STANDARD FOR CONVEYOR BELT COVERS

H. Simonsen, Consultant, Until Sept. 1990 Manager R & D, Germany, Conveyor Belt Division, Continental A

Standards for Conveyor Belt Covers Their Importance for Evaluating Belt Behavior. 1. 2. 3. 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 4. 5. 1. Summary This paper deals with the standardisation of cover thickness and cover quality. Two standards that contain recommendations on the thickness of conveyor belt covers are described and evaluated. The standards concerned are: The American RMA-Handbook The German Standard DIN 22 101 Grades for the quality of cover rubber were established when natural rubber was the only rubber material available. When synthetic rubber came along the old grades had to be reconsidered. In the USA all grading based on physical figures was dropped. In Europe and other countries an abrasion test was introduced to improve the chances of predicting the behaviour under service conditions. Figures for 3 grades from 4 national standards and from the International Standard are compared. Summary Introduction Standardisation of Conveyor Belt Covers Thickness of Covers Standardisation of Cover Thickness for Rationalisation Recommended Thickness of Covers on the Carrying Side Cover Quality Determination of Cover Grades New Definition Cover Grades Comparison of Cover Grades from Different Standards New Evaluation of Cover Grades New Investments for a Better Evaluation of Cover Material Abrasion Tests Test Methods for the Evaluation of Cut and Gouge Quality Conclusions Acknowledgement References

Up to now. The latest revision of German Standard DIN 22131 warns against taking for granted a reliable connection between cover grades and service life. Research on abrasion testing methods confirmed that the established abrasion test provides results which are not consistent with the results from other tests. During a research project a test bench for continuous testing of cut and gouge stresses was developed. On the subject I'm dealing with today it is perfectly clear that the experience of the users is indispensable. Introduction The most important use of standards in general is: . Furthermore they do not want to reveal their basic design knowhow to the public and that includes their competitors. No correlation was found between this force and the figures for tensile strength or tear strength. Standardisation makes products from different manufacturers interchangeable or at least comparable. 2. A standard often conveys expert knowledge to the user of products. Today I'm only going to deal with the first two items.the quality of the material used .to record the state of the art. The test bench is described.and it's just the users who benefit from standards are members of standardisation committees. The force to create cuts and gouges was measured. This aspect of a standard makes it obvious why manufacturers of a product are not very interested in standardisation.to limit the variety of possible designs . So in this area. But the results obtained so far are derived from too small a number of tests for us to be able to draw final conclusion. that these grades excluded compounds which had proved better for certain conditions. It is seldom the case that representatives of the users . tensile strength and elongation at break are the only properties used to judge the resistance of a rubber compound to cut and gouge stresses. The new test methods are described.the thickness of covers . Standardisation of Conveyor Belt Covers Three areas of conveyor belt covers have been standardised: . 3. the research needs to go on. If this is not possible (since the cover .the adhesion of the covers to the carcass. When designing the covers of conveyor belts one generally has to adjust cover grade and cover thickness to the material to be conveyed as well as to the feeding conditions and at the same time to ensure that the carcass and the covers attain the same service life.In the light of experience gained in the field it must be recognised. it further provides an effect of rationalisation. What they are aiming at is to market unique products.

