STANDARD FOR CONVEYOR BELT COVERS

H. Simonsen, Consultant, Until Sept. 1990 Manager R & D, Germany, Conveyor Belt Division, Continental A

Standards for Conveyor Belt Covers Their Importance for Evaluating Belt Behavior. 1. 2. 3. 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 4. 5. 1. Summary This paper deals with the standardisation of cover thickness and cover quality. Two standards that contain recommendations on the thickness of conveyor belt covers are described and evaluated. The standards concerned are: The American RMA-Handbook The German Standard DIN 22 101 Grades for the quality of cover rubber were established when natural rubber was the only rubber material available. When synthetic rubber came along the old grades had to be reconsidered. In the USA all grading based on physical figures was dropped. In Europe and other countries an abrasion test was introduced to improve the chances of predicting the behaviour under service conditions. Figures for 3 grades from 4 national standards and from the International Standard are compared. Summary Introduction Standardisation of Conveyor Belt Covers Thickness of Covers Standardisation of Cover Thickness for Rationalisation Recommended Thickness of Covers on the Carrying Side Cover Quality Determination of Cover Grades New Definition Cover Grades Comparison of Cover Grades from Different Standards New Evaluation of Cover Grades New Investments for a Better Evaluation of Cover Material Abrasion Tests Test Methods for the Evaluation of Cut and Gouge Quality Conclusions Acknowledgement References

In the light of experience gained in the field it must be recognised, that these grades excluded compounds which had proved better for certain conditions. Research on abrasion testing methods confirmed that the established abrasion test provides results which are not consistent with the results from other tests. The new test methods are described. The latest revision of German Standard DIN 22131 warns against taking for granted a reliable connection between cover grades and service life. Up to now, tensile strength and elongation at break are the only properties used to judge the resistance of a rubber compound to cut and gouge stresses. During a research project a test bench for continuous testing of cut and gouge stresses was developed. The force to create cuts and gouges was measured. The test bench is described. No correlation was found between this force and the figures for tensile strength or tear strength. But the results obtained so far are derived from too small a number of tests for us to be able to draw final conclusion. So in this area, the research needs to go on. 2. Introduction The most important use of standards in general is: - to limit the variety of possible designs - to record the state of the art. Standardisation makes products from different manufacturers interchangeable or at least comparable; it further provides an effect of rationalisation. A standard often conveys expert knowledge to the user of products. This aspect of a standard makes it obvious why manufacturers of a product are not very interested in standardisation. What they are aiming at is to market unique products. Furthermore they do not want to reveal their basic design knowhow to the public and that includes their competitors. It is seldom the case that representatives of the users - and it's just the users who benefit from standards are members of standardisation committees. On the subject I'm dealing with today it is perfectly clear that the experience of the users is indispensable. 3. Standardisation of Conveyor Belt Covers Three areas of conveyor belt covers have been standardised: - the quality of the material used - the thickness of covers - the adhesion of the covers to the carcass. Today I'm only going to deal with the first two items. When designing the covers of conveyor belts one generally has to adjust cover grade and cover thickness to the material to be conveyed as well as to the feeding conditions and at the same time to ensure that the carcass and the covers attain the same service life. If this is not possible (since the cover

