Three Dimensional

Numerical Modelling of
Conveyor Belt Indentation
Rolling Resistance
From

The University of Newcastle

Discipline of Mechanical Engineering
By

Paul John Munzenberger

B.Eng. (Mech.) (Hons. I)
Thesis submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirement for the Award of the
Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

November 2016
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY
The thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or
diploma in any university or other tertiary institution and, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due
reference has been made in the text. I give consent to the final version of my thesis being made
available worldwide when deposited in the University’s Digital Repository**, subject to the
provisions of the Copyright Act 1968.

**Unless an Embargo has been approved for a determined period.

Paul J. Munzenberger

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

I hereby certify that the work embodied in this thesis contains a published paper/s/scholarly
work of which I am a joint author. I have included as part of the thesis a written statement,
endorsed by my supervisor, attesting to my contribution to the joint publication/s/scholarly
work.

Paul J. Munzenberger

2
ENDORSEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

Chapters 8 and 9 of this thesis contain portions of text from Reference [1] without any attribution.
I hereby certify that I was a joint contributor to this work and that permission to use it in this
thesis was provided by my co-author and supervisor.

3
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS

The work that is presented in the following pages represents the culmination of a research
project that could not have been completed without the help of many people. In particular, the
following people deserve a special mention:

• Associate Professor Craig Wheeler whose vision was the catalyst that created this
research project, for agreeing to be my principle supervisor and for his faith in me to
execute and complete the project,
• Lawrence Nordell whose input changed the course of the experimental indentation
rolling resistance testing for the better,
• Brad Lawson for his facilitation of the testing on what was at the time the world’s longest
belt conveyor and
• Dr Robin Stevens for his advice regarding various aspects of the experimental work.

I would also like to acknowledge the financial support of Veyance Technologies, Laing O’Rouke,
and Conveyor Dynamics Inc. as well as the assistance of numerous employees from each of those
companies. Additional thanks must be made to Veyance Technologies for supplying all of the
test belts for the indentation rolling resistance testing and for their permission to use the results
from the experiments in various publications.

From the University of Newcastle, special mention goes to Brendan Beh for his willing assistance
with the indentation rolling resistance experiments, Jayne O’Shea for measuring and providing
the material properties used in the theoretical modelling and other academic staff who offered
their expertise when asked – especially Associate Professor Chris Wensrich who provided
assistance with the numerical modelling mathematics on several occasions. Mention must also
be made of the staff from TUNRA Bulk Solids and the Discipline of Mechanical Engineering work
shop who helped with the construction and maintenance of the indentation rolling resistance
test machine.

The final acknowledgement goes to my family whose understanding, patience and support has
been essential to the completion of this project. I would especially like to thank my wife Stacey
who has remained steadfast despite being sorely neglected at times and my children Mathew
and Melissa for trying their best to keep quiet while I was studying.

Thank you, everyone.

4
Table of Contents
Nomenclature ............................................................................................................................. 10

Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... 12

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 13

2 Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 21

2.1 Material Homogeneity ................................................................................................ 21

2.2 Linearity ...................................................................................................................... 21

2.3 Initial Stress State........................................................................................................ 21

2.4 Friction ........................................................................................................................ 21

2.5 Loading ........................................................................................................................ 22

2.6 Plane Strain ................................................................................................................. 22

3 Constitutive Relations ......................................................................................................... 23

3.1 Numerical Integration of the Viscoelastic Constitutive Equations ............................. 23

3.2 Constitutive Relations for Finite Element Analysis Modelling .................................... 25

3.3 Viscoelastic Plane Strain Elasticity Matrix ................................................................... 29

3.4 Time Dependant Viscoelastic Plane Strain Elasticity Matrix ....................................... 32

3.5 Remarks ...................................................................................................................... 34

4 Material Properties ............................................................................................................. 35

4.1 Dynamic Mechanical Analysis ..................................................................................... 35

4.2 Maxwell Model ........................................................................................................... 37

4.3 Shear Relaxation Moduli ............................................................................................. 38

5
 4.4 Bulk Relaxation Modulus ............................................................................................. 39

4.5 Remarks ....................................................................................................................... 39

5 A review of Early Viscoelastic Finite Element Analysis Rolling Resistance Models ............. 41

5.1 A Finite Element Method of Viscoelastic Stress Analysis with Application to Rolling
Contact Problems .................................................................................................................... 41

5.2 Rubber Covered Rolls – the Isothermal Viscoelastic Problem. A Finite Element Solution
..................................................................................................................................... 44

5.3 Conveyor Belt Indentation Rolling Resistance............................................................. 45

5.4 Hybrid Three Dimensional Indentation Rolling Resistance Model .............................. 48

5.5 Remarks ....................................................................................................................... 54

6 Application of the Viscoelastic Theory to Commercial Finite Element Analysis Software .. 55

6.1 Material Properties...................................................................................................... 56

6.2 Viscoelastic Memory Material Properties ................................................................... 57

6.3 Formulation of the Viscoelastic History Stiffness Matrices ......................................... 60

Element Stiffness Matrix for the Constant Strain Triangle .................................. 60

Element Stiffness Matrix for the Bilinear Rectangle ........................................... 63

Element Stiffness Matrix for the Trilinear Hexahedron ...................................... 66

6.4 Calculating Indentation Rolling Resistance ................................................................. 69

Contact Area Reaction Force Sum ....................................................................... 69

Nodal Work Sum Method .................................................................................... 71

6.5 Remarks ....................................................................................................................... 72

7 Modelling Indentation Rolling Resistance using Finite Element Analysis Software ............ 73

6
 7.1 Implementation Procedure for the New Generation of indentation Rolling Resistance
Models .................................................................................................................................... 73

7.2 Two Dimensional Finite Element Indentation Rolling Resistance Models ................. 77

Constant Strain Triangle Finite Element Indentation Rolling Resistance Model 77

Bilinear Rectangle Finite Element Indentation Rolling Resistance Model .......... 83

7.3 Three Dimensional Finite Element Indentation Rolling Resistance Model................. 86

Three Dimensional Indentation Rolling Resistance Model Construction ........... 86

Intermediate Three Dimensional Indentation Rolling Resistance Model ........... 95

Viewing the Three Dimensional Indentation Rolling Resistance Model ............. 97

7.4 Remarks .................................................................................................................... 104

8 Laboratory Test Equipment for Indentation Rolling Resistance Experiments .................. 106

8.1 Indentation Rolling Resistance Test Equipment ....................................................... 107

Discontinuous Indentation Rolling Resistance Test Equipment ....................... 107

Continuous Indentation Rolling Resistance Test Equipment ............................ 110

Two-Pulley Indentation Rolling Resistance Test Machines............................... 111

8.2 The University of Newcastle’s Large Indentation Rolling Resistance Test Rig .......... 116

Large Indentation Rolling Resistance Test Rig’s Design Parameters ................ 117

Measurement Frame ........................................................................................ 120

Setup and Operation ......................................................................................... 124

8.3 Remarks .................................................................................................................... 126

9 Determination of Indentation Rolling Resistance from Experimental Data ..................... 127

9.1 Indentation Rolling Resistance Test Machine Measured Results ............................. 127

7
 9.2 Determining Indentation Rolling Resistance from Measured Results ...................... 130

Determining Belt Flexure Resistance with the Y-intercept Offset Method....... 131

Determining Belt Flexure Resistance with the Zero Percent Belt Sag Method . 133

9.3 Conversion of Indentation Rolling Resistance Results for Use in Belt Conveyor Design
................................................................................................................................... 135

9.4 Remarks ..................................................................................................................... 137

10 Results ........................................................................................................................... 139

10.1 Experimental Results ................................................................................................. 139

Remarks on Conveyor Belt Flexure Resistance ................................................. 139

Indentation Rolling Resistance Result Trends ................................................... 141

10.2 Finite Element Analysis Indentation Rolling Resistance Predictions ......................... 143

Two Dimensional Indentation Rolling Resistance Results ................................. 143

Indentation Rolling Resistance Model Sensitivity ............................................. 145

Three Dimensional Indentation Rolling Resistance Results .............................. 148

10.3 Indentation Rolling Results for Conveyor Belts with Different Dimensions.............. 151

Cord Height ........................................................................................................ 151

Cord Diameter ................................................................................................... 153

Cord Pitch .......................................................................................................... 155

Pulley Cover Thickness ...................................................................................... 156

Carry Cover Thickness........................................................................................ 158

10.4 Remarks ..................................................................................................................... 159

11 Concluding Remarks and Future Work .......................................................................... 161

8
 11.1 Indentation Rolling Resistance Modelling and Simulation Outcomes ...................... 161

11.2 Experimental Testing Outcomes ............................................................................... 163

11.3 Australian Standard................................................................................................... 164

11.4 Future Work .............................................................................................................. 164

Finite Element Analysis Indentation Rolling Resistance Modelling Future Work ...
........................................................................................................................... 165

Indentation Rolling Resistance Test Machine Future Work.............................. 167

12 References .................................................................................................................... 175

9
NOMENCLATURE
𝐴𝐴 Element area
𝐴𝐴𝑅𝑅 Area of element 𝑅𝑅
𝑎𝑎 Elasticity matrix variable
𝑎𝑎𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 Conditional equations for calculating 𝑎𝑎 in element elasticity matrix
[B] Strain displacement matrix
[B]𝑇𝑇 Transpose of strain displacement matrix
[B]𝑅𝑅 Strain displacement matrix for element 𝑅𝑅
𝑏𝑏 Elasticity matrix variable
𝑏𝑏𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 Conditional equations for calculating 𝑏𝑏 in element elasticity matrix
𝑐𝑐 Indentation rolling resistance calculation exponent
𝐷𝐷𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 Distance to idler roll contact node from idler roll centre
𝑑𝑑𝐾𝐾,𝑅𝑅 Distance between control volumes
{𝑑𝑑} Vector of element nodal displacements
𝐸𝐸 Young’s modulus
𝐸𝐸′ Storage modulus
𝐸𝐸′′ Loss modulus
[E] Matrix of elastic stiffness
[E]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 Viscoelastic memory matrix of elastic stiffness
𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 Deviatoric component of strain
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 Test belt flexure resistance force
𝐹𝐹𝐻𝐻 Horizontal force due to indentation rolling resistance and belt flexure resistance
𝐹𝐹𝐻𝐻,𝑚𝑚 Experimentally measured horizontal resistance force
𝐹𝐹𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 Offset vertical force due to the indented conveyor belt
𝐹𝐹𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 Indentation rolling resistance force
𝐹𝐹𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼,𝑐𝑐 Indentation rolling resistance force applied to centre trough idler roll
𝐹𝐹𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼,𝑠𝑠 Indentation rolling resistance force applied to wing trough idler roll
𝐹𝐹𝑛𝑛 Trough idler roll normal force
𝐹𝐹𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 Contact area node reaction force resultant
𝐹𝐹𝑇𝑇,𝑚𝑚 Experimentally measured idler roll torque force
𝐹𝐹𝑉𝑉,𝑚𝑚 Experimentally measured vertical load force
𝐹𝐹𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 Idler contact node vertical reaction force
{f } Element force vector
𝐺𝐺1 Shear relaxation modulus
𝐺𝐺2 Bulk relaxation modulus
𝐻𝐻𝑖𝑖 Viscoelastic memory force resultant applied to each node
𝐻𝐻𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 , 𝐻𝐻𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 , 𝐻𝐻𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 Viscoelastic memory force components
𝑖𝑖 Control strip counter or index
𝐽𝐽 Determinant of [J]
[J] Jacobian matrix
𝑗𝑗 Time when material section was in control volume 𝐾𝐾 or array index
𝐾𝐾𝑖𝑖 Past control volume
𝑘𝑘 Time when material section was in control volume 𝑅𝑅
[k] Element stiffness matrix
[k]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 Viscoelastic memory stiffness matrix
𝐿𝐿 Test idler roll torque arm length or bulk material contact length
𝑁𝑁i Element shape function
𝑛𝑛 Control volume counter or number of control volumes in a control strip
𝑚𝑚 Number of points in a least squares curve fit
𝑝𝑝 Number of control strips
𝑞𝑞(𝑧𝑧) Trough idler roll normal load distribution
𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏,𝑐𝑐 (𝑧𝑧) Conveyor belt load distribution applied to centre trough idler roll
𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏,𝑠𝑠 (𝑧𝑧) Conveyor belt load distribution applied to wing trough idler roll

10
 𝑞𝑞𝑚𝑚,𝑐𝑐 (𝑧𝑧) Bulk material load distribution applied to centre trough idler roll
𝑞𝑞𝑚𝑚,𝑠𝑠 (𝑧𝑧) Bulk material load distribution applied to wing trough idler roll
𝑅𝑅 Current control volume or idler roll radius
𝑆𝑆 Indentation rolling resistance calculation coefficient
𝑟𝑟, 𝑠𝑠 Constant strain triangle mapped coordinates
𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 Deviatoric component of stress
𝑇𝑇𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 Resistance torque resulting from the asymmetric idler roll contact area
𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 Distance travelled by each node during one time step
𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 , 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 , 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 Components of node trave during each time step
𝑇𝑇𝐾𝐾,𝑅𝑅 𝐺𝐺1 (𝑡𝑡) and 𝐺𝐺2 (𝑡𝑡) array index
𝑡𝑡 Element thickness
𝑢𝑢 Nodal displacement in the 𝑥𝑥 direction
𝑣𝑣 Belt velocity or nodal displacement in the 𝑦𝑦 direction
𝑊𝑊 Test belt width
𝑊𝑊𝑖𝑖 , 𝑊𝑊𝑗𝑗 , 𝑊𝑊𝑘𝑘 Gauss quadrature weight factors
𝑥𝑥, 𝑦𝑦, 𝑧𝑧 Cartesian modelling coordinates
𝑥𝑥 Control volume time dependant coordinates with respect to a fixed coordinate system
𝛾𝛾 Shear strain
{𝜀𝜀} Strain Vector
∆𝜏𝜏 Time increment of shear and bulk relaxation data
𝛿𝛿𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 Kronecker symbol
𝜀𝜀 Normal strain
𝜖𝜖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 Strain tensor
𝜖𝜖𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 Hydrostatic component of strain
𝜁𝜁𝑖𝑖 Gauss quadrature coordinate
𝜈𝜈 Poisson’s ratio
𝜉𝜉𝑖𝑖 Gauss quadrature coordinate
𝜉𝜉, 𝜂𝜂 Q4 mapped coordinates
𝜉𝜉, 𝜂𝜂, 𝜁𝜁 Hexa8 mapped coordinates
𝜂𝜂𝑗𝑗 Gauss quadrature coordinate
𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 Stress tensor
𝜎𝜎𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 Hydrostatic component of stress
[Γ] Jacobian matrix inverse
𝜏𝜏 Time variable
𝜙𝜙 Function to be integrated numerically
𝜔𝜔 Angular frequency

11
ABSTRACT
A key component of the effort to build longer conveyors is the accurate understanding of the
forces that affect their operation. One of the main forces that affects the operation of a belt
conveyor is the indentation rolling resistance that is generated by the conveyor belt through the
action of the idler rolls deforming its surface. Previous efforts to predict the indentation rolling
resistance performance of conveyor belt have been shown by their developers to be useful at
making predictions for fabric conveyor belt however the same models do not appear to be ideal
for use with the steel cord conveyor belt that long conveyors are exclusively designed to use;
unfortunately, this is a critical flaw because accurate predictions of indentation rolling resistance
are more important for long conveyors than they are for the shorter belt conveyors that use
fabric conveyor belt. This thesis will present a new indentation rolling resistance model which
benefits from two key improvements over earlier models: firstly, it overcomes the problems of
previous models through its ability to represent the individual components of a steel cord
conveyor belt and its ability to conduct the indentation rolling resistance analysis in three
dimensions; and secondly, it has been developed alongside finite element analysis software and
makes use of the software’s efficient finite element analysis solvers and post processing
environment. The new indentation rolling resistance model is an extension of older two
dimensional models and in the following pages the theory behind the original models as well as
the extension of the theory into three dimensions will be presented. The modification of the
theory needed to link it with finite element analysis software will also be presented and results
from the software’s post processing environment will be displayed.

With all of the modifications and extensions to the original theory it is necessary to demonstrate
that the resulting indentation rolling resistance model is able to produce reliable data; so,
alongside the theoretical model, this thesis will present the details of a machine that is used to
experimentally measure the indentation rolling resistance of steel cord conveyor belt. The
results from the indentation rolling resistance test machine will then be used to show that the
three dimensional model is capable of producing reliable indentation rolling resistance
predictions.

12
1 INTRODUCTION
In the current age of technology concerted effort is being invested to make everything as energy
efficient as possible. Nowhere is exempt from increased energy costs and this is the main driver
for the proliferation of energy saving innovations. In the domestic environment there have been
government schemes available to insulate older homes so that they can be cooled and heated
with less energy, Tienhaara [2], and the development of energy efficient, Consumer Reports [3],
compact fluorescent light bulbs – to replace incandescent light bulbs – and the subsequent
development of even more efficient, Consumer Reports [3], light emitting diode – or LED –
lighting. Industrial examples of energy efficiency seem to be less prominent to the public,
possibly because the public is not continually exposed to them, but they do exist; the rivalry
between Airbus, Boeing and others, Flottau [4], to produce energy efficient airliners, is a good
example. More closely related to this thesis, the mining industry is also trying to reduce its
energy costs and, increasingly, belt conveyors are becoming an important part of this effort
where they can used to reduce energy consumption by replacing trucks, Liu et al. [5].

A consequence of mining is that at some point the mineral body will become exhausted and the
mine will need to move or close; clearly, moving the mine to a nearby lease is the preferred
option for the mine employees and this option can also make use of existing infrastructure and
mobile equipment. If a nearby option is available then the entire mine infrastructure can be
rebuilt at the new location or, preferably – especially with cheap energy, the mined material can
be transported to the old site. After several decades of operation many mines will have
exhausted their second, third, or more, mineral bodies and with the high cost – at the time of
writing – of fuel, combined with increasing distances between mine workings and processing
plants, moving the fixed plant is becoming feasible again. However, at the same time conveyor
technology has improved and new conveyors, designed with modern practices, are capable of
covering the long distances between remote digging operations and the original preparation
plants thus allowing a mining company to save money twice over by keeping existing equipment
and infrastructure and reducing the distance that trucks need to travel. The 20km long Curragh
North overland conveyor operated by Wesfarmers in Australia, Steven [6], and the 27km Long
Impumelelo overland conveyor operated by SASOL in The Republic of South Africa, Frittella and
de Necker [7], are both world record examples of conveyors that are moving minerals from
remote operations to existing processing infrastructure.

13
At this point it may appear that a conveyor’s only contribution to energy efficiency is to save fuel
by reducing truck use, however, this is not the case as the conveyor itself is subject to a range
of energy saving measures. For example: variable belt speeds to maximise a conveyors
volumetric efficiency while reducing speed dependant resistances, Pang and Lodewijks [8]; using
low drag idler rolls to reduce rolling friction; and, using conveyor belts made from advanced
energy saving rubber compounds to improve their indentation rolling resistance performance.

Indentation rolling resistance is a friction force that is developed in a belt conveyor by the
interaction of its conveyor belt’s pulley cover and the idler rolls that the conveyor belt travels
upon. A section of conveyor belt that has been compressed or indented by an idler roll will relax
at a slower rate than at which it was originally deformed. This imbalance in deformation and
relaxation times means that the effort required to cause the indentation is not fully returned
and it is this deficit that is known as indentation rolling resistance. The difference in deformation
and relaxation times results in the asymmetric contact shown in Figure 1.1 (a) and the
accompanying unbalanced stress field shown in Figure 1.1 (b). The resultant force, of the
unbalanced stress field – which is equal to the vertical load, 𝐹𝐹𝑉𝑉 – generates a torque, 𝑇𝑇𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 , about
the idler roll’s axis which must be overcome by the conveyor’s drive system in order to keep the
belt moving.

a b

𝐹𝐹𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼
𝑇𝑇𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 = 𝐹𝐹𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 ⋅ 𝑑𝑑
𝑑𝑑

(a) Cyclic compression and recovery. (b) Asymmetric pressure distribution.

Figure 1.1 A stress field graph superimposed over an idler roll [1].

Indentation rolling resistance occurs continually, at every conveyor idler roll, while ever the belt
conveyor is operating and a long conveyor will have many thousands of idler roll sets and often
over 10,000 idler rolls supporting the belt along its length. The sheer number of points at which
indentation rolling resistance is generated makes it a large, and therefore important, factor in
the design of a belt conveyor. According to Hager and Hintz, indentation rolling resistance is the

14
single largest source of resistance found on a long conveyor and can be responsible for as much
as 60% of the total motion resistance, Hager and Hintz [9]. The high percentage of belt conveyor
friction associated with indentation rolling resistance makes it a prime area of investigation
when looking at ways to make a belt conveyor more efficient and the main way that this is
achieved is through the utilization of pulley cover rubbers that have favourable indentation
rolling resistance properties. Low indentation rolling resistance rubbers tend to be softer and
are able to return to their normal shape more quickly than a traditional rubber after an applied
load is removed. In a rolling contact sense, low rolling resistance rubbers will relax more quickly,
effectively lengthening the “b” dimension in Figure 1.1, making the contact area more
symmetrical, and thus returning more of the deformation energy back to the idler roll and
ultimately lowering indentation rolling resistance.

Conveyor belt manufacturers make and test new rubber compounds so it is not the purpose of
this thesis to present new formulas for low rolling resistance rubbers; nor is it the aim to show
how rubbers can be ranked in order of their resistance properties as the belt manufacturers
have equipment that can readily do so. The aim of this thesis is to show how results from
experiments conducted on those laboratory rubber samples can be used to predict the
indentation rolling resistance of steel cord conveyor belts made from the same material. A
second, though no less important aim of this thesis is to show how indentation rolling resistance
of conveyor belt can be physically measured.

The ability to accurately measure or predict indentation rolling resistance performance is

becoming an important aspect of long conveyor design. Several machines are available that can
measure indentation rolling resistance of conveyor belt but at the design stage it is likely that
the specified conveyor belt has not been made – and thus cannot be tested – leaving the
conveyor designer to work with indentation rolling resistance predictions instead. There are a
number of theoretical processes that can be used to predict indentation rolling resistance, they
are generally described as viscoelastic rolling contact problems and in many cases were not
initially derived with conveyor belts in mind or even rubber for that matter; nevertheless, these
methods have been modified to make them applicable to rubber and belt conveyors. Currently
available procedures for predicting indentation rolling resistance include Jonker’s [10] or
Spaan’s [11] analytical equations, Lodewijks’ Winkler Foundation model [12] and Wheeler’s
finite element analysis model [13], however, they all have a common problem: they use one or

15
two dimensional models as their basis and are therefore not directly applicable to the types of
conveyor belts that are used on long conveyors.

The two main types of conveyor belt are depicted in Figure 1.2 and, aside from their obviously
different constructions, the primary mechanical difference between them is the lower
longitudinal stiffness of the fabric belt which allows it to stretch further than the stiffer steel
cord belt would for the same tensile load; the lower stiffness limits the use of fabric conveyor
belt to shorter conveyors and long conveyors always use the less stretchy steel cord conveyor
belt which has a varying cross section. So in order to overcome the limitations of two
dimensional indentation rolling resistance models, a three dimensional model was developed
that can represent the varying cross section of steel cord conveyor belt and is thus suitable for
predicting indentation rolling resistance of steel cord conveyor belt.

(a) (b)
Figure 1.2 (a) Fabric conveyor belt. (b) Steel cord conveyor belt.

The three dimensional indentation rolling resistance model developed for this thesis follows on
from the work of Lynch [14] and Wheeler and is thus of the numerical type and, like all of the
models that are discussed in detail here, it uses the finite element analysis method as its
numerical basis. Finite element analysis is a general numerical process that has been used to
solve a wide range of engineering problems covering fields such as fluid dynamics,
thermodynamics and magnetics but by far the most common application of finite element
analysis is structural analysis. The finite element method, as it exists currently, was developed
in the 1950s by Clough [15] for use in the dynamic analysis of aircraft delta wings and was
subsequently modified for use in structural analysis problems. It appears as though finite
element analysis was first used to study viscoelastic rolling contact problems by Lynch in the mid
1960s where he used the same constant strain triangle element that was conceived in the 1950s
to study the rolling of a viscoelastic material between a set of rolls. Subsequent work based on
Lynch essentially used an identical procedure but modified the boundary conditions to suit the
rolling contact geometry being studied. This thesis will concentrate exclusively on finite element

16
analysis indentation rolling resistance models, however, for a discussion of other methods
commonly used to predict conveyor belt indentation rolling resistance the reader is directed to
O’Shea [16].

Indentation rolling resistance is a viscoelastic problem; viscoelasticity is a complex field of study

that can be split into two general areas: linear viscoelasticity, and nonlinear viscoelasticity.
Nonlinear viscoelasticity is difficult to understand and apply and one must choose from several
available methods while noting that each has its own advantages and shortcomings. Linear
viscoelasticity, on the other hand, is comparatively easy to understand and, because it is a linear
process, the Boltzmann superposition principle is applicable which means that linear
viscoelasticity lends itself to traditional elastic analysis techniques but with the addition of a
time dependant modulus – known as a relaxation modulus – and the property of viscoelastic
memory. For all of the indentation rolling resistance models that will be discussed in this thesis
the analysis type is the simpler linear viscoelastic type; however, the problem with a linear
analysis, in the context of indentation rolling resistance, is that rubber is a nonlinear viscoelastic
material. An assumption central to a linear viscoelastic analysis is that the relaxation of a
viscoelastic material after a deformation is linearly proportional to the magnitude of the
deformation; essentially, this means that the same relaxation modulus will be calculated from a
test sample regardless of the strain at which the relaxation test was carried out. For conveyor
belt cover rubber it will be shown the relaxation modulus varies with the strain level of the
relaxation test and that a linear viscoelastic analysis may not be the best choice. Nevertheless,
a linear viscoelastic analysis has been shown to be adequate in the past and in order to justify
the choice of a linear analysis to model a nonlinear material a test machine has been constructed
that can measure indentation rolling resistance and which will allow results predicted by the
new indentation rolling resistance model to be compared with physical measurements. The
reader should note that any further reference to viscoelasticity in this thesis is to be understood
as referring to linear viscoelasticity.

The majority of what is written here concerns the modelling and prediction of indentation rolling
resistance; however, in terms of the total research project, the indentation rolling resistance
modelling is by far the smaller expense in terms of both time and money. With this in mind it
becomes necessary to ask: “why spend a significant amount of time and money on an
indentation rolling resistance test machine when, perhaps, an alternative to producing an
experiment could have been to devote the same time to applying a rigorous nonlinear

17
viscoelastic technique to the viscoelastic rolling contact problem”? The answer to this is that:
“given the variety of nonlinear viscoelastic methods available, the machinery would still need to
be constructed to prove the suitability of the chosen nonlinear analysis technique”. And thus,
no matter what type of viscoelastic analysis is chosen an expensive experiment is still necessary.
It then becomes prudent to ask: “why expend the time and effort to devise a working
indentation rolling resistance model when a test machine that can measure indentation rolling
resistance would be needed anyway”? For the Author, the justification for the development of
a new, improved, indentation rolling resistance model is the pursuit of an idea to see if it could
be done and to learn new things in the process; in reality, though, the new indentation rolling
resistance model serves more practical purposes.

The only way that the indentation rolling resistance of conveyor belt can be measured is on a
machine that can handle real conveyor belt under relevant operating conditions; there are other
types of indentation rolling resistance experiments, but these rarely use actual conveyor belt
and, as such, cannot be used to directly measure conveyor belt indentation rolling resistance.
Measuring the indentation rolling resistance of a conveyor belt sample consumes a lot of labour,
particularly for the setup of the experiment and the analysis that is required after the
experiment is concluded. As an example of the cost of experimental work, even if the capital
cost of the machinery is ignored, indentation rolling resistance test work can easily cost tens of
thousands of dollars merely to arrive at the point where measurements can be taken and the
measurements themselves can cost many thousands more to generate. Expenses for
indentation rolling resistance tests are incurred as soon as the test belt is manufactured and,
aside from the cost to actually make the belt, if it is to be a specially made belt, as they most
often are, then there is significant planning required so that the materials, which may be exotic,
are to hand and that the workers who will be making the belt have been properly briefed before
production begins. It is the Author’s experience that the manufacture of indentation rolling
resistance test belts will be attended by senior plant personnel whose presence is to ensure that
the belt is made properly. Simulations of indentation rolling resistance, on the other hand, are
inexpensive to run and do not cause manufacturing delays by disrupting a conveyor belt
production line and by diverting staff from other projects. All indentation rolling resistance
simulations still require material properties as inputs, like any finite element analysis, but these
can be generated from small experiments that can cost as little as a few thousand dollars to
conduct and which only require matchstick sized test pieces cut from small sheets of rubber that
can be made in a laboratory away from production equipment. An indentation rolling resistance

18
model and a set of rubber properties proven against an experiment conducted on a matching
conveyor belt has the ability to simulate the effect of variations in conveyor belt construction
using the same rubber property data over and over; while, to achieve the same thing from
physical experiments would require an entirely new, expensive, conveyor belt sample for each
design variation. Thus, the primary reason behind the development of a new indentation rolling
resistance model is to have the ability to predict the performance of a new conveyor belt which,
as was stated earlier, may not exist at the time of the belt conveyor’s design.

The ability of the indentation rolling resistance model to predict the performance of a conveyor
belt that does not exist also enables new possibilities. With a set of proven rubber properties
the indentation rolling resistance model can be used to optimize existing and new conveyor belt
designs. For instance: for existing designs the optimum position of the steel cords can be
determined by trialling different dimensions over many simulations; or for new designs, the
model can be expanded to find the effect, and best position, of secondary reinforcement layers
or the most efficient cord diameter and spacing. In the future, with faster computers, the
indentation rolling resistance model could also be expanded to model entire belts in a trough
configuration.

The following pages of this thesis will provide details of every aspect of the new three
dimensional indentation rolling resistance model and the experimental equipment that it is
compared against. Early chapters will be spent explaining the viscoelastic theory needed for
indentation rolling resistance prediction as well as how the theory is applied to finite element
analysis models and the derivation of the required rubber material properties. Later chapters
will provide a summary of earlier work on viscoelastic rolling contact models that the current
efforts are based upon and will also present details of the three dimensional finite element
analysis indentation rolling resistance model’s development. Two chapters are concerned with
the indentation rolling resistance experimental facilities and how measurements from that
experiment can be transformed into indentation rolling resistance results and used in the design
of a belt conveyor. The penultimate chapter will bring the experimental and numerical results
together to quantify the accuracy of the indentation rolling resistance modelling and to show
how the model may be utilized to model a range of other conveyor belt designs. The final
chapter will sum up the findings of the modelling and experimental work and provide details on
the work that could be carried out to advance the state of the art.

19
Ultimately it is hoped that the successful development of a three dimensional indentation rolling
resistance model for use with steel cord conveyor belts will provide the designers of long
conveyors with a better way to predict indentation rolling resistance so that they can confidently
develop less conservative designs, that can offer lower capital costs, or create more efficient
designs, that have lower running costs, for the same conveyed distance.

20
2 ASSUMPTIONS
In order to make the formation of the numerical analysis of indentation rolling resistance
possible the following assumptions were applied.

2.1 Material Homogeneity

On a molecular level rubber is constructed from randomly arranged and tangled long chain
molecules which cannot behave in an isotropic manner like, for instance, the regular crystalline
structure of steel. Moreover, rubber is manufactured from a number of materials that are mixed
together. However, here, it is assumed that the final rubber material found in a conveyor belt
is, on plus millimetre scale, homogenous and that orientation of the molecules is regular enough
that the material can be considered as being homogenous and isotropic.

2.2 Linearity

It is assumed that the deformations of the conveyor belt are small enough that they can be
effectively approximated as a linear elastic material and that a linear viscoelastic analysis is
suitable. It is also assumed that the linear assumptions used for the generation of the shear
relaxation data are still valid at the chosen test strain levels.

2.3 Initial Stress State

It is assumed that the elements at the start (in a time sense) of the domain covered by the finite
element analysis model are free from all stress and that the last stress application experienced
by those elements occurred at an early enough time that there is no material memory of the
event remaining.

2.4 Friction

When a conveyor belt comes into contact with an idler roll there will be sliding friction
resistances generated that will need to be overcome to keep the conveyor belt moving. It is
assumed that the magnitude of these friction forces is small enough in comparison to the
indentation rolling resistance forces that they can be ignored.

21
2.5 Loading

It is assumed that the entirety of the load that is applied to the conveyor belt is transferred to
the idler roll through the conveyor belt’s steel cords. Any additional effects of the load
positioned above the idler roll which transfers its weight through the top cover of the conveyor
belt is ignored. It is also assumed that, in the region of the idler roll, the conveyor belt is
sufficiently straight that it can be effectively represented by a straight model that neglects the
effects of belt flexure resistance.

2.6 Plane Strain

For all of the two dimensional indentation rolling resistance models it is assumed that the
conveyor belt strains in the axial direction of the idler roll are sufficiently small that plane strain
conditions are appropriate. The three dimensional model is not a plane strain model but
because boundary conditions applied to the sides of the model prevent sideways strains from
propagating across the conveyor belt, causing the average strain in that direction to be zero, the
three dimensional model is acting in a “plane strain” manner and “plane strain” like conditions
are still assumed.

22
3 CONSTITUTIVE RELATIONS
The normal method of solving linear viscoelastic problems involves finding an elastic solution to
a given problem, replacing the elastic material properties in the elastic solution with the Laplace
Transform of the viscoelastic material properties and then preforming an inverse Laplace
Transform on the modified elastic solution to obtain a viscoelastic solution. In the present
problem the changing nature of the boundary conditions for some of the elements of the
domain make this method impractical. Another possible method, which commences with the
same equations, relies on carrying out an integration instead of preforming the usually required
Laplace transform. The equations, which are the viscoelastic constitutive relations, are
convolution integrals that can be integrated to get a function of 𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 in terms of deviatoric strains
and shear moduli and a function of 𝜎𝜎𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 in terms of dilatory strains and bulk moduli. The
convenience of the equations that result from the integration is that measured relaxation
moduli can be used in them directly without the need to carry out a Laplace Transform on those
moduli – something that is difficult for all but unreasonably simple material models, Christensen
[17]. The difficulty with this method lies in the fact that the integration must be approximated
numerically; however, Lee and Rogers [18] have presented a method by which the integration
may be approximated using the finite difference method. Lynch [14] uses the method proposed
by Lee and Rogers in the derivation of the constitutive relations for the viscoelastic rolling
contact problem that he was studying and his method will be followed closely in the following
derivation.

3.1 Numerical Integration of the Viscoelastic Constitutive Equations

For the viscoelastic rolling contact problem, the appropriate constitutive equations for an
isotropic, isothermal and linear viscoelastic material are given by Christensen [17] as:

𝑡𝑡 𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 (𝜏𝜏)
𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = � 𝐺𝐺1 (𝑡𝑡 − 𝜏𝜏) 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 3.1
−∞ 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑

and

𝑡𝑡
𝑑𝑑𝜖𝜖𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 (𝜏𝜏)
𝜎𝜎𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 = � 𝐺𝐺2 (𝑡𝑡 − 𝜏𝜏) 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 3.2
−∞ 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑

where:

23
 1
𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 − 𝛿𝛿𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝜎𝜎𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
3

1
𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 𝜖𝜖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 − 𝛿𝛿𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝜖𝜖𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
3

Lynch uses the assumption that the viscoelastic material is entirely stress free at the beginning
of the simulation to remove the requirement that the stress strain history be known for the
entire past of the material; mathematically, this is achieved by changing the limits of integration.
In a rolling contact problem the viscoelastic material is regarded as flowing with reference to a
fixed coordinate system so Lynch adds the dependence of the stress strain history of a piece of
viscoelastic material on its position, 𝑥𝑥, as referenced to that coordinate system and obtains
Equations 3.3 and 3.4.

