Granular Matter (2011) 13:169–174
DOI 10.1007/s10035-010-0243-2
ORIGINAL PAPER
Discrete element modelling of a bucket elevator head pulley
transition zone
W. McBride · M. Sinnott · P. W. Cleary
Received: 28 February 2010 / Published online: 12 January 2011
© Springer-Verlag 2011
Abstract This paper presents the results of discrete ele-
ment simulations applied to a bucket elevator model with
particular reference to the head pulley transition zone. This
is the first stage in a larger study to better understand the
mechanics of bucket elevator operation with reference to the
discharge of particles at the head end. At the head end two
issues arise; mechanically, the buckets are bolted to the con-
veying media (typically a fabric reinforced belt) and at the
point of belt to headpulley tangency, the tip of the bucket
undergoes a theoretical step change in velocity. This theoret-
ical step change results in a classical under-damped response
in the buckets tip velocity. In undergoing this motion, there
are stresses that are passed to the carcass of the conveying
media; understanding the magnitude of these stresses is one
longer term goal of this research allowing a quantitative basis
for the existing qualitative design guidelines such as (Hand-
book for conveyor and elevator belting, Apex Belting Pty
Ltd). The discharge of the bulk material from the bucket has
been addressed Beverly et al. (Bulk Solids Handling, 1983)
but this analysis is dependent on simple, but common, bucket
geometry and ignores the initial transition to the headpulley.
Ignoring the transition with a low speed discharge elevator is
not likely to impact on the predicted discharge pattern, how-
ever with high speed discharge elevators, the destabilising
effect of the transition is expected to promote premature dis-
charge of bulk material from the bucket. Depending on the
W. McBride (B)
School of Engineering, University of Newcastle,
University Drive Callaghan, Newcastle, NSW 2308, Australia
e-mail: william.mcbride@newcastle.edu.au
M. Sinnott · P. W. Cleary
CSIRO—Mathematical and Information Sciences, Private Bag 33,
Clayton South, VIC 3169, Australia
design of the elevator casing this early discharge may or may
not impact on the overall conveying efficiency.
Keywords Bucket elevator · Bulk materials ·
Mechanical handling · DEM
1 Introduction
Bucket elevators are common industrial devices used
throughout bulk materials handling industries. They offer a
compact footprint for the vertical elevation of a wide variety
of bulk materials. There is little restriction on the elevation
height, and throughputs are broadly scalable. The mechani-
cal construction of a bucket elevator is relatively simple with
most elevators using a fabric reinforced ‘conveyor belt’ mate-
rial for power transmission and bucket attachment, large ele-
vators may utilise steel core belts, hybrid belts or chain. For
the purpose of this paper, a flexible belt is assumed in the
construction.
Typically, buckets are bolted to the belt using a purpose
designed bucket elevator bolt with a large diameter head
that embeds into the belt cover to provide a flush finish
on the underside of the belt. The buckets generally have a
flat inner/back wall through which the fasteners pass and
these determine the effective pivot of the bucket on the belt.
Figure 1 illustrate the shape of a Starco Jumbo bucket and the
mounting of these buckets onto a typical belt (hidden behind
the buckets).
Operationally, the buckets within a bucket elevator pass
through the lowermost section of the elevator called ‘the
boot’. The material to be elevated is supplied by chutes
on either the downward, or upwards strands of the elevator
located close to the boot end. A percentage of material ele-
vated will return to the boot through spillage at the head
123
170 W. McBride et al.

Fig. 1 Pressed steel bucket

illustrating shape, the retaining Row of bolts forming
hole location, and indicative hinge line
fitment (images from 1). The
geometry of these buckets and
those used in the simulation are
based on the Starco Jumbo
bucket [3]. Specific data
B = 260 mm, C = 130 mm,
F = 55 mm, D = 190.5 mm

During these oscillations, the material carried in the bucket

Headpulley
Discharge will have a greater propensity to discharge due to a reduction
in the contact force between material and bucket in the local
Tangency
point deceleration phase.