thickness is limited) a reconditioning of the covers should be considered. However, it is quite likely that a carcass is not worn out when the belt has reached the desired and therefore the designed service life. The reason is, that certain requirements for strength are essential if the function of the belt is to be guaranteed. 3.1 Thickness of Covers There are three reasons, why standards make recommendations or rules on the thickness of covers: 1. to keep the minimum thickness essential for the function 2. to limit the number of belt types 3. to obtain optimal adaption to service conditions. 3.1.1 Standardisation of Cover Thickness for Rationalisation Rules in connection with item 2 will not be considered here. They are generally issued for belts working under special, restricting conditions such as belting for the coal mining industry. It should, however, be mentioned that the latest edition of the German standard for conveyor belts with textile reinforcements for general use, DIN 22102 [1], proposes certain cover thicknesses that should be favoured. The idea behind this proposal is not only to limit the variety of belt types without an essential reduction of the cost/benefit ratio, but also to concentrate the production on a smaller number of types. One is hoping for a rationalisation effect and a more effective way of storing. 3.1.2 Recommended Thickness of Covers on the Carrying Side To retain the minimum thickness of covers is a must. This is particularly obvious for steel cable belts, where the rubber cover is the only tension member in the transverse direction. The US Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) in its RMA-Handbook 1980 [2] and the German Standard DIN 22101 [3] recommend, among other things, cover thicknesses for certain service conditions. Both recommendations assume that the wear of the cover is created by the stresses at the feeding point. So, in respect of designing the covers, both rules consider the character of the material and the feeding frequency. RMA suggests the overall cover thickness, while DIN proposes supplementary thicknesses that should be added to a minimum cover thickness. The following paragraphs demonstrate the method how to determine the cover thickness in accordance with RMA and DIN 22101. RMA-Method The RMA guide has only one table (table 1) to determine the cover thickness on the carrying side for favourable conditions as a function of the abrasiveness of the material carried and of its size. Conditions other than "favourable conditions" are taken into account by the following note:

"Increased cover thickness is required as the following conditions become more severe: material abrasiveness, maximum lump size of material, material weight, height of the material drop onto the belt, loading angle, belt speed, and frequency of loading as determined by belt cycles per unit of time." Table 1 - Suggested Minimum Conveyor Cover Thickness Under Favourable Conditions For Grade 2 Belting. Minimum Thickness (mm) 2 3 6 10

Class of Material Package handling Light or fine nonabrasive Heavy, crushed to < 75mm Heavy, crushed to < 200mm Heavy, large lumps

Examples Cartons, food products Wood chips, pulp, grain, potash ore Sand, gravel, crushed stone ROM coal, rock, ores Hard ores, slag

Grade 1 covers should be considered for heavy crushed material over 75mm and heavy large lumps if cut and gouge resistances are the main criteria.

DIN-Method The DIN Standard makes use of 2 tables (tables 2 and 3). Table 2 serves to determine the minimum thickness of both top and bottom covers depending on the type of carcass selected. Table 3 is in two parts. The first part is used to obtain a reference number, which in the second part gives the recommended supplement to the minimum cover thickness on the carrying side. Table 2 - Guide Figures for the mm. Cover Thickness on Carrying Side and Pulley Side Material of Tension Member Guide Figures Cotton, Polyamide, Polyester 1 to 2mm depending on the structure of the fabric Steel cables 0.7 x cable diameter at least 4mm

Table 3 - Determination of Guide Figures for the Supplement to the mm. Cover Thickness on the Carrying Side in Accordance with Table 2

Factors of Influence and Their Evaluation Feeding conditions fair medium 1 2

Sum of Evaluation Figures 5 to 6

Guide Figures for the Supplements to min. Covers (mm) 0 to 1

bad Feeding frequency Lump size rare medium frequently fine medium coarse light medium course moderate medium severe

3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 7 to 8 1 to 3

9 to 11

3 to 6

Density

12 to 13

6 to 10

Abrasion

14 to 15

10

The total cover thickness on the carrying side is obtained by adding the supplement to the minimum cover thickness. The evaluation is to a large extent a matter of discretion; the results are therefore the subject of considerable variation. But the method doesn't pretend to provide a degree of accuracy that is not obtainable.

The two methods can be compared by means of an example: Service Conditions: favourable conditions, iron ore, lump size < 200mm textile carcass, high strength Recommended cover Thickness, Carrying Side: RMA Method: 6mm Grade 1 DIN Method: 5 to 8mm (minimum cover thickness: 2 mm, reference number 9, supplement 3-6 mm) The two figures that should be compared here are 6 mm and 5 mm. The correspondence between the results is satisfying. The fact, that DIN not only provides a minimum thickness but a range may be looked upon as an advantage. 3.2 Cover Quality The basic idea of creating grades for cover material is that it should be possible to recognise and predict with sufficient precision, how the cover material will react under given service conditions, based solely on certain physical properties of the material. These properties are determined by test methods having an acceptable variation and lead to reproducible values with sufficient precision. 3.2.1 Determination of Cover Grades

