EN &GT

AI ID
ELSEVIER
BUll_DINGS
Energy and Buildings 22 (1995) 245-253

Technology assessment: energy-efficient belt transmissions

A n i b a l De A l m e i d a a, Steve Greenberg b
=Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Coimbra, 3000 Coimbra, Portugal
b Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, B90-4000, One Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA

Abstract

Belt transmissions are widely used in industry and in commercial buildings to couple electric motors with a wide variety
of loads. In order to ensure reliable performance and optimize the overall efficiency of motor drives, it is important to select
the most suitable belt transmission for each particular application. This paper surveys the characteristics of the different belt
types, with a particular emphasis on their energy efficiency, cost-effectiveness and field of application. In order to increase
the penetration of energy-efficient belt drives, research, development and demonstration actions are also proposed, which can
contribute to tapping a considerable savings potential.

Keywords: Technology; Energy-efficient belt transmissions

1. Introduction as energy-efficient motors. Belt drives thus deserve

About one-third of the electric motor transmissions
used in the industrial and commercial sectors use belt
transmissions [1]. Belt drives allow flexibility in the
positioning of the motor in relation to the load, and,
using pulleys (sheaves) of suitable diameter, can de-
crease or increase speeds with a large number of possible
speed ratios. A properly designed belt transmission
system provides high efficiency, cleanliness and low
noise, does not require lubrication, and can have low
maintenance requirements.
The large majority of belt transmissions use V-belts,
which are the cheapest belts and present an efficiency
curve which drops rapidly when the load goes below
or above the design load. The efficiency of V-belts also
degrades rapidly with use, requiring regular mainte-
nance. V-belts can successfully be replaced by other
types of belts which offer higher peak efficiency, flatter
efficiency curves and lower maintenance requirements.
Motor drives in the industrial and commercial sector
use about 1050 TWh/year in the US [2]. Assuming that
belt transmissions are applied in one-third of the motor
drives in those sectors and assuming an average efficiency
improvement of 4% (by replacing conventional V-belt
transmissions with energy-efficient belts), 14 TWh of
electricity could be saved annually in the US. This
amount of electricity is approximately equivalent to the
output of 3 large (1000 MW) power plants.
In drives using belt transmissions, energy-efficient
belts can provide the same magnitude of energy savings
greater attention in the future.
2. Efficiency of belt transmissions
The efficiency of a belt transmission can be generally
defined by the following expression:
mechanical power to the driven device
Efficiency= mechanical power from the motor
or more specifically by the expression:
Efficiency = torque out x r.p.m, out
torque in × r.p.m, in
The belt losses are a combination of torque losses and
speed losses. In order of decreasing importance, the
torque losses can include the following.
Hysteresis losses. These losses are due to the belt
bending and unbending around the pulleys, and occur
at four flexing points per cycle (Fig. 1). Hysteresis
losses per cycle are a function of the stress imposed
D A
B
Fig. 1. Belt drive showing the four flexing points: A, B, C and D
[2].

0378-7788/95/$09.50 © 1995 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved

SSDI 0378-7788(95)00926-0
246 A. De Almeida, S. Greenberg / Energy and Buildings 22 (1995) 245-253

on the belt materials, which is dependent on the belt 98

thickness and on the pulley diameter, and on the material

1-
damping factor. Hysteresis losses can thus be decreased 96
U
by decreasing the belt thickness (these losses are pro-
W
o,.
portional to the cube of the belt thickness), by increasing
~ 94
the pulley diameter and by using better belt materials. Z

Hysteresis power loss for the same pulley size grows

u.
directly with the rotating speed and is basically in- ~ 92

dependent of the load.

