-i-

Belt Tracking Project

Qasim Khan

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment Of the requirements of the degree of

BACHELOR OF APPLIED SCIENCE

Supervisor: J.K. Spelt

ii

ABSTRACT
Belt tracking is a major problem in the conveyor industry. To prevent the belt from running off pulleys, designers at SIEMENS incorporate belt tracking mechanisms such as crown pulleys and belt tensioners into their conveyors. However, they have little understanding of how crown pulleys function when used with belt tensioners and whether it can solve all of their tracking problems. This report attempts to resolve the issues faced by SIEMENS and propose an efficient solution to belt tracking. It was found through analytical and experimental work that belt wrap angle, free belt length, and crown taper angle are the most influential parameters that affect the performance of a crown pulley. In addition, to improve belt tracking, tapered crown pulleys should be installed on conveyors instead of trapezoidal crown pulleys currently used by SIEMENS. Next, research has shown that the crown pulleys become inefficient even for slight pulley misalignments (i.e. with belt tensioners). Hence, the conventional method for tracking with tensioners can also be applied to crown pulleys. Finally, one can make modifications to the crown conveyor systems based on the aforementioned results, but it is best to install an automatic belt tracker that can effectively keep a belt centred on the conveyor in all circumstances.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A special thanks to the engineering department at SIEMENS Canada who funded as well as shared their experiences during the course of the project. Also, without the expert advice of Professor Spelt, I would not have been able to finish this project.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................1 1.2METHODS OF BELT TRACKING .............................................................................................................2 1.3MOTIVATION ..............................................................................................................................................5 1.4OBJECTIVE ..................................................................................................................................................6 IMPORTANT PARAMETERS OF CROWN PULLEYS .......................................................................................7 2.1PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF CROWN PULLEY MECHANICS ......................................................7 2.2RELEVANT CROWN PULLEY PARAMETERS ................................................................................... 11 2.2.1Goran Gerbert Results .......................................................................................................................... 11 2.2.2V-Ribbed Belt Backside Pulley Mistracking......................................................................................... 16 OPTIMAL CROWN PULLEY COMBINATIONS ............................................................................................... 21 3.1APPROACH TO FIND OPTIMAL COMBINATION ............................................................................. 21 3.2CONVEYOR SYSTEM MODEL ............................................................................................................... 24 3.3EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS/DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS......................................................... 26 LIMITATIONS OF CROWN PULLEYS ............................................................................................................... 30 4.1BELT TRACKING EXPERIMENT .......................................................................................................... 30 4.2USE OF BELT TENSIONER ...................................................................................................................... 33 SOLUTION FOR CROWN PULLEY SYSTEMS ................................................................................................. 39 5.1IMPROVEMENTS TO CURRENT CROWN PULLEY SYSTEM ......................................................... 40 5.1.1CROWN PULLEYS ............................................................................................................................... 40 5.1.2FREE BELT LENGTH ........................................................................................................................ 40 5.1.3BELT TENSIONER .............................................................................................................................. 41 5.2AUTOMATIC BELT TRACKING ............................................................................................................ 44 5.2.1PT Max Belt Tracker by Flexco ............................................................................................................ 45 5.2.2Tilt Belt Tracker .................................................................................................................................... 48 FIGURES & TABLES .............................................................................................................................................. 53 6.1SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 53 6.2SECTION 2: IMPORTANT PARAMETERS OF CROWN PULLEYS ..................................................................... 53 6.3SECTION 3: OPTIMAL CROWN PULLEY COMBINATION............................................................................... 54 6.4SECTION 4: LIMITATIONS OF CROWN PULLEYS .......................................................................................... 55 6.5SECTION 5: PROPOSE A SOLUTION ............................................................................................................... 57 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................................... 59 APPENDIX A............................................................................................................................................................. 61 APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................................................. 62 APPENDIX C............................................................................................................................................................. 67 APPENDIX D............................................................................................................................................................. 68

LIST OF SYMBOLS
= Rotational speed of the pulley. dm = mass of the element dy by dy. = Taper angle of crown pulley. r = Radius of pulley. T = Tension in the belt due to the distance between pulleys. Fc = Centripetal force due to the velocity of the element. Fct = Force that brings up the belt. Ff = Frictional force. = Coefficient of friction .

F = Belt tension along tangent t .

Q = Transverse force along generatrix g .

N = Contact force along normal n .

B = Belt width. M = Bending moment around normal. vc = Velocity of belt along the tapered side. S = Flexural rigidity. FN = Normal force. Crr = Coefficient of rolling friction.

vi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 1.1.1 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4 1.2.5 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5 2.2.6 2.2.7 2.2.8 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.2.1 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 4.1.1 4.2.1 4.2.2 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 5.2.5 6.2.1 6.2.2 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.4.1 6.4.2 6.4.3 6.4.4 6.5.1 6.5.2 6.5.3 Page Number 1 2 2 3 4 5 7 7 8 8 12 12 13 15 15 17 17 19 22 24 26 27 28 28 31 35 38 41 42 43 45 47 47 49 52 53 53 54 54 55 55 56 56 57 57 58

-1-

INTRODUCTION
1.1BACKGROUND
One of the main objectives of a conveyor designer is to devise ways to ensure that the belt stays aligned on a conveyor and that people be able to walk away from the system and not worry about its operation for reasonable periods of time.[9] Belt tracking, more commonly known as belt training, refers to the procedure/method that keeps a belt running straight on a conveyor system. If no method of tracking is employed, the belt is likely to drift to one side of a conveyor and ultimately slip off the pulleys. A typical representation of a misaligned belt is depicted in Figure 1.1.1 which results in material spillage, increase in belt wear, as well as an increase in power consumption of the conveyor. In the extreme misalignment case, a worker may need to shut down the conveyor to realign the belt which would add to the conveyor downtime.

The challenge in keeping a belt centered lies in the unpredictable movement of the belt under various external conditions (i.e. pulley misalignment, uneven weight distribution of
Figure 1.1.1: Belt misalignment. [1]

the deposited material, idler misalignment etc). In addition, the improper alignment of the supporting structure which holds the conveyor sections also contributes to the lateral movement of the belt [9]. Therefore, one of the easiest ways to keep the belt tracking properly as proposed by CEMA (Conveyor Equipment Manufacturers Association) is to carefully align conveyor components using the procedures outlined in CEMAs Belt Conveyors for Bulk Materials. This guide book is considered to be a reliable source for conveyor safety dimensional and application standards.

2 Discussions with experienced personnel from companies such as SIEMENS and Continental Conveyors have shown that it is not always possible to perfectly align the components of a conveyor. People in the labour make careless mistakes when taking measurements, tightening bolts to a specified torque value, etc. Also, there are transient conditions [1] such as uneven distribution of material on the belt that may cause belts to misalign despite all efforts to ensure proper installation and maintenance. As a result, other methods have been devised to help the belt track correctly even if the root problems persist.

1.2METHODS OF BELT TRACKING

A common remedy to the belt tracking problem is to employ guide rollers (See Figure 1.2.1). The rollers are positioned at regular intervals along the conveyor and exert a force on the belt when it begins to drift to one side. The force restricts the drifting motion of the belt and prevents it from running off the conveyor.

Figure 1.2.1: Guide rollers assist in belt tracking. [2]

Figure 1.2.2: Belt Training idlers. [2]

Another method is to use belt training idlers (See Figure1.2.2). A training idler has the carrying roll frame mounted on a central pivot approximately perpendicular to the conveyor belt. Means

3 are provided to cause the carrying rolls to become skewed with respect to the center line of the conveyor. As the belt traverses the skewed rolls, they urge the displaced belt to return to the conveyor center line and, in doing so, the rolls are urged to return to proper alignment as well [2].

The third common practice in the industry, and is also the focus of this thesis, is to use crown pulleys (See Figure 1.2.3) in conveyor systems so that belt tracks by itself to the center with minimal human interference. The main characteristic of these pulleys is the tapered end which is usually 1/8 per foot of pulley diameter. The physics and the parameters that govern the behaviour of crown pulleys in tracking belts will be discussed later in this report.
Figure 1.2.3: Two types of crown pulleys with shaft going through them. Tapered Crown pulley has tapered sides on both ends. A Trapezoidal Crown pulley has a flat surface at the top along with tapered [3] ends.

Figure 1.2.4 shows a typical conveyor system with belt wrapping around the drive and the driven pulley at each end. Usually there are rollers between the two end pulleys (not in the conveyor of Figure 1.2.4). The drive pulley shaft is coupled with a gear box and a motor. As the drive pulley rotates, the tail pulley also rotates due to the friction generated by belt tension between the pulley and the belt. A belt tensioner is attached to the pillow block bearing of the tail pulley on both sides of the conveyor.

