Optimalization of conveyer belts fire-resistant rubber properties using a mathematical model of desirability functions

AFRIM DUSHI1 , FLORIAN KONGOLI2 , MUSA RIZAJ1 1 University of Prishtina, Faculty of Mining and Metallurgy, Kosovo 2 FLOGEN Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada musa.rizaj@uni-pr.edu, afrimd@gmail.com Abstract Rubber textile conveyor belts used in underground coal mines require strong and standardized fire-resistant properties in order to guarantee the safety of the work. The Purpose of this work is the optimization of the rubber ingredients which are the main factors that give flammability to conveyor belts. The ingredients taken into consideration as factors are Sb2 O 3 (X1), chlorinated paraffins (X2) and clay (X3). The experiments were designed using central composite rotatable design (CCRD) of second order, according to the mathematical model of desirability functions. The fitted responses for flammability were Spirit Burner test (Y1), Surface resistance test (Y2), and Limit oxygen index, LOI (Y3). The obtained Optimized Global solution was: X1 = 0.2889; X2 = 0.39 and X3 = 0.832, while composite desirability was 0.932 which is an efficient value for desirability. Keywords: optimization, coal mine, conveyor belts, rubber, flammability, desirability functions

Introduction Rubber textile conveyor belts used for underground coal mines demand, very strongly, standardized properties which guarantee the safety work according of fare-resistant. Methane gas realized in coal mines can easy explode, even if a little spark discharges. Conveyor belts can be sourcing those accidents. For that reason, it is mandatory, expect physical and mechanical properties, to poses properties that make the belts self-smother and when used do not produce sparks. The main characteristics which the conveyors give flammability properties are: - Spirit or gas Burner test (Response Y1) - Surface resistance test (Response Y2) - Limit oxygen index, LOI (Response Y3) - Drum friction tests - Gallery flammability test Conveyor belts for mines are made from special rubber for covers and for gummy textiles. This paper analyzes Special fire-resistant Rubber compounds made from[1,2] : - Antimony Trioxide (Controllable Factor X1) - Chlorinated paraffins (Controllable Factor X2) - Kaolin Clay (Controllable Factor X3) So, objective of this paper is to optimize the amounts of each factor using central composite rotatable design (CCRD) of second order, accordingly to the mathematical model of desirability functions [3,4] This paper, therefore, contributes towards resolving the conflict between the physical and mechanical properties versus anti fire properties of rubber that is used in coal mines strips.

Methods applied in this research are scientific. In this way the minimum LOI value is 40, proposed to be limited according to ISO 4589, since any standard does not limit this value. Standard testing methods have been developed in America and Japan. Test methods are equivalent. Methods American National Standard, ANSI / ASTM D2863-77 Japanese Industrial Standard, JIS K7201 Definition from ASTM: oxygen index - the minimum concentration of oxygen, expressed as volume percent, in a mixture of oxygen and nitrogen that will just support flaming combustion of a material initially at room temperature under the conditions of this method. Mold compounds are rated to pass oxygen index of 28% minimum.

Materials and methods The desirability approach consists of the following steps [3, 4]: - Conduct experiments and fit response models for all k responses; - Define individual desirability functions for each response Maximize the overall desirability D with respect to the controllable factors. To explain central composite rotatable design (CCRD) is not necessary, because the main goal is to expand desirability functions in multiple responses system. The desirability function approach is one of the most widely used methods in industry for the optimization of multiple response processes. It is based on the idea that the "quality" of a product or process that has multiple quality characteristics, with one of them outside of some "desired" limits, is completely unacceptable. The method finds operating conditions x that provide the "most desirable" response values. For each response Yi (x ), a desirability function di( Yi) assigns numbers between 0 and 1 to the possible values of Yi, with di( Yi) = 0 representing a completely undesirable value of Yi and di(Yi) = 1 representing a completely desirable or ideal response value. The individual desirabilitys are then combined using the geometric mean, which gives the overall desirability D:

with k denoting the number of responses. Notice that if any response Yi is completely undesirable (di ( Yi) = 0), then the overall desirability is zero. In practice, fitted response values i , are used in place of the Yi. Depending on whether a particular response Yi is to be maximized, minimized, or assigned a target value, different desirability functions di ( Yi) can be used. A useful class of desirability functions was proposed by Derringer and Suich (1980). Let Li, Ui and Ti be the lower, upper, and target values, respectively, that are desired for response Yi, with Li Ti Ui. If a response is of the "target is best" kind, then its individual desirability function is

with the exponents s and t determining how important it is to hit the target value. For s = t = 1, the desirability function increases linearly towards Ti; for s < 1, t < 1, the function is convex, and for s > 1, t > 1, the function is concave. If a response is to be maximized instead, the individual desirability is defined as

with Ti in this case interpreted as a large enough value for the response. Finally, if we want to minimize a response, we could use

with Ti denoting a small enough value for the response. Experime ntal results and discussions Variation level of factors is show in tab.1 Tab.1 Variation level of factors Factors X X1 X2 X3 -1.682 1.96 8.3 1.6 -1 4 10 5

