BELT

WEAR FROM LOADING

AND BELT CLEANING
R. Todd Swinderman, PE
todds@mar5n-eng.com
Mar5n Engineering
 AGENDA

Belt Wear From Loading

Damaged Belts Cleaning Eciency
Belt Wear from Belt Cleaning
Conclusion
 LOADING WEAR: A PROBLEM FOR A LONG TIME

...abrasive wear due to slippage and sliding of the

material on the belt, etc. is the chief cause of belt
deteriora5on..

....the most serious deprecia5on of the belt

conveyor is that of its belt ... as high as 33-1/3 %...

...neither the wear nor its causes can be en5rely

overcome, but the destruc5on can be lessened by
proper design of the loading chutes...

The Wear of Conveyor Belts, An Analysis of the Causes and Means for
their Reduc5on, Reginald Trautschold, Iron Age, Vol 90, pg 26, 1912
 NIBA Tech Note #10
IMPACT RESISTANCE of BELTING

...there is no single impact resistance test

which is representa5ve of belt performance...
consequently, there are no minimum standards ...


NIBA Recommenda5ons:
Minimize the Size of the Material
Minimize the Drop Distance
Load in the Direc5on of Belt Travel
Load Lumps on a Bed of Fines
 WEAR MATERIALS VS. IMPACT ANGLE

Rubbers
100
Steels
Ceramics
Relative Wear Rate

50

0
0 30 60 90
Angle of Impact
Source: Trelleborg Rubber Wear Panels Brochure 2015
BELT DAMAGE FROM IMPACT
 DAMAGE FROM BELT CLEANER
STRAIGHT CHUTE: LOADING VELOCITY
FLAT CHUTE
CURVED CHUTE: LOADING VELOCITY
CURVED CHUTE
MATERIAL REACHING BELT SPEED

Vb Vey
LS =
2g(b tan())
ROCK BOX CHUTE
 LOADING VELOCITIES

Vey Ve Vey Ve Vey Ve

Vb Vb Vb

Rock Box Chute Flat Chute Curved Chute

 CHUTE BELT WEAR COMPARISON

Rock Box
100 Rubber

Flat Chute
Relative Wear Rate

Curved Chute
50

0
0 30 60 90
Angle of Impact
Source: Trelleborg Rubber Wear Panels Brochure 2015
 INCREASED BELT LIFE FROM CHUTE DESIGN

Palabora +300% (Conveyor Dynamics)

Los Pelambres + 36% (Conveyor Dynamics)
Freeport + 900% ( Conveyor Engineering)
Vale +40% (Mar5n Engineering)
 BELT CLEANERS

Rake
Angle

Cleaning
Angle

< 90 = 90
> 90

Positve Negative Zero

Rake Rake Rake
 BELT CLEANING: A PROBLEM FOR A LONG TIME

A certain amount, depending on its

character and moistness, of the material
carried upon a conveyor belt tends to cling
to the surface. This clinging material
causes deteriora5on which may vary from
5 to 25% of the total wear on the belt.


Engineering and Mining Journal 1914 - John J. Ridgway
Agglomerated Carryback

100 m

Gold Ore SAG Feed

Carryback

19
There is Money in CARRYBACK

100 m

Gold in
Carryback

20
 Shear Cell Carryback
~2.3 mm Dia. ~10 m Dia.
1 cm

c m
1
1 cm

150 Particles 1 Billion Particles

7 x 10-3 g Each 10-9 g Each

21
 CALCULATING CARRYBACK
Belt Speed Vb (m/s)

Cb (g/m2) *Dw BW
(m) (m)

Carryback

Carryback (mtph) = Cb x Dw x Vb x Cf x 0.0036

g=grams, h = hours, m= meters, s=seconds
Cf = % of Carryback that escapes as dust or builds up under conveyor *CEMA Default Value Dw = 2/3 x BW
3,600 s/h s-g
Feeder Belts In-Plant Conveyors Overland Conveyors = 0.0036
1,000,000 g/t h-t
5 to 50% 50 to 75% 75 to 95% For: Belt speed (fpm), Dw (in) and Cb (oz/ft2)
use 0.0001563 to convert units into tph