𝑡𝑡 𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 𝜏𝜏�

𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 𝑡𝑡� = � 𝐺𝐺1 (𝑡𝑡 − 𝜏𝜏) 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
0 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 3.3

𝑡𝑡
𝑑𝑑𝜖𝜖𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 �𝑥𝑥, 𝜏𝜏�
𝜎𝜎𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 �𝑥𝑥, 𝑡𝑡� = � 𝐺𝐺2 (𝑡𝑡 − 𝜏𝜏) 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 3.4
0 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑

𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥,𝜏𝜏�
Setting, for Equation 3.3, 𝑢𝑢 = 𝐺𝐺1 (𝑡𝑡 − 𝜏𝜏) and 𝑣𝑣 ′ = then integrating by parts, one obtains
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑

for the deviatoric components:

𝑡𝑡
𝐺𝐺1 (𝑡𝑡 − 𝜏𝜏)
𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 𝑡𝑡� = 𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 𝑡𝑡�𝐺𝐺1 (0) − 𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 0�𝐺𝐺1 (𝑡𝑡) − � 𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 𝜏𝜏� 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 3.5
0 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑

Due to the assumption that the initial state of the viscoelastic material is stress-free, the second
term in Equation 3.5 may be ignored in the current analysis. As per Lee and Rogers, [18], with
the time scale divided into small intervals 𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 where 𝑖𝑖 = 1, 2, 3 … … (𝑛𝑛 + 1) with 𝑡𝑡1 = 0 and
𝑡𝑡(𝑛𝑛+1) = 𝑡𝑡, Equation 3.5 becomes:

𝑡𝑡𝑛𝑛+1
𝐺𝐺1 (𝑡𝑡𝑛𝑛+1 − 𝜏𝜏)
𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 𝑡𝑡𝑛𝑛+1 � = 𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 𝑡𝑡𝑛𝑛+1 �𝐺𝐺1 (𝑡𝑡1 ) − � 𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 𝜏𝜏� 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 3.6
𝑡𝑡1 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑

Introducing finite time steps:

𝑛𝑛+1
𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖+1
𝐺𝐺1 (𝑡𝑡𝑛𝑛+1 − 𝜏𝜏)
𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 𝑡𝑡𝑛𝑛+1 � = 𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 𝑡𝑡𝑛𝑛+1 �𝐺𝐺1 (𝑡𝑡1 ) − � � 𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 𝜏𝜏� 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 3.7
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
𝑖𝑖=1 𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖

Then, using the second law of the mean as defined by Hildebrand [19], each integral in Equation
3.7 becomes:

24
 𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖+1 𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖+1
𝐺𝐺1 (𝑡𝑡𝑛𝑛+1 − 𝜏𝜏) 𝐺𝐺1 (𝑡𝑡𝑛𝑛+1 − 𝜏𝜏)
� 𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 𝜏𝜏� 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = 𝑓𝑓(𝜉𝜉) � 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 3.8
𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑

𝑓𝑓(𝜉𝜉) represents the height of a rectangle which is bounded by the 𝑡𝑡 axis on its bottom, the
vertical lines passing through 𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 � and 𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖+1 � on each of its sides and the horizontal
line passing through 𝑓𝑓(𝜉𝜉) at its top; the area of this rectangle needs to be the same as the area
under the curve 𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 𝜏𝜏� between 𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 � and 𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖+1 �. The area under the curve 𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 𝜏𝜏�
is approximated, as in Lee and Rogers, [18], by the trapezoidal rule with the number of segments
between 𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 � and 𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖+1 � being one. Thus:

1 �𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖+1 � − 𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 ��

𝑓𝑓(𝜉𝜉)�𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖+1 � − 𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 �� = �𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖+1 � + 𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 ��
2 1
1
𝑓𝑓(𝜉𝜉) = �𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖+1 � + 𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 �� 3.9
2

After making the required substitutions the integration of the remaining integral in Equation 3.7
becomes trivial and upon integrating yields:

𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 𝑡𝑡𝑛𝑛+1 � = 𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 𝑡𝑡𝑛𝑛+1 �𝐺𝐺1 (𝑡𝑡1 )

𝑚𝑚
1
− � �𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖+1 � + 𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 ��[𝐺𝐺1 (𝑡𝑡𝑛𝑛+1 − 𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖+1 ) 3.10
2
𝑖𝑖=1
− 𝐺𝐺1 (𝑡𝑡𝑛𝑛+1 − 𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 )]

By using an identical method to that used to obtain Equation 3.10, Equation 3.2 becomes:

𝜎𝜎𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 �𝑥𝑥, 𝑡𝑡𝑛𝑛+1 � = 𝜖𝜖𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 �𝑥𝑥, 𝑡𝑡𝑛𝑛+1 �𝐺𝐺2 (𝑡𝑡1 )

𝑛𝑛
1
− � �𝜖𝜖𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 �𝑥𝑥, 𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖+1 � + 𝜖𝜖𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 �𝑥𝑥, 𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 ��[𝐺𝐺2 (𝑡𝑡𝑛𝑛+1 − 𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖+1 ) 3.11
2
𝑖𝑖=1
− 𝐺𝐺2 (𝑡𝑡𝑛𝑛+1 − 𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 )]

With the development of Equations 3.10 and 3.11, the integration of Equations 3.3 and 3.4 is
complete. It now remains to manipulate Equations 3.10 and 3.11 so that they can be used in a
finite element analysis program.

3.2 Constitutive Relations for Finite Element Analysis Modelling

In a finite element analysis of the viscoelastic rolling contact problem the viscoelastic material is
regarded as flowing through a mesh of elements that are fixed in position with reference to the
global coordinate system; a possible rectangular element mesh for this type of finite element

25
analysis problem is shown in Figure 3.1 where the flow direction for the entire mesh is in the
direction shown. The work of Lynch [14], Wheeler [13] and the early modelling work of the
Author used a finite element analysis mesh that was constructed from triangle elements while
the later work of Author involved the use of rectangular elements but, while the intention for
this section is to focus on that work of Lynch which is relevant to the three dimensional
indentation rolling resistance model, it is beneficial to consider the work of Lynch in the form of
a rectangular mesh, rather than a triangle mesh, as it avoids unnecessary complications due to
the shape of a triangle that are irrelevant to the present discussion. In Figure 3.1 it can be seen
that the current calculations are being conducted on the last element, 𝑅𝑅, in the second control
strip. During previous time steps the material currently in the 𝑅𝑅 control volume has flowed
through all of the 𝐾𝐾n control volumes to its left and the strain state experienced in each one has
had some effect on the current state of the material in its location at the current time step. For
example, the material in the 𝑅𝑅 control volume was located in the 𝐾𝐾1 control volume nine time
steps prior to the current time and during its time in 𝐾𝐾1 the material experienced some state of
strain whose effects were stored and dissipated over each time step until the material arrives in
the 𝑅𝑅 control volume at the current time step. In the same way the same piece of viscoelastic
material passed through the 𝐾𝐾2 then 𝐾𝐾3 control volumes, and so on, while at each control
volume experiencing a strain state whose effects were stored and dissipated at each subsequent
time step until the current time. Thus, the strain history of the material in the current control
volume can be summed to find the current state of that material. Clearly control volumes nearer
to the current control volume will have more of an influence on the current state than control
volumes that exist further away due to there being less time to recover from the experienced
deformations. This is known as the fading memory hypothesis, Christensen [17], and is one of
the central ideas of a viscoelastic analysis. Calculating the effect of prior strain states on the
material in the last control volume is not the only calculation that must be carried out: for each
control strip the 𝑅𝑅 control volume must be located in every control volume in turn and, while
there, the strain history contributions from all of the elements to its left must be considered.
The analysis is conducted only for control volumes from the same row as, intuitively, it would
not make sense for material to swap between control strips as it flowed, left to right, through
the fixed element mesh.

26
 Control Strip 2
𝐾𝐾1 𝐾𝐾2 𝐾𝐾3 … Material Flow →
… 𝑅𝑅

Figure 3.1 Diagram of a finite element analysis mesh for a viscoelastic rolling contact problem.

In order to speed up the calculation process the relaxation data, 𝐺𝐺1 (𝑡𝑡) and 𝐺𝐺2 (𝑡𝑡), are provided
to the program in the form of a lookup table, which is read into an array, rather than as a
calculation. The calculation used to find 𝐺𝐺1 (𝑡𝑡) has a summation term with an upper index of the
order 20, for a 20 element Maxwell model, and the summand would require its own set of
lookup tables to provide the values for each coefficient as they are not some function of the
index value. In the same manner as used by Lynch, the correct position in the arrays for 𝐺𝐺1 (𝑡𝑡)
and 𝐺𝐺2 (𝑡𝑡) is determined by converting the distance 𝑑𝑑𝐾𝐾,𝑅𝑅 between the two elements, 𝐾𝐾 and 𝑅𝑅,
into a time measurement 𝑡𝑡𝐾𝐾,𝑅𝑅 by dividing the distance by the velocity, 𝑣𝑣, of the conveyor belt:
𝑡𝑡𝐾𝐾,𝑅𝑅 = 𝑑𝑑𝐾𝐾,𝑅𝑅 /𝑣𝑣; note that here 𝑡𝑡𝑅𝑅,𝑅𝑅 = 0. 𝑡𝑡𝐾𝐾,𝑅𝑅 is then converted into an index which relates
directly to a position in the 𝐺𝐺1 (𝑡𝑡) and 𝐺𝐺2 (𝑡𝑡) arrays by dividing the time 𝑡𝑡𝐾𝐾,𝑅𝑅 by the time
𝑡𝑡𝐾𝐾,𝑅𝑅
increment ∆𝜏𝜏 of the relaxation data and adding one: 𝑇𝑇𝐾𝐾,𝑅𝑅 = + 1; adding 1 is for convenience
∆𝜏𝜏

since arrays are most conveniently initialized with an index of 1 for their first entry rather than
zero. Note that 𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅,𝑅𝑅 now equals 1. Noting that the preceding calculations now take care of a
control volume’s position in a given control strip and also utilizing the substitutions proposed by
Lynch:

𝑠𝑠(𝑛𝑛 + 1) = 𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 𝑡𝑡𝑛𝑛+1 �

𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇𝑎𝑎,𝑏𝑏 � = 𝐺𝐺1 [𝑡𝑡𝑏𝑏 − 𝑡𝑡𝑎𝑎 ]

𝑒𝑒(𝑛𝑛 + 1) = 𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑥𝑥, 𝑡𝑡𝑛𝑛+1 �

Equation (9), for 𝑛𝑛 = 0, 1, 2, 3,4 and 𝑛𝑛 + 1, can now be written as:

𝑠𝑠(1) = 𝑒𝑒(1)𝐺𝐺1 (1)

𝑛𝑛 = 0
1 1 3.12
𝑛𝑛 = 1 𝑠𝑠(2) = 𝑒𝑒(2) � �𝐺𝐺1 (1) + 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇1,2 ��� − 𝑒𝑒(1) � �𝐺𝐺1 (1) − 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇1,2 ���
2 2

27
 1
𝑠𝑠(3) = 𝑒𝑒(3) � �𝐺𝐺1 (1) + 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇2,3 ���
2
1
− 𝑒𝑒(2) � �𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇3,3 � − 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇1,3 ���
𝑛𝑛 = 2 2
1
− 𝑒𝑒(1) � �𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇2,3 � − 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇1,3 ���
2

1
𝑠𝑠(4) = 𝑒𝑒(4) � �𝐺𝐺1 (1) + 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇3,4 ���
2
1
− 𝑒𝑒(3) � �𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇4,4 � − 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇2,4 ���
2
𝑛𝑛 = 3 1
− 𝑒𝑒(2) � �𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇3,4 � − 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇1,4 ���
2
1
− 𝑒𝑒(1) � �𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇2,4 � − 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇1,4 ���
2

1
𝑠𝑠(5) = 𝑒𝑒(5) � �𝐺𝐺1 (1) + 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇4,5 ���
2
1
− 𝑒𝑒(4) � �𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇5,5 � − 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇3,5 ���
2
1
𝑛𝑛 = 4 − 𝑒𝑒(3) � �𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇4,5 � − 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇2,5 ���
2
1
− 𝑒𝑒(2) � �𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇3,5 � − 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇1,5 ���
2
1
− 𝑒𝑒(1) � �𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇2,5 � − 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇1,5 ���
2
and for the general case:
1
𝑠𝑠(𝑛𝑛 + 1) = 𝑒𝑒(𝑛𝑛 + 1) � �𝐺𝐺1 (1) + 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛,𝑛𝑛+1 ���
2
1
− 𝑒𝑒(𝑛𝑛) � �𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+1,𝑛𝑛+1 � − 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛−1,𝑛𝑛+1 ���
2
1
− 𝑒𝑒(𝑛𝑛 − 1) � �𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛,𝑛𝑛+1 � − 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛−2,𝑛𝑛+1 ���
𝑛𝑛 = 𝑛𝑛 2 3.13
1
− 𝑒𝑒(𝑛𝑛 − 2) � �𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛−1,𝑛𝑛+1 � − 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛−3,𝑛𝑛+1 ���
2
⋮
1
−𝑒𝑒(1) � �𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇2,𝑛𝑛+1 � − 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇1,𝑛𝑛+1 ���
2

It should now be obvious how an equation similar to Equation 3.13 can be arrived at for the
dilation law beginning with Equation 3.11. The relationship of the 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇𝑎𝑎,𝑏𝑏 � terms to the shear
relaxation data is shown in Figure 3.2; the relationship of the 𝐺𝐺2 �𝑇𝑇𝑎𝑎,𝑏𝑏 � terms to the bulk
relaxation data is identical.

28
 Figure 3.2 The relationship of 𝑮𝑮𝟏𝟏 �𝑻𝑻𝒂𝒂,𝒃𝒃 � to the shear relaxation data 𝑮𝑮𝟏𝟏 (𝒕𝒕) [14].

In order to use Equation 3.13 and its dilation law equivalent in a finite element analysis
calculation, regardless of whether commercial or custom software is used, they must be
converted to a form that can be entered into each element’s elastic matrix. The equations
needed for the plane strain finite element indentation rolling resistance model will be provided
here; the extension of the analysis to three dimensions will be presented later.

3.3 Viscoelastic Plane Strain Elasticity Matrix

In his thesis, Lynch provides only the barest detail on how to transform Equation 3.13 so the
method used by Bland [20] will be followed instead. The simplest case, 𝑛𝑛 = 0, of Equations 3.12
and the dilation law equivalent are:

𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 𝐺𝐺1 𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖

3.14
𝜎𝜎𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 = 𝐺𝐺2 𝜖𝜖𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘

Substituting these two equations into the definition of the deviatoric strains, rearranging and
continuing with the required substitutions yields Equation 3.16:

1
𝜖𝜖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + 𝛿𝛿𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝜖𝜖𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
3 3.15

1 1
𝜖𝜖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + 𝛿𝛿 𝜎𝜎
𝐺𝐺1 3𝐺𝐺2 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘

1 1 1
𝜖𝜖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 − 𝛿𝛿𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝜎𝜎𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 + 𝛿𝛿 𝜎𝜎
𝐺𝐺1 3𝐺𝐺1 3𝐺𝐺2 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘

𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 1 1 1
𝜖𝜖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = − � − � 𝛿𝛿𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝜎𝜎𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 3.16
𝐺𝐺1 3 𝐺𝐺1 𝐺𝐺2

29
Choosing 𝑖𝑖 = 𝑗𝑗 = 1 and 𝑘𝑘 = 1, 2, 3 gives:

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
𝜖𝜖11 = 𝜎𝜎11 − � − � 𝜎𝜎11 − � − � 𝜎𝜎22 − � − � 𝜎𝜎33
𝐺𝐺1 3 𝐺𝐺1 𝐺𝐺2 3 𝐺𝐺1 𝐺𝐺2 3 𝐺𝐺1 𝐺𝐺2

3 1 1 1 1 1
𝜖𝜖11 = � − + � 𝜎𝜎11 − � − � (𝜎𝜎22 + 𝜎𝜎33 )
3𝐺𝐺1 3𝐺𝐺1 3𝐺𝐺2 3 𝐺𝐺1 𝐺𝐺2

1 2 1 1 1 1
𝜖𝜖11 = � + � 𝜎𝜎11 − � − � (𝜎𝜎22 + 𝜎𝜎33 ) 3.17
3 𝐺𝐺1 𝐺𝐺2 3 𝐺𝐺1 𝐺𝐺2

Equation 3.17 can be compared to Equation 3.18 which is the stress-strain relationship for an
elastic material derived from Hooke’s law. This results in Equation 3.19 for Young’s modulus
and Equation 3.20 for Poisson’s ratio.

1 𝜈𝜈
𝜖𝜖11 = 𝜎𝜎11 − (𝜎𝜎22 + 𝜎𝜎33 )
𝐸𝐸 𝐸𝐸 3.18

2 1 −1
𝐸𝐸 = 3 � + �
𝐺𝐺1 𝐺𝐺2 3.19

2 1 −1 1 1 1
𝜈𝜈 = 3 � + � � − �
𝐺𝐺1 𝐺𝐺2 3 𝐺𝐺1 𝐺𝐺2

𝐺𝐺2 − 𝐺𝐺1
𝜈𝜈 = 3.20
2𝐺𝐺2 + 𝐺𝐺1

The results given in Equation 3.19 and 3.20 are the viscoelastic equivalents of Young’s modulus
and Poisson’s ratio and they can be substituted directly into the elasticity matrix for an isotropic
material which may then be implemented directly into a finite element analysis program.

The elasticity matrix is commonly labelled as [E] and is different depending on the type of
analysis being conducted. The analysis being considered here is a 2 dimensional plane-strain
analysis for which Cook [21] gives the elasticity matrix as being:

1 − 𝜈𝜈 𝜈𝜈 0
𝐸𝐸 𝜈𝜈 1 − 𝜈𝜈 0
[E] = � (1 − 2𝜈𝜈)� 3.21
(1 + 𝜈𝜈)(1 − 2𝜈𝜈)
0 0
2

For the 9 cells in the [E] matrix there are only three different values that need to be found.
Taking, for example, [E11 ] and make the substitutions from Equations 3.19 and 3.20 yields:

30
 2 1 −1 𝐺𝐺 − 𝐺𝐺1
3� + � �1 − � 2 ��
𝐺𝐺1 𝐺𝐺2 2𝐺𝐺2 + 𝐺𝐺1
[E11 ] =
𝐺𝐺2 − 𝐺𝐺1 𝐺𝐺 − 𝐺𝐺1
�1 + � �� �1 − 2 � 2 ��
2𝐺𝐺2 + 𝐺𝐺1 2𝐺𝐺2 + 𝐺𝐺1

𝐺𝐺1 𝐺𝐺2 𝐺𝐺 + 2𝐺𝐺1

3� �� 2 �
2𝐺𝐺2 + 𝐺𝐺1 2𝐺𝐺2 + 𝐺𝐺1
[E11 ] =
3𝐺𝐺2 3𝐺𝐺1
� �� �
2𝐺𝐺2 + 𝐺𝐺1 2𝐺𝐺2 + 𝐺𝐺1

2 1
[E11 ] = [E22 ] = 𝐺𝐺1 + 𝐺𝐺2 3.22
3 3

If the same procedure is completed for [E12 ] and [E33 ] then Equations 3.23 and 3.24 are the
results respectively.

1 1
[𝐸𝐸12 ] = [𝐸𝐸21 ] = − 𝐺𝐺1 + 𝐺𝐺2
3 3 3.23

𝐺𝐺1
[𝐸𝐸33 ] = 3.24
2

If Equations 3.22, 3.23 and 3.24 are put back into matrix form, the result is Equation 3.25:

𝑎𝑎 𝑏𝑏 0
𝑏𝑏 𝑎𝑎 0
[E] = � 𝑎𝑎 − 𝑏𝑏� 3.25
0 0
2

where:

2 1
𝑎𝑎 = 𝐺𝐺1 + 𝐺𝐺2
3 3

1 1
𝑏𝑏 = − 𝐺𝐺1 + 𝐺𝐺2
3 3

The seemingly added complication involved in [E33 ] of Equation 3.25 is for programming
convenience and meant that a 1960s vintage computer would not have to waste memory on
transferring a third value between modules; it is also beneficial for the generalized version of
[E] where the inclusion of Equation 3.24 would require an additional three equations to be
derived as well. This analysis will continue to conducted in the same manner as shown in
Equation 3.25.

31
3.4 Time Dependant Viscoelastic Plane Strain Elasticity Matrix

The process of generalizing Equation 3.25, so that it may be used for any value of 𝑛𝑛, begins with
Equation 3.12, from which the very first case and the general case, given separately in Equation
3.13, need to be considered. For the general only the first four terms as well as the last term
are given. Now consider a section of viscoelastic material which is located in a particular control
volume of a particular control strip at the current time step; the deviatoric stress generated in
this section of viscoelastic material is represented by the first term in the general case of
Equation 3.13. If the viscoelastic material is flowing to the right then the second term in the
general case of Equation 3.13 represents the current effects of the deviatoric stress caused by
the strains experienced by the same piece of viscoelastic material when it was in the control
volume to the immediate left of its current position during the previous time step. The third
term in the general case of Equation 3.13 represents the effects of the deviatoric stress caused
by the strains experienced by the same piece of viscoelastic material when it was in the second
to the left control volume two time steps prior to the current time step and so on adding extra
terms as required. The last term in the general case of Equation 3.13 represents the effect of
the strains experienced by the same piece of viscoelastic material when it was in the control
volume of the first, or left most, element in the control strip. In this way the current properties
of a particular section of viscoelastic material is the sum of the decaying effects of the strains
that it experienced in every prior control volume. The 𝑛𝑛 = 0 case concerns only the first control
volume in each control strip and gives the deviatoric stress present in that part of the model
only.

If the general case of Equation 3.13 is rewritten in Equation 3.26, with the appropriate
substitutions of 𝐾𝐾 and 𝑅𝑅, it can be seen that there are only three variations of the terms that
are multiplied with the 𝑒𝑒 functions; these being: the first and last multiplier and all of the other
multipliers in between which, because of the change in value of 𝐾𝐾 for each one, are the same
regardless of the value of 𝑛𝑛.

1
𝑠𝑠(𝑅𝑅 = 𝑛𝑛 + 1) = 𝑒𝑒(𝐾𝐾 = 𝑛𝑛 + 1 = 𝑅𝑅) � �𝐺𝐺1 (1) + 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅−1,𝑅𝑅 ���
2
1
− 𝑒𝑒(𝐾𝐾 = 𝑛𝑛) � �𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇𝐾𝐾+1,𝑅𝑅 � + 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇𝐾𝐾−1,𝑅𝑅 ���
2
1 3.26
− 𝑒𝑒(𝐾𝐾 = 𝑛𝑛 − 1) � �𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇𝐾𝐾+1,𝑅𝑅 � + 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇𝐾𝐾−1,𝑅𝑅 ���
2
1
− 𝑒𝑒(𝐾𝐾 = 𝑛𝑛 − 2) � �𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇𝐾𝐾+1,𝑅𝑅 � + 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇𝐾𝐾−1,𝑅𝑅 ���
2
⋮

32
 1
−𝑒𝑒(𝑘𝑘 = 1) � �𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇2,𝑅𝑅 � − 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇1,𝑅𝑅 ���
2

Looking back to Equations 3.14 it can be seen that the two terms 𝐺𝐺1 and 𝐺𝐺2 are acting like moduli
between the deviatoric law’s stress and strain terms and the dilation law’s stress and strain
respectively. If the three relevant terms from Equation 3.26 and the 𝑛𝑛 = 0 case are taken then
rearranged to separate the modulus component from each term, then, for the deviatoric law:

𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
= 𝐺𝐺1 (1)
𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑗𝑗

𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 1
= �𝐺𝐺 (1) + 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅−1,𝑅𝑅 ��
𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 2 1

𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 1
= �𝐺𝐺 �𝑇𝑇 � + 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇𝐾𝐾−1,𝑅𝑅 ��
𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 2 1 𝐾𝐾+1,𝑅𝑅

𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 1
= �𝐺𝐺 �𝑇𝑇 � − 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇1,𝑅𝑅 ��
𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 2 1 2,𝑅𝑅

Similar equations can be derived for the dilation law. The general equations that would be
generated by substituting the first moduli above into the equations for 𝑎𝑎 are trivial and when
the same substitution is carried out for the three remaining moduli in an identical manner and
simplified the following four conditional terms for what is now 𝑎𝑎𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 result:

2 1
𝐺𝐺 (1) + 𝐺𝐺2 (1) 𝐾𝐾 = 𝑅𝑅 = 1
3 1 3
1 2 1 2 1
�� 𝐺𝐺1 (1) + 𝐺𝐺2 (1)� + � 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅−1,𝑅𝑅 � + 𝐺𝐺2 �𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅−1,𝑅𝑅 ��� 𝐾𝐾 = 𝑅𝑅 > 1
2 3 3 3 3
𝑎𝑎𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 1 2 1 2 1 3.27
− �� 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇2,𝑅𝑅 � + 𝐺𝐺2 �𝑇𝑇2,𝑅𝑅 �� − � 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇1,𝑅𝑅 � + 𝐺𝐺2 �𝑇𝑇1,𝑅𝑅 ��� 𝐾𝐾 = 1, 𝑅𝑅 > 1
2 3 3 3 3
1 2 1 2 1
− �� 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇𝐾𝐾+1,𝑅𝑅 � + 𝐺𝐺2 �𝑇𝑇𝐾𝐾+1,𝑅𝑅 �� − � 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇𝐾𝐾−1,𝑅𝑅 � + 𝐺𝐺2 �𝑇𝑇𝐾𝐾−1,𝑅𝑅 ��� 1 < 𝐾𝐾 < 𝑅𝑅
2 3 3 3 3

𝑎𝑎 has now been changed to 𝑎𝑎𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 because it now refers to the effect of element 𝐾𝐾 on element 𝑅𝑅;
2
and 𝑏𝑏 has been changed to 𝑏𝑏𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 , which is derived by replacing the “ 𝐺𝐺1 ” terms in Equation 3.27
3
1
with “− 𝐺𝐺1 ”, for the same reason. Unsurprisingly, when they are evaluated, 𝑎𝑎𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 and 𝑏𝑏𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 are
3

substituted into Equation 3.28 which is virtually identical to Equation 3.25.

𝑎𝑎𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑏𝑏𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 0
𝑏𝑏 𝑎𝑎𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 0
[E] = � 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 � 3.28
𝑎𝑎𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 − 𝑏𝑏𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
0 0
2

33
The generation of Equations 3.27 and 3.28 allows the entry of experimentally measured
relaxation data into finite element analysis indentation rolling resistance models.

3.5 Remarks

Up until this point in the development of the viscoelastic rolling contact problem, all of the
indentation rolling resistance models presented here use essentially the same method. In his
thesis, Lynch continues with a presentation of finite element analysis theory and how it may be
combined with the viscoelastic theory to solve viscoelastic rolling contact problems; however,
the Author was forced to develop a different method due to the requirements of finite element
analysis software. The new method, which combines the viscoelastic theory just presented with
finite element analysis software, will be presented in a later chapter.

34
4 MATERIAL PROPERTIES
In regards to the simulation of indentation rolling resistance, the scope of this thesis is limited
to presenting the development and verification of the three dimensional model and does not
include the development of the material properties that are required to complete the models.
However, the material properties are an important part of the modelling process and this thesis
would not be complete without at least a general discussion of the topic. For a more detailed
discussion of the process see Ward and Sweeny [22]. The material properties required for a
viscoelastic finite element analysis problem are not the normal Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s
Ratio inputs that are generally applied to a finite element analysis, instead, time dependant
shear relaxation and bulk relaxation moduli are needed.

4.1 Dynamic Mechanical Analysis

For many materials the relaxation moduli data may be found by subjecting a specimen of the
material to a desired level of strain and calculating the modulus of the material at regular time
intervals from measurements of the force required to maintain the level of strain. Relaxation
tests of this type are easy to set up and conduct for materials with long relaxation times – like
the polyvinyl butyral that Lynch studied – but, unfortunately, they are of no use for materials
with fast relaxation times like the rubber materials found in conveyor belts. Fast relaxation
times require a faster application of the test strain and the speed of the application causes the
specimen to vibrate at its natural frequency thus adding oscillations to the relaxation data that
renders it unusable. The method by which the rubber relaxation moduli is generated will now
be described, however, the discussion here is only intended to be brief and some of the
necessary steps will be glossed over or not mentioned at all.

To measure the relaxation properties of rubber, a machine called a dynamic mechanical

analyser, pictured in Figure 4.1, is used. A rubber specimen is clamped into the machine and is
oscillated from nearly zero strain to the desired strain level; two possible clamping arrangements
are shown in Figure 4.2. While the specimen is cycled the force and the strain magnitude are
continually monitored so that the peak stress level and phase difference between the two data
sets can be determined. The same test is repeated at a range of frequencies and the phase and
stress data from each test is used to calculate the storage and loss modulus for those conditions.
Unfortunately the maximum frequency of this type of test is around 50Hz – or lower for tests at
higher strain levels – but storage and loss data is needed for frequencies that are much higher.

35
To calculate the required information, the entire set of tests conducted at different frequencies
is repeated at selected temperatures from -60°C up to 60°C, depending on the material, and low
frequency data is converted to high frequency data through a process called a time-
temperature-transformation. The completed storage and loss moduli graph will look similar to
the blue and green lines shown in Figure 4.3 respectively. It should be noted that the y-axis is
presented in Figure 4.3 without any values deliberately. In academic presentations it is common
practice to include enough data for the reader to recreate the given results, however, the results
of the material property testing that was conducted for this thesis are proprietary knowledge
and may not be published in a form from which the actual data may be reproduced.

Figure 4.1 RSA G2 Dynamic Mechanical Analyser for measuring rubber relaxation properties.

36
 (a) (b)
Figure 4.2 Dynamic mechanical analyser specimen clamps. (a) Tensile test; (b) Dual cantilever
test.

Figure 4.3 A set of master curves for conveyor belt rubber with the Maxwell model response
for the two curves shown in black.

4.2 Maxwell Model

The next step in the process is to fit an analytical model to the storage and loss moduli which,
when relaxation data is required, is a Maxwell model. A generalized Maxwell model, with an
infinite number of elements, is shown in Figure 4.4, however, in practice only a finite number of
elements can be used and for these finite models the term generalized is dropped. The goal is
to define a Maxwell model that is able to reproduce the storage and loss moduli as closely as
possible by what can be thought of as conducting an imaginary experiment that is the same as
the physical experiment but in reality is fitting a pair of equations, that are derived from the

37
Maxell model, to the storage and loss moduli data by setting the spring and dashpot constants
to appropriate values. A Maxwell model always consists of a number of parallel Maxwell
elements – a single spring and dashpot arranged in series – and an additional spring as shown.
Better curve fits can be achieved with a greater number of Maxwell elements and to generate
the black curve fit lines shown in Figure 4.3, as well as all of the other rubber properties used in
this thesis, a Maxwell model consisting of 20 individual Maxwell elements and the additional
spring was used.

Parallel Spring Element Individual Maxwell Element

Figure 4.4 Generalized Maxwell rubber relaxation model.

4.3 Shear Relaxation Moduli

Once the Maxwell model has been fully defined, it can then be used to generate the rubber
relaxation data. This process can be thought of as conducting an imaginary experiment that
mimics the constant strain experiment that was discussed at the start of Section 4.1 and
measuring the response; in reality, a new equation based on the element properties of the
Maxwell model is derived and then used to calculate the relaxation moduli at the desired time
or range of times. The dynamic experiment from which the storage and loss moduli are
measured can be conducted with the rubber specimen strained in tension, compression,
shearing or bending. Of these, the most reliable are the tension and bending tests and of these
the tensile test uses the least input from the operator as the dynamic mechanical analyser can
automatically adjust itself when the specimen changes length due to thermal expansion; this
makes it the most suitable for unattended overnight operation and as a consequence the
relaxation data used here was derived from tensile tests. However, the relaxation data that is
generated from a tensile dynamic test is itself tensile relaxation data and must be converted to

38
the shear relaxation data that is required for the indentation rolling resistance models.
Fortunately, it can be shown that for an incompressible material, like rubber, the shear
relaxation data is equivalent to one third of the tensile relaxation data and, therefore, the final
step is to divide each data point of the tensile relaxation data by three to arrive, finally, at the
shear relaxation data. An example of a set of shear relaxation moduli conducted at different
test strains is shown in Figure 4.5

Figure 4.5 Shear relaxation curves for different strain levels.

4.4 Bulk Relaxation Modulus

The other material property that is required for the analysis is the bulk modulus. The bulk
modulus, like the shear modulus, is time dependant but it is almost impossible to measure. To
generate suitable bulk moduli data one can assume a constant Poisson’s ratio and use the shear
relaxation data with this assumption to generate time dependant bulk relaxation moduli as was
done by Batra Et. Al. [23] or, since the actual value of the bulk modulus has little effect on the
indentation rolling resistance values, a sufficiently large constant value can be chosen instead,
Lynch [14]. The latter is the path chosen by Lynch, Wheeler and the Author.

4.5 Remarks

A point about the forgoing procedure that cannot escape mention is that it is carried out with
the assumption that the material being analysed has a linear response to strain. The time-

39
temperature-transformation is valid for linear elastic materials; the Maxwell model is intended
for linear elastic materials because the main spring has a linear stiffness; the resulting relaxation
data is linear since the equation that describes it is not dependent on strain; and the final
transformation from tensile to shear relaxation data is intended for linear elastic materials.
However, at the strain levels reached in a typical conveyor belt rubber is not a linear elastic
material. One way to avoid some of the problems with applying an essentially linear procedure
to a nonlinear material is to test it at low strains where the material behaves in a linear elastic
manner. For rubber materials low strains are around 0.05% and it is at these levels that the best
agreement between the storage and loss moduli and the Maxwell model are found; however, it
can be shown that when conveyor belt is in operation the strains will reach higher levels, and
that if the initial dynamic experiment is conducted at a higher strain levels to reflect this then
the resulting relaxation data curve will be different. Figure 4.5 shows the relaxation curves that
result from dynamic tests conducted at higher strain levels and it can be seen that as the strain
level increases the magnitude of the relaxation modulus lowers. As a compromise, the
relaxation data that was used for most of the results discussed in this thesis was calculated from
a 2% strain dynamic experiment. It is thought that this level of strain is a good compromise
between the high and low strains present in an indented conveyor belt and it will be shown that
the results bear this theory out.

40
5 A REVIEW OF EARLY VISCOELASTIC FINITE ELEMENT
ANALYSIS ROLLING RESISTANCE MODELS
Lynch [14] appears to be the first to publish work concerning the use of finite element analysis
techniques on viscoelastic rolling contact problems. In the period prior to Lynch’s publication,
the solution of problems involving deforming viscoelastic bodies was complex and only possible
for simple geometries. For the rolling contact experiment, even with simplifications such as
assuming that the rolls were perfectly rigid and exploiting the horizontal symmetry of the
experiment, the change in boundary conditions experienced by a particle on the rolled surface
– which is initially free, then constrained to the roll’s surface and then free again – means that
these types of problem are not convenient enough to enable an analytical solution to be found.
To overcome the issues encountered with an analytical solution, Lynch turned to the relatively
new computer modelling tool known as finite element analysis and combined it with existing
viscoelastic techniques to solve the viscoelastic rolling contact problem.