At the time when natural rubber was the only type of rubber available it was indisputable that cover compounds with high tensile strength and high elongation were superior to those with lower values under real service conditions. This view changed when synthetic rubber came along. It became possible to make very abrasion-resistant cover compounds using special synthetic rubber. Since at the same time these compounds had relatively low values, especially regarding tensile strength, ideas about this matter had to be changed. 3.2.2 New Definition of Cover Grades In Europe, especially in Germany, one tried to compensate for this shortcoming by creating an abrasion test method to further delimit the problem. Upper limits for abrasion resistance were added to the existing requirements for the different classes of covers. Many conveyor belt users soon got the idea, that abrasion was the most important criterion for the assessment of the quality. In the US, people drew the conclusion that a few physical figures were not sufficient to recognise the behaviour in practice and that it would be better to do without these evaluation criteria altogether and to make the sum of all practical experience the standard for cover grades.[2] For conveyor belts the US belt manufacturers tried to follow the same line as is usual in the tire sector and elsewhere: We know what we're talking about, we've gained experience from a wide range of users; we know what's best for your conditions. Trust us! The European belt users stuck to Lenin's motto: Confidence is good, control is better! I think that the different approach also has something to do with the difference in the use of long, wide, thick, strong and hence valuable conveyor belts. The frequent use of such belts and the investment of millions of dollars in conveyors and conveyor belts makes belt operators want to be certain about the quality before the deal is closed rather than to have an unpleasant experience after the belt has been installed. It's true that such experience from practice will always be the best test. But proceeding in this way is reasonable only if products of relatively low value are involved such as V-belts, low-value conveyor belts, tires etc. As I said before, to give a more precise definition of quality grades the results of an abrasion test were included. This is the test method that was described in German Standard DIN 53516 [4]. Meanwhile this test has been taken over with only minor amendments as International Standard ISO 4649 [5].

Figure 1: Abrasion Test under DIN 53 516 and ISO 4649 3.2.3 Comparison of Cover Grades from Different Standards Tables 4 and 5 show the physical values of key properties for the grades "Abrasion Resistant" and "Cut- and Gouge Resistant", respectively. The figures were taken from the standards of the following countries or organisations: Australia(AS) [6], Germany(DIN) [7], Great Britain(BS) [8], Japan( JIS)[9][10], International Standard(ISO). [11] Table 4 - Grade "Abrasion Resistant" - Requirements Tensile Strength Mpa min. 17 17 18 13.7 18

Standard AS 1333 1980 BS 490 1990 DIN 22131 1988 JIS 6369 1979 ISO 10247 1990

Grade A N17 Synthetic W A (1) D

Elongation at Break % min. 400 400 400 400 400

Abrasion mm3 max. 70 90 150 100

Alteration by Aging* % 25 25 - 25 25 - 25

* relates to tensile strength and elongation only (ISO 188) Tensile Strength Mpa min. 24 24 25 17.7 24

Standard Grade AS 1333 1980 BS 490 1990 DIN 22131 1988 M M 24 X

Elongation at Break % min. 450 450 450 450 450

Abrasion mm3 max. 120 200 120

Alteration by Aging* % 25 25 - 25 25 - 25

JIS 6369 special 1979 ISO 10247 1990 H

* relates to tensile strength and elongation only (ISO 188)

The British standard is the only one that doesn't demand an abrasion value for any grade. It only says, that the grades "M24" and "N17 synthetic" are equivalent in respect of their abrasion property. "N17 synthetic" is recommended for the most arduous conditions, and at the same time a high adhesion to the carcass is demanded. Based on this comment, it is a problem to decide in which category (table 4 or table 5) the two types should be classified. Due to the close similarity of the figures I put "N17 synthetic" in table 4 and "M24" in table 5. As you will see when comparing the two tables, the minimum values for the elongation at break are identical. For the tensile strength there are some differences. Apart from the Japanese Standard, however, they differ by not more than 1 MPa. I should add that I was not able to find out whether this Japanese Standard dating back to 1979 is still valid. The values for the third grade do not correspond to the same extent (see table 6). Here there are differences even for the elongation at break and the differences for the tensile strength are generally up to 5 MPa, but in the case of the Japanese Standard they are up to 10 MPa. In a large number of applications the new grades allowed a good matching of covers to technical and economical conditions. This, coupled with the desire to have a reliable criterion for "good" and "bad" lead many users to have an unshakeable belief in the practical use of the cover grades. The manufacturers have never shared this belief, because they know that it is possible to design rubber compounds which, by their values give the impression that they are of the highest quality, but which would nevertheless lead to poor results under service conditions. But because it is reassuring to be guided by some seemingly clear figures the trust the users place in them has not been questioned for a decade or more. Table 6 - Grade "Moderate Stresses" - Requirements Tensile Strength Mpa min. 17 17 20 10 15