Frictional losses. These are frictional losses between
90
the side walls of the belt and the inside walls of the 0 50 10o lS0 260
pulley. These losses occur whenever a V-belt enters RATED LOAD CAPACITY, PERCENT

or leaves the pulley. These losses are significant in V- Fig. 2. Efficiency curve of a V-belt [3].
belts, which rely on the grip between the pulley walls

!
and the belt to transmit torque.
8o
In synchronous belts there are also small frictional 60 1
losses associated with the entrance and the exit of the
4 0 "~
belt teeth into and out of the teeth of the sprockets.
30
These losses also grow directly with the speed of
~ 20
operation and show little variation with the load. In
fiat belts the frictional losses are negligible.
10
Windage losses. These losses are associated with the
kinetic energy which is transferred to the surrounding
air due to the belt motion. The smoother the belt S
"I ~ ~
surface, the smaller these losses will be. Cogged or
toothed belts thus have higher windage losses. Although
these losses grow steeply with the belt speed, they are
comparatively small relative to other belt losses. Wind-
age losses are essentially constant as a function of the
load. MOTOR ROWEROUTPUT.hp

The belt speed losses are the following. " RANGEOF DRIVE LOSS
Slip losses. Slippage occurs in V-belts and fiat belts HIGHER FAN SPEEDS TEND TO HAVE HIGHER LOSSES
THAN LOWER FAN SPEEDS AT THE SAME HORSEPOWER

when there is not enough belt tension to provide static Fig. 3. Losses in belt transmissions as a percentage of the motor
friction between the belt and the pulleys. With a properly output vs. motor output power in fan drives, reported by the Air
tensioned belt, the slip is minimal. The tension of the Movement and Control Association [5]. Note: one horsepower (hp)
belt has an optimal value. If the tension is too high, equals 0.746 kilowatts (kW) of motor output power.

there will be premature wear of the bearings, whereas

too little tension leads to slippage. Even a properly
adjusted V-belt will stretch with usage, leading to a
decrease in belt tension and thus to increased slip
losses.
Creep. Creep losses are due to different belt elo~agation
before entering and after leaving a pulley. Due to
increased tension in the section of the belt pulled by
the driver pulley, a slightly longer, narrower belt leaves
the driven pulley than enters it. This small difference
causes the belt to creep around the pulley, which reduces
the speed of the driven shaft. In a well-designed V-
belt drive, creep losses are typically in the range of
0.5-1%. Creep losses are a function of the belt con-
struction, the pulley diameter, load, and speed.
Fig. 2 shows the typical efficiency curve of a properly
installed and maintained V-belt. The efficiency drops
significantly when the belt is operated below rated load
because torque losses (hysteresis, friction and windage)
are almost independent of the load and thus stay nearly
constant, while the useful power delivered is reduced.
A properly tensioned belt has negligible slip at or below
rated load, but slips when overloaded, causing the
efficiency of a V-belt to drop in an overload condition.
All the belt losses are converted to heat, which means
that a high-loss belt will run warmer than a more
efficient belt, leading to an accelerated aging of the
belt materials. Measuring the temperature difference
of the belt in relation to ambient temperature is a
good indicator of the belt efficiency. Typically, an
efficient belt drive, immediately after shut-down, will
be only warm to touch [4], if ambient temperature is
below about 40 °C (100 °F). If the temperature is
uncomfortable to touch, about 60 °C (140 °F) or more,
the belt requires maintenance. IR scopes or sensor
probes may be used to measure the temperature of
operating belts for the same purpose.
Belt transmission losses are strongly dependent upon
the mechanical power being transmitted. Fig. 3 [5]