Figure 1.2.4: Typical belt conveyor built at SIEMENS [4].

Another common way of centering a belt is to install belt tensioners. A belt tensioner is used by humans to adjust the tension in the belt in such a way that a belt, when it begins to wander off the pulleys, is brought back to the center. Typically, the following procedure is followed (refer to Figure 1.2.5) to track the belt when the drive and tail pulleys are both flat face drum pulleys (without tapered ends) and with crown pulleys (pulleys with tapered ends):

1) Tail Section: if the belt drifts in direction A on the tail pulley, the belt tensioner on side X should move (reduce its stroke) in direction C in order to decrease tension on that side. 2) Tail Section: if the belt drifts in direction B of the tail pulley, the belt tensioner should on side Y should move in direction D in order decrease tension on that side. 3) Head Section: if the belt drifts in direction A of the drive pulley (head pulley), the belt tensioner on side Y should move in direction C.

5 4) Head Section: if the belt drifts in direction B of the drive pulley (head pulley), the belt tensioner on side X should move in direction D.

Figure 1.2.5: Belt tensioner use in centering belt. [5]

All of the aforementioned methods of belt tracking, but not limited to, adjust the tension in the belt in such a way that the belt realigns itself. However, each method has its own pros and cons which must be carefully evaluated during the conveyor design phase. Often, conveyor designers prefer a method that requires no human interference and belt tracking is done automatically such as the case for crown pulleys.

1.3MOTIVATION
My experience at SIEMENS has shown that there is not a great deal of understanding of how a crown pulley functions and what its limitations are when used in conjunction with a belt tensioner. SIEMENS has recently incorporated crown pulleys in their conveyor systems without much knowledge of the tracking potential that these special pulleys possess. Their reason for

6 using them, as pointed out by the management, has less to do with belt tracking and more to do with remaining square with its competitors who adopted crown pulley systems many years ago. However, they now want to get a better understanding of these systems and have assigned this project to myself.

Engineers at SIEMENS claim that the belt movement on crown pulleys becomes unpredictable for particular belt configurations and is ineffective for others. So they are unsure of whether it is feasible to incur the extra cost of buying crown pulleys while they could use flat face drum pulleys (no tapered sides) instead at a cheaper price. Therefore, the goal of this project is to resolve some of these belt tracking issues associated with crown pulleys so that belt tracking is made easier and efficient.

1.4OBJECTIVE
The objective of this thesis paper is two fold. First, research and experiments will be conducted to understand the important parameters of crown pulleys that aid in belt tracking. Second, a solution will be proposed to the crown pulley system based on the results from the first part so that belt tracking is made simple and efficient with minimal human interference.

IMPORTANT PARAMETERS OF CROWN PULLEYS

In this section of the report, a simple preliminary analysis is shown which explains the mechanism of a crown pulley. Then some literature on belt tracking is presented which examines rigorously how different factors such as taper angle, entry span, tension, type of belt, etc contribute to the effectiveness of the crown pulley in belt tracking.

2.1PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF CROWN PULLEY MECHANICS

There is a general consensus in the literature as well as in numerous engineering forums that the belt, when it is off centered on a crown pulley, will move up the crown towards the larger diameter (Figure 2.1.1). It is important to know which parameters (i.e. taper angle, friction, belt tension, etc) contribute to this behaviour.

The phenomenon of a belt moving up a crown is similar to a car driving around a curved banked (Figure 2.1.2). The analysis shown next gives more details on what kinds of forces are generated on the belt.

Figure 2.1.1: Belt moves up the crown and towards the center because greater force is exerted on side A.

Figure 2.1.2: Car traveling around a banked curve. The velocity of the car generates a centripetal force according to the equation. Fr = v2/curvature radius [7] .

8 Please note that this analysis is highly simplified and yet it provides reasonable estimates about the relevant parameters of crown pulleys as confirmed by other detailed literature (see section 2.2 for comparison). ASSUMPTIONS There is no belt slippage. Moment due to uneven distribution of tension along the tapered side of the crown pulley is not accounted for. Flexural rigidity (S) of the belt is not accounted for which will add to the resistance of belt movement. It is defined as EI and is a measure of the resistance of a beam to bending. Variation of tension along the curvature of the pulley is neglected. ANALYSIS Consider the belt configuration on two trapezoidal crown pulleys shown in Figure 2.1.3. The small element dy by dy on the belt is shown again in Figure 2.1.4 with resulting forces as the pulleys rotate.

Figure 2.1.3: Two perfectly aligned crown pulleys with an off centered belt.

Figure 2.1.4: Forces acting on small belt element as the pulleys rotate.

9 The symbols are defined as follows: = Rotational speed of the pulley dm = mass of the element dy by dy = taper angle r = radius which changes as belt moves up. T = Tension in the belt due to the distance between pulleys. Fc = Centripetal force due to the velocity of the element. Fct = Force that brings up the belt.

CALCULATION
Fc (dm) v2 r

Where v = r So, Fc
(dm)(
2

r)

Fct Fct

Fc cos(90 Fc sin

Plug in Fc expression into the equation for Fct to get,

Fct ( dm)(
2

r ) sin

Let us consider the frictional force along the tapered side which prevents the motion of the belt.
Ff (T FCN )

Where, Ff = frictional force = Coefficient of friction FCN = Fc cos = (dm)( 2 r ) cos Hence, Ff

(T [(dm)

r cos ])

10 Finally, the net force that is bringing up the belt is obtained by a simple force balance along the tapered side of the crown pulley. Net Force = FNET = Fct Ff FNET = (dm)( 2 r ) sin FNET = (dm)( 2 r )(sin

(T cos )

[( dm) T

r cos ])

(Eq 2.1.1)

DISCUSSION The calculations shown above for the given belt configuration takes into account the main forces that act on a belt element positioned on the tapered side of the pulley. Equation 2.1.1 summarizes some of the important parameters that are involved in bringing the belt back to the center and moving it up the crown. These are: the rotational speed of the pulley, radius of the crown pulley, taper angle theta, friction coefficient between the pulley and belt, and tension in the belt.

It is important to note that the direction of the belt tension T will vary in different belt configurations and it may actually help the belt move up by increasing the value of FNET. The following general conclusions can be drawn based on equation 2.1.1: 1. Higher rotational speed of the pulley results in higher value of FNET. Hence, the belt moves to the center quickly. 2. There is an optimal taper angle at which FNET is maximized. Hence, the belt moves to the center quickly. The designer has to be careful not to select a very large value for taper angle because it might damage the belt due to higher tensions [9]. 3. An increase in friction factor slows down the belt movement. The traction between the pulley and the belt, as suggested by CEMA, should be just enough so that belt does not slip. For all other friction factors, the power consumption to drive the

11 conveyor would increase so the designer must carefully evaluate the benefits versus the cost incurred due to an increase in friction factor. 4. An increase in tension in the belt slows down the movement of the belt along the tapered side. An increase in tension may arise due to a number of reasons such as overloading, misalignment of conveyor components, etc. As mentioned earlier, the analysis above is primitive and does not account for many other relevant factors some of which are embedded in the assumptions made. However, the implications of equation 2.1.1 are verified in the next section and by the experiments in section 3 of this report. A comprehensive analysis of the movement of belt on crown pulleys is presented by Goran Gerbert in his article Flat Belt Axial Motion on Conical Pulleys.[8] Some of the highlights of his research are discussed next.

2.2RELEVANT CROWN PULLEY PARAMETERS

2.2.1Goran Gerbert Results Professor Gerbert of Chalmers University of Technology presented his research on the movement of flat belt on conical pulleys at the Power Transmission and Gearing conference in 1996. The objective of this section is to summarize his findings and the approach he has taken to reach his conclusions. For complete details of his analytical results, it is recommended that the reader refer to his paper Flat Belt Axial Motion on Conical Pulleys.[8]

OBJECTIVE The objective was to theoretically derive an expression which will estimate the velocity of the belt moving along the tapered side of a pulley. This particular expression would contain all of the

12 relevant parameters that govern the movement of the belt on the crown pulley. The results of the equations were verified by a series of experiments and general conclusions about the movement of belt on crown pulleys were given.

APPROACH Figure 2.2.1 is a representation of a belt wound around a cone. The equilibrium of a belt element located on the tapered side or generatrix of the pulley is shown in figure 2.2.2. Although the belt element accounts for all of the acting forces, the solution to obtain the velocity of the belt along the generatrix will simplify the model by eliminating some frictional forces.

