Belt Conveyor Design

Non-linear Belt
Transient Analysis
A Hybrid Model for Numerical
Belt Conveyor Simulation

A. Harrison, USA
Transient conveyor belt behaviour if
often the course of belt failure. Many
belt tension calculation models used to
avoid such failure are likely to result in
an overestimate of belt running tension
and, thus, in expensive over dimension-
ing. The hybrid model presented in this
paper provides a solution to this and
several other belt conveyor design
problems.

F
rictional and rolling losses along a running conveyor are dis-
cussed due to their important influence on wave propaga-
tion during starting and stopping. Hybrid friction models
allow belt rubber losses and material flexing to be included in
the initial tension calculations prior to any dynamic analysis. forces along the belt that may have deleterious affects on the
Once running tensions are defined, a numerical integration belt and its structure.
method using non-linear stiffness gradients is used to generate
transient forces during starting and stopping. A modified Euler As a first step in the analysis of dynamic forces, the steady state
integration technique is used to simulate the entire starting and forces need to be quantified. Many methods exist for comput-
stopping cycle in less than 0.1 seconds. The procedure enables a ing the tension distribution along a running belt, however not
faster scrutiny of unforeseen conveyor design issues such as low all models will behave equivalently because the specification of
belt tension zones and high forces at drives. rolling and indentation losses are often difficult to quantify in
practice.

1. Introduction
Dynamic analysis of long conveyor belts with distributed mass
and elasticity depends on initial conditions and the tension dis-
tribution around the running belt. Conveyor belt tension is a
complex function of friction and gravitational loads acting on
every element of the belt. Transient behaviour of a belt occurs
during the staring and stopping phase, leading to high and low
Basic methods for calculation belt tensions exist in the DIN
Standards [1] and CEMA [2]. The CEMA method has advantages
in analysis since idler rolling losses can be used as an input (the
Kx factor) however the flexural and indentation losses at the idler
interface (the Ky factor) is not always easy to predict. For a dy-
namic analysis to properly describe the inertial fluctuations along
a belt during the transient phase, the static tensions are a critical
precursor to solving the problem.

240 bulk solids handling · Vol. 28 · 2008 · No. 4

 Belt Conveyor Design

Assuming that a static analysis model can
provide a sufficient number of input variables
that define the losses, the initial conditions for a
dynamic analysis can be set. Inertial fluctuations
on starting or stopping are compounded by the up-
hill or downhill parts of the profile, as well as the addi-
tional non-linear wave dispersion affects caused by high belt
sag at low tension areas. To make dynamic models tractable, the
simplest solution is to ensure that belt sag is controlled to within
a few percent. Such a condition can be ensured in the steady
state but not always in the dynamic state.
2. Hybrid Belt Friction Model
2.1 Friction Equations
As suggested in the Introduction, running tensions form the ini-
tial conditions for a dynamic simulation. To accommodate re-
cent developments in low indentation-loss rubber materials, a
hybrid friction model [9] is developed to combine the basic me-
chanics of motion with new methods utilizing rubber properties.
For a hybrid friction model, length segment L has a tension
change Fj defined by Eq. (1):

A number of methods and techniques have been published that Fj = L · g [R + (BI + BF) + MF,z + V] + Q · v + P + O (1)
describe various aspects of dynamic analysis. The realization that
starting dynamic effects could be minimized using an “S-curve” with:
velocity history for starting was published as early as 1983 [3].
The solution applied a well known method in the Calculus of H ​ 
V = m•  · ​ __
L
Variations to prove that a cycloid-shaped velocity curve will pro-
duce smooth belt starting, free of sudden belt element displace- PQ = vb − vl
ments that lead to wave propagation. In this way, the dynamic
starting problem becomes tractable and a wave-equation model where:
[4] can be applied along with the convolution integral to predict
the dynamic response of the starting motion. L length of conveyor [m]

Stopping and braking are more complex to analyze since R Rotating resistance of all idlers [kg/m]
this condition cannot be controlled in most cases. Pow-
ered stopping using a reverse “S-curve” can be ap- g gravitational acceleration, g = 9.81 [m/s2]
plied to smoothly bring a belt to a stop, however
this solution does not cater to power outages. BI Belt indentation [kg/m]
Some aspects of the profile such as valleys
cause potential dynamic problems that can BF belt flexure [kg/m]
add to the impulse problem due to non-lin-
ear effects similar to jamming. A conveyor MF,z Material flexure resistance [kg/m]
having a significant material lift compo- (z = c or z = r carry and return runs)
nent or high rolling resistance, or both,
will stop rapidly. The resulting impulse m mass to be lifted [kg/m]
can be severe.
H lifting height, H can be negative [m]
The impulse can be calculated as if the en-
tire belt were inelastic without a distributed PQ force to accelerate material [N]
mass, as defined in the 1980s [5]. In this refer-
ence, criteria were established to inform the Q mass flow [kg/s]
belt designer when the conveyor would have a
high stress condition on stopping. In that work, any vb belt speed [m/s]
stopping time quicker than 5 wave cycles will present a
high-stress problem. vl loading speed [m/s]