 A. De Alrneida, S. Greenberg / Energy and Buildings 22 (1995) 245-253
shows the drive loss as a percentage of the motor power
output in fan applications. For small loads, the losses
represent a significant percentage of the power being
transmitted. This fact is mainly due to the higher relative
importance of the hysteresis losses in small drives,
especially when using small pulleys.
Other independent tests, carried out with fan drives
used in the exhaust fans in multifamily buildings, show
that for small loads (less than 3 hp) the belt transmission
losses can be as high as 30% [6].
3. Energy-efficient belts
3.1. V-belts and cogged V-belts
Both V-belts and cogged V-belts have a similar
structure (Fig. 4) and run on the same pulleys. The
tensile strength is provided by polyester cords and the
body is made of neoprene or other synthetic rubber.
Cogged V-belts can substantially reduce the hysteresis
losses, since the presence of the cogs results in less
compression and decompression of the rubber material.
The amount of the energy savings is highly dependent
upon the pulley diameters, with smaller pulleys providing
higher savings [3,7].
Fig. 5 shows the relative performance of V-belts and
cogged V-belts. The pulley diameter strongly affects
the efficiency, especially of conventional V-belts.
Fig. 4. Structure of V-belts and cogged V-belts [8]. T h e main difference
between these two belts is the presence of molded cogs in the lower
part of the cogged belt. V-belts are normally wrapped with a polyester
fabric impregnated with a rubber compound.
98
,,z
tk
92
90
MINIMUM MINIMUM
AVAILABLE RECOMMENDED
DIAMETER DIAMETER
SHEAVE OIAMETER
Fig. 5. Comparison of efficiency of conventional V-belts and cogged
'molded-notch' V-belts at full load, as a function of the sheave
diameter [3]. T h e use of sheaves with a diameter below the rec-
o m m e n d e d values is c o m m o n due to space and first-cost constraints.
247
During partial load operation, the efficiency gain of
cogged V-belts over conventional V-belts is larger than
at full load since the hysteresis losses are the most
significant contribution to the total losses. While there
is a wide range of improvement due to load and sheave
diameter variations in specific applications, on average
a 3% efficiency improvement can be expected by switch-
ing from V-belts to cogged V-belts. Because of lower
losses and better heat dissipation (larger surface and
induced air turbulence), cogged V-belts run cooler, and
thus enjoy a longer lifetime.
Cogged V-belts also have a raw rubber edge, which
has several effects. On the one hand, by eliminating
the cloth wrapping on the belt, more tensile cords can
be used, increasing the belt load capacity. Some man-
ufacturers also claim that the raw edge improves the
friction coefficient between the belt and the sheave.
Some users complain that this improved friction factor
leads to reduced pulley lifetime.
3.2. Synchronous belts
Synchronous belts are toothed belts, the teeth of
which fit in the matching grooves of toothed pulleys
(sprockets) (Fig. 6). The initial generation of synchron-
ous belts used stretch-free fiber-glass tensile cords with
neoprene as the filling material. Most synchronous belts
also have a wear-resistant tooth facing material to
protect the tooth surfaces. This material presents a
low coefficient of friction to decrease the friction losses
when the belt teeth enter and leave the sprocket teeth.
The critical elements in these belts are the fiber-glass
cords, which wear due to their repetitive flexing, leading
to a typical belt lifetime of around 12 000 h.
Several manufacturers have recently introduced high-
performance synchronous belts which use Kevlar ten-
sioning cords and a polyurethane body. These belts
have a substantially higher load carrying capacity, per
unit of width, than the previous generation of belts.
Tensile member
Fig. 6. Synchronous belt and sprocket [9].
248 A. De Alrneida, S. Greenberg / Energy and Buildings 22 (1995) 245-253