Figure 2.2.1: Flat belt wound around a cone. Here, Y is the cone angle, is the rotational speed, is a small angle along the tapered side, defines the orientation of a belt element. [8]

Figure 2.2.2: Force equilibrium on a small belt element. Note, the friction along the tangential and generatrix (tapered side) are accounted for. [8]

The parameters defined in figure 2.2.2 are as follows:

F = belt tension along tangent t Q = transverse force along generatrix g N = Contact force along normal n It dN = friction force along tangent (- t ) Ig dN = friction force along generatrix (- g )

In dN = friction torque opposite speed B = belt width M = bending moment around normal ( n )

13 In, Ig, and It reduce the coefficient of friction to account for simultaneous sliding and rotation. In the next steps, not shown here, an equilibrium balance of the element yields a set of equations. In addition, deflection, friction, and velocity analyses of the small belt element each generate a set of independent equations. The velocity analysis has the important parameter vc which is the velocity of the belt element moving up the tapered side (generatrix) of a pulley. It is worth noting that because the bending deflection of the belt is important in determining vc, flexural rigidity of the belt S is taken into account.

A general situation of the belt running on two pulleys is depicted in Figure 2.2.3. With the independent equations determined for a belt element, the objective now is to combine the contacting parts of the belt (E and X) with the two free strands of the belt. The free strand of the belt has a length A as defined in the diagram below.

Figure 2.2.3: General case of a belt running on two crown pulleys. E and X are the entrance and exit points of the belt, respectively. W is the distance along the generatrix between E and X. A is the length of the free belt strand. [8]

The equilibrium and deflection analysis of the belt strand gives the equations (Eq 23, 24, 25 in the Gorans paper) that define completely the movement of the belt along the generatrix (i.e. the belts generatrix velocity vc). Hence, using the equations of the belt element defined for E and X

14 and the belt strand equations, the solution for vc as a function of belt width (B), length of free strand (A), pulley taper angle (Y), coefficient of friction (), longitudinal strain stiffness (c), and flexural rigidity (S) is defined as follows: SMALL BELT TENSIONS
v*c F* { ( A* 48 ( A* ) 2 [A ( * )
2

(sliding present) LARGE BELT TENSIONS (no sliding along generatrix)

B* )

]}

(Eq 2.2.1)

v*c

YA* 1 ( A* ) F*

(Eq 2.2.2)

NOTE: Please refer to [8] for details of the simplified friction model used in obtaining the above solutions.

The non-dimensional parameters used in equations 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 are defined as follows:
v*c vc , A* R

A , B* R

B , F* R

FR 2 S

NUMERICAL RESULTS The generatrix velocity v*c as a function of belt tension F* is shown in Figure 2.2.4 below in which and taper angle Y are parameters. Also shown in Figure 2.2.5 is a plot of analytical results of v*c versus belt width B* and free belt length A*. The following general conclusion can be made about the generatrix (velocity of belt along the tapered side) velocity v*c based on these graphs: Has a maximum for low tension (F* < 0.1 for practical taper angles Y<1o). Decreases with tension in practical applications (F* > 0.1). Is not very much dependent on belt width and friction. Increases almost linearly with taper angles. Increases almost linearly with length of belt strand.

15

Figure 2.2.4: Generatrix velocity v*c coefficient of friction . [8]

vc versus belt tension. Parameters examined are taper angle Y and R

Figure 2.2.5: Generatrix velocity v*c

vc R

versus belt tension. Parameters examined are belt width

B*

B and free belt length A* R

A [8] R

16 EXPERIMENTS Experiments were performed using three kinds of belts (rubber, v-belt, and tape). Two equal sized crown pulleys were used. The pulleys were rotated slowly under the belt tension and the axial displacement of the belt on the pulleys was measured using a calliper. The plot of the theoretical results versus experimental results for the generatrix velocity is shown in Figure 6.2.2. The analytical results match remarkably well with the empirical data from the experiments.

SUMMARY Axial motion of a flat belt running on two conical pulleys has been investigated both theoretically and experimentally. From the results, it is apparent that the flexural rigidity S of the belt perpendicular to the axis of rotation is the main property influencing the axial motion of the belt. Bending deflection and bending moment are caused by friction between belt and pulley [8]. In addition, the general conclusions concerning the generatrix velocity of the belt v*C were given in the numerical results section of 2.2.1.

2.2.2V-Ribbed Belt Backside Pulley Mistracking This section presents the experimental results obtained by Russell Gross and Richard Meckstroth from Dayco Products and Ford Motor Co, respectively. The results pertain to the effects of backside pulleys (usually flat without a crown) of an accessory drive system of an engine which can generate significant v-belt misalignment. Test were conducted to determine the v-belt alignment sensitivities of the system variables such as belt tension, belt wrap, belt span length, belt backside surface, backside pulley crown.

17 The issues addressed by Gross and Meckstroth are similar to the ones faced by a crown pulley conveyor system that SIEMENS manufactures. Although, the data itself is not very useful to a conveyor design which uses a flat belt instead of a v-belt, at least it will highlight the important trends that relate to crown pulleys and confirm some of the general conclusions derived in earlier sections of the report.

A typical representation of a v-bet running on a grooved pulley is shown in Figure 2.2.6. In an accessory drive system of an engine (Figure 2.2.7), a v-belt runs over groove pulleys and wraps around a backside pulley (flat faced) which directs it to another grooved pulley.

Figure 2.2.6: Pulley definitions [11]

Figure 2.2.7: An accessory drive system of an engine. Pulley 1 and 2 are grooved while pulley 3 is flat faced. [12]

What is of concern to the designers of accessory drive system is the lateral movement of the vbelt on the backside pulley due to misalignments of other grooved pulleys. The lateral movement will produce engine noise called belt chirp which is audible inside the cabin of the vehicle

18 [11]. Hence, to minimize this belt movement, a crown is added to the backside pulleys. The next section discusses the advantages of a crowned backside pulley.

BACKSIDE PULLEY CROWN EXPERIMENT & RESULTS The test fixture for the experiments include two grooved pulleys and a crowned backside pulley. The fixture is designed such that tension in the belt can be adjusted as well as misalignment in the grooved pulleys with respect to other pulleys can be induced. The details of the test fixture are not as important as the method to obtain data for the effectiveness of crown pulleys.

To obtain the data, deliberate alignment error setup by the entrance grooved pulley was 1.0 mm with respect to the exit grooved pulley. As this forced misalignment of the v-belt occurs, the aligning tendency of the crown on the backside pulley versus controlled variables (i.e. tension, crown taper angle, belt wrap angle, entry span length, etc) can be measured. The belt wrap angle defines how much the belt wraps around a pulley (Figure 6.2.1). For a conveyor system shown in Figure 1.2.4, the belt wrap angle is is 180o for the drive and driven pulleys. The entry span length is the same as the free belt length (A) as defined in section 2.1 of the report and is the distance between the grooved pulley and the backside pulley. The graph in Figure 2.2.8 shows the effect of crown in minimizing the 1.0 mm misalignment.

From the graph we can see that two types of belts (rubber and fabric back), two tensions (577 N and 289 N), and two wrap angles (180o and 96o) were tested for flat backside pulleys and crowned backside pulleys. The following general conclusions can be drawn from the experimental results:

19 A crown reduces the induced misalignment of 1 mm. The greater the entry span length, the more effective is the crown. A high belt wrap angle around the crown pulley increases the efficiency of the crown. Variation in tension in the belt has negligible effect on the effectiveness of the crown in comparison to the belt wrap angle and entry span length. A fabric back belt is more effective than a rubber back belt.

Figure 2.2.8: The effect of crown versus different entrance lengths with different control variables.

Some of these conclusions verify the results obtained by Goran Gerbert while others give more insight into the parameters that govern the movement of belt on a crown pulley. One of these is the entry span length. Fenner Dunlop, a conveyor belting company in the United States, claims that the effectiveness of the crown is increased to a length of approximately 10 feet.

20 Lengthening the unsupported span beyond 10 feet (approx 3 meters) does not seem to increase the effectiveness of the crown. [9]

CONCLUSION Gross and Meckstroth conclude that the most influential of parameters that effect the effectiveness of a crown pulley are the entrance belt length and the belt wrap angle. Hence, these must be taken into consideration when designing conveyor systems with flat belts. It is important to note that the effect of these two parameters will be more pronounced for a flat belt than a vbelt because the flexural rigidity of a v-belt is higher (cannot bend as much due to the moments created by aligning forces).

21

OPTIMAL CROWN PULLEY COMBINATIONS

Thus far in the report, all of the relevant parameters that govern the behaviour of belt on crown pulleys have been investigated. Now it is necessary to also address the issues of how different combinations of crown pulleys have an effect on belt tracking. As mentioned in the introduction of the report, there are two types of crown pulleys that are manufactured in the industry: tapered and trapezoidal (Figure 1.2.3). SIEMENS currently uses trapezoidal drive and driven pulleys for their conveyors. However, they are unsure of which combination of pulleys should be installed on a conveyor system to yield optimal tracking results. The optimal tracking results are characterized by how quickly a belt tracks to the center given all of the components of a conveyor are perfectly aligned and the only tracking forces are generated by the crown pulleys. Obviously, there will be cost savings associated with buying different kinds of pulleys and the benefits that result from improved tracking. This section will present the results obtained from conducting experiments of various combinations of pulleys and hope to clarify the issues at hand.