Variation level 0 7 12.5 10

Var.interval 1 10 15 15 1.682 12 16.7 18.4 Del.X 3 2.5 5

Matrix of experimental design for two level factorial with cub points 8, center points in cub 6 and axial points 6, is show in table 2 [3,4] Tab. 2 Matrix of experiments CCRD Run nr. X1 X2 1 0 0 2 1 -1 3 0 0 4 -1 1 5 -1 1 6 1 -1 7 0 0 8 0 -1.682 9 -1.682 0 10 0 1.682

X3 0 -1 0 1 -1 1 1.682 0 0 0

Y1 45 48 46 46 44 49 46 49 47 42

Y2 310 275 300 260 280 280 310 290 300 280

Y3 48 47 49 36 48 48 50 51 50 47

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

1.682 0 -1 0 0 1 0 1 0 -1

0 0 -1 0 0 1 0 1 0 -1

0 0 -1 0 0 1 -1.682 -1 0 1

43 45 53 44 44 40 47 42 46 54

300 300 310 280 310 280 320 300 250 310

47 48 56 39 49 50 48 48 33 56

Rubber compounds are prepared in laboratory machine. Basis compound contain chloroprene Rubber and other ingredients: Chloroprene rubber 100 %, ZnO 5, Sb2 O3 4-10, Arubren CP 10-20 (15), Clay 5-15, Carbon black 35, Sulfur 0.8, Antioxidant 1.5, Accelerator 1 (MC) 0.6, Accelerator 2 (TMTDS) 1.5 Vulcanization of rubber compound made in laboratory hydraulic press dimensions 500x500 mm.[8] . Vulcanization time for all samples is 15 min. and 150 0 C, tab.3. Tab.nr. 3 Safety property for fire-resistant conveyor belts items Indexes Anti-static property Average electrical resistance of both surfaces 3 108 Surface temperature of drum. 325 Drum friction Any test piece shall not show any sign of flame or glow Average duration of lame for six 3 Burning with cover test pieces rubber Duration of flame for any individual 10 Burning on spirit test piece burner Average duration of flame for six (flame or glow) 5 Burning without cover test piece rubber Duration of flame for any individual 15 test piece Burning on propane 250 Length that is completely undamaged by flame .mm burner MM Its tested three properties of rubber conveyor samples construction EP 1000/4 4/2, as responses to Y1, Y2 and Y3. Y1< 45 Spirit or gas burner test is tested according to ISO 340:2007. Sum of times to fire specimens shall not exceed 45 sec. Y2 < 3x108 - Surface electrical resistance test is tested according to ISO 284:2004, value of electrical resistance shall not exceed 3 108 ohms. 42 < Y3 <54 - Limit oxygen index is tested according to ISO 4589 at all and LOI is desirability value 45. The third response is "target is best" with T3 = 45.[5,6] The first two responses are to be maximized, and the value s=1 was chosen for their desirability functions. Using ordinary least squares and standard diagnostics, the fitted responses is:
Estimated Regression Coefficients for Y1

Term Coef SE Coef T P Constant 44.9583 0.6856 65.571 0.000 X1 -3.0451 0.7651 -3.980 0.003 X2 -5.3904 0.7651 -7.046 0.000 X3 0.0392 0.7651 0.051 0.960 X1*X1 0.7717 1.2525 0.616 0.552 X2*X2 1.2717 1.2525 1.015 0.334 X3*X3 2.2717 1.2525 1.814 0.100 X1*X2 0.7071 1.6811 0.421 0.683 X1*X3 -1.4142 1.6811 -0.841 0.420 X2*X3 -0.7071 1.6811 -0.421 0.683

S = 1.68112 PRESS = 192.945 R-Sq = 87.60% R-Sq(pred) = 15.37% R-Sq(adj) = 76.45%

y1

44.96 3.04 X1 5.39 X 2 0.04 X 3 0.77 X12 1.27 X 2 2 2.27 X 32

0.71X1 X 2 1.41X1 X 3 0.71X 2 X 3

Estimated Regression Coefficients for Y2 Term Coef SE Coef T P Constant 292.046 6.932 42.132 0.000 X1 -1.231 7.735 -0.159 0.877 X2 -10.691 7.735 -1.382 0.197 X3 -8.228 7.735 -1.064 0.312 X1*X1 1.317 12.663 0.104 0.919 X2*X2 -13.683 12.663 -1.081 0.305 X3*X3 16.317 12.663 1.289 0.227 X1*X2 31.820 16.996 1.872 0.091 X1*X3 -3.536 16.996 -0.208 0.839 X2*X3 -10.607 16.996 -0.624 0.547