Additionally their lifetime is longer, typically around 3.3. Flat belts

24 000 h. Although these synchronous belts are more
expensive than fiber-glass corded belts, they last longer,
and use narrower and thus cheaper sprockets, so their
total cost can be lower.
Synchronous belts are stretch-free and can achieve
higher efficiency than V-belts due to lower hysteresis,
lower friction losses, and truly synchronous operation
(no slip; no creep). The lower flexing losses result from
the small thickness of the belt between the teeth. The
absence of speed losses (slip and creep) is due to the
positive mating of the teeth of the belt with the teeth
of the sprockets. Because of these lower losses the
synchronous belts have not only higher peak efficiency
than V-belts, but also the efficiency curve is flatter
(Fig. 7).
Synchronous belts are ideal for applications requiring
accurate speed control of the load. As there is no slip,
there is an exactly fixed ratio between the input and
output speeds equal to the ratio of the number of teeth
in the sprockets. They are not, however, suited for
shock loads, where abrupt torque changes can shear
belt teeth. Polyurethane synchronous belts feature
higher resistance to shock loads than the previous
designs that used neoprene rubber.
With loads that show a strong relation between speed
and power consumption it is very important not to
waste the energy savings achieved with synchronous
belt operation through the higher operating speed of
the load. Common loads where this may happen are
centrifugal fans and pumps where the power grows
approximately with the cube of the speed. It is essential
to choose the sprockets to take into account the absence
of slippage in the synchronous belt transmission and
thus drive the load at a speed no greater than required.
With the exception of high-torque, very-low-speed
applications, synchronous belts can successfully replace
chain drives with an efficiency similar to a well-main-
tained chain drive. Unlike metal chains, synchronous
belts do not require regular lubrication and mainte-
nance, and can also operate in dusty or wet (water or
oil) environments.
t00
Fig. 8 shows the structure of a modern flat belt [10].
The center layer is normally made of extruded polyamide
tapes bonded together and is responsible for giving the
belt its traction strength. The speed/torque application
requirements determine the thickness of this layer and
the belt width. Polyamide gives the belt a high and
stable elastic modulus. For high tensile strength ap-
plications, Kevlar can be used in the central core.
Polyamide fabric layers are bonded on both sides of
the central layer contributing also to the belt strength.
The outer layers are made of elastomers having high
friction coefficients. Special synthetic leather covers can
be used in applications with oil contamination.
The belts are made in large sheets, typically 1.2-2.4
m (4-8 feet) wide and over 100 m (300 feet) long.
This allows easy customization of the belt design, as
the sheets can be cut to a wide range of lengths and
widths. The ends are chemically bonded together to
form the belt.
Fig. 9 shows the efficiency curves of flat belts, com-
pared with (Z-belts. The efficiency of the flat belt,
typically peaking at over 98%, is not only higher but
the efficiency gap widens for light loads. Flat belts have
lower losses for the following reasons:
(i) for the same load, flat belts are much thinner
than V-belts, leading to much lower hysteresis losses;
(ii) flat belts sit on the surface of the flat pulleys
and they do not have the friction losses of V-belts
associated with wedging into and pulling out of the
grooves;
Anatomyofaflatbelt
Elastomer friction cover
nt
~Polyamide
fabric Traction
\ ortensionmember
Fig. 8. S t r u c t u r e of a fiat belt [10].