22
BELT DAMAGE FROM LOADING
 CARRYBACK IN A SINGLE SCRATCH

Carryback 2 mm VolScratch= b h L

VolScratch = 2 1 1000 = 1000 mm3

1 mm
@spgr. = 1.0 = 1000 g/m or 1 kg/m

Scratch Belt Top Cover

 Belt Top Cover Micro Roughness

8 m

Ra Roughness
5 m

New Belt Top Cover Worn Belt Top Cover

Ra Roughness

5 m

1 m
0
Frequency Frequency

Source Conveyor Belt Cleaning - A Bulk Solid/Belt Surface Interaction Problem, TUNRA , A. W. Roberts, M. Ooms, D. Bennett

25
 Belt

Blade

Carryback 5.6 to 57.4 g/m2

From Micro Surface Roughness Alone

Average of 8 Tests
Blades: Tungsten & Ceramic
Belts: New, Used, Worn
Belt Speed: 3.0 m/s
Fill Factor: 80%
Conveyor Belt Cleaning-A bulk Solid/Bet Surface Interaction Problem A.W. Roberts, M. Ooms, D. Bennett Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Newcastle
26
Small Test Conveyor

27
 Test Parameters

1 Bulk Solid: 60 Grit Aluminum Oxide

2 Belt Qualities: RMA I & RMA II [DIN X & Y]

2 Blade Qualities: Polyether & Polyester Urethane
(Brown) (Orange)

3 Belt Speeds: 1.0, 1.5 & 2.0 m/s

3 Cleaning Pressures: 9.3, 14.0 & 18.5 kPa

28
Belt Thickness

29
Conveyor Belt Surface Macro Roughness

30
Belt Wear-Splice Effect

Splice Leading Edge

Cleaning Well

31
New Belt Thickness

32
Worn Belt Thickness

33
Belt Wear vs. Belt Speed

34
Belt Wear vs. Pressure

35
Belt Wear vs. Belt Quality

All Cleaning Pressures, Blade QualiYes & Belt Speeds

DIN Y (RMA II)

Belt Quality

DIN X (RMA I)

0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200

Average Belt Volume Loss cm3/hr

Data Normalized to Volume Loss at ~100 km of Belt Travel

36
Wear-In Rates

37
 BELT WEAR FROM LOADING

Sw Cover Wear (mm) per 100,000 Cycles

From Various Loading and Material Condi5ons
Feeding Material Conveyed
Condi5on Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3
Favorable 0.4 0.8 1.6
Standard 0.6 1.4 2.6
Unfavorable 1.4 2.4 4.0
ContiTech Conveyor Belt Design Manual Page 98

38
ESTIMATED BELT WEAR FROM LOADING

3.6!x!V!x!Sw !x!t
S2 = Mcg + =
200!x!L
3.6!x!1.5!m/s!x!0.4!mm!x!57.4!h
S2 = Mcg + = 0.517!mm
200!x!1.2!m
Where :
Mcg = Minimum!Cover!Gage
V!!! = Belt!Speed!(1.5!m / s)
Sw ! = Abrassion / 100,000cycles!(0.4!mm)
t!!!!! = Planned!operatiing!Time!(57.5!h!for!100,000!cyles)
L!!!! = Center!dis tance!(1.2!m)

Con5Tech Conveyor Belt Design Manual Page 98

39
 PRECLEANER ESTIMATED BELT WEAR

Small Test Conveyor

3.1 m Belt Tape length
1.5 m/s Belt Speed
To Get 100,000 cycles on Small Test Conveyor
18.0 h 31,355 Cycles
57.4 h 100,000 Cycles
Calculate Wear in mm of Top Cover
15.24 cm Blade Width
Wear Area per hour 25,512 cm2/h
Belt Wear per hour 1.02 cm3/h
Cover Wear per hour 0.0004
mm
Cover Wear per 100,000 Cycles
0.023 mm
40
BELT CLEANER WEAR VS LOADING WEAR

Small!Test!Conveyor!Results
!=!
Contitech!Sw !Loading!Wear!Factor

0.023!mm/100,000!Cycles
!! =!4.4%
0.517!mm/100,000!Cycles

!
41
 CONCLUSION

Wear Can be Reduced by Chute Design

Cleaning Damaged Belts is Dicult
Belt Cleaner Wear Less Than Loading Wear