Lynch presented his finite element analysis procedure for indentation rolling resistance type
problems in 1968. His goal was to develop a numerical process that could be used to determine
the reaction forces when a sheet of viscoelastic material is forced between a set of rolls.
Following on from Lynch’s work, Batra et al. [23] developed a finite element analysis method to
investigate the geometry of a layer of viscoelastic material bonded to a rigid roll that was being
indented by a second rigid roll which was rotating against it. Next came the work of Wheeler
[13], who developed a finite element analysis model, as part of his work studying the motion
resistances of conveyors, to predict the indentation rolling resistance of fabric reinforced
conveyor belt. Finally, before the development of a full three dimensional linear viscoelastic
indentation rolling resistance model was commenced, Wheeler and the Author, [25], produced
a hybrid three dimensional indentation rolling resistance model that combined results from a
static three dimensional finite element analysis with Wheeler’s previously developed
indentation rolling resistance model to make predictions with a process that took account of the
varying cover thickness and cover stresses present in steel cord conveyor belt.

5.1 A Finite Element Method of Viscoelastic Stress Analysis with Application to

Rolling Contact Problems

The title of this section is the title of a paper written by Francis deS. Lynch. As the title hints, the
paper provides the details of a method that can be used to study a sheet of viscoelastic material

41
rolling between a set of rigid parallel rolls with the primary results being the prediction of the
drive torque or, alternatively, the pulling force required to progress the sheet between the rolls.
It was intended for this work to be used for the calculation of reaction forces during the
development of rolling equipment that was designed to handle viscoelastic materials. As well
as setting out the general method, the paper also provides validation of the numerical results in
the form of experimental results from the process of rolling a sheet of polyvinyl butyral through
a fixed gap between two rolls in a small scale experiment. A diagram of Lynch’s experiment is
shown in Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1 A plan view of Lynch’s viscoelastic rolling contact problem [14].

Figure 5.2 is a depiction of the finite element analysis model that Lynch used to solve the physical
viscoelastic rolling contact problem that is given in Figure 5.1. The model is a two dimensional
plane strain mesh which is constructed from three node triangle elements. The mesh shown in
Figure 5.2 represents an area of undeformed viscoelastic material that is 1/2” long and 1/8”
thick or, roughly, 12mm by 3mm. The model exploits the symmetrical nature of the problem
and as such, with reference to Figure 5.2, the triangular mesh only covers an area from the
“central plane of symmetry” to the upper surface of the viscoelastic material. The upper roll is
not modelled along with the upper half of the viscoelastic material as its existence is implied by
boundary conditions which displace surface nodes of the mesh to form the curved profile of the
roll at the beginning of the solution. Modelling the roll in this manner means that it is assumed
to be rigid and since the stiffness of the roll is much greater than the stiffness of the viscoelastic

42
sheet this is a reasonable approximation. Because of symmetry, only the influence of the upper
roll is represented and its influence is effected by first moving the node labelled “10” in Figure
5.2 down by the distance of the indentation depth and then moving the surface nodes either
side of node 10 to the appropriate place to represent the arc of the roll that is in contact with
the viscoelastic material.

Figure 5.2 The finite element analysis mesh used to solve the problem depicted in Figure 5.1.

The generation of the shear relaxation modulus was comparatively easy for Lynch when
compared with the procedure outlined in Section 4, and this is one of the reasons why Lynch
chose to study polyvinyl butyral. The slow relaxation time of polyvinyl butyral, which is
measured in seconds, enabled the relaxation modulus to be measured directly from an
experiment. For the bulk relaxation data Lynch used a constant value that was simply higher
than a predetermined multiple of the shear relaxation data.

Lynch’s model is composed entirely of three node triangular elements which, today, are
commonly known as a constant strain triangle or CST elements due to their limitation of only
being able to represent a constant stress or strain level throughout their area. The constant
strain triangle was one of the first finite element analysis elements ever created and it has the
properties of being easy to implement and requiring short computation times because there is
no need for numerical integration in its formulation.

43
5.2 Rubber Covered Rolls – the Isothermal Viscoelastic Problem. A Finite Element
Solution

R. C. Batra et al. published their paper with the above title in 1974; in it they were investigating
the viscoelastic effects of a rigid roll indenting the rubber coating of another rigid roll. They used
an analysis procedure that was very similar to Lynch’s, however, they did make some changes:
they changed the problem’s geometry; the viscoelastic material was changed to rubber; the
mesh was larger and possessed different boundary conditions; and they used a different
approximation for the integration that is presented in Section 3.1. The particular geometry that
Batra et al. were analysing is shown in Figure 5.3. Most notably in Figure 5.3 it can be seen that
the viscoelastic domain is curved instead of being flat like Lynch’s cold rolling process; however,
despite the curvature, the small thickness of the rubber coating compared to the large radius of
the roller allowed the problem to be approximated as a flat surface with a finite element mesh
of constant strain triangles that was similar to Lynch’s. The mesh that Batra et al. created
differed from Lynch’s in that it no longer had a symmetrical boundary on its lower surface with
each node there now being fixed in place to represent the fixed nature of the bond between the
rubber coating and the rigid roll. Also changed for the new viscoelastic model was the
integration procedure which exchanged the trapezoidal rule that Lynch and Lee and Hunter [18]
used with a simpler rectangular integration procedure which simplified the system of four
viscoelastic equations into just two equations. As a side note, the rotation of the rubber coated
roll modelled by Batra et al. introduces a cyclic loading to the rubber, which, due, in part, to the
fortunate geometry of their problem, they were able to ignore. If they had determined that the
cyclic loading was important to the problem then their two equation viscoelastic model would
have been easier to apply since all elements in each row of the viscoelastic mesh are treated
equally; whereas, Lynch’s system of four viscoelastic equations assumes that there is a first –
unstressed – element in each row which is treated differently and which also has a different
effect on all subsequent elements.

Batra et al. were able to show that Lynch’s viscoelastic model could be applied to different
geometries, but, most importantly for the work of Wheeler and the Author that was to follow,
they were able to show that the method could be applied to viscoelastic materials, like rubber,
that have relaxation times which are several orders of magnitude faster than the polyvinyl
butyral that was studied by Lynch.

44
Figure 5.3 A schematic of the rolling contact scenario that was investigated by Batra et al. [23].
In the schematic the thickness of the viscoelastic layer is exaggerated [23].

5.3 Conveyor Belt Indentation Rolling Resistance

In 2003 Wheeler published his thesis titled Analysis of the Main Resistances of Belt Conveyors
[13] in which he detailed a method for predicting the indentation rolling resistance of fabric
reinforced conveyor belt that was based on Lynch’s viscoelastic finite element analysis method.
For part of his thesis, Wheeler rewrote Lynch’s code so that it was suitable for a modern Fortran
compiler and he also incorporated a number of changes to the model to make it more suitable
for use with conveyor belt indentation rolling resistance calculations. The particular geometry
that Wheeler was modelling is shown in Figure 5.4, where the typical asymmetric contact which
is formed as the belt rolls over the idler roll can be seen in an exaggerated state. It is worth
noting that the conveyor belt, as shown in Figure 5.4, is deflecting down on either side of the
contact area; this deflection is a result of the conveyor belt sagging between successive idler roll
sets on a belt conveyor and it is present in all instances of a conveyor belt rolling over an idler
roll. The deflected path of the belt is the cause of the conveyor motion resistance commonly
known as belt flexure resistance. Belt flexure resistance is a viscoelastic problem but since it is
a separate area of study it is not typically included in indentation rolling resistance calculations
which assume, as a simplification, that the conveyor belt will remain flat before, during and after
the contact area.

45
 Figure 5.4 A schematic of the indentation rolling resistance problem that was modelled by
Wheeler [13].

The principle change between Lynch’s and Wheeler’s analysis methods was a result of the fact
that in the case of conveyor belts it is the applied contact force that is known prior to the
simulation not the contact depth – which must be calculated as part of the simulation. Unlike
Lynch, who could specify the contact depth and then run the simulation, a user of Wheeler’s
program is required to enter the known contact force and a guess of the indentation depth that
will balance the force through internal strains. At the completion of the simulation the contact
force, based on the indentation depth guess, is calculated and depending on the result the
indentation depth is either reduced to lower the contact force; raised to increase the contact
force; or, if the contact force result is close to the known force, calculate the final indentation
rolling resistance friction force. In this way Wheeler’s program will iterate, changing the
indentation depth each time, until the desired force is achieved.

The other major change to Lynch’s procedure that Wheeler was able to achieve came about
from the developments in computer technology that had occurred since Lynch’s original paper.
But, instead of merely doubling the number of elements used in the viscoelastic mesh, Wheeler
was able to utilize meshes with up to 50 times more elements than Lynch could and, if computing
time was available, larger numbers of elements could have been used. Wheeler was also able
speed up his program by taking advantage of the large amounts of random access memory, or
RAM, that is available on modern computers and was not forced to store any problem variables
on tapes or hard drives. With the availability of more elements to create the finite element
mesh, Wheeler opted to use variable mesh densities rather than just using a finer mesh or a
longer model. A common finite element analysis technic is to use a fine mesh were strain
gradients are large and a coarse mesh where strain gradients are small or constant; this technic

46
provides a good compromise between model accuracy and the time to solve the model. In his
model, Wheeler, who was still confined to a mesh formed from horizontal rows of elements
where each row was still required to have the same number of elements per unit length – to
maintain element continuity, utilized thinner rows in the area nearest to the contact region and
wider rows away from the contact region; an example of the mesh used by Wheeler is shown in
Figure 5.5. Only part of the mesh is shown, however, the pattern is continuous for the entire
length of the model. The constant strain triangle elements in the finer rows on the contact side
of the model are intended to have an aspect ratio which helps them to be more accurate while
those further away, in the area of lesser interest, are allowed to have less beneficial stretched
shapes that can cover more area. It is interesting to note that the finer contact area elements
in Figure 5.5 are shown at the top of the model when in fact the contact area is under the
conveyor belt on a belt conveyor; the program that created the mesh incorporated large parts
of Wheeler’s work and as a result created the mesh in the same orientation that he used. The
mesh orientation has no bearing on the finite element analysis simulation and would not have
been immediately apparent to Wheeler since his program had no graphical output. It should be
noted that, while Wheeler’s decision to create an upside down model may have been influenced
by Lynch’s decision to model the upper symmetrical half of his experiment, Lynch entered the
nodal coordinates individually in an input file while Wheeler created an entirely new program
module that could create nodal coordinates parametrically based on the size of the domain that
was to be modelled and the required mesh density.

Figure 5.5 Viscoelastic finite element mesh model generated by the Author based on the work
of Wheeler.

For his viscoelastic simulations, Lynch was able to exploit the symmetrical nature of the
experiment that he was studying; Wheeler’s research, on the other hand, focused on fabric
reinforced conveyor belts which can be symmetrical but usually are not and, even with a
symmetrical conveyor belt, conveyor belt problems lack the second roll that would be needed
to create the symmetrical boundary conditions. Instead, Wheeler was able to use another

47
property of conveyor belts that would allow him to reduce the size of the problem. A cross
section drawing of fabric conveyor belt is shown in Figure 5.6 and, like the majority of conveyor
belts, has three distinct sections; the central section, the carcass, is always significantly stiffer in
the longitudinal direction of the conveyor belt then the two covers and it is assumed, as a result
of this property, that the carcass is able to disrupt the stresses formed in the pulley cover, by
the conveyor belt and idler roll contact, and prevent them from propagating through itself and
into the carry cover. This disruption, then, gives rise to the assumption that, in terms of
indentation rolling resistance, only the stresses and strains present in the pulley cover are
important and that only this cover needs to be modelled, thus significantly reducing the size of
the problem that needs to be solved.

←Carry Cover
←Carcass
←Pulley Cover
Only this section is modelled by Wheeler
Figure 5.6 A section of fabric reinforced conveyor belt showing the section that was modelled
by Wheeler.

With the requirement to model the carcass and the pulley cover of the conveyor belt now being
eliminated, there arises a requirement to approximate the existence of the other belt parts. This
can most simply be achieved by fixing all of the nodes residing along the cover to carcass
interface so that they keep that plane of the belt flat and also approximate the carcass as being
infinitely stiff in the axial direction of the belt; however, it turns out that this approximation
causes severe problems with the accuracy of the model. Wheeler’s model is constructed with
constant strain triangles which suffer from a well-known shear locking defect that is made worse
by rigidly fixing one edge of the model. To overcome this element defect Wheeler did not
restrain the carcase nodes in the horizontal direction and ultimately used the same flat and
friction free boundary conditions as Lynch did but, in his model, they no longer represented
symmetry.

5.4 Hybrid Three Dimensional Indentation Rolling Resistance Model

The very first attempt made by Wheeler and the Author to calculate the indentation rolling
resistance of steel cord conveyor belt was a hybrid model that used information from a static
three dimensional finite element analysis model in conjunction with Wheeler’s two dimensional
viscoelastic model, which was just described. For the hybrid indentation rolling resistance

48
calculation process, the static model’s purpose was to determine the load distribution that a
steel cord belt might apply to an idler roll. The resulting load distribution was divided into slices
and Wheeler’s model was used to calculate the indentation rolling resistance for each slice. The
individual results were then summed to generate an indentation rolling resistance value for the
full conveyor belt.

Figure 5.7 One of the static three dimensional finite element analysis models used in the
hybrid three dimensional indentation rolling resistance model.

The three dimension model used in the hybrid indentation rolling resistance process is shown in
Figure 5.7. The model was simply a static model that contained no viscoelastic information at
all – though it did utilize nonlinear rubber material properties and is the only model discussed
in this thesis that did so. The model shown consists of individual material properties for the
pulley cover (blue), the carcass rubber (red), the carry cover (green) and the steel cord (yellow).
The steel cord, which was not required to be flexible – and was, in fact, forced by the applied
boundary conditions to remain straight – was modelled as being solid steel. The static model
takes advantage of the symmetrical and repeating nature of conveyor belt construction and, as
such, only the smallest amount possible is modelled. The model used a series of links and
contact elements to imply the existence of a rigid idler roll and the load is applied along the

49
centre line of the cord which is also forced to remain horizontal. Each of the vertical sides of the
model was appropriately constrained according to its symmetrical and repeating nature. A
solution to the model, from Figure 5.7, is shown in Figure 5.8 with stress contours showing the
vertical stress distribution throughout the model. The model can be seen to be conforming to
the surface of the imaginary idler roll and the stress results show that there is a stress
concentration under the steel cord section. It can also be seen that the stresses present in the
top cover are low and that the stress contours propagate into the area between the cords. A
graph of the calculated load distribution is shown in Figure 5.9 where it can be seen that the
stress levels vary sinusoidally with the highest stress levels being found under the cord.

Figure 5.8 A solution of the static steel cord conveyor belt model showing stress contours and
actual displacements.

The two sets of data in Figure 5.9 show the cover stress results that were found by applying the
same load to the conveyor belt model in different ways; the data set “Top Cover Load” was
found by distributing the applied load across the top surface of the model; while the data set
“Cord Load” was found by applying the same load to the centre line of the steel cord section of
the model. The static conveyor belt model predicted a 5% increase in the pulley cover stress
levels when the load was applied to the cord compared to when the load was applied to the top
of the carry cover. This has potential implications for how indentation rolling resistance

50
experiments are conducted on steel cord conveyor belts and may mean that applying the test
idler roll load through the carry cover of the test belt would produce different results when
compared to the conveyor belt on a belt conveyor which transfers the load to the idler roll
primarily through its cords.

-0.4
Brick Stress: YY at Nodes (MPa)

-0.5
Top
Cover
Load
-0.6
Cord
Load
-0.7

-0.8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Distance from Cord Centre (mm)

Figure 5.9 A graph of the load distribution transmitted from the belt model to the implied
conveyor idler roll.

Of all of the finite element analysis models presented in this thesis, the hybrid indentation rolling
resistance model is the only one that has a static component that is comparable to reality and
which is thus comparable to experimental measurements gathered under the same conditions
as those of the finite element analysis model. In contrast, all of the Author’s later indentation
rolling resistance models possess a static component, however, this is a requirement of the
mathematics that allows the use of finite element analysis software and the resulting static
solution actually bears no resemblance to anything that may be experimentally measured. So,
since a useful comparison between finite element analysis results and experimental
measurements could be made for the hybrid model, contact area surface pressure
measurement experiments were undertaken to validate the finite element analysis. Surface
pressures were measured using a Tekscan™ pressure measurement system and the pressure
measurement sensor pad shown in Figure 5.10. Each pressure pad consists of two thin, flexible,
polyester sheets which have electrodes, distributed in a 2 inch square pattern, between them –
this creates and grid of pressure sensitive cells, known as “sensels”, with a 1.27mm pitch in each
direction that enable measurement of the two dimensional pressure distribution between two
surfaces. To measure the contact pressure between the conveyor belt and the idler roll, the
Tekscan sensor was placed between the idler roll and the belt surface and a load applied. The

51
pressure acting on each “sensel” in the contact area was then recorded. It should be observed
that the experimental setup was comparable to the finite element analysis model with the load
applied to the top surface of the conveyor belt rather than the centre of the steel cord.

(a) Tekscan™ pressure pad. (b) Experimental setup.

Figure 5.10 Experimental pressure measurement.

Figure 5.11 demonstrates typical output from the testing program and shows the peak pressure
along the centreline of a Ø127mm idler roll under a simulated load of 5kN/m. Good agreement
between the experimental and finite element analysis results was found, while the frequency of
the peak pressures directly above the cords correlate well with the theoretical analysis. Tests
were undertaken for a number of idler roll diameters for a range of loading conditions, with
experimental results comparing favourably with the finite element analysis predictions.

800

750

700
Pressure (kPa)

650

600
Tekscan
550
FEA
500

450

400 Cord
0 12 24 36
Distance (mm)

Figure 5.11 A comparison of experimental and finite element analysis surface pressures.

52
To compute the indentation rolling resistance results with the hybrid model, the data in Figure
5.9 is converted to a force for each 0.25mm width of belt. The thickness of each slice– which is
dependent on whether it lies under a cord or between them – and its applied load was entered
into Wheeler’s indentation rolling resistance program, along with the appropriate relaxation
data for the conveyor belt cover. The indentation rolling resistance contribution for each slice
was then summed to predict an overall indentation rolling resistance value for that type of
conveyor belt. Some of the results generated with the hybrid model are shown in Figure 5.12;
as expected, the “Uniform Cover” thickness results predict the lowest indentation rolling
resistance and the other results increase as the thickness of the carcass increases due to the
increasing cable diameter.

90

80
Indentation Rolling Resistance (N/m)

70

60
Ø3.6mm Cable
50 Ø5.2mm Cable
Ø7.0mm Cable
40
Uniform Cover

30

20

10

0
4 5 6 7
Bottom Cover Thickness (mm)

Figure 5.12 A set of results from the 2D-3D hybrid indentation rolling resistance model [24].

The hybrid indentation rolling resistance analysis process seemed to produce reasonable results
which showed that a basic application of the two dimensional plane strain model, with uniform
cover thickness, would underestimate the indentation rolling resistance of steel cord conveyor
belts. Subsequent investigation of the finite element analysis stress results indicated that
stressed rubber could be found throughout the thickness of the carcass section – see Figure 5.8
– and it was theorized that the two dimensional model produced low results because it did not
include the effects of the stressed areas between the cords. Based on this theory, it was
proposed that two dimensional indentation rolling resistance programs could be used to

53
approximate the indentation rolling resistance for steel cord belts, without following the lengthy
process of the hybrid model, provided that half of the cord diameter, or, equivalently, half of
the carcass thickness was added to the thickness of the pulley cover. At a later date, and with a
new two dimensional indentation rolling resistance model, the Author, [25], showed that this
technique provided a good improvement in the accuracy of predicted results when compared
to experimental indentation rolling resistance results for steel cord conveyor belt.

5.5 Remarks

That Lynch was able to successfully develop a solution for a linear viscoelastic rolling contact
problem is remarkable given that the original development of a procedure that the modern
reader would recognize as the finite element method only occurred, as was stated earlier, in the
early to mid-1950s and that the first finite element analysis text book, which was authored by
Zienkiewicz and Cheung, became available in 1967, Zienkiewicz [26] – just one year prior to
Lynch conducting his work.

The various models described in this chapter showed that the linear viscoelastic method that
was first described by Lynch was useful for a range of applications and, in particular, Wheeler
was able to modify the method so that it could be applied to conveyor belt indentation rolling
resistance prediction. The results found using the hybrid indentation rolling resistance model
showed that the uniform cover thickness that is implied in all two dimensional plane strain
model types was not sufficient for direct analysis of steel cord conveyor belt and that further
investigation was warranted into the production of a proper three dimensional linear
viscoelastic indentation rolling resistance model which could be applied directly to steel cord
conveyor belt.

54
6 APPLICATION OF THE VISCOELASTIC THEORY TO
COMMERCIAL FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS SOFTWARE
The basic theory of the finite element analysis method has been widely presented in many texts,
with Cook, [21], and Zienkiewicz, [27], being prominent examples, and it is not the purpose of
this thesis to repeat this presentation. It is also fortunate, through the employment of finite
element analysis software, that much of the mathematics required to carry out the pre-
processing, solving and post-processing of a finite element models need not be discussed either;
so, there is no need to present items such as global stiffness matrix assembly and methods that
may be used to find its solution and also how results like element strains or nodal reactions may
be extracted once a solution has been found. However, the presentation of some finite element
analysis processes cannot be avoided since some of them need to be understood in order to
carry out the viscoelastic part of the indentation rolling resistance analysis which, as will be
explained later, cannot be conducted by finite element analysis software and must be
programmed by the analyst instead. Thus since the finite element analysis techniques required
for the viscoelastic components cannot be hidden within third party software it becomes
necessary that the calculations for the linear viscoelastic analysis should be presented.

In Chapter 3, the working necessary to develop a method by which measured relaxation data
for a viscoelastic material could be transformed into a form that is suitable for incorporation
into a finite element analysis model or program was given; none of the information presented
there was novel and was, as noted, the work of other researchers. It can be said, though, that
the details of the necessary steps that are provided by Lynch [14], especially regarding how
Equations 3.13 can be entered into the elasticity matrix are brief at best and that what is
provided in this thesis is a detailed account of all of the required steps; it should also be noted
that the method given by Lynch is not unique and can be varied, for example see Batra et al.,
[23]. Up until the current state of the presentation, the theory used by Lynch and the Author
are identical, but from this point forward the methods diverge. Lynch carries on with the
construction of a global stiffness matrix, in the normal manner, which incorporates all of the
viscoelastic elasticity matrices derived from the required permutations of 𝐾𝐾 and 𝑅𝑅 and, after the
force vector is produced and the equations are solved, the nodal displacements are determined
and the required post processing is carried out to gain the results of practical interest. The
Author, on the other hand, never constructs a stiffness matrix but, rather, manipulates the
elasticity matrices that are calculated from 𝐾𝐾 and 𝑅𝑅 and uses the new results as material
properties and boundary conditions for entry into a finite element analysis software package

55
within which the solving and post processing are then carried out. The following pages will
provide the required details that show how the viscoelastic elasticity matrices can be
manipulated and entered into finite element analysis software.

In that which follows, slightly different notation to that given by Lynch will be used in order to
be closer to modern finite element analysis notation. The elasticity matrix that Lynch denotes
with the symbol 𝐵𝐵𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 will become [E]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 ; the matrix that Lynch refers to as 𝐴𝐴𝐽𝐽 will become [B]𝐾𝐾 ;
the nodal displacements 𝜌𝜌 of an element will become the vector {d}; and the nodal forces 𝑝𝑝 of

an element will become the vector {f}. As before, it is helpful to think of the finite element
analysis mesh as horizontal rows of control volumes along which the material flows such that a
volume of material can be in control volume 𝐾𝐾 at time 𝑗𝑗 then travel, or flow, to control volume
𝑅𝑅 and arrive there at time 𝑘𝑘, taking 𝑘𝑘 − 𝑗𝑗 seconds to get there.

6.1 Material Properties

The chief difficulty with combining Lynch’s method and finite element analysis software is that
it is not possible to enter the individual terms that populate the global stiffness matrix directly
as the global stiffness matrix is constructed in the software from a combination of material
properties, element connections, element types, the position of the nodes and so on and cannot
be directly modified by the user. So, some other way is needed to convert the viscoelastic
calculations into a form that can be accepted by the finite element analysis software. It so
happens that the material properties required for the finite element analysis modelling of the
Author can be found from the element elasticity matrix that was developed previously.

In a review of the conditional equations that are used to populate the element elasticity matrices
– reproduced here in Equation 6.1 – it can be seen that the four equations can be divided into
two groups based on the possible values of 𝐾𝐾 and 𝑅𝑅: the first two equations are used when 𝐾𝐾
and 𝑅𝑅 are the same number; and the last two equations are used when 𝐾𝐾 and 𝑅𝑅 are different.
For a model that is to be solved with finite element analysis software, the equations where 𝐾𝐾
and 𝑅𝑅 are equal are used to provide the material properties. For the first element in each control
strip the first conditional equation is used to provide the non-zero terms for its [E] matrix, then
in the finite element analysis software the material properties are set to anisotropic and the
values calculated for [E] are substituted directly into the anisotropic material matrix. The
material properties for the remaining elements in each control strip are found in the same way,
however, for these elements the second conditional equation is used. It should be noted that

56
although each material property is set to anisotropic within the finite element analysis software,
the material properties that are used are actually isotropic. In this case, the anisotropic material
property is being used in the general sense – allowing the user to enter any desired material
property – and, while other methods exist for entering isotropic material properties into the
software, the use of the anisotropic material property type allows the conveyor belt material
properties to be directly entered into the software without any further modifications to the
parameters.

2 1
𝐺𝐺1 (1) + 𝐺𝐺2 (1) 𝐾𝐾 = 𝑅𝑅 = 1
3 3
1 2 1 2 1
�� 𝐺𝐺 (1) + 𝐺𝐺2 (1)� + � 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅−1,𝑅𝑅 � + 𝐺𝐺2 �𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅−1,𝑅𝑅 ��� 𝐾𝐾 = 𝑅𝑅 > 1
2 3 1 3 3 3
𝑎𝑎𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 1 2 1 2 1 6.1
− �� 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇2,𝑅𝑅 � + 𝐺𝐺2 �𝑇𝑇2,𝑅𝑅 �� − � 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇1,𝑅𝑅 � + 𝐺𝐺2 �𝑇𝑇1,𝑅𝑅 ��� 𝐾𝐾 = 1, 𝑅𝑅 > 1
2 3 3 3 3
1 2 1 2 1
− �� 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇𝐾𝐾+1,𝑅𝑅 � + 𝐺𝐺2 �𝑇𝑇𝐾𝐾+1,𝑅𝑅 �� − � 𝐺𝐺1 �𝑇𝑇𝐾𝐾−1,𝑅𝑅 � + 𝐺𝐺2 �𝑇𝑇𝐾𝐾−1,𝑅𝑅 ��� 1 < 𝐾𝐾 < 𝑅𝑅
2 3 3 3 3

2 1
𝑏𝑏𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 is obtained by replacing all 𝐺𝐺1 terms with − 𝐺𝐺1 .
3 3

6.2 Viscoelastic Memory Material Properties

The third and fourth conditional equations in Equation 6.1 are used to determine the viscoelastic
memory effects on the model. These equations produce more [E] matrices but unlike in the
case of the first two conditional equation’s matrices these matrices cannot be substituted
directly into the finite element analysis software, in the same manner as a material property
and, therefore, some other way of implementing their effect needs to be found. What follows
is the method by which the information contained in the viscoelastic memory [E] matrices can
be transformed into forces that can be applied to the element nodes and thereby allow the
model to behave as though it was made from a viscoelastic material. The convenience of this
method lies in the fact that the viscoelastic memory nodal forces can be input into the finite
element analysis software model with no difficulty at all.

The third conditional equation provides the relationship between the first element in each
control strip and the subsequent 2 to 𝑛𝑛 elements along the same strip; the fourth conditional
equation provides the relationship between each element in a control strip and all prior
elements in the same control strip except for the first element. In this way there is one
viscoelastic memory matrix for the second element in a control strip; there are two viscoelastic

57
memory matrices for the third element; and so on such that each element has 𝑛𝑛 − 1 viscoelastic
memory matrices – with 𝑛𝑛 being the element’s number along a control strip.

As has already been stated, there is no way that the viscoelastic memory matrices can be input
directly into finite element analysis software and there is no way that the element stiffness
matrix calculated from a viscoelasticity memory matrix can be entered either. Normally an
element stiffness matrix, belonging to a particular element, relates the nodal forces and nodal
displacements of the same element and in such a case it would be a simple matter of creating
an element in the model and adding the required nodal forces. In this case, what is called a
viscoelastic memory element, which belongs to a certain control volume or modelled element,
effectively relates the nodal forces of that element to the nodal displacements of an unrelated
element. Thus, while the viscoelastic memory element’s stiffness matrix can be distributed in a
model’s global stiffness matrix of a custom programmed finite element analysis program like
those programmed by Lynch or Wheeler [13], in setting up the same problem in finite element
analysis software another way of incorporating the viscoelastic history needs to be found. One
way that this can be achieved is to calculate the forces that the viscoelastic memory element
would apply to the structure and apply them to the appropriate nodes of the element 𝑅𝑅.
Equation 6.2 provides a means to calculate the forces that an ordinary strained structural
element will apply to a structure; with the addition of the appropriate viscoelastic
considerations, Equation 6.2 becomes Equation 6.3 where {f}𝑅𝑅(𝑛𝑛) is the vector of forces that
need to be applied to element 𝑅𝑅 in the current iteration, 𝑛𝑛, and {d}𝐾𝐾(𝑛𝑛−1) is the vector of
displacements experienced by element 𝐾𝐾 in the previous iteration, 𝑛𝑛 − 1. [K]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 is the stiffness
matrix for the imaginary viscoelastic memory element which relates the force and displacement
vectors of elements 𝑅𝑅 and 𝐾𝐾 respectively.

{F} = −[k]{d}
6.2
{f}𝑅𝑅(𝑛𝑛) = −[k]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 {d}𝐾𝐾(𝑛𝑛−1) 6.3

Upon calculating the force vector that acts on element 𝑅𝑅, it cannot be applied immediately. The
finite element analysis software used to solve this problem does not allow forces to be added to
forces that are already applied to a given node but will instead delete the previously applied
forces and apply the new ones in their place. Because of this, it is impossible to apply forces
generated each time Equation 6.3 is calculated as the forces applied to 𝑅𝑅 due to 𝐾𝐾 will be
overwritten by the forces subsequently applied to 𝑅𝑅 due to 𝐾𝐾 + 1; and so on. Not only this, but
the forces applied to 𝑅𝑅 + 1 will overwrite any common nodes connecting 𝑅𝑅 and 𝑅𝑅 + 1. The

58
same problem will also occur when the forces applied to 𝑅𝑅𝑛𝑛 of one control strip will be deleted
on the connecting nodes when the forces for 𝑅𝑅𝑛𝑛 of the next control strip are calculated and
applied. To overcome this problem, all of the viscoelastic memory forces need to be calculated
by the calling program for every element in the model and, as they are found, added to an array
which has a row for every node in the model and a column for every degree of freedom. The
complete summation that is required for each element is given in Equation 6.4 where the
number of elements in each control strip is 𝑛𝑛 and 𝑝𝑝 is the number of control strips. 𝑅𝑅 begins at
2 because 𝑅𝑅 = 1 has already been accounted for, as described earlier, and 𝐾𝐾 is only summed to
𝑅𝑅 − 1 as the case where 𝐾𝐾 = 𝑅𝑅 was also taken care of previously.

𝑝𝑝 𝑛𝑛 𝑅𝑅−1

{F}(𝑛𝑛) = � � � −[k]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 {d}𝐾𝐾(𝑛𝑛−1) 6.4

𝑖𝑖=1 𝑅𝑅=2 𝐾𝐾=1

The major disadvantages of applying the viscoelastic history in this way is that a large number
of calculations are implied by Equation 6.4 and that it requires multiple tries at solving the model
to converge on the solution as the required displacements, for the multiplying operation, must
come from the previous iteration of the solution. The iterations have only converged when the
results of the latest iteration are identical to the previous one to within a desired number of
decimal places. Of course, this difficulty is offset by the option to examine the model in the
feature rich post processing environment and the fast, efficient, solvers that are supplied with
finite element analysis software.

Every version of the finite element analysis viscoelastic rolling contact problem created by the
Author uses the forgoing procedure to apply the viscoelastic material properties and viscoelastic
history to its respective model. Using finite element analysis software to carry out the
calculations has reduced the complexity of the problem – particularly in the post processing of
the solution; however, some finite element analysis theory is still required to understand the
process of forming the [𝑘𝑘]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 matrix for each viscoelastic history element, as it is still necessary
to program this part by hand. Following on from here will be a description of the calculations
required to form the [𝑘𝑘]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 matrices for the different types of models implemented.

59
6.3 Formulation of the Viscoelastic History Stiffness Matrices

The application of finite element analysis software to the viscoelastic rolling contact problem
was carried out using three different model types. The first model type used was the constant
strain triangle and was essentially a replica of Wheeler’s indentation rolling resistance model,
the second model used bilinear rectangles instead of triangles but kept the plane strain
conditions. The formulation of the [k]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 matrix for the bilinear rectangle element is much more
difficult and, as such, a detailed explanation of the processes required to form the stiffness
matrix for this element will be presented. The third model studied was the full three
dimensional model which utilizes the trilinear hexahedron element type for which the equations
required to form the [k]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 matrix will be presented, however, there is no need to dwell on its
formulation for long as the method is practically identical to that of the bilinear rectangle but
for the addition of the extra dimension.

Element Stiffness Matrix for the Constant Strain Triangle

The model constructed from constant strain triangles is the simplest form of all the viscoelastic
models used by the Author. The models of Lynch [14], Batra et al. [23] and Wheeler [13] are all
of this type. The simplicity of the constant strain triangle model lies in the fact that the
derivatives of the three shape functions for the constant strain triangle are all constants which
means that the element stiffness matrix for each triangle can be generated from a set of
equations, that can be found in any finite element analysis text book, which are the same for
any such element regardless of its aspect ratios or orientation. Since the matrix [k]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 in the
viscoelastic rolling contact problem is analogous to the element stiffness matrix of a structural
problem then it also benefits from the same ease of use.

In the formulation of the most basic model for a constant strain triangle the usual method is to
show a triangle in an 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 coordinate system, then proceed to derive the three shape functions,
based on the coordinates of the triangle’s corners, and then use them to develop a stiffness
matrix for that element. Usually, in the development of the element shape functions, the
element will be placed on the coordinate axis in a convenient location – perhaps centred about
the origin or with a node at the origin and one or more sides aligned with the axes – in order to
make the derivation of the shape functions more convenient; however, the penalty for this
method is that the derived shape functions will not be suitable unless each element in a model
is the same shape and orientation. Obviously a continuous model cannot be discretised with
triangles which all have the same shape and orientation and so to develop the element stiffness

60
matrices of a model discretised with triangles of random shapes and orientations a new set of
shape functions is required for each individual element. The computational effort that is
required to generate shape functions is not trivial and a preferred method is to map each
element in turn to a new coordinate system so that the same set of shape functions can be used
for every element in the model. Shape functions with this property are derived from mapped
elements which are also known as isoparametric elements, Cook [21].

An isoparametric constant strain triangle in 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 space is shown in Figure 6.1 with its reference
coordinates also being given there; every triangle from a model in 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 space is mapped to this
element and its three associated shape functions, given in Equation 6.5. The proof of the
mathematics which relates the triangle in 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 space to the triangle in 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 space is complex and
will not be given here. In the case of constant strain triangles it is not really necessary to provide
any further information regarding mapped elements and 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 coordinates as the equations and
procedures required to form the stiffness matrix of a constant strain triangle can simply be given
and no explanation of 𝑟𝑟 or 𝑠𝑠 is required since the equations are not functions of 𝑟𝑟 or 𝑠𝑠.

Figure 6.1 A three node constant strain triangle mapped into 𝒓𝒓𝒔𝒔 space [21].