3.1APPROACH TO FIND OPTIMAL COMBINATION

A small conveyor model was built to represent the conveyor system at SIEMENS. In addition, scaled conveyor pulleys (tapered, trapezoidal, flat face drum) were manufactured in accordance with CEMA standards. The model was built to allow for testing of different combinations of pulleys and under varying belt tensions as will be explained in section 3.2. Most importantly, it is designed such that experimental results can be reproduced.

22 The experiments will show how fast the belt moves to the center or runs off the pulley while are all other conveyor The belt two on

components common

aligned. of

configurations

conveyor pulleys that are encountered in the industry are shown in Figure 3.1.1. L Types of pulleys that were used in the experiments (the only ones that are manufactured in the industry) are as follows: Trapezoidal Crown Pulley denoted by C1. Tapered Crown Pulley denoted by C2. Drum Pulley denoted by D. A R L B R

Figure 3.1.1: Common belt configurations. In A, belt is off centered to the left. In B, belt is oriented diagonally. L and R are tensioners on left and right side, respectively.

Combinations of drive-driven (i.e. C1-D where C1 is drive and D is driven) pulleys tested in the experiment are the following: C1-D C1-C1 C2-D C2-C2 C1-C2 D-D

The list above constitutes all of the possible combinations of pulleys that SIEMENS could employ on their conveyor systems and hence the reason why they were tested. The experimental

23 results show how a particular crown pulleys belt centering capability could be reduced or enhanced in the presence of another type of a pulley.

Two belt configurations (Figure 3.1.1) were tested during the experiment. For each configuration, two belt tensions were set. For each belt tension, two belt speeds (S1 and S2) were established. Please refer to the data sheets in appendix B to see how various parameters were grouped together during the testing. It is worth noting that it would have been sufficient to conduct the experiments at one tension and one belt speed in order to determine the best pulley combination. However, as will be shown in section 3.3, varying the tension and the belt speed will provide further confirmation to some of the general conclusions drawn about crown pulleys in section 2.

During the experiments, measurements were taken to determine how long it takes for the belt to reach the center; hence, quantifying the effectiveness of crown pulleys. The belt recovery speed (speed along tapered side of pulley) is obtained by taking the ratio of the distance the belt traverses along the taper by the time the belt takes to reach the center (Figure 3.1.2). Please note that there is a difference between the belt recovery speed and belt speed. In addition, belt tensions were changed by using two rubber belts each with different unstretched lengths (Figure 6.3.1). Hence, the belt that has a smaller unstretched length would generate a higher belt tension when it runs on the conveyor pulleys (refer to appendix D for belt tension calculations). The belt speed S1 and S2 are set by adjusting the hand drill on two speed settings and then counting how many revolutions (1 revolution = 60 cm) the belt traverses in some fixed amount of time. S1 was found to be 6 cm/s and S2 was found to be 10 cm/s.

24

Figure 3.1.2: The belt recovery speed is calculated by measuring the time it takes for point A on the belt to travel distance Y. Once the belt is centered, there will be equal distance Y on both sides of belt.

3.2CONVEYOR SYSTEM MODEL

A simplified small scale model (8.0:1.4) of a typical conveyor built at SIEMENS is built. An actual conveyor has the following components that were included in the scale model: 20.0 cm Pulley diameters (crowned and drum conveyor pulleys) 76.2 cm wide rubber belt Belt tensioner The scale model has been manufactured out of hard wood (see Figure 3.2.1). The end pulleys are made from 3.7 cm wooden dowel in accordance with current industry standards given by ANSI and CEMA
[2]

(a taper angle of approximately 1o). The rollers between the end pulleys are not

included in the model because it is assumed that they have minimal effect in the movement of the belt and are perfectly aligned.

25 A 1.3 cm through hole is drilled in the pulley in order to insert the shaft (see appendix A for pulley pictures). The shafts are force fitted into pulleys so that there is no relative motion between the shaft and pulley and rotation occurs due to shaft turning alone. The widths of pulleys are 16.5 cm while the rubber band width is approximately 13.7 cm. The maximum length of the conveyor is 30.5 cm. Finally, the conveyor outer frame (to hold the shaft, pulley, and belt) was manufactured using a CNC machine so that shaft holes would perfectly align. This would ensure that the pulleys are not misaligned during the experiment. The shaft holes of the outer frame contain ball bearings which securely hold the shaft during experiments. This significantly improves the accuracy of the results as well as repeatability of the experiments.

The drive pulley will be driven by a hand drill that has a chuck big enough to hold the pulley shaft (See appendix A for picture). The speed of the hand drill can easily be adjusted. The torque from the belt wrap is considered negligible and does not have an effect on the rotational speed of the shaft at a particular speed setting of the hand drill.

It is worth noting that the belt type (represented by a rubber band), tension, and coefficient of friction will not be scaled from an actual conveyor built at SIEMENS. However, the experimental data will reasonably show which crown pulley combination is the most effective.

26

Figure 3.2.1: Conveyor Scale Model. Note that bearings have been removed in the bottom picture

3.3EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS/DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS

In all the pulley combinations with different belt configurations, the belt always comes to the center of the pulley and does not wander off. Therefore, crowning a pulley certainly helps in belt tracking. The optimal pulley combination would have the fastest belt recovery speed for both belt configurations. The results are presented next.

RESULTS & DISCUSSION For the first case, when the belt speed is kept constant at S1 for belt configuration A, that data shows that pulley combination C2-C2 has the fastest belt recovery speed (see Figure 3.3.1). In

27 addition we find that as the tension in the belt increases, the belt recovery speed decreases for all pulley combinations. This trend is in close agreement with results from section 2.
At S1 and Config A
Belt Recovery Speed (mm/s)
7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 C1-D C1-C1 C2-D C2-C2 C1-C2 Pulley Combination T1 T2

Figure 3.3.1: Belt recovery speed at S1 and Config A for each pulley combination. Also, T1>T2

Next, at belt speed S1 and belt configuration B, the belt recovery speed is the fastest for pulley combination C2-D (see Figure 3.3.2). Also, not so surprisingly, as the tension increases in this configuration (T1 > T2), the belt recovery speed rises. This was pointed out in section 2.1 and the reason is that the forces in the belt help it move towards the center because of the diagonal configuration of the belt.

From Figure 3.3.2, it is seen that the belt recovery speeds are significantly larger than the speeds for configuration A. Again, the reason for this is the diagonal configuration of the belt. The graph also has one other important feature. It can be observed that the D-D combination results in the slowest belt recovery speed than any other combination of pulleys. This makes sense because the flat faced drum pulley (D) only uses the tension in the diagonal belt to track the belt while the crown pulley uses both the tension and the pulling effect of the crown to bring the belt

28 to the center. Hence, it is certainly advantageous to use crown pulleys when there is an absence of any external source generating uneven tension in the belt such as a belt tensioner (the effect of belt tensioner will be examined in a later section).

At S1 and Config B
45.00
Belt Recovery Speed (mm/s)

40.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 C1-D C1-C1 C2-D C2-C2 C1-C2 D-D Pulley Com bination T1' T2'

Figure 3.3.2: Belt recovery speed at S1 and Config B for each pulley combination. T1>T2

Finally, to see the effect of changing the belt speed S on the belt recovery speed, please see the graph in Figure 3.3.3 which plots the recovery speed of the belt at speed S1 and S2 for tension T1.
Belt Recovery Speed (mm/s)

At T1 and Config A (Trend true for B as well)

7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 C1-D C1-C1 C2-D C2-C2 C1-C2 Pulley Combinations S1 S2

Figure 3.3.3: Belt recovery speed at T1 and A for each pulley combination. S2 > S1.

29

The graph shows that as the belt speed is increased from S1 to S2 (a higher rotational speed setting on the hand drill), the belt recovery speed is also increased. This trend holds true for all belt configurations. The result confirms Gerberts equation for v*c (belt recovery speed or generatrix speed) which predicts that v*c decreases as the rotational velocity of the pulley increases

CONCLUSIONS From the graphs, it is certain that tapered crown pulleys (C2) are better than trapezoidal crown pulleys (C1) in belt tracking. This is true because for both configurations A and B, C2-D combination yields a higher belt recovery speed than C1-D combination.

