solids

handling

Belt Tension Around a Drive Drum

Volume 18 Number 1 January/March 1998

Modelling Belt Tension

Around a Drive Drum
A. Harrison, USA

Summary
Analysis of the drive drum friction problem by classical calculus
provides a slip test that allows a designer to determine a maximum T^/T2 for a conveyor. In the classical slip calculation, a
drive friction coefficient of 0.25 to 0.35 is used. In this paper, a
mechanical model is developed to simulate the starting of a
drive drum with a distributed mass-spring system for the belting. The model allows the belt to be pre-tensioned, then torque
is applied to develop a 71 and T2 tension. The torque is applied
up to the point of drum slip. The model produces the tension
distribution in the belt around the drum face. The model provides a clearer understanding of belt tensions around a drive
drum, including requirements for viscoelastic contraction when
designing a drive system.

1.

Introduction

The problem of defining the way in which belt tension changes

from its tight-side 71 tension to the outgoing slack-side 72 tension has been contemplated by a number of authors. The basic
relationship that defines the amount of 71 tension in relation to
T9 tension at the point of drive drum slip is
n

=e

(D

The derivation of this equation is based on a simple calculus for

the problem, where small elements are integrated around the
wrap angle 6 from 7"2 to 7r with an effective coefficient of friction u defined at the point of limiting friction or the onset of bodily slip. The right hand side of the equation defines the amount
of TJTZ that can be supported by a frictional drive drum against
the belt. In the problem, u is the static friction of the belt on the
drive drum. It should be remembered that the actual 7, and 72
tension at the drive drum is purely the result of conveyor line resistance and material lift, and not a function of the drive drum
coupling to the belt by friction.
Typical values quoted for the effective friction factor u between
belt and pulley are 0.25 < u < 0.35 for steel pulley (lower value)
and lagged pulley (higher value). However, actual measured values of friction coefficient for rubber on steel and rubber on rub-

Dr. ALEX HARRISON, President of Scientific Solutions Inc., Denver, Colorado,

USA, 2200 Chambers Road, Unit J, Aurora, CO 80011, USA. Tel.: +1 303
344 90 24; Fax: +1 303 344 91 02.
Details about the author on page 167.

ber range from 0.7 to 1.2, much higher than the effective friction
u used today for drive slip calculations.
Clearly the u used above is considered an effective friction
value over the entire drum wrap length. When 7", becomes large
by comparison to T2, slip has a higher probability of occurring,
and so for design purpose the relationship

7,

(2)

is applied as a test for the point of slip. For dual drive drums,
other relationships have been developed to accommodate different wrap angles [1], The basic model does not take into account the following important parameters that are present in a
real system:
Contraction of the belting from 7, to 72 (the belt's elasticity).
The real value of u between drum and belting (0.7 to 1.2).
Localised sliding as torque is applied to the drum.
Variations in the normal force due to the contraction problem.
Variations in friction coefficient around the drum.
Belt speed exiting the drum will be less than drum speed.
A good deal of recent research has been conducted on the
problem of drum friction, with two papers by HARRISON [2, 3] and
another by ZEDIES [4], In references [2] and [3] the problem of
surface roughness and friction tests are addressed. In reference
[4], actual instrumentation is used to monitor the way the drive
drum encounters the belting. Based on surface roughness and
rubber hardness tests [2], a new equation was developed to describe the manner in which 7/72 varies around the drive wrap,
- =1+AB
T2

(3)

where A = 2.0 for rubber on steel, and 6 is the wrap angle [2].
The equivalent friction coefficient developed in this research is
not constant but drops from about 0.86 to 0.56 between 100
degrees and 220 degrees of wrap, with ^ = 0.7 at 150 degrees
of wrap. Therefore, n(6) is a curve that shows equivalent friction
decreasing non-linearly as wrap increases, with the model described by Eq. (3).
A conclusion of the research discussed above was that the
mechanism that describes the way in which 71 evolves to 72
around a drive drum is complex and not well understood at the
belt/drum interface. Friction coefficients are clearly much higher
than used in design tests for slip. This paper describes another
approach to the problem that involves physical modelling and
simulation.
75

Belt Tension Around a Drive Drum

2.