𝑁𝑁1 = 1 − 𝑟𝑟 − 𝑠𝑠, 𝑁𝑁2 = 𝑟𝑟 and 𝑁𝑁3 = 𝑠𝑠 6.5

The equation for forming a normal element’s stiffness matrix [k] as given by Cook [21] is:

[k] = �[B]𝑇𝑇 [E][B] 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 6.6

Where [E] is the elasticity matrix, 𝑡𝑡 is the thickness of the element and 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 relates to the area of
the element. The [B] matrix, for most elements, is determined with a complex algorithm;
however, for a three node constant strain triangle the [B] matrix is simply given by Equation 6.7
and needs to be formed only once for each element – note the lack of any dependence on 𝑟𝑟 or
𝑠𝑠, since, as was stated earlier, the first derivatives of the shape functions are always constants
regardless of whether the differentiation is carried out with respect to 𝑟𝑟 or 𝑠𝑠.

61
 1 𝑦𝑦23 0 𝑦𝑦31 0 𝑦𝑦12 0
[B] = � 0 𝑥𝑥32 0 𝑥𝑥13 0 𝑥𝑥21 � 6.7
2𝐴𝐴 𝑥𝑥 𝑦𝑦23 𝑥𝑥13 𝑦𝑦31 𝑥𝑥21 𝑦𝑦12
32

In Equation 6.7, 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 − 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 and 𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖 − 𝑦𝑦𝑗𝑗 , where 𝑥𝑥 and 𝑦𝑦 are the nodal coordinates of the
1
element; 𝐴𝐴 is the area of the element and may be determined by 𝐴𝐴 = (𝑥𝑥21 𝑦𝑦31 − 𝑥𝑥31 𝑦𝑦21 ),
2
1
where the 𝑥𝑥 and 𝑦𝑦 terms have the same meaning as for Equation 6.7 and the will readily cancel
2

with the 2. Equation 6.7 is the general formulation of the [B] matrix for a three node constant
strain triangle and may be used on any constant strain triangle element regardless of its shape
or orientation, though, the usual rules regarding the practical limits of an element’s aspect ratio
must still be adhered to. Also, for Equation 6.7 to return appropriate results, the node numbers
of the triangle, 𝑖𝑖 = 1,2,3 must be assigned in an anti-clockwise direction around the triangle.

Noting that [E] – which becomes [E]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 and which was derived earlier – does not vary at any
point within each individual element and is thus constant, and that for a plane strain analysis
the element thickness is always 1, and since [B] – which becomes [B]𝐾𝐾 – is not a function of the
𝑟𝑟 or 𝑠𝑠 coordinates, Equation 6.6 can be reduced to:

[k]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = [B]𝐾𝐾 𝑇𝑇 [E]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 [B]𝐾𝐾 � 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 6.8

𝐴𝐴𝐾𝐾

Using the Gauss quadrature procedures for triangles – with a degree-of-precision of 1 – the
integral ∫𝐴𝐴 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 can be shown to be equal to 𝐴𝐴𝐾𝐾 , Cook [21]. This results in the final equation for
𝐾𝐾

[k]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 :

[k]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = [B]𝐾𝐾 𝑇𝑇 [E]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 [B]𝐾𝐾 𝐴𝐴𝐾𝐾 6.9

The matrix [B]𝑅𝑅 is calculated in exactly the same way as [B] in Equation 6.7 with the 𝐾𝐾
symbolizing the particular element along the control strip to which [B] belongs. The area 𝐴𝐴𝐾𝐾
also relates to the 𝐾𝐾th element along a control strip. Once [k]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 is formed for an element it can
be used in the calculation of the viscoelastic history forces as described earlier.

By way of explanation of burdening the reader at this point with information regarding 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟
coordinates and mapping and such – which was not strictly necessary – it is intended to show
that despite the simple appearance of the mathematics involved in forming the stiffness matrix
of a constant strain triangle, there is actually a complex procedure being undertaken and, by
presenting this information here in the simple context of a constant strain triangle, the reader

62
will be more likely to understand the procedure when it is applied to the more complex elements
discussed in the next sections.

Element Stiffness Matrix for the Bilinear Rectangle

The formation of [k]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 for the bilinear rectangle is no longer the simple matter that it was for
the constant strain triangle. As before, [E]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 is still a constant and is, in fact, the same as it was
for the constant strain triangle, and 𝑡𝑡 still equals 1 because plane strain conditions are still being
used; however, [B]𝐾𝐾 is no longer just a function of the 𝑥𝑥 and 𝑦𝑦 coordinates of the physical
element but is now also a function of the mapped coordinates 𝜉𝜉 and 𝜂𝜂 and this makes the
formation of [k]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 much more difficult. 𝜉𝜉 And 𝜂𝜂 are analogous to 𝑟𝑟 and 𝑠𝑠 for the constant strain
triangle and represent the horizontal and vertical axes respectively of the mapped space for the
bilinear rectangle. Figure 6.2 shows how a bilinear rectangle of an arbitrary shape is mapped to
a square shape in 𝜉𝜉𝜉𝜉 coordinates; note that like the constant strain triangle the nodes are
ordered in an anti-clockwise direction. The shape functions which accompany the element on
the right of Figure 6.2 are given by Equations 6.10 and, as can be seen, the first derivatives of
each shape function with respect to either 𝜉𝜉 or 𝜂𝜂 are a function of 𝜂𝜂 and 𝜉𝜉 respectively. This last
fact is the reason why the bilinear rectangle [B] matrix is difficult to form.

Figure 6.2 Mapping of a bilinear rectangle from 𝒙𝒙𝒙𝒙 coordinates to 𝝃𝝃𝝃𝝃 coordinates [21].

1 1
𝑁𝑁1 = (1 − 𝜉𝜉)(1 − 𝜂𝜂) 𝑁𝑁2 = (1 + 𝜉𝜉)(1 − 𝜂𝜂)
4 4 6.10
1 1
𝑁𝑁3 = (1 + 𝜉𝜉)(1 + 𝜂𝜂) 𝑁𝑁4 = (1 − 𝜉𝜉)(1 + 𝜂𝜂)
4 4

The main reason for the complication with [B]𝑅𝑅 is that the integration shown in Equation 6.6
must now be carried out and further to this, because each 𝐵𝐵𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 contains functions of 𝜉𝜉 and 𝜂𝜂 in
its numerator and denominator, the integration must be integrated numerically, Cook [21]. For
a Bilinear rectangle Equation 6.6 becomes:

63
 1 1
[k]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = � � [B]𝐾𝐾 𝑇𝑇 [E]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 [B]𝐾𝐾 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 6.11
−1 −1

There is a new term, 𝐽𝐽, in Equation 6.11 which is not obviously present in the derivation of
Equation 6.9 for the constant strain triangle. 𝐽𝐽 is the determinant of the Jacobian matrix [J]
which is given in Equation 6.12 – where the derivative meaning of comma is implied; 𝐽𝐽 itself is
given in Equation 6.13. 𝐽𝐽, like [B]𝐾𝐾 , is a function of 𝑥𝑥, 𝑦𝑦, 𝜉𝜉 and 𝜂𝜂 and would by itself enforce the
need to carry out the integration but since the integration is already required by [B]𝐾𝐾 and both
[J] and 𝐽𝐽 need to be calculated during the formation of [B]𝐾𝐾 its presence in the integrand does
not add much extra effort. It should also be mentioned here that just as 𝐽𝐽 is required in Equation
6.11 it is also required in Equation 6.9 but instead of being explicitly stated it is a component of
𝐴𝐴𝐾𝐾 .

� 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖,𝜉𝜉 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 � 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖,𝜉𝜉 𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖 𝐽𝐽 𝐽𝐽12

[J] = � � = � 11 �
𝐽𝐽21 𝐽𝐽22 6.12
� 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖,𝜂𝜂 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 � 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖,𝜂𝜂 𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖

𝐽𝐽 = det[J] = 𝐽𝐽11 𝐽𝐽22 − 𝐽𝐽21 𝐽𝐽12 6.13

Once [J] and 𝐽𝐽 have been calculated, the inverse of [J], the [Γ] matrix, given in Equation 6.14,
can be calculated.

Γ Γ12 1 𝐽𝐽 −𝐽𝐽12
� 11 � = � 22 � 6.14
Γ21 Γ22 𝐽𝐽 −𝐽𝐽21 𝐽𝐽11

With the [Γ] matrix calculated, [B] can be determined. The [B] matrix provides the relationship
between strains and displacements as shown by Equation 6.15. Cook, [21], gives the
components of [B] as parts of three equations to provide a more concise definition of them; [B]
is actually calculated by multiplying the rectangular matrices from Equations 6.16, 6.17 and 6.18
in the order that they appear. If all of the substitutions are made then it can be seen that [B]
relates the model strains (the left hand side of Equation 6.16) with the model displacements {d}
(the last component in Equation 6.18).

[𝜀𝜀] = [B]{d}
6.15
𝑢𝑢,𝑥𝑥
𝜀𝜀𝑥𝑥 1 0 0 0 𝑢𝑢,
𝑦𝑦
� 𝜀𝜀𝑦𝑦 � = �0 0 0 1� �𝑣𝑣, �
𝛾𝛾𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 𝑥𝑥 6.16
0 1 1 0 𝑣𝑣,
𝑦𝑦

𝑢𝑢,𝑥𝑥 Γ11 Γ12 0 0 𝑢𝑢,𝑟𝑟

𝑢𝑢,𝑦𝑦 Γ21 Γ22 0 0 𝑢𝑢,𝑠𝑠
�𝑣𝑣, � = � �� � 6.17
𝑥𝑥 0 0 Γ11 Γ12 𝑣𝑣,𝑟𝑟
𝑣𝑣,𝑦𝑦 0 0 Γ21 Γ22 𝑣𝑣,𝑠𝑠

64
 𝑢𝑢,𝑟𝑟 𝑁𝑁1,𝜉𝜉 0 𝑁𝑁2,𝜉𝜉 0 𝑁𝑁3,𝜉𝜉 0 𝑁𝑁4,𝜉𝜉 0
⎡ ⎤
𝑢𝑢,𝑠𝑠 𝑁𝑁 0 𝑁𝑁2,𝜂𝜂 0 𝑁𝑁3,𝜂𝜂 0 𝑁𝑁4,𝜂𝜂 0 ⎥ {𝐝𝐝}
�𝑣𝑣, � = ⎢⎢
1,𝜂𝜂
6.18
𝑟𝑟 0 𝑁𝑁1,𝜉𝜉 0 𝑁𝑁2,𝜉𝜉 0 𝑁𝑁3,𝜉𝜉 0 𝑁𝑁4,𝜉𝜉 ⎥ 8x1
𝑣𝑣,𝑠𝑠 ⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0𝜉𝜉 𝑁𝑁1,𝜂𝜂 0 𝑁𝑁2,𝜂𝜂 0 𝑁𝑁3,𝜂𝜂 0 𝑁𝑁4,𝜂𝜂 ⎦

One could be forgiven, at this point, for believing that it is now possible to carry out the final
calculations that form the element stiffness matrix [k]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 – as it was at this point that it could be
done for the constant strain triangle. The constant strain triangle can be considered as having
only one integration point, which means that the foregoing need only be calculated once and
due to the trivial nature of the integration any further discussion on the integration itself and on
how the integration could be carried out was avoided. In the case of the bilinear rectangle, there
are four integration points for which the above equations are carried out once for each point
and then summed together. Figure 6.3 shows a bilinear rectangle with its four integration points
marked and the 𝜉𝜉𝜉𝜉 coordinates given for each point; these points are known as Gauss points
and their coordinates have been determined to suit a numerical integration technique called
Gauss quadrature. No attempt will be made to explain the principles of Gauss quadrature aside
from the fact that Equation 6.19 is the result of applying Gauss quadrature to Equation 6.11.

Figure 6.3 Gauss points and coordinates for the bilinear rectangle [21].
2 2

[K]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = � � 𝑊𝑊𝑖𝑖 𝑊𝑊𝑗𝑗 𝜙𝜙�𝜉𝜉𝑖𝑖 , 𝜂𝜂𝑗𝑗 � 6.19

𝑖𝑖=1 𝑗𝑗=1

where, noting that for plane strain models 𝑡𝑡 = 1:

𝑇𝑇
𝜙𝜙 = [B]𝐾𝐾 [E]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 [B]𝐾𝐾 𝐽𝐽

65
The summand in Equation 6.19 is calculated four times with 𝜉𝜉𝑖𝑖 and 𝜂𝜂𝑗𝑗 changing depending on

the value of 𝑖𝑖 and 𝑗𝑗. In the case of the bilinear rectangle, 𝜉𝜉 and 𝜂𝜂 can have the values of ±1⁄√3
and regardless of the values of 𝑖𝑖 and 𝑗𝑗, 𝑊𝑊𝑖𝑖 and 𝑊𝑊𝑗𝑗 will equal 1.

Element Stiffness Matrix for the Trilinear Hexahedron

At this stage, the process of formation [k]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 has been fully explained – albeit excluding the
extensive amount of theory required to prove each of the stages. The process of forming [k]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
for a trilinear hexahedron is merely an extension of the process required to form [k]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 for the
bilinear rectangle and the mathematical leap from one to the other is much less than the leap
from the triangle to the rectangle. With this in mind, only the equations needed to form [k]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
for the trilinear hexahedron will be provided along with explanations for any differences that
occur.

Figure 6.4 A trilinear hexahedron in three dimensional space [21].

In changing the element type from a bilinear rectangle to a trilinear hexahedron, the elements
are moving from two to three dimensions. The reader should note that a bilinear rectangle, and
even a constant strain triangle can be used in three dimensions, where they cease to be plane
strain elements and become shell elements; however, for the work contained here the constant
strain triangle and bilinear rectangle elements were only used in a two dimensional plain strain
context and no information was or will be provided for their three dimensional form. The three
dimensional trilinear hexahedron is shown in Figure 6.4 in 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 space with the 𝜉𝜉𝜉𝜉𝜉𝜉 axes
superimposed onto the element. The 𝜉𝜉𝜉𝜉𝜉𝜉 axes represent the coordinate system to which the
physical element is mapped and, just like the bilinear rectangle had edges located at 𝜉𝜉 = ±1

66
and 𝜂𝜂 = ±1, the trilinear hexahedron has faces located at 𝜉𝜉 = ±1, 𝜂𝜂 = ±1 and 𝜁𝜁 = ±1 which
form a cube with sides 2 units across. The shape functions for the mapped trilinear hexahedron
are given by Equations 6.20.

1
𝑁𝑁1 = (1 − 𝜉𝜉)(1 − 𝜂𝜂)(1 + 𝜁𝜁)
8
1
𝑁𝑁2 = (1 − 𝜉𝜉)(1 − 𝜂𝜂)(1 − 𝜁𝜁)
8
1
𝑁𝑁3 = (1 − 𝜉𝜉)(1 + 𝜂𝜂)(1 − 𝜁𝜁)
8
1
𝑁𝑁4 = (1 − 𝜉𝜉)(1 + 𝜂𝜂)(1 + 𝜁𝜁)
8
6.20
1
𝑁𝑁5 = (1 + 𝜉𝜉)(1 − 𝜂𝜂)(1 + 𝜁𝜁)
8
1
𝑁𝑁6 = (1 + 𝜉𝜉)(1 − 𝜂𝜂)(1 − 𝜁𝜁)
8
1
𝑁𝑁7 = (1 + 𝜉𝜉)(1 + 𝜂𝜂)(1 − 𝜁𝜁)
8
1
𝑁𝑁8 = (1 + 𝜉𝜉)(1 + 𝜂𝜂)(1 + 𝜁𝜁)
8

[k]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 for the trilinear hexahedron is similar to the bilinear rectangle version except that now
the integration is carried out over three dimensions and because of the three dimensional
integration the thickness variable, which has no valid meaning for a brick element, is no longer
needed to calculate the volume of the element. Equation 6.21 shows the calculation for [k]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
in three dimensions.

1 1 1
[K]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = � � � [B]𝑇𝑇𝐾𝐾 [E]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 [B]𝐾𝐾 𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽 6.21
−1 −1 −1

The elasticity matrix [E] for a three dimensional isotropic model is different to [E] for a two
dimensional plane strain model with the most obvious difference being that it has grown from
a 3x3 matrix to a 6x6 matrix. Fortunately the three dimensional [E] is an extension of the two
dimensional plane strain version and requires no new equations to be derived. Equation 6.22
gives the three dimensional version of [E], which when compared with Equation 3.21 will be
seen to be similar. After the appropriate substitutions have been made, Equation 6.23 gives the
three dimensional version of [E]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 .

67
 (1 − 𝜈𝜈) 𝜈𝜈 𝜈𝜈 0 0 0
⎡ ⎤
𝜈𝜈 (1 − 𝜈𝜈) 𝜈𝜈 0 0 0
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 𝜈𝜈 𝜈𝜈 (1 − 𝜈𝜈) 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ (1 − 2𝜈𝜈) ⎥
𝐸𝐸
[E] = ⎢ 0 0 0
2
0 0 ⎥ 6.22
(1 + 𝜈𝜈)(1 − 2𝜈𝜈) ⎢ ⎥
(1 − 2𝜈𝜈)
⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ 2 ⎥
⎢ (1 − 2𝜈𝜈)⎥
⎣ 0 0 0 0 0
2 ⎦

𝑎𝑎𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑏𝑏𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑏𝑏𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 0 0 0

⎡ ⎤
𝑏𝑏 𝑎𝑎𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑏𝑏𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 0 0 0
⎢ 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 ⎥
⎢𝑏𝑏𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑏𝑏𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑎𝑎𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ 𝑎𝑎𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 − 𝑏𝑏𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 ⎥
0 0 0 0 0
[E]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 =⎢ 2 ⎥ 6.23
⎢ 𝑎𝑎𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 − 𝑏𝑏𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ 2 ⎥
⎢ 𝑎𝑎𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 − 𝑏𝑏𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 ⎥
⎣ 0 0 0 0 0
2 ⎦

The Jacobian matrix for the three dimensional case is:

⎡� 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖,𝜉𝜉 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 � 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖,𝜉𝜉 𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖 � 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖,𝜉𝜉 𝑧𝑧𝑖𝑖 ⎤

⎢ ⎥
[J] = ⎢� 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖,𝜂𝜂 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 � 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖,𝜂𝜂 𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖 � 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖,𝜂𝜂 𝑧𝑧𝑖𝑖 ⎥ 6.24
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣� 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖,𝜁𝜁 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 � 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖,𝜁𝜁 𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖 � 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖,𝜁𝜁 𝑧𝑧𝑖𝑖 ⎦

Where the commas imply a derivative, as for the two dimensional bilinear rectangle, and the
Jacobian, 𝐽𝐽, is still calculated as the determinant of [J] while [Γ] is still the inverse of [J]; however,
[Γ] and [J] are now 3x3 matrices. The calculation of [Γ] is now more difficult as a result of the
expanded size of [J] and it is recommended in Kreyszig, [28], that the modified Gauss-Jordan
elimination procedure be used to find [Γ] as it is more efficient than the method of determinants
which should only be used to invert a 2x2 matrix.

Cook, [21], Gives the three dimensional version of Equation 6.16 as:

𝑢𝑢,𝑥𝑥
⎧ 𝑢𝑢,𝑦𝑦 ⎫
𝜀𝜀𝑥𝑥 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎪ 𝑢𝑢, ⎪
⎧ 𝜀𝜀𝑦𝑦 ⎫ ⎡0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0⎤ ⎪
𝑧𝑧 ⎪
⎪ 𝜀𝜀 ⎪ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ 𝑣𝑣,𝑥𝑥 ⎪
𝑧𝑧
= ⎢0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1⎥ 𝑣𝑣,
𝑦𝑦 6.25
⎨𝛾𝛾𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 ⎬ ⎢0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0⎥ ⎨ 𝑣𝑣, ⎬
𝑧𝑧
⎪𝛾𝛾𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 ⎪ ⎢0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0⎥ ⎪𝑤𝑤, ⎪
𝑥𝑥 ⎪
⎩ 𝛾𝛾𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 ⎭ ⎣0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0⎦ ⎪
⎪𝑤𝑤,𝑦𝑦 ⎪
⎩ 𝑤𝑤,𝑧𝑧 ⎭

and explains that Equation 6.17 is expanded to a 9x9 matrix, for three dimensions, with [Γ] being
entered three times along the diagonal in the same fashion as shown in Equation 6.17 for the

68
two dimensional version; and Equation 6.18 becomes a 9x24 matrix – with the nature of the
required additions being obvious from a study of Equation 6.18.

For the same reasons as with the bilinear rectangle integration, the integration of Equation 6.21
must be carried out numerically with Gauss quadrature. Equation 6.26 shows the resulting
equation.

2 2 2

[K]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = � � � 𝑊𝑊𝑖𝑖 𝑊𝑊𝑗𝑗 𝑊𝑊𝑘𝑘 𝜙𝜙�𝜉𝜉𝑖𝑖 , 𝜂𝜂𝑗𝑗 , 𝜁𝜁𝑘𝑘 � 6.26

𝑖𝑖=1 𝑗𝑗=1 𝑘𝑘=1

where 𝜙𝜙, is as before but with [B]𝐾𝐾 and [E]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 being the three dimensional versions, is:

𝑇𝑇
𝜙𝜙 = [B]𝐾𝐾 [E]𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 [B]𝐾𝐾 𝐽𝐽

The summand in Equation 6.26 is calculated eight times for a trilinear hexahedron brick element
with 𝜉𝜉𝑖𝑖 , 𝜂𝜂𝑗𝑗 and 𝜁𝜁𝑘𝑘 changing depending on the value of 𝑖𝑖, 𝑗𝑗 and 𝑘𝑘. In the same manner as the

bilinear rectangle, for the trilinear hexahedron 𝜉𝜉, 𝜂𝜂 and 𝜁𝜁 can have the values of ±1⁄√3 and, as
with the bilinear rectangle, regardless of the values of 𝑖𝑖, 𝑗𝑗 and 𝑘𝑘, 𝑊𝑊𝑖𝑖 , 𝑊𝑊𝑗𝑗 and 𝑊𝑊𝑘𝑘 will equal 1.

6.4 Calculating Indentation Rolling Resistance

The convergence and subsequent solution of the indentation rolling resistance model provides
the steady state shape of the loaded and moving conveyor belt but it does not provide the result
of primary interest; rather, the indentation rolling resistance prediction which must be
calculated by the calling program. Calculation of indentation rolling resistance results is carried
out by one of the two methods that follow.

Contact Area Reaction Force Sum

The intent behind the contact area reaction force sum method for measuring indentation rolling
resistance is to compare the reaction forces on one side of the idler roll’s centre line to the
reaction forces on the other side; essentially, the difference between the loads on the high
pressure – approach – side of the idler roll and those on the low pressure side is being calculated
and converted into an indentation rolling resistance force. The method does not use the
pressures in each element to calculate the indentation rolling resistance, but instead uses the
reaction force at each node in the contact area which is easily measured in the finite element

69
analysis software. The contact area geometry is shown in Figure 6.5 where one of the contact
nodes is shown with its reaction force and reaction force components.

Figure 6.5 Contact area nodal reaction loads and horizontal distance.

When the conveyor belt and idler roll model is initially built a set number, 𝑁𝑁, of surface nodes
are assigned as contact nodes and provided with contact geometry; the number of contact
nodes is known to be greater than what is required on either side of the idler roll. At the
convergence of a solution the calling program will interrogate the finite element analysis
software and retrieve the vertical reaction force, 𝐹𝐹𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 , and displacement, 𝑥𝑥′𝑖𝑖 , for each of the
contact nodes – this occurs regardless of whether the node made contact with the idler roll or
not. The horizontal distance, 𝐷𝐷𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 , between each contact node and the idler roll centre is
calculated by summing the node’s initial horizontal position and horizontal displacement – with
reference to the coordinate system shown – and then Equation 6.27 can be used to calculate
the indentation rolling resistance for that model.

∑𝑁𝑁
𝑖𝑖=1 𝐹𝐹𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 𝐷𝐷𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻
𝐹𝐹𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 = 6.27
𝑅𝑅

where:

𝐷𝐷𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 = 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 + 𝑥𝑥′𝑖𝑖

In the contact area reaction force sum method, the vertical component of each contact node
reaction force and the node’s final horizontal distance from the idler roll’s centre is used to
calculate each moment, however, the horizontal reaction component and the vertical distance

70
between the contact node and the idler roll centre could have been used instead to achieve the
same result.

Nodal Work Sum Method

The nodal work sum method is a general method for calculating indentation rolling resistance
that can be applied to any linear viscoelastic model regardless of its boundary conditions;
whereas, the reaction moment sum method requires the specific conditions present in the two
dimensional indentation rolling resistance models to function; it is a superior, and therefore
preferred, means of calculating indentation rolling resistance. The nodal work sum method is
based on the sum of the work done by each viscoelastic memory force in moving its node from
one position to the next during each time step – the concept is illustrated in Figure 6.5. In one
time step node 𝑁𝑁1 will move to the position of node 𝑁𝑁4 , covering distance 𝑇𝑇1 , while being acted
upon be the viscoelastic memory force 𝐻𝐻1 ; the work done by the viscoelastic memory force on
each node can be calculated by Equation 6.28.

𝑊𝑊𝑖𝑖 = 𝐻𝐻𝑖𝑖 ⋅ 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖

6.28

𝐻𝐻1 𝑁𝑁4 𝑇𝑇4

𝑁𝑁1 𝑇𝑇1 𝐻𝐻4

𝐻𝐻2
𝐻𝐻3
𝑁𝑁3
𝑁𝑁2
𝑇𝑇2 𝑇𝑇3

Figure 6.6 Viscoelastic history forces and travel directions for each node of a four node
element.

All of the individual nodal work results are summed together and the total is divided by the
original, unstrained, element length – which is the same as the distance travelled by the model
in one time step – to determine the indentation rolling resistance for the model. The calling
program, however, calculates the components of the viscoelastic history forces rather than the
resultant and cannot use Equation 6.28 directly; instead, the program measures the 𝑥𝑥, 𝑦𝑦 and 𝑧𝑧
displacement that each node must cover from one time step to the next and combines this with

71
the 𝑥𝑥, 𝑦𝑦 and 𝑧𝑧 components of each viscoelastic memory force to calculate the work done on the
node using the expanded definition of the dot product. Each nodal work result is summed
together and divided by the distance that the conveyor belt travels in each time step as in
Equation 6.29.

∑𝑁𝑁
𝑖𝑖=1 𝐻𝐻𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + 𝐻𝐻𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + 𝐻𝐻𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
𝐹𝐹𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 = 6.29
𝑃𝑃

In calculating the 72mpercept displacements that each node travels during a time step it will be
realized that the position for a node at the end of a row is not known for the next time step and,
as such, its displacements cannot be calculated;. In the method used here, this difficulty is
resolved by using the displacements calculated for the second last node in each row of nodes as
the displacements for the final node in each row. This choice is justified by the fact that the end
of the model has reach a relaxed, or nearly relaxed, state and there is not much change from
one set of nodes to the next so the two displacements will be similar.

6.5 Remarks

In this chapter, the method by which the material properties and the memory effect of
viscoelastic material can be incorporated into a model which has been constructed in
commercial finite element analysis software has been discussed. The procedure for calculating
material properties has been shown, as has the method by which the strain memory of a
viscoelastic material can be accounted for as a series of forces that are applied to the element
nodes. The calculation procedure for the memory forces has been shown as well as how the
element stiffness matrices, which are required for the viscoelastic memory force calculations,
can be derived for the constant strain triangle, the bilinear rectangle and the trilinear
hexahedron. With the completion of this chapter, the theory required to implement a finite
element analysis indentation rolling resistance model has been presented in its entirety and so
now the discussion will move on to the Author’s versions of the finite element analysis models
that make use of the forgoing theory.

72
7 MODELLING INDENTATION ROLLING RESISTANCE USING
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS SOFTWARE
The hybrid indentation rolling resistance model, Wheeler and Munzenberger [24], showed that
it is difficult to simulate a steel cord conveyor belt with a two dimensional model, such as
Wheeler’s [13], without using some factor to influence the simulation results. The hybrid model
demonstrated that the indentation rolling resistance performance of steel cord conveyor belt
was not solely influenced by pulley cover thickness but showed that the belt’s carcass played an
important role as well. Based on this it became clear that a three dimensional indentation rolling
resistance model that was based on the work of Wheeler and Lynch [14] was needed to more
accurately model steel cord conveyor belt indentation rolling resistance; this goal was eventually
realized but leading up to it there were a number of other models created that introduced
incremental changes that were ultimately incorporated into the three dimensional model. In
all, including the final three dimensional model, there were four indentation rolling resistance
models produced. This chapter will show how each of these models was constructed and point
out how they differed from prior implementations but first the procedure by which all of the
models were implemented will be explained.

7.1 Implementation Procedure for the New Generation of indentation Rolling

Resistance Models

Before the latest generation of indentation rolling resistance models were programmed it was
necessary to determine how they would be implemented. There were several methods
available by which conveyor belt indentation rolling resistance could be modelled, each with its
own benefits, but the particular implementation used for the modelling was a critical decision
that would affect every model produced from that point on. The most obvious modelling
pathway was to follow in the footsteps of Lynch and Wheeler and program the whole model;
the next option was to use a combination of finite element analysis software – to build the model
– and another program – to handle the viscoelastic calculations – that could be linked to the
finite element analysis software through an application programming interface – sometimes
referred to by the acronym API; the third option was to implement a model using only finite
element analysis software.

The first option to be discarded was the one which used finite element analysis software for the
entire process. Research into this option showed that many commercial finite element analysis

73
programs were capable of solving time dependant rubber relaxation problems; however, the
types of problems seemed to be limited to problems with unchanging boundary conditions. This
meant that problems like a rubber ball subject to a sudden application of hydrostatic pressure
or possibly, with a bit more creativity, a moving object impacting a rubber body could be studied
but problems with rolling contact would be more difficult.

The first indentation rolling resistance model implementation that was seriously considered was
to program the entire model in Fortran – as had been done in the past. This option allowed
complete control over every facet of the implementation and also allowed the viscoelastic
methods developed by Lynch to be directly applied, without any modifications, to the three
dimensional model. A fully scripted model, however, would have no graphical interface and
given that Wheeler’s fully programmed two dimensional implementation was slow it was
unlikely that sufficient speed improvements would be found for newer, more complex, three
dimensional models.

The final option, and the one that was chosen, was the combined Fortran and finite element
analysis software approach. This method lacked the major problems of the fully programmed
model, as the finite element analysis software could be used to present the model in a graphical
format, and the solvers supplied with the finite element analysis software would be more
efficient and much faster than could ever be programmed in the short period of a research
project. The finite element analysis software also provided a variety of options that would allow
the idler roll and belt connection interface to be implemented more efficiently by replacing the
displacement iteration and subsequent reaction measurement process with the application of a
single force, of the desired magnitude, at the start of the simulation. It is possible that the
contact model that is implemented in the finite element analysis software could have been
programmed by hand but the knowledge and understanding that would have been required to
do so is not inconsiderable and the final result would have been, like the solvers, less efficient
than the existing software implementation. The major problem with the Fortran and finite
element analysis software combination was that the output of Lynch’s viscoelastic calculation
procedure could not be entered directly into the software, as had been done previously in the
fully programmed methods, and this meant that the mathematics of the viscoelastic calculations
would require changes so that they were compatible with the finite element analysis software
whilst retaining the ability to produce similar results.

74
 Start Build New Model

Run Elastic Increment

Get Inputs
Solver

Calculate Elastic Measure Nodal

Material Properties Displacements

Calculate Force and Calculate Viscoelastic

Displacement Norms Memory Forces

Add Forces to Model

No
Have Norms Reached
Maximum Values? Run Viscoelastic Solver
Increment
Yes
Calculate Indentation
Record Result
Rolling Resistance

i=1 i≤
Number Of
i=i+1 Loads

j=1 j≤
Number Of
j=j+1 Speeds

k=1 k≤
Number Of
k=k+1 Temps.

l=1 l≤
Number Of
l=l+1 Diams.

Close Files Stop

Figure 7.1 Flow chart for all indentation rolling resistance programs. The bold items are
handled by the finite element analysis software and its application programming interface; all
other operations are handled by the Fortran program.

A flow chart for the solution of viscoelastic rolling contact problems as used by the Fortran and
finite element analysis software combination is presented in Figure 7.1. In the flow chart, which
forms the basis for all of the indentation rolling resistance models discussed in this chapter, the
operations written in bold text are the operations that are handled by the finite element analysis

75
software and its application programming interface and the remainder of the operations are
handle by the Fortran program. During a simulation, the Fortran program collects all of the
necessary model inputs and creates the nodal coordinates and element connections which it
then sends to the finite element analysis software to build the model. Like the post processing,
the model could have been constructed by hand in the finite element analysis software’s pre-
processing environment but this would have caused unnecessary complications. Calculating the
node positions and the element connections in the Fortran code has the advantage that all of
the node and element numbers as well as their respective positions are known at the start which
makes referencing of elements easier than it would have been if the node or element number
for a given position had to be determined every time a result was required and the other
advantage is that any appropriate model dimensions can be entered at the start of the process
and the required model is built in less time than an operator would need to merely think about
placing the first node. After the model is constructed, Fortran then starts the finite element
analysis software’s solver and collects nodal displacements from the calculated results. The first
part of the simulation is carried out on a purely elastic model that has no viscoelastic memory
component, this model is used to create an initial set of nodal displacements that are used in
the viscoelastic memory force calculations. The viscoelastic memory force calculations are
carried out by the Fortran program and the resulting forces are then applied to the model which
is solved again to generate a new set of displacements. The new set of displacements and newly
calculated viscoelastic forces are compared with those of the previous iteration to produce
displacement and force norms which the program will use to decide whether another iteration
is required or not. When the two norms are calculated they will be, if the simulation is
converging, smaller in magnitude than the last set and, eventually, they will become smaller
than a set tolerance which indicates that the change in the model between the current and
previous iterations is small enough that any further iterations will not change the result within
the desired accuracy. At this point, the simulation is considered to have converged and the
indentation rolling resistance value for the current, converged, condition is calculated and
stored. A new belt model is then built with modified loads, belt speeds, rubber temperatures
or idler roll diameters – as required – and the simulation process will be repeated until all input
combinations have been simulated.

76
7.2 Two Dimensional Finite Element Indentation Rolling Resistance Models

Two plane strain two dimensional indentation rolling resistance models were created, with each
introducing a new aspect that was required to be understood and verified before modelling in
three dimensions could commence. The first two dimensional model was a constant strain
triangle model that was based on the work of Wheeler but also included a number of new
features; its main purpose was to verify that commercial finite element analysis software could
be incorporated into the indentation rolling resistance simulation process. The second two
dimensional model was constructed from bilinear rectangle elements and it was substantially
different from anything that preceded it; this model’s primary purpose was to verify that the
viscoelastic calculation process could be applied to other element types.

Constant Strain Triangle Finite Element Indentation Rolling Resistance Model

The first indentation rolling resistance model that was created by the Author [29] was basically
a reproduction of Wheeler’s model but programmed for the new Fortran and finite element
analysis software combination. The new constant strain triangle model incorporated the
modified viscoelastic calculation process and incorporated a new contact model that allowed
the user to input a force rather than a displacement. The new model used a significant portion
– with permission – of Wheeler’s Fortran code that he wrote for his indentation rolling resistance
model. In particular, the new model used, verbatim, Wheeler’s code for nodal coordinates,
element nodal connections, material properties and portions of the main program code.
Additions to the code include: a significant number of application programming interface calls
that were responsible for building the model; setting up and running the various iterations of
the solution; and for interrogating the solved model to obtain the required data. New routines
were added to calculate the indentation rolling resistance results from the model data and to
record the final results. Additional program loops were also added to the program so that it
could carry out a range of simulations, covering whatever combinations of load, idler roll
diameters and belt speeds that were desired without anyone being in attendance throughout
the process. The resulting indentation rolling resistance simulation could generate its results in
about 2% of the time that Wheeler’s program took using the same computer equipment.