1 Thickness of Covers There are three reasons. One is hoping for a rationalisation effect and a more effective way of storing. The US Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) in its RMA-Handbook 1980 [2] and the German Standard DIN 22101 [3] recommend. Both recommendations assume that the wear of the cover is created by the stresses at the feeding point. proposes certain cover thicknesses that should be favoured. but also to concentrate the production on a smaller number of types. RMA-Method The RMA guide has only one table (table 1) to determine the cover thickness on the carrying side for favourable conditions as a function of the abrasiveness of the material carried and of its size. why standards make recommendations or rules on the thickness of covers: 1. The following paragraphs demonstrate the method how to determine the cover thickness in accordance with RMA and DIN 22101.1. while DIN proposes supplementary thicknesses that should be added to a minimum cover thickness. So. cover thicknesses for certain service conditions. it is quite likely that a carcass is not worn out when the belt has reached the desired and therefore the designed service life. 3. They are generally issued for belts working under special.2 Recommended Thickness of Covers on the Carrying Side To retain the minimum thickness of covers is a must. however. DIN 22102 [1]. where the rubber cover is the only tension member in the transverse direction. among other things.1 Standardisation of Cover Thickness for Rationalisation Rules in connection with item 2 will not be considered here. The reason is. The idea behind this proposal is not only to limit the variety of belt types without an essential reduction of the cost/benefit ratio. However. This is particularly obvious for steel cable belts. to obtain optimal adaption to service conditions. Conditions other than "favourable conditions" are taken into account by the following note: . 3. to keep the minimum thickness essential for the function 2. It should.1. in respect of designing the covers.thickness is limited) a reconditioning of the covers should be considered. restricting conditions such as belting for the coal mining industry. 3. that certain requirements for strength are essential if the function of the belt is to be guaranteed. RMA suggests the overall cover thickness. be mentioned that the latest edition of the German standard for conveyor belts with textile reinforcements for general use. to limit the number of belt types 3. both rules consider the character of the material and the feeding frequency.

material weight. Polyamide. Cover Thickness on the Carrying Side in Accordance with Table 2 Factors of Influence and Their Evaluation Feeding conditions fair medium 1 2 Sum of Evaluation Figures 5 to 6 Guide Figures for the Supplements to min. gravel. The first part is used to obtain a reference number. pulp. large lumps Examples Cartons. grain. crushed stone ROM coal. potash ore Sand. height of the material drop onto the belt. Polyester 1 to 2mm depending on the structure of the fabric Steel cables 0. DIN-Method The DIN Standard makes use of 2 tables (tables 2 and 3). ores Hard ores. Minimum Thickness (mm) 2 3 6 10 Class of Material Package handling Light or fine nonabrasive Heavy. Table 2 . slag Grade 1 covers should be considered for heavy crushed material over 75mm and heavy large lumps if cut and gouge resistances are the main criteria. Table 2 serves to determine the minimum thickness of both top and bottom covers depending on the type of carcass selected. belt speed. crushed to < 200mm Heavy.Determination of Guide Figures for the Supplement to the mm. maximum lump size of material. Table 3 is in two parts. Cover Thickness on Carrying Side and Pulley Side Material of Tension Member Guide Figures Cotton."Increased cover thickness is required as the following conditions become more severe: material abrasiveness. food products Wood chips. Covers (mm) 0 to 1 . which in the second part gives the recommended supplement to the minimum cover thickness on the carrying side. loading angle.7 x cable diameter at least 4mm Table 3 . rock. crushed to < 75mm Heavy.Guide Figures for the mm." Table 1 .Suggested Minimum Conveyor Cover Thickness Under Favourable Conditions For Grade 2 Belting. and frequency of loading as determined by belt cycles per unit of time.

But the method doesn't pretend to provide a degree of accuracy that is not obtainable. The two methods can be compared by means of an example: Service Conditions: favourable conditions. The correspondence between the results is satisfying. reference number 9.2 Cover Quality The basic idea of creating grades for cover material is that it should be possible to recognise and predict with sufficient precision. the results are therefore the subject of considerable variation. Carrying Side: RMA Method: ≥ 6mm Grade 1 DIN Method: 5 to 8mm (minimum cover thickness: 2 mm. that DIN not only provides a minimum thickness but a range may be looked upon as an advantage. The evaluation is to a large extent a matter of discretion.bad Feeding frequency Lump size rare medium frequently fine medium coarse light medium course moderate medium severe 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 7 to 8 1 to 3 9 to 11 3 to 6 Density 12 to 13 6 to 10 Abrasion 14 to 15 ≥ 10 The total cover thickness on the carrying side is obtained by adding the supplement to the minimum cover thickness. lump size < 200mm textile carcass. high strength Recommended cover Thickness. supplement 3-6 mm) The two figures that should be compared here are 6 mm and 5 mm. The fact.1 Determination of Cover Grades . iron ore. based solely on certain physical properties of the material. how the cover material will react under given service conditions. These properties are determined by test methods having an acceptable variation and lead to reproducible values with sufficient precision.2. 3. 3.