Physical Modelling

Determining the way that 71 tension evolves to a lower 7~2 value

around a drive drum is one of the subjects of this paper. A physical model using masses and damped springs has been developed to simulate a belt wrapped around a drive drum. The
model may be generally applied to a drive design review or
audit.
Distributed mass and elasticity elements are developed that
form the input to a simulation engine [5], The simulation engine
allows the model to run under a set of program control functions, written so that the time when torque is applied can be
user-input.
For example, the rate of pre-tension applied to the model can
be controlled so that initial conditions are stabilised. After initial
pre-tensioning oscillations are stabilised, the rate of torque application is controlled to prevent drum slip while the model differentially tensions all the springs on the drum face.
Fig. 1 illustrates the model of a drive drum, constructed so that
real-world parameters are applied. For example, the following
set of parameters are used in the model that will be described in
this paper:
Belt mass = 25.5 kg/m (fabric belt) - 7 masses, 7 kg/mass
Belt mass = 36.5 kg/m (steel cord belt) - 5 masses, 14 kg/mass
Drive drum = 1.0 m diameter, wrap angle 210 degrees
Static friction = 0.9, kinetic friction = 0.7 (rubber on steel)

Volume 18 Number 1 January/March 1998

bulk

SOlMS

Fig. 2 shows the interface between the physical model and the
working model simulator [5]. All mass positions and spring tensions are tracked during the simulation. All inputs to the physical model need to be correct so that the simulation will be stable and converge to real solutions.
In establishing the model, the following procedure is required:
a) Each spring is attached to a mass element at a location that
will not cause significant over turning moments.
b) Each spring has the same length L/6, where L is the length of
the unsupported spring.
c) Every mass contacts the pulley face with even bearing pressure so that sliding forces are rapid to compute and so that
bouncing is not induced when the drum torque is applied.
d) Damping is applied to each spring to reduce dynamic interactions while pre-tension and torque is being applied.

e) At time t = 0, a displacement is applied to the drum along its

horizontal axis, to pre-tension the springs to a typical belt
tension.
f) At a later time after all initial oscillations die away (the system
is in static equilibrium and tensioned) the torque is ramped
up slowly to create a 7^ and 7"2 tension. This process continues until the drum rotates beneath the masses (slip). Each
mass adjusts its position by sliding on the drumface until all
forces are balanced. Spring forces then represent belt tensions.

Spring stiffness k = belt stiffness, length L/Q per element spring

3.
6k, L/6

6k

k,L

k,L

Fig. 1:

Fig. 2:

Physical model of a drive drum for torque application and simulation of

spring tensions

Procedural functions for the simulation

Physical Model Inputs

Control Parameters for

Simulation
J

Drum and Belt

Data
Control Ramp
Algorithms

Runge-Kutta

Working Model Inputs

Simulation Engine

/SimulationN
I Outputs J

76

Auto Time Stop

Collision Detection

Low Pre-Tension Example

Tension in a fabric belt is generally lower than in higher stiffness

steel cord belts, and therefore spring stiffness has to be set accordingly. A model was constructed for a 6 element spring system, as shown in Fig. 1. Spring lengths were of the order of
0.28 m and the drive drum diameter was 1.0 m. The exact
length of the spring lengths determines the initial strain, however
these initial conditions are no longer relevant once the torque is
applied to the drum and spring tensions start to deviate from
each other. Static friction was set at 0.9 and sliding or kinetic
friction was set at 0.7.
At time t = 0, a slow rising pre-tension of 5 kN was applied to
the belting for 2 seconds, and then held at this level until 5 seconds. The control logic for the simulation sets a true condition
by the first value and the false condition by the second value, as
follows :
time step

0.025 s

pretension Force Fx

if (f < 2,5000 * f/2,5000)

torque

if (f > 5,50 * (f - 5), 0)

Each mass was set at 25 kg and each spring had a stiffness of

120 kN/m. Damping for each spring was set to produce smooth
steady-state conditions. Setting the damping too large results in
dynamic stiffness and possible instabilities due to the production of high frequencies in the model.
Fig. 3 shows the result of the model simulation. Soon after
torque is applied, motion of the drum is observed in this particular model.
Tensions in the spring elements between 5 and 10 seconds are
basically locked because there is no relative sliding of the
masses at a low value of applied torque. The upper 2 springs
near 7^ (the highest rising curves in the left hand side (Ihs) box of
Fig. 3) experience a rise in tension before others around the
drum. The T2 side spring tension starts to fall at the same time
the 71 spring tension rises (see right hand side (rhs) box of
Fig. 3).

bulk
solids
handling

Belt Tension Around a Drive Drum

Volume 18 Number 1 January/March 1998

Fig. 3:

Results of a low tension simulation

In general, tensions for springs shown in the Ins box are ordered
from top to bottom in the same way they are drawn in Fig. 1,
namely the top spring of length L contains the tight side tension
7^, and so on. In the rhs box, the lowest spring tension is also
the last long spring, i.e. at 7~2 belt tension.
This model slips early in the simulation, allowing the sliding of
the drum to drag the masses to a point of static equilibrium. This
point is reached when the masses locate at a point on the drum
surface where spring forces across each element is balanced
by the drag force at its particular normal load. The simulation in
this particular model describes constant creep or sliding of the
belt relative to the drive drum, typical of many operating fabric
belt drives that show up to 5% slip when running.
Analysis of the data shows that all masses slide to a point of static equilibrium, with an active dynamic friction of uk = 0.7 for
each mass. The drum takes about 1 minute to reach a point
where the system is at static equilibrium. At this time, no more
spring extensions occur, and the tensions are measured:
= 791 7 N

72 = 2411 N.