90
100 - ~ ~ Fbeltl a t
A 98 I~ i Maximum
96 ~
>.~ 70
t~ ~ 94 "
•~ so •5 92
~ 9o
50 88
86
, I L I I I t I , I , It, I I ~-
50 ,00 ,~o 200 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Rated load capacity (percent) Fullload(%)
Fig. 7. Efficiency of s y n c h r o n o u s b e l t s [2]. Fig. 9. Efficiency of flat belts and V-belts [10l.
 A. De Almeida, S. Greenberg / Energy and Buildings 22 (1995) 245-253
Table 1
Comparison of the main characteristics of belt drives
Typical efficiency Suitable with shock
range (%) loads
V-belts 90-98 yes
Cogged V-belts 95-98 yes
Flat belts 97-99 yes
Synchronous belts 97-99 no
(iii) unlike V-belts, flat belts do not stretch with age,
keeping a constant tension, and thus avoid slippage
losses and the need for regular maintenance. (As was
already mentioned, V-belts stretch with time and lose
efficiency.)
Polyamide flat belts are adjusted by imposing an
elongation, typically between 2 and 2.5%, during in-
stallation. The measurement of this elongation with
caliper-type instruments lends itself to an accurate and
simple tensioning procedure. The elongation produces
a tension that remains essentially constant during the
belt lifetime. Normal shock loads are absorbed by the
elasticity of the polyamides in the belt.
The low thickness and the high strength-to-weight
ratio allow flat belts to operate at high speeds. The
main field of application of flat belts is the range of
10 to over 100 m/s (2000 to over 20 000 feet/min). Due
to their flat and symmetrical structure and their vi-
bration-damping elastomers, flat belts produce little
noise.
3.4. Comparison of the different belt drives
Table 1 shows a comparison of the main characteristics
of the different belt drives. Besides efficiency, one of
the key considerations in choosing a belt type is the
need to deal with shock loads, as these can impose a
large stress both in the belt and on the driven equipment.
Through slippage and elasticity, both V-belts and flat
belts can absorb shock loads, although the cyclic ap-
plication of these loads contributes to the reduction
of belt life. Shock loads are mainly caused by the
following factors.
Equipment start-up. Uncontrolled motor starting sub-
jects the driven equipment to a large and sudden
mechanical stress, especially if high-inertia loads are
driven. With induction motors, which are the most
common type of motor used in belt-drive applications,
this means a sudden applied torque of around 200%
of the full load value. The increasing penetration of
variable speed drives, besides providing energy savings,
also provides soft-starting and soft-stopping, decreasing
the stress in the mechanical transmission. Electronic
249
Periodic maintenance Change of pulleys Special features
required required
yes no low first cost
yes no easy to retrofit; small slip
no yes (low cost) medium-high speed;
low noise; small slip
no yes (higher cost) low-medium speed;
zero slip; noisy
variable speed drives and other soft-start controls can
thus enable the use of synchronous belts in applications
where shock loads are due to motor starting and to
sudden motor deceleration.
Variable loads. Some applications produce shock loads
due to the great inertia forces or due to very strong
torque fluctuations, like rock crushers, pan grinders,
beater mills, rolling mills, choppers, calenders, recip-
rocating pumps and compressors, etc.
Besides efficiency and the presence of shock loads,
other factors that influence the belt choice are cost-
effectiveness (discussed in Section 4), speed of oper-
ation, noise, and environmental factors.
4. Cost-effectiveness of energy-efficient belt drives
4.1. Cost of conserved energy
In order to assess the cost-effectiveness of high-
efficiency belt transmission systems, the cost o f con-
served energy (C.C.E.) was calculated using the formula:
Ci
C.C~E. (S/kWh) = S[ 1 - 1/(1 +i) n]
where C = extra cost of the improved belt system in $,
i = discount rate, S = kWh savings/year and n--lifetime
of belt system in years.
The analysis was carried out on a per delivered
horsepower basis. The yearly energy savings per horse-
power are calculated using the formula:
S = 1 hp × 0.746 kW/hp × T× A
motor efficiency
where T= number of hours of operation per year and
A = [(1/efficiency of conventional V-belt) - (1/efficiency
of energy-efficient belt)].
In the calculations the motor efficiency was assumed
to be 0.9, which is a typical value for medium size
(about 20-60 kW or 25-75 hp) motors. If higher values
(pertinent for large or energy~efficient motors) were
used, the savings would decrease a few percent. Con-
 250 A. De Almeida, S. Greenberg / Energy and Buildings 22 (1995) 245-253
versely, greater savings result when lower-efficiency
motors are used.