Given that a static tension analysis can be achieved with some P force to rotate all pulleys [N]
reliability, the addition of dynamic forces to the static conditions
is still an ongoing part of international research. Many papers O Forces for all other accessories, scrapers and [N]
discuss alternatives to wave solutions, such as mass-spring mod- special losses (eg. turnovers)
els [6] and more recently non-linear mass-spring models [7,8]. In
the past, a closed-form wave solution was a convenient way of With respect to each element j, it is:
obtaining the modal oscillations in a belt, but the problem has
always been that positional variations in damping and strain are
very difficult to treat with mathematically-based solutions.
[  ​e ​ ​
R(j) = Kta · ​ Ks(j) + Az(j) · ​(_​ 2v ​) b​ ​ · ​ ____
−c · T

S (j)
z
 ​   ​]
where a, b, c are fractions.
With modern computers, simulation of the dynamic behaviour
​ d · tanδ · v ​ · ​​  g · ​  M + Mm,z(j) ]​ · Sz(j) ]​ ​1.33​
e
of multi-element distributed mass systems can be rapid. Assum- BI(j) = ________
g · f(d ) [ [ b
   
ing a mass-spring model can be formulated to describe a damped i,z

belt element, there will be practical advantages over wave mod- where d, e are fractions, and
els particularly in the way boundary conditions are mathemati-
cally treated in areas such as take-ups and multiple drives. tanδ rubber loss (T) = f(v,Sz(j),t) + f(T) as functions.

bulk solids handling · Vol. 28 · 2008 · No. 4 241

 Belt Conveyor Design

written in-house that produces graphical solutions

for DIN, CEMA, CMod (modified CEMA), ViscoAH
and Non-Lin, which are individually resident codes
embedded in the single program for belt analysis.
Program outputs include profiles, curves and belt
tensions for a large variety of inputs such as belt
type, rubber type, idler type, material type and
drive types. The ”Non-Lin” hybrid model uses the
results of tests and measurements over many years,
as indicated by the above equations.

Fig. 1 shows the graphical profile of a 16.8 km long

belt with a low angle slope. Using the rubber type
characteristics for the belt, and the predictive
equations for belt and material flexure, the results
Fig. 1:  rofile of a long belt with tensions determined using the non-linear hybrid
P
for the “Non-Lin” model are shown separated on
model.
the profile graph.

t viscoelastic time constant of rubber cover at a [Hz] It is not necessary to show belt tensions around the conveyor
frequency; t = v/Sz profile, since they are somewhat obvious from Fig. 1. However, a
display of power as a function of temperature for various model
f(di,z) a function of idler diameter di,z, types is instructive. Fig. 2 shows the relationship between power
f(di,z) = k1. di,z + k2 (effective tension) and temperature for the hybrid model in rela-
(z = c or z = r carry and return runs) tion to the other models used for comparison. On examination
of the analysis for the particular example, one notes that:
S idler spacing [m]
a) C
 EMA and ViscoAH methods over estimate the power by a
A idler drag [kg] significant amount. A design based on CEMA would result in
large expensive drives and the belt cost would be substantial.
v speed [m/s] The consequence would be a larger than required starting
impulse, which would substantially increase starting ten-
T temperature [°C] sions, further impacting pulley loads, splice loads and the
S (j)n
development of more severe take-up oscillations.
BF(j) = m* · Kta · (Mb + Mm,z) · ​ ____
z
L(j)
   ​
b) Th
 e Non-Lin solution is similar to a DIN solution when the
where m*, n are fractions. DIN input frictions are set to Fc = 0.01 and Fr = 0.008. In fact,
site measurements of this conveyor yields a DIN ff = 0.0075.
For material on the carrying side it is:

[ 
c) W
 hen empty, a Non-Lin model requires less power than DIN
]
s
S (j)
MF(j) = [p + q · v] · ​​ 1.66 · ​ ___
c
S (j)
  ​  ​ ​​ would predict. This finding may explain some unpredictable,
r
almost chaotic low tensions and dynamic slack at the tail un-
with: der certain operating conditions. Low tail-zone tension will
cause non-linear dynamic effects that stem from wave dis-
(0.003 < m < 0.008), (n =3/2), (0.2 < p < 3), persion in this zone of the conveyor.
(0.02 < q < 0.6), (1 < s < 3) is a real value
Fig. 2:  omparison of power consumption of a 5 % slope conveyor,
C
using various models, including CEMA, DIN and non-lin.
2.2 Application
In the above equations, Mb and Mm represent belt and material
mass in kilogram per meter, respectively. To determine the driv-
ing power Pe and maximum belt tension I1 in relation to slack
side tension, a summation of each element of force Fj around the
belt results in:

Pe = v · Te = v · (T1 – T2)

excluding the drive efficiency.

One way of demonstrating how a hybrid tension model com-

pares with results of other more common methods such as
DIN22101 and CEMA is to display an example of the hybrid
model output. Conveyor program BeltVS9C is a design program

242 bulk solids handling · Vol. 28 · 2008 · No. 4


Some of the computed variables related to Non-Lin are shown in
the right window of Fig. 2. Specifically, computed values of BI, BF,
MF and idler drag Az are shown, together with the known DIN
factors used as an input to show the similarity between Non-Lin
graphs and field results.
3. Dynamic Simulation
One way of conducting a transient analysis is to superimpose
transient wave model solutions on the static tension analysis
[10], treating a belt as a continuum. Applying the superposition
principle to add modal vibrations to static conditions during
transient phases can be mathematically problematical when
there is a mismatch of wave velocities near zero of the impulse
function. Wave energy that remains active after the belt mass
comes to rest during starting or stopping has to be properly
treated otherwise the predicted belt dynamic force histories may
be incorrectly modeled.
On the other hand, finite element models used to simulate the
dynamic motion of a belt require the addition of boundary
conditions that have to be tracked and maintained throughout
the calculations. Cumulative errors in velocities or displace-
ments at element boundaries can result in erroneous dynamic
solutions.
Continuous simulation during the entire process of starting and
stopping uses numerical integration with a small time step. The
modeling presented here uses time steps of between 0.001 s to
0.01 s. In the past, slower computers meant that longer time
steps were required so that modeling time was manageable. In
that situation, well known 5th–order Runge-Kutta approxima-
tions were devised to reduce “look-forward” error in the simu-
lated displacements and velocities.
Modern computers are now significantly faster and higher preci-
sion processors reduce computational truncation. In effect, these
combinations of technological development enable much small-
er time steps in numerical integration, reducing the need for er-
ror correction. Simpler and faster Euler-type numerical integra-
tors now work as well, if not better, than approximating methods
of the past.
3.1 Elemental Forces
Euler-X is the term used to define an integration engine devel-
oped for the purpose of high-speed simulation of the entire
starting and stopping process of a conveyor belt. To begin, Fig. 3
shows a typical element of the simulation, in which body and
external forces are accommodated.
Long belts can be divided into “j” distributed mass-elastic seg-
ments, where j > 6. Each segment “j” is defined in terms of its
mechanical characteristics such as mass Mj, positional depend-
ent non-linear stiffness Kj connecting elements relative to posi-
tion Uj, body forces Wj, external time-dependent forces Fj(t) ap-
plied to mass Mj, velocity damping Cj between masses and rolling
force Rj for each mass, with:
Rj = f(R(j), BI(j), BF(j), MF(j))
bulk solids handling · Vol. 28 · 2008 · No. 4
Belt Conveyor Design
Fig. 3: Model of a simulation element j.
Each element of a belt loop is analyzed by summing the inertial,
body, restoring, damping and externally imposed forces. The so-
lution contains a diagonal mass matrix [M], non-linear stiffness
and damping matrices [K] and [C] respectively, as well as a col-
umn matrix array for external and body forces [F + W + R]. Col-
umn arrays for all elements of the problem include the accelera-
tion [a], velocity [V] and displacement [U]. Note that the accel-
eration for each element is aj = Üj.
Two approaches are available to simulate belt running with in-
cluded dynamic oscillations of all elements. In a relative motion
solution, a driving force Fj(t) is applied to one of the masses in
the F matrix (the drive):
[M] [a] + [C] [V] + [K] [U] = [F + W + R] (2)
Alternatively, the belt loop motion can be simulated using a
moving support where applied motion is independent of the ele-
ment motion (wave action). Support displacement (of selected
masses) is defined by a new array [𝛙]. Derivatives of [𝛙] form the
support velocity array [𝛟]. Absolute element motion is the re-
sult:
[M] [a] + [C] [V] + [K] [U] = [C] [𝛟] + [K] [𝛙] + [W + R] (3)
3.2 Simulating the Dynamic Motion
To simulate the motion of each element j along a belt by the
relative motion method, Eq. (2) is used. Each element’s displace-