The ratio T^/T2 = 3.2837. From the general equation for slip, the
effective friction coefficient u, that supports this tension ratio at
slip, with 210 degrees of wrap, is

some error in the curve near 7T, just before system static equilibrium (slip) due to dynamic oscillations in the mass locations
(and hence spring tensions) at the point where the system
changes to static equilibrium.

4.

High Pre-Tension Example

The previous example showed a relative low tension belt model,

typical of those used in underground coal mines. It showed that
even though friction of a belt against a drive drum is measured
at about jx = 0.9 at limiting friction, the effective friction as seen
at the point of slip (T,/T2 = 3.2837) is \JL = 0.3257. This simulation confirmed the typical value applied in Eq. (1).
Another drive drum model with higher stiffness springs
(k = 1000 kN/m) was constructed to simulate a steel cord belt.
A 4-spring element with 5 masses was used. Each mass had a
value of M = 14 kg and the same drum parameters were used
as in the previous example. The friction used was also the same
as in the previous example, namely us = 0.9 and uk = 0.7.

Fig. 4:

Tension in the belt between 7, and 72 for various K ratios

M, = {In (7~/72)} / 9 = 0.3257.

This result is very interesting in that the static friction coefficient
of each mass is set at near measured values of \a = 0.9, the sliding friction is uk = 0.7, and the equivalent or effective friction is
H = 0.3257.
The simulation has produced a result for \a that the simple theory described by Eq. (1) would require, namely a ^ in the range
0.25 < u< 0.35. The value of the effective friction for the system
is about half the sliding friction value.
By taking the data from Fig. 3, it is possible to plot the way in
which the spring element tensions vary around the drive drum.
Fig. 4 shows the graph of the evolution of spring forces at different levels of K = T^/T2, up to the point of static equilibrium.
This graph shows that the tension in a belt around a driving
drum evolves with an approximate "S" curve. There may be

30

60

90

120

Degrees

150

180

210

Belt Tension Around a Drive Drum

Volume 1 8 Number 1 January/March 1 998

Various Tensions around Druml

bulk

1TUT2 Tensions!

(NJOe+005
(N)
(N)6e+005
(N)""
11.8026+005

(N)0e+005

(N);

A-x

1.966e+005

Aft

i ' >i^J""

1.802e+005

t^C

1.6386+005

i^TSangefe'
Olle+005
1.147e+005
9.830e+004
8.192e+004

4.915s+0V
3.27?e+004

x^

W
^C

1.638e+OQ4

!
1.600

Fig. 5:

1.600

2.400

Fig. 5 shows the evolution of spring tensions around the drum

with 4 spring elements and 5 masses. The model was pre-tensioned to 100 kN, and the above simulation techniques were
applied. Tensions achieved prior to bodily slip of the drum were
7., = 202 kN and T2 = 8 kN. This gives an effective friction coefficient of u = 0.84. The mass-drum interface friction was 0.9.

Full time history of the simulation in Fig. 5

-16.000

0.400

78

a200 (a)

Simulation to the point of slip for a 100 kN model pre-tension

For a model pre-tension of 85 kN, 71 and T2 tensions at drive

drum were 172 kN and 14.1 kN respectively, at the point of
drum slip. The slip ratio T^/T2 = 12.226, which gives an effective
friction factor of u = 0.654. As pre-tension in the model increases to 165 kN, the effective friction increases u = 0.8 before the drum physically slides beneath the distributed masses.

Fig. 6:

.2.400

;
1.200

2000

This test reveals that a significant torque can be applied to the

drum prior to slip, well above the values traditionally used for
Eq. (1). Spring tensions stabilise to constant values in this model
at 3.2 seconds after torque is applied. This is where constant
drive slip is modelled. The pre-tension is so high that the model
maintains stability even though the drum slips. This is not the
case with lower pre-tensioned models. Increasing the number
of springs to 6 (as before) results in very high frequencies due to
the spring stiffness and so the model becomes unstable during
simulation.
Fig. 6 shows a full time history simulation of the model. The initial pre-tension causes dynamic overshoot in all spring tensions.
After the system settles down,
torque is applied gently and the
tensions split as shown, up to the
point the drum slips. The lower
graph shows the rotation of the
drum and total slip at about 2.8
seconds.