Two values of discount rate are used in the calcu-
lations: 6% and 25%. The first value reflects a societal
perspective whereas the higher value represents a typical
perspective of an industrial or commercial consumer.
The installation of high-efficiency belt transmission
systems can occur in the following scenarios:
(a) in a new system;
(b) in an existing system, when the belt transmission
needs replacement;
(c) in an existing system, in which the belt transmission
is working properly.
The extra investment in high-efficiency belt systems
is smaller in the first two cases, resulting in greater
cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness of energy-ef-
ficient belts is analyzed in the following sections. Case
(c), which is less likely to occur, will not be considered,
but may still be cost-effective in many applications,
especially when reduced maintenance is considered, or
when other work being done on the system (such as
a motor replacement) reduces the belt replacement
CoSt.
4.2. Cogged V-belts
Cogged V-belts can be used in the same pulleys as
the equivalently rated V-belts. Thus in new applications
and in retrofits (assuming the belt needs replacement
anyway) the extra cost is only the cogged belt price
premium, which typically falls in the range $1-2/hp [8].
An average efficiency improvement of 3% is assumed.
The design lifetime of V-belts is 24 000 h, which implies
a clean and cool environment, low start/stop cycling
rate, optimal tension (which implies the need for regular
maintenance), and absence of overloads. Most real-life
applications involve a combination of factors which
accelerate the aging process.
Tables 2 and 3 show the cost-effectiveness of cogged
V-belts, for scenarios (a) and (b) (in the case of cogged
V-belts they have identical costs), for different number
of operating hours, assuming lifetimes of 24 000 and
12 000 h, respectively, for both types of belts.
Table 2
Cost of conserved energy (cents/kWh) of cogged V-belts when re-
placing V-belts ~
No. of hours of operation per year Discount rate
6% 25%
8000 0.19-0.38 0.26-0.52
4000 0.20-0.41 0.34-0.68
2000 0.24-0.48 0.54-1.1
Assumptions: 24000 h lifetime for both types of belts; $1-2hap
price premium over V-belts; 3% efficiency improvement over V-
belts.
Table 3
Cost of conserved energy (cents/kWh) of cogged V-belts when re-
placing V-belts"
No. of hours of operation per year Discount rate
6% 25%
8000 0.36-0.72 0.44--0.88
4000 0.38-0.75 0.52-1.0
2000 0.41--0.82 0.68-1.4
"Assumptions: 12000 h lifetime for both types of belts; $1-2/hp
price p r e m i u m over V-belts; 3% efficiency improvement over V-
belts.
Cogged V-belts are very cost-effective, offering a cost
of conserved energy between 5 and 30 times cheaper than
typical electricity rates. The calculations assumed iden-
tical lifetimes for both types of belts, although cogged
V-belts should last longer due to their lower running
temperature and higher tensile strength. The cost savings
associated with the longer lifetime brings the cost of
conserved energy to near zero or even to negative values
(this means that the extra savings provided by lower
belt replacement costs may be more than enough to
offset the additional initial investment).
4.3. Synchronous belts
Synchronous belts require toothed pulleys (sprockets),
which are more expensive than V-belt pulleys. In a
retrofit application, the additional investment required
is the cost of the sprockets, plus the extra cost of the
belts and of the installation. In the cost-effectiveness
calculations it is assumed that those extra costs fall in
the range $8-16/hp. This price variation is strongly
dependent on the rating of the belt drive, with the
large drives requiring a smaller price premium per
horsepower. The sprockets typically cost 1.5-2 times
the cost of the belts and depending on operating
conditions last over 3 belt changes. Thus, the calculations
assume 3 sets of belts (the second and third purchased
at future times and thus discounted) and one set of
sprockets. Additionally, it is assumed that there is an
average 5% efficiency improvement and that the belt
will last 24 000 operating h.
Tables 4 and 5 show the cost of conserved energy
for the replacement of conventional V-belts by syn-
chronous belts, according to scenario (b), assuming
lifetimes for both types of belts of 24 000 and 12 000
h, respectively. The longer lifetime value is typical of
Kevlar-corded belts and the shorter lifetime is typical
for fiber-glass corded belts. With the exception of belt
drives with a small number of operating hours per year,
the retrofit of synchronous belts is very cost-effective.
In Tables 4 and 5 the extra savings due to lower belt
 A. De Almeida, S. Greenberg / Energy and Buildings 22 (1995) 245-253 251