Buckets 2 Restoration force

There are two restoring forces resulting from the deforma-

Feed Chute tion of the belt at the tangency point. The first, illustrated in
Fig. 3b, is geometrically defined by the displacement of the
belt. It can be shown that there is negligible increase in the
Tailpulley
local belt fibre tension due to the deflection imposed by
Boot
the buckets motions and, accepting this, it can be shown that
the force exerted to the bucket causing it to accelerate it is
Fig. 2 Small bucket elevator indicating principle zones defined by the length of belt between the head and tail pul-
ley centres, and the distance between the buckets attachment
Table 1 Basic simulation data used in DEM bolts and the lowest point of contact between belt and bucket.
Bucket style Starco Jumbo 370/4 (approximate) As the bottom of the bucket pushes onto the belt an angle α
will be formed from the attachment point to the lowest point
Belt speed 1.35 m/s of bucket contact and a corresponding smaller angle β will
Pulley diameter 550 mm form towards the tail pulley.
Particle solids density 1,100 kg/m3 Considering Fig. 3b, the magnitude of the force F can be
Particle size 2–10 mm—equal mass distribution determined from Eq 1.

F = (sin(α) + sin(β))x T (1)

pulley end. Irrespective of the mode of feeding, at some point
soon after the boot area, the buckets are filled to a level com-
mensurate with the nominal tonnage rate. Figure 2 illustrates
where these sections are on a laboratory bucket elevator.
During the traverse between the head and tail pulleys, the
bucket, its contents, and the belt must travel at the same veloc-
ity. However, as the bucket passes around either pulley, the
tip speed of the bucket must increase by the ratio of bucket tip
radius divided by pulley radius. As it is clearly impossible for
this increase in speed to occur instantaneously, it is evident
that the belt deforms over a finite time period to facilitate the
acceleration phase. This has been observed with high speed
video footage revealing the bucket undergoing a damped
oscillatory response to the step change in speed (Table 1).
It should be noted that the tension at the head end will be
greater than the tension at the tail end due to the mass of the
belt and buckets, however the local tension at the point of
deflection is needed in Eq. 1.
A second restoring force is a Hertzian contact force, gener-
ated as the bucket tries to compresses the belt carcass against
the head pulley face. If the head pulley has rubber lagging,
then this will facilitate a larger deflection due to the increased
compliance at the contact point. The rate of force genera-
tion, and the centre of pressure associated with that contact,
is dependent on the transverse modulus of elasticity of the
belt and the compliance of the lagging material on the head
pulley. In the simulation work to date, these two contributing

123
Discrete element modelling 171

Fig. 3 a Illustration of belt

deformation leading to bucket a Belt deforms to buffer b
velocity change as it transitions acceleration level Head Pulley Profile
to the head pulley. b Restorative
force diagram

α
Force on
Deformed belt position
Bucket

At rest belt position

Reality β

V=Vbelt
Material in bucket can be 'kicked' out To Tail
and fall down the carry strand. Nominal Belt Tension 'T'

restorative forces have not been decoupled and this is a point CYS Points -
These are
for further research. concurrent in the
simulation
a Vb b