S = 16.9957 PRESS = 7880.58 R-Sq = 50.37% R-Sq(pred) = 0.00% R-Sq(adj) = 5.70%

y2

292.05 1.23 X1 8.23 X 2 8.23 X 3 1.32 X12 13.68 X 2 2 16.32 X 32

31.82 X1 X 2 3.54 X1 X 3 10.61X 2 X 3

Estimated Regression Coefficients for Y3 Term Coef SE Coef T P Constant 45.6433 2.165 21.083 0.000 X1 -0.3750 2.416 -0.155 0.880 X2 -4.5228 2.416 -1.872 0.091 X3 -1.3098 2.416 -0.542 0.600 X1*X1 3.2658 3.955 0.826 0.428 X2*X2 3.7658 3.955 0.952 0.363 X3*X3 3.7658 3.955 0.952 0.363 X1*X2 7.7782 5.308 1.465 0.174 X1*X3 2.1213 5.308 0.400 0.698 X2*X3 -0.7071 5.308 -0.133 0.897

S = 5.30827 PRESS = 1001.38 R-Sq = 45.15% R-Sq(pred) = 0.00% R-Sq(adj) = 0.00%

y3

45.64 0.37 X1 4.52 X 2 1.31X 3 3.26 X12 3.76 X 2 2 3.76 X 32

7.78 X1 X 2 2.12 X1 X 3 0.71X 2 X 3

Regressions functions and Optimization of D with respect to x was carried out using the MINITAB software. Figure 1 shows the individual desirability functions di( i) for each o f the three responses.
Optimal High D Cur 0.93259 Low Composite Desirability 0.93259 Y1 Maximum y = 44.0413 d = 1.0000 Y2 Maximum y = 299.5106 d = 0.98777 Y3 Targ: 45.0 y = 46.6098 d = 0.82113 X1 1.6818 [0.2888] -1.6818 X2 1.6818 [0.3907] -1.6818 X3 1.6818 [-0.8324] -1.6818

Fig.1 Desirability functions and optimal solutions Response Optimization

Parameters Goal Lower Target Upper Weight Import Y1 M aximum 40 44 44 1 1 Y2 M aximum 260 300 300 1 1 Y3 Target 42 45 54 1 1

Global Solution X1 = 0.288793 X2 = 0.390720 X3 = -0.832403

Predicted Responses Y1 = 44.041 , desirability = 1.000000 Y2 = 299.511 , desirability = 0.987766 Y3 = 46.610 , desirability = 0.821131

Composite Desirability = 0.932586

So, its tested all three responses with new compounds contained amounts from global solution: Sb2 O3 (X1) = 7.87 %, Arubren CP (X2) = 13.48 %, Clay (X3) = 5.84 %

After made the new conveyor samples with above content and replicates tests, it obtained the results show in Tab.4 Tab.4 Verification of global solution results Test 1 Test 2 Y1 45.2 44.1 Y2 298 302 Y3 46.4 45.8

Test 3 44.6 298 46

Mean 44.63 299.33 46.06

Conclusions On the basis of the results of this paper it can conclude: - Not all responses are predicted to be within the desired limits. - The limit oxygen index is min.40 - Composite desirability of 0.9326 is very efficient and acceptable for technical reasons. - Verification of tests conform the exacts of method and experiments.

References 1. A. Bhowmick, M. Hall and H. Benarey, Rubber Products Manufacturing and Technology, Marcel Dekker, New York, USA, 1994 2. Sadhan K. De and Jim R. White, Rubber Technologists Handbook , RAPRA, UK, 2001 3. Zivorad R. Lazic, Design of Experiments in Chemical Engineering, JOHN WILEY AND SONS LTD, 2004 4. Montgomery D.C,Runger G.C.,Applied statistics and probability for engineers,Third edition,John Wiley&Sons,2003 5. M.I. Nelson, H.S. Sidhu, R.O. Weber, and G.N. Mercer 2001. A dynamical systems model of the limiting oxygen index test. ANZIAM Journal, 43(1) 105-117. 6. M.I. Nelson 2001. A dynamical systems model of the limiting oxygen index test: II. Retardancy due to char formation and addition of inert fillers. Combustion Theory and Modeling 5 59-83. 7. Standard ISO 4589 ASTM D2863 8. B.Kusel,International Comparison of fire resistant of conveyor belts, Pittsburgh, March, 2007