Table 4 Table 6
Cost of conserved energy (cents/kWh) of synchronous belts when Cost of conserved energy (cents/kWh) of fiat belts when replacing
replacing V-belts" V-belts"

No. of hours of operation per year Discount rate No. of hours of operation per year Discount rate

6% 25% 6% 25%

8000 0.88--1.7 1.3-2.6 8000 0.41-0.82 0.55-1.1

4000 1.0--2. I 1.8-3.5 4000 0.44-4).88 0.75-1.5
2000 1.3--2.6 2.6--5.1 2000 0.52-1.0 1.1-2.2

"Assumptions: 24000 h lifetime for both types of belts; $8--16/hp "Assumptions: 12000 h lifetime for both types of belts; $3-6/hp
price premium over V-belts, including cost of sprockets and belts; price premium over V-belts, including cost of new pulleys and belts;
5% efficiency improvement over V-belts. 5% efficiency improvement over V-belts.

Table 5 an average efficiency improvement over conventional

Cost of conserved energy (cents/kWh) of synchronous belts when
replacing V-belts"
V-belts of 5%.

No. of hours of operation per year Discount rate

5. Conclusions and recommendations
6% 25%

8000 1.1-2.2 1.5-3.0 5.1. Conclusions

4000 1.2-2.5 2.ff-4.0
2000 1.4-2.9 3.1-6.2
"Assumptions: 12000 h lifetime for both types of belts; $8--16/hp
price premium over V-belts, including cost of sprockets and belts;
5% efficiency improvement over V-belts.
maintenance and replacement requirements, as well as
the savings due to reduced down-time, were not con-
sidered. These savings alone, over the lifetime of the
belt drive system, can often justify the extra investment.
In a new installation (scenario (a)), synchronous belts
are even more attractive, as the price premium is typically
30% smaller than in a retrofit application, due to
avoidance of the conventional pulley costs.
4.4. Flat belts
The installation of flat belts requires special pulleys,
but their cost is substantially smaller than the price of
synchronous belt sprockets. Flat belts, like cogged V-
belts, carry a modest price premium over conventional
V-belts.
In a retrofit installation, the extra cost of the fiat
belt plus the full cost of its associated pulleys typically
falls in the range $3-6/hp. Because the mechanical effort
is more evenly distributed in flat belt pulleys than in
V-belt pulleys or than in sprockets, the fiat belt pulleys
last longer - typically over 50 000 h. Table 6 shows
the cost-effectiveness of retrofitting flat belts (scenario
b)) when V-belts need replacement.
In the cost-effectiveness analysis of Table 6 it is
assumed that the flat belt lifetime is 12 000 h, that
the fiat belt pulleys last 4 sets of belts (the second
through fourth purchased at future times and thus
discounted) and one set of pulleys, and that there is
The widespread use of energy-efficient belt trans-
missions in the motor drives of the industrial and
commercial sectors can produce substantial electricity
savings. If an average 4% efficiency improvement is
achieved (from intrinsic efficiency improvements, plus
those from poorly maintained drives), the potential
electricity savings in the US are 14 T ~ / y e a r , equivalent
to the output of 3 large power plants. Similar percentage
savings can be expected in terms of peak power, leading
to additional savings for both the utility and the con-
sumer.
Conventional V-belts, although they are the least-
efficient belt technology, are used in the vast majority
of belt transmission applications. This is due to a
combination of their initial lower cost, market inertia
and lack of awareness of the more-efficient alternatives.
Energy-efficient belts are generally very cost-effective
to retrofit V-belts when they need to be replaced,
leading to costs of conserved energy significantly lower
than electricity prices. In new installations, as the extra
costs lower, the cost of conserved energy is even lower.
In many cases, they will even be cost-effective as a
retrofit (replacing a working belt drive).
Besides achieving substantial energy savings, the more
efficient belt transmission technologies can also increase
productivity, by decreasing down-time and maintenance
requirements associated with replacement or adjustment
of V-belts.
There are several technologies that can be used to
improve the efficiency of the belt transmission. The
optimal choice depends on several factors, namely:
- presence of shock loads
- cycling rate and the starting method
- speed of operation, torque and horsepower
252 A. De Alraeida, S. Greenberg / Energy and Buildings 22 (1995) 245-253
- synchronous operation requirements (no slip or
creep)
- noise constraints
- number of operating hours per year
- the operating environment
Cogged V-belts can be retrofitted very inexpensively
in most applications as they use existing pulleys and
their extra cost over V-belts is small. Although cogged
V-belts are the cheapest alternative, achieving a typical
efficiency improvement of 3%, their efficiency is less
than the high-performance alternatives and they require
maintenance.
Both synchronous belts and fiat belts achieve higher
efficiency improvements, typically around 5%, and are