strong and hence valuable conveyor belts. But proceeding in this way is reasonable only if products of relatively low value are involved such as V-belts. Trust us! The European belt users stuck to Lenin's motto: Confidence is good. to give a more precise definition of quality grades the results of an abrasion test were included. As I said before. wide. especially regarding tensile strength. especially in Germany.[2] For conveyor belts the US belt manufacturers tried to follow the same line as is usual in the tire sector and elsewhere: We know what we're talking about. 3. This is the test method that was described in German Standard DIN 53516 [4].At the time when natural rubber was the only type of rubber available it was indisputable that cover compounds with high tensile strength and high elongation were superior to those with lower values under real service conditions. The frequent use of such belts and the investment of millions of dollars in conveyors and conveyor belts makes belt operators want to be certain about the quality before the deal is closed rather than to have an unpleasant experience after the belt has been installed. . Many conveyor belt users soon got the idea. that abrasion was the most important criterion for the assessment of the quality. ideas about this matter had to be changed. people drew the conclusion that a few physical figures were not sufficient to recognise the behaviour in practice and that it would be better to do without these evaluation criteria altogether and to make the sum of all practical experience the standard for cover grades.2 New Definition of Cover Grades In Europe. It became possible to make very abrasion-resistant cover compounds using special synthetic rubber. we've gained experience from a wide range of users. Meanwhile this test has been taken over with only minor amendments as International Standard ISO 4649 [5]. It's true that such experience from practice will always be the best test.2. low-value conveyor belts. In the US. Upper limits for abrasion resistance were added to the existing requirements for the different classes of covers. This view changed when synthetic rubber came along. Since at the same time these compounds had relatively low values. we know what's best for your conditions. one tried to compensate for this shortcoming by creating an abrasion test method to further delimit the problem. control is better! I think that the different approach also has something to do with the difference in the use of long. tires etc. thick.

400 400 400 400 400 Abrasion mm3 max.Figure 1: Abrasion Test under DIN 53 516 and ISO 4649 3. Great Britain(BS) [8]. 17 17 18 13.2. Japan( JIS)[9][10]. respectively.Grade "Abrasion Resistant" . 120 200 120 Alteration by Aging* % ± 25 ± 25 .25 JIS 6369 special 1979 ISO 10247 1990 H * relates to tensile strength and elongation only (ISO 188) .25 * relates to tensile strength and elongation only (ISO 188) Tensile Strength Mpa min. The figures were taken from the standards of the following countries or organisations: Australia(AS) [6].25 ± 25 . 70 90 150 100 Alteration by Aging* % ± 25 ± 25 .3 Comparison of Cover Grades from Different Standards Tables 4 and 5 show the physical values of key properties for the grades "Abrasion Resistant" and "Cut.Requirements Tensile Strength Mpa min.and Gouge Resistant". 24 24 25 17.25 ± 25 . Germany(DIN) [7].7 24 Standard Grade AS 1333 1980 BS 490 1990 DIN 22131 1988 M M 24 X Elongation at Break % min.7 18 Standard AS 1333 1980 BS 490 1990 DIN 22131 1988 JIS 6369 1979 ISO 10247 1990 Grade A N17 Synthetic W A (1) D Elongation at Break % min. [11] Table 4 . 450 450 450 450 450 Abrasion mm3 max. International Standard(ISO).