Standard Grade AS 1333 1980 BS 490 1990 DIN 22131 1988 JIS 6369 1979 ISO 10247 1990 N N 17 Y 2 L

Elongation at Break % min. 400 400 400 350 350

Abrasion 3 mm max. 150 200

Alteration by Aging* % 25 25 - 25 25 - 25

* Relates to Tensile Strength and Elongation only (ISO 188) 3.2.4 New Evaluation of Cover Grades

A rubber compound with a high tensile strength and high elongation at break will never be a poor rubber compound, but it could be less suitable for a job than a compound with "lower" figures. Modifying it in the light of the abrasion test results doesn't guarantee superiority under practical conditions, either. It is meanwhile known that the physical values - Tensile Strength (ISO 37) - Elongation at Break (ISO 37) - Abrasion Resistance (ISO 4649) are not in themselves sufficient to determine the properties of a cover. It is therefore not reasonable or advisable to accept the cover grades unquestioningly. This assertion is based on many years of practical experience. In Germany an attempt was made to redress the situation when the German Standard for Steel Cable Belts for General Use, DIN 22131.[7], was revised in 1988: It again establishes 4 cover grades. But they differ considerably from those defined in the previous edition. To make it quite obvious that a change of ideas had taken place the old characters M, N, 0, P were dropped and new characters W, X, Y, K were introduced. For the new cover grades the following explanation was given: These values serve to determine four types of material for covers by some of their characteristics. Other values such as tear resistance may also be a further basis for evaluation. Reliable conclusions on the practical behaviour of covers, such as their wear or cut resistance, cannot be drawn from these values alone. This explanation is not intended to discourage people or to make them believe that there is nothing at all that can be retained regarding the evaluation of covers. But it is intended to cast doubt on the aforementioned belief and to pave the way for the use of new, more suitable rubber compounds even if they are not in accordance with the standard. It should be pointed out that other physical values (the tear resistance for example) may be a further basis for judgement. With this statement, the goal is set for further research and development in this field. 3.3 New Investigations for a Better Evaluation of Cover Material The standards which were compared in table 4, 5, and 6 distinguish between stress from - Abrasion - Cut and Gouge It is likely that both stresses would simultaneously occur naturally, but it is not wrong to carry out such an intellectual splitting.

In extensive research work the "Institut fr Frdertechnik und Bergwerksmaschinen" of Hannover University attempted to simulate the stresses by abrasion as well as those by cutting and gouging [12][13]. This work was initiated and financially supported by the conveyor belt division of Continental AG, Hannover. 3.3.1 Abrasion Tests Regarding abrasion test methods a distinction is made between those, where the abrasive material is bonded and those where it is loose. In the first case the cover sample and the bonded abrasive material rub against each other; the ISO 4649 [6] test belongs to this category. In the other case the cover sample and the abrasive material will flow freely against one another. Two testing devices for bonded material were developed and are shown in figures 2 and 3. The roller in the test bench illustrated in figure 2 was loaded with original material (for this work iron ore sinter and broken glass, respectively). While the rotating roller is moving abrasively over the conveyor belt sample the temperature at the line of contact is controlled. In this way the influence of temperature on the result can be recognised. The test bench in figure 3 consists mainly of a concrete block which is moving abrasively over the internal circumference of a drum. This inner surface is lagged with cover samples of different quality. The advantage with this method is that several samples (max. 15) can be tested simultaneously, i.e. under identical conditions.