The best pulley combination for belt configuration A is of C2-C2 and for configuration B is C2D. So, at first look, it is not easy to decide which one to choose. However, it would be correct to say that C2-C2 should be considered the best pulley combination for all belt configurations because it has the second fastest belt recovery speed for configuration B while C2-D does not for belt configuration A. Therefore, two tapered crown pulleys should be employed to achieve optimal belt tracking performance.

30

LIMITATIONS OF CROWN PULLEYS

So far in the report, it has been shown that crown pulley conveyor systems are capable of improving belt tracking. However, experience has shown that if the lateral forces on the belt are high, the crown pulley cannot help the belt center. These forces could be generated by uneven distribution of material or due to misalignment of conveyor components. Obviously, it is not possible to control all of the factors that might limit the functionality of a crown pulley. Hence the reason SIEMENS has installed belt tensioners (Figure 1.2.4) on their conveyor systems for greater belt tracking potential.

The purpose of this section of the report is to highlight the sensitivity of a crown due to the misalignment of conveyor pulleys. Also, experimental results will be presented that give insight into the behaviour of belt tracking on crown pulleys when belt tensioners are used.

4.1BELT TRACKING EXPERIMENT

Belt Tracking Experiment [13] paper, which was published by SAE in 1990, explains the impact of crown pulley misalignment in automotive drive systems (similar to the one discussed in section 2.2.2). The pulley misalignments are defined using the concept of toe and camber as illustrated in Figure 4.1.1 below. The toe and camber, set for the test idler (crown pulley), angles contribute to v-belt mistracking and results in lateral movement of belt on the pulley. A positive toe and camber are defined as the angle that would cause belt motion in the positive direction. [13] The test plan to quantify the effect of toe, camber, and crown is explained next.

31

(a)

(b)
Figure 4.1.1: (a) Toe and Camber Sign Conventions [13]. (b) is the test fixture used in experiments. Pulley #2 belt wrap angle is less than 180o but can be adjusted to this angle.

32 TEST PLAN A full factorial Design of Experiment was conducted to investigate the effect of toe, camber, and pulley crown. The desired combination of toe, camber and crown was set on the test fixture (Figure 4.1.1 b) and the position of the belt in motion was recorded as it rode over the backside pulley (test idler #2). Belt tension was maintained at 534 N for all of the tests [13].

In order to quantify the effects of the pulley crown, an experiment was first conducted with flat faced pulley (pulley #2 without crown) at some toe and camber. A second experiment for the same toe and camber angles was conducted but this time with crowned pulley (pulley #2 is crowned).

TEST RESULTS The results for 1800 belt wrap angle (see graph in figure 6.4.1) show great sensitivity to belt mistracking due to toe and camber angles and not much to the pulley crown. The results indicate that toe and camber effects can add linearly to produce large belt mistracking if they both have the same signs (sign convention in figure 4.1.1 a). In addition, the data shows that if toe and camber have opposite signs, they can reduce the cumulative mistracking effect [13]. The pulley crown helped neutralize the effect of toe and camber by small amounts but could not prevent mistracking even for minute toe/camber angles. On average, every degree of camber caused over two degrees of belt misalignment and a degree of toe caused about a degree of belt misalignment [13].

33 The test results for smaller belt wrap angles (5 0) indicate that the sensitivity to toe and camber decreases with decreasing belt wrap. In addition, figure 6.4.2 shows that camber induced belt misalignment increases faster than toe induced belt misalignment at larger wrap angles.

CONCLUSION The test pulley crown had very small impact in preventing the v-belt from mistracking due to the induced toe and camber. In addition, based on statistical analysis of the data, belt misalignment sensitivity to toe and camber increases proportional to the square of belt wrap angle [13].

The general conclusions reached based on v-belt experiments will also hold true for flat belts running on crown pulleys in a conveyor system (at 1800 belt wrap angle) because the inherent nature of belt tracking is the same. However, if one needs to obtain empirical data for flat belts running on two crown pulleys, it is recommended to build a test fixture similar to the one used in these experiments and refer to the original SAE paper for more details. It is true that two crown pulleys together in a conveyor system would have a greater effect in preventing lateral belt movement but there is no guarantee that this would suffice if toe and camber angles are big.

REFERENCE MATERIAL For more information on camber effects on belt tracking, please refer to reference [16]

4.2USE OF BELT TENSIONER A brief description about belt tensioners was given in section 1 of the report. Belt tensioners exploit the concept of toe angle, as discussed in the previous section, to bring the belt back to the center if it mistracks. The underlying principle is that a belt moves from the side that has high

34 tension to the side that has low tension. This phenomenon is analogous to water moving from high pressure to low pressure, or heat flowing from hotter body to colder body, etc.

A belt tensioner is employed once the crown pulleys cannot prevent the belt lateral movement. A worker usually spots the belt movement and follows the procedure as outlined in section 1.2 to center the belt. The procedure is best suited for pulleys that are not crowned and SIEMENS wants to know what would happen if the same procedure is used for crowned pulleys. Based solely on intuition and research that was presented in section 4.1, it would be safe to assume that crown pulley effects become miniscule in comparison to the toe effect (i.e. belt tensioner). Hence, the induced toe created by the tensioner should generate enough force that may aid in belt tracking if the proper procedure is followed.

The effect of belt tensioner on belt tracking will be analyzed for different combinations of pulleys in different belt configurations by conducting experiments on the conveyor model.

APPROACH/METHODOLOGY In this experiment, the focus is on observing how the belt moves laterally when a belt tensioner is used on the tail (driven) pulley. There is no requirement on belt tension except for the fact that it should be large enough to prevent any belt slippage. The belt which was used for these experiments had an unstretched length of 25 cm and a spring constant equal to 227 N/m. Similarly, there is no need to use a hand drill to rotate the shaft because neither belt speed nor belt recovery speed is of any use. Therefore, the shaft can be rotated with hands at a moderate pace (1 rev/sec).

35 The objective is to test each of the two common belt configurations (shown in Figure 3.1.1) with the right and the left belt tensioner (on the tail pulley) extended as shown in Figure 4.2.1. In each case, the belt tensioner stroke is the same (2.5 cm) so that the toe angle generated on the tail pulley remains the same.

BR

AR

BL

AL

Figure 4.2.1: BR and BL will test the effect of tensioner in belt configuration B. AR and AL will test the effect of tensioner in belt configuration A.

36 The four tensioner cases shown in Figure 4.2.1 were tested for each pulley combinations mentioned in section 3.1 (i.e. C1-C1, C2-C1, C1-C2, C2-C2, C1-D, C2-D, and D-D). All of these combinations were tested because SIEMENS is unsure of which combination of pulleys should they install on their conveyor systems that would give the best results with a belt tensioner. As for the D-D combination, it is used to quantify how much the crown pulley can hinder the belts lateral movement given the forces generated by the toe angle from the belt tensioner. Finally, during the experiments, belt revolutions are counted until the belt runs off the pulley.

RESULTS & DISCUSSION In all the experiments, the belt always runs off the tail (driven) pulley and moves to the side it touches first. For instance, for case BL and AL in Figure 4.2.1, the belt moves to the left side. The opposite is true for case AR and BR for which the belt moves to the right side. Another important feature that was observable was that the belt, before running off the pulleys, oriented itself perpendicular to the drive pulley. So even though the initial belt configuration for BR and AL is diagonal, the tensions in the belt adjust it such that the belt becomes perpendicular to the drive pulley as it is running off the pulleys. It is clear that the crown pulley cannot prevent the belts lateral movement due to the induced tail pulley misalignment as hypothesized earlier.

The graph in Figure 4.2.2 shows how many revolutions it takes for the belt to run off the pulley for different belt tensioner cases (BR, AL, BL) and different combinations of pulleys. The AR case is not included because the belt runs off the pulley in less than 0.2 revolutions for all pulley combinations. As a result, the belt tensioner case AR should never be used when centering the belt using a tensioner. It is observed from the graph that C2-C2 combination takes the highest

37 number of belt revolutions (the longest time) to run off the pulley for each of the belt tensioner case than any other pulley combination. Hence, if it is desired to center the belt quickly using a belt tensioner, C2-C2 combination should be avoided. Next, it is seen that the tensioner case BR takes significantly less belt revolutions to run off the pulley than the other two cases. This is true because the high diagonal belt tension forces the belt to quickly align perpendicular to the drive pulley while at the same time, it is moving to the left due to the pulley angle created by the tensioner.

Finally, it is important to note that crown pulleys counter the forces generated by the belt tensioner toe angle but they cannot prevent the belt from running off the pulleys. This is seen in the graph of figure 4.2.2 by comparing the stacked column of D-D (two flat faced pulleys) with the rest of crown pulley combinations. Clearly, D-D takes the least number of belt revolutions (shortest time) for all three tensioner cases to run off the pulley. Therefore, if both the drive and tail (driven) pulleys are crowned, the belt movement in the lateral direction will be very slow if a tensioner is used.