maintenance-flee. Both types of belts require special
pulleys to operate, with the synchronous belt pulleys
being the most expensive.
Synchronous belts provide slip-free synchronous op-
eration, have a long lifetime, and can operate in wet
and oily environments. Their operation can be noisy
at high speed and their main weakness is the lack of
capability to absorb shock loads.
Flat belts have a small slip, can withstand shock loads,
and produce little noise even at high speeds. They can
be used at very high speeds (up to over 100 m/s or
20 000 feet/rain).
5.2. Recommendations
In order to promote a significant increase of the
penetration of energy-efficient belts, several actions are
recommended.
(a) Characterization of the loads that require belt
transmission, in terms of the main factors affecting the
optimal choice of belts, for the commercial and industrial
sectors.
(b) Implementation of demonstration case studies
for a significant group of the most energy consuming
end-use applications. Both the energy savings and the
side effects (maintenance requirements, noise, lifetime
of belt and pulleys) should be monitored over a suf-
ficiently long period to allow the characterization of
the belt drive performance.
(c) Independent testing of the energy efficiency for
the different belt types. Most of the literature available
in this area is provided or is written by belt manu-
facturers.
(d) Development of a computerized decision support
system for personal computers to guide the user to the
choice of the optimal belt transmission for a particular
application. The decision support system would specify
not only the type of belt, but also possible models as
well as pulley sizes. This system could be upgraded
over time with the results obtained in the monitored
ease studies proposed in (b) and (c).
(e) Development of simple and inexpensive methods
to monitor and measure belt efficiency, possibly based
on IR scopes to measure the belt temperature and on
the optical measurement of speed losses. These tech-
niques are potentially useful to detect maintenance and
replacement requirements of V-belts and of fiat belts.
Another possibility is the development of thermochromic
coatings for the belts that would allow the detection
of inefficient operation of the belts by simple visual
inspection.
(f) Preparation of brochures for commercial and
industrial consumers to improve their awareness about
energy-efficient belt transmission alternatives. Besides
characterizing the different types of belt transmissions,
the brochures would contain illustrative case studies.
(g) Training seminars on the design of energy-efficient
belt transmission systems. The training would benefit
from the decision-support system which is proposed in
(d).
Further reading is given in the Bibliography.
Acknowledgements
The research work provided here was funded by the
California Institute for Energy Efficiency (CIEE), a
research unit of the University of California. Publication
of research results does not imply CIEE endorsement
of or agreement with these findings, nor that of any
CIEE sponsor.
References
[1] A. Lovins, J. Neymark, T. Flanigan, P. Kiernan, B. Bancroft
and M. Shepard, The State of the Art: Drivepower, E-Source,
Inc., Boulder, CO, Apr. 1989.
[2] S. Nadel, M. Shepard, S. Greenberg, G. Katz and A. De
Almeida, Energy-Efficient Motor Systems, American Council for
an Energy-Efficient Economy, Washington, 1991.
[3] J. Sheperd and S. Piderit, Improving the energy efficiency of
V-belt drives, Plant Eng., (June 9) (1983).
[4] J. Sheperd, Optimizing belt-drive efficiency, Power Transm. Des.,
(Apr.) (1985).
[5] AMCA, Fan Applications Manual, Publication 203, Air Move-
ment and Control Association (AMCA), Arlington Heights,
IL, 1987.
[6] L. Nilsson, Air-handling energy efficiency and design practices,
Department of Environmental and Energy Systems Studies,
Lurid University, Sweden, 1993.
[71 A. Hitchcox, V-belts -- designed to deliver, Mag. Ind. Motion
and Contro~ (Nov.) (1991).
[8] Dayco, Gold Label cog-belt - source of savings, Dayco Products
Inc., Dayton, OH, 1989.
[9] G. Miller, Differences in synchronous belts, Plant Eng., (Nov.
7) (1991).
[10] R. Moff, Flat belts, Maeh. Des., (Mar. 9) (1989) 52-70.
 A. De Almeida, S. Greenberg / Energy and Buildings 22 (1995) 245-253
Bibliography
W. Breig and L. Oliver, Energy loss and efficiency of power trans-
mission belts, Pro(:. 3rd World Energy Engineering Congr., Association
of Energy Engineers, Atlanta, GA, 1980.
J. Harrington, Saving energy with synchronous belts, Automation
(Jan.) (1991).
253
NPRA, Synchronous belts increase reliability and efficiency, The
Exchanger, National Petroleum Refiners Association, Washington,
July, 1990.
R. Semin, The efficiency of belt drives, Mach. Des., (Apr. 9) (1981).
J. Sheperd and M. Schwartz, More muscle for synchronous belts,
Mach. Des., (June 26) (1986).
A. Wallin, Selecting synchronous belts for precise positioning, Power
Transm. Des., (Feb.) (1989).
A. Wallin, Efficiency of Synchronous and V-Belts, Uniroyal Inc.,
Middlebury, CT, 1986.