In a large number of applications the new grades allowed a good matching of covers to technical and economical conditions. Based on this comment. Table 6 .Grade "Moderate Stresses" . and at the same time a high adhesion to the carcass is demanded. Here there are differences even for the elongation at break and the differences for the tensile strength are generally up to 5 MPa. they differ by not more than 1 MPa. coupled with the desire to have a reliable criterion for "good" and "bad" lead many users to have an unshakeable belief in the practical use of the cover grades. by their values give the impression that they are of the highest quality. I should add that I was not able to find out whether this Japanese Standard dating back to 1979 is still valid. Apart from the Japanese Standard. The values for the third grade do not correspond to the same extent (see table 6). it is a problem to decide in which category (table 4 or table 5) the two types should be classified. This. The manufacturers have never shared this belief. 17 17 20 10 15 Standard Grade AS 1333 1980 BS 490 1990 DIN 22131 1988 JIS 6369 1979 ISO 10247 1990 N N 17 Y 2 L Elongation at Break % min. because they know that it is possible to design rubber compounds which. It only says. 400 400 400 350 350 Abrasion 3 mm max.Requirements Tensile Strength Mpa min.25 ± 25 .The British standard is the only one that doesn't demand an abrasion value for any grade.25 * Relates to Tensile Strength and Elongation only (ISO 188) 3. however.4 New Evaluation of Cover Grades . but in the case of the Japanese Standard they are up to 10 MPa. "N17 synthetic" is recommended for the most arduous conditions. As you will see when comparing the two tables. 150 200 Alteration by Aging* % ± 25 ± 25 . the minimum values for the elongation at break are identical. But because it is reassuring to be guided by some seemingly clear figures the trust the users place in them has not been questioned for a decade or more. but which would nevertheless lead to poor results under service conditions.2. For the tensile strength there are some differences. Due to the close similarity of the figures I put "N17 synthetic" in table 4 and "M24" in table 5. that the grades "M24" and "N17 synthetic" are equivalent in respect of their abrasion property.

With this statement. was revised in 1988: It again establishes 4 cover grades. For the new cover grades the following explanation was given: These values serve to determine four types of material for covers by some of their characteristics. To make it quite obvious that a change of ideas had taken place the old characters M. cannot be drawn from these values alone.Abrasion .A rubber compound with a high tensile strength and high elongation at break will never be a poor rubber compound.Cut and Gouge It is likely that both stresses would simultaneously occur naturally. Other values such as tear resistance may also be a further basis for evaluation. P were dropped and new characters W. and 6 distinguish between stress from . either.Abrasion Resistance (ISO 4649) are not in themselves sufficient to determine the properties of a cover. 3. X. K were introduced.Tensile Strength (ISO 37) . DIN 22131. This assertion is based on many years of practical experience. Modifying it in the light of the abrasion test results doesn't guarantee superiority under practical conditions.3 New Investigations for a Better Evaluation of Cover Material The standards which were compared in table 4. N. such as their wear or cut resistance. Reliable conclusions on the practical behaviour of covers. 5. Y. It should be pointed out that other physical values (the tear resistance for example) may be a further basis for judgement.Elongation at Break (ISO 37) . It is therefore not reasonable or advisable to accept the cover grades unquestioningly. It is meanwhile known that the physical values . But it is intended to cast doubt on the aforementioned belief and to pave the way for the use of new. but it could be less suitable for a job than a compound with "lower" figures. . This explanation is not intended to discourage people or to make them believe that there is nothing at all that can be retained regarding the evaluation of covers.[7]. more suitable rubber compounds even if they are not in accordance with the standard. but it is not wrong to carry out such an intellectual splitting. In Germany an attempt was made to redress the situation when the German Standard for Steel Cable Belts for General Use. the goal is set for further research and development in this field. 0. But they differ considerably from those defined in the previous edition.

respectively). the ISO 4649 [6] test belongs to this category.e. Hannover. lagged with cover samples of different quality. 3. The advantage with this method is that several samples (max. In the first case the cover sample and the bonded abrasive material rub against each other. In this way the influence of temperature on the result can be recognised. under identical conditions. While the rotating roller is moving abrasively over the conveyor belt sample the temperature at the line of contact is controlled. The roller in the test bench illustrated in figure 2 was loaded with original material (for this work iron ore sinter and broken glass. 15) can be tested simultaneously. On the test bench shown in figure 4 an arrangement of 8 quickly rotating bolts. Two testing devices for bonded material were developed and are shown in figures 2 and 3. Figure 2: Friction Roller Apparatus Figure 3: Friction Block Apparatus The two devices used for testing with loose material are shown in figures 4 and 5.In extensive research work the "Institut für Fördertechnik und Bergwerksmaschinen" of Hannover University attempted to simulate the stresses by abrasion as well as those by cutting and gouging [12][13]. is moved eccentrically through the .3. This work was initiated and financially supported by the conveyor belt division of Continental AG. where the abrasive material is bonded and those where it is loose.1 Abrasion Tests Regarding abrasion test methods a distinction is made between those. In the other case the cover sample and the abrasive material will flow freely against one another. This inner surface is lagged with cover samples of different quality. The test bench in figure 3 consists mainly of a concrete block which is moving abrasively over the internal circumference of a drum. i.