3 Discrete element analysis

CYS
Z

The Discrete Element Method (DEM) is a numerical tool CYS

for modelling granular flows at the grain level. It is showing
great promise as an optimisation tool for a variety of indus-
tries dealing with granular materials [4]. At each computation
timestep, the DEM tracks all unit particles in the system, and
calculates the forces between particles and between particles
and boundaries. For each collision, a contact force model
is applied. A variety of different contact models of varying
complexity are available [5,6] but it is not a priori obvious
that a more complex (and more computationally expensive)
force model is necessary at the particulate level in order to
correctly predict flows of very large assemblies of particles.
We use a DEM solver developed by CSIRO that has been
applied successfully to granular flows in mining [7,8], bulk
solids handling [9,10], geophysical [11] and pharmaceuti-
cals [12] applications. A linear spring is used to model elas-
tic loading of the particles, and a dashpot models the energy
dissipated in inelastic collisions. This contact model simpli-
fies the computation allowing for large numbers of particles
(107 ) to be realistically modelled.
To facilitate the simulations presented, an infinitely stiff
path was created in the DEM software. Attached to this path
was a ‘bucket’ object constrained to rotate about a horizontal
axis parallel to the axis of the head pulley. The buckets rota-
tion is controlled by a pair of spring contacts. The springs
are arbitrarily positioned 10 mm above and 10 mm below the
Y
Springs
Fig. 4 a An ‘infinitely stiff’ coordinate systems path around a head
pulley and b bucket geometry indicating the hinge point co-ordinate
system and diagrammatically the spring location. The two co-ordinate
systems points (CYS) are ‘pinned’ together in the model as a hinge joint.
The springs are used in the simulation to model the restoring forces as
the bucket deforms the belt. The selection of the bucket CYS is consis-
tent with the geometry information available from the manufacturer of
the bucket studied; Starco Jumbo [3]
buckets pivot and are calibrated against a laboratory elevator
to achieve an equivalent restorative moment. The CYS indi-
cation in Fig. 4 designates the centreline of the retaining bolts
of the bucket as provided on the manufactures web site [3].
This enables us to simulate the deformation of the supporting
belt as these springs adjust to varying load states.
For the simulations presented, we define a “soft” case as
having an effective spring constant of 5.0 × 106 N/m for the
joint to the belt which was verified with laboratory measure-
ments on bucket tip deflection verses load. To obtain these
laboratory measurements, a bucket on a small bucket eleva-
tor was positioned at the tangency point with the head pulley
and a series of masses applied at the buckets tip. Deflec-
tion measurements were recorded for each mass to provide

