26.8.12

Conveyor Belt Tensionig Systems

The conveyor belt tensioning system or take-up device is a vital component in ensuring optimium belt performance.



The role of the take-up device is to create and maintain adequate pre-tension to allow the conveyor drive pulley to drive the belt under all running conditions (empty or loaded). Generally there are two main types of take-up. The fixed type (normally refered to as a screw take-up STU) and the automatic or Gravity take-up (GTU). The screw take-up is normally used on short conveyors up to a length of 50m. Over 50m an automatic take-up system should be used to ensure constant pre-tension. The length of the take-up depends on the both the centre distance of the conveyor and the type of belt (see calculation).

Ltu = (L ) X 饾満 /100

Where:
Ltu = Take up length
L = Center distance
蔚 = 1.6 – 2.1 for EP fabrics belts depending to the manufacturer

The screw take-up on shorter belts is normally located at the tail end. Tracking of the belt with the screw take-up should only be performed as a last resort as it may cause permanent belt stretch.

The GTU performs best located close to the drive drum. The GTU bend pulleys will have a minimum diameter based on the belt specification. Movement of the GTU on both the vertical and horizontal axis should be limited to 10mm to avoid excessive movement and associated tracking problems. The GTU should be protected with a return belt plough and must be adequately guarded. The GTU length can store spare belt to facilitate the replacement of a vulcanized splice without the need for additional belting.


GTU Weight and Belt Sag (q/s)

The weight of the GTU should maintain a constant belt sag between the idlers (normally q/s = 1- 2%) hence calculating the correct weight is important. A GTU underweight will lead to excessive belt sag thus increasing belt bend resistance and reducing overall belt and idler life. A GTU overweight will lead to excessive belt tension resulting in belt and joint stretch.





15.11.10

Abrasion resistance of Conveyor Belts

Abrasion resistance of conveyor belt covers is one of the most important properties of a belt. As conveyor systems have improved in quality in recent years because of better maintenance, alignment, and rip detection systems, premature or catastrophic failure has been reduced and gradual wear of the belt covers become a more common form of belt change out.

This technical note describes the different types of abrasion and common industry tests used for measuring abrasion.

In general, there are two types of abrasion occurring in belt applications. The first and more common type of wear is caused by the conveyed material rubbing against the rubber or thermoplastic cover. The belt covers tend to wear smoothly and evenly. The type of material conveyed affects wear, for example coal is relatively not abrasive whereas in comparison, hard rock and taconite pellets wear covers extremely fast. Density of material and speed of material being conveyed affects the wear rate with heavier and faster speeds increasing the wear rate. Typical appearance of the smooth wear is shown below.

Picture of pure abrasion wear failure mode is shown below. The belt has been worn down though the top cover and 3 plies.

The second and more aggressive type of abrasion is cutting and gouging where jagged or sharp surfaces from materials like limestone, granite, and ores will cut the belt cover and remove the cover in “chunks”. Typical appearance of the surface is shown below.


There are two common industry test methods used to measure belt cover wear under laboratory conditions.

The first and more common test method is often referred to as the “DIN abrasion test method”. It is based on the German test method DIN53516 and also ISO4649 test methods A and B. The test involves preparing a “puck” of the cover and subjecting this sample to abrasion against a rotating drum covered with sandpaper. The sample is pushed against the drum with a specific force, the sandpaper is a specific type and the speed of the drum and number of revolutions are controlled. The sample is weighed before and after the test and the volume loss is calculated and expressed in cubic millimeters.


The lower the number obtained, the better the abrasion resistance.

The test can be run two different ways – one in which the belt cover sample is rotated (ISO4649, method B) and one in which the belt cover sample is not rotated (ISO 4649, method A). It has been found that the rotating test method is more severe and also more accurate and reproducible.

A picture of the actual test machine is shown below:

A picture of the actual test sample is shown below:



This test is very reproducible and as an example, data is shown below for a belt manufacturers specific cover measured monthly over a 12-month period. Each test used a different lot of cover and frequently used different lab technicians.



As can be seen, results are within +/- 10%, which is very good. A calibration test also exists which helps to ensure that the equipment is correct and reduce variation.

Typical belt covers obtain rotating abrasion values (ISO4649, method B) in the 100 to 300 range with highly abrasion covers less than 100.

This test is supposed to resemble the more common form of abrasion where rubbing of the conveyed material causes wear. In general the trend is correct where a low lab number will give better abrasion resistance than a high lab number. In actual application, the actual number and %improvement varies considerably between the lab and field and needs to be validated.

An example is shown below where a belt manufacturer measured the wear of three different covers with different lab abrasion numbers. As can be seen, the wear trend is similar, where the lower the lab abrasion number, the less the actual wear in service.