CONCLUSION A belt tensioner can definitely help center the belt if crown pulleys are unable to do so. The procedure outlined in section 1.2 is very much applicable to a conveyor system with crown pulleys or flat faced pulleys. The difference is that it may take longer for the crown pulley conveyor systems to center the belt than a flat faced pulley conveyor system. If a belt is oriented like in configuration B (Figure 3.1.1) and a belt tensioner is used because the crown pulley cannot track the belt, one may find that the belt is moving in an unusual manner. This happens

38 because the belt first tries to align perpendicular to the drive pulley while at the same time it is moving towards the low tension side. The procedure to tackle this problem will be presented in section 5 of the report.

Belt Run-off Revolutions v.s. Pulley combinations for Three Belt Tensioner Cases
25

Belt Revolutions to Run off Pulley

20 15 10 5 0 C2-C2 C1-C2 C2-C1 C1-C1 C1-D C2-D D-D Pulley Combination BR AL BL

Figure 4.2.2: Graph shows how many revolutions it takes for the belt to run off the pulley for different belt tensioner cases (BR, AL, BL) and different combinations of pulleys.

39

SOLUTION FOR CROWN PULLEY SYSTEMS

In the previous sections of the report, a thorough analysis of crown pulley conveyor systems was presented. The goal of this section is to propose a solution to the crown pulley system so that belt tracking is made easier and efficient.

Rich Gilman, a technical services manager at Flexco USA, claims in his article How to track mistracking belts [14] that there are two approaches to fixing belt tracking problems: one could either eliminate the cause or treat the symptom. The cause of belt mistracking has been discussed in earlier sections and can be summarized as follows:

Misaligned pulleys and idlers (rollers) are not perpendicular to the structure of the conveyor. Pulley faces are not clean because material build-up can have the effect of making pulley diameter inconsistent across the pulley face [14]. Belt splices, if any, are not square with the centerline of the belt. Belt splices are usually mechanical or vulcanized (chemically bonded) which replace or fix any damaged part of a conveyor belt with a new belt. Uneven deposit of material onto the conveyor [9].

CEMA has outlined, in detail, methods to eliminate the above mentioned flaws and should strictly be followed especially when installing new conveyor systems. However, in real life, there will always be some tracking problems due to unknown factors. In such cases, eliminating the true cause of the problem might result in substantial effort, downtime, and expense. Therefore, it

40 would be faster, cheaper, and easier to treat the symptoms of mistracking instead of the cause. This section will discuss ways to treat the symptoms of belt mistracking in light of the research that has been presented thus far in the report.

5.1IMPROVEMENTS TO CURRENT CROWN PULLEY SYSTEM

5.1.1CROWN PULLEYS Research has shown that increasing the taper angle of the crown pulley can center a belt quickly in comparison to other factors such as friction (produced by the pulley lagging). For instance, if the taper angle and friction are doubled, the belt recovery speed for larger taper angle would be twice as fast while for greater friction it would be approximately 1.2 times as fast (see Figure 2.2.4). Hence, taper angle on crown pulleys should be maximized within reasonable values acceptable for belt life and should be at least the industry standard if not more.

Next, experiments in section 3 have shown that tapered crown pulleys generate stronger belt tracking forces than trapezoidal or flat faced pulleys. Hence, these should be incorporated into the conveyor system. Again, the cost of belt wear produced by trapezoidal and tapered crown pulleys should be weighed against the benefit of belt tracking provided by the two types of pulleys. If belt mistracking is frequent and leads to dire consequences, then it would be advisable to use tapered crown pulleys at the expense of higher maintenance costs.

5.1.2FREE BELT LENGTH The concept of free belt length (entry span length) has a great impact on the efficiency of crown pulleys. The conveyor shown in Figure 5.1.1 is different than the one built at SIEMENS, but it

41 does have common components such as the return idler 10 and other idlers such as 13, 14, 15 and 1. Research has shown that for the tail crown pulley to have maximum efficiency, the distance between idler 10 and pulley 11 (as the belt approaches 11) should be around 3 meters [9] Lengthening the free belt length beyond 3 meters will not further increase the efficiency but decreasing would reduce the effectiveness. Snub pulleys can reduce effectiveness by 50% or more [9]. Same proposition holds for a drive pulley 16 in Figure 5.1.1. If the distance between roller 15 and pulley 16 is small, the drive pulley should not be crowned because the high tension at the crown edge of the drive pulley would cause belt wear.

Figure 5.1.1: A conveyor model. [9]

5.1.3BELT TENSIONER When a belt tensioner (attached to the tail pulley) is used to track a belt, it is recommended to follow the following procedure if confronted with belt configurations similar to A or B as shown in Figure 3.1.1:

Belt Configuration A: To prevent the belt from running off the pulley on the left side, worker should increase the RIGHT belt tensioner stroke length until the belt starts

42 moving to the right. The increase in length is towards the drive pulley. When the belt is centered, the induced toe angle by the tensioner stroke should be eliminated in order to realign the tail pulley perpendicular to the belt.

Belt Configuration B: In this belt configuration, one can be faced with three scenarios: 1) The belt on the drive pulley is moving to the left and is about to run off the pulley (Figure 5.1.2). In such a case, the right tensioner stroke should be extended towards the drive pulley. The belt will behave similar to case BL as shown in Figure 4.2.1. During the process, the belt would orient itself such that it is perpendicular to the drive pulley, and at the same time, it would first drift towards the center and then to the right. It is worth noting that the belt will not run off the pulleys until it has achieved this perpendicular configuration similar to A. Once the belt is in configuration A, or is close to it, the R tensioner should be restored to its original stroke and the procedure for belt configuration A should be followed to center the belt using the tensioner.

Figure 5.1.2: Belt configuration B with two belt tensioners L and R

43 2) In the second scenario, the belt is running to the right on the tail pulley as shown in Figure 5.1.3. Therefore, the L tensioner should be extended towards the drive pulley. The situation would be similar to case BR shown in Figure 4.2.1. The belt would orient itself to run perpendicular to the drive pulley and would be off centered similar to belt configuration A. Once the belt is in configuration A, or is close to it, the L tensioner should be restored to its original stroke and the procedure for belt configuration A should be followed to center the belt using the tensioner.

Figure 5.1.3: Belt configuration B with two belt tensioners L and R

3) The worse scenario is when the belt is running off the drive and the tail pulley and is close to the edge. In such a case, there are no set rules to follow when using a belt tensioner. Ideally, it would be easiest to shutdown the conveyor and realign the belt manually. However, if the belt is not too close to the edge, then the worker should spot on which side (tail or drive) the belt is running off quicker. Based on this decision, one should follow the procedures 1 or 2 for the side on which the belt is running off fast. The

44 belt will initially move towards the center but will probably not orient itself perpendicular to the drive pulley (depends on how influential the external factors are which are causing the belt misalignment). If it does then the procedure for belt configuration A should be followed to center the belt. If it does not, then the belt tensioner stroke should be restored to its original length and step 3 should be repeated again.

5.2AUTOMATIC BELT TRACKING

Crown pulleys have their limitations in belt tracking. Therefore, some other method such as a belt tensioner has to be employed to center the belt if excessive external forces are acting on it. A belt tensioner may not be the most effective solution to belt tracking if the frequency of mistracking is high. A worker would always have to keep an eye on the conveyor and follow a detailed procedure to realign the belt whenever it mistracks. Hence, it is common to install an automatic belt tracker on a conveyor system, between the drive and tail crown pulleys, which detects belt movement and takes the necessary steps to bring the belt back to the center.

There are two types of automatic trackers in the industry: the pivoting kind and the tilting kind. The pivoting kind uses the principle of toe angle while the tilting kind uses the concept of camber angle as discussed in section 4.1. Figure 5.2.1 shows the tilting belt tracker. The mistracking belt pushes against the sensing guide rollers which activate the control cylinders. The cylinders push on the belt and create uneven tension which forces the belt to move to the center.

45

Figure 5.2.1: Tilting automatic belt tracker. [20]

An automatic tracker is usually powered pneumatically, hydraulically, or electromechanically. However, there are also mechanically driven trackers that do not require an input of energy. SIEMENS is quite interested in these types and wants to know which ones are available in the industry. The sections that will follow will discuss some designs available for mechanical automatic belt trackers and how they aid in belt tracking.