A section of the finite element mesh for the Author’s constant strain triangle indentation rolling
resistance model is shown in Figure 7.2; the mesh is arranged in horizontal rows – as a
requirement of the viscoelastic calculations – and is arranged with the finer rows being on the
contact side of the model. The mesh is identical to Wheeler’s mesh and only models the pulley

77
cover of the conveyor belt. The colours assigned to the triangles represent different material
properties and every element in the model has its own set of properties though, due to the
extreme number of material properties used, the available property colours are repeated over
and over and, as a result, form the banded pattern shown; fortunately, the large number of
material properties was handled correctly by the software. The purpose of individual material
property types is so that they can be assigned individual elastic material properties that are
based on the deformed distance between adjacent elements rather than the initial distance
between them. At the start of the simulation, each element is the same distance from the
element to its left and, as such, they all have identical material properties; however, during the
simulation the horizontal element-to-element distance changes and, if it is desired, the elastic
material properties can be updated to reflect the new distance. Ultimately, the intended
additions, that the individual material properties were required for, were not implemented in
the constant strain triangle indentation rolling resistance model.

Figure 7.2 A section of the constant strain triangle finite element analysis indentation rolling
resistance model.

An important change incorporated into the new constant strain triangle model – as well as all
subsequent models – was the inclusion of a new contact model that allowed a force to be
entered as the main input rather than a displacement. The new contact model is shown in Figure
7.3 and Figure 7.4. Figure 7.3 shows the contact geometry used in the constant strain triangle
model and it can be seen that the idler roll is implied by the location of the upper end of the
vertical contact elements rather than by being explicitly modelled. Each contact element
actually consists of a beam and a parallel link: the beam is a contact element which has no

78
stiffness initially but when its idler-roll-end and its belt-end nodes come together it develops a
very large stiffness in order to prevent the idler roll node passing through the conveyor belt
model; the purpose of the parallel link is to keep the contact element vertically oriented so that
the two contact element nodes will come into contact with each other rather than pass by each
other as would happen if the contact element was allowed to displace to an angled position.
Construction of the contact model is handled by the Fortran code and the finite elements
analysis software’s application programming interface, however, all subsequent manipulation is
handled by the finite element analysis software.

Implied Idler Roll Perimeter

Figure 7.3 Conveyor idler roll perimeter outline.

During a simulation, the possible movement of the nodes at each end of the contact model’s
links is given in a detailed view shown in Figure 7.4. In the figure, the conveyor belt nodes,
represented by the green arrows, are free to move both left and right and can be compressed
towards the imaginary idler roll surface; the idler roll nodes, represented by the red arrows, can
only move around the perimeter of the implied conveyor idler roll surface while they are
displaced horizontally by the same amount as the lower belt node. The movement of the idler
roll nodes is entirely friction free in accordance with the friction free assumption outlined earlier.

Figure 7.4 A section of contact elements showing the possible paths of each contact node

Figure 7.5 A view showing the displaced contact elements.

79
Figure 7.5 shows a view of the displaced constant strain triangle indentation rolling resistance
model. Contact elements about the centre have collapsed and are resisting any further
displacement of the conveyor belt model, thus forcing the model to conform to the curved shape
of the idler roll; while contact elements towards either end are yet to be compressed to zero
length and are not applying any load to the belt model.

The new constant strain triangle indentation rolling resistance model allows the idler roll load
to be used as an input rather than as a measurement result. The application of the load is
achieved by adding a force to the bottom edge of the conveyor belt model as shown in Figure
7.6 (the conveyor belt model is shown upside down so the bottom edge is the carcass interface
rather than the surface of the belt) where a small section of the belt model is shown along with
the idler roll load, in red, and the blue links which control the displacement of the bottom edge
of the conveyor belt model. The effect of the links is to allow the belt model to move vertically
under the influence of the load while keeping its carcass interface surface flat and horizontal but
still allowing any horizontal movement of the bottom surface nodes that is required. In this way,
the conveyor belt model is designed to represent an indentation rolling resistance experiment
where the test belt is kept perfectly horizontal so that there is no belt sag present to influence
the results. It is not necessary to apply the idler roll load in a specific position since the bottom
of the belt model is kept horizontal throughout the simulation and this has the effect of
distributing the force along the bottom of the model regardless of where it is applied.

Figure 7.6 A section of the constant strain triangle indentation rolling resistance model
showing the application of the conveyor idler roll load.

The only boundary condition remaining is the horizontal restraint. The horizontal restraint is
almost trivial as there are no out of balance forces acting horizontally, however, in order to
mathematically stabilize the model one horizontal restraint is required. The horizontal restraint

80
is applied to the carcass interface of the conveyor belt model and, mostly for programming
convenience, it is applied to the same node as the idler roll load.

The viscoelastic memory component of each simulation is represented by the addition of small
forces to practically every node in the model and are designed to replace the imaginary
viscoelastic history elements that Lynch used. A section of a conveyor belt model is shown in
Figure 7.7 with the resultant of the applied viscoelastic forces shown at each node. The
viscoelastic memory forces are actually calculated and applied to the mesh in the horizontal and
vertical directions for each node but it is not until the resultant of the twin forces is displayed
that a pattern in their direction becomes visible.

Figure 7.7 Viscoelastic force resultants applied to each node in the conveyor belt model.

A solved constant strain triangle indentation rolling resistance model is shown in Figure 7.8 with
superimposed colour contours that represent the vertical displacement – dark blue areas have
the least vertical displacement and pink areas have the largest vertical displacement. As has
already been noted, the two dimensional indentation rolling resistance models are formed
upside down so the blue area is the first part of the conveyor belt model that comes in contact
with the idler roll model and thus moves up the least. The most important thing to note about
the displacement contours shown in Figure 7.8 is that they are not symmetrical about the
contact area, this can be more clearly seen in the enlarged view of the contact area shown in
Figure 7.9. The asymmetry of the contact area displacements is a direct result of the viscoelastic
memory forces that are used in the solution.

Figure 7.8 A constant strain triangle indentation rolling resistance model with superimposed
vertical displacement contours; blue represents the least vertical displacement.

81
 Figure 7.9 An enlarged view of the conveyor belt and idler roll contact area as seen in Figure
7.8.

While it can be seen by the contours in Figure 7.8 and Figure 7.9 that the vertical displacements
of the model’s elements are not symmetrical on either side of the contact area, it is not clear
that the shape of the top of the conveyor belt model is also asymmetrical. Normally associated
with viscoelastic rolling contact problems is a build-up of material before the contact area and
the slow relaxation – or, in this case, a slow rising of the upper surface – after the contact area;
in reality, as well as in the finite element analysis models presented here, the typical profile of
the viscoelastic material is virtually imperceptible and in order to see it the model displacements
need to be greatly exaggerated. Figure 7.10 shows an exaggerated displacement view of the
indentation rolling resistance model sections prior to and after the contact area with the contact
area itself removed. With the exaggerated displacements, the bulging of material, on the left,
prior to the contact area is visible and the slow rising of the surface to the right of the contact
area can also be seen. It should be mentioned that the bulging of the material prior to the
contact area is not specific to viscoelastic rolling contact problems but is also a feature of both
elastic rolling contact and static contact problems with similar geometries, however, unlike the
slow relaxation expected in viscoelastic problems, a bulge will be present on either side of the
contact area for elastic and static problems.

Figure 7.10 A view of the constant strain tringle indentation rolling resistance model showing
exaggerated displacements of the model sections before (left) and after (right) the contact
area which is not shown.

The implementation of the new constant strain triangle indentation rolling resistance model not
only proved that the modified application of the viscoelastic memory component of the problem
was successful, it also proved the usefulness of the finite element analysis software graphical
user interface through the immediate model and result verification that it allowed. The use of

82
finite element analysis software was also shown to provide a significant speed increase when
compared with previous indentation rolling resistance models; however, as will be seen the
speed gains would begin to be eroded when newer, more complex, indentation rolling
resistance models were developed.

Bilinear Rectangle Finite Element Indentation Rolling Resistance Model

After the success of the constant strain triangle finite element analysis indentation rolling
resistance model it was decided that the next development, before the three dimensional model
was attempted, would be to create another two dimensional model that replaced the constant
strain triangle elements with bilinear rectangle elements. Thus, the constant strain triangle
mesh – as seen in Figure 7.2 – was changed to the bilinear rectangle mesh shown in Figure 7.11.
Bilinear rectangle elements are also known as “Q4” or “Quad4” elements, since they are a four
node quadrilateral, and their chief advantage is that they can represent a linearly changing strain
field, rather than the constant strain field of the three node triangles, which allows them to
produce and represent more accurate results with the same mesh density when compared to a
constant strain triangle. Other benefits offered by the bilinear rectangle are that its shape is
better suited to the meshing of rectangular objects, such as the rectangular sections of conveyor
belt being modelled, and that they can be oriented, in their rows, with their local axes pointing
in the same direction – unlike the constant strain triangle which is meshed in rows with the
triangle’s apex alternatively pointing up then down – which, like the convenient shape, makes
visualizing and programming easier. Another advantage afforded by the bilinear rectangle
element over the constant strain triangle is that in the finite element analysis software that was
used the accuracy of the element can be enhanced through the addition of a “bubble function”.
The “bubble function” works by adding an imaginary node to the centre of the element whose
purpose is to mathematically relieve the “shear locking” tendencies of the element; the
additional degrees of freedom attributed to the new centre node only serve to modify the
formulation equations of the element and are never added to the global stiffness matrix as they
are “condensed out”, Cook [21], prior to assembly. A “bubble function” formulation would have
also been useful for improving the accuracy of the viscoelastic memory calculations used in the
model, however, it was never implemented there.

83
 Figure 7.11 A section of the rectangular mesh of the bilinear rectangle indentation rolling
resistance model.

(a) (b)

® (d)
Figure 7.12 A comparison of stress contours between the constant strain triangle and the
bilinear rectangle models. The left column shows non-averaged stress contours and the right
column shows averaged stress contours.

The ability of the bilinear rectangle to produce more accurate stress and strain fields is depicted
in Figure 7.12. The constant strain triangle models and the bilinear rectangle models are shown
with cover compression stress contours applied to them which are shown in the non-averaged
state in Figure 7.12 (a) and (c) and the averaged state in Figure 7.12 (b) and (d). In Figure 7.12
(a) each of the triangle elements can be seen to have a constant stress level throughout the
element – as discussed earlier – while in Figure 7.12 (c) the rectangle elements can be seen with
a stress gradient across their area in the places where the contour colours change and upon

84
closer inspection – in the finite element analysis software – it will be found that all of the
rectangle elements possess a stress gradient. The comparison of the stress contours shows that
there is good agreement between the non-averaged and averaged contours of the bilinear
rectangle model and that there is a much poorer agreement between the two sets of contours
for the constant strain triangle model; though, interestingly, the constant strain triangle model
is sufficient enough that the finite element analysis software is able to produce similar averaged
stress contours for each element type in this comparison. It is a common practice when using
finite element analysis software to compare the averaged and non-averaged stress contours as
one way of assessing the validity of a solution and in this case the bilinear rectangle model
provides an almost identical comparison between the contour types. Poorly matching non-
averaged contours usually indicate the need for mesh refinement and in the case of the constant
strain triangle model this looks as though it may be the case. Comparison of the model
predictions with experimental results reveals that mesh refinement of the triangle model is
needed, since the results it provides are not as close to reality as the rectangle model.

Along with the different element type, the only other substantial difference between the
constant strain triangle model and the bilinear rectangle model is that for the new model the
number of rows and the number of elements per row is not defined by the user but, instead, is
controlled by the Fortran program. The bilinear rectangle mesh element spacing was kept at
0.25mm, or 4 elements per millimetre, in both directions – though any even number of elements
per millimetre could be accommodated by adjusting the program code – and thus the elements
all had the most reliable aspect ratio of one. In hindsight it would have been beneficial for
Wheeler to let his program define the element density, rather than the user, as this would have
allowed the automatic generation of meshes that were constructed from triangles with aspect
ratios that would have given the best results.

The bilinear rectangle indentation rolling resistance model ultimately proved that the linear
viscoelastic method used by Lynch could be extended to other element types and because of
the new element type the modelling process became more accurate and could predict
indentation rolling resistance results that were closer to the experimental data; however, the
two dimensional nature of the bilinear rectangle model still limited its application to fabric
conveyor belt and, unfortunately, the addition of the extra mathematical complications caused
the bilinear rectangle indentation rolling resistance model to take four times as long to calculate
results when compared to an equivalent constant strain triangle model.

85
7.3 Three Dimensional Finite Element Indentation Rolling Resistance Model

Earlier work showed that assumptions were necessary to predict the indentation rolling
resistance performance of steel cord belts with two dimensional models since the cross section
of the steel cords is not constant across the width of the belt. A three dimensional indentation
rolling resistance model is needed to overcome the limitations of the two dimensional models
by having the ablity to correctly model the varying cross section of steel cord conveyor belt
through the addition of the extra dimension. The two dimensional indentation rolling resistance
models showed that the viscoelastic method devised by Lynch and subsequently used by
Wheeler could be readily modified to work with finite element software and that the method
could also be adjusted to make use of alternative element types. With the viscoelastic process
and procedures for handling more complex elements now being well understood the next step
was to extend the method to three dimensions. A three dimensional indentation rolling
resistance model was then produced with relative ease but it was discovered that it was not
capable of producing accurate results. What follows is a description of the three dimensional
indentation rolling resistance model and how its accuracy issues were overcome to produce the
most accurate model devised thus far.

Three Dimensional Indentation Rolling Resistance Model Construction

The construction of the various three dimensional indentation rolling resistance models was the
same from the initial, inaccurate, model to the final versions; a typical three dimensional
conveyor belt model is shown in Figure 7.13. The model includes the pulley cover rubber
(green), the carry cover rubber (red) and the steel cord (blue); and, as with the hybrid three
dimensional model before it, the model also exploits the repeating nature of the steel cords and
only models the smallest possible repeating section; specifically, the model represents a section
of conveyor belt that is half of the cord pitch – beginning at the centre line of a cord and finishing
at the midpoint between the cords. The full thickness of the conveyor belt is modelled and the
length along the cord and the position of the idler roll contact model along the bottom of the
modelled section are specified by the user; generally, model lengths of 100mm to 120mm are
used –enough model length to allow the rubber to relax enough to provide accurate results –
and the centre line of the idler roll model is positioned far enough from the start of the model
that the strain experienced there, due to the contact, is minimal – a distance of 40mm from the
start has been found sufficient for most cases. As with previous models, each element still
possess its own individual material property – although the cover rubbers are shown here as

86
solid blocks of colour – and is usually viewed as a multi-coloured model similar to those in Figure
7.2 and Figure 7.11; however, the cord model elements all have the same material property.
The main conveyor belt component that is absent from the three dimensional model is the
carcass rubber which is replaced with additional pulley and carry cover rubber as shown.
Another feature of the three dimensional model that is also only roughly approximated is the
steel cord; an example of the type of shape used to model the steel cord is shown in Figure 7.14
(a), and a more realistic representation of a cord cross section is given in Figure 7.14 (b). A
comparison of the two diagrams allows the argument that the shape used to represent the cord
cross section is as good an approximation as the circular shape used in the hybrid three
dimensional model and, given that the cord elements only serve to concentrate the applied
force and are not required to behave like real steel cord, an approximate shape is adequate.

Figure 7.13 The three dimensional indentation rolling resistance model.

(a) (b)
Figure 7.14 A comparison of the cord cross section used in the tri-linear brick indentation
rolling resistance model (a) and the actual shape of a cord (B).

87
The elements used in the construction of the three dimensional indentation rolling resistance
model are known as trilinear bricks or sometimes as Hexa8 since they are eight node
hexahedrons. The trilinear bricks are the direct three dimensional equivalent to the two
dimensional bilinear rectangle and possess the same advantages – linear strain field
representation and convenient shape – as well as the same numerical integration requirements
and shear locking tendencies. As was the case with the bilinear rectangle the finite element
analysis software’s “bubble function” is applied to the trilinear bricks – but not to the equivalent
viscoelastic elements (also as before) – to improve the model’s accuracy. The mathematical
procedures used to handle the trilinear brick are identical to the bilinear rectangle except for
the addition of the third dimension for which the mathematics are extended in an obvious way.

Figure 7.15 Three dimensional indentation rolling resistance contact model.

The conveyor belt to idler roll contact model was completely revised for the three dimensional
indentation rolling resistance model. The new model does away with the “zero point contact”
elements and associated links used by the two dimensional models and replaces each pair with
one “normal-contact” element (in this context the normal does not mean perpendicular but is
instead the name given to the element type in the software). Each normal-contact element
connects a node on the bottom of the conveyor belt model to a node at the imaginary idler roll’s
centre at a location sharing the same axial coordinate as the first node. A side view of the
distorted three dimensional model contact area is shown in Figure 7.15, where the normal-
contact elements are represented by the blue lines. Enough normal-contact elements are
provided in each row to ensure that the contact area is fully covered and a row of normal-contact
elements is provided for every row of nodes on the bottom of the belt model. At the beginning
of the simulation, the normal-contact elements are longer than the radius of the idler roll and
are implemented in such a way that they will shrink to the length of the idler roll radius but no
shorter – as shown by the elements at the centre of Figure 7.15, which have collapsed to the

88
radius of the idler roll and then commenced pushing into the pulley cover of the belt model –
while the remaining elements on either side are still longer than the idler roll radius.

The final aspect of the three dimensional indentation rolling resistance model’s construction to
be considered is the boundary conditions that are applied to it. In these models the boundary
conditions include externally applied forces and nodal restraints. The externally applied forces
in the three dimensional model are much the same as those applied to the two dimensional
models: a single force is applied to the centre line of the cord model which is kept horizontal
and level in the same manner, and for the same reasons, as the carcass interface layer of the
two dimensional models. The nodal restraints, on the other hand, are somewhat different to
those used in the two dimensional models. The two dimensional models were plane strain
models that did not require restraints in the idler roll axial direction because of the mathematics
used to formulate the elements while the three dimensional model is not a plane strain model
and restraints in the idler roll’s axial direction are required. In order to achieve adequate three
dimensional restraints for the new model, its six sides are restrained as follows: the bottom
surface is allowed to move in any direction except where the idler roll contact model limits
further displacement in the downwards direction; the top is totally free; the model ends – the
ones normal to the cord – do not experience much stress and are free as well; the remaining
sides of the model are restricted from any movements in the direction normal to the sides but
are free to move within the plane formed by each side. As with the two dimensional models
there is one node restrained such that the model can resist horizontal movement in the axial
direction of the cord; and, finally, the ends of the idler roll normal-contact links which are located
at the idler roll axis are restrained from all linear movements. These nodal restraints are
designed to mimic reality, however, some of the restraints are not ideal and have been
employed to simplify the model and to speed up its solution. The two areas of concern are the
restraints used on the idler-roll-axis-end of the “normal contact” links and the restraints used
on the sides of the section of conveyor belt model.

89
 Figure 7.16 The idler-roll-axis-end of the normal contact links that form the idler roll to
conveyor belt contact interface.

The first of the problems, caused by the three dimensional indentation rolling resistance model’s
nodal restraints, is due to the way that the normal contact links are restrained at the imaginary
idler roll centre which is illustrated in Figure 7.16. Each of the five nodes shown (there are
usually many more) are restricted from movement in any direction and at first this may appear
to be reasonable, since an idler roll’s position is generally fixed in space, however, in the context
of the three dimensional indentation rolling resistance model, the normal contact links are not
an idler roll and simply serve to keep the bottom of the belt model from encroaching into the
volume where the idler roll would normally exist. The problem caused by restraining the idler
roll axis nodes in this manner arises due the ability of the node at the upper end of the normal-
contact links to move sideways in the same friction free manner with which it is able move
around the surface of the idler roll. When one of these nodes is forced sideways – away from
the load concentrating effect of the steel cord for instance – there isn’t an accompanying
sideways movement of the node at the idler roll centre and this causes the normal-contact
element to form a non-perpendicular angle with the idler roll axis. The angle formed by the
normal-contact element allows the belt model contact node, at the other end, to swing below
the surface of the imaginary idler and, also, places an additional sideways force component on
the contacting node due to the angle of the normal contact link. In Figure 7.16, the five groups
of normal contact links subtend to one node for each group, however, to counteract the
problems just described each normal link would need its own node at the idler roll axis and a
second link that would keep the two nodes of the normal contact element at the same axial
coordinates; unfortunately, many hundreds and perhaps over a thousand extra links would be

90
needed and the resulting solution time penalty for these links would be considerable.
Fortunately, the magnitude of the sideways displacements is measured in micrometres and the
idler roll radii are multiple 10s of millimetres which results in an imperceptible loss of accuracy
in both the case of the additional sideways force components and the apparent shortening of
the imaginary idler roll’s radius. The ability of the normal-contact link to form an angle is further
reduced by the nodal restraints applied to the sides of the belt model which prohibit sideways
movement of the model sides and thus limit the sideways movement of all the nodes in
between. However, although they help reduce the errors associated with the normal-contact
elements, the side restraints are the source of other problems.

The problem associated with the three dimensional model’s side restraints can be understood
by noting that as the incompressible rubber is compressed between the load and the idler roll it
will maintain its volume by expanding sideways and thus make the conveyor belt slightly wider
as it passes over an idler roll. A half-view of a section of conveyor belt is shown passing over an
idler roll in Figure 7.17, where the sideways expansion is shown in an exaggerated manner;
under a uniformly distributed load the expansion of the conveyor belt will be symmetrical about
its centre line and the missing half will be a mirror image of what is shown. If there is a cord
positioned at the midpoint of the conveyor belt, its path will be straight and the cords positioned
away from the centre will follow a curved path that will become more exaggerated as the
distance from the centre axis of the conveyor belt increases. A cross section of the three
dimensional model, showing only the nodes and the steel cord elements, is shown in Figure 7.18
where the side restraints are shown as purple lines that are arranged in the direction in which
displacements are prevented. The side nodes for the entire length of the three dimensional
model are restrained in the same manner and, clearly, the fixed sides of the three dimensional
model, thus formed, will eliminate the sideways expansion required to create the distortion
shown in Figure 7.17 and, therefore, a full width section of conveyor belt cannot be accurately
modelled by mirroring and repeating the small section of conveyor belt that is actually modelled.
The side restraint problem could be done away with entirely by modelling half of the conveyor
belt but with the addition of each cord there is roughly an additional five days of computing time
which, given the already long calculation times, would result in a time penalty measured in
months for each data set using currently available computing resources. In reality, even though
each cord behaves slightly differently to the others, the sideways expansion is tiny and can be
approximated as being zero and thus each cord can be approximated as behaving identically and

91
the three dimensional steel cord belt model, even with its inability to expand sideways, is
sufficient to represent the entire conveyor belt.

Figure 7.17 Exaggerated spread of conveyor belt over an idler roll (the top cover has been
removed to show the distortion of the cords).

Figure 7.18 A cross section of a typical three dimensional indentation rolling resistance model
showing only nodes (black), cord elements (blue), and side restraints (purple).

The three dimensional model’s side restraint design was also found to be the source of a more
major problem. The first three dimensional model produced was found to predict indentation
rolling resistance results that were about ten percent of the experimental results and the new

92
contact model and programming errors in the moment summing code were quickly ruled out as
causes. Several attempts were made to vary the model to make its predictions more accurate,
including: modifying the elastic material properties as the horizontal distance between elements
changed during solution iterations; interpolating relaxation data rather than picking the nearest
value; rewriting the Fortran module that calculated the elastic and viscoelastic properties;
accounting for the extra distance covered by a rubber particle due to its curved path of travel
around the contact area – which is longer than the horizontal distance travelled – and others
that were not documented or remembered. None of these modifications had a significant effect
on the indentation rolling resistance predictions; however, eventually, it was discovered that
the missing resistance was being spent in other parts of the model as well as the contact
interface. In a two dimensional indentation rolling resistance model the only places where the
applied load can react is against the restrained nodes in the contact area or the single node
which restrains the model in the horizontal direction. The main contact load acts vertically and
the viscoelastic memory forces sum to zero newtons in the horizontal and vertical directions so
there is no horizontal force acting on the horizontally restrained node, thus, the only place
where the applied forces are resisted is the nodes in the contact area. Therefore, in determining
either the horizontal or vertical (not both) reaction loads of each of the contact nodes and
summing the moments as described in Section 6.4.1, the indentation rolling resistance can be
found. In a three dimensional indentation rolling resistance model, in addition to the contact
area nodes and the single horizontally restrained node, every node on each side of the model is
restrained from out of plane movements and it was the failure of the original three dimensional
model to take into account the reaction loads present at the side restraints that resulted in its
poor ability to predict indentation rolling resistance results.

In order to account for the side restraint reaction loads, changes were needed to the way that
the model’s indentation rolling resistance was calculated. Summing the moments of the side
reaction loads was not an option since they act in the same direction as the idler roll axis and
cannot form a moment about its centre, however, it was not immediately obvious what other
methods could be used to factor them into the indentation rolling resistance calculations.
Eventually, it was theorized that a possible way to solve the problem would be to calculate the
work energy absorbed or released at each node and sum the individual results. The total work
required to move a node from one position to the next is the sum of elastic and viscoelastic
components; however, rolling contact between elastic materials will result in the zero energy
input as the work to produce the indent is balanced by the energy released as the elastic material

93
relaxes. So, since indentation rolling resistance is effectively the difference between the energy
input and output of the model and since the elastic component of the model will provide no
difference it can be disregarded and the entire energy deficit can be calculated by considering
only the viscoelastic component. Conveniently, it happens that the work, due to the viscoelastic
component, that is required to move each node from one position to the next can be calculated
directly from the viscoelastic memory forces, like those shown in Figure 7.7, and the relative
displacements between the two nodes. Finally, the sum of the work expended at each node is
divided by the amount that the conveyor belt model moves in one time step and thus the
reaction loads at the model sides are accounted for and the total indentation rolling resistance
for the model is determined. In applying the work sum indentation rolling resistance calculation
method to the three dimensional model, no changes to the restraints used in the initial
inaccurate three dimensional model are required.

To test the work sum indentation rolling resistance calculation method it was first implemented
in a two dimensional bilinear rectangle indentation rolling resistance model so that it could be
verified against a model that was known to produce reasonable results. The work sum method
was easy to implement in two dimensions and was found to be capable of calculating
indentation rolling resistance and, in fact, it was shown to be superior to the moment sum
method because it had the property of giving results that were relatively independent from the
model’s length. This feat was achieved through the work sum method’s ability to account for
the unrelaxed forces at the end of a model that is not long enough to have reached a relaxed
state. The unrelaxed viscoelastic memory forces can be directly seen – as an advantage of the
new modelling method and the visual capabilities of the finite element analysis software – in
Figure 7.19 which shows that the viscoelastic memory forces at the end (in a time sense) of the
model are still large. The lack of sufficient model length causes the model to relax too quickly
and to have a slightly incorrect shape at the contact area which results in a reduction in the
indentation rolling resistance predictions. The modified two dimensional indentation rolling
resistance model still retains the inaccurate shape of previous models but by taking account of
the relatively large unrelaxed forces at the end of the model it is able to be more accurate at
predicting indentation rolling resistance. It should be noted that if the model was long enough,
these forces would dissipate to zero and any further lengthening of the model would provide no
additional benefit. Lynch would not have had relaxation problems with his models as the slow
model velocities that he was using would have allowed the model to relax within the length of
the model; Wheeler, on the other hand, was using much larger velocities and would have

94
benefited from employing this method as he was not able to use an adequately long model due
to the lack of computing power when his work was conducted. The model length independence
of the work sum method was a truly fortunate result as it meant that short models with quicker
solve times could be used for the three dimensional simulations with an 95mperceptible loss of
accuracy.

Figure 7.19 Large viscoelastic forces applied to the extreme end of the belt model after the
contact area.

Intermediate Three Dimensional Indentation Rolling Resistance Model

With the work sum method proven to be an effective method for measuring indentation rolling
resistance in two dimensions, it was then applied to the three dimensional indentation rolling
resistance model. However, before the work sum method was applied to the three dimensional
model it was decided that a new, simpler, and quick to solve three dimensional model would be
good way to make sure that the moment sum method would transfer properly into three
dimensions. This new three dimensional model would be designed to mimic the two
dimensional models in three dimensions and is referred to as the intermediate three
dimensional indentation rolling resistance model – a small section of the intermediate three
dimensional model is shown in Figure 7.20 with the applied nodal restraints shown as purple
lines which are arranged in the direction that movement is prevented.

95
 Figure 7.20 The intermediate three dimensional model.

Like the two dimensional models, the intermediate model only models the pulley cover rubber
and likewise the carcass side of the cover is kept straight and level; however, the intermediate
model is made from trilinear hexahedrons and has the same contact region design and boundary
conditions as the full three dimensional model. The restraints on the top surface prevent that
surface from moving vertically but still allow in-plane movements analogous to the horizontal
movements of the carcass nodes in the two dimensional models and the sides of the
intermediate model are restrained in the same manner as the sides of the full three dimensional
model.

The intermediate indentation rolling resistance model showed that the work sum method
transferred well into three dimensions and it also proved to be useful for a second purpose
which was going to be time consuming to achieve with the full three dimensional model. This
new purpose was to assess the sensitivity of the indentation rolling resistance modelling in three
dimensions. In two dimensions the only model parameters that can be varied are the thickness
and length of the cover model as well as the idler roll diameter and the contact load. Except for
the model length, all of these variables are prescribed by the problem being considered. The

96
length of the model could be varied independently of the problem description and, because of
this, it was important to assess the sensitivity of the indentation rolling resistance results to a
change in model length. It was found by Wheeler that a longer model was better than a shorter
model and the only constraint that determined the length of the model was how long one was
prepared to wait for a solution. The model length is still the only free dimension in the three
dimensional model as all the other dimensions are fixed to the dimensions of a steel cord
conveyor belt cross section being considered; however, with the intermediate model only the
thickness is set leaving the model length and the model width as variables that are independent
of the problem meaning that the intermediate model was free to test the effects of different
model widths and model lengths.

When the nodal work sum indentation rolling resistance calculation method was implemented
in the intermediate three dimensional model it was shown to be effective; upon transferring it
to the three dimensional model it started to produce good results. The results predicted by the
three dimensional model matched closely with the equivalent experimental data and did so
without any of the modifications and approximations that were required by the two dimensional
models. The consistently low results generated by the two dimensional models, in comparison
to the experimental data, was indicating that Lynch’s conclusion about the effect of contact
interface friction being negligible was not applicable to conveyor belt, however, the results
produced by the three dimensional indentation rolling resistance model showed that his
conclusion was also valid in the study of conveyor belt.

Viewing the Three Dimensional Indentation Rolling Resistance Model

In finite element analysis software, plane strain elements are represented by a single plane of
elements that are never shown with any thickness. This allows the user of the software to see
all displacements and selected contour results from one view and the only view movement
needed is to zoom in on specific areas of interest. In contrast, the three dimensional brick model
exists in three dimensions and because of this, inspecting their results requires more work on
the part of the analyst. The three dimensional indentation rolling resistance models can be
viewed from the side to produce a view similar to what is available in the two dimensional
models but now there is the choice of two sides. A view of the contact area is available from
the bottom to show the load concentrating effect of the steel cord and the top and ends may
also be inspected but there is not much of interest to view on these surfaces. Not only are the
6 surfaces of the model available for inspection but sections of the model can be hidden to view

97
areas of interest that lie inside the model. To finish this chapter several views of a three
dimensional model will be shown, and in doing so the power that is available with the
incorporation of finite element analysis software into the simulation of indentation rolling
resistance can be appreciated.

Figure 7.21 Isometric overview of three dimensional indentation rolling resistance model with
the outline of the steel cord highlighted.

Figure 7.21 is an isometric view of a three dimensional indentation rolling resistance model with
actual displacements shown. The indent of the idler roll pushing into the pulley cover can be
seen below the dark blue section that represents the area of highest compressive strain. The
red areas represent places of low strain and the steel cord, which is highlighted with black
outlines, is not distinguishable because it is a low strain area like much of the rubber around it.
A side view of the same model is shown in Figure 7.22 and a bottom view of the model is shown
in Figure 7.23 such that it lines up with the picture in Figure 7.22; the concentration of the
vertical loads can be clearly seen. The reverse side of the model, opposite to the cord side, is
shown in Figure 7.24; the influence of the cord is still visible even though there is 13mm of
rubber between it and that side of the model.

98
 Figure 7.22 Plan view from the cord (outlined in black) side of three dimensional indentation
rolling resistance model.

Figure 7.23 Bottom view of three dimensional indentation rolling resistance model.

Figure 7.24 Plan view from rubber side of three dimensional indentation rolling resistance
model.

A side view of the three dimensional model with exaggerated nodal displacements applied is
given in Figure 7.25 and, just as with the two dimensional models, the asymmetric shape of the
contact area is visible. In the figure, the conveyor belt is travelling from right to left, and the
smaller size of the slowly relaxing bulge after the contact area, compared to the one before the
contact, is visible. A hump at the top of the model above the contact area is also visible with the
exaggerated displacements in Figure 7.25. The hump is also visible in Figure 7.26 which shows
a cross section of the model at the apex of the idler roll and, here, it can be seen that the hump
in Figure 7.25 is not constant across the model width and in fact forms a wave with the 0.02mm
deep trough located above the steel cord. The hump is a result of the conveyor belt rubber
being pushed up between the steel cords.

99
 Figure 7.25 Side view of three dimensional indentation rolling resistance model with
exaggerated displacements. The steel cord is highlighted in black.

Figure 7.26 Cross section view of the three dimensional indentation rolling resistance model
with exaggerated displacement. The steel cord cross section id highlighted in black. Note the
distortion of the top surface.

The final model views that will be shown are a series of 12 cross section pictures in Figure 7.27
that show the undistorted – zero displacement – contact area of the three dimensional model.
The first picture, Figure 7.27 (a) shows the belt model just prior to the contact area and each
subsequent picture shows the contact area 1mm further along the model. A careful review of
the 21 figures will show that each pair of pictures equidistant from either side of Figure 7.27 (k)
– the central figure – is different and that the extent of the area under tension, represented by

100
the pink areas is greater before the contact than after it. In each picture of Figure 7.27 the cord
cross section is highlighted with black lines and is also outlined by the sharp change in contours
from the strained rubber to the relatively strain free cord, this is especially true in the middle
set of pictures. The stress discontinuity between the steel cord and the rubber illustrates the
reason why the idler roll does not need to be modelled since the same discontinuity would exist
between the rubber and the steel roll; in reality, the existence of the steel cord could have been
implied with boundary conditions as well though in the case of the cord it was easier to model
it then to imply its existence. What is also interesting is that, if one can imagine the shape of
the entire half section of the cord, then there is a strain discontinuity at the centre height of the
cord for many of the pictures. This strain discontinuity is the result of the transition at that point
from the relatively soft pulley cover section of the model to the harder carry cover but the fact
that the transition in strain moves down away from the change in materials near the apex of the
contact give some small amount of extra justification to the use of the distance from the bottom
of the pulley cover to the cord centre line as the model height for the two dimensional models
rather than the thickness of the cover by itself.

(a) (b) ®

101
(d) ® (f)

(g) (h) (i)

102
(j) (k) (l)

(m) (n) (o)

103
 (p) (q) ®

(s) (t) (u)

Figure 7.27 Cross sections of the contact area taken at one millimetre intervals.

7.4 Remarks

In this chapter the development of the three dimensional indentation rolling resistance model
has been provided and it has been shown that the viscoelastic rolling contact method could be

104
modelled in finite element analysis software, extended to new element types and even to three
dimensions; additional models that proved the new nodal work summation method was
effective were also described. Details of the contact models, that allow the input of loads rather
than displacements, have been provided as have details of all the other boundary conditions –
including their failings. The modelling process chosen to simulate indentation rolling resistance
has also proven to be a sound choice and all of the pictures presented here are proof enough of
the power of having a detailed graphical interface as part of the process, not to mention the
helpfulness that it could provide during the programming of the model and the viscoelastic
process. The final version of the three dimensional indentation rolling resistance model – at
least as far as this thesis is concerned – has proved to be capable of simulating conveyor belt
indentation rolling resistance.