123
172
connection rotational stiffness data. This data was used to
calculate the effective spring rates used in the DEM process
as the soft spring case. A “stiff” case with an arbitrary joint
spring constant of 5.0 × 108 N/m was employed to simulate
a much taller elevator.
For the DEM simulations reported here, spherical grains
with diameters in the range 2–10 mm with an equal mass dis-
tribution in each size class were used. The material parame-
ters applied to the particles include a solids density of 1,100
kg/m3 , a coefficient of friction of 0.5 for particle-particle and
particle-boundary collisions, and a coefficient of restitution
of 0.5 for particle-particle and particle-boundary collisions.
In the set up for this simulation, the bucket is statically
filled with the bucket located some distance away from the
headpulley. The particle diameters are random within the
constraint of total equal mass in each size range. The veloc-
ity of the CYS point is brought to test speed ensuring that any
transient motion of either the bucket or particles associated
with the acceleration phase of the CYS has abated before the
headpulley transition.
4 Results
4.1 Bucket discharge observations
Figure 5a, b, c present images taken at different times during
the discharge cycle for the soft/low spring stiffness condi-
tion and Fig. 5d, e, f show equivalently timed images for
the high/stiff spring stiffness case. The bucket’s contents are
a Soft b c
d Stiff e f
Fig. 5 Comparison of discharge for a low ‘bucket to belt’ spring stiff-
ness of 5 × 106 N/m (a, b, c) and a high ‘bucket to belt’ spring stiffness
of 5 × 108 N/m (d, e, f). Gravity is acting vertically down in all simula-
123
W. McBride et al.
initially coloured with vertical bands to indicate the original
location of the particles during the discharge cycle. These
particle colours are maintained throughout the simulation
allowing visualization of the materials flow inside the bucket
during the discharge cycle. Evident from visual comparison
is that the lower spring stiffness promotes earlier material
discharge from the bucket, this is best captured by carefully
comparing Fig. 5b, e. In Fig. 5b more material has impacted
the elevators upper enclosure and more material is commenc-
ing to drop. The horizontal velocity for many of the particles
first discharged (Fig. 5a, d) is insufficient to ensure that they
can discharge from the elevator without interactions with
other particles or buckets. This is illustrated in images 5c
and 5f by the amount of particles that are falling back to the
headpulley and eventually the boot of the elevator. These sim-
ulations predict 4% of the initial load returned to the boot for
the stiff spring case, and 8% returned with the softer spring
scenario. This is broadly consistent with experimental data
obtained in our laboratories during contract research with
bucket elevators. In the experimental work a single bucket
was hand loaded with a pre-defined mass of product, with that
bucket a sufficient distance from the head pulley to ensure
full speed was obtained prior to discharge. Once this bucket
had discharged, the elevator was stopped, isolated, and the
boot area swept to capture the material that had not exited
the elevators discharge port. This material was weighed to
determine the percentage of carry back per bucket discharge.
Also evident from Fig. 5, is the poor design of this ele-
vators enclosing steelwork with significant material impact
tions. The hinge point of the buckets is moving at a velocity of 1.35 m/s
in a counter clockwise direction. The corresponding tip velocity of this
simulated bucket is 2.6 m/s equivalent to a radial acceleration of 1.3 g
Discrete element modelling
a b
Splitter
Fig. 6 Particle interactions with the splitter plate. The splitter geome-
try is identical in each image with 6b at a later time step. From image
6a an expectation of most particles exiting the discharge opening is
given, however in 6b it becomes evident that a moderate amount of the
material is returned to the boot of the elevator. If the splitter plate were
onto the casing itself. This particle impact would affect the
conveying efficiency of the unit, and most likely lead to a
premature failure of the casing. Some modern high speed
bucket elevators have adopted a volute shaped head casing
to help guide the particles to the discharge. In the case where
head room is critical, or in the optimal design of volute shaped
casings, Fig. 5 illustrates how the DEM method can be of
value.
Figure 6a, b are provided to illustrate the interaction of the
discharged material with the ‘splitter plate’ with divides the
stream either to the discharge outlet, or back to the boot of
the elevator. Both 6a and 6b are the same geometry with 6b
at a later time step. These images indicate that lowering this
particular splitter plate would likely improve this designs effi-
ciency as the particles are impacting and the stream is being
physically split by this plate.
4.2 Bucket motion studies
Figure 7 presents the results obtained from monitoring the
rotation rate of the bucket during a simulation. For clarity
Fig. 7 has been labelled in two zones (α, and β). The α zone is
where the bucket accelerates (start of the head pulley) and β is
the empty bucket exiting the head pulley. In the α zone, heav-
ily damped oscillations are observed over a total time period
of around 0.2 s. This duration is equivalent to 54 degrees of
pulley rotation. Peak bucket deceleration occurs at around
0.05 s after the tangency point; at around 14 degrees above
horizontal. Given that the belt is constrained at, and after,
the entry tangency point by the proximity of the pulley, we
expect the results presented to be largely reflected in experi-
mental evaluations. Video footage of laboratory bucket eleva-
tors appears to support this numerical result, though current