5.2.1PT Max Belt Tracker by Flexco Research on various suppliers of belt trackers (i.e. Sandvik, Eckles-Bilt, MATO Industries etc) has shown that mechanically driven trackers are usually the pivoting kind. However, the PT Max Belt Tracker from Flexco uses both the pivoting and tilting action to center the belt. It was shown in section 4.1 that the cumulative effect of the two actions (toe and camber) could greatly effect the movement of belt on a conveyor pulley. Figure 5.2.2 shows a picture of the PT Max belt tracker for the top side belt. Please note that Flexco has not explained how their tracker works

46 because of its patented design. So the information given next on the functionality of this tracker is solely based on research presented in this paper and some details revealed by the engineering department at Flexco. Although PT Max is a good design and could be installed onto a conveyor, the hope is to understand its function so a better design could be developed.

HOW PT MAX WORKS In Figure 5.2.2, if the belt travel is in the negative x-direction and starts to drift in the positive ydirection, the belt will engage with sensing guide rollers 2. When this happens, a moment is created about the z-axis in the clockwise direction due to the offset distance L. This moment causes the rollers to turn in the same direction as the guide rollers. The resulting configuration is shown in 5.2.3. The induced toe angle by the rollers causes the belt to move to the right and begins to push against sensing rollers 1. As the belt traverses to the right, the rollers realign perpendicular to the belt travel. At the same time, the tracker would tilt slightly about the x-axis in clockwise direction because of the offset distance D of sensing roller 1. This induces a toe angle which further helps the belt track to the center. The tilting effect is highly dependent on how fast the belt is drifting and the distance D (greater the better).

47

Figure 5.2.2: PT Max Belt Tracker. The central pivot allows it to pivot around the z-axis and tilt about the x-axis [17].

Figure 5.2.3: The pivoting acting on PT Max. The belt is initially drifting in the positive y direction.

48 THINGS TO CONSIDERNEXT STEPS The following things should be investigated before installing this automatic belt tracker: Cost of the automatic belt tracker. Belt wear that is induced. The weight of the tracker is enormous and needs a lifting crane to install [17]. Maintenance issues.

5.2.2Tilt Belt Tracker From market research and the v-belt experimental results presented in section 4, it is certain that camber effects have a significant impact on belt tracking. Hence the reason why there are many companies selling pivoting trackers. The mechanics and factors that govern the movement of flat belt on a pivoting roller, with belt wrap angles smaller than 20 0) have not been investigated in this report and should be considered a future research topic.

The toe effects (i.e. used by tilt trackers), on the other hand, simply use the principle of applying a force on the side of the belt that is drifting outwards in order to increase the tension on that side. This causes the belt to drift in the opposite direction towards the center (just like a belt tensioner). This section will present a mechanism design of an automatic belt tracker which uses the principles of a tilt tracker similar to the one that SIEMENS is planning to install but is not manually operated. The hope is that with slight modifications to the design presented in this report, SIEMENS will transform its manual tilt belt tracker to an automatic tilt tracker at almost no additional cost and within the same available space. Further modifications could also take into account the principles of camber effects (after doing the necessary research).

49 HOW TILT TRACKER WORKS The tilt tracker is shown in Figure 5.2.5. This automatic tracker works by using the force of the mistracking belt to create uneven weight distribution about a pivot point. This creates a moment about the pivot point which causes the roller to tilt. The principle is best illustrated with the free body diagrams in Figure 5.2.4.

Initially, the forces are balanced and there is no moment generated about pin O. However, if F is displaced by a small distance dL as shown in Figure 5.2.4 b, moment will generate about O and would equal:

Mo Mo

F ( L dL) F ( L dL) 2( F )(dL)

Figure 5.2.4: Free Body Diagram (FBD) of the tilt tracker mechanism.

50 Now consider the force Fb shown in Figure 5.2.4 (c) that acts to counter the moment M0. Fb is calculated as follows:

Mo Fb

2( F )(dL) 2( F )(dL) ( L dL)

Fb ( L dL)
Eq 5.2.1

It is this force Fb that the tilt tracker applies on a mistracking belt to center it. The mechanism shown in Figure 5.2.5 is designed to move some weight (F) by small distance (dL) in order to generate force Fb on the belt. The objective is to maximize Fb within the reasonable limits of a belts life so that the belt tracks quickly to the center.

DETAILS OF MECHANISM The holding rod of the mechanism is fixed to the conveyor stringer (Figure 6.5.1). The pivoting rod rotates about the pivot pin when the mistracking belt pushes against the sensing guide rollers. These rollers push the steel wheel by a small distance (wheel does not have much space to move) which in turn moves the mass plates. The mass plates (represented with F in Eq 5.2.1) always remain parallel to the ground. Once the mass plates on either side of the tracker are displaced from equilibrium position, the pivoting rod will rotate and apply force Fb on the belt. The belt will start drifting to the opposite side from the high tension side to low tension side. In the process, it will push on the other sensor guide roller which will bring the two steel wheels back to the equilibrium position. Note that the sensor rollers will also pivot with the pivoting rod.

IMPORTANT FEATURES Some features of the mechanism are critical for proper functioning. First, the pair of sensor guide rollers on each side of the tracker should be equally spaced in order to eliminate any moment on

51 the steel wheel (created about the y-axis). Also, the distance between the pair sensor rollers on each side of the tracker should be minimized so that the drifting belt has contact with both of them.

Next, it is desirable to minimize the pivot angle of the pivoting rod when the steel wheel displaces the mass plates because the sensor rollers also pivot with it. If they tilt too much, the belt may not make adequate contact to exert pressure to move the steel wheels. Hence, the control of the pivoting rod is accomplished by limiting the space of the steel wheel to move in the x-direction. Less movement of the wheel results in a reduced value for dL in equation 5.2.1. So in order to maximize the force on the belt Fb, mass plates F should be increased.

It is obvious that F cannot increase indefinitely because a belt may not be able to push this mass on the wheel. The rolling friction (assuming no slippage) generated between the steel wheel and the steel container is give by F f
( FN )(Crr ) , where FN is the normal force and Crr is the

coefficient of rolling friction. FN in this case is equal to F and Crr is obtained from experiments and equals 0.001 [18] for steel. So, the friction force (Ff) generated due the mass plates should be provided by the mistracking belt in order to move the steel wheels. To get an idea of how much force a drifting belt can exert, some experiments must be conducted. For instance, a belt with varying drift speeds can push against a load cell which would output a force value.

Finally, the steel wheel moving space must remain clean (i.e. no material build-up) at all times. A possible solution is to completely enclose the wheel so material cannot enter.

52

Figure 5.2.5: The tilt tracker with important components labelled.

CONCLUION The attempt of this section was to provide SIEMENS with a mechanism that can effectively and automatically track a belt. The tilt tracker mechanism proposed in this section resembles closely with the manual tracker that SIEMENS currently uses (not included here due to patent issues). Hence, with slight modification to the mechanism and a detailed machine design analysis (stress, deflections, fatigue, etc) the tracker could perform its intended function very efficiently.

53

FIGURES & TABLES

6.1Section 1: Introduction

6.2Section 2: Important Parameters of Crown Pulleys

Figure 6.2.1: Definition of belt wrap angle around a pulley [15].

Figure 6.2.2: Comparison between theory and experiments. Experimental and theoretical data was obtained for = 0.4, B/R = 0.6, and A/R = 9. The solid line shows the theoretical curve while the empirical data points closely follow the solid line curve [8].

54

6.3Section 3: Optimal Crown Pulley Combination

Figure 6.3.1: Two belts are used to vary tension during experiments. Left one has an unstretched length of 27 cm. Right one has an unstretched length of 25 cm.

(A)

(B)

Figure 6.3.2: (A) represents belt configuration A. (B) represents belt configuration B.

55

6.4Section 4: Limitations of Crown Pulleys

Figure 6.4.1: Belt misalignment (in mm) at 0.2 mm Crown and 180o belt wrap angle. [13]

Figure 6.4.2: Toe and Camber induced belt misalignment sensitivity to belt wrap angle [13]

56

Figure 6.4.3: Belt misalignment (in mm) at 0.2 mm Crown and 5 o belt wrap angle. [13]

Figure 6.4.4: Belt tensioner case AL. The tail pulley is misaligned to mimic a belt tensioner.

57

6.5Section 5: Propose a Solution

Figure 6.5.1: Tilt tracker attached to conveyor structure (stringer)

Figure 6.5.2: Tilt tracker front view.

58

Figure 6.5.3: Tilt tracker top view.