With regard to standards, there are no USA standards on conveyor belts using this abrasion test.
In Germany, conveyor belt standards DIN 22102, part 1 specify four types of covers with non- rotating DIN abrasion maximum values:


COVER TYPE MAXIMUM ABRASION (Cubic mm)
TYPE W 90
TYPE X 120
TYPE Y 150
TYPE K 250


The second test method commonly used to measure abrasion resistance of belt covers is the “PICO” abrasion test. This is an ASTM test method D2228. In this test, a pair of tungsten carbide knives is used to abrade the belt cover. The knives are lowered onto a “puck” shaped belt cover sample and the knives then rotate under controlled conditions of speed, time, and knife force. A dusting powder is also used to engulf the abraded belt cover particles and to keep knives free of oils etc. Again, the sample is weighed before and after the test and the volume loss is calculated. The calculation is an abrasion index and in this case, the higher the number, the better the abrasion resistance.

The test machine is shown below.


The test sample is shown below:


This test is designed to duplicate cut and gouge type service, but unfortunately experience has not shown this to be the case. Typical belt covers have PICO values in the range of 25 to 100 with highly abrasion resistant covers in excess of 100. This tester also does not have desired reproducibility and more erratic values are obtained. Typically +/- 20% is found in test results. Currently, there are no USA or international belt standards on this test.

The subject of measuring cut and gouge has been studied for several years by belt manufacturers and several have in house test equipment, which is designed to give more relevant data on these types of service.

Finally, there are many system design recommendations to improve belt cover life both from an abrasion and a cut & gouge standpoint, regardless of compound. From an abrasion standpoint, the following guidelines should be used:

1.The faster the speed of the conveyor, the greater the wear. The material bounces and abrades in the loading zone until it gets up to the same speed of the belt. The higher the relative speed differential, the more wear will occur.
2. The shorter the center to center length of the system, the greater the wear. This is simply due to more cycles per hour.
3. The higher the angle of incline at the loading point of the conveyor, the greater the wear. The higher angle makes it tougher for the material to get up to the speed of the belt (i.e. 15? incline conveyor will wear faster than a flat conveyor)
4. The higher the angle of chute, the greater the wear. The more the material is being transferred to a conveyor belt in the horizontal direction instead of vertical, the less the wear. Therefore, a chute with a 30? angle will project the material at a greater horizontal velocity than a chute with a 90? straight down drop, reducing the wear.
5. The higher the drop height, the greater the wear.
6. The higher the feed angle from one conveyor to the next, the greater the wear. This means that a conveyor belt that is fed inline from another conveyor will wear less than one that is being fed at an angle.
7. Scraper tension is critical. Too loose and the material will not be removed from the cover. Too tight and the cover will get worn away significantly faster.

If the material being conveyed is large enough and/or sharp enough, cut and gouge damage to the cover will occur. From this standpoint, the following guidelines should be used:
1. The higher the drop height, the greater the damage to the belt cover and carcass. Installing bars in the crusher or chute to slow down the material when practical will reduce the material speed and impact energy.
2. Loading fines on to the belt before the large diameter material will reduce impact damage dramatically. The fines absorb the high impact energy, protecting the belt cover.
3. Impact idlers reduce the amount of impact damage to a belt in comparison to impact beds because the belt has more room to deflect

28.4.09

Listing of international, European and national standards relating to belt conveyors. Part 1.

The following is a listing of the principal international and national standards relating to belt conveyors. It is not claimed to be exhaustive.