ment Uj and velocity Vj is computed in a program loop by incre-
menting variable s:
f(Uj(s)) = 2 Uj(s) – Uj-1(s) – Uj+1(s) (4a)
f(Vj(s)) = 2 Vj(s) – Vj-1(s) – Vj+1(s) (4b)
Wj + Rj – Kj f(Uj(s)) – Cj f(Vj(s)) + Fj(t)
aj(s) = _________________________
​     
Mj
    ​ (4c)
​ th ​) = Uj(s) + Vj(s) ts
Vj(s + h/ts) = Vj(s) + aj(s) ts : Uj(s + __ (4d)
s
Initial conditions on U(s) and V(s) are required before aj is calcu-
lated. Each calculation is separated by a unit time step ts with a
perturbation h (a variable). When Eq. (3) is used, support dis-
placement ψ(t) in the [𝛙] array is required. For a linear velocity
ramp or constant acceleration on starting and stopping, the
function takes the form ψ(t) = f(a·t, b·t2), a and b are constants.
Each element may have different mass, stiffness and damping
243
 Belt Conveyor Design
Fig. 4: E xample simulation, showing a complete start and stop Details of the belt and masses are not essential since the intent is
sequence for a unit length, lightly loaded 1 km elastic belt.
values. When stiffness is auto-adjusted to accommodate small
changes in element sag length over a fixed span, wave dispersion
may result as noted elsewhere [8]. A wavelength change in low
tension elements may occur when belt sag exceeds about 3 %,
caused by a locally lower Kj value.
3.3 Example Results
Simulation of a 12 element belt model is shown in Fig. 4, which
emulates the complete dynamics, running resistance and body
forces in a single “click” operation of the belt program. Fig. 4 is
shown to demonstrate the method rather than the details of the
belt. Using 8 elements per strand produces frequencies and wave
propagation delays without the need to input separate wave
speed calculations [11].
Suffice to say that the simulation is for a fabric-type belt with a
1 km length and an initial slope of 8 degrees for half the length,
and a reduced slope to the tail where a gravity take-up exists.
For this design, normalized carry mass elements are approxi-
mately 8 times larger as the return mass elements, and the stiff-
Fig. 5: E xpanded view of dynamic oscillations on stopping, braked
downhill belt.
244 bulk solids handling · Vol. 28 · 2008 · No. 4
ness-to-mass ratio is normalized to the belt stiffness. Normali-
zations result in computed values that are scalable to actual
values after the simulation is completed. On the graph, the
highest tensions represent T1, and the lowest tensions occur at
the tail. The group of tensions between extremities represent
the T2 and return tensions. Only 8 traces are shown to simplify
presentation.
From Fig. 4, the reader will observe some particular characteris-
tics of the design, such as slight run-back at the tail area on initial
starting, and a starting velocity surge on starting. The take-up
has been set to ensure that low tensions do not occur at the tail.
Belt tensions start and end at their stopped (steady-state) values.
Potentially problematical conditions can be reviewed, allowing
modifications to be easily re-simulated.
Fig. 5 shows a simulation of stopping a downhill steel cord belt.
to show result of simulation. For example, on power off, the belt
is initially regenerative, followed by a 20 s brake force to stop the
mass. This type of modeling is used to size brakes and ensure that
low tensions do not occur at the discharge (head) of the down-
hill conveyor.
4. Conclusions
Transient behaviour in conveyor belts is often the cause of belt
failure. Transient analysis during starting and stopping is most
realistic when the actual static background tensions are well de-
fined. The problem with many belt tension calculation methods,
such as CEMA, is that an over estimate of belt running tension is
likely. As a result, larger equipment is specified which in turn may
negatively affect dynamic belt forces.
In many other situations, running tension models generally will
not predict low-tension operation with reliability, since the mod-
els themselves do not treat issues such as sag gradients along a
belt line. The hybrid model used in the paper discusses the
mechanisms behind non-linear models for predicting running
friction, and in some cases the belt tension predicted by the hy-
brid method is lower than would be the case with other models.
When low tensions occur at a particular part of a conveyor, even
though standard friction models do not predict such conditions,
actual transient behaviour can be problematical if unsuspected
in a design. In addition, any wave action that disperses in low
tension zones further complicates the stability of the belt.
With some effort, transient simulation using a modified Euler al-
gorithm produces a fast convergent solution for a multi-element
belt. Any error in defining the mechanical equations of motion will
cause simulation crash: the simulation is very sensitive to the
mathematical precision of the model. Each belt segment allows
the addition of non-linear influences caused by low belt tension
and wave dispersion. When a complete dynamic simulation is con-
ducted in a single sweep, as shown in Fig. 4, all tension and velocity
curves are produced that contain both the static and dynamic so-
lutions. By this approach, superposition methods of solutions are
not required, reducing the chance of incorrectly adding wave solu-
tions to the static conditions. Furthermore, non-linear effects can-
not generally be mathematically determined in a closed-form ana-
lytical wave equation solution, and so a simulation that handles
these effects is superior for design evaluation. n