59

REFERENCES
[1] Teletrak Conveyor Components. 2008. [online]. Available: http://www.kaveri.in/products_conveyor_belttracking.asp. [Accessed : Jan 5, 2009] Conveyor Equipment Manufacturers Assocaition, Belt Conveyors for Bulk Materials. New York 2005. Teletrak Conveyor Components. July 2001. [online]. Available: http://www.bryantpro.com/prodlit.asp. [Accessed : Jan 31, 2009] Catalog WT 02-2007, Continuous Weighing and Process Protection, SIEMENS AG, Germany. Belt Tracking Hi Life Models. Oct. 19, 2001 [online]. Available: http://www.hiroller.com/PDF/Ex_BeltTrackingHiLife.pdf, [Accessed: Dec 21, 2008] Butler Jutice. Pulleys. 2005 [online] Available: http://www.butlerjustice.com/pulleys.html, [Accessed: Dec 20, 2008] John D. Cutnell and Kenneth W. Johnson. Physics 7Ed. New York: Wiley, 2007. Gerbert, Goran. Flat belt axial motion on conical pulleys,American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Design Engineering Division (Publication) DE, v 88, 1996, p 443452 Belt Tracking. Oct. 2003. [online]. Available: http://www.fennerdunlopamericas.com/pdf/TrackingFDA0105.pdf, [Accessed: Oct 10, 2008] Russell Gross, and Richard Meckstroth, V-Ribbed Belt Backside Pulley Belt Mistracking SAE Paper 980836. Sam Memmolo. Technology Corner. 2009 [online]. Available: http://www.shadetreemechanic.com/images/cummins%20turbo%20diesel%20drive%20s ys%204.jpg, [Accessed: Feb 15, 2009] R.Ahoor, and R.J. Meckstroth, Belt Tracking Experiment SAE Paper 901770. HOW TO CORRECT MISTRACKING BELTS. Coal Age; Jul2005, Vol. 110 Issue 7, p52-53, 2p, 3 color Design. [online]. Available: http://www.rubberfix.com.au/images/wrap_angle_1.gif. [Accessed: March 2, 2009]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7] [8]

[9]

[11]

[12]

[13] [14]

[15]

60 [16] Barfoot, G.J.: Quantifying the Effect of Idler Misalignment on Belt Conveyor Tracking; bulk solids handling Vol. 15 (1995) No.1, pp. 33-35. PT Max. Internet: http://www.flexco.com/products/pt_max_belt_positioner, [2008] Wikipedia. Rolling Resistance. March 23 2009 [online]. Availble: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_resistance, [Accessed: Mar 5, 2009] Catalog PS-454 ENG7.2008, Sandvik-Active Steel Belt Tracking Control, Sandvik Process Systems, Germany.

[17] [18]

[19]

61

APPENDIX A

Starting from left: Two trapezoidal crown pulleys, two tapered crown pulleys, one flat faced pulley.

Chuck holding the drive pulley shaft

Hand Drill attached to the shaft of drive pulley with a 0.5 chuck

62

APPENDIX B
EXPERIMENTAL DATA SHEET
Distance travelled by Belt Tension belt along the pulley to (Stretch of the belt). center (cm).[Distance Y T1 > T2 and Speed Observation (Speed to reach shown in Fig 3.1.2] T1'>T2' Variation center) mm/s
Average (mm/s) 0.80 0.80 1.23 0.73 1.14 1.22 0.73 1.15 23.20 32.80 22.30 29.97 20.03 28.47 17.23 27.00

Pulley Combination

Belt Configuration

S1 T2 S2 A 2.00 S1 T1 S2 S1 T1' S2 B 2.00 S1 T2' S2 S1 T1' S2 B Two Flat Pulley 2.00 S1 T2' S2

0.87 1.33 0.78 1.17

0.74 1.11 0.67 1.13

23.50 22.90 23.20 33.30 32.10 33.00 22.20 22.60 22.10 30.10 29.60 30.20 20.10 20.30 19.70 28.50 28.40 28.50 17.40 17.80 16.50 26.90 26.00 28.10

C1-D

63

EXPERIMENTAL DATA SHEET

Distance travelled by Belt along the pulley to center Belt Tension (Stretch (cm).[Distance Y of the belt). T1 > T2 Speed Observation (Speed to reach shown in Fig 3.1.2] and T1'>T2' Variation center) mm/s
Average (mm/s) S1 T2 S2 A 2.00 S1 T1 S2 S1 T1' S2

Pulley Combination

Belt Configuration

3.08 4.34 2.10 2.97 22.20 40.00 15.70 30.60 20.10 28.50 17.40 26.90

3.00 4.40 2.26 3.10

2.98 4.32 2.13 2.89

3.02 4.35 2.16 2.99 21.90 40.27 15.80 30.37 20.03 28.47 17.23 27.00

21.80 21.70 40.80 40.00 15.80 15.90 30.30 30.20 20.30 19.70 28.40 28.50 17.80 16.50 26.00 28.10

C1-C1

2.00 S1 T2' S2 S1 T1' S2

B Two Flat Pulley

2.00 S1 T2' S2

64

EXPERIMENTAL DATA SHEET

Distance travelled by belt Belt Tension along the pulley to center (Stretch of the belt). Belt (cm).[Distance Y shown in T1 > T2 and Speed Observation (Speed to reach Configuration Fig 3.1.2] T1'>T2' Variation center) mm/s
Average (mm/s) S1 T2 S2 A 2.00 S1 T1 S2 S1 T1' S2

Pulley Combination

3.45 7.14 2.60 5.30 42.30 50.00 33.30 41.50 20.10 28.50 17.40 26.90

3.30 7.20 2.65 5.40

3.39 7.20 2.70 5.27

3.38 7.18 2.65 5.32 42.03 49.10 33.97 41.50 20.03 28.47 17.23 27.00

41.70 42.10 48.60 48.70 34.50 34.10 41.80 41.20 20.30 19.70 28.40 28.50 17.80 16.50 26.00 28.10

C2-D

2.00 S1 T2' S2 S1 T1' S2

B Two Flat Pulley

2.00 S1 T2' S2

65

EXPERIMENTAL DATA SHEET

Distance travelled by belt along the pulley to Belt Tension (Stretch Belt center (cm).[Distance of the belt). T1 > T2 Speed Observation (Speed to reach Configuration Y shown in Fig 3.1.2] and T1'>T2' Variation center) mm/s
Average (mm/s) S1 T2 S2 A 2.00 S1 T1 S2 S1 T1' S2

Pulley Combination

6.14 7.14 4.96 6.20

6.10 7.20 5.10 6.24

6.15 7.20 5.00 6.20

6.13 7.18 5.02 6.21 31.78 37.67 26.00 30.17 20.03 28.47 17.23 27.00

31.25 32.00 32.10 38.20 37.80 37.00 25.80 25.90 26.30 30.20 30.30 30.00 20.10 20.30 19.70 28.50 28.40 28.50 17.40 17.80 16.50 26.90 26.00 28.10

C2-C2

2.00 S1 T2' S2 S1 T1' S2

B Two Flat Pulley

2.00 S1 T2' S2

66

EXPERIMENTAL DATA SHEET

Distance travelled by Belt Tension Belt along the pulley to (Stretch of the belt). Pulley Belt center (cm).[Distance Y T1 > T2 and Speed Observation (Speed Combination Configuration shown in Fig 3.1.2] T1'>T2' Variation center) mm/s

to

reach

Average (mm/s) S1 T2 S2 A 2.00 S1 T1 S2 S1 T1' S2

4.23 6.94 3.35 4.46 22.40 33.30 18.30 29.70 20.10 28.50 17.40 26.90

4.40 7.14 3.20 4.32 22.50 33.80 18.60 29.80 20.30 28.40 17.80 26.00

4.30 7.09 3.30 4.45 22.30 32.90 18.10 29.80 19.70 28.50 16.50 28.10

4.31 7.06 3.28 4.41 22.40 33.33 18.33 29.77 20.03 28.47 17.23 27.00

C1-C2

2.00 S1 T2' S2 S1 T1' S2

B Two Flat Pulley

2.00 S1 T2' S2

67

APPENDIX C

68

APPENDIX D
The procedure below shows the how the spring constant for conveyor model belt was obtained. Any elastic material obeys the Hookes Law which is defined as F = kx. For the rubber belt, a mass of 0.5 kg was attached and the deflection of the rubber was measured with a ruler. Then the spring constant (k) is determined by the ratio of the force and the deflection. The table below shows the different values that were obtained from the test: Force (F) 9.81 N 9.81 N 9.81 N AVERAGE Deflection (x) 2.1 cm 2.2 cm 2.15 cm Spring Constant (k) 233 N/m 222 N/m 228 N/m 227 N/m

Hence, the spring constant of the belt is 227 N/m. Belt tensions in the initial configurations for the experiments conducted in section 3 are calculated as follows: Unstretched Length (cm)

A Stretched Length Tension (cm) (N) 30 6.8 30 11.4

B Stretched Length Tension (cm) (N) 30 8.1 30 12.7

Belt 1 Belt 2

27 25

NOTE: A and B are the two belt configurations tested during the experiments. For configuration B (Figure 3.1.1), the stretch in the belt is determined by measuring the diagonal distance.

69