^Y
2.800

A number of stable simulations

were conducted for the drive with
the same mechanical conditions
as above. The model's pre-tension value was increased for each
simulation so that K increased.
Fig. 7 shows the way the model
simulates an effective friction coefficient as K = T^/T2 increases.
The effective friction u was calculated for each simulation. Clearly
u increases as K is increased,
showing that the pre-tension level
affects the effective friction coefficient at a given wrap angle.

It]

bulk

Belt Tension Around a Drive Drum

Volume 18 Number 1 January/March 1998

A design slip test may be summarised with a 5 point procedure

as follows :
1. Compute the effective tension 7e for the conveyor.

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6

MuEff

2. Select a 7~2 tension based on lowest profile tension for sag.

3. Compute the value of 71 based on a best assessment for Te.

4. Compute drive friction coefficient using Eq. (4)

5. Determine whether 7^ is too great, using Eqs. (5 or 6).

0.3

There are many instances where the drive slips beneath the
belt, contrary to design calculations [1]. Each particular conveyor drive design may be analysed using simulation, so that the
influence of drive diameter and lagging type may be taken into
account. Viscoelastic considerations of the belting can now be
accommodated since the tension evolution between 7^ and 7~2
is known up to the point of slip [6]. This process is particularly
important since there are new lagging materials in the market
that claim a larger coefficient of driving friction to prevent slip.

0.2
0.1
0

10

15

20

25

K = T1/T2 Ratio

Fig. 7:

5.

For example, ceramic lagging is reported to exhibit an effective

friction value of M =0.45 to 0.5. A simulation of ceramic against
the rubber belting will give the actual values of friction for the slip
test. Mechanical impression of the lagging nodules in the case
of ceramic lagging may be the cause of the apparently higher effective friction factor, and this problem is being researched.

Variation in effective friction M with 7/72 (drum diameter = 1 m)

Application to Design

In conveyor design various tension calculation methods are

used to find the effective tension 7"e around the conveyor. These
methods include CEMA [1], ISO 5048 or DIN 22121. Whilst
each of these methods have drawbacks they are widely used in
industry to produce an effective tension Te around a particular
conveyor profile. Commercial models may be more accurate
than ISO or CEMA.
Using the simulation results for a typical 1 m diameter drive
drum, Eq. (1) may be re-written to include the effect of belt tension on effective friction. For the above conditions of actual friction, namely us = 0.7 and uk = 0.9, the equation for u(K) is

\i(K)

-aK-e~

(4)

where a = 6 x 10"3 and the equation for the slip test becomes

<e

(5)

During design iterations, the tension at some point along a belt

needs to be set, and usually a value is selected for T2 or tail tension (in head drive conveyors) to ensure that sag at the load
point is kept within design limits. This may change for tail drive
systems. In general, setting 7~2 or tail tension is relatively simple
if gravity take-ups are used.

6.

Simulation of a drive drum against a rubber belt with static and

sliding friction values near 0.9 and 0.7 respectively shows that
the effective friction coefficient u varies between 0.32 and 0.84,
depending on the belt tension. At low belt tensions in relation to
belt stiffness the slip predicting Eq. (2) is valid, however as the
ratio T^/T2 increases, a new effective friction coefficient that is
tension dependent needs to be applied to prove the point of
slip. Another outcome of the modelling is the tension distribution
in the belt around the drive drum. This result, together with viscoelastic relaxation rates, may lead to improved belting materials.
Although a specific simulation example is described in this
paper, along with assumptions and conclusions, every drive
drum system will require individual examination to determine the
real point of slip.

References
[1]

CEMA: Belt Conveyors for Bulk Materials Handling; 3rd

Edition, 1995.

[2]

HARRISON, A. and ROBERTS, A.W.: Mechanisms of force

transfer on conveyor belt drive drums; bulk solids handling
Vol. 12 (1992) No. 4, pp. 581-584.

[3]

HARRISON, A. and BARFOOT, G.: Load sharing between multiple drive conveyors; Procs. SME Conference, Reno,
Nevada, 1993.

[4]

ZEDIES, H.: Investigation of the strain on drum-laggings

aiming the optimization of the lagging; Doctoral thesis, University of Hannover, Germany, 1987.

[5]

Working Model 2D for Windows 95, Users Manual, Knowledge Rev., Summit software 1989-1996

[6]

HARRISON, A.: Lagging and belting dynamics in conveyor

drives; bulk solids handling Vol. 16 (1996) No. 2, pp. 353359.

Supposing that 72 is set in a design to control the sag at the

load point, the relationship for the slip test becomes

where the effective tension due to conveyor resistance is

Te = (T,-T2).
The research shows that the slip test depends on the effective
tension due to conveyor resistance. Larger effective drive drum
friction values are predicted with this research compared to traditionally used drive friction values of between 0.25 and 0.35. In
a traditional application, Te is not one of the parameters that affects the effective friction coefficient.

Conclusions

79