International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO)
  • ISO 10247:1990 Conveyor belts Characteristics of covers Classification.
  • ISO 1120:2002 Conveyor belts Determination of strength of mechanical fastenings ± Static test method.
  • ISO 14890:2003 Conveyor belts Specification for rubber or plastics covered conveyor belts of textile construction for general use.
  • ISO 15236-1:2005 Steel cord conveyor belts Part 1: Design, dimensions and mechanical requirements for conveyor belts for general use.
  • ISO 15236-2:2004 Steel cord conveyor belts Part 2: Preferred belt types.
  • ISO 15236-4:2004 Steel cord conveyor belts Part 4: Vulcanised belt joints
  • ISO 1535:1975 Continuous mechanical handling equipment for loose bulk materials Troughed belt conveyors (other than portable conveyors) Belts.
  • ISO 1536:1975 Continuous mechanical handling equipment for loose bulk materials Troughed belt conveyors (other than portable conveyors) Belt pulleys.
  • ISO 1537:1975 Continuous mechanical handling equipment for loose bulk materials Troughed belt conveyors (other than portable conveyors) Idlers.
  • ISO16851:2004 Textile conveyor belts Determination of the net length of an endless (spliced) conveyor belt.
  • ISO 1816:1975 Continuous mechanical handling equipment for loose bulk materials and unit loads Belt conveyors Basic characteristics of motorised driving pulleys.
  • ISO 18573:2003 Conveyor belts Test atmospheres and conditioning periods.
  • ISO 2109:1975 Continuous mechanical handling equipment Light duty belt conveyors for loose bulk materials.
  • ISO 251:2003 Conveyor belts with textile carcass Widths and lengths
    ISO 252:1999 Textile conveyor belts Adhesive strength between constitutive
    elements Part 1: Methods of test.
  • ISO 282:1999 Conveyor belts Sampling.
  • ISO 283-1:2000 Textile conveyor belts Full thickness tensile testing Part 1: Determination of tensile strength, elongation at break and elongation at the reference load.
  • ISO 284:2003 Conveyor belts Electrical conductivity Specification and test method.
  • ISO 340:2004 Conveyor belts Laboratory scale flammability characteristics Requirements and test method.
  • ISO 3684:1990 Conveyor belts Determination of minimum pulley diameters.
  • ISO 3870:1976 Conveyor belts (fabric carcass), with length between pulley centres up to 300 m, for loose bulk materials Adjustment of take-up device.
  • ISO 4123:1979 Belt conveyors Impact rings for carrying idlers and discs forreturn idlers Main dimensions.
  • ISO 433:1991 Conveyor belts Marking.
  • ISO 5048:1989 Continuous mechanical handling equipment Belt conveyors with carrying idlers Calculation of operating power and tensile forces.
  • ISO 505:1999 Conveyor belts Method for the determination of the tear propagation resistance of textile conveyor belts.
  • ISO 5284:1986 Conveyor belts List of equivalent terms.
  • ISO 5285:2004 Conveyor belts Guidelines for storage and handling.
  • ISO 5293:2004 Conveyor belts Determination of minimum transition distance on three idler rollers
    ISO 583-1:1999 Conveyor belts with a textile carcass Total thickness and thickness of elements Part 1: Methods of test.
  • ISO 583:1990 Conveyor belts with a textile carcass Tolerances on total thickness and thickness of covers Direct measurement method.
  • ISO 703-1:1999 Conveyor belts Transverse flexibility and troughability Part 1: Test method.
  • ISO 703:1988 Conveyor belts Troughability Characteristics of transverse flexibility and test method.
  • ISO 7149:1982 Continuous handling equipment Safety code Special rules.
  • ISO 7590:2001 Steel cord conveyor belts Methods for the determination of total thickness and cover thickness.
  • ISO 7622-1:1984 Steel cord conveyor belts Longitudinal traction test Part 1: Measurement of elongation.
  • ISO 7622-2:1984 Steel cord conveyor belts Longitudinal traction test Part 2: Measurement of tensile strength.
  • ISO 7623:1996 Steel cord conveyor belts Cord-to-coating bond test Initial test and after thermal treatment.
  • ISO 8094:1984 Steel cord conveyor belts Adhesion strength test of the cover to the core layer.
  • ISO 9856:2003 Conveyor belts Determination of elastic and permanent elongation and calculation of elastic modulus.
  • ISO/FDIS 252 Conveyor belts Adhesion between constitutive elements Test methods.
  • ISO/FDIS 283 Textile conveyor belts Full thickness tensile strength, elongation at break and elongation at the reference load Test method.
  • ISO/FDIS 583 Conveyor belts with a textile carcass Total belt thickness andthickness of constitutive elements Test methods.
  • ISO/FDIS 703 Conveyor belts Transverse flexibility (troughability) Test method.
  • ISO/TR 5045:1979 Continuous mechanical handling equipment Safety code for belt conveyors Examples for guarding of nip points.
  • ISO/TR 8435:1984 Continuous mechanical handling equipment Safety code for belt conveyors examples for protection of pinch points on idlers.

14.4.09

ABRASION RESISTANCE OF CONVEYOR BELTS

There are many system design recommendations to improve belt cover life both from an abrasion and a cut & gouge standpoint, regardless of compound. From an abrasion standpoint,
the following guidelines should be used:

  • The faster the speed of the conveyor, the greater the wear. The material bounces and
    abrades in the loading zone until it gets up to the same speed of the belt. The higher the
    relative speed differential, the more wear will occur.
  • The shorter the center to center length of the system, the greater the wear. This is simply due to more cycles per hour.
  • The higher the angle of incline at the loading point of the conveyor, the greater the wear. The higher angle makes it tougher for the material to get up to the speed of the belt (i.e. 15每 incline conveyor will wear faster than a flat conveyor)
  • The higher the angle of chute, the greater the wear. The more the material is being
    transferred to a conveyor belt in the horizontal direction instead of vertical, the less the wear. Therefore, a chute with a 30° angle will project the material at a greater horizontal velocity than a chute with a 90° straight down drop, reducing the wear.
  • The higher the drop height, the greater the wear.
  • The higher the feed angle from one conveyor to the next, the greater the wear. This means
    that a conveyor belt that is fed inline from another conveyor will wear less than one that is
    being fed at an angle.
  • Scraper tension is critical. Too loose and the material will not be removed from the cover.
    Too tight and the cover will get worn away significantly faster.

If the material being conveyed is large enough and/or sharp enough, cut and gouge damage to
the cover will occur. From this standpoint, the following guidelines should be used:

  • The higher the drop height, the greater the damage to the belt cover and carcass. Installing
    bars in the crusher or chute to slow down the material when practical will reduce the material speed and impact energy.
  • Loading fines on to the belt before the large diameter material will reduce impact damage
    dramatically. The fines absorb the high impact energy, protecting the belt cover.
  • Impact idlers reduce the amount of impact damage to a belt in comparison to impact beds
    because the belt has more room to deflect.