are arranged on the abscissa. too. each indicated by two letters. The diagram gives the specific abrasion values of representative rubber compounds for conveyor belt covers. In all cases the loss of volume is taken as a measure of abrasion. On the test bench depicted in figure 5 a certain quantity of the material is filled into a drum. is lagged with cover samples of different quality. samples of different quality are tested under identical conditions. The internal surface of the drum. Here again several samples are tested simultaneously and therefore under identical conditions. The mean value from each test is related to the average of all tests. Figure 6: Comparison of the Related Abrasion Values of Rubber Cover Material 3. which is rotating during the test. It is obvious that there is no correlation between the new test methods and the standard abrasion test ISO 4649. The compounds are in the order of the abrasion obtained by the ISO abrasion test.heaped material being tested.2 Test Methods for the Determination of Cut and Gouge Quality . Here. Figure 4: Agitator Apparatus Figure 5: Wearing Drum Apparatus In figure 6 the results of the abrasion tests are shown. The different cover compounds.3.

The value of the tangentially orientated components of the forces is considered a measure for the cover quality regarding cut and gouge stresses.In the past it was attempted to evaluate the cut and gouge behaviour merely from quality figures of tensile strength and elongation at break. The cone penetrates the surface and causes damage. Figure 7: Impact Test Bench for Measuring of the Forces Created by Cut and Gouge Damage On this test bench. The forces which are originated by this process are measured. Through comparison of results from observation and from measuring on belts under service conditions it became obvious that this evaluation did not always match the practical behaviour. a laboratory test for the stresses by cut and gouge was developed within the framework of the research project mentioned. The masses of these centrifugal pendulums are continuously punched at several tracks on the belt surface. it is linked revolving to the end of a bar. Acknowledgement . The bar for its part is linked revolving to a flywheel.[12][13] The result was a test bench as shown in figure 7. Each of the masses is provided at its end with a rounded cone. the rotating belt sample is continuously impacted by two masses. Similar to abrasion testing. Figure 8: The Tear Forces of Rubber Covers Obtained on the Test Bench According to Figure 7 4.

[3] DIN 22101. Deutsches Institut für Normung e. International Standard Organisation. Teil 1. Deutsches Institut für Normung e. Teil 1. November 1988 [8] BS 490.. Steel Cord Conveyor Belts. Fördergurte mit Textileinlagen.V. Rubber Manufacturers Association. Doctoral Thesis.3 . Stahlseilgurte für die allgemeine Fördertechnik. University of Hannover. 1985 [6] Conveyor Belting of Elastomeric and Steel Cord Construction.. 1966 [11] ISO 10247. Manfred Hager. Rubber Belts for Conveyors. 1979 [10] JIS K 6322. Juni 1987 [5] ISO 4649. Bestimmung des Abriebs. 1990 [9] JIS K 6369. British Standards Institution. Director of "Institut für Fördertechnik und Bergwerksmaschinen". E. International Standard Organisation. Rubber ..: Tests on the Wear Behaviour of Conveyor Belts. 5. April 1991 [2] RMA Handbook. October 1990 [12] Wolpers. Stetigförderer .C1assifiction. Prüfung von Kautschuk und Elastomeren.: Verschleil3verhalten von Fördergurten.M.Gurtförderer für Schüttgut. Chapter 3. 1982 [4] DIN 53516. Conveyor and elevator belting. Grundlagen für die Berechnung und Auslegung. Conveyor Belts . part 1. University of Hannover. Bulk solids handling.V. E. November 1980 [7] DIN 22131. Germany for his kind assistance and for the permission to make use the figures 2 to 6.V. Deutsches Institut für Normung e.The author wants to thank Professor Dr.10 (1990).Deutsches Institut für Normung e.Determination of Abrasion Resistance Using a Rotating Cylindrical Drum Device. Germany 1989 [13] Wolpers. References [1] DIN 22102. page 17-19. Japanese Standards Association. IP-1. Japanese Standards Association.no.M. Febr.Cover Properties .1980.V.. vol. Standards Association of Australia.