Figure 2: Friction Roller Apparatus

Figure 3: Friction Block Apparatus The two devices used for testing with loose material are shown in figures 4 and 5. On the test bench shown in figure 4 an arrangement of 8 quickly rotating bolts, lagged with cover samples of different quality, is moved eccentrically through the

heaped material being tested. Here, too, samples of different quality are tested under identical conditions. On the test bench depicted in figure 5 a certain quantity of the material is filled into a drum. The internal surface of the drum, which is rotating during the test, is lagged with cover samples of different quality. Here again several samples are tested simultaneously and therefore under identical conditions. In all cases the loss of volume is taken as a measure of abrasion.

Figure 4: Agitator Apparatus

Figure 5: Wearing Drum Apparatus In figure 6 the results of the abrasion tests are shown. The diagram gives the specific abrasion values of representative rubber compounds for conveyor belt covers. The different cover compounds, each indicated by two letters, are arranged on the abscissa. The compounds are in the order of the abrasion obtained by the ISO abrasion test. The mean value from each test is related to the average of all tests. It is obvious that there is no correlation between the new test methods and the standard abrasion test ISO 4649.

Figure 6: Comparison of the Related Abrasion Values of Rubber Cover Material 3.3.2 Test Methods for the Determination of Cut and Gouge Quality

In the past it was attempted to evaluate the cut and gouge behaviour merely from quality figures of tensile strength and elongation at break. Through comparison of results from observation and from measuring on belts under service conditions it became obvious that this evaluation did not always match the practical behaviour. Similar to abrasion testing, a laboratory test for the stresses by cut and gouge was developed within the framework of the research project mentioned.[12][13] The result was a test bench as shown in figure 7.

Figure 7: Impact Test Bench for Measuring of the Forces Created by Cut and Gouge Damage On this test bench, the rotating belt sample is continuously impacted by two masses. Each of the masses is provided at its end with a rounded cone; it is linked revolving to the end of a bar. The bar for its part is linked revolving to a flywheel. The masses of these centrifugal pendulums are continuously punched at several tracks on the belt surface. The cone penetrates the surface and causes damage. The forces which are originated by this process are measured. The value of the tangentially orientated components of the forces is considered a measure for the cover quality regarding cut and gouge stresses.

Figure 8: The Tear Forces of Rubber Covers Obtained on the Test Bench According to Figure 7 4. Acknowledgement

The author wants to thank Professor Dr. Manfred Hager, Director of "Institut fr Frdertechnik und Bergwerksmaschinen", University of Hannover, Germany for his kind assistance and for the permission to make use the figures 2 to 6. 5. References [1] DIN 22102; Frdergurte mit Textileinlagen, Teil 1;Deutsches Institut fr Normung e.V.; April 1991 [2] RMA Handbook; IP-1;1980; Chapter 3; page 17-19. Rubber Manufacturers Association; [3] DIN 22101; Stetigfrderer - Gurtfrderer fr Schttgut. Grundlagen fr die Berechnung und Auslegung. Deutsches Institut fr Normung e.V., Febr. 1982 [4] DIN 53516; Bestimmung des Abriebs. Prfung von Kautschuk und Elastomeren; Deutsches Institut fr Normung e.V.; Juni 1987 [5] ISO 4649; Rubber - Determination of Abrasion Resistance Using a Rotating Cylindrical Drum Device; International Standard Organisation, 1985 [6] Conveyor Belting of Elastomeric and Steel Cord Construction; Standards Association of Australia; November 1980 [7] DIN 22131; Stahlseilgurte fr die allgemeine Frdertechnik, Teil 1; Deutsches Institut fr Normung e.V., November 1988 [8] BS 490; Conveyor and elevator belting, part 1; British Standards Institution, 1990 [9] JIS K 6369; Steel Cord Conveyor Belts; Japanese Standards Association, 1979 [10] JIS K 6322; Rubber Belts for Conveyors; Japanese Standards Association, 1966 [11] ISO 10247; Conveyor Belts - Cover Properties - C1assifiction, International Standard Organisation, October 1990 [12] Wolpers, E.M.: Verschleil3verhalten von Frdergurten. Doctoral Thesis, University of Hannover, Germany 1989 [13] Wolpers, E.M.: Tests on the Wear Behaviour of Conveyor Belts, Bulk solids handling, vol.10 (1990),no.3