References
[1] DIN 22101: Stetigförderer - Gurtförderer für Schüttgüter
(Continuous Conveyors - Belt Conveyors for Bulk Materials;
in German). Deutsches Institut für Normung, August
(2002).
[2] Conveyor Equipment Manufacture’s Association: Belt
Conveyors for Bulk Materials. Ed. 6, (2005).
[3] Harrison, A.: Criteria for Minimizing Transient Stress in
Conveyor Belts. Trans. Inst. Eng. Aust. Vol. ME8: pp. 129-34,
(1983) and Beltcon 2, South Africa (1983).
[4] Harrison, A., Hayes, J.W. and Roberts, A.W.: The Feasibil-
ity of High-speed Narrow Belt Conveyors for Bulk Solids
Handling. Transactions. Inst. Eng. Aust. Vol. ME7, pp. 190-
200, (1982).
[5] Funke, H.: Zum Dynamischen Verhalten von Förderban-
danlagen beim Anfahren und Stillsetzen (About the Dy-
namic Behaviour of Belt Conveyor Systems during Starting
and Stopping; in German). TU Hannover, Dissertation
(1973).
[6] Nordel, L.K. and Ciozda, Z.P.: Transient Belt Stresses dur-
ing Starting and Stopping: Elastic Response Simulated by
Finite Element Methods. bulk solids handling, Vol. 4 (1984)
No. 1, p. 93-98.
[7] Beavers, D., Morrison, D. and Rea, D.: Non-Linear Model
for Dynamic Analysis of Conveyors. 9th ICBMH 2007, New-
castle, Australia, Oct. 9 - 11 (2007).
[8] Li, G.: Belt Conveyor Dynamic Behaviour and Associated
Problems. bulk solids handling, Vol. 23 (2003) No. 5, pp.
322-327.
[9] Harrison, A.: A Comparison of Friction Models for Con-
veyor Design. 9th Int. Conf. on Bulk Material Handling.
Oct. 9-11, Newcastle NSW Australia (2007).
bulk solids handling · Vol. 28 · 2008 · No. 4
Belt Conveyor Design
[10] Harrison, A. and Roberts, A.W.: Future Design of Belt
Conveyors using Dynamic Analysis. Proc. Transport. Conf.
I.E.(Aust), Perth, Oct. 30 - Nov. 1, pp. 47-51, (1984).
[11] Harrison, A.: Stress Front Velocity in Elastomer Belts with
Bonded Steel Cable Reinforcement. bulk solids handling,
Vol. 6 (1986) No. 1, pp. 27-31.
About the Author
Dr. A. Harrison, USA
Dr. Alex Harrison, CPEng, FIEAust.,
has a BA(Hons) in Mathematics and
Physics (Maqu), a BEng in Electrical
Egineering and a PhD in Mechanical
Engineering from Newcastle Univer-
sity Australia in 1984, on the subject of conveyor dy-
namic analysis. Formerly Professor of Mechanical Engi-
neering and the Merz-Tunra Chair in Bulk Solids Han-
dling and Conveying at Newcastle, NSW, Australia. Pres-
ently, the author consults widely to the international
mining industry, and manages computer-based remote
non-destructive testing of belts form international loca-
tions. He is the president of Scientific Solutions, Inc. and
Manager of Conveyor Technologies Ltd., a subsidiary of
Scientific Solutions Inc. Dr. Harrison has published over
100 papers on conveyor related topics and is an Edito-
rial Advisory Member on Bulk Solids Handling.
Contact:
Scientific Solutions, Inc.
200 Chambers Road, Bldg. J., Aurora, CO 80011, USA
Tel.: +1 303 344 9024
Fax: +1 303 344 9102
E-Mail: aharrison@conveyorscience.com
245