footage lacks sufficient resolution for a definitive statement.
173
lowered by perhaps only 50 mm, the amount of material returned to the
boot resulting from the splitter would be almost eliminated. Physical
experiments on similar bucket elevators in the laboratory have clearly
illustrated this effect
α
β
Fig. 7 Bucket angular velocity of the bucket as it traverses the head
pulley. Belt to bucket spring stiffness 5.0 × 106 N/m
In the β zone the bucket decelerates back to the nominal
belt velocity however there is a much longer period of oscil-
lation (lower overall damping). This long period of oscilla-
tion is ‘numerical’ due to the infinite stiffness of the trajec-
tory path used in the simulation and a low damping value
used for the numerical springs. The low damping used in
the DEM springs is unlikely to impact on the α section of the
graph due to the damping offered by the particles themselves.
In the β phase of Fig. 7 the oscillatory motion is unlikely to be
realised as the belt is effectively free to vibrate once past the
tangency point on the return leg. This capacity for the belt
itself to vibrate will absorb the predicted vibrations which
are largely due to the infinitely stiff nature of the constrain-
ing path used in the simulation.
Laboratory observations on the return strand typically
show low frequency oscillations which we anticipate are fun-
damentally the effect of the buckets deceleration phase on a
reasonably unconstrained belt.
123
174
Fig. 8 Influence of spring
stiffness on bucket oscillations
presented as angular
acceleration. Simulation’s with
‘bucket to belt’ spring stiffness
of; a 5.0 × 106 N/m, and b
5.0 × 108 N/m
a - Soft
Figure 8a, b illustrate the impact of the simulations ‘bucket
to belt’ spring constant on the motion of the bucket at entry
and exit to the head pulley. The ‘motion’ at time = 1.8 s is the
buckets entry to the head pulley and at 2.5 s, the exit from the
pulley. In Fig. 8a the acceleration trace displays a complex
form for which we offer no explanation at this time. With
the higher spring constant (Fig. 8b) the decay in the oscil-
lations are much faster and the peak acceleration is much
higher (note the change in vertical scale). The motions occur
over a correspondingly shorter time frame. These very high
accelerations are not anticipated to be realised in physical
testing due to the mass and damping of the belt material, and
its additional freedom which was unable to be captured in
this current simulation.
5 Conclusions
A DEM study was conducted into the headpulley transition
effects of bucket elevators. From the work completed it is
apparent that the effective stiffness of the belt/bucket inter-
face has a noteworthy impact on the buckets bulk material
discharge pattern.
We have illustrated a capacity for modelling multi-body
systems coupled within DEM to provide insights that cannot
be achieved using alternate methods.
We have shown the value of DEM in helping to understand
bucket discharge patterns which will be expanded upon in
future work by considering a range of common bucket pro-
files in both physical experiments and numerical simulations.
We have shown a capacity to account for ‘carry back’ dur-
ing operation. This is the material returned to the boot of
the elevator by virtue of premature discharge and incorrect
positioning of the splitter or head box arrangement.
The flow of the bulk material within the bucket agrees
with video footage collected at the University of Newcas-
tle and this provides confidence for studies into more geo-
metrically complex bucket shapes. The general discharge
123
W. McBride et al.
b - Stiff
pattern predicted from the simulation agrees with the foot-
age collected from the laboratory model, though the lack of a
synchronised rotary position reading on the headpulley does
limit the capacity to provide quantitative comparisons at this
stage.
Overall, this paper illustrates that DEM techniques can be
realistically applied to complex mechanical handling devices
such as bucket elevators to provide insight into the complex
interactions that occur during operation.
References
1. Handbook for Conveyor and Elevator Belting. Apex Belting Pty
Ltd.
2. Beverly, G.J., Roberts, A.W., Hayes, J.W.: Mechanics or high speed
elevator discharge. Bulk Solids Handling #3–1983
3. www.go4b.com/usa/pdf-datasheets/sj-elevator-bucket.pdf
4. Cleary, P.W.: Large scale industrial DEM modelling. Eng. Com-
put. 21, 169–204 (2004)
5. Walton, O.R.: Numerical simulation of inelastic frictional particle-
particle interaction, Chapter 25. In: Roco M.C. (ed.) Particulate
Two-Phase Flow, pp. 884–911 (1994)
6. Schäfer, J., Dippel, S., Wolf, D.E.: Force schemes in simulation of
granular material. J. Physique I France 6, 5 (1996)
7. Sinnott, M., Cleary, P.W., Morrison, R.: Analysis of stirred mill
performance using DEM simulation: part 1—media motion, energy
consumption and collisional environment. Miner. Eng. 19, 1537–
1550 (2006)
8. Cleary, P.W., Sinnott, M.D., Morrison, R.D.: DEM prediction
of particle flows in grinding processes. Int. J. Numer. Method
Eng. 58, 319–353 (2008)
9. Cleary, P.W., Sawley, M.: DEM modelling of industrial granular
flows: 3D case studies and the effect of particle shape on hopper
discharge. App. Math. Model. 26, 89–111 (2002)
10. Cleary, P.W., Sinnott, M., McBride, W.: Prediction of particle flows
and blockage problems in realistic 3D transfer chutes. Proceed-
ings of World Congress on Chemical Engineering, Edinburgh,
pp 10, (2005)
11. Cleary, P.W., Prakash, M.: Discrete element modelling and
smooth particle hydrodynamics: potential in the environmental
sciences. Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. 362, 2003–2030 (2004)
12. Cleary, P.W., Sinnott, M.D.: Assessing mixing characteristics
of particle mixing and granulation devices. Particuology 6,
419–444 (2008)
Copyright of Granular Matter is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.