the bearings.
excessive bias was found at the new belt speed. The only major issue after the upgrade is the wear on drive
pulleys’ lagging. The drive pulleys were replaced after only two and a
UPGRADE PERFORMANCE half years in service due to unacceptable wear lagging. The uneven
wear profile is not good for the belt, which is the most important
The OLC has been operating with 8.5 mps belt speed for almost conveyor component. The root cause analysis is still progressing. At
three years. The upgrade performance is shown in Table 1 (rows with this stage micro slip between belt and pulley’s lagging has been
black colour shading) with along with the past years’ performance. identified as the most possible wear mechanism.
The coal conveyed in 2006 is close to 30 mtpa target. It would be Compared to the period before upgrade, there is no relative
above 30 mtpa in 2007. As the operation getting stable, the average increase of operation and maintenance costs due to higher belt speed
flow rate is increasing. Year to date statistic of 2007 shows the operation. In fact, the unit cost of coal conveyed ($/ton) after the
average flow rate is beyond the 4000 tph target. upgrade is less than that before the upgrade.
When compared to the period before upgrade, there is no CONCLUSION
significant change of operating philosophy in the period after the
upgrade. Nevertheless, improvements were deployed in some area as • The upgrade has successfully lifted the OLC capacity which
more experience gained with the higher belt speed operation. translates into increased revenue and lower conveying unit cost.
Primary scraper was removed out following a PLC failure causing • The upgrade to higher belt speed conveyor produces more coal at
severe damage in a belt section. The interlock was not working; less overall cost.
therefore, the OLC kept discharging coal while none of receiving yard • The upgrade was made possible by accumulated knowledge and
conveyors running. As the result, the chute was flooded with coal and accurate understanding of each part of the system.
forced the primary scraper to “bite “the belt. A risk assessment • Design conservatism was removed by rationalization of previous
concluded the primary scraper removal is necessary to eliminate the design criteria and the adoption of newly developed industry
risk of severe belt damage. This left the carry back cleaning task to the standard.
secondary and tertiary scrapers only. • The adoption of new DIN 22101 standard rationalized belt rating
As the oil cooler of fluid coupling was found to be on the limit, an selection and belt tension limit review.
improved start-up protocol was established. This includes multiple • Accurate dynamic calculation is required for higher speed
start-up limitation, earlier operation of oil cooler and regular cleaning of conveyor application.
heat exchanger surfaces.
• The upgrade provided the opportunity to improve the system
Data in Table 1 shows the system availability is well maintained
design.
after the upgrade. Slightly longer unscheduled maintenance after the
• Collaboration with equipment manufacturer on reviewing the
upgrade is merely due to necessary adjustment during early operation.
impact of higher belt speed to the conveyor components was
important contributing factor to the successful upgrade
Table 1. OLC Performance Statistic 1992 – 2006.
implementation.
Million ton Run Unscheduled
Year
conveyed Hours
Average tph
Mtc. Hours
Availability • Except for the drive pulley’s lagging wear being investigated,
there has been no evidence of increasing wear of other
1992 6.9 5,866 1,167 145 95%
components at higher belt speed operation.
1993 8.9 6,807 1,308 414 92% • There has been no evidence of system availability deterioration
1994 10.0 6941 1,435 298 94% due to higher belt speed operation
1,473
• Idler alignment and constant feed without gap are necessary to
1995 10.2 6949 188 96%
keep the belt tracking nicely.
1996 11.4 6288 1,818 692 90% • The upgrade performance verifies the reliability of high speed belt
1997 12.9 7172 1,804 67 93% operation and establishes state-of-the-art long conveyor design
standard to be adopted for other application.
1998 14.7 7680 1,918 221 96%
• The successful upgrade of KPC’s OLC to 8.5 mps belt speed
1999 14.0 7093 1,976 223 93% supports the approach to utilise belt speed as a design criterion.
2000 13.1 6139 2,140 186 94%
REFERENCES
2001 15.6 6914 2,258 110 96%
2002 17.7 7592 2,337 156 97% 1. Lodewijks, G., "Design of High Speed Belt Conveyors", Bulk
2003 16.2 6627 2,450 224 96% Solids Handing, Vol. 19 (1999), No. 4, pp.463-470.
2004 21.4 7515 2,850 317 95% 2. Harrison, A. and Roberts, A.W., "Technical Requirements for
2005 26.4 7078 3,725 456 93% Operating Conveyor Belts at High Speed", Bulk Solids Handing,
Vol. 4 (1984), No. 1, pp.99-104.
2006 29.5 7642 3,858 328 96%
2007* 29.8 7211 4,132 248 96%
3. James, G.L., "Design of a 13.1 km Overland Conveyor", Bulk
Solids Handing, Vol. 12 (1992), No. 539 - 545, pp.99-104.
*Year to date up to 30 November

9 Copyright © 2008 by SME

 SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 24-Feb. 27, 2008, Salt Lake City, UT

4. Roberts, A.W., Harrison, A. and Hayes, J.W., "Economic Factors

Relating to the Design of Belt Conveyors for Long Distance
Transportation of Bulk Solids", Int. Jnl. of Bulk Solids Handling,
Vol. 5, No. 6, December 1985 (pp. 1143-1149).
5. James, G.L., Rigby, T.J., “PT Kaltim Prima Coal Upgrade
Projects”, IIR Conference Proceeding, 1997.

10 Copyright © 2008 by SME