105
8 LABORATORY TEST EQUIPMENT FOR INDENTATION
ROLLING RESISTANCE EXPERIMENTS
It is to be expected that any manufacturer or designer associated with the production or use of
conveyor belts would like to measure the indentation rolling resistance of a given belt to an
acceptable level of accuracy. As such, it is, in part, the aim of this thesis to present an accurate
method for estimating the indentation rolling resistance of a conveyor belt design. This method
involves conducting a relatively inexpensive experiment and then using the results from that
experiment as the input data for a numerical simulation which can then return an estimate of
the indentation rolling resistance properties that that rubber type would impart to a conveyor
belt. Combining a small scale experiment with a numerical simulation has the advantages that
it does not rely on a great deal of labour input or expensive machinery; however, indentation
rolling resistance data found by this method – be it of a high standard or otherwise – is still an
estimate that needs to be verified with an experiment that is capable of measuring indentation
rolling resistance as directly as possible and which, unfortunately, will be more expensive. The
need to verify the numerical simulation does not render it obsolete through the requirement
that every numerical data point be checked against matching experimental results but that a
number of physical experiments should be carried out to verify the numerical model which may
then be used with some confidence to estimate good quality results for test parameters that
were not or could not be tested. A successfully verified numerical simulation could be used to
model a wide range of possible variables and be extended, with care, to the modelling of
different belt types and designs or a complete trough conveyor section – something which is
very difficult to test in the lab. Having justified the existence of experimental testing of
indentation rolling resistance as a necessary means to validate a numerical model, the focus will
now move to the experimental measurement of indentation rolling resistance for the remainder
of this chapter.

There are several types of experiments available that allow indentation rolling resistance to be
either qualitatively or quantitatively measured; the test types can be divided into those that
provide continuous measurements and those that do not. Experiments that cannot be used to
measure indentation rolling resistance on a continuous basis include the pendulum test, Gent
et al. [30], and the less well known incline plane experiment, Glaysiewicz [31]. Continuous type
indentation rolling resistance experiments need to be conducted on a recirculating belt
indentation rolling resistance test machine which may be of the “drum” type or a machine that
resembles a very short conveyor with a flat belt that is termed a “two-pulley test machine” in

106
the CEMA handbook [32]; these types of machines are able to conduct measurements under the
steady state conditions that are required to get a good time averaged indentation rolling
resistance results with the trade-off being that the equipment is more expensive to own and
operate. Nevertheless, despite the expense involved with continuous indentation rolling
resistance experiments, at least one example of the “drum” tester, Nordell [33], and three of
the two-pulley test machines: Wheeler [13]; Overmeyer [34]; and Wheeler and Munzenberger
[35], are in existence with the latter being constructed to carry out indentation rolling resistance
experiments for this thesis. These machines will be considered in the following pages.

8.1 Indentation Rolling Resistance Test Equipment

The different types of experimental equipment that are available for measuring the indentation
rolling resistance of rubber compounds and conveyor belts will now be discussed. Test rigs that
cannot provide continuous indentation rolling resistance results such as pendulum and incline
ramp tests will be described first followed by the descriptions of the two types of continuous
test machines.

Discontinuous Indentation Rolling Resistance Test Equipment

Discontinuous indentation rolling resistance test equipment is simply machinery with which
experiments are conducted that, by their very nature, only last for a short time. Test equipment
which oscillates while it is operating will also be considered here since the motion is not really
continuous. Several examples of these discontinuous indentation rolling resistance tests exist,
however, only the “pendulum test” and the “incline ramp” test will be examined.

8.1.1.1 Pendulum Test

The pendulum test – shown in Figure 8.1 – is a test that provides qualitative data on the
indentation rolling resistance properties of rubber. The test is conducted on a small sheet of
sample rubber that is laid out flat near the edge of a level surface; the pendulum, as seen in
Figure 8.1, is hung with its upper cylindrical section resting on the rubber sample. To carry out
the experiment the pendulum is rotated to the angle set by the short bar on the end of the
rolling section and is released, whereupon it will rock back and forth and will come to rest after
a length of time during which the position of the pendulum is continuously measured and
recorded. Once the test is complete it may be repeated a number of times and the average test
time can be calculated and compared with results from other rubber samples or with a database

107
of past experiments. Analysis of the results is very simple with the rubbers having the longest
test times having the lowest resistance and the best potential to be used in a low rolling
resistance conveyor belt.

Figure 8.1 Diagram of the pendulum test [30].

The pendulum test has the advantages of being cost effective and quick to carry out. It is also
portable and can utilize small one-off samples, like those which can be produced with laboratory
scale equipment, or a piece of conveyor belt cut to size. It is disadvantaged by its relatively slow
(compared to conveyor velocities) oscillating or non-continuous nature and the low test loads
available as well as the lack of a definite stop point. Also, it is not possible to derive indentation
rolling resistance data from a pendulum test that can be used for designing a conveyor as the
qualitative results produced are only useful to predict which rubber sample or belt type is better.

108
8.1.1.2 Incline Ramp

Of the discontinuous tests, the incline ramp test best, or most directly, measures the indentation
rolling resistance of a conveyor belt; a schematic of the incline test is shown in Figure 8.2. The
apparatus consists of one short and one long incline ramp joined together by a curved section
which is tangential to the two inclines. The two inclines form an asymmetrical “v” shape about
the curved section with the shorter incline being considerably steeper than the longer one.
During testing, a section of conveyor belt is laid along and fixed to the long incline section and a
loaded weight carrier which rolls on two idler rolls, as shown in Figure 8.3, is winched to the top
of the steep incline and released; gravity then accelerates the weight carrier down the incline
and the curve section directs it onto the longer incline which is furnished with the test specimen.
While the weight carrier is travelling up the long incline the time of its passing is logged at the
three positions shown in Figure 8.3 so that its deceleration can be calculated and the force
resisting the carrier’s motion can be found. The indentation rolling resistance force is acting on
the trolley at the two conveyor idler rolls and is thus determined by calculating half of the
difference between the total resistance force and the sum of the other resistances acting to slow
the trolley. These resistances include the trolley mass component acting along the incline and
the rim drag of each conveyor idler roll. The rim drag of an idler roll is the force that needs to
be applied to the surface of its shell to overcome the resistance of the bearings that the shell
rotates upon and the seals that protect the bearing.

Figure 8.2 Schematic of “inclined” indentation rolling resistance test machine [31].

The incline ramp test has the advantages of being able to test real conveyor belt or rubber
samples if the ramp is small enough and a large version of the test is able to utilize much larger
and more realistic loads than the pendulum test. Disadvantages include the difficulties of
measuring the rim drag of the two conveyor idler rolls as a test progresses – though this could
be mitigated by removing the idler roll’s seals – and the continually changing test variables –
most notably velocity changes as the weighted carriage decelerates. The indentation rolling
resistance of some rubber compounds is velocity dependant and this, combined with the

109
changing velocity of the test, would make it difficult to determine the indentation rolling
resistance for a speed dependant rubber at a particular speed.

Figure 8.3 Side view schematic of measuring carriage and the three measuring points on the
incline ramp [31].

Continuous Indentation Rolling Resistance Test Equipment

A preferable way in which to conduct indentation rolling resistance experiments is to use a

continuous type test. This type of test basically consists of a sample belt loop, be it a sheet of
rubber or an actual piece of conveyor belt, which is supported by some mechanism and is
continuously rotated past an idler roll that is mounted on load cells. Two types of continuous
indentation rolling resistance measurement machine will be examined here; these being: the
drum type and the two-pulley type.

8.1.2.1 Drum Type Indentation Rolling Resistance Test Machine

The drum type indentation rolling resistance test machine utilizes a large steel drum which has
the purpose of providing a rigid surface on which to mount a test belt; a view of this test machine
is shown in Figure 8.4 where the drum can be clearly seen. To operate this type of machine a
piece of sample rubber or actual conveyor belt is cut to size and fixed to the internal surface of
the drum such that there is a complete loop of rubber with no gaps. The external surface of the
drum runs on two supporting rolls, one of which is driven, and the instrumented test idler roll is
mounted on a frame which holds it stationary on the inside of the drum. Belt and idler roll loads
are supplied by the addition of weights to the idler roll support frame.

The main advantages of the drum type indentation rolling resistance test machine is the small
footprint of the machine and the way in which the sample is attached to the drum. The small
size of the machine allows it to be easily moveable and also to be used in a small temperature
controlled room which need not be totally devoted to indentation rolling resistance testing since

110
the machine can be removed once the test work is complete. The sample mounting method
also avoids the need to carry out expensive belt splicing prior to testing. The main difficulty with
this type of machine is the curvature of the belt sample which may need to be considered in the
calculation of the results so that they can represent the operating conditions of a flat belt.

Figure 8.4 Drum type indentation rolling resistance test machine [33].

Two-Pulley Indentation Rolling Resistance Test Machines

The two-pulley type indentation rolling resistance test machine consists of a spliced belt loop
which is mounted on two belt drums that are in turn mounted on a rigid test frame. The test
frame incorporates mechanisms to drive, tension and track the belt as well as an apparatus
which provides the means to apply a test load to the belt and another to measure the
indentation rolling resistance. There are three examples of this type of test machine known to
the Author: one is located in Germany at Leibniz Universität Hannover and the other two are
located in Australia at The University of Newcastle.

8.1.3.1 The University of Newcastle’s Small Indentation Rolling Resistance Test

Machine

Research into the subject of indentation rolling resistance has been occurring at the University
of Newcastle for almost two decades at the time of writing. A key part of that research has been
the construction and operation of machines that can experimentally measure indentation rolling
resistance of actual conveyor belt. Wheeler, [13], designed the machine shown in Figure 8.5 to

111
carry out indentation rolling resistance experiments as part of his research into the main
resistances of conveyor systems. This machine was initially designed to provide experimental
validation of Wheeler’s two dimensional numerical indentation rolling resistance model and is
designed to operate with fabric reinforced conveyor belts to which the two dimensional
numerical model is most suited.

The small indentation rolling resistance test machine is quite modest compared to later
examples. This machine uses a test belt that is 5.3m long and 0.6m wide. The belt, which can
be removed and installed without the need to cut it, is mounted on Ø0.5m belt drums which are
located at roughly 2 metre centres. The belt is tensioned with a gravity counterweight that
provides the tensioning force through a lever arrangement and motion is supplied via a 15kW
electric motor with available belt speeds ranging from 0 to 5m/s. Indentation rolling resistance
testing is conducted with specially manufactured conveyor idler rolls that range from Ø75mm
to Ø150mm, in 25mm increments, and belt loads ranging from very small up to 2.5-3kN/m. The
belt loads on this machine are applied with dead weight through an ultra-high molecular weight
polyethylene plate which is located directly above the test idler roll and can be seen in Figure
8.6 resting on the belt directly above the test idler roll; the plate slides on the carry cover of the
belt and transfers the weight, which is stacked in a cradle attached to its top surface, to the belt
and test idler roll below. For this loading method talcum powder is used to lower friction
between the plate and the belt surface.

Figure 8.5 The University of Newcastle’s small indentation rolling resistance test machine [13].

112
 Figure 8.6 Close up view of the load cell arrangement used on the test machine shown in
Figure 8.5 [13]. The small load cell on the left is not repeated at the other end of the test idler
roll.

S -type Load Cell

Rod-End

Rolling
Knife-edge
Support

Vertical Force Load Beam

Figure 8.7 Rolling knife-edge support schematic [13].

Indentation rolling resistance is measured with five load cells that are connected to the test idler
roll through a “rolling knife-edge” design which is shown in Figure 8.7. In operation, horizontal
idler roll forces are measured by two S-type load cells which are attached to each end of the test
idler roll and the support structure with tie-rod ends. A load beam supports the vertical load, at
each end of the test idler roll, which is transferred from the test idler roll to the load beam
through the rolling knife-edge. The purpose of the rolling knife-edge is to isolate the horizontal
and vertical load cells with its rolling action so that they are able to take measurements that are
free of any influence from each other. The sharp end of the knife-edge allows the test idler roll’s
shaft to rotate freely so that the torque transferred to it by the test idler roll’s bearings can be

113
measured by the fifth load beam (the left-most load cell seen in Figure 8.6). The frictional
resistance created by the contact between the knife-edge and the test idler roll acts to reduce
the torque transferred to the rim drag load cell, however, this resistance torque is very small
due to the tiny radius of contact present on the sharp end of the knife edge.

The main disadvantage of the small indentation rolling resistance test machine is the short
length of belt that it can handle, which means that the ratio of the length of the belt splice to
the belt length is large and as such the measurement spikes and resulting transients caused by
the splice significantly reduce the amount of useful data obtained. This may be countered by
operating only at low speeds but the drawbacks of this solution are obvious. Another problem
is that the rolling knife-edge mechanism has many parts that require perfect adjustment and
continual checking to ensure that they all remain correctly aligned. The rolling knife edge cannot
be discounted for future use, however, as it is able to fit in less head height than the diameter
of a idler roll and this compact arrangement makes it potentially useful when carrying out
indentation rolling resistance testing on belt conveyors where other load cell mounting types
may not fit.

8.1.3.2 Leibniz Universität Hannover Indentation Rolling Resistance Test Rig

The two-pulley indentation rolling resistance test machine which is located at Leibniz Universität
Hannover is shown in Figure 8.8; it is, in general, a larger version of the machine just described.
It uses a 10m long test belt that is mounted on Ø800mm belt drums and is located in a
temperature controlled room that is used to study the effects of temperature on the indentation
rolling resistance, Overmeyer [34]. Instead of applying the load through a horizontal plate that
slides over the test belt’s upper surface, as on the machine in the previous section, this machine
uses a large support idler roll to do the same job. The primary advantage of the support idler
roll is that it greatly reduces the friction effects that are associated with the sliding plate. The
support idler roll is located directly opposite the instrumented test idler roll but, unlike the flat
plate, and as its name implies, it acts as a support for the test load rather than as the device to
apply it. On the Leibniz Universität Hannover machine the test load is applied with pneumatic
bellows which act directly on the instrumented test idler roll which rolls on the outer surface of
the test belt on the upper side of the machine. The positioning for the instrumented test idler
roll dictates that the test belt is installed inside-out so that its pulley cover will be on the outside
where it comes into contact with the test idler. The inverted arrangement for the instrumented
test idler roll has the advantage of allowing the testing to be conducted, if required, at very low

114
test loads, that could approach 0N/m, since the weight of the belt acts downwards and away
from the instrumented test idler roll and therefore isn’t a component of the test load unlike with
the two Newcastle test rigs where the belt weight – which can be considerable for a modern
high strength belt – defines the minimum test load.

Figure 8.8 A 3 dimensional CAD rendering of the indentation rolling resistance test machine
located at the University of Hanover [34].

Figure 8.9 Details of the load cell locations on the University of Hanover’s indentation rolling
resistance test machine [34].

Figure 8.9 shows details of the load cell arrangement used on the Leibniz Universität Hanover
indentation rolling resistance test machine. The measurements taken by the load cells are much
the same as the previously discussed University of Newcastle machine, with load cells for
measuring test idler roll shaft torque, vertical load and horizontal load, however, this machine

115
measures the test idler roll shaft torque at both ends and also has the unique ability to measure
the axial load of the test idler roll as well.

The main disadvantage of the loading and support combination used by Leibniz Universität
Hanover is that just as there is always an asymmetrical contact between an idler roll and a
conveyor belt, there will also be an asymmetrical contact between the support idler roll and the
test belt and a different asymmetrical contact between the test belt and the test idler roll. The
deviation, which will become worse when asymmetrical conveyor belt is tested, is quite possibly
small but nevertheless it will be measured by the load cells as a component of the drag force
and should be understood, quantified and factored out of any results.

8.2 The University of Newcastle’s Large Indentation Rolling Resistance Test Rig

The large indentation rolling resistance test machine is shown in Figure 8.10 and is the largest
two-pulley type know to the Author. Right from the initial design phase the machine was
designed to test steel cord conveyor belt and to be able to conduct testing at high speeds. The
design and construction of a new indentation rolling resistance test machine for the University
of Newcastle commenced in 2009. It relies heavily on the knowledge gained through the design,
construction and use of the existing small indentation rolling resistance test machine, that was
described in section 8.1.3.1, and is able to utilize many components that were made for the
earlier machine.

Figure 8.10 The University of Newcastle’s large indentation rolling resistance test machine.

116
In the review of the large indentation rolling resistance test machine, elements of its design will
be described. The apparatus – also known as the measurement frame, as distinct from the rest
of the machine, used to take measurements for the indentation rolling resistance calculations
will also be described in detail. The operation of the machine will be presented and the
experimental procedure used to conduct the test work will also be outlined.

Large Indentation Rolling Resistance Test Rig’s Design Parameters

A schematic of the large indentation rolling resistance test machine is shown in Figure 8.11. The
machine was primarily designed to measure the indentation rolling resistance of steel cord
reinforced conveyor belt and this primary goal was met with Ø1000mm belt drums, which is
double the diameter of the small machine’s belt drums, and the incorporation of high pressure
hydraulics to boost belt tensions up to 10 tonnes. The machine utilizes a 29m long spliced belt
loop that can be up to 600mm wide; however, it has become standard practice to use test belts
that are around 400mm wide as this provides a good compromise between high indentation
rolling resistance drag forces –which increase with increasing belt width – and high loads per
width of belt – which decrease with increasing belt width. In general, preference is given to the
need for higher loads than for higher drag forces as the load-cell accuracy is still good at lower
drag levels. The maximum load that can be applied to the test idler roll is 800kg which allows a
maximum belt load of 19.6kN/m for a 400mm wide belt.

The test load is provided by two idler rolls which are known as “hold-down rolls”. These two
rolls are equally spaced on either side of the test idler roll and are arranged such that they can
push the belt down and hence load the test idler roll; Figure 8.12 shows the undulating conveyor
belt path that is created by the hold-down rolls. The use of this type of loading method is
designed to mimic the conditions of the conveyor belt as experienced on a real conveyor, chiefly,
the loading mechanism is designed to transfer the load to the test idler roll through the cords of
the belt carcass in the same manner that the belt and bulk material weight which is suspended
between idler sets on a conveyor is transferred through the cords; the loading method also
approximates the conveyor belt sag which occurs between idler sets on a real conveyor. A
consequence of this loading method is that it requires energy to continually bend the conveyor
belt over the test idler roll and this extra work is measured by the load cells as part of the
horizontal drag force so, in order to compare the results from this machine to others, or even to
computer simulation results, the extra drag force must be quantified and removed from the
overall results – this process will be shown in the next section. The loading method used on the

117
Figure 8.11 A schematic of the University of Newcastle’s indentation rolling resistance test facility.

118
Large indentation rolling resistance test machine is similar to the method used by Spaans [11]
which is shown in Figure 8.13 and it is also given in CEMA, [32], as one of the preferred methods
of load application for indentation rolling resistance testing. Changing the test idler roll load is
achieved by forcing the test belt down on either side by an equal amount and then varying the
overall belt tension to change the load on the roll through the angle formed by the belt. The
vertical position of the hold down rolls is usually defined as a percentage of the distance
between them; testing is most often conducted at a sag ratio of 1% which, for a distance of 5m
between the hold down rolls, is 50mm below the top surface of a well tensioned test belt.

Indentation Rolling Resistance Variable Variable Height

Measurement Frame Position Hold Down Roll

Figure 8.12 Belt path through the hold-down rolls and test idler roll [35].

Figure 8.13 A diagram of the indentation rolling resistance test machine as used by Spaans
[11].

The indentation rolling resistance test machine is equipped with a set of eight test idler rolls
which provide the means to test conveyor belts with different diameter idler rolls. The test idler
rolls are machined and dynamically balanced and the available sizes are Ø75mm, Ø 100mm, Ø
125mm, Ø 150mm, Ø 7” (177.8mm), Ø 7 5/8” (193.7mm), Ø 8 5/8” (219.1mm) and Ø316mm.
All of the test idler rolls are made from steel and are identical except for their shell diameters.

119
The test idler rolls all use low friction shielded bearings in order to minimize their rim drag which
is measured by the machine as an extra component of the horizontal drag.

An early requirement for the new machine was the need to test indentation rolling resistance
at high belt speeds. To that end the machine was designed to test belts at speeds from 0.6m/s
up to 10m/s and over if needed. This speed range covers the normal range of belt speeds from
3 to 8m/s and also allows some future proofing by having high speed capabilities that may be
required in future. Low speed testing is also available if there is some characteristic such as a
non-uniform belt splice or other physical abnormality on the test belt which may cause some
damage to the load-cells if higher speed testing is carried out.

The indentation rolling resistance test machine has been moved from the position shown in
Figure 8.10 to a new building within the University’s campus where, after the move was
completed, a temperature controlled room was constructed around it; the indentation rolling
resistance machine is shown in its temperature controlled room Figure 8.14. Operating
temperature can have a considerable effect on the indentation rolling resistance performance
of a conveyor belt and as such the room is equipped with 25kW refrigeration plant for cooling
and 36kW of heating capacity which enables testing to be conducted between -20°C and 50°C.

Figure 8.14 The University of Newcastle’s indentation rolling resistance test machine inside its
temperature controlled room at its current location.

Measurement Frame

The majority of the indentation rolling resistance test machine is devoted to handling the
conveyor belt and only a small section on top of the machine provides the actual indentation
rolling resistance measurements; this part of the test machine is known as the measurement
frame. A view of the measurement frame is shown in Figure 8.15. The measurement frame

120
consists of two main sections: the first is the larger outer frame whose purpose is to support the
inner section and to provide vertical adjustment that is needed to ensure that the test idler roll
can be located at the correct height; the second, inner section, consists of a lower frame upon
which the test idler roll sits and an upper frame from which the lower frame is suspended by
four parallel links that allow the lower section to swing freely – in the machine’s axial direction
– under the top section. All mating surfaces of the measurement frame are machined in order
to ensure accurate alignment and the measurement frames four mounting plates, which are
attached to the lattice frame with “U” bolts, are shimmed to perfect alignment to provide a
suitable mounting surface for the measurement frame. The measurement frame holds all of the
load cells, which in turn hold the test idler roll fixed in its position underneath the conveyor belt.
In order to support the test idler roll there is a total of 6 load cells: 4 to measure the vertical load
applied to the roll; 1 to measure the rim drag of the roll; and 1 to measure the horizontal drag
force. The 4 vertical load cells are “S” type load cells with a capacity of 200kg each; the rim drag
load cell is a 20N load beam; and the horizontal drag force load cell is an “S” type whose capacity
may be either 50N, 100N or 250N depending on the quality of the test belt and the range of
resistance expected.

Figure 8.15 Measurement frame of the indentation rolling resistance test machine.

121
 Figure 8.16 Plane view of the indentation rolling resistance measurement frame showing the
location of all of the load cells.

Two interesting features of the measurement frame that are worthy of further examination are
the parallel linkages and the knife edges. There are 4 individual linkages all with a flexure pivot
at each end and, in acting together, they allow the approximately horizontal movement of the
frame which holds the test idler roll. The movement of the frame is in fact an arc, however, the
motion can be regarded as horizontal for small movements and the long length of each linkage
further reduces the vertical error associated with the horizontal movement. The parallel links,
which incorporate the vertical load cells are not, as the name implies, true links as they do not
pivot on rod ends or some other moving hinge but rely on the flexing of a thin strip of steel to
provide the required movement instead. One of the parallel linkage’s flexure pivots is shown in
Figure 8.17; in the figure, the 0.55mm thick steel strip can be seen sandwiched between heavier
steel sections which are themselves separated by a 2mm wide gap – the bending motion of the
pivot is provided by the thin steel section in the 2mm gap. Flexure straps offer a superior
alternative to mechanical hinges in situations where the movement required is very small and
where accurate force measurements are needed. An undeformed flexure pivot will begin to
deform under the slightest application of a lateral force, regardless of the axial force that may
be applied at the same time, and if the movement is small there will be virtually no resistance
offered. Fortunately, the horizontal drag load cell only allows small movements and therefore
the resistance of the flexure straps will be approximately zero. In the case of the mechanical
hinge, some of the actuating force is absorbed by the mechanism to overcome friction in the

122
joint and this force would not be measured by the horizontal drag load cell leading to an error
in the measurements.

Figure 8.17 Measurement frame flexure pivot.

The test idler roll is supported at each end by a set of knife edges. The knife edges are a
hardened steel triangular prism whose top edges are located at the axis of the test idler roll. The
knife edge seat is a cylinder with a 90° cut out which provides a space for the 60° knife edge to
locate; this combination allows the shaft of the idler roll to rotate up to ±15°. A knife edge and
its seat can be seen through the central hole in the end cap pictured in Figure 8.18. The knife
edge allows the transmission of the rim drag force of the test idler roll to the torque load cell,
via the threaded rod seen in Figure 8.18. The magnitude of the frictional resistance generated
by the knife edge and seat is made negligible by their radius of contact which, given that the
knife edge is ground to a fine sharp edge, is very small. Any frictional force resisting the rotation
of the test idler shaft is multiplied by the radius of contact and is thereby made insignificant.

Figure 8.18 Close up of knife edge and test idler roll adaptor. The knife-edge can be seen
through the hole in the centre of the picture.

123
 Setup and Operation

The large indentation rolling resistance test machine is relatively straight forward to use once it
has been set up and levelled. The most important and complex parts of the test machine’s setup
is the installation of a test conveyor idler roll which needs to be carried out with a high level of
precision. Details of the setup required to install and remove a spliced test belt loop and the
levelling of the machine components will not be provided, however, it is worth noting that
complete belts can be removed from the test machine and installed at a later date without
cutting them.

When the large indentation rolling resistance test machine is initially set up to test a new
conveyor belt or when the programme of testing requires a new test idler roll diameter, and
hence a roll change, the new test idler roll must be installed and levelled and the mounting frame
must be aligned. Levelling of the test idler roll is done to ensure that its axis is horizontal and
that the point at which it contacts the conveyor belt is at the same height as the top of the other
conveyor idler rolls and the two belt drums; levelling of the test idler roll is achieved with a
theodolite. Horizontal positioning of the test idler roll mount frame is much more difficult to
achieve; basically, in this process the angle θ in Figure 8.19 is adjusted until it is zero by moving
the test idler roll mount frame to the correct horizontal position. Proper horizontal alignment
is known to be achieved when the addition of weight – see Figure 8.20 – to the test idler roll
support frame does not change the value read by the horizontal drag load cell. If the addition
of weight has a minimal effect on the horizontal drag force then it is assumed that the addition
of a belt load to the test conveyor idler roll, which is essentially the same thing, will also have no
effect. The alignment step is critical to the generation of accurate indentation rolling resistance
results; however, it could be avoided if the results were found from the average of
measurements taken with the test machine running in forwards and reverse. Testing in both
directions is not practical, unfortunately, since the action of running the belt raises its
temperature, especially at low temperatures, and it is faster to gather comparable results from
a properly aligned machine on which the belt can be ran for the minimum amount of time.

124
 Figure 8.19 Forces acting on the test idler roll mount during the alignment procedure.

Figure 8.20 240kg of weights installed to set the offset of the horizontal drag load cell. Note
that the test belt is not in contact with the test idler roll or any other part of the frame.

Once the test idler roll diameter and temperature parameters are set, the testing can begin. For
this part of the testing the only variables that need to be changed are the belt load and the belt
speed. Before any testing can begin the test belt is raised off the test idler roll and the zero load
measurements are recorded; these measurements will be used to correctly offset the
measurements during the calculation phase. The primary reason for this step is to measure the
weight of the test idler roll and its mounting frame so that it can be subtracted from the vertical
load measurements which include the belt load plus the additional weights of the idler and its
components with the latter not being part of the test load. Next, the hold down rolls are set at
the correct depth to deflect the belt over the test idler roll and the belt tension is reduced to
just above a level where the belt would be sagging under gravity instead of under the hold down
rolls’ influence. The test machine is then started at the lowest test speed and data from the load
cells is collected for a number of belt cycles. The speed of the belt is then increased to the next
speed and more data is collected; this process is repeated until all of the belt speeds are tested.

125
The belt tension is then increased to the next level to raise the belt load on the test idler roll and
the data collection cycle is repeated for all test speeds. Data is collected at around five different
belt tensions that range from the minimum given up until the limit of the machine is approached
(the belt pulleys are the weakest component). The entire test programme may be then repeated
for other hold down roll sag percentages if required. When the testing is complete the
temperature of the cool room is changed and the load and speed testing will be repeated after
a period of 16 hours – or longer if extreme temperatures are being tested. If another test idler
roll diameter is required for testing the cool room is returned to a comfortable temperature, a
new test idler roll is installed and aligned and the whole process is then repeated.

8.3 Remarks

In this chapter, a number of ways that indentation rolling resistance can be measured have been
examined. In particular, a detailed description of the large indentation rolling resistance test
machine operated by the University of Newcastle has been provided. The large indentation
rolling resistance test machine has been successfully used to generate indentation rolling
resistance results for this thesis as well as other commercial projects and has been shown to
correlate well with other similar equipment, Steven [36]. It is hoped that it will continue to
prove useful as a research and consulting tool well into the future.

126
9 DETERMINATION OF INDENTATION ROLLING RESISTANCE
FROM EXPERIMENTAL DATA
The data that is gathered from the load cells of the indentation rolling resistance test machine
are not indentation rolling resistance results. To determine the indentation rolling resistance
results a series of calculations must be undertaken that account for the influence of the test
idler roll bearing resistance and the additional drag caused by the flexing of the test belt over
the test idler roll. Once the indentation rolling resistance is calculated it may then be used in
the design of a belt conveyor. In order to aid the discussion, some of the results generated by
the machine will be given as examples, however, a complete treatment of the indentation rolling
resistance results generated through the use of the machine will be provided in the results
chapter.

9.1 Indentation Rolling Resistance Test Machine Measured Results

During operation of the indentation rolling resistance test machine there are three different sets
of data which are continuously collected, these being: the vertical load applied to the test idler
roll; the torque applied to the test idler roll shaft by its bearings; and the horizontal drag force
experienced by the test idler roll. The other variables – test idler roll diameter, temperature,
and belt speed – are recorded by hand once for each test. In order to calculate an indentation
rolling resistance result from the continuously collected data, the data must first be averaged.
For the vertical load and the test idler roll shaft torque measurements the entire data set is
simply averaged regardless of whether the data point was measured when the test belt splice
was passing over the test idler roll or which cover was being measured; however, the horizontal
drag force measurements are more complicated to average. Unlike the vertical and torque load
measurements, the horizontal drag measurements are not constant due to there being at least
a splice present in the belt and often more than one cover material as well. If the test belt
consists of only one cover material then the data is viewed in graph form so that the splice data
can be identified and removed from the averaged result. If the belt consists of two or more
different pulley cover materials then, again, a graph of the raw data is viewed so that the data
from each cover material can be separated from each other before they are averaged. One such
graph, for one revolution of a test belt with two different pulley covers, is shown in Figure 9.1.

127
 15

Cover
Splice Cover 1 Transition Cover 2 Splice

10

0 700

-5

Figure 9.1 Horizontal drag force data.

When all of the load cell measurements have been averaged, each value is offset by the load cell
readings recorded at the start of the test while the test belt was raised off the test idler roll; the
new results are then presented in three graphs representing the three different test idler roll
loads that are measured. Examples of the three graphs – Figure 9.2, Figure 9.3 and Figure 9.4 –
show the data in groups which were tested under the same vertical load. Note, that from this
point forward, unless otherwise stated, any reference to experimentally measured data assumes
that the data has been averaged and the offset values have already been subtracted from those
averages. It is interesting to note that the horizontal force data, 𝐹𝐹𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 , shown in Figure 9.2 is
generally not increasing with faster velocities and this means that the indentation rolling
resistance of this particular test belt was independent of velocity. The same set of data also
shows that the measured horizontal force is rising with vertical load as is the test idler roll shaft
torque force, 𝐹𝐹𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 , shown in Figure 9.3. The data presented in the three graphs is purely force
data that was measured by the load cells (less the offset); this is particularly important to
remember when looking at Figure 9.3 which is described as a torque even though the
measurement is not a torque but rather a force generated by the torque resistance of the test
idler roll’s bearings. The word “torque” is kept in order to make it clear what the results refer
to since the term “idler shaft force” is ambiguous in the field of indentation rolling resistance
were the axial force applied to the test idler roll shaft is sometimes measured alongside the
other forces already described.

128
 30

25

20

FHm (N)
15

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Velocity (m/s)

Figure 9.2 Offset raw test idler roll horizontal drag force data.

2.5

1.5
FTm (N)

0.5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Velocity (m/s)

Figure 9.3 Offset test idler roll torque force data.

3000

2500

2000
FVm (N)

1500

1000

500

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Velocity (m/s)

Figure 9.4 Offset test idler roll vertical force data

In order to remove the test idler roll bearing resistance from the above average data, Equation
9.1 is used. In the equation, 𝐹𝐹𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 is the measured horizontal force and 𝐹𝐹𝐻𝐻 is the horizontal belt

129
resistance, which includes indentation rolling resistance and flexure resistance, per metre of belt
width; 𝐹𝐹𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 is the measured torque force; the variables 𝐿𝐿 and 𝑅𝑅 are the torque arm length and
the test idler roll radius respectively; and 𝑊𝑊 is the width of the test belt. This equation provides
the total horizontal force, or resistance, per unit belt width that is due to the viscoelastic
properties of the conveyor belt cover. Equation 9.2, where 𝐹𝐹𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 is the measured vertical force,
is used to calculated the vertical force per metre of test belt width – 𝐹𝐹𝑉𝑉 .

𝐿𝐿
𝐹𝐹𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 − 𝐹𝐹
𝐹𝐹𝐻𝐻 = 𝑅𝑅 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
9.1
𝑊𝑊
𝐹𝐹𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉
𝐹𝐹𝑉𝑉 = 9.2
𝑊𝑊

Corresponding vertical load, 𝐹𝐹𝑉𝑉 , and horizontal resistance, 𝐹𝐹𝐻𝐻 , results are gathered together and
assembled into a graph similar to the one shown in Figure 9.5. The curve, or curves, thus formed
are the expected shape that is associated with indentation rolling resistance measurements. It
is also evident from this graph that the resistance of this belt does not increase with increasing
belt velocity; however, it will be shown later that velocity independence cannot always be
assumed.

70

60

50
2 m/s
FH (N/m)

40
3 m/s
30
4 m/s
20
6 m/s
10 8 m/s
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
FV (kN/m)

Figure 9.5 Horizontal force results per metre width of belt for different vertical loads and test
belt velocities.

9.2 Determining Indentation Rolling Resistance from Measured Results

The data points presented in Figure 9.5 are a combination of the desired indentation rolling
resistance value and the additional resistance due to the flexure of the test belt. In order to
determine the indentation rolling resistance, the belt flexure resistance must be quantified and
subtracted from the horizontal force results. Two methods are currently used to determine the

130
magnitude of the belt flexure resistance force: there is a simple method which, here, is referred
to as the “Y-intercept offset method”; and a more complex method that is referred to as “zero
percent belt flexure method”.

Determining Belt Flexure Resistance with the Y-intercept Offset Method

The Y-intercept offset method for determining the drag force generated by the bending of the
belt is a relatively simple method that gives a conservative measure of the true indentation
rolling resistance of a flat belt. Despite the conservative results, the method has value because
it is readily understood and can be carried out with only four or five indentation rolling resistance
experiments where the only changing variable is the vertical load.

The Y-intercept offset method commences by fitting Equation 9.3, Munzenberger and Wheeler
[1], to each of the horizontal resistance force data sets shown in Figure 9.5. In the equation 𝑥𝑥 is
the test idler roll load, 𝑆𝑆 is a multiplier and 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 is the y-intercept, which is assumed to represent
the flexure resistance of the test belt. There are a few ways that the curve fit may be carried
out, however, Equations 9.4 and 9.5 can be employed to conduct a least squares curve fit. The
curve fits for the data in Figure 9.5 using Equation 9.3 are shown in Figure 9.6.

𝐹𝐹𝐻𝐻 = 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 + S𝑥𝑥 4⁄3 9.3

where:

∑𝑚𝑚 𝑐𝑐 2 𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚 𝑐𝑐 𝑚𝑚 𝑐𝑐
𝑖𝑖=1(𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 ) ∑𝑖𝑖=1 𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖 − ∑𝑖𝑖=1 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖 ∑𝑖𝑖=1 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 =
𝑚𝑚(∑𝑚𝑚 𝑐𝑐 2 𝑚𝑚 𝑐𝑐 2
𝑖𝑖=1(𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 ) ) − (∑𝑖𝑖=1 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 )
9.4

𝑚𝑚 ∑𝑚𝑚 𝑐𝑐 𝑚𝑚 𝑐𝑐 𝑚𝑚
𝑖𝑖=1 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖 − ∑𝑖𝑖=1 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 ∑𝑖𝑖=1 𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖
𝑆𝑆 = 𝑚𝑚 (𝑥𝑥 𝑐𝑐 )2 ) 9.5
𝑚𝑚(∑𝑖𝑖=1 𝑖𝑖 − (∑𝑖𝑖=1 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑐𝑐 )2
𝑚𝑚

And c=4/3. 𝑚𝑚 is the number of data points in the set to which the curve is being fitted.

Equation 9.3 was derived for use with the type of results that are produced on the large
indentation rolling resistance test machine, however, the 4/3 exponent is borrowed from
Jonker’s equation. It has been found that the curve fit of Equation 9.3 provides a good
approximation of the experimental data, with data from low loads and small flexure values being
the main exception; however, in the author’s experience, it has been found that Jonker’s
equation itself will overestimate the experimental results.

131
 70

60

50
2 m/s
FH (N/m)

40
3 m/s
30
4 m/s
20 6 m/s
10 8 m/s

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

FV (kN/m)

Figure 9.6 Least squares curve fit of data points in Figure 9.5.

If the indentation rolling resistance experiments were conducted without the need for flexing
the test belt over the test idler roll, then it would be expected that the curve fits of the
experimental data would pass through the origin of the graph since there would be a result of
zero indentation rolling resistance for the case of zero belt load. Instead, the belt is flexed over
the test idler roll during the experiments and this causes an offset in the data at zero belt load.
For the current purpose this offset at zero belt load is entirely attributed to the force required
to flex the test belt during testing and is thus subtracted from the experimental data curve fits
to produce the graph shown in Figure 9.7 where each curve now passes through the origin, as
expected, and represents the final indentation rolling resistance values. The equation for the
curves in Figure 9.7 is given by Equation 9.6 and, as expected, the equation is the simply Equation
9.3 with 𝐴𝐴 subtracted.

𝐹𝐹𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 = 𝑆𝑆𝑥𝑥 4⁄3 9.6

132
 70

60

50
2 m/s

FIRR (N/m)
40
3 m/s
30
4 m/s
20 6 m/s
10 8 m/s

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

FV (kN/m)

Figure 9.7 Final indentation rolling resistance curves.

Determining Belt Flexure Resistance with the Zero Percent Belt Sag Method

The indentation rolling resistance results derived from the Y-intercept method, discussed in the
last section, are suitable for use in conveyor design applications but they are not accurate
enough to compare to the predictions generated by the three dimensional indentation rolling
resistance model which predicts results for a perfectly flat belt. A more accurate method for
determining the belt sag resistance force, and by extension the indentation rolling resistance
force, is the zero percent belt sag method. The zero percent belt sag method relies on repeating
identical tests at different belt sag ratios so that the results for each sag ratio can be analysed
and extrapolated to zero percent belt sag to produce indentation rolling resistance results for a
flat – zero percent sag – test belt. Unfortunately, the zero percent belt sag method requires four
to five times the amount of test work that is required for the Y-intercept method and the
calculation method is also more complex.

The zero percent belt sag method begins in the same manner as the Y-intercept method, were
curve fits, according to 9.3, are found for the horizontal belt resistance data, 𝐹𝐹𝐻𝐻 , but now instead
of there being one set of data, as in Figure 9.5, there will be four or more similar graphs that will
undergo the same process. Each of the graphs thus processed will represent the horizontal force
results – because they have not been offset to the origin – gathered for different belt sag ratios;
typical belt sag ratios that indentation rolling resistance testing is conducted at are: 0.50%,
0.75%, 1.00% and 1.25%.

The second step is to use the curve fit equations to find resistance values for a set of identical
test idler loads. For each of the curve fits, representing the desired belt speed, the same set of
belt loads is entered into the curve fit equation and the results are plotted on a graph like the

133
one shown in Figure 9.8 where the horizontal belt resistance is calculated for 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5kN/m
belt loads for each of four different belt sag ratios.

60
1kN/m
50 2kN/m

40
3kN/m
4kN/m
FH (N/m)

30
5kN/m
20 Linear (1kN/m)
Linear (2kN/m)
10
Linear (3kN/m)
0 Linear (4kN/m)
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50

Belt Sag (%) Linear (5kN/m)

Figure 9.8 Resistance data calculated from original curve fit.

For each data set, as shown in Figure 9.8, a linear curve fit is carried out and extrapolated data
points at 0% belt sag are calculated with Equation 9.4, using 𝑐𝑐 = 1. Each of the y-intercepts thus
found are plotted on a graph, as shown in Figure 9.9, and Equation 9.7 is fitted to the newly
plotted data.

𝐹𝐹𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 = 𝑆𝑆𝑥𝑥 𝑐𝑐 9.7

where:
∑𝑚𝑚 𝑐𝑐
𝑖𝑖=1 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖
𝑆𝑆 = 𝑚𝑚 9.8
∑𝑖𝑖=1(𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 𝑐𝑐 )2

and 𝑐𝑐 = 4⁄3.

50

45

40

35
FIRR (N/m)

30

25
0% Belt Sag
20
Curve Fit
15

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

FV (kN/m)

Figure 9.9 Final curve fit for comparing to indentation rolling resistance simulations.

134
The final curve fit shown in Figure 9.9 is assumed to approximate the test belt’s indentation
rolling resistance at 0% belt sag and is the curve that is compared to the results from the finite
element analysis indentation rolling resistance simulations which also assume zero percent sag
– or flat – belt conditions. When the indentation rolling resistance results calculated with the
zero percent belt sag method are compared with the original horizontal drag results it is found
that the belt flexure resistance, which is the difference between the two curves, is slightly load
dependant and rises slightly as the load is increased and this is the reason why the y-intercept
method overestimates the true flat belt indentation rolling resistance when it assumes that the
belt flexure resistance is constant for all loads.

9.3 Conversion of Indentation Rolling Resistance Results for Use in Belt Conveyor
Design

The methods for determining the indentation rolling resistance of a conveyor belt that are
detailed in sections 9.2.1 and 9.2.2 provide a result that relates to a one metre wide flat belt
that is evenly loaded. For application to belt conveyor design the results must be transformed
so that they relate to the troughed configuration normally used on a belt conveyor. A three roll
trough arrangement is shown in Figure 9.10 (a) along with an assumed reaction load distribution
due to the weight of the conveyor belt – 𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏,𝑐𝑐 and 𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏,𝑠𝑠 – and the bulk material – 𝑞𝑞𝑚𝑚,𝑐𝑐 and 𝑞𝑞𝑚𝑚,𝑠𝑠 –
being conveyed. To find the total indentation rolling resistance of a troughed idler set the first
step, as noted in DIN2123 [37], is to integrate across the width of the conveyor belt using
Equation 9.9.

𝐿𝐿
𝐹𝐹𝑛𝑛 = � 𝑞𝑞(𝑧𝑧). 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 9.9
0

where 𝐿𝐿 is the total contact length of the bulk material with the belt and is given by:

𝐿𝐿 = 𝐿𝐿𝑐𝑐 + 2𝐿𝐿𝑚𝑚,𝑠𝑠 9.10

where 𝐿𝐿𝑐𝑐 is the contact length for the centre roll and 𝐿𝐿𝑚𝑚,𝑠𝑠 for the side idler rolls. Then,
substituting either Equation 9.6 or Equation 9.7, the indentation rolling resistance along each
idler roll is derived using Equation 9.11.

𝐿𝐿
𝐹𝐹𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 = � 𝑆𝑆. 𝑞𝑞(𝑧𝑧)𝑐𝑐 . 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 9.11
0

135
 Figure 9.10 Approximate mass distribution (a) and indentation rolling resistance distribution
(b) for a trough idler roll set [1].

As shown in Figure 9.10 the force distribution along the length of the centre roll is constant and
is a sum of the force due to the belt, 𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏,𝑐𝑐 (𝑧𝑧), and bulk material, 𝑞𝑞𝑚𝑚,𝑐𝑐 (𝑧𝑧). The indention rolling
resistance force acting on the centre roll is therefore given by:

𝐿𝐿𝑐𝑐
𝑐𝑐
𝐹𝐹𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼,𝑐𝑐 = � 𝑆𝑆�𝑞𝑞𝑚𝑚,𝑐𝑐 (𝑧𝑧) + 𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏,𝑐𝑐 (𝑧𝑧)� . 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 9.12
0

And upon carrying out the integration [38]:

𝑐𝑐
𝐹𝐹𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼,𝑐𝑐 = 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑐𝑐 (1−𝑐𝑐) �𝑞𝑞𝑚𝑚,𝑐𝑐 + 𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏,𝑐𝑐 �
9.13

136
The force distribution along the side idler rolls is a combination of the force due to the
belt, 𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏,𝑠𝑠 (𝑧𝑧), and a linearly decreasing load due to the bulk material, 𝑞𝑞𝑚𝑚,𝑠𝑠 (𝑧𝑧). Noting the force
due to the belt is assumed to act over the length of contact of the bulk material rather than the
belt contact length to simplify the load distribution. Similar to before, the indentation rolling
resistance force acting on each side idler roll is given by:

𝐿𝐿𝑐𝑐
𝑐𝑐
𝐹𝐹𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼,𝑠𝑠 = � 𝑆𝑆�𝑞𝑞𝑚𝑚,𝑠𝑠 (𝑧𝑧) + 𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏,𝑠𝑠 (𝑧𝑧)� . 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 9.14
0

and upon carrying out the integration [38]:

𝑆𝑆𝐿𝐿𝑚𝑚,𝑠𝑠 (1−𝑐𝑐) (𝑐𝑐+1)

𝐹𝐹𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼,𝑠𝑠 = ��2𝑞𝑞𝑚𝑚,𝑠𝑠 + 𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏,𝑠𝑠 � − 𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏,𝑠𝑠 (𝑐𝑐+1) � 9.15
2𝑞𝑞𝑚𝑚,𝑠𝑠 (𝑐𝑐 + 1)

The total indentation rolling resistance per three idler roll trough set is:

𝐹𝐹𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 = 𝐹𝐹𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼,𝑐𝑐 + 2𝐹𝐹𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼,𝑠𝑠 9.16

9.4 Remarks

In this chapter two different calculation methods for determining indentation rolling resistance
results from the experimentally measured data have been shown and a method for using those
indentation rolling resistance results to calculate the indentation rolling resistance for a three
roll troughed idler set has also been given.

The method shown for converting laboratory indentation rolling resistance results to trough
conveyor indentation rolling resistance is not the only method that can be used, however, it has
been compared to the method provided in CEMA, [32], and has been found to compare well in
an actual example, Munzenberger and Wheeler [1]. The method presented here is open to
interpretation of the expected bulk material cross section and the resulting loads applied to each
idler roll; the determination of conveyor idler roll loads can be complex if all of the determining
factors are considered and is outside the scope of this thesis, though, the vertical loads were
calculated [1] simply by considering the mass of the bulk material located above each conveyor
idler roll and the inclination of each idler roll.

Of the two methods for calculating indentation rolling resistance from experimental data, one
favours minimal testing to produce a result that is known to be conservative and the other
favours accuracy at the expense of a considerable amount of extra experimental work; the
method that is ultimately used will depend on how the results will be used. As has already been

137
stated the second more complex method is needed so that appropriate comparisons between
the experimental data and the numerical predictions can be made; however, other than a good
correlation with the numerical modelling, the 0% sag method has not been rigorously proven.
If experimental data is being used in conveyor design then the Y-intercept offset method is
recommended as it is known to be conservative; however, a designer may choose to forgo all of
the indentation rolling resistance calculation methods and use the data which still includes the
belt flexure component as a way of accounting for the belt flexure that will be present in the
conveyor belt when it is installed.

138
10 RESULTS
In this section selected results from the indentation rolling resistance test machine and the
indentation rolling resistance finite element analysis models will be presented and compared.
First results from the test machine will be provided, beginning with a brief discussion of conveyor
belt flexure resistance and frequency or velocity dependence. Next, the trends of experimental
results with respect to various test parameters will be presented. Following on, the
computational indentation rolling resistance predictions will be discussed. In the last section
the three dimensional indentation rolling resistance predictions will be compared with related
experimental results and then the power of the three dimensional model will be demonstrated.

10.1 Experimental Results

Experimental results from the indentation rolling resistance test machine will now be shown.
Individual results for test runs will be shown and results from different test runs will be grouped
together to show indentation rolling resistance trends for changing temperature and idler roll
diameter.

Remarks on Conveyor Belt Flexure Resistance

The indentation rolling resistance test machine applies the vertical load by flexing the belt over
the test idler roll and in doing so it measures, as part of the horizontal resistance, the work
required to continually flex the belt. The purpose of this thesis, however, is to present
information relating to the measurement and prediction of conveyor belt indentation rolling
resistance but since the experimental method relies on flexing the belt to generate
measurements it would be remiss to not discuss the belt flexure component of the results.

From the curves shown in Figure 9.6 it can be observed that all 5 curves have roughly the same
y-intercept value; this similarity can be expected because all of the curves, and the data points
on which they are based, fit within a narrow band as a result of that rubber’s relatively frequency
independent nature. This frequency independent nature, which in the case of conveyor belts
indicates that speed will have little or no effect on its indentation rolling resistance performance,
is not common to all conveyor belts. As a result of this, and given that the rubber is being
stretched and compressed as the test belt is being flexed over the test idler roll and that it takes
the same amount of force to bend frequency independent rubber over the range of speeds
tested, then it should be the case that a frequency dependent rubber would need a different
amount of force to be bent at different speeds and this is, in fact, the case. For clarity, Figure

139
9.5 has been redrawn in Figure 10.1 with the range of each axis reduced to match the axes of
the graph in Figure 10.2; the data points at each load in Figure 10.1 lie on top of each other,
indicating a frequency or speed independence, while the data points for each load in Figure 10.2
are spread out and indicate that this rubber has speed dependant properties. The least squares
curve fits for the data points in Figure 10.2 are shown in Figure 10.3 where it can be seen that
there is a spread of y-intercept values. The speed dependence of the y-intercepts of the new
rubber’s results and the independence of those of the former rubber indicate that there are
viscoelastic properties offsetting the indentation rolling resistance results.

30

25

20
2 m/s
FIRR (N/m)

15 3 m/s
4 m/s
10
6 m/s
5 8 m/s

0
0 1 2 3 4 5

FV (kN/m)

Figure 10.1 The data from Figure 9.5 plotted on reduced x and y axes.

30

25

20
0.6 m/s
FIRR (N/m)

15 1 m/s
2 m/s
10
4 m/s
5
6 m/s

0
0 1 2 3 4 5

FV (kN/m)

Figure 10.2 Preliminary indentation rolling resistnace data from a conveyor belt which shows
frequency or speed dependant properties.

140
 30

25

20
0.6 m/s

FIRR (N/m)
15 1 m/s
2 m/s
10
4 m/s
5 6 m/s

0
0 1 2 3 4 5

FV (kN/m)

Figure 10.3 Least squares curve fits for the data points in Figure 10.2.

Indentation Rolling Resistance Result Trends

In Figure 9.5 and Figure 10.2 it was shown how indentation rolling resistance can vary with speed
and belt load. The large indentation rolling resistance test facility, as has already noted, is
capable of testing at different temperatures and can conduct tests with different test idler roll
diameters; Figure 10.4 and Figure 10.5 respectively show data for these two variables. Figure
10.4 is a graph of the indentation rolling resistance performance of three rubber types over a
range of temperatures while all other variables remain constant. In this case, two of the rubbers
show a decrease in indentation rolling resistance for an increase in temperature while the
performance of the third rubber is generally independent of temperature. The fact that there
isn’t one rubber which gives the best performance for all temperatures indicates that when
selecting a rubber compound for a new conveyor belt it is very important to choose the best
rubber for the prevailing temperature in which the conveyor system will operate.

The graph in Figure 10.5 shows the downward trend in conveyor belt indentation rolling
resistance performance for an increase in test idler roll diameter. This trend, unlike that for
temperature, is expected to be the same regardless of the rubber compound used to
manufacture the conveyor belt.

141
 60

50

40
FIRR (N/m)

30

20

10

0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Temperature (°C)

Figure 10.4 The indentation rolling resistance response of three rubber types at the same belt
test idler roll diameter, belt load and speed versus belt temperature temperatures.

30

28
FIRR (N/m)

26

24

22

20
120 140 160 180 200

Test Idler Roll Diameter (mm)

Figure 10.5 The effect of increasing the test idler roll diameter on indentation rolling resistance
with all other variables constant.

The graphs in Figure 10.4 and Figure 10.5 represent a significant amount of work. Unlike the
data in Figure 9.5 which took only a few hours to generate, the data in Figure 10.4 was gathered
over about 5 weeks of test work and the data in Figure 10.5 took a little over a week. The time
to gather the temperature data in Figure 10.4 could have been of the order of two months had
it not been for the fact that two of the curves came from the same test belt which was
manufactured with two different rubber compounds incorporated into its pulley cover, thus
demonstrating the time saving advantage of testing with more than one pulley cover compound
on the same test belt. To further illustrate the amount of work required to generate indentation
rolling resistance versus temperature or test idler roll diameter graphs, the set of data given in
Figure 10.2 can only be used to generate one point for these types of graph; thus, it would take

142
23 separate graphs similar to Figure 10.2 to provide enough points to generate the graph in
Figure 10.4.

10.2 Finite Element Analysis Indentation Rolling Resistance Predictions

In the context of this thesis, the two dimensional indentation rolling resistance models were
programmed to prove certain incremental aspects of the three dimensional modelling process
and are not an end in themselves; as a consequence, the results generated from the two
dimensional models will only be discussed briefly – if the reader is interested in more two
dimensional results they should consult Munzenberger et al. [25], Wheeler and Munzenberger
[29] or O’Shea [39]. There is also some reluctance to present results from the two dimensional
models, as they were intended for use with constant cross section fabric belt conveyor belt, and
this thesis is mainly concerned with steel cord conveyor belt and only contains experimental
results for that type of belt. There are, however, a number of two dimensional results that are
relevant to the current discussion and so a set of results from the very first constant strain
triangle model produced using finite element analysis software will be presented to show that
the new method of modelling indentation rolling resistance is capable of reproducing Lynch’s
[14] results. After this the remainder of the results will be concerned with the indentation rolling
resistance predictions produced by the three dimensional model.

Two Dimensional Indentation Rolling Resistance Results

Mimicking Lynch’s results with the modified indentation rolling resistance model was
challenging because of the difficulty created by the new model’s feature of using a load input
rather than a displacement input. As was noted in Section 5.1, Lynch’s experiment used a known
displacement and calculated the loads at the end of the solution; Wheeler’s model [13] followed
the same procedure but started with a known force rather than a displacement so, in using
Lynch’s model, Wheeler was forced to iterate until the desired result was found. The
displacement-force iteration cycle was removed from the Author’s versions of the method but
in doing so a force-displacement iteration cycle became necessary when trying to recreate
Lynch’s results for which the displacement is known rather than a force and the force-
displacement iteration had to be done by hand since the program was not designed to handle
iterations of this kind.

143
 10
9

Difference in Principle Strains (%)

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Distance (")

(a) [14] (b)

Figure 10.6 Principle strain comparison between Lynch (a) and the Author (b).

0.002

Displacement (") 0.000

Free Surface

-0.002

-0.004

-0.006
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Distance (")

(a) [14] (b)

Figure 10.7 Free surface Displacement Comparison between Lynch (a) and the Author (b).

0.2
Dimensionless Friction
Coefficient

0.1

0.0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Dimensionless Flow Speed

(a) [14] (b)

Figure 10.8 Dimensionless friction coefficient comparison between Lynch (a) and the Author
(b).

A comparison of three sets of equivalent results from Lynch and the constant strain triangle
indentation rolling resistance model is given in Figure 10.6 to Figure 10.8. The first two
comparisons are very close to being identical and the third is a little different. The first two
result sets are based on data that is measured from the model and, given that they bear a close
resemblance, it is reasonable to expect that the two different methods of implementing the
viscoelastic rolling contact simulation are equivalent. The third data set relies on other
information to compute the results and, unfortunately, while what is needed is stated, the
specific interpretation used to generate the information is not, so it is likely that the two sets of
results are different, at least in part, due to the different interpretations. Other reasons for the
differences include the different finite element meshes used by each method, which will

144
generate different results due to the constant strain triangle’s performance being sensitive to
its starting shape and the fact that the comparisons are being drawn between hand drawn and
computer generated diagrams; however, it is likely that if the Author’s modelling procedure was
applied more directly to Lynch’s problem that identical results could be generated.

In regard to their ability to predict indentation rolling resistance of conveyor belt, the two
dimensional models all have the property that they underestimate the performance of steel
cord conveyor belt. Attempts to correct this include adding half of the cord diameter to the
cover thickness, as a rule based – rather than arbitrary – method of increasing the thickness of
the finite element analysis model to increase the magnitude of its predictions. The two
dimensional models also underestimate indentation rolling resistance because the moment
summing technique they use to generate results does not account for the unrelaxed portion of
the model unless the model is made long enough to have fully relaxed and, as such, longer two
dimensional models were used to improve the predictions. A significant improvement in the
accuracy of the two dimensional model’s predictions was made by changing the element type
from the constant strain triangles to the better performing bilinear rectangles; but, again, the
new two dimensional model still under predicted indentation rolling resistance results.

Indentation Rolling Resistance Model Sensitivity

An important aspect of the numerical modelling is the model’s sensitivity to variation in the
model parameters. Knowledge of how sensitive a model is to changes in its parameters is
essential when interpreting the results as some trend in the results, which may be unexpected
or predicted, might be caused or influenced by changes within the model itself rather than the
set of model inputs that are being studied. For the indentation rolling resistance models, the
model’s sensitivity to changes in model length, model width and element density were
investigated. None of the three sensitivity checks that are shown here were conducted with the
three dimensional indentation rolling resistance model: the model length and width sensitivity
studies were conducted with the intermediate three dimensional model because of its small
model sizes, and consequently fast solution times, and also because there is no steel cord
modelled in the intermediate model meaning that its results cannot be influenced by the
changing ratio of cord diameter and cord pitch; the model mesh density sensitivity study was
carried out with the bilinear rectangle model because the intermediate model could not be
solved fast enough to do the mesh density study.

145
The model length and model width sensitivity study results are graphed in Figure 10.9 and Figure
10.10 respectively. The two graphs show that the intermediate model, and by extension the full
three dimensional model which is programmed with an identical method, are not sensitive to
changes in model length or width. As has already been noted, the full three dimensional model’s
width is constrained by the problem being analysed and the fact that the model width of the
intermediate model does not affect its output may seem irrelevant, however, the intermediate
model’s insensitivity to changes in width proves that changes in the indentation rolling
resistance predictions of the full three dimensional model due to changes in width cannot be
attributed to some quirk of the model and are more likely to be a result of the changing
parameters of interest.

The sensitivity of the two dimensional bilinear rectangle indentation rolling resistance model to
changes in mesh density are graphed in Figure 10.11. Unlike for the previous sensitivity
analyses, the mesh density analysis shows that the model has a slight dependence on the mesh
density. The dependency of a finite element model on its mesh density is not unusual: for
instance, in a structural analysis it would be expected that the stress results would increase as
the element density increases; however, in the case of the bilinear rectangle model, the opposite
trend is observed. When the indentation rolling resistance of a model is calculated the result is
entirely dependent on the viscoelastic component; however, the viscoelastic component’s
ability to generate the rolling resistance in the model is affected by the elastic modulus used for
each element which, due to the way that the material properties are calculated, tends to
increase as the elements become smaller. If a model is given a higher elastic modulus, the
indentation rolling resistance predictions will reduce and this is why the indentation rolling
resistance predictions of the two dimensional bilinear rectangle model are reducing as the mesh
density increases. A negative consequence of increasing the density of the mesh is that the
solution times increase significantly; the solution time for one data point – not a set of data
points – for each of the model densities is shown in Figure 10.11 on the secondary axis. For one
data point, the lowest mesh density of 2 elements per millimetre solved in about 2 minutes
while the highest mesh density of 8 elements per millimetre took over two hours. In three
dimensions the change from two to eight elements per millimetre would result in 512 elements
in each cubic millimetre, each with an additional 16 degrees of freedom when compared to the
equivalent two dimensional element, and single point solution times that would be measured in
weeks. The version of the full three dimensional indentation rolling resistance model that
predicted the results presented here uses a mesh density of two elements per millimetre in all
directions and could thus be regarded as over predicting the indentation rolling resistance

146
(assuming that finer meshes are more accurate); despite this, the model will be shown to
produce good results when compared with experimental results and the over prediction is
regarded as helping to improve the performance of the trilinear brick elements and hence the
accuracy of the model. Using mathematics to improve an element’s performance is a recognized
method in finite element analysis formulations where techniques like under-integration and
over-integration are sometimes used, Cook [21], to improve element performance.

30

25

20
FIRR (N/m)

15

10

0
75 100 125 150 175 200

Model Length (mm)

Figure 10.9 Intermediate three dimensional model’s sensitivity to changes in the model length.

30

25

20
FIRR (N/m)

15

10

0
0 1 2 3 4

Model Width (mm)

Figure 10.10 Intermediate three dimensional model’s sensitivity to changes in model width.

147
 IRR Computation Time

30 150

Computation Time (minutes)

25 125

20 100
FIRR (N/m)

15 75

10 50

5 25

0 0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Mesh Density (Elements/mm)

Figure 10.11 The sensitivity of the two dimensional bilinear rectangle to changes in mesh
density and the single point solution time for each density.

Three Dimensional Indentation Rolling Resistance Results

For the three dimensional indentation rolling resistance results, two conveyor belt cover
compounds which will be referred to as “Compound A” and “Compound B”, were studied. Two
steel cord conveyor belts, each incorporating one of the two compounds in their pulley covers,
were tested and three dimensional indentation rolling resistance simulations were conducted
that matched the dimensions of each belt and test conditions that they were tested under.
Together both belts represent a range of commonly used idler roll diameters, materials and
cover thicknesses.

10.2.3.1 Test Belt Dimensions

The first test belt was cut from a length of steel cord conveyor belt made for a long conveyor;
its details are given in Table 1.

Table 1 Compound A Conveyor Belt Details

Rating: ST1250
Pulley Cover Compound: Low Rolling Resistance
Carry Cover Compound: DIN-X
Pulley Cover Thickness: 6.5mm
Carry Cover Thickness: 7.5mm
Cord Diameter: 4.0mm
Cord Pitch: 15.0mm

The second test belt was specially made for indentation rolling resistance testing; its details are
given in Table 2.

148
 Table 2 Compound B Conveyor Belt Details

Rating: ST1000
Pulley Cover Compound: Low Rolling Resistance
Carry Cover Compound: DIN-X
Pulley Cover Thickness: 5.0mm
Carry Cover Thickness: 5.0mm
Cord Diameter: 3.5mm
Cord Pitch: 12.0mm

All of the belt dimensions that have been provided are rounded to the nearest half millimetre
since this is the resolution of the three dimensional indentation rolling resistance model. The
test conditions are given in Table 3.

Table 3 Test Parameters

Temperature: 20°C
Speed: 4m/s
Idler Roll Diameter: Compound A: 6” (152mm)
Compound B: 7” (178mm)
Belt Sag: 0.50, 0.75, 1.00 and 1.25%
Belt Load Range: 1.0 – 5.0 kN/m

10.2.3.2 Indentation Rolling Resistance Simulation Results

The 0% belt sag curve approximations were prepared, according to the method outlined in 9.2.2,
for the two different test belts tested under the conditions listed in Table 3; simulations for each
belt type and test conditions were also conducted. The experimental and simulation results are
compared in Figure 10.12 for the Compound A conveyor belt and in Figure 10.13 for the
Compound B conveyor belt. For the compound A conveyor belt type, over the ranges for which
data is available, the simulation results were able to predict the indentation rolling resistance
with a high degree of accuracy; however, for the compound B conveyor belt the results are not
as accurate and a number of relaxation curves generated for different strains were tested to see
if a better correlation could be found.

For the Compound A predictions given in Figure 10.13 only rubber relaxation data from a 2%
strain test was used and no other attempts were made to produce better data. For the
Compound B data the 2% strain relaxation data was good for low idler roll loads but started to
diverge at higher loads so other rubber relaxation data from 3% and 5% strain relaxation tests
was used to see if the model accuracy could be improved at higher loads and it was found that
the 5% strain relaxation test gave the best overall predictions for this belt. The different strain
percentage input data was only changed for the pulley cover section of the models while the

149
carry cover in each model always used the 2% strain data. The utilization of different rubber
data is the only manipulation of the simulation that was used to improve the results and this
was only done to achieve minor improvements in the predictions at high loads.

35

30

25
FIRR (N/m)

20

15
0% Sag
FEA 2%
10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

FV (kN/m)

Figure 10.12 A comparison of Compound A conveyor belt 0% sag experimental and three
dimensional simulation results.

35

30

25
FIRR (N/m)

20 0% Belt Sag

15
FEA 2%
FEA 3%
10
FEA 5%
5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

FV (kN/m)

Figure 10.13 A Comparison of Compound B conveyor belt 0% sag experimental and three
dimensional simulation results found with different strain percentage relaxation data.

In comparison to the experimental data, all of the model predictions underestimate indentation
rolling resistance at low loads and as the load increases the predictions get more accurate and,
at some point, exceed the experimental results. If a designer were to use the predicted results
from the models for specifying conveyor components they could use the Compound A
predictions as they are; however, for the Compound B conveyor belt they may need to use a
different set of results depending on the expected loads.

150
10.3 Indentation Rolling Results for Conveyor Belts with Different Dimensions

The results presented in the previous section give a high level of confidence in the three
dimensional model’s ability to predict the indentation rolling resistance performance of a
particular conveyor belt. With the ability of the three dimensional model confirmed, it is now
possible to use its extended capabilities to make indentation rolling resistance predictions for
conveyor belts manufactured using the same materials but with different dimensions. In the
following, indentation rolling resistance results for new models that are based on the Compound
A model, but with modified dimensions, will be presented. Each model uses the same material
properties as the Compound A model and simulates the same test conditions as listed in Table
3. For each model variation a series of model cross sections will be shown that are intended to
depict the dimension changes that are being modelled; the results will then be given in two
graphical forms: one being the results from the simulation and the second being the same set
of results rearranged to clearly show the effect of the dimensional change on indentation rolling
resistance predictions.

Cord Height

The first dimension that was studied for its effects on indentation rolling resistance was the
position of the steel cord within the belt. Figure 10.14 shows how the finite element analysis
model was varied to predict the effects of cord position; as shown by the three models, the cord
position is modified while the overall model thickness is kept constant. This series of models act
similarly to models with changing pulley cover thickness, however, this is investigated later and
only changing the cover thickness results in a thinner model. Here, the only dimension that is
modified is the vertical location within the model – hence the “cord centre height” labels rather
than any reference to the cover thickness. The simulation results are shown in Figure 10.15 and
are rearranged in Figure 10.16 to show the effect of the dimension change more clearly.
Unsurprisingly, the results given in Figure 10.16 show the predicted indentation rolling
resistance is proportional to the vertical position of the cord, as is the thickness of the bottom
cover which is probably responsible for a large part of the increase. The middle model shown in
Figure 10.14 is the same model that was used to produce the simulation results for the
comparison in the previous section.

151
 6.5 mm Cord Height 8.5 mm Cord Height 10.5 mm Cord Height
Figure 10.14 Model cross sections for different cord centre heights.

30

25

20
6.5mm
FIRR (N/m)

15 7.5mm
8.5mm
10
9.5mm
5 10.5mm

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

FV (kN/m)

Figure 10.15 Indentation rolling resistance simulation results for different cord centre heights.

30

25

20
FIRR (N/m)

1kN/m

15 2kN/m

3kN/m
10
4kN/m

5kN/m
5

0
6 7 8 9 10 11

Cord Centre Height (mm)

Figure 10.16 Rearranged indentation rolling resistance simulation results for different cord
centre heights.

152
 Cord Diameter

In this series of simulations, the effect of different cord diameters on indentation rolling
resistance predictions was investigated. Figure 10.17 shows the series of models used to study
different cord diameters; the models show that the cord diameter is changing from left to right
but they also show that the models are getting wider as the cord diameter increases. The
increased model width is replicating the increasing cord pitch that would be needed to maintain
the same belt strength, or cord area – based on the circular area rather than the modelled area,
when using different diameter cords. Due to the resolution of the finite element analysis
models, the desired model pitch to cord diameter ratio could not be maintained exactly with
Figure 10.18 showing the per-metre width area achieved for each cord diameter investigated
against the actual cord area of the original model. Although there is some error in the model
dimensions they are considered to be adequate for their intended purpose.

Figure 10.19 shows the simulation results and Figure 10.20 gives the same results to make the
effect of different cord dimensions on indentation rolling resistance predictions. The results
predict that indentation rolling resistance will rise for conveyor belts that use fewer large
diameter cords to achieve their strength rating. This is possibly caused by the ability of the wider
section of rubber between the thicker cables to deform more for a given load than the narrow
section of rubber between the more numerous smaller diameter cables, thus allowing more
rubber to become active in the generation of indentation rolling resistance.

3.0 mm Cord Diameter 4.0 mm Cord Diameter 5.0 mm Cord Diameter

Figure 10.17 Model cross sections for different cord diameters and constant cord area.

153
 1400
900

Cord Area Per Metre Belt Width 800 1200

Equivalent ST Rating (kN/m)

700
1000
600
800
(mm)

500

400 600

300
400
200
200
100

0 0
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Cord Diameter (mm)

Figure 10.18 Actual area of the conveyor belt model – per metre – marked by the red line and
the actual areas achieved for each cord diameter modelled. The two vertical axes scales are
equivalent and relate to all graphed data.

30

25

20
FIRR (N/m)

2mm
15
3mm

10 4mm

5mm

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

FV (kN/m)

Figure 10.19 Indentation rolling resistance simulation results for different cord diameters and
constant cord area.

154
 30

25

20

FIRR (N/m)
1kN/m

15 2kN/m

3kN/m
10
4kN/m

5kN/m
5

0
1 2 3 4 5 6

Cord Diameter (mm)

Figure 10.20 Rearranged results for different cord diameters and constant cord area.

Cord Pitch

Some of the models used to study the effect of cord pitch on indentation rolling resistance are
shown in Figure 10.21. Cord pitches from the minimum possible pitch – with the cords touching
each other – up to 19mm were investigated. The simulations are similar to the models used to
study the cord diameter, however, here, only the pitch is varied while the cord diameter is held
constant so the strength of the conveyor belt being modelled is inversely proportional to the
cord pitch.

4.0 mm Cord Pitch 11.0 mm Cord Pitch 19.0 mm Cord Pitch

Figure 10.21 Model cross sections for different cord pitches.

The indentation rolling resistance simulation results for the varying cord pitches are given in
Figure 10.22 and the rearranged predictions are shown in Figure 10.23. The results here are
similar to those in Figure 10.20 and predict that for larger cord pitches the indentation rolling
resistance will rise.

155
 30

25

20
FIRR (N/m)

4mm

15 7mm

11mm
10
15mm

19mm
5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

FV (kN/m)

Figure 10.22 Indentation rolling resistance simulation results for different cord pitches.

30

25

20
FIRR (N/m)

1kN/m

15 2kN/m

3kN/m
10
4kN/m

5kN/m
5

0
0 5 10 15 20

Cord Pitch (mm)

Figure 10.23 Rearranged results for different cord pitches.

Pulley Cover Thickness

Some of the models used to investigate the effects of pulley cover thickness on indentation
rolling resistance are shown in Figure 10.24; the models depicted show that as the cover
thickness is modified no other dimensions are changed resulting in the overall model thickness
changing by the same amount as the cover thickness. The pulley cover thickness indentation
rolling resistance simulation results are shown in Figure 10.25 and Figure 10.26 shows the
rearranged results which makes the effect of different cover thicknesses more clear. As with
the results from Figure 10.16, the predictions are proportional to the cover thickness but here
the trend is stronger, most likely due to the overall thickness of the belt model changing as well.

156
 0.0mm Bottom Cover 4.5mm Bottom Cover 8.5mm Bottom Cover
Figure 10.24 Model cross sections for different pulley cover thicknesses.

30

25
0.0mm

20 0.5mm
FIRR (N/m)

1.0mm

15 2.0mm

4.5mm
10
5.5mm

6.5mm
5
7.5mm

0 8.5mm
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

FV (kN/m)

Figure 10.25 Indentation rolling resistance predictions for different pulley cover thicknesses.

30

25

20
FIRR (N/m)

1kN/m

15 2kN/m

3kN/m
10
4kN/m

5kN/m
5

0
0 2 4 6 8 10

Pulley Cover Thickness (mm)

Figure 10.26 Rearranged results for different pulley cover thicknesses.

157
The simulation showed that for a pulley cover thickness of 0mm there would be zero indentation
rolling resistance regardless of the applied load; this result was expected as the entire load is
carried through the cord part of the model which has no viscoelastic properties. The data for
the 0.5mm and 1.0mm pulley cover thicknesses is incomplete because of inaccurate results
caused by the lack of element layers between the cord and the bottom of the model which
caused large strain gradients in the elements and from there a failure of the solution to
converge.

Carry Cover Thickness

The final set of indentation rolling resistance simulation models is shown in Figure 10.27. They
were used to study the effect of different carry cover thicknesses on indentation rolling
resistance. The simulation results are is shown in Figure 10.28 and are rearranged in Figure
10.29 to more clearly show the effect of pulley cover thickness on indentation rolling resistance.
The predictions show that for carry cover thicknesses in the normal range above 5mm there
should be little difference in indentation rolling resistance performance; while at lower
thicknesses – perhaps as the carry cover wears – the indentation rolling resistance can be
expected to rise. The rise in the indentation rolling resistance of thin carry covers seems to stem
from the lack of sufficient carry cover material to stabilize the rubber in the areas between the
cords thus permitting more movement there. Unlike what was experienced with the pulley
cover thickness simulations, these models experienced no difficulties with thin carry covers as
this section of the model is an area of low strain and small numbers of elements could easily
cope with the small strain gradients found there.

0.0 mm Top Cover 5.5 mm Top Cover 9.5 mm Top Cover

Figure 10.27 Model cross sections for different carry cover thicknesses.

158
 30

25
0.0mm

20 0.5mm

FIRR (N/m)
1.0mm

15 3.0mm

5.5mm
10
6.5mm

7.5mm
5
8.5mm

0 9.5mm
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

FV (kN/m)

Figure 10.28 Indentation rolling resistance simulation results for different carry cover
thicknesses.

30

25

20
FIRR (N/m)

1kN/m

15 2kN/m

3kN/m
10
4kN/m

5kN/m
5

0
0 2 4 6 8 10

Carry Cover Thickness (mm)

Figure 10.29 Rearranged results for different carry cover thicknesses.

10.4 Remarks

The three dimensional indentation rolling resistance models were able to predict the
indentation rolling resistance performance of their respective conveyor belts with a reasonable
degree of accuracy. Simulations using other rubber types have been conducted and it is known
that for belt types with what would be regarded as poor indentation rolling resistance
performance the predictions are typically underestimated. This trend can even be seen in the
Compound A and Compound B rolling resistance data that is provided in this chapter where
better predictions are made for the former while less accurate, though still reasonable,
predictions are made for the latter. It is theorised that the procedure which generates the
relaxation data is better suited to rubbers with more linear stress-strain properties and testing

159
has shown that low rolling resistance rubbers behave more linearly than their higher resistance
counterparts. Fortunately, typical long conveyors employ low rolling resistance conveyor belts
to minimize their energy consumption and thus the three dimensional indentation rolling
resistance model is well suited for use with such conveyor belts. Conveyor systems that use
ordinary belts tend to be shorter and other resistances become greater, making the prediction
of indentation rolling resistance for ordinary belts less relevant.

The other issue with the three dimensional indentation rolling resistance model, and in fact all
of the Author’s models, is that they cannot make appropriate predictions for different conveyor
belt properties when using the available rubber relaxation properties. However, it was found
during the checking of the program output that Wheeler’s indentation rolling resistance
program predicted similar erroneous velocity results and it appeared as though the rubber
properties were at fault. This conclusion is further validated by the results given in Figure 10.8
which prove that the new implementation of the viscoelastic rolling contact problem can
produce similar results to those produced by Lynch with the expected low rolling resistance at
very low and very high speeds and a peak drag somewhere in between. Since the modified
procedure proved to be capable of producing appropriate results when using Lynch’s input data
it is reasonable to expect that, given different rubber relaxation data, appropriate trends would
also be generated for conveyor belt problems as well.

160
11 CONCLUDING REMARKS AND FUTURE WORK
The ultimate aim of this research was to produce a three dimensional finite element analysis
indentation rolling resistance model that is suitable for use with steel cord conveyor belt of the
kind that is installed on long conveyors. This aim has been successfully achieved.

11.1 Indentation Rolling Resistance Modelling and Simulation Outcomes

In the course of the production of the three dimensional indentation rolling resistance model,
the feasibility of a number of its elements had to be proven. The first version of the model was
essentially the same as Wheeler’s [13] iteration of the indentation rolling resistance models
except that it was linked to a commercial finite element analysis package. It was shown with
this version that the viscoelastic rolling contact model could be modified so that its
implementation in finite element analysis software became possible and it also demonstrated
the benefits of relatively fast solution times and the utility of the graphical user interface
provided by the software. The new model also successfully showed the benefits of changing the
main input boundary condition from a displacement to a force to make the model more directly
applicable to conveyor belt problems.

The second model took all of the changes made to the previous model and successfully changed
the element type from the constant strain triangle elements used in the past to bilinear
rectangle elements which possess more realistic performance characteristics. This model
showed that the new element type could be readily accommodated within the viscoelastic
method set out by Lynch [14] simply by modifying the material property stiffness matrices and
adding the numerical integration module that was required for the new element’s formulation.
The bilinear rectangle indentation rolling resistance model also paved the way for the
functionally similar trilinear brick elements that were used in the three dimensional model.

The first iteration of the three dimensional indentation rolling resistance model did not perform
as intended and was not able to predict indentation rolling resistance performance. The second
iteration of the three dimensional model proved to be better at predicting indentation rolling
resistance due to its new method of calculating energy loss in the model. The new method of
calculating indentation rolling resistance was verified with a new version of the bilinear
rectangle indentation rolling resistance model and was shown to be superior to the moment
summing technique used previously because it was more independent of the model’s length
than the previous method. With its new method of calculating indentation rolling resistance,

161
the three dimensional model was shown to be a reliable predictor of indentation rolling
resistance, especially for low rolling resistance class conveyor belts. With the production of good
results the three dimensional model also showed that Lynch’s original viscoelastic rolling contact
method could readily be applied to three dimensional finite element analysis elements and
therefore could be extended to conducting analyses in three dimensions.

The single biggest problem with all of the indentation rolling resistance models was their
inability to appropriately predict indentation rolling resistance values for different velocities
when compared against experimental data. Both Lynch and Wheeler showed in their respective
theses that their models could account appropriately for changes in velocity; and, when the
constant strain triangle indentation rolling resistance model was compared against Lynch’s
model, with the same inputs, it was found that there was appropriate agreement between the
two sets of results when the differences between the two models was taken into consideration.
Additional checks were made using the current material data with Wheeler’s indentation rolling
resistance program and it too was found to be unable to calculate indentation rolling resistance
trends for different velocities despite being able to with older material property data. The
relatively good correlation with Lynch’s results combined with the similarly incorrect results
from Wheeler’s previously behaving program leads to the conclusion that all facets of the new
implementation of the viscoelastic rolling contact model are functioning as expected and that
the fault most likely lies with the shear relaxation material property data and the method by
which they were derived.

The exploitation of symmetry to make the three dimensional indentation rolling resistance
model a manageable size and the additional boundary conditions necessarily added to the
model sides to facilitate the use of symmetry seem to have little effect on the model’s
predictions and are considered to be a reasonable approximation of reality. The substitution of
a flexible steel cord for what is effectively a steel rod also seemed to be adequate.

With the development of a steel cord conveyor belt indentation rolling resistance model being
largely successful, it still remains to be seen how well it will aid in the design of long conveyors
that utilize low rolling resistance conveyor belt. As it currently stands, the model is easy to use
and, once the inputs have been entered correctly, requires no input from the analyst until the
predictions become available. The main problem that would prevent the three dimensional
model from gaining wide use is the time that it takes to calculate its predictions which may cause
unacceptable delays in the design process. At present, when belt conveyor design safety factors
are traditionally high, it is most likely preferable to use some other method for predicting

162
indentation rolling resistance performance. A method that uses the same material property
inputs that are required for the models described in this thesis but which can be calculated in
seconds would seem more appropriate as the results, as inaccurate – or accurate – as they may
be, will be multiplied by some factor to guarantee that there is enough drive power available,
thereby making any improvement in the original calculation irrelevant. In the future, if large
multiplying factors become unacceptable – due to environmental, cost or some other concern
– the three dimensional indentation rolling resistance model and its improved accuracy, may
find its place, helped, of course, by the improvements in computing power and the model itself
that the intervening time will produce. At the time of writing, however, the three dimensional
model has already found commercial utilization though its ability to predict the changes in
indentation rolling resistance performance by being able to model conveyor belts with different
component dimensions as well as a number of other commercial consulting jobs.

11.2 Experimental Testing Outcomes

The test equipment used for measuring the indentation rolling resistance performance of
conveyor belt has proven to be capable of providing good quality and repeatable results. The
original design of the machine has proven to be sound with there being no major modifications
during the six years that it has been in service – although there have been some minor
modifications to ancillary equipment that have been implemented to improve ergonomics and
safety while conducting test work.

The construction of a temperature controlled room around the indentation rolling resistance
test machine has also proven to be invaluable. The ability to test at different temperatures has
shown that standard cover compounds can behave independently of temperature while others,
especially low rolling resistance rubber compounds can have a wide performance range over as
small a temperature difference as 20 to 30°C. Research with this equipment has shown that the
testing of low rolling resistance conveyor belts cannot be adequately conducted without the
ability to test over a range of temperatures so that any unexpected performance issues can be
found before the low rolling resistance compounds are installed on a long conveyor.

The loading mechanism that was chosen for the indentation rolling resistance test machine has
also proven to be a good choice. It was chosen primarily for its ability to apply the test loads to
the test idler roll using the cord members of the test belt’s carcass, but its key advantage seems
to be that it applies the load without needing to apply anything to the top surface of the belt
above the test idler roll. During the course of testing one of the procedure variations that was

163
tried was the application of test loads through a belt sander like device which operated on the
top surface of the test belt. The device was designed to operate at lower friction levels than the
flat plate rubbing on the test belt with a talcum powder lubricant; however, it was found during
the analysis of the results that force required to overcome the friction within the device
adversely influenced the results. The failure of this load mechanism showed that using a
mechanism, with its own frictional resistance, which is driven by the test belt will change the
indentation rolling resistance results in proportion to the frictional resistance of the device;
however, while applying the test load by deflecting the belt avoided the need for such devices,
the method introduces a belt flexure component to the measurements which needs to be dealt
with. Two methods for dealing with the removal of the conveyor belt flexure force component
were presented: the y-intercept method is easily understood but is conservative in nature, while
the zero percent belt sag method is more complex; however, despite the good correlation
between the latter method and the three dimensional indentation rolling resistance model’s
predictions it is unlikely that this potentially more accurate method will be adopted by industry
due to the cost of conducting four or five times the number of tests to get a slightly better result.
In fact, the simpler of the two methods has been adopted as the method of analysis in a new
Australian Standard for indentation rolling resistance testing [38].

11.3 Australian Standard

The experimental method used in this research to measure indentation rolling resistance is
already referenced in the Conveyor Equipment Manufacture’s (CEMA) handbook [32] and the
method is also the subject of a new Australian Standard for the measurement of indentation
rolling resistance [38]. The Standard: AS1334—13, Determination of Indentation Rolling
Resistance of Conveyor Belting, was developed in parallel with the work described in this thesis
and draws on the outcomes of the experimental work described herein.

11.4 Future Work

Both the three dimensional indentation rolling resistance model and the indentation rolling
resistance test machine have proven themselves to be capable performers, however, neither of
them are completely perfect and there are improvements that can be made to ensure that the
model and the experimental equipment remain at the forefront of indentation rolling resistance
research and innovation. Some of these items have been planned or are already underway.

164
 Finite Element Analysis Indentation Rolling Resistance Modelling Future Work

The most pressing work that remains to be carried out is the study of rubber relaxation
properties and the methods by which they are derived. This is to ensure that the most
appropriate properties are used in the modelling process with the main aim being to correct the
errors found when the simulations predict indentation rolling resistance performance compared
to belt speed but also to provide more accurate predictions for higher rolling resistance
conveyor belts made from typically harder rubbers. Also, it has been found during the course
of this research that the conveyor belt models are predicting strain levels that exceed the linear
elastic range of the rubber materials that were simulated. It would seem, by the accuracy of the
predictions presented here, that for now, and with the current rubber materials, the linear
viscoelastic analysis is working well but as conveyors become more heavily loaded and faster
there may be a requirement to implement true non-linear viscoelastic analyses in parts of the
process to create a better indentation rolling resistance simulation. A non-linear viscoelastic
analysis will also likely require new methods for measuring rubber relaxation properties,
particularly at higher levels of strain, since the limits of the machinery that measures dynamic
rubber properties has already been reached and the softer low rolling resistance rubbers that
will be developed in the future will most likely operate at higher strains and therefore properties
measured at high strain levels will be required. It is hoped that by improving the material
property data and simulation techniques that the indentation rolling resistance model will make
accurate predictions for a wide range of operating conditions without the need to manipulate
the model or input data.

The first item of future work that will be implemented is likely to be the inclusion of a routine in
the simulation program that calculates the stress levels in each element of the indentation
rolling resistance models – this item is likely to be first since it is more easy to implement than
the non-linear viscoelastic model and also has a strong practical value. Stress contours can be
shown in the post processor of the finite element analysis software but these stresses are
linearly related to the strain of each element and do not account for their viscoelastic stress
memory. The finite element analysis software allows the calculated stresses that are written
into its results file to be overwritten and the post processor will display the new stress results as
if they were calculated by the software itself. The process of calculating the true stresses of
each element can be accomplished with an equation given by Lynch and would be relatively easy
to apply to the constant strain triangle indentation rolling resistance models but would be more
difficult for the bilinear rectangles and trilinear brick elements whose stress results should be

165
calculated for each Gauss point, to make full use of each elements capabilities, rather than as a
single average for the entire element.

An interesting area of work that may be investigated is modelling the deflected test belt
geometry that is used for the experimental testing. Successfully creating a deflected-belt
indentation rolling resistance model would avoid the need to remove belt deflection
components from the experimental results so that they could be compared with a simulation
that is assuming flat belt conditions. Of course, the results from such a model would no longer
be indentation rolling resistance results but, in conjunction with the indentation rolling
resistance test machine acting as a belt flexure test machine, it would facilitate a detailed
theoretical investigation of belt flexure resistance and would also help verify the latest
procedure for removing the belt flexure resistance component from the experimentally
measured horizontal resistance.

A number of other useful additions to the three dimensional indentation rolling resistance
model would prove useful in the future. Currently, material property testing focuses on the
conveyor belt cover materials but generating material properties for the carcass rubber would
allow the addition of a carcass layer to the three dimensional model and thus make the model
resemble conveyor belt more accurately. The addition of secondary reinforcing elements,
including: ply layers, breaker layers or additional rubber layers, to the three dimensional model
would allow the variation on indentation rolling resistance of one or more combinations of these
elements to be studied. Most notably, the addition of a ply layer model would allow the study
of fabric conveyor belt in three dimensions which could then be used to validate the two
dimensional model or alternatively the user could test the effects of combinations of steel cord
and fabric layers on indentation rolling resistance. Another useful addition would be the
inclusion of friction into the model to test its effect on the results and to enable the study of
different idler roll materials which have already been tested and shown to have a small effect
on indentation rolling resistance measurements. Note that these results are not presented here.

In the future when more computing power is available it will become possible to model half of
the flat test belt by exploiting symmetry and removing the three dimensional model’s side
restraints that were the cause of some concern; however, given the quality of the predictions
already available, doing so would merely be of academic interest and given that it would
currently require an estimated five to six months to carry out one simulation for five different
test loads there is little justification to do so. An extension of the idea to model half of the test
belt would be to model half – again exploiting symmetry – of a loaded conveyor belt in its trough

166
configuration. Such an exercise would be of practical interest but is currently out of reach as
solution times would be measured in years with the available computing equipment.

Finally, a change that may be required to model a trough belt in the future, is to introduce
another element to the model. The currently used trilinear brick element has been shown to be
adequate but a fine mesh is required to generate good results. An alternative is to create a
model using a higher order element like the quadratic brick that could use a coarser mesh that
would speed up solution times without any loss of accuracy; however, there are downsides to
higher order elements. A quadratic brick has 27 Gauss points while a trilinear brick has 8 so the
mesh density would need to halve before there was a gain in solution speed and, more
importantly, the contact geometry used in the latest set of indentation rolling resistance models
would not work and the method that was used by Wheeler – where the depth of indentation
had to be guessed and contact nodes were then fixed to the idler roll radius by boundary
restraints – would need to be implemented, bringing with it the iterations that were needed to
find the correct indentation depth.

Indentation Rolling Resistance Test Machine Future Work

The large indentation rolling resistance test machine operates, at times, in environments that
are not suitable for humans and in some cases can also be out of the operating range of some
of the electrical equipment that is used to operate the machine. Carrying out test work at high
temperatures requires frequent breaks for the operators while testing at very low temperatures
requires the operators to don protective clothes and gloves which are bulky and not
recommended for use around conveyor-like equipment without liberal use of machine guards.
To overcome these difficulties, a control room has been constructed inside the temperature
controlled room that allows an operator to view and control the machine in relative comfort and
safety and, at the time of writing, the test rig’s electronic controls are being moved to the control
room where they will be able to operate in more suitable conditions. A view of the control room
from inside the main room is shown in Figure 11.1. Added advantages of the control room is
that by being located within the temperature controlled room it reduces the area of concrete
that the main heating and cooling systems must act upon and it also provides an airlock for
ingress and egress that uses two small doors rather than the large forklift doors that expose the
temperature controlled environment directly to the outside atmosphere.

167
 Figure 11.1 Indentation rolling resistance test machine control room.

Since the commissioning of the indentation rolling resistance test machine, the tracking of the
test belt has been carried out by hand. The tracking process can be hazardous if it is being
conducted during the operation of the machine and since there are no trough idlers or crowned
pulleys to aid with belt tracking, relying instead on two tracking idlers, bad tracking could result
in the belt being driven off the machine. The tracking process currently employed relies on the
belt being finely tracked so that its edge will lightly touch either one of the tracking idler rolls
and, although the tracking process can be carried out quickly by an experienced operator, when
the control room is in full operation it is desirable that the belt tracking is automatic so that the
belt tensions can be changed remotely and the belt tracking will be controlled without further
user input, thus removing any reasons for the operator to enter a potentially hazardous
environment. The automatic belt tracking system will be realized by electronically varying the
pressure in the two hydraulic tracking cylinders so that their extension can be controlled; the
two cylinder pressures will be controlled such that their sum always equals the total pressure
required to maintain the desired belt tension.

168
Figure 11.2 The new hydraulic power-pack for the indentation rolling resistance test machine.

To run the planned belt tracking system, a new hydraulic power-pack will be required as the
current unit has an insufficient duty cycle and cannot generate pressures of the level that will
be required. This new hydraulic power-pack has already been purchased and is shown in Figure
11.2. The new power-pack is designed to supply an accumulator with 250 bar pressure which
then supplies the indention rolling resistance test machine’s hydraulics with up to 200 bar
pressure. The power-pack is designed with a low flow rate to facilitate the slow movements
required from the hydraulic cylinders and has a 100% duty cycle so that it can run continuously
and supply the automatic tracking system with the required pressure for potentially many hours
of testing. Due to the strength limitations of the test machine’s belt drums the power-pack will
be initially commissioned to supply 100 bar of pressure to avoid unnecessary damage.

The indentation rolling resistance test machine’s two belt pulleys are only able to withstand half
of the belt tension that the rest of the machine is designed to handle. A new set of pulleys will
eventually be purchased in order to handle the 20 tonne pulley loads that are planned and, as
well as being stronger, these new pulleys will be larger with a diameter of 1.2m which is the
largest diameter that can be accommodated. The new pulleys will allow heavier belts to be

169
tested at higher belt tensions and also allow belt speeds in the region of 15m/s to become
possible. When the new pulleys are installed the pressure supplied by the hydraulic system will
be increased to enable testing at higher belt tensions.

Along with increased belt tension capabilities, increased belt loads will become achievable and
the result will be more pressure on the test idler roll’s knife-edge supports. This pressure
increase will shorten the life of the knife edge seats and may cause enough extra friction on the
knife-edges to resist the rotation of the test idler roll’s shaft and hence cause the torque sensing
load cell to read inaccurate torque values. The knife-edge support system was used on the
smaller indentation rolling resistance test machine but from the initial design phase of the large
indentation rolling resistance test machine it was planned to use some other mounting system
to replace them. After much work a system to replace the knife-edges was designed but could
not be implemented due to its complexity and the time that would be needed to manufacture
it accurately. The alternate test idler roll mounting system would utilize the lower frame that is
currently in use as well as the same flexure straps and the same vertical adjustment system.
What would change is the upper frame from which the four flexure straps hang as well as the
location of the torque sensing load cell. A rendering of the new torque sensing arrangement
can be seen in Figure 11.3, while the current arrangement can be compared by reviewing Figure
8.16. In order for this system to function effectively there are a number of design elements that
need to be carefully implemented: the four flexure straps, which contain the vertical load cells
must be equal in length and weight and must all be located such that they are all at the same
height; the four lower pivots of the flexure straps must form a plane with the centre line of the
test idler roll; the upper pivots must be on the same plane as the two large central flexure straps
which hang from the bottom of the vertical adjustment rods; and the upper and lower frames
must be balanced about the centre of the central flexure straps and the test idler roll shaft
respectively. When torque is transmitted from the test idler roll to the lower frame through a
rigid idler roll mount it will act to rotate the lower frame about its centre of mass and the action
of the parallel linkage system will transmit this same rotation to the upper frame which can
rotate about its centre of mass due to the central flexure straps. Preventing the whole
arrangement from rotating will be the torque sensing load cell. Not shown in Figure 11.3 is the
mounting system that would be needed for the horizontal drag load cell. Rather than being
connected directly to the lower frame as pictured, and currently implemented, the horizontal
drag load cell would be part of a rigid link which would have a pivot between itself and the
supporting frame and another pivot, which would in fact be two pivots arranged to be on the
same axis, located at the axis of rotation of the test idler roll at its ends. The pivots of the

170
horizontal drag load cell link would all lie on a horizontal plane and be in line with the axis of the
test idler roll and its design would enable the free rotation of the upper and lower frames so
that the torque measurements would not be influenced by the horizontal drag force.

Figure 11.3 A Schematic of the alternate test idler roll torque sensing system.

The chief difficulty with this system is that not only must it be ensured that the vertical load does
not influence the horizontal drag force, as was discussed in section 8.2.3, but it must also be
ensured that the vertical load cannot change the torque readings through a misalignment of the
test idler roll axis and the pivot point of the whole arrangement. The whole system once
implemented as described would function without the need for any friction inducing knife-edges
or tie-rod ends and should therefore be more accurate. It is likely that, in the future, this system
will be implemented and compared to the current system to determine if the effort required to
set it up would be worth the extra accuracy that may or may not be realized; though, with the
higher test loads that are required by industry, and the destruction of a set of knife edge sets
with the currently available loads already occurring, it is likely that this new torque measuring
system will become essential.

171
It may be noticed upon inspection of Figure 11.3 that there is a load cell attached to the left
hand side of the lower test idler roll support frame. This load cell is designed to act as a check
system for the horizontal drag load cell. During testing the mass acting on the check load cell
through a rope and pulley system would be changed and any change in load which is witnessed
by the check load cell should also be measured by the horizontal drag load cell. The check
system is designed to ensure that the parallel linkage system and its flexure straps are working
correctly and are not absorbing any of the drag force that is generated by the test belt. If there
happened to be a disparity between the two load cells then testing could be halted and the
problem rectified. The parallel linkage system has been proven to work on other equipment in
the past, in this manner, so there are no immediate plans to fully implement the check system
even though some of its parts are already mounted on the machine.

The method of applying a load to the test idler roll with hold down rolls as used on the
indentation rolling resistance test machine is not the only possible way to do this. The
pneumatic system used by Leibniz Universität Hanover, which sandwiches the test belt between
two rolls, has been mentioned as has the dead weight method previously employed on the
University of Newcastle’s small indentation rolling resistance machine in which a ultra-high
molecular weight polyethylene pad transferred the weight of steel blocks – stacked on top of it
– by sliding on the carry cover of the test belt with the aid of a talcum powder lubrication.
Another method of loading the test idler roll which is similar in implementation to the hold
down-rolls has been discussed in the past. This method, which is as yet unnamed, involves
pushing the belt down on either side of the test idler roll with two frames which each
incorporate five or six idler rolls running on the top surface of the belt and a mass carrier that
can equally distribute its load over the idler rolls. The two frames would be restricted from
motion along the machine but would be allowed to float up and down under the influence of
their own weight. This system would attempt to better approximate the catenary type belt sag
present on a belt conveyor – something which is not possible with two hold-down rolls.

In the future, it will most likely become necessary for extreme low temperature indentation
rolling resistance testing to be conducted with the large indentation rolling resistance test
machine. This requirement is not only needed due to the fact that conveyors are being
constructed in much colder environments but also because of the way rubber behaves at
temperatures around minus 30°C. If one was to extrapolate data from Figure 10.4 to lower
temperatures then, from the data given, it would be assumed that indentation rolling resistance
would continue to rise for two of the rubbers shown. It is entirely possible that the indentation

172
rolling resistance would continue to rise for the next few degrees lower but at some
temperature the indentation rolling resistance would reach a peak and then begin to fall; this
phenomena is shown in Figure 11.4. In the figure the indentation rolling resistance losses are
represented by the purple line and it can be seen that the peak power consumption due to
indentation rolling resistance occurs at minus 20°C and then reduces below this temperature.
The indentation rolling resistance power consumption line is directly proportional to the lines in
Figure 10.4 and, despite the fact that the vertical axes have different units, the shapes of the
curves will be broadly similar. It may be expected, then, that the blue and green curves shown
in Figure 10.4 will at some point peak and then begin to reduce in the same manner as the data
in Figure 11.4 although the temperature of the peak will be different owing to the different
rubber properties used for each graph.

Figure 11.4 The power consumption of a conveyor at different temperatures derived via
theoretical means. The purple line represents the predicted indentation rolling resistance
power consumption [33].

The drum type indentation rolling resistance test machine used by Conveyor Dynamics Inc. and
the two pulley test machine used by Leibniz Universität Hannover can be operated over a wide
enough range of temperatures to capture the peak in indentation rolling resistance and also the
subsequent reduction at lower temperatures and are thus able to prove the theoretical results
shown in Figure 11.4. To be able to operate the large indentation rolling resistance test machine
at temperatures approaching -60°C would require a new temperature controlled room that
would be expensive and no proposals have been considered to carry out extreme low
temperature testing. A possible alternative may be to use a combination of a time-temperature

173
transformation, which is used to generate storage and loss modulus data, where the test belt
velocity would be equivalent to frequency and storage and loss moduli that have been
transformed with respect to lower temperatures to predict the conveyor belt’s performance at
currently unachievable temperatures.

174
12 REFERENCES

[1] P. Munzenberger and C. Wheeler, Laboratory Measurement of Indentation Rolling

Resistance of Conveyor Belts, vol. 94, Measurement, 2016, pp. 909-918.

[2] K. Tienhaara, Green Stimulus and Pink Batts: the Environmental Politics of Australia's
Response to the Financial Crisis, vol. 76, Journal of Australian Political Economy, 2015, pp.
54-79.

[3] Consumer Reports, Energy Saving Lightbulbs: A room-by-room guide to choosing the best
LEDs and more, vol. 78, Consumer Reports, 2013, pp. 30-33.

[4] J. Flottau, Fuel-Efficient Airliners Arrive As Fuel Costs Drop, Creating Choices, vol. 177,
Aviation Week & Space Technology, 2015, pp. 1-1.

[5] F. Liu et al., A comparison of the energy consumption and carbon emissions for different
modes of transportation in open-cut coal mines, vol. 25, International Journal of Mining
Science and Technology, 2015, pp. 261-266.

[6] R. B. Steven, High Tech Conveyor Belt Development for the World's Longest Single Flight
Intelligent Conveyor, Newcastle: International Conference on Bulk Material Storage,
Handling and Transportation, 2007.

[7] A. Frittella and D. de Necker, Sasol Mining - Impumelelo Project 26.7 km Long Overland
Conveyor, Darwin: International Conference on Bulk Materials Storage, Handling and
Transportation, 2016.

[8] D. He, Y. Pang and G. Lodewijks, Speed control of belt conveyors during transient operation,
vol. 301, Powder Technology, 2016, pp. 622-631.

[9] M. Hager and A. Hintz, The Energy-Saving Design of Belts for Long Conveyor Systems, vol.
13, Bulk Solids Handling, 1993, pp. 749-758.

175
[10] C. Jonkers, The Indentation Rolling Resistance of Belt Conveyors, vol. 30, Fordern und
Heben, 1980, pp. 312-318.

[11] C. Spaans, The Indentation Resistance of Belt Conveyors, Delft: Laboratory for Transport
Engineering, 1978.

[12] G. Lodewijks, Dynamics of Belt Systems, Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology, 1996.

[13] C. Wheeler, Analysis of the Main Resistances of Belt Conveyors, Ph.D. Thesis, The University
of Newcastle, 2003.

[14] F. d. Lynch, A Finite Element Method of Viscoelastic Stress Analysis with Application to
Rolling Contact Problems, vol. 1, Cambridge: International Journal for Numerical Methods
in Engineering, 1969, pp. 379-394.

[15] R. W. Clough, Early History of the Finite Element Method from the View Point of a Pioneer,
vol. 60, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2004, pp. 283-287.

[16] J. O'Shea, Mechanical and Dielectric Relaxation Studies of Conveyor Belt Compounds to
Determine Indentation Rolling Resistance Properties, Ph.D. Thesis, The University of
Newcastle, 2015.

[17] R. M. Christensen, Theory of Viscoelasticity - An Introduction, New York: Academic Press

Inc., 1982.

[18] E. H. Lee and T. G. Rogers, “Solutions of Viscoelastic Stress Analysis Problems Using
Measured Creep or Relaxation Functions,” Journal of Applied Mechanics, vol. 30, no. 1, pp.
127-133, 1963.

[19] F. B. Hilderbrand, Introduction to Numerical Analysis, McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1974.

[20] D. R. Bland, The Theory of Linear Viscoelasticity, London: Pergamon Press, LTD., 1960.

176
[21] R. D. Cook et al., Concepts and Applications of Finite Element Analysis 4th Ed., Hoboken:
Wiley, 2002.

[22] I. M. Ward and J. Sweeney, The Mechanical Properties of Solid Polymers, 2nd Ed., West
Sussex: John Wiley &Sons, Ltd, 2008.

[23] R. C. Batra, M. Levinson and E.Betz, “Rubber Covered Rolls - the Thermoviscoelastic
Problem. A Finite Element Solution,” International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering, vol. 10, pp. 767-785, 1976.

[24] C. A. Wheeler and P. J. Munzenberger, Predicting the influence of conveyor belt carcass
properties on indentation rolling resistance, vol. 4, Bulk Solids & Powder: Science &
Technology, 2009, pp. 67-74.

[25] P. J. Munzenberger, J. I. O'Shea and C. A. Wheeler, A Comparison of Rubber Stress

Relaxation Models for Conveyor Belt Indentation Rolling Resistance Calculations, 2016,
(Under Review).

[26] O. C. Zienkiewicz, The Birth of The Finite Element Method, vol. 60, International Journal of
Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2004, pp. 3-10.

[27] R. L. Zienkiewicz, R. L. Taylor and J. Z. Zhu, The Finite Element Method: Its Basis &
Fundamentals, Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann, 2008.

[28] E. Kreyszig, Advanced Engineering Mathematics, Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011.

[29] C. A. Wheeler and P. J. Munzenberger, Prediction of Conveyor Belt Indentation Rolling

Resistance Using the Finite Element Method, Friedrichshafen: International Conference for
Conveying and Handling Particulate Solids, 2012.

[30] A. N. Gent, W. A. Arnold, J. D. Carter, D. D. Gallagher, R. B. Steven and G. J. J, Pendulum

Rolling Resistant Test, United States Patent No: 6,494,076 B1, 2002.

[31] L. Glaysiewicz, R. Krol and J. Bukowski, Tests of Belt Conveyor Resistance to Motion,
Glasgow: BulkSolids Europe, 2010.

177
[32] The Engineering Conference, Belt Conveyors for Bulk Materials - 7th Edition, Naples:
Conveyor Equipment Manufacturers Association (CEMA), 2014.

[33] L. K. Nordell, The Power of Rubber - Part 1, 3 ed., vol. 16, Bulk Solids Handling, 1996, pp.
333-340.

[34] L. Overmeyer, Test Rig for Determination of Indentation Rolling Resistance of Conveyor
Belts According to DIN 22123.

[35] C. Wheeler and P. Munzenberger, Indentation Rolling Resistance Measurement,

Johannesburg: International Materials Handling Conference, 2011.

[36] R. Steven, Conveyor Belt Rubbers Minimize Your Power Consumption, Maximise Your
Capacity, Newcastle: International Conference on Bulk Material Storage, Handling and
Transportation, 2013.

[37] NA 008-05-03 AA Working Commitee, DIN 22123: Indentation Rolling Resistances of

Conveyor Belts Related to Belt Width - Requirements, Testing, 2012.

[38] Conveyor and Elevator Belting Commitee RU-002, AS 1334-13: Determination of

Indentation Rolling Resistance of Conveyor Belting, 2016.

[39] J. I. O'Shea, C. A. Wheeler and P. J. Munzenberger, The Influences of Viscoelastic Property

Measurements on the Predicted Rolling Resistance of Belt Conveyors, vol. 131, Journal of
Applied Polymer Sciences, 2014, pp